Commons Sitting of 16 August 1881

MINUTES.
Resolutions [August 15] reported—NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1879–80.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES; CIVIL SERVICES, Class IV.—EDUCATION. SCIENCE, AND ART, Votes 4 to 9, 11 and 12; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS; SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Third Reading—Ballyclare, Ligoniel, and Belfast Junction Railway*; Belfast and Northern Counties Railway*; Belfast, Strandtown, and High Holywood Railway*, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—Solent Navigation* [207], nominated.
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Royal University of Ireland [247]; Pollen Fishing (Ireland)* [248], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  THE TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE 61 —THE ARMENIANS.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is not the fact that the reforms

  23
  which the Ottoman Porte undertook by the sixty-first article of the Treaty of Berlin to introduce into the provinces inhabited by the Armenians have not yet been introduced; and, whether he will inform the House what progress has been made with the negotiations between the Six Powers and the Porte for the execution of this sixty-first article, and generally towards the settlement of the Armenian Question?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I regret to state that no progress has yet been made towards carrying into effect the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin. Lord Dufferin has made strong representations on the subject to the Sultan and his Prime Minister, who appear, both of them, to be alive to the gravity of the situation, and has earnestly pressed them, pending the elaboration of a permanent scheme of reform, to take immediate steps for arresting the more crying evils, by appointing an able Administration with ample powers and extended jurisdiction. The absence of some of the Ambassadors from Constantinople, the suspension of business during the month of Ramazan, and other causes, have hitherto prevented any joint action of the Representatives in regard to the Armenian reforms; but Lord Dufferin is fully alive to the great importance which the Government and people of this country attach to the question, and he has stated that he will spare no effort and miss no opportunity of pressing forward its solution.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—DIVINE SERVICE IN CARRICK-ON-SHANNON GAOL.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether twenty-eight persons who were sent to Carrick on Shannon Gaol for one week were left without Divine Service on Sunday 7th August in said gaol; and, if so, what arrangements have been made to prevent the occurrence of similar events for the future?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that what was stated in the Question was fact; but the prison was one of the minor prisons in which commitments were only made for seven days, and it had no chaplain attached to it, the conducting of service being left to the local clergymen, none of whom applied on the occasion in question.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—KING JA-JA.
  MR. SUMMERS (for Mr. CAINE)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been drawn to the recent barbarities committed by King Ja-Ja, of Opabo, on the West Coast of Africa; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Consul at Fernando Po has been instructed to inquire into the matter, and bring such judicious pressure to bear upon him as will in future prevent a repetition of such atrocities?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; we have not heard anything of the matter at the Foreign Office. We are aware that there has been a newspaper paragraph on the subject; but we have no information.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARRESTS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, In how many cases have warrants been issued under the Coercion Act in which the police have not succeeded in arresting the suspected person?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that this was a Question which he did not think that he should be called upon to answer, and he did not think that he ought to give this information. The Act required that when any person was arrested under its provisions he should be supplied with a copy of the warrant, and that requirement had been complied with in the present case. It was, however, not necessary that the Executive Government should state what warrants it proposed to issue, nor what warrants remained in its hands unissued.
  MR. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman decline to give the House any opportunity of knowing how far the Irish police discharge their duty?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The Question has a larger interpretation than that. The Act requires, in the case of an arrest, that a copy of the warrant should be given to the person concerned; and I do not think we are bound to give further information than that.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. MACAULAY, A PRISONER UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  25
  Whether it is not the fact that Mr. Macaulay, who was arrested on suspicion of "treasonable practices," after having first declined to sign conditions on being offered his release, some days afterwards applied to the prison authorities and begged to be allowed to sign them; if the Government did not declare that their conditional intention to release him was much modified by his first refusal to sign; and, if so, will he state what circumstances transpired in Mr. Macaulay's favour between his first refusal to sign and his subsequent intimation of willingness to do so, to induce the Government to consent to his release; if it is true that Mr. Macaulay was allowed during his imprisonment to send out of Kilmainham articles to a Mayo paper against the Land League; and, whether the privilege of writing political articles on any subject is allowed to every suspect previously connected or unconnected with the Press?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the first portion of the Question was correct. The Government had made no such declaration as that referred to in the second portion. Mr. Macaulay had not been allowed to send articles to Mayo against the Land League or on any other subject. The privilege of writing articles was only extended to those who were engaged in that profession.

  ARMY—SCHOOL OF MILITARY ENGINEERING, CHATHAM.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that, since April last, the Instructor of Military Law, &c. at the School of Military Engineering, Chatham, has been absent from duty, no substitute has been appointed, and that the classes have been altogether abandoned; and on what ground the instruction in this important subject has been allowed to be discontinued?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the Instructor of Military Law, History, and Strategy at Chatham did not discontinue his classes, although in bad health, until the 8th of June, and in the summer this course is not generally proceeded with on account of the officers being engaged in out-door studies. But the Instructor
  26
  is on the point of promotion, and it will be necessary to appoint a successor at once, when the instruction in these subjects will be resumed.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD, R.M.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When Mr. Clifford Lloyd was appointed a magistrate for Drogheda, county Louth, and where the official record is to be found; and, if not, what jurisdiction he possessed at the Drogheda meeting on 1st January last?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was appointed a magistrate on the Lord Lieutenant's warrant on the 30th of December, 1880, and was sworn in as a magistrate for the county of Louth. The official record of the appointment was in the Chief Secretary's Office at Dublin. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was, therefore, duly qualified to act as a magistrate at the Drogheda meeting on the 1st of January last.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND), 1880.
  MR. ANDERSON (for Mr. SEELY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the statement in a Paper presented by command of Her Majesty to Parliament, entitled "The Agricultural Statistics of Ireland for the year 1880," that the number of holdings is 574,222, and by another Paper presented by command of Her Majesty to Parliament, entitled "Return of Agricultural Holdings in Ireland compiled by the Local Government Board in Ireland from Returns furnished by the Clerks of the Poor Law Unions in Ireland in January 1881," the total number of agricultural holdings is stated to be 660,185; and, if he can give the House any explanation of the difference between these two Returns?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the Return of the Local Government Board was a Return of the holdings, the Return in each case being separate. In the agricultural statistics as given by the Registrar General all lands held by one man in the same townland were reckoned as one holding. Both Returns he believed to be correct.

  THE STATISTICAL ABSTRACT—LOCAL TAXATION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the meagre character of the information given at page 7 of the Statistical Abstract about Scotch and English Local Taxation; also to the fact that the latest year for which even the brief details are applicable is so far back as 1873–4 for Scotland; and, whether an effort will be made during the Recess to complete the Scotch and English Returns so as to supply the public with the means of knowing that local taxation is yearly on the increase, and that the amounts now collected by local taxes are vastly in excess of those levied fifteen years since?
  MR. DODSON: My noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has asked me to answer the Question. The Statistical Abstract is not prepared by the Treasury or Local Government Board, but by the Board of Trade; and neither the Treasury nor the Local Government Board are responsible for it, except so far as regards any figures in it taken from their Returns. The Local Taxation Returns for 1879–80, and the Local Government Board Report for the last year, have both been presented to Parliament and are ready for issue; and these, in connection with the preceding Returns and Reports, will, so far as concerns England and Wales, furnish all the information required.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, it was very inconvenient to be put off from the Head of one Department to another. He had been shoved off from the Secretary to the Treasury to whom he had put the Question, to the President of the Local Government Board, who had no right to interfere with the local accounts of Scotland, and now to the President of the Board of Trade, who really had no duties whatever in connection with the local accounts either of Scotland or England. He had got information from the President of the Local Government Board about English local accounts which he did not ask for. He was perfectly well aware of what the right hon. Gentleman had just told him; what he wanted was local accounts of Scotland, now seven years in arrears.
  28
  He complained to the Speaker that he could not get the answer he wanted. He now asked the President of the Board of Trade to give him a satisfactory reply to the Question?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that as the Question had been put down to the Secretary to the Treasury, his attention had not been called to it until a few minutes ago. He was afraid, therefore, that he would not be able to give what the hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider a full and satisfactory reply. The subject of these Statistical Returns, especially in regard to local taxation, had been under the consideration of the Board of Trade, and they were not satisfied themselves either with the completeness of these Returns or with the lateness of them, and thought that in both respects they might be materially improved. The matter had still further to be considered by Mr. Giffen, the present Head of the Statistical Department; and if nothing had yet been done in the matter, it was due chiefly to the fact that the Department had lately been overburdened with the necessity of preparing complicated and difficult Returns, and that they had not had time to give the matter the consideration which it deserved.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—VACCINATION OF THE LOWER ANIMALS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF (for Mr. GIBSON)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has read the Address of Dr. Pasteur, delivered at the recent Medical Congress, and reported in the "Times" of 9th August 1881, on the subject of the vaccination of the lower animals; and, whether, having regard to the great importance of the topic, he will cause the Address to be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper?
  MR. DODSON: I have seen the Address of M. Pasteur as reported in The Times, and I am fully sensible of its importance. I have received a communication from the President of the Congress, who has promised to furnish me with an authentic copy of the Address, and immediately after its receipt I hope to be able to lay it on the Table of the House, in order that it may be circulated as a Parliamentary Paper among Members.

  ARMY EXAMINATION—CANDIDATES FOR SANDHURST.
  VISCOUNT CRICHTON (for Major VAUGHAN LEE)asked the Secretary of State for War, Why the result of the examination of candidates for entry into Sandhurst which commenced on the 27th of June last has not been declared before the 15th of August by the Civil Service Commissioners?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the noble Lord, I may say that I have ascertained from the Civil Service Commissioners, over whom I have no control whatever, that the delay on this occasion has been the result of the unusually large number of candidates, and of one of the Examiners' Reports being received later than usual. The list will be published this week.

  LIGHTHOUSES (SCOTLAND).
  MR. CHARLES PALMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Trinity House has expressed to that Department an opinion condemning the selection of Dunbar as a site for a lighthouse; whether that opinion has been supported by the views of master mariners thoroughly conversant with the navigation of the Firth of Forth; whether, notwithstanding the condemnation of that site, the Northern Lights Commissioners adhere to their intention to erect a lighthouse at Dunbar; and, whether the Board of Trade will refuse to sanction the undertaking?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say it is true that the Trinity House has differed in opinion from the Northern Lights Commissioners with regard to the lighting of the Firth of Forth; and it is also true that I have received from shipmasters and others interested in the navigation an expression of their opinion, also, in opposition of the views entertained by the Northern Lights Commissioners; and, under those circumstances, having given the whole matter very careful consideration, I caused a letter to be addressed to the Northern Lights Commissioners about a week ago, in which I urged upon them the desirability of immediately proceeding with the erection of a lighthouse at Fidra, which is a site as to which there is no difference of opinion; but, at the same time, I in-
  30
  formed them I thought it would be better to defer proceeding with the erection of the lighthouse at Dunbar, with a view to a complete settlement of all the points raised concerning the lighting of the Forth.

  IRELAND—RETURN OF PRIVATE TOLLS ON CUSTOMS IN TOWNS.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would lay upon the Table a Return of those towns in Ireland administered by Town Commissioners in which the Tolls on Customs are the property of a private individual; and, if he would place in the Return Copies of the patents or other documents by which such tolls are held as private property, and would insert as far as practicable a statement of the contributions of such proprietors to the lighting and cleansing of the towns?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreferred the hon. and gallant Member to a printed Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the regulation of these matters, in which he would find most of the information he sought.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that when he had read the Report he should have further Questions to ask on the subject.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the hardship entailed on teachers of National Schools, especially during the distress still existing in some parts of the country, by the rule under which any deficiency in the proportion of school fees entails forfeiture of one-half of the result fees; whether, under this rule, the teacher of the Lanes-borough National School has forfeited this year £18 result fees owing to a deficiency of 9s. in the school fees; and, whether, if this rule cannot be altered, he will at all events authorise the National Board to delay the operation of the rule for one year longer in places where, owing to the distress, they deem such relaxation just and necessary?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, his attention had been called to this matter, and though not to the particular case mentioned, yet to a similar one.

  31
  It referred to the conditions under which grants were made, and it was, therefore, a matter in which he must confer with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  ARMY—MAJOR-GENERAL TYRWHITT.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain how it was that Colonel Tyrwhitt, Equerry to His Royal Highness Commanding in Chief, having been for years superseded, at the eleventh hour obtained his promotion, and was thus enabled to retire within a few weeks on £700 a-year; and, whether it is not a fact that Major General Tyrwhitt, being 63 years of age, could not have been eligible for a full Colonelcy of a regiment (£1,000 a-year), Major Generals being disqualified at the age of 62 years, and then obliged to retire?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the first Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that Major-General Tyrwhitt was not promoted at his own request while he held the post of Aide-de-Camp to the Commander-in-Chief. The second Question I have already fully answered; but I may add that a Major-General was not obliged to retire before 70 under the "Warrant in force up to June 30 last, and was eligible for a regiment up to any age, whether under that "Warrant or the present one.

  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND)— THE RETURNS.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was his intention to continue during the Recess to publish a monthly Return of agrarian outrages in Ireland as during the Session?
  MR. HEALYasked whether a statement would be made comparing the Return for one month with those for previous months?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that any Member who was interested in the matter would keep the Returns for the previous mouth. He should like to give the information to which the noble Lord referred; but he was not sure whether monthly Returns could be published during the Recess. These Returns were published as Parliamentary Papers.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether Parliamentary Papers
  32
  were not always published during the Recess?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Not of that kind.

  ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION ACT, 1881.
  In reply to Sir R. ASSHETON COSS,
  MR. DODSONsaid, that in consequence of the considerable number of works which would be brought under inspection for the first time under the Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Act, it would be necessary to increase the number of Inspectors. He was not able yet to say what number it would be necessary to add, until he ascertained how many works would come under inspection; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that no time would be lost in bringing the Act into operation.

  TOWN PARKS (IRELAND)—THE RETURN.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he had taken any steps to procure the Return he promised of the extent and number of town parks in Ireland?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had been in communication with the Department in Dublin upon the subject, and he found there was great difficulty in preparing the Return referred to, in consequence of the inability of the compilers in all cases to define what a town park was. He had not finished his inquiries yet, and he would answer the Question further before the end of the Session.

  THE LORD ADVOCATE OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. A. ELLIOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to withdraw from the Lord Advocate any of the Scotch business hitherto under his management; and, whether he can state the. nature of any new arrangements that may be contemplated for the transaction of Scotch business? He explained that he had put this Question in consequence of certain statements which had appeared in the address issued by the Lord Advocate to the electors of Edinburgh.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have not seen the terms of that address, and,

  33
  consequently, I should answer without any reference to them. But the state of the case is this—that while the Secretary of State for the Home Department has always continued to be the Minister for Scotch affairs, as for other home affairs, the accumulation of Business—and the great accumulation of Business in that Office is, perhaps, more than in any other—has led in an increasing degree of late years to the handing over to the Lord Advocate, not only of the legal business of Scotland, which is his proper and main duty, but what may be called the lay or general business of Scotland. I speak in the hearing of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the late Home Secretary (Sir E. Assheton Cross), and I daresay he is cognizant that in former times—I mean quite within my own memory, say, 30 years ago—the position of the Lord Advocate was more nearly analogous to that of the Law Officers of the other countries than it has been lately. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has now acquired additional assistance in the Home Office—not by the creation of any new Office, but assistance which will enable him to discharge the greater portion of the business of Scotland. There is no formal change, and still less nothing that will tend to lower the Office of the Lord Advocate, which will remain one of great importance. But it does not seem desirable, as a general rule, that the sole Adviser of the Secretary of State on Scotch matters, who is occupied with other matters, should be a gentleman of the Legal Profession. It is desirable to have a layman acquainted with Scotch affairs.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: May I ask whether there is any intention to change the position of the Lord Advocate as one of the five great Officers of State?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly not. There is no intention to make any change of that kind.
  MR. A. ELLIOT: I gather from the answer of the Prime Minister that he did not get a private note on the matter, in which I inclosed the statements in the Lord Advocate's address?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I received the letter, and I have answered the note sent me; but I had not time to refer to the inclosure.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Will the Prime Minister allow me to ask him one further Question, as to whether the Lord Advocate will continue to hold a place on the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, of which the Lord Advocate has of late years been a member?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The practice, I believe, has been this—that the Lord Advocate has never been appointed on accession to Office to the Committee of Council on Education. He has been appointed of late years after holding Office for a certain time, and that is a matter which, of course, might be considered.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL COMMISSION (MR. VERNON).
  MR. DAWSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Mr. John E. Vernon, named as one of the Land Commission, is the same person as Mr. Vernon, agent to the Earl of Pembroke and other proprietors; and whether, if appointed Land Commissioner, he can retain the agencies referred to? The hon. Member explained that in putting the Question his anxiety was that the Court should have the full confidence of the country, and as those who did not know the high character of Mr. Vernon might be in doubt on the subject, he wished to disclaim any reflection on that gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE, referring to the disclaimer given by the hon. Gentleman, said, he had not the least hesitation in stating that the Question was a very legitimate one, and ought to be a Question put for his own satisfaction and that of the House and the public, and not as intended to cast any reflection whatever. Evidently, the gist of the Question had reference to the land agencies, properly so-called, held by Mr. Vernon, which were and had been numerous, and had, in fact, contributed to his eminent fitness for the office of Land Commissioner. The whole of his agencies falling under the Land Bill would at once disappear. He had the single agency of the Earl of Pembroke, which did not fall into that category. The agency to the Earl of Pembroke was purely and exclusively an agency of villa and town property. Mr. Vernon had not proposed to resign that agency. It in no way interfered with the Land Bill. He felt, also, perfectly certain that Mr. Vernon would never allow

  35
  the agency to interfere with the discharge of his duties as Commissioner, for, unquestionably, the public would have the full claim to the command of his time—what might be called, in general terms, his whole time.
  MR. DAWSONexplained that his reason for troubling the Prime Minister with the Question was this. The Earl of Pembroke had in "another place" taken a decided action with reference to the Land Bill, and had, by letters in The Times, shown a great and a vast divergence from the ideas of the Government on this subject. It might naturally be supposed that the appointment of a man receiving a large income from, and intimately connected with, a noble Lord who had so frequently and so emphatically declared himself against the principles of the Bill, should give rise to suspicion. He (Mr. Dawson) and those who knew Mr. Vernon did not suspect him; but it might be different among those who did not know him.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that as the hon. Gentleman had referred to the Earl of Pembroke, he might be allowed to say a word. It was this, and it was only justice—the Earl of Pembroke, no doubt, had not taken the same view of the Land Bill in all points as the Government had done; but he felt bound in justice to say, and it was really within his knowledge, that the Earl of Pembroke had not approached the consideration of the Land Bill in the character of Irish proprietor, but in the character of a Peer of the country. His first declarations on the Land Bill—although he was a decided Member of the Party opposite—were what might be called, relatively and comparatively, of a very Liberal character, rather favouring some of the principles of the Bill, and his own estate had none of the interests involved which were concerned in the Land Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked whether it was to be understood that the tribunal which Parliament had appointed was to consist of partizans of the Government, or persons imbued strongly in favour of the Land Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could only refer to the declaration which he thought it his duty to make at the time when the constitution of the Land Commission was under consideration. He then stated it was their desire that the Members of the Commission should cer-
  36
  tainly not all be known as standing in the same Party connection with the Government; but he said, at the same time, that it was necessary, in regard to the working of the Land Bill, that the members of the Court should be in sympathy with the principles of the Bill.
  MR. CAINEasked if Mr. Litton would be allowed to continue his practice at the Bar while acting as a member of the Commission?
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied that Mr. Litton would not continue his practice at the Bar.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARRESTS OF PERSONS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a further Return of agrarian outrages would be published during the Recess; and whether a Return would also be made public of persons arrested under the Coercion Act?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Returns of persons arrested under the Coercion Act would be published in The Gazette every month. As to agrarian outrages, he would see if a Return could be published of them; but he would not enter into a positive undertaking in regard to that matter.
  In reply to Mr. HEALY,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Act required the names of the persons put into prison to be laid before the House or published in The Gazette within the first seven days of every month. He believed that the terms of the Act had been strictly complied with.

  SUPPLY—THE NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Prime Minister, Whether the lateness at which the Navy Estimates were brought on for discussion this year was to be considered as entirely owing to the exceptional character of the Session; and whether endeavours would not be made to bring them forward next year at a time when more Members of the House would be present to discuss them?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No doubt the hon. Member has only given utterance to a feeling which everyone must recognize to be just. The question of the

  37
  time for bringing on these Estimates is one which is a good deal connected with the general state of the Public Business of the House; and no arrangement can possibly be held to be complete or satisfactory which does not give time for maintaining the usual and sound practice of voting the Estimates at an earlier part of the Session.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.
  VISCOUNT SANDONasked Mr. Attorney General, What course he intended to take as to the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill? The Prime Minister had promised that no Business of a controversial character would be introduced at this late period of the Session.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, he understood the promise of the Prime Minister was that there would not be introduced any Business that would give rise to any great amount of discussion. It was, however, absolutely necessary that this Bill should be passed before the 2nd of November, in some shape or other, to give jurisdiction for two Offices that had been abolished; and he did not think that went outside the pledge given by his right hon. Friend.
  VISCOUNT SANDONasked when the Bill would be taken?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he understood that the matters in this Bill would raise very little discussion. They had struck out at present the clause dealing with patronage, as it was thought it would occasion considerable discussion. If any hon. Member suggested the postponement of any other portion of the Bill which could be postponed, the Government would be glad to entertain the suggestion. But, under the circumstances, he must bring on the Bill as early as he could.
  MR. WARTONsuggested that the part of the measure which dealt with the Circuit arrangements and the grouping of counties should be postponed.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsupported this suggestion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that portion of the Bill was rather in the hands of the Home Secretary; but he was aware of the feeling which existed in regard to it among certain Members, He would
  38
  communicate with the Lord Chancellor on the subject, without, however, pledging himself as to the decision which might be come to upon it.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PRIVILEGE OF PERSONS CONFINED UNDER THE ACT TO WRITE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.
  In reply to Mr. HEALY,
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the privilege of writing articles for the newspapers in prison in Ireland was only allowed under regulation to prisoners who had been previously connected with the Press and who were carrying on their ordinary business.

  THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE (NEGOTIATIONS).
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could tell the House anything as to the position of the surtaxe d'entrepôt in the negotiations with the French Commissioners; and, if not, whether he would undertake to communicate some information to the House on the subject before the Recess? He wanted, further, to know whether Her Majesty's Government would insist that the ports of Great Britain and Ireland should be placed in the same position as regards duties as the French ports?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, the hon. Member had asked a Question which practically amounted to giving assent to a proposition which the House had negatived a few days ago. It arrived, by a large majority, at the conclusion that it was not desirable that the Government should have their hands tied by any peremptory conditions in regard to the negotiations with France. He had made that reply before, and it was the only reply he could make now. With regard, to the surtaxe d'entrepôt, he had already informed the House that the matter was brought by the British Commissioners under the attention of their French Colleagues; but the latter declined to go beyond the Tariff, or to enter into questions outside the Tariff, of which the surtaxe was one. They did not, however, express the opinion that the French Government, if negotiations were continued, would decline to go into

  39
  the subject. Should the negotiations be continued, the question would be brought up again; but it was impossible to say what reply would be made.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT—CLERKS OF THE PEACE.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain clerks of the peace in Ireland, on whom the Land Bill will impose a great increase of work, are excluded from the provisions of the Bill in favour of the clerks of the peace in the other counties; and, whether he will consider the claims of those clerks to increased salary, or, at all events, to some assistance to. pay for the increased clerical labour which they will have to provide?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was understood to say, in reply, that the Government intended to compensate those officials whose interests would be prejudiced by being called upon to perform extra duties in relation to the Land Bill.

  IRELAND—THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE CONSTABULARY DISTRICT OF MOVILLE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state the number of Roman Catholics serving in Constabulary district of Moville over five years' service in the force; also the number of Catholics entered or recommended for promotion by Mr. Smith in said district; if his attention has been drawn to the number of Protestants in the same district, and the number recommended by Mr. Smith for promotion of the Protestant religion, with the length of service of each; if he would inquire whether Sub-Constables Marks, Moffit, and Johnston, of the Moville station are entered on Table 9, of Return No. 8, of the promotion list, by Mr. Smith, solely because they are Protestants, being only of three years and five years in the force; and that Sub-Constable Marks, a man of only three years' service, is the first name entered on said Return solely because he is a Protestant, to the exclusion of many Catholics of over twenty years' service in the district of Moville; is Mr. Sub-Inspector Smith, Head Constable Mordoch, and five other members
  40
  of the force, all Protestants, stationed in Moville; that during the months of April, May, and June last, there were no Catholics in the force of a rank higher than an acting constable even to march the Catholics to Divine Service on Sundays; in taking the decennial Census for this year 1881 in Moville, why was three Protestants named for that duty, namely, Sub-Constables Marks, Johnston, and Moffit, to the exclusion of all the Catholics, though many of them in the station were competent and qualified to do so; is Sub-Constable Reilly changed to Malin, a Catholic, to make room for a Protestant, Sub-Constable Dixon; and, why are so many Protestants changed to Moville since Sub-Inspector Smith came to the district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, there were 20 Roman Catholics serving in the Constabulary district of Moville of over five years' service. There were six Roman Catholics recommended by Sub-Inspector Smith for promotion. There were eight Protestants and three Presbyterians serving in that district. Three Protestants had been recommended for promotion, their service being respectively five years and eleven months, three years and five months, and three years and six months. There was also one Presbyterian so recommended. Sub-Constables Marks, Moffit, and Johnston had been entered on the promotion list not on account of religion, but in consequence of their qualifications for higher rank. Sub-Constable Marks had three years and five months service, and he had been placed first on the list on account of his superior qualifications. There was only one sub-constable in the district of over 20 years' service. Sub-Inspector Smith, a Protestant; Head-Constable Mordoch, ditto; one Presbyterian, and four sub-constables, also members of the Church of Ireland, were stationed in Moville. Since the 20th of April there was no Roman Catholic there of a higher rank than acting constable. Sub-Constables Marks, Johnston, and Moffit were employed in taking the decennial Census because they were qualified to do it. Sub-Constable Reilly, a Roman Catholic, was changed to Malin for good service, and not to make room for a Protestant—Sub-Constable Dixon. Any change that had occurred at Moville had been in the ordinary course of transfers.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND BILL.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, At what hour he intended to proceed with the Royal University of Ireland Bill? He (Mr. O'Connor) gave a pledge that morning that he would not put any further Question on the subject; but he had heard something since as to the very bad character of the scheme the Government had put forward, which had very much tempted him to break that pledge if it were possible to do it. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman would give an opportunity to have the scheme fully discussed? He suggested that the Bill should be taken at 11 o'clock tonight, or put down as the first Order for to-morrow. He certainly did not think the Prime Minister was treating the Irish Members fairly.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going beyond the Question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should not think of pushing on the Bill at a late hour to-night if there was a strong feeling against that course. As to placing it first on the Orders for tomorrow, the hon. Member must be aware that at this time of Session the paramount feeling of the House was to proceed with Supply. He repeated, that as far as the lateness of the Session would permit he would give every opportunity for the discussion of the Bill; but he did not suppose that Members could be kept together for this Bill; and if it had to be postponed, he would throw the responsibility on those who offered prolonged opposition to the measure.
  MR. GLADSTONEwished to say, with regard to a remark which had fallen from the hon. Member for Gal-way, that he never suggested or intended to suggest that the action of the Irish Members should be limited to tomorrow. But, seeing that they had taken the Land Law (Ireland) Bill at 12 o'clock, it was no disparagement to proceed with the Irish Estimates tomorrow.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the very great importance of the Bill, the immense disappointment, and the injury to education that there
  42
  would be if this Bill were not carried through?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the highest and best educational authorities had represented that the scheme passed by the Senate of the Royal University would give large bribes to religious bodies, but would do nothing whatever for the real interests of education?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was not aware of that. It was a matter which would require a good deal of discussion. They should have to decide who were the highest and best educational authorities to begin with—not by any means an easy matter. He was certainly sensible of the great disappointment and injury which would be caused by a postponement of the measure; and he hoped the responsibility in the matter would be felt by Members from Ireland as well as by the Government.
  MR. O'DONNELLintimated that he would withdraw his opposition to the Bill, as he was satisfied that no opportunity for discussing it properly could be obtained this Session. The measure could be discussed next year.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

PARLIAMENT—CENTRAL HALL (PALACE OF WESTMINSTER).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. SCHREIBER, in rising to call attention to the unfinished state of the Central Hall of the Houses of Parliament; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the decoration of the Central Hall, interrupted twelve years since, should now be resumed and completed in mosaics,"
  said, the facts were plain, and left no room for dispute. For 12 years the question as to the decoration of the Central Hall had been left in abeyance, and only one of the four panels had been filled in. Although the Hall was unfinished, it was already, as Mr. Bernal Osborne said, under the Mosaic dispen-

  43
  sation, one panel having been decorated with a Mosaic picture of St. George. He wished to ask, before they separated for the Recess, whether the Government had a policy with regard to the Central Hall, and, if so, what that policy was? Was it a policy of Mosaic fresco, or was it a policy summed up in the words, "Can't you let it alone?" He did not intend to let it alone. He thought it had been let alone too long, with a result not creditable either to Parliament or the nation. The state of the Central Hall would not be tolerated in any other Assembly. It might be that the Government was inclined to a policy of fresco; but before they committed themselves to that, he wished to remind them that on the 8th of July, 1869, Mr. Layard, speaking on this subject, said—
  "The Royal Commission had recommended that the bank spaces in the hall should be filled up by paintings in fresco; but his experience of paintings in fresco had led him to the conclusion that they were not suited for decorations in this country, and much money had already been thrown away upon them within the walls of that House. Not relying on his own judgment, however, he called Dr. Percy and Mr. Barry into council, and with them he examined with the greatest care all the frescoes in the Houses of Parliament. He regretted to say that the result of the examination was that they did not find one which did not show some signs of decay."—[3 Hansard, cxcvii. 1432.]
  That was their deliberate opinion. The question, then, was whether they were to continue this work? The House would not be surprised to hear that a proposal of Mr. Ayrton to vote £500 for another fresco was negatived without a division. It would be difficult to persuade the House to vote 6d. for such fugitive decorations. An alternative decoration was Mosaic. He would like to hear some Member of the Government who knew something of the subject state what was the objection to Mosaics. Their advantages were obvious—they were bright and imperishable, and they had been employed with admirable effect upon the Albert Memorial and in the chapel at Windsor. If the Central Hall were somewhat dark, more light might be admitted through the windows. The money question was not worth considering. The Houses of Parliament were visited in the course of the year by tens of thousands of poor people; and if the Central Hall were well decorated it would form a source of intelligent interest and popular instruction. If he
  44
  could not produce any impression upon the Treasury Bench, he should appeal to those Members from Ireland who usually sat below him, and call their attention to the exclusion of St. Patrick from the honours due to him in that House. If at the meeting of Parliament in February he found that Mr. Poynter had not been commissioned to prepare a design for St. Patrick, he should ask the Irish Members, and also those Scotch Members who claimed St. Patrick as a Scotchman, to give him their assistance. In that way he should be sure to carry his point. Then St. Andrew and St. David might follow on behalf of Scotland and Wales. Before he sat down he would call attention to what had passed between himself and the late Commissioner of Works. After an absence of 12 years, he was much distressed to find that the decoration of the Central Hall remained where he had left it. He asked Mr. Adam when he intended to complete the mural decoration of the Central Hall, and whether he was in possession of the three designs for the three vacant panels? The answer was that the question of the best mode of filling the panels had given rise to much discussion, and had been fully inquired into in the years 1870–1; but that no definite conclusion had been arrived at. His Notice had been on the Paper for some months, so that his right hon. Friend had had ample time to consider the question. The cost of the panel which had been filled in was about £675, so that the three vacant panels would cost about £2,000. He hoped his right hon. Friend would allow him to repeat the question at a future time. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the decoration of the Central Hall, interrupted twelve years since, should now be resumed and completed in mosaics,"—(Mr. Schreiber,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKcontended that money expended on works of art should only be employed in purchasing some well-established and re-

  45
  cognized production, or in encouraging British art and manufactures. Unless these were the conditions on which money was voted, it appeared to him that it had. far better remain in the public purse. The frescoes had been utter failures, with two exceptions—one was that by Mr. Watts, of King Alfred, and the other was the group by Gibson in the Princes' Chamber in the House of Lords. Because the frescoes had been failures, his hon. Friend advocated Mosaics. He entirely differed from his hon. Friend on the question of Mosaics; and he should like him to bring some high authority who would say that the Mosaics on the Albert Memorial or those at Windsor were satisfactory works. The Mosaics in St. Paul's, which were the works of two of our greatest artists—Mr. Watts and Mr. Stephens—were absolute failures. He did not believe that it would be possible now to obtain Mosaics of a first-rate quality such as would be a credit to the country, and worth the necessary expenditure. If works of the second order were to be executed, the House ought to insist that they should be executed in this country, so that British art and manufacture might receive encouragement. His hon. Friend, who complained that the decoration of the Houses was in an incomplete condition, should remember that the decorations of great national edifices were never completed at one and the same time. There was no great Italian church, for instance, which was not the result of the labour of ages. He could not refrain, before sitting down, from expressing his regret that so unfortunate a statue as that of the late Lord Russell should have been placed in the Central Hall of the House. This statue, which represented the deceased Earl in modern costume, greatly disfigured the Hall, and its erection in such a place was altogether contrary to the views of the architect, Sir Charles Barry. He would suggest to the First Commissioner of Works the advantage of placing in future the effigies of eminent statesmen on the empty pedestals outside the Lobby. In conclusion, he urged the right hon. Gentleman not to yield to the wishes of the hon. Member who had introduced the subject.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVERsaid, there could be no doubt that the Central Hall was one of the most beautiful features of
  46
  the Houses of Parliament, and that it would be most desirable to complete its decorations in a style worthy of it; but he did not think it would be wise, because they had a number of vacant panels, and because they had put Mosaics in one, to make haste to fill the others without being certain that the work proposed to be done would come up to the highest standard of art. The existing Mosaic was inserted by Sir Henry Layard in 1869, but did not give general satisfaction. The artist, he believed, had desired that a portion of it should be taken down, with a view to its improvement. Subsequently, a Committee of Artists was called together by Mr. Ayrton. It consisted of Messrs. Herbert, Pope, Armitage, and Poynter, who recommended that the empty panels should be filled with frescoes. The House, however, refused to vote the money that would have been required to carry out that recommendation, and from that day down to the present time no complaint had been made on the subject of the empty panels. His hon. Friend said that the question had been in abeyance for 11 years, and that, therefore, it was now a question of urgency. He drew a contrary inference from the argument of his hon. Friend, and thought that as the matter had been allowed to rest so long, it could not be one of a very urgent nature, and he was fortified in this opinion by the emptiness of the Benches in every quarter of the House. In fact, he could discover no reason for believing that the House looked favourably on the project of his hon. Friend. There would, moreover, be considerable difficulty in carrying out the hon. Member's plan at the present moment—the School of Mosaic at South Kensington having ceased to exist, and the artist having declined to execute designs for the unfilled panels. He was inclined to think that, in the present unsatisfactory condition of Mosaic art, it would be better to leave the panels unfilled than to complete them. Until the House should express a more unanimous desire than any which had hitherto been evinced that the work advocated by his hon. Friend should be undertaken, he should not consider it his duty to ask for a Vote of money for the purpose of filling the empty panels with frescoes.
  Question put, and agreed to.

MR. LEONARD EDMUNDS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER, who had given Notice of the following Motion:—
  "That the Petition of Leonard Edmunds, which was presented to the House on the 20th of July 1881, he referred to the Committee of Public Accounts, with instructions to the Committee to effect the statutory and Parliamentary examination and audit of the public accounts of the said Leonard Edmunds, as set forth in the said Petition, and amounting in the aggregate to over a million and a-half of money; and further, to inquire into the matters, circumstances, claims, and allegations also set forth in the said Petition, to take evidence and to report thereon to the House,"
  said, he hoped that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to take Mr. Edmunds's position into consideration before next Session. Mr. Edmunds had been appointed by the late Lord Brougham to the office of Clerk of the Patents in 1833, and he had held that office until 1864, when he was dismissed by Lord Westbury for reasons relating to the state of his accounts. There was some imputation on Mr. Edmunds's character, and Mr. Edmunds, therefore, endeavoured to obtain an audit of the accounts. The Treasury, however, refused to have the accounts audited. Some of the Judges, including the late Lord Chief Justice and Lord Blackburn, took a favourable view of Mr. Edmunds's case; and the late Lord Justice Giffard said, in his Judgment, that Mr. Edmunds had, in his opinion, cleared his character of all imputations. After the opinions of such eminent judicial authorities, he considered the reputation of this unfortunate gentleman had been cleared; but he thought it hard that the question of the amount owing to him should be still undecided. The present Prime Minister, speaking on the question, in connection with the Exchequer and Audit Departments Bill, when it was before the House, on the 8th of February, 1866, declared that the whole system of accounts was unsatisfactory, and introduced an alteration in the system of audit to meet the case. He (Mr. B. N. Fowler) asked that Mr. Edmunds should be allowed to have his accounts audited by the Committee of Public Accounts, on the ground that it was not right that any man who had held a public office should lie under a stigma merely because he could not get his accounts audited.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, for many reasons, it was impossible for him to concede the demand of the hon. Member, or for the House to adopt a proposition to that effect if it were made by him. In the first place, it was impossible to ask the Committee of Public Accounts to audit accounts extending over a period from 1833 to 1864, relating to transactions, nearly all the actors in which had retired from public life. Independently, however, of technical objections, there were insuperable difficulties of a practical character which would prevent the case being reconsidered. It had been before the House of Lords three times. That House would be naturally inclined towards Mr. Edmunds; but three Chancellors—Lord Hatherley, Lord Selborne, and Lord Cairns—had decided unanimously against him. One overwhelming reason against acceding to the request of that gentleman was that the whole case, at his own request, had been, in 1869, referred to arbitration—Mr. Edmunds being himself one of the arbitrators. Mr. Justice Denman and Mr. Justice Pollock went most fully into the question, and investigated the subject for 11 days; they heard two counsel on Mr. Edmunds's behalf, and received most voluminous evidence, and finally gave a unanimous award that Mr. Edmunds was to pay a sum of £7,000; not one single farthing of which, or of the enormous costs incurred in the investigation, had he paid. In these circumstances, he could not agree to the request made by the hon. Member on behalf of Mr. Edmunds. He was surprised at the Notice of Motion, and wondered whether there was ever to be an end of the question.
  SIR JOHN HAYappealed to the noble Lord to reconsider the case of Mr. Leonard Edmunds, who was an old public servant, now 82 years of age, and had been deprived of his official position in a manner which, if not absolutely unjust, seemed excessively harsh to an old public servant. The case had been so fully stated by the hon. Member for the City of London that he would no longer detain the Speaker in the Chair. He trusted that if the House went into Committee they would have an opportunity of discussing matters with reference to promotion in the Navy, and that his right hon. Friend the late First Lord

  49
  of the Admiralty, when the Speaker left the Chair, would make his statement with reference to promotion in the Navy. If his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would say that, in Committee, they would be able to discuss the subject of shipbuilding and ironclads, his right hon. Friend would agree with Mm that it would be better to make his statement in Committee; but he must have an assurance that the old practice—unwisely departed from within the last two or three Sessions—of allowing the general discussion to be continued on Vote 2, would be sanctioned by the Chairman of Committees.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had reason to think the Chairman of Committees would make no difficulty with regard to matters being discussed on Vote No. 2.
  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.) £1,014,481, Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not know whether my hon. Friend will make any statement upon this Vote; but I wish to draw attention to the Flag List, not expecting that he will be able to give me any positive answer, but to point out the very serious condition of that list, so far as the interests of the Navy and the country are concerned. At the present moment there is an understanding that there should be, under the Order in Council of August 5, 1875, a promotion of 7 captains to flag rank every year; 12 commanders to captains, or 15 if so many vacancies occur; and 20 lieutenants to commanders, or 25 if so many vacancies occur. In 1875 it was found necessary, for the healthy and vigorous supply of officers—healthy in regard to the flow of promotion—competent for their duties in the different ranks, and with a sufficient amount of expectation and hope before them, that the Flag List should not be increased beyond 68, the captains not beyond 175, and the commanders not beyond 225. Up to the present time that has been steadily going on; but the time has come when we are approaching the limits
  50
  then set down, and unless some steps are taken now promotion in the Navy will become stagnant for some years. The Navy List to June, 1881, showed the lists to be as follows:—Flag List, 64; captains, 175; commanders, 214. During 1881—that is, during the course of the present year—7 captains have been or will be promoted, bringing the Flag List up to 67; 11 commanders will be promoted, bringing the captains' list up to 175; 20 lieutenants will be promoted, making the commanders' list 222. In 1882 there will be two retirements from the Flag List, and none from the captains' list; 3 captains will be promoted, thus making the Flag List 68; 3 commanders will be promoted, making the captains' list 175, and so filling that list up; 6 lieutenants will be promoted, making the commanders' list 225; so that each of these lists will be filled up to its limits, and promotion will afterwards only be made by actual vacancies. In 1883 there will only be one retirement from the Flag List, and but two from the captains' list, so that I captain will be promoted to the Flag List, 3 commanders to the captains' list, and 3 lieutenants to commanders. In 1884, there will be 4 retirements from the Flag List and 6 from the captains' list, so that 4 captains will be promoted to the Flag List, 10 commanders to the captains' list, and 10 lieutenants to the commanders' list. In 1885 there will be 5 retirements from the Flag List, and 5 from the captains' list, so that 5 captains will be promoted to the Flag List, 10 commanders to the captains' list, and 10 lieutenants to the commanders' list. In 1886 there will be 4 retirements from the Flag List, and 7 from the the captains' list, so that 4 captains will be promoted to the Flag List, 11 commanders to the captains' list, and 11 lieutenants to the commanders' list. In 1887 there will be 5 retirements from the Flag List, and 8 from the captains' list, so that 5 captains will be promoted to the Flag List, 13 commanders to the captains' list, and 13 lieutenants to the commanders' list. All considerations of deaths and other than compulsory retirements from the Flag List and captains' list are not taken into account. These figures show that for some years to come there will be absolute stagnation of promotion in the Navy, and this appears to me to be a matter so seriously affecting the

  51
  efficiency of the Service that I venture to invite the attention of the Board of Admiralty to the question. I do not anticipate that my hon. Friend will be in a position to give any answer to these observations; but the subject is a very grave and serious one. If it is necessary that we should have young admirals, then it is also necessary that we should have young and efficient captains, and that lieutenants should have some hope of being promoted; but with the present limited system of enforcing retirement we shall not obtain those results. I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to indicate the course which will be taken by the Government; that is a matter which rests entirely with them, but I think the Committee, and I am sure the country, will be of opinion that it would not be desirable that so small a number of officers should be promoted in the next few years as the number I have given indicate, nor that the block which exists should be allowed to continue.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that having expressed the feeling of the Navy in reference to promotion his right hon. Friend (Mr. Smith) had so well stated the actual numbers at present on the lists and the results which were likely of follow at the present rate of promotion that he would not go into any figures, but merely confirm what the right hon. Gentleman had stated. But, having given some considerable attention during the last 20 years to this subject, and having sat on Committees to consider the matter, he wished to make one suggestion which he hoped would be taken into consideration by the Admiralty during the Recess. The question as to the number of officers in the Navy was, of course, ruled by the number of lieutenants. There must be a certain number of lieutenants to officer the ships in commission, and their admission into the Navy was regulated by the waste in the lieutenants' list—that was to say, by promotions from that list, deaths, and the ordinary number of resignations. The list of lieutenants seemed to number at present about 800; that was the number given, but the number was rather higher at this moment. If a man was made a lieutenant at 21 or 22 years of age, it was evident that if he had served 14 years in the lieutenants' list, he ought to be promoted or
  52
  retire. If he was not made a commander at 31 or 32, he could not go through the grades of commander and captain and arrive at Flag rank at the necessary time. He would suggest to the Admiralty to see what number of lieutenants must be removed from the list in each year, in order that they might arrive at the rank of commander at a time when they were fitted for that office, and at a time which might still give them some hope of rising higher. The list of commanders ought to be increased, and must be increased, to give that necessary and just promotion which officers who had served their country well on the lieutenants' list ought to expect when they reached the age of 30. He wished to make a suggestion that his hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) should consider whether certain duties now performed by the senior lieutenants could not equally be performed by the same men with the rank of commander. If lieutenants received the rank of commander instead of being retained as senior lieutenants of post ships and as lieutenants in command of small vessels, that arrangement would absorb a certain number of lieutenants and reduce the lieutenants' list by that proportion, which he thought, looking at The Navy Lid, would amount to about 80, and would swell the commanders' list by an equal number. He threw out that suggestion for consideration, and he was sure it would work well and give great satisfaction to the officers. With regard to the list of captains, that would have to be increased upon its own merits, and for the sake of affording promotion to commanders, and looking to the number of officers who could be employed and who might obtain the rank of Flag officers at the time required. He supported earnestly the proposition made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), feeling most anxious, as he did, in reference to the stagnation of promotion which, after all the exertions made and the expenditure incurred, was in as deplorable a condition as he ever remembered.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I can only say one or two words in answer to the remarks of my right hon. and right hon. and gallant Friends, because on this delicate question of the promotion of officers anyone who speaks from the Treasury Bench must not speak hastily.

  53
  I will not go so far as to say I distrust these calculations made in advance, but I think too gloomy a view has been taken of the matter, because I know what are the anticipations of the Naval Lord who superintends the list of lieutenants, and who arranges the promotions to the commanders' list, in regard to the rapidity with which the 225 commanders will be filled up, and those expectations are very different. This is a subject of importance. The efficiency of the Navy is not a question which should be taken up at intervals of 10 years; it is a question which those who are trusted with the care of the Navy ought always to have in their minds, and which those Members of this House who take an interest in the Navy should diligently press upon the Government. The suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay) as to the partial re-distribution of officers between commanders and lieutenants is an extremely admirable one. In a rapidly changing service such as the Navy, and in these days of science, it is impossible to lay down any strict rule as to the officers; but the observations made will be duly weighed by the Admiralty; and I can only say I approach that subject, as I approach all subjects, with a strong desire to find some means of solving any difficulty other than that of increasing the number of officers in any rank very considerably beyond the requirements of the country.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I concur thoroughly in the last observation of my hon. Friend. There is no more important condition than that the number of officers in each rank should not exceed the probable requirements of the Service, because, otherwise, great disappointment will overtake men. Still, there are other ways by which these difficulties may be met; but I do not attempt to indicate them. There is one question upon which I have considerable anxiety. It will be very satisfactory if some progress could be reported with regard to the question of pensions. My hon. Friend mentioned that he had appointed a Committee to deal with that question, and with the re-engagement of seamen, with a view to diminish the charge for pensions without affecting the interests of any man in the Service prejudicially, but with a view to ultimately diminishing
  54
  that very heavy charge for pensions. I know the extreme difficulty and intricacy of the question; but it would be very interesting if the hon. Gentleman can give some information as to the progress made by the Committee. I cannot help expressing my opinion of the necessity, in considering this question, of securing not only a sufficient supply of blue jackets and of gunners, but also of experienced artificers and stokers. If we were called upon suddenly, there would be some difficulty in putting qualified men on board the Meet to discharge those duties; and my hon. Friend knows that a stoker or artificer is not to be found ready-made, any more than a gunner. It is the impression of the public that a stoker can be picked up all ready for his duties. But that is not so; and I hope attention will be given, in the consideration of the whole question, to the necessity of providing that there shall be as good and fair a number of stokers and artificers as with meet any emergency in time of war.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £1,446,346, Dockyards and Nava; Yards at Home and Abroad.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I hope on this Vote to have the great advantage of the remarks of the late First Lord of the Admiralty. I was waiting to see whether he would prefer to say what he wished to say before I got up. But, fortunately, I have something already to reply to. I should be unwilling to allow the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) on going into Committee on Saturday to pass without some observation. Whether I am in Order in replying to those remarks now I do not know; but if I am in Order I will make a statement with regard to them. I certainly cannot in any way deprecate the bringing before the House of Commons by distinguished officers, at periodical intervals, of a question which concerns our fighting Navy. The figures which the right hon. and gallant Member managed with such skill on Saturday may present themselves in different lights. We always have the lists of our own iron-clad Navy and of the Navies of our neighbours arranged and re-arranged under every possible head; and, as the result of many days' hard work and long consideration, I have got together some

  55
  figures which show that although there is reason for energy and activity there is no reason for shame or despair. Of non-obsolete English iron-clads—that is to say, iron-clads that may be said to represent, on the whole, the more recent ideas of construction, and not to have within themselves the elements of decay and deterioration within any reasonable time—not including the Lord Warden and the Repulse, the English Government has in commission and in reserve, counting the coast defence vessels, 27. As the French Fleet was mentioned, and as that is the only other Fleet in the world which deserves to be mentioned for a moment in the same day as our own for size, I will give the same figures. Of non-obsolete ironclads the French Government—giving them, I think, every advantage that could possibly be put in the comparison—have a commission and in reserve, and counting coasting defence vessels, 13. I have included in this list certain vessels that are awaiting repair or are under the pair in the Dockyards, such as the Audacious and the Rupert. We know our own defects, but do not know those of our neighbours; and I have included in the French list, not only ships under repair, but the Richelieu, which has lately been raised from the bottom of Toulon Harbour. Of obsolete vessels we have in commission and reserve 20 against 23 in the French list. We have every reason to believe our vessels are quite as good as the French; and if it pleases the right hon. and gallant Member to take off from our obsolete vessels the Scorpion, the Viper, and the Vixen, that will still leave our list of obsolete ironclads in this position—the 17 obsolete vessels have a tonnage of 120,000 and 270 guns, as against 106,000 tons burden and 170 guns in the 23 French vessels. The result is that the French have afloat 36 iron-clads of all classes, and the English have 47; and the French have of these 36, 10 in commission, while we have 27 of our 47 in commission. I would ask the Committee which nation is most likely to know the weak points of its Navy, and which nation is likely to keep its ships in sufficient repair—the nation which keeps 3 out of every 12 manned and equipped, or the nation which keeps equipped and manned 7 out of every 12? But when I pass to what we expect to have in the future, I
  56
  find that the French are building and completing 17 iron-clads, while we are building and completing 10. I do not hesitate to say that in recent years the construction in our Navy has been below the mark.
  SIR JOHN HAY: Does my hon. Friend include the Inflexible among the ships that are building?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, I do include the Inflexible among the ships building. I am not, however, inclined to lay down any sort of hard-and-fast line, nor am I in the least inclined to take any estimate as to the amount of tons that ought to be laid down from any private or irresponsible pamphleteer. I am not even disposed to take it from First Lords of the Admiralty in past years, however well they may have known the circumstances of their own time, and however just their calculations may be. I would ask the Committee to consider how improbable it is to take any number of thousands of tons as the proper number to lay down now. In 1870, when 12,000 tons was laid down as the amount of iron-clad shipping to be built yearly, a ton of armour plate cost from £50 to £60 sterling; whereas in a composite steam vessel, such as the Conqueror and the Colossus, the steel-faced plates on the turret have run up this year to over £100 a ton. It is improbable that we or any other country can build at the same rate as when the work could be performed so much cheaper; but still I cannot think that our exertions have always been up to what the country has a right to demand of the Admiralty. I do not think that the same charge can be brought against the present Board of Admiralty. I do not think that, allowing for his natural and long-established, and I would even say praiseworthy, determination not to spoil Boards of Admiralty by too ready commendation, the right hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir John Hay) will say that we stand badly as compared with the Boards of the past; and, if I did say so, the Return which is numbered 338 of this year would show something very different. In 1880–1, for the first time for four years, the performance of the Admiralty exceeds its promises—7,948 tons of iron-clad shipping were promised in the Estimate; 9,325 tons were actually completed in the building sheds. This year we hope

  57
  we are doing better still; but, looking at the experience we have had in past years, we must not boast beforehand. This year we have undertaken to build 10,816 tons of iron-clad shipping—a much larger amount than has been promised, and a very much larger amount than has been performed since the year 1876–7. In saying that I make every allowance for the difficulties of all preceding Governments, and for their praiseworthy exertions in other lines than shipbuilding, which, by the amount of money spent on such departments, have enabled us to devote our attention and expenditure principally to shipbuilding. If the same allowances were made for the present Board, I am not without hope that even the right hon. and gallant Member will admit that we have done something considerable to guarantee the continuance of the supremacy of Great Britain by sea. This large amount of iron-clad shipping is made up by finishing off and fitting for sea the ships that are already in hand. The Polyphemus, the Ajax, and the Agamemnon will be completed this year, the Conqueror will be all but completed, and the Colossus, Majestic, and Collingwood largely advanced. As regards new vessels, I have already had the honour, last March, of describing the new ironclad cruiser, of which two specimens are to be laid down this year; and on that occasion I promised, before the end of the Session, to describe what we intend to adopt as the new first-class iron-clad. On this we have received a great deal of advice from many quarters. The prevailing opinion runs in favour of small ships, and I am bound to say that some hon. Gentlemen, who have not given very close study to the science, are rather unreasonable in their demands. I have come away from one or two private conversations with the idea that we should give great satisfaction if we could produce a ship running 16 knots an hour, carrying a coal supply sufficient to enable the vessel to run 5,000 knots, with guns powerful enough to pierce any armour, with armour thick enough to resist any guns, and which, at the same time, should be a handy small ship, which should cost half what we have been paying for our recent productions. Unfortunately, all these things—heavy guns, thick armour, large coal capacity, and, above all, speed—all
  58
  these things demand great cost and involve great size. It has been calculated that such a paragon as I have described, and as has been recommended to us for adoption—a ship surpassing anything yet produced—would weigh over 14,000 tons, and would cost for her hull and machinery very much more than £1,000,000. And it is not only the cost in money which has to be regarded. Though I think the right hon. and gallant Member exaggerates the importance of mere number, still number is a very important thing, and England must have a numerous Fleet; and no nation can afford a numerous fleet of Duilios and Lepantos. Nor is it a slight consideration that, in these days of torpedoes and steam rams, it is as dangerous militarily as pecuniarily to have all our eggs in one basket. A torpedo, making a hole a yard square under the water-line, would send a ship worth £1,000,000 to the bottom just as readily as if it had cost half the money; and success in the naval battles of the future, as of the past, would fall to the adversary which by the end of the day had most men-of-war afloat. And then it is worth serious consideration whether men could be got fit to fight these gigantic machines; whether a sense of the enormous amount of money and the vast responsibility involved would not deduct something from the dash and go which win battles; and whether a captain, who had so large a portion of our entire Navy beneath his feet, would risk his ship so fearlessly and confidently as if she were one of many instead of being one of few. In short, the Admiralty has determined, instead of going forward in size and in cost, to content themselves with the modest, but, I think, wiser course, of laying down vessels of a type already familiar to the House of Commons. Instead of laying down one vessel of 14,000 tons, they intend to lay down two of 9,000. Instead of one vessel costing £1,000,000, they will have two costing something over £500,000 each. In short, instead of laying down something to cut out the Italian Duilio, they propose to lay down two more English Collingwoods. The mere fact of building a ship the type of which is already familiar to the Dockyards will conduce both to economy and to efficiency and rapidity of work. It is extraordinary how much more economical the second

  59
  ship is than the first, and how much more complete. One such vessel will be laid down at Chatham, and another at Pembroke. The armament will be left to be determined hereafter. The Collingwood, as the Committee perhaps knows, is a ship with two turrets, and the armour of the turrets will be left over for consideration. I do not know whether it is necessary that I should enter into the question of what we are doing in the matter of guns; but it is almost certain that one of the turrets will be armed with two 43-ton guns and the other with one gun of the largest type which she can carry, whether that be 80 tons, 70 tons, or—a size to which the experiments in France now point—60 tons. The lighter broadside of six 6-inch guns will continue to be a feature in the vessels. That is the policy of the Admiralty—a policy which, I hope, will recommend itself to economists, who would prefer a ship whose hull and machinery cost £530,000 to a ship like the Inflexible, which cost £690,000; and to sailors, who would not be sorry to know that the Admiralty has at last consented to be unsensational enough to build three vessels, each of which would be the counterpart of the other—so that being appointed to a new ship would not, in this case, be equivalent to learning a new profession; but an officer, when he leaves one ship for a new one, would feel that he had a chance of finding himself at home. That is our policy in regard to ironclad vessels. It is an unsensational policy; but I cannot help thinking that it is a policy which will commend itself to the Committee and to the country.
  SIR JOHN HAYbegged to thank his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty for the statement which he had just made. He (Sir John Hay) was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for admitting that, so far as he was able to ascertain, he (Sir John Hay) had stated what he believed to be the facts without the official knowledge which the hon. Gentleman had communicated to the Committee. First of all, with regard to the building programme, he congratulated the Admiralty upon that programme. He did not, however, quite follow the names of the vessels given by the hon. Member. He had only caught the names of the Majestic, the Collingwood, the Ajax, the Conqueror, the Co-
  60
  lossus, and the Agamemnon; and he understood that his hon. Friend had included the Inflexible, and a new one, the name of which had not been mentioned. That, however, only made eight. Was he, therefore, to suppose that the 10 would include the two new Colling-woods which his hon. Friend had alluded to? Perhaps his hon. Friend would answer that question.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the 10 vessels in question were the Inflexible, the old Collingwood, the Majestic, the Colossus, the Ajax, the Agamemnon, the Waspite, and her sister ship, the Conqueror, and the Polyphemus; making 10 in all.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was not aware that the Polyphemus was included. He presumed that the Warspite and her sister ship were the two new ships which the hon. Gentleman had alluded to.
  MR. TEEVELYANsaid, the Warspite and her sister ship would be of the Collingwood type.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he gathered from the statement of his hon. Friend that there would be two more ships built than were provided in the Estimates, and he congratulated the Committee upon that fact.
  MR. W. H. SMITHremarked that one more ship was provided, but that no details were given.
  SIR JOHN HAYwould take it, then, that one more ship would be built. He congratulated the Admiralty on the efforts they had made. He thought they deserved the thanks of the country for those efforts. With reference to what had fallen from his hon. Friend with regard to the building of small ships instead of large ones, he entirely approved of the decision to which the Admiralty had come. They could not expect the Admiralty to continue to build ships of 14,000 tons; and he was sure his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Derbyshire (Admiral Egerton) would agree with him in that view. He was quite sure that these enormous ships were disadvantageous to the country. The description of them given by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty that it was unadvisable to have all their eggs in one basket was not, perhaps, the real reason; but the fact was that it was much better to have a sufficient number of ships to attack the large ships of the enemy, if there was

  61
  an enemy, than to go on competing with the enemy in size. Very large ships were of very little use whatever; and instead of building four ships of the Italian type he thought it would be better to build eight ships of a smaller size that would go twice as fast. He entirely approved of the policy of the Admiralty in this respect; but, at the same time, he thought that where another nation possessed very large ships we must always take care that we outnumbered them if we did not come up to them in size. He was somewhat astonished at the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, and he accepted it with some reserve, as to the small number of ships the French Navy possessed. The Re-turns given on this subject by the United States Bureau, and by the German Admiralty, he presumed had been investigated by the Admiralty, and they were hardly consistent with the statement made by his hon. Friend. The statement that there were 31 wooden iron-clads out of condition and repair certainly astonished him. He was aware also that of the 10 French ships sent to Sfax six were wooden ships. He presumed that the French Admiralty would hardly employ wooden ships on such a service unless they considered them to be efficient for the purpose; and, of course, those six vessels were included in the number mentioned by his hon. Friend. A large number of wooden vessels iron-plated were reported to be in Brest Harbour, but unfit for seagoing purposes.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was not able to say that they were unfit for seagoing purposes, because they included a certain number of Coastguard ships.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that an official statement of this kind was much better than all the investigation a private Member could possibly make; and he had no reason for challenging, in any way, the entire accuracy of the statement made by the Board of Admiralty on so serious a matter. But, be that as it might, looking at the number of ships which they had to maintain on distant stations, he should be glad to hear from his hon. Friend that something was going to be done with regard to increasing the building in the Dockyards, and also in the employment of contract building yards for the purpose of increasing the number of iron-clad vessels as well as
  62
  the building of unarmoured ships. The amount of building effected in this way had not been stated by the Government; and he thought that the amount of shipbuilding now going on by no means compared with the amount in previous years of our history, when the cost of ships was by no means so great as at present. In the year 1858, which was the last year of the wooden shipbuilding of the country, the Estimates of the year were £9,878,000. In the first year of iron-clads they rose to £12,779,000; in 1860 they were £12,836,000; and in 1861 they were £12,640,000. He would not trouble the Committee with further details; but it was not until the year 1870 that the Navy Estimates were reduced to below £10,000,000; and in the year 1870, when that reduction was made, there was a Vote of Credit of £550,000 required for the services of the Navy, in consequence of the Franco-German War. In 1874 the Navy Estimates were raised to very nearly £11,000,000; and in 1878 his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) proposed a Vote of £10,762,000; but his right hon. Friend very properly went into the market and bought four iron-clads at a cost of nearly £2,000,000 more—namely, £1,730.000, bringing the total Estimates up to more than £12,400,000. Since then the sums voted for the Navy Estimates had been £10,195,000, £10,322,000, and £10,102,000, showing a slight decrease on the year. The Estimates being so small and low obliged us, whenever there was a scare, to go into the market and buy ships which were not so good as we should have built if we had gone on steadily increasing our building each year. No doubt his right hon. Friend was perfectly right in going into the market in 1878 for the purpose of buying iron-clads. It was impossible at that time for the Navy to go on with the number of ships we had, in the event of our being called upon to take part in any disturbance. His right hon. Friend was, therefore, justified in buying additional ironclads, and he did, in point of fact, buy as many as he could find; but it was now impossible to get ships on the same terms, and it was better that we should go on building the best character of ships we were able to build, rather than come again two or three years hence for a Vote of Credit, because the country

  63
  happened to be in a state of alarm. It was very much better, in his opinion, that we should employ the contract yards on the Clyde, on the Mersey, on the Tyne, and on the Humber, and also on the Thames, to build ships for us rather than be obliged to go to a foreign Power to buy up their less perfect iron-clads. Those Mercantile Dockyards were created in 1860 under a sort of promise given by the right hon. Gentleman the then Secretary of State for War that 4,000 tons of shipping should be built in the contract yards in each year. That was the understanding on which those contract yards were started, and now there was not an iron-clad built in them except the iron-clads of foreign Powers. He believed it would be more for the advantage of the country that they should continue building steadily for Her Majesty's Government each year than that we should be compelled to go into the market and buy iron-clads whenever an emergency arose. He thanked his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty for having made the lucid statement he had made to the Committee, and which went so far in the direction they were all anxious to travel. He trusted that hon. Members would carry away with them the impression that after all it was better to build steadily in this country each year than to allow things to get behind and then suddenly go into the market, as his right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty had been compelled to do, for the purpose of purchasing ships that were very much inferior to those we might have built for ourselves. With these few remarks, he would stand no longer between the Committee and the Vote.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the statement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty was one which they had a right to expect from a man of his very great ability. Year after year they heard a great deal about the magnificent ships they were building, and this year was no exception; but, he was sorry to say, they heard very little indeed about the equally important subject of the guns with which those ships were armed. They must bear in mind that it was impossible for the ships and crews to do all the work required from our Navy. They would not be of much value without they were ade-
  64
  quately provided and armed with guns of an efficient character. He thought it most objectionable that they should have an eloquent description of the ships year after year, and not be told whether they were to be armed with 80-ton guns, or 70-ton guns, or 60-ton guns. He believed that the only reference to the guns of the Navy was a chance mention in the course of this Session that in the last two years about 120 guns had been provided by the War Office for the Navy, of an entirely new type; but not one word was mentioned in regard to cost of those guns—a result which he presumed was due to the fact that they were entirely paid for by the War Office. He protested, as he had many times before protested, against allowing the Admiralty to put its hand into the purse of the War Office. The result was to destroy all responsibility either for the proper appropriation of funds so used, or for the efficiency of the guns and stores obtained. There could be no question whatever that in the course of the last 20 years the Admiralty had been provided with new guns and stores, with all their costly equipments, to such an extent as to be sufficient to arm the ships five times over, simply because they chose to build the ships they deemed necessary, without having regard to the efficiency of the guns which ought to be put on board of them; and when they went to the War Office and said they must have a gun of a certain calibre, to suit the build of a ship only adapted for guns of certain lengths, calibre, and weight, the War Office had not the option of supplying them at their pleasure, but to provide the kind of gun, irrespective of its efficiency, to fit into the vessel as built. He contended that it was an evil without measure for the action both of the War Office and the Admiralty to be hampered in this way. A more satisfactory state of things ought to be introduced. It would seem that the Admiralty were now coming forward, and asking for guns of a proper size and weight. When, 10 years ago, they were demanding new guns, he had objected to the calibre of them as being totally useless, having regard to the calibre of the gun which the Admiralty dictated. At that time, the War Office could have supplied the Navy with 12-inch guns of 28 tons and 35 tons, whereas the requirement was for 12-inch

  65
  guns only of 20 tons, merely because the ships were built for ordnance of that weight. The system of requisitioning the War Office for guns to suit the ships ought to have been reformed in 1868, and placed upon a totally different footing. In that year the late Lord Hampton had finally decided to abolish this irresponsible system, and had urged the change on the Admiralty; but, unfortunately, there was a change of Government, and an end was put to the improvement that was being effected in the system. It was true that the War Office had to go to the Admiralty for transports and that the Naval Estimates bore the charge, and it might be that the charge for guns and that for the transports nearly balanced each other; but the system, in both respects, was a thoroughly unsound one, and led to great extravagance. For his own part, he did not see why the War Office should be able to go to the Admiralty, and put its hand into the pocket of the Admiralty and take out whatever it wanted for the transport of men and stores. The question of irresponsibility on the part of the Admiralty for the expenditure on guns and stores needed for the ships, and the like irresponsibility of the War Office for the charges for moving the men and stores of the Army, was one which ought to be fully considered by the House of Commons. He believed that it was the occasion, at present, of much inefficiency, that it rendered both Departments irresponsible, and that it tended to deceive the public as to the actual cost of the respective Services. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to give the Committee some information as to the guns with which the vessels were to be armed.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can very well understand the feeling with which my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir George Balfour) enters upon the question of guns. I confess that I have, to a certain extent, shared the feeling that he has expressed on the subject. The system which exists is, undoubtedly, a peculiar one; but then very much that exists in connection with the Government of the country is peculiar and anomalous; and I do not say that everything that is anomalous is indefensible, or that everything peculiar works altogether unsatisfactorily ultimately in re-
  66
  gard to the public interests. There is another thing which I must say most positively—and that is, that the system does not tend to extravagance in the supply of guns to the Navy. I have had some experience in the matter, as probably the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware. The system pursued is this—The Board of Admiralty come to a conclusion as to the amount, and character, and description of the guns, or ammunition, or of the war material to be supplied for the service of the Navy during the coming year, and it then becomes a matter of consideration between the two Departments. I venture to say that at no time, either under the present Government or under any preceding Government, has the Board of Admiralty obtained from the War Department precisely the quantity, or the kind, or the nature of the supply demanded from them. There has always been, I will not say an unreasonable difficulty, but there has always been a large amount of consideration given by the War Department to every application, and the question of expense enters into that consideration very largely indeed. It has been the duty of successive Boards to consider how far they could reduce their demands in order to meet the wishes of the War Department in keeping down the Estimates; and the result has been, in my judgment, that instead of being supplied with the newest, and most efficient, and most complete guns, there has been a certain amount of delay. My hon. and gallant Friend says that 12 years ago the War Department could have supplied the Navy with 43-ton guns. [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: A 35-ton gun.] With 35-ton guns then. Now, my impression is that the War Department is behind in the manufacture of guns. I make no reflection at all upon the Service, which is conducted by gentlemen of great ability, gentlemen having the very highest sense of their duty to the Public Service, and gentlemen who feel bound to render that Service economical as well as efficient; but the result is, without doubt, that there are foreign guns exceeding in strength, in penetration, in range, and in accuracy, the guns which, up to this time, have been supplied by the War Department to English vessels. The foreign guns I speak of are particularly the Krupp gun and the French gun. Both of them

  67
  are superior at the present time to any gun now mounted on board Her Majesty's ships. I have no doubt that Woolwich will supply shortly guns equal to those; but the experiments made in 1878, and which were attended by our officers, showed conclusively that the Krupp gun was superior in penetration, range, and accuracy, to the Service-guns furnished by the War Department to Her Majesty's ships. I do not believe that this would be a convenient or a proper opportunity for entering into a discussion as to the system which exists for the supply of guns to the Navy; nor would it be expedient on the 16th of August to enter into the consideration of the question whether the arrangements under which transports are found for the Army is on the whole the best. We left those arrangements as we found them; and while I was in Office I did all I could to make the best of them. I would, however, urge upon the Admiralty and the War Department the necessity of furnishing the most complete gun, both for size and weight, that can be found, and that the mechanical science of England can produce. I am exceedingly glad to hear my hon. Friend state that the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Board of Admiralty are continually urging the War Department to produce better guns. I believe that to be a most important duty. There can be no question whatever that the gun is the thing for which the ship exists. Unless the gun is efficient, any amount of power that we can put in the ships, and any amount of speed that we can put in them, are altogether useless. The gun is the weapon for which the ship is prepared; and, therefore, it appears to me that the gun ought to be the most perfect gun that the mechanical science of England can furnish. From that point of view, I confess I have felt a little regret that a real gun competition is not introduced in connection with the production of guns for service in England. I believe that such a competition would be healthy and advantageous in all respects, not only to Woolwich, but to the country at large; and I should be glad to hear that there is a disposition on the part of the Department to welcome the production of weapons in competition with the Woolwich weapons. I do not say that we could produce superior weapons; but it would, at any rate,
  68
  develop the mechanical resources we possess in this country for turning out machinery of the best possible form. We must always remember that a gun is, after all, a machine put together to accomplish certain work—namely, to burn a certain amount of powder in a given time, and cast a projectile with the greatest force in a given direction. I cannot doubt that our manufacturers are as capable of producing the best articles in the shape of guns as they are of producing any other machinery superior to the machinery to be found in any other part of the world. At the present time, there cannot be a doubt that we have been beaten in regard to providing the best gun up to the production of our last gun. I will say nothing in regard to that. I have no doubt that it is a very good gun; but we have hitherto been content to allow Germany and France to beat us, and that is not a condition of things which I can regard with anything like satisfaction, bearing in mind the mechanical ability and capacity of this country. We have the assurance of the Admiralty that they are giving their attention to this matter. I am quite satisfied to accept that assurance. I know that the First Lord of the Admiralty is as alive to the importance of producing good guns as I confess I was when I was at the Board. It was the one thing which gave me concern, and it was the one to which I directed serious and constant attention. There is now one other point in regard to the guns which I think I must ask my hon. Friend's attention to, and that is the supply of machine guns. I am aware that there have been experiments going on for a long time, in order to ascertain the best machine gun; but there can be no doubt that Foreign Navies have been better supplied with this description of arms than we have been. I am speaking from personal observation, and I know that Foreign Navies were supplied with machine guns long before we were. I make no complaint of it, because I believe that the delay is due, in a great measure, to the desire to secure the best machine gun; but there is a point beyond which even the desire to secure the best article ought not to go. I venture to say there is a time within which you must be supplied with the material you want, and it must be the best you can get. It does not do to wait for the best that can be manu-

  69
  factured 10 years hence, when we may be called upon to use the weapon either to-day or to-morrow. The possession of machine guns in these days is most necessary, not only to the iron-clad in order to keep off the torpedo boats, but also to our corvettes and our smaller ships. Without at all venturing to lay down the proportion to be supplied to each ship—for that must be a matter which the experienced officers of the Admiralty themselves must determine—I would say that there ought to be an ample supply—I do not say an excessive supply, but an ample supply of machine guns. With regard to my hon. Friend's (Mr. Trevelyan's) statement, and the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Sir John Hay) with reference to the supply of iron-clads to the British Service, I am glad that he has been able to give such a re-assuring account of the proportion of British ships above Foreign Navies. I confess that I am always desirous to avoid comparisons. My desire is always to go on in our own way—sometimes called our even way—but it is occasionally a rough way. My desire is that we should go on in our own way, and provide for the country such a Fleet as may be necessary for the discharge of the duties of the Navy in time of peace, and to meet any possible emergency in time of war. At the same time, it is impossible not to have regard to the exertions of our neighbours, and to the kind of ship and the number of ships they may be building at this moment. There can be no doubt that their rate of progress at the present moment is very largely in excess of anything that has been going on here within the last two years. There can also be no doubt that the wants of this country are very much in the proportion which my hon. Friend has stated. Where a Foreign Navy requires to have five or six ships in commission, we require to have 15 or 20 large ships in commission. The interests of this country are so vast and so widely distributed that they need protection in all parts of the world; whereas the interests of any other country are localized within a space of at least 3,000 or 4,000 miles. It is therefore inevitable that we should retain in commission, and require in a time of war, a much larger Fleet than that of any other country. I am glad that my ton. Friend is able to say that we have
  70
  a larger Fleet than any other country possesses, and an adequate Fleet. That is, on the whole, a satisfactory condition of affairs. I am glad, also, to find that he was willing to admit that we were now below a fair average of building. He referred to the amount of building which had been done during the last few years, and the tonnage added by the purchase of iron-clads. It will be found that the tonnage built in our own yards during the last two years has not exceeded the proportion of iron-clad tonnage added to the Navy during the preceding three years. I entirely agree with him that a past First Lord of the Admiralty, even although he may have been only 18 months in retirement, is not in a position to state to the House or the country the proportion of building which the country may require. There must be information in the possession of the Government and of the Board of Admiralty which enables the Government and the Admiralty to form a much more accurate judgment than any person outside the Admiralty or the Government can do as to the amount of building which should be undertaken.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I did not refer to the right hon. Gentleman personally.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am quite willing to accept the disclaimer of my hon. Friend; but I quite agree with him that my own information is not sufficient to enable me to lay down grounds for positively stating what the extent of our shipbuilding should be. But I think I am able to say the amount below which it ought not to go, and I am quite willing to say this—that if the Board of Admiralty feel it their duty to recommend a larger amount of shipbuilding, I should be glad to give that recommendation my most cordial support. There may have been reasons which prevented past Boards of Admiralty from rushing recklessly into shipbuilding, or incurring a large expenditure on shipbuilding. Those reasons have been practically explained by my hon. Friend when he referred to the increased cost of armour plates, and to the development of the system of armour under which I think I may say we are now suffering. He referred to the fact that the cost of an iron plate is now nearly double—that is to say, that it has gone up from something like £50 or £60 a-ton to something like £100 a-ton, and the

  71
  result is that the cost of a ship has been enormously increased. There can be no doubt that a modern iron-clad, with its composite armour, is capable of resisting shot at close quarters, and is a much more efficient weapon of war than the ironclad of 10 years ago, which cost so much less. Still, we must face the fact that for the same number of tons we shall have to pay a great deal more money than we paid five years ago, and that if we have to face an increase in the shipbuilding we shall have to face also an increase in the Votes, and I am not myself unprepared to meet that contingency. I believe that my successors at the Board of Admiralty have found that every economy is practised in the several Departments of the Service; and I also believe that any addition that may be made to the shipbuilding programme must be followed by a corresponding addition to the charges for the whole Service. If the Admiralty will build good and useful ships, such as those described by my hon. Friend, I believe the country will gladly incur the expense of providing for them. My hon. Friend has described the ships which it is now proposed to build. I will not go so far as to say that at no time should we have a vessel large enough and powerful enough to cope with the greatest and most powerful vessel a foreign country might possess; but I think that my hon. Friend and the Board of Admiralty have shown a wise discretion in not committing themselves to the building of vessels of that kind, which would cost, at the present moment, such an enormous sum of money. I believe that it is wiser, in the first instance, to see the way in which the guns can be handled on board such vessels, and various other circumstances and conditions of warfare, before we venture upon spending £1,250,000 in building one large ship. The ships which it is proposed to lay down will be most powerful additions to the British Navy. I confess I feel that the present Board have paid me a compliment in adopting the Collingwood type of ship. That was a ship to which I gave very serious consideration; indeed, as my hon. Friend will be aware, from the records now existing in the Admiralty, it was the type of ship arrived at after very great discussion, and after balancing the advantages and disadvantages, but without attempting to combine every possible advantage.
  72
  The Collingwood is a barbetted ship, and, in designing her, all the difficulties that were likely to be encountered in shipbuilding were fully considered. If we were to attempt to construct a ship that would be able to resist any other ship, and the most powerful guns that could be manufactured, and should possess the greatest possible speed, the expense would be so enormously large that it would be almost wicked to build such a ship and to incur the risks which might be encountered by sending such a ship to cope with the dangers of war. I entirely concur, therefore, in the course which has been taken by the Board of Admiralty. But I confess that I am anxious about one little matter. My hon. Friend has laid great stress upon shipbuilding, and I believe it to be of the greatest importance; but there is another side of the question, and another duty which the Admiralty have to discharge, and that is to retain any existing ships which they believe to be efficient war ships, and which they intend to use again as war ships, and to maintain them in a proper condition of repair. I find in the Returns which were laid on the Table by my hon. Friend's Predecessor the present First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) on the 2nd of August, 1880—the Return numbered 323—that certain ships are there mentioned, the repairs of which were to be completed within a given time. The Bellerophon was to be completed by July, 1881; the Sultan is, I believe, actually completed—it was to have been completed by December, 1880; the Repulse was to have been completed in September, 1880. The Return then gives a list of unarmoured ships, among which is the Shah, which was to be completed in 1881; the Active, which was to be advanced 71/100 in 1880–1; the Rover, which was to be completed on the 31st of March, 1881; and the Volage, which was to have been completed before the 31st of March, 1881; and so on. I want to ask what progress has actually been made with the repairs of those ships, and what provision has been made with regard to the Resistance, the Rupert, the Thunderer, the Shannon, the Audacious, and the Black Prince? I am aware there was a question as to what should be done with the Black Prince and other vessels; but it is one which must be decided and considered by the Board of Admiralty. There are two

  73
  sister ships of hers, which will come in for repairs shortly, and the course which is adopted with regard to the Black Prince—which is sound in all respects as regard hull—will he the course which will be adopted with regard to these two other ships. Then, as to the Resistance and the Rupert, I am not aware whether any provision has been made for the repair of those ships this year. The Thunderer is to complete her term of commission, and, according to general report, she will be replaced by the Inflexible. I should like to know, in her case, if any repairs are provided by the Board of Admiralty in the Estimates for the present year. Then there are the vessels which are not mentioned in this Paper at all, such as the Raleigh at Devonport. I think I heard a rumour that she was to be taken in hand, and that something was to be done with her; but I cannot help pressing very strongly on my hon. Friend this fact—that if vessels coming to hand for repair are allowed to remain unrepaired for even one year, there will come next year another batch of vessels which will also require repair, and the consequence of not dealing with those vessels which are coming in for repair as they come in will be that at last there will be a large accumulation of unrepaired vessels. Of course, my remarks apply principally to the boilers, because the boilers are the life of the ship, and there is a difficulty in supplying reliefs for ships on foreign stations. The consequence would be that all shipbuilding would be practically stopped, and you would be obliged to take up and spend all your money in repairs. I venture to think that no policy could be more unwise than that. I do not ask the Board of Admiralty to repair a single ship about which a doubt exists as to whether it should be employed again; but if a ship is to be employed again, then, as soon as she conies into the hands of the Dockyard authorities, she ought to be taken and repaired at once. A vessel deteriorates very much indeed after being sent up the Hamoaze and left exposed to the weather, instead of being taken in hand and repaired. That has been the case with one or two ships. There is also this to be borne in mind, that an average of at least a year must elapse from the date at which a ship is taken in hand before she can be made efficient for sea again, and to all intents and pur-
  74
  poses she might, for the time being, be struck off the list of the British Navy. If a war were to spring up suddenly, it would be over before such a ship could be rendered fit for sea. I would, therefore, insist strongly on the necessity for carrying out the repairs of vessels systematically, just in the same way as you undertake your shipbuilding. By no means neglect your shipbuilding; but on no account whatever omit to carry on the repairs which are required; and the greater the cost of the ship, and the greater the speed of the ship, the greater is the necessity for taking these repairs in hand at once and making them complete. There is also a little information I think the hon. Gentleman can give us as to the progress which has been made in cruisers of the Leander class, which were ordered some time ago. Is the programme likely to be carried out so far as those ships are concerned? I should also like to know whether the present Board of Admiralty contemplate the provision of a second torpedo depot ship. The Hecla has, I believe, been found to be exceedingly useful; but, after all, there is only one Hecla, and if we were to find ourselves involved in war, one Hecla would not be sufficient for the wants of the Service. Possibly the subject may not have attracted the attention of my hon. Friend; but I hope he will draw the attention of the Board to it in the course of the next three or four months, before the next Estimates are framed, and that the House may hear something upon the subject. I should also be glad to learn something with regard to the supply of torpedo boats for the Service. I have been looking about for them in the different Dockyards; but I have failed to find quite so many of them as I thought were provided for the Service. I do not know whether all of them have been delivered, or whether the speed provided for them in the contract under which they were built has been attained. I am afraid that I have occupied a great deal of the time of the Committee; but I can assure the Committee that my observations have been directed, as far as possible, to the good of the Service, and have not been dictated by any desire to criticize disagreeably or offensively the work of those who have succeeded me at the Admiralty. As long as I have the honour of a seat in this House, I shall endeavour to do

  75
  my best for the Service, without, in the slightest degree, desiring to make it a political weapon or instrument. When I was First Lord of the Admiralty, I always deprecated the introduction of political questions into the discussion of naval affairs; and as long as I sit here I shall continue to deprecate the introduction of such questions, and to do my best to assist my successors in providing an efficient Navy at the smallest possible cost, but at a cost which I am sure the country will willingly pay.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the failure of the War Office to supply the number of guns of the exact description, according to the expressed views of the Admiralty, required for the Navy was the result of two independent Departments working in the same direction, but on contrary conditions, the Admiralty demanding guns to suit the vessel as built, and the War Office trying to supply guns of an efficient description as to weight and length to suit the calibre. In his opinion, the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty, working in this way, would never be able to secure that efficiency which the sole head of one Department would bring about. It was not to be wondered at that the War Office had failed to supply the guns required, having regard to the enormous quantity demanded of them, for in one year the number of new guns requisitioned was equal to the whole number needed for all the vessels of war. It was quite impossible that the number so required could have been supplied by the Department in the time, nor, indeed, could any nation have met the reiterated demands made by the Admiralty for guns of new types, but of unsuitable lengths and weights in reference to the calibres. Before the change from wooden to iron ships in 1859, at least 17,000 guns were maintained in a state of high efficiency, so far as that type of gun allowed of; but from that time they had never been able to keep up with the wants of the Admiralty as respects either the calibre or the number of the guns, nor had the joint action of the War Office and the Admiralty been equal to the production of a thoroughly effective weapon. He trusted that the system would be changed under which the Navy was dependent upon the War Office for its guns, and that the Admiralty would
  76
  assume the whole responsibility not only for the expenditure on guns and stores, but for providing the type of gun best suited for the Navy, as well as for the custody of these guns and stores.
  MR. DUFFremarked, that there were three small vessels building at the different Dockyards, as well as three others which were being built by contract in. private, yards. He thought these vessels were much wanted, and should be very glad to hear what progress was being made with them. He should also be obliged to his hon. Friend if he would let the Committee know what progress was being made with the ship now in course of construction at Pembroke. He had failed to gather from the remarks of his hon. Friend what was the speed and draft of water of the vessel, which had been described as of the Collingwood class, and perhaps his hon. Friend would supplement the statement he had made with regard to her. He entirely approved the programme of the Admiralty with respect to the building of two ironclads of moderate size instead of one large vessel of that class; but he thought it very desirable that the Committee should be made acquainted with the progress that was being made in carrying that programme into effect.
  MR. JENKINSpointed out that a large sum of money was being spent upon repairs. He trusted that these repairs would be completed within a reasonable time, and that when the ships were repaired they would not be found unserviceable. It was evident that numbers were no test as applied to the efficiency of the Navy; and he only hoped these 20 vessels that were undergoing repair would not prove a source of weakness rather than of strength. He wished also to remark upon the importance of a large coal supply, which, in the case of cruising ships, was, he thought, a matter entitled to more consideration than the question of giving them an inch or two more or less of armour. In time of war it must be remembered that the coaling stations might be closed against our ships, and then the want of large coal space would be felt. He agreed that it was desirable to utilize private yards for the purpose of shipbuilding more than they had been lately. He had no doubt that cruising ships could be built in private yards much more quickly and cheaply than in the Dock-

  77
  yards. With regard to the two new ships, the Secretary to the Admiralty had not stated what power they were to have, and what speed they would attain. He would like to know what their coal space would be, and over what distance they would be able to travel at full speed, and how many days' coal they would carry at full speed and half speed? It was also desirable that the Committee should be informed whether any improvement had taken place in the working of the boilers of our ships, which, in a former discussion which took place upon this important subject, was shown to be unsatisfactory.
  SIR JOHN HAYagreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (General Sir George Balfour) that the process by which the Admiralty obtained guns from the War Department was not satisfactory. He had frequently urged this point in the House, and in Committee; but he had always said the Admiralty would also be an unsuitable Department for the production of guns, inasmuch as this would cast upon that Department an amount of labour and responsibility which it would be unable to bear. That, in his opinion, showed that the office of Master General of the Ordnance ought to be re-established; and, moreover, he was sure that the Secretary of State for War found himself with quite sufficient to do for the Army itself, without having to attend to the manufacturing departments of the Navy. It was true that, during the Crimean War, it was thought better to create the Office of Secretary of State for War in place of the Ordnance Department; but since 1860 the work of the Ordnance Department, as controlled by the Secretary of State for War, had been increased by an enormous amount, and he believed that the old system under which orders were sent for guns for the Army and Navy to an independent Department was a better arrangement, inasmuch as it relieved the War Office of a plethora of business, and, at the same time, gave an efficient armament to both Services. With regard to another subject, he would point out to the Committee that the building of that large ship which had been contemplated involved an additional draught of water, and that meant the deprivation of her services on each side of the Suez Canal; and, therefore, he regarded it as necessary that the draught of our ships should be
  78
  limited so that they might be capable of making use of the quickest route to India, China, or the Colonies. That was an additional reason why the draught of water, which the hon. Members for Penryn and Banff (Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Duff) had inquired about, became an essential element in the construction of iron-clads; and it strengthened him in the belief of the desirability of building a smaller class of vessels, instead of vessels of a large size that would be of no use for the purposes he had referred to. With regard to the repairing of our ships, different processes had prevailed at different times. At one time great energy had been thrown into building, and at another into repairing. But, as his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) had pointed out, the repairing process must be carried out. In the five years, 1870–4, a large amount of repairs was necessary; but, doubts existing as to whether some of the vessels were worth repairing, the arrears of vessels requiring repair was very large. It resulted in only six iron-clads being repaired in those years. In the five years, 1875–9, 21 iron-clads had to be repaired at a tremendous outlay, the result of the repairs not having been attended to in the previous five years. On looking at the Navy Estimates he found that the numbers of the men employed in building and repairing were nearly balanced. If that were so, he should like to hear from the Secretary to the Admiralty, either that those ships which the late First Lord had alluded to by name were in a forward state of preparation, or that arrangements were in progress for making them efficient and ready for sea.
  MR. PULESTONreminded the Committee that there were two sorts of economy—the false and the true—and that whenever the Navy Estimates, and particularly the Shipbuilding Vote, were cut down below a certain amount, the country had to spend three or four times the amount of the reduction in cases of emergency. But he rose for the purpose of deprecating the idea which might arise from this discussion that they ought to cultivate shipbuilding in private yards to the exclusion of their Dockyards. That practice had at one time been carried to excess with results disastrous to the interests of the country. If it were a fact that in private yards the work was done cheaper and faster than in the Royal

  79
  Dockyards, it arose from the fact that the latter were not kept up to their full complement of work. There was no reason in the world why the work should not be done as rapidly and efficiently, and with as great advantage to the Service, in the Royal Dockyards, as it was in the yards of private persons; and although he did not dispute the desirability of availing ourselves in case of need of all the shipbuilding resources of the country, he contended that they should at all times see that the Royal Dockyards were fully occupied in all their departments.
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is impossible to exaggerate the interest of this discussion both to myself and to everyone who has listened to it, and it will be a great satisfaction to me to reply to the questions proposed by hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the Committee. The hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. Duff) observed that I did not particularly describe the new ship. That is perfectly true; I did not do so because a description of the vessel was given by my right hon. Friend opposite two years ago. The mean draught of the vessel is 25 feet 9 inches, and the extreme draught aft is 26 feet 3 inches, which will enable her to be used on both sides of the Suez Canal. The speed is 15 knots. The vessel on its trial trip would carry 950 tons of coal, and it might be fairly said that when her bunkers were full she would have on board 1,200 tons of coal, or sufficient at 15 knots for a run of 2,020 knots, at 14 knots 2,800, and at 10 knots an hour the almost ideal number of 5,000 knots. The three cruisers laid down by the late First Lord of the Admiralty are approaching completion, although not quite so rapidly as we could have wished; and in addition to them the present Board has laid down another cruiser, which will be proceeded with side by side with the ironclads. In addition to that there are two other swift iron-clad cruisers, the Antagonist and the Warspite, and these six vessels will provide good work for two years. With regard to repairs, I consider that in this respect we stand in a satisfactory position. The Shah and one other iron-clad which are under repairs will be completed this year. The rest are nearly completed, and it is the wish of the Admiralty that when next year they go to sea they should carry guns of the new
  80
  type mentioned at the commencement of the debate. These vessels are in the programme to be completed, and the intention is to complete them this year. But we have done a little more than that, because, finding that there was money to spare, owing to the slow progress made with the cruisers in private yards, we have thought it right to apply that money to the repairs of the Raleigh, which are not included in the Estimates of this year, and an order has been given for supplying her with new engines and boilers. The number of men employed are—in shipbuilding, 4,230; on repairs, 5,469; and in ordinary service, about 5,000. With respect to the Repulse, referred to by my right hon. Friend opposite, that vessel was completed some time ago. The Bellerophon will be finished in 1882, and we intend that her armament shall consist of the new new 8-inch guns. The Black Prince and her consort are engaging the attention of the Admiralty, who are considering the best use that can be made of these vessels, and whether it is not desirable to convert them into very powerful and swift cruisers, by fitting them with new engines. The Thunderer, so far as I know, is not at present under repair; it appears in the list as being in an. efficient state. With regard to the Shannon and the Minotaur, these vessels will soon require repair, and will be dealt with in the programme of next year. Of first-class torpedo boats, 19 have been built; of the smaller class, 18 are complete and 30 are in course of construction. One or two hon. Members have complained that the Admiralty did not obtain all the guns they wanted from the War Office; but I am bound to say that that Department has not shown a disposition to refuse anything which the Admiralty, keeping in view efficiency and economy, had thought it right to ask. I am anxious that it should not go forth to the country that our ships are deficient in gun-power as compared with the ships of other nations. It is undoubtedly important that uneasiness should exist when there is any real deficiency; but it is extremely undesirable that a panic should be created with reference to matters in which we are sufficiently strong; and if we look to what is actually our position with regard to guns, we shall find that we are better off than any other nation. I do

  81
  not say that the Germans have not on board their heavy ships some Krupp guns of new type, or that the Chilians and the Japanese have not got some Armstrong guns; but the 27-ton gun of the French Navy is inferior in power to the guns of the Thunderer and Dreadnought. I read a few days ago a list of the guns carried by our ships; and I am bound to say that at the present time we may be said to be superior to all other Navies in respect of the character of our guns. But in speaking of the guns that are actually mounted in the Navy we do not touch the real point of the present situation. It is not enough that in 1881, as in 1874, we should be ahead of other nations in the guns that are actually mounted in our sea-going ships. Within the last few years a revolution has taken place in the construction of guns which is in itself as great and as important as the change from the musket to the rifle. Without going into scientific detail, it has been discovered that long guns, with large charges of slow-burning powder, impelling the shot with ever-increasing velocity along the great length of the tube, produce results of the most extraordinary character, as compared with those of former times. But it is of no use, in matters of this kind, to throw the blame for any deficiency that might be supposed to exist upon any one Department of the State. There is only one body responsible for putting good guns on board the ships of our Navy, and that body is the Government for the time being; and I am bound to say that, as far as my experience has gone, the Admiralty and the War Office have worked together in the best way to secure the object they have at heart. When the present Government acceded to power we found a 43-ton gun in course of manufacture at Woolwich; but we did not find any of that competition to which my right hon. Friend opposite refers, but which, had he remained at the Admiralty, would, no doubt, have been set on foot in a short time. The very first act of the present Government was to set this all-essential enterprize on foot, and on the 24th of May the War Office wrote to Sir William Armstrong, inviting him to send a 43-ton gun to Woolwich for experiment. He accepted this proposal, but asked for 10 months to complete the task, so heavy
  82
  and complicated is even the preliminary business in connection with the adoption of a great gun. This gun was tried at Elswick on Tuesday last, the time actually occupied in its construction having extended from June last year to August this year. When the preliminary trials are finished, it will be brought to Woolwich, where its work in comparison with that of the 43-ton gun made there will be watched by the Admiralty with close interest and without a vestige of prejudice or partiality. The Woolwich gun has been ready for about three months, and has been tried recently at Shoeburyness. It will be enlarged so as to carry a charge of about 400 lbs. of powder; and the charge of the Elswick gun having been run up to 385 lbs., there would be an admirable opportunity of judging the respective merits of these important weapons. But in this matter of heavy guns the Admiralty is impressed with the fact that it is important to unite caution with activity. Hurry in a matter of this kind means an enormous expense to the country and the risk of great danger on board ship. There is no occasion to be in a desperate hurry for the arming of our ships. The right hon. Gentleman opposite came to the conclusion, after long and careful consideration, that the Ajax and the Agamemnon should be armed with the old 38-ton gun; and on inquiry the Government were told by the Controller that it would be impossible now to reverse that decision. The ships which will get to sea this year will, therefore, be armed with the 38-ton gun, but with that gun so improved as to carry 50 to 64 lbs. more powder and to pierce a couple more inches of armour. We shall, however, take care that the new gun shall be selected, tested, and completed in time to arm the Majestic, the Colossus, and the Conqueror. The next in size is the 8-inch 12-ton gun which was introduced to the Admiralty by Sir William Armstrong in 1879. This is the gun which performed the feat, in the Chilian War, of sinking an iron-clad at a distance of five miles, and the trials of which—set on foot originally at the desire of the right Eon. Gentleman opposite—have fully confirmed its high reputation. The last of the armour-piercing guns is the 6-inch gun, of which 14 were ordered from Elswick by the late Government.

  83
  The moral of the story is that, with regard to the larger guns, on the success of which our supremacy at sea depends, and from the possible failure of which great disasters might ensue, the Government are proceeding with diligent caution; but as regards the guns of more moderate size, the type is already resolved upon, and they will, without delay, be put in hand. Provision has been made for placing 103 6-inch guns on board a number of our corvettes and gunboats, and the Shah and the Raleigh, frigates, will be furnished with a full broadside of these beautiful weapons. I will now beg the Committee to remark that I have avoided, in speaking of any description of gun, any attempt to apportion the credit which may be due either to public or private establishments. The Admiralty appreciates the readiness which Sir William Armstrong and his partners have always displayed in placing their talents and energies at the service of the country. And we rejoice that Woolwich and Elswick are working cordially together; and I can assure the Committee that the Admiralty places in the first rank the object at which it aims of maintaining the efficiency of the British Navy.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £1,172,700, Naval Stores for Building and Repairing Fleet, &c.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked whether attention was being paid to the supply of smokeless coal for the Navy?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, this question had received the careful attention of the Admiralty, and smokeless coal had been supplied to a portion of the Fleet.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £683,239, Machinery and Ships built by Contract, &c.
  MR. WILSONsaid, the Committee had heard statements that evening upon the ships and guns of the Navy, but nothing upon the important subject of machinery. He was confirmed in his opinion that the attention of the Admiralty ought to be carefully directed to this matter, because the Committee had been told that the newest ships of the Collingwood type, with a speed of 15 knots, would be able to carry coal sufficient for a run of 2,000 miles only. It was well known that ships of large size were constructed in private yards
  84
  which were capable of steaming from 16 to 18 knots, while, instead of their only carrying a coal supply sufficient for 2,000 miles, they were able to carry sufficient for a distance of 3,000 or 4,000 miles. Now, if vessels built in this way could attain the speed he had mentioned, and keep the sea for so long a time, it certainly appeared to him that the point required to be narrowly watched by those responsible for the efficiency of the Navy with the view of providing engines of the newest type. It was probable that the engines which they were now getting were not of the most modern and economical description. He regarded this subject, which had not been mentioned at all by the Secretary to the Admiralty, as of more importance even than that of the guns themselves. Then with regard to the boilers. Although he was not aware whether the Government were using iron or steel boilers, he wished to point out that steel was coming into general use in the manufacture of boilers for the Merchant Service. Boilers of this kind were expected to last from 9 to 12 years—a very much longer period than that in which iron boilers were worn out. He felt that these two points were of such vital importance that they deserved more attention than they now appeared to be receiving from Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR JOHN HAYagreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that the subject of machinery was one of the greatest importance, as relating to the efficiency of the Navy. There was one point, with reference to the application of electricity as a motive power for torpedo boats, upon which he would observe that motive power had been obtained by means of electricity in France; and that, if it were possible to apply this power to the purpose he had indicated, two serious difficulties would be got rid of—namely, the consumption of fuel and liability to boiler explosions.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, with reference to the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson), that it was absolutely impossible to make any useful comparison between ships that carried armour and those that did not in the matter of speed. Indeed, there was no comparison between them. The fair thing would be to compare the unar-

  85
  moured ships referred to by his hon. Friend with vessels of the Mercury class. With regard to the shape of the engines, it must be borne in mind that in a man-of-war the whole of the engines was practically below the water line. The Admiralty had instituted an independent inspection of boilers, officers being appointed for the sole purpose of keeping a register of the boilers in use, and orders had been issued on the subject, which he would not describe, but which he would have no objection to show to his hon. Friend. It must be remembered that the boilers of vessels engaged in commerce had this advantage over ships of war—that while the boilers of the latter were frequently unused, those of merchant ships, as a rule, were in use continually.
  MR. WILSONadmitted that there was a difference between the engines of a man-of-war and those of a merchant ship; but there was not the slightest loss of power as between engines horizontally and vertically constructed. As far as boilers were concerned, he believed that men-of-war had obtained a longer life for their boilers on account of their not being so often used as those in the Merchant Service. This subject was one which deserved the most careful attention, because in connection with it there had been a great waste of public money. Speaking as a practical man, and with the advice of other practical men, he hoped this matter would receive a little more attention from those who were responsible, and that the Department would make itself thoroughly acquainted with the whole subject, so that the boilers supplied might be properly taken care of. With regard to merchant ships built in private yards, not only did these run two or three times the distance run by ships of the Navy, but they also carried large cargoes in addition to their coal supply. We were certainly far behind the age when we talked of building ships that could only steam 15 knots an hour. Her Majesty's ships ought certainly to be able to steam as fast as the ships of the Merchant Service; and, in the present state of naval architecture, he did not see why that should not be the case.
  MR. TREVELYANstated that experiments had also been made with a view of testing the motive power employed for the propulsion of vessels.
  MR. PULESTONremarked, that experiments had also been made in France in connection with the propulsion of vessels.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that was so. Merchant ships, he believed, were able to secure speed in accordance with the length of the vessel; but in the Royal Navy it was impossible to obtain more than a certain length in heavily armed vessels. The Admiralty were building unarmoured vessels which would run 16 knots an hour. Very great care was being paid to the condition of the boilers by officers who thoroughly understood the question, and great improvements were being effected. As he had already said, an officer had been appointed by the Admiralty for the sole purpose of keeping a register of the boilers in the different ships. The new system which had been adopted was always to keep the boilers full of water.
  MR. BIGGARwished to put a question in regard to the ironclads. So far, they had heard very little about ironclads, and he wished to know to what extent the Admiralty had obtained any experience as to the value of ironclads; whether they could be used in the event of war, and to what extent they would be effective against artillery casting very powerful projectiles from unarmoured vessels at sea? It seemed to him that it was very likely a vessel wholly unarmoured, with very good guns, and a quick sailer, would be quite a match for a comparatively slow ironclad.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would refer the hon. Member to a Paper prepared by the German Government, which put the case better than he had ever seen it put before. It gave a curious analysis of all the sea fights which had ever taken place since the invention of iron-clads. It appeared that it was impossible for unarmoured ships to compete in action with ironclads. The superiority of the ironclad was manifest from the Huascar affair alone. Two of the finest unarmoured vessels in the English Navy were entirely repulsed by the miserable little Peruvian iron-clad; but that iron-clad in its turn fell an easy victim to another iron-clad belonging to the Chilians.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £550,141, New Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, and Repairs.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I should like to ask my hon. Friend if he can give the Committee any information as to the progress of the works at Chatham. I believe they are now approaching completion, and it appears to me that they have been conducted in a manner creditable to all persons concerned, and that when finished they will be of great value to the country. Time will, of course, be required to enable the Admiralty to ascertain whether workshops or sheds are required; but it will be necessary that all the mechanical appliances requisite for moving the ships in and out of the basin should be provided in ample time. I would also wish to direct the attention of the Admiralty to the advisability of constructing a new dock at Malta. I asked a question about Malta last year, and I cannot help thinking that with an important Fleet in the Mediterranean it may be worth consideration whether an additional dock is not required at Malta. There is at present only one dock there capable of taking an iron-clad; and if by any unfortunate circumstance we should find ourselves engaged in naval warfare it would certainly be necessary to have more than one naval dock for the purpose of dealing with iron-clads coming in for repair. There is a site in Malta exceedingly well suited for the construction of a dock, and I think that one might be constructed that would be of great service to the country in a case of emergency. I cannot expect my hon. Friend to answer the question now; but I hope it will receive the consideration of the Board during the winter. There is no more important question than the provision of further dockyard accommodation at Malta, not even excepting the Dockyards at home. In the event of a war breaking out, Malta would be the place where the repairs of iron-clads should be carried out. The dock already existing has been proved to be most serviceable to ships even on the East India Station, which are brought through the Suez Canal to Malta.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was glad to be able to confirm what had fallen from his right hon. Friend as to the necessity of providing additional dock accommodation in the Mediterranean. If it was to be at Malta, let it by all means at once be commenced at Malta;
  88
  but, in his opinion, the right place was Famagousta. He should very much like to see a Dockyard constructed there, seeing that it was by far the best place for protecting the Suez Canal and our Indian Possessions. In regard to Chatham Dockyard, he thought the works recently constructed there of the greatest possible value to the country, and they had been completed in the most creditable manner. He thought it was unfair to press the Admiralty to build more workshops than were necessary in the neighbourhood of the new docks, until the arrangements were more fully developed; but when the docks were in use he thought there should be sheds to protect the men who were working on board the ships in the docks, and he hoped that an assurance would be given that there would be an appropriation for that purpose, notwithstanding the fact that no such appropriation at present appeared in the Vote. It would not require a large sum of money; but he thought that some accommodation of the kind was imperatively required for the use of those employed in the docks. He congratulated the Committee and the country on the fact that the great expenditure in Chatham and Portsmouth Dockyards was now at an end, and would no longer continue to swell the Navy Estimates. He, therefore, hoped that the Government would see their way to the expenditure of a larger sum for the building of new ships, which, on all sides, was held to be necessary for completing the strength of the Navy.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must apologize for not having completed what I intended to say. I want to obtain some information from my hon. Friend as to the barracks at Portsmouth and Keyham. I understand that the barracks at Portsmouth have been stopped altogether, and I want to know if those at Keyham are being proceeded with. I believe that the provision of barracks will prove to be most necessary for seamen at home, and that there is no more extravagant, and no more inefficient system than that of berthing the seamen, in waiting for employment, on board a receiving ship. The cost is undoubtedly much larger than it would be in barracks, and the interest of the money expended in barracks would be infinitely less than the ordinary repairs would come to on board ship. There is this

  89
  further difficulty which the Admiralty will have to face, that in the course of a year or two we shall have no ships which can take the place of the old line-of-battle ships, which now act as guard-ships or depot ships. The Duke of Wellington was reported to be in a very bad state a few years ago, and quite unfitted for employment as a flag ship. It will turn out some of these days that the Duke of Wellington will again be reported unfit, and then the Admiralty may experience some difficulty in replacing her. If they take an old wooden ship out of ordinary and fit her up as a flag ship, it will be necessary to expend £40,000 or £50,000 in order to do so.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that, before the Vote was taken, he would like to ask what time was given for the completion of the barracks at Keyham; and whether, in view of the fact that the work had been-discontinued at Portsmouth in the erection of seamen's barracks at Keyham, it would not be wise so to erect them as to make them at least capable by extension to accommodate a much larger number of men. It would be much easier to take that matter into consideration when they were about to put up this sort of building than to find it necessary to pull the barracks down and rebuild them afterwards. He understood that the barracks now being erected were only capable of containing 1,000 men; and having regard to the possible contingency that it might be necessary to provide accommodation for three times that number, the necessary provision might be made now at a much less expense, and with a better regard to the comfort and convenience of the seamen than hereafter. He found that £30,000 was the amount appropriated this year; and he should like to know if it was to be understood that that was a maximum sum per annum upon which the work of constructing barrack accommodation was to be carried out? He understood, from the engineer's clerk, that no further expenditure or outlay was contemplated in this direction during the present year.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished, before the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty answered the question, to draw attention to the fact that the amount voted this year for Haulbowline was even less than it was last year. He by no means objected to any reasonable
  90
  amount of expenditure upon naval works in Great Britain or abroad; but, in conjunction with a considerable number of Irish Members, he shared a certain amount of jealousy and impatience at seeing the enormous sums of money expended on military and naval works in Great Britain and abroad, and the small amount of money permitted to be expended in Ireland for the same purpose. The present First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), when Secretary to the Admiralty last year, admitted the reasonableness of this complaint, and gave the Irish Members to understand that the disparity between the amounts expended in England and Ireland would be very much diminished this year. But, as he had pointed out, the amount voted for Haulbowline last year had been diminished this year to £30,000. When, however, he turned to the Estimates, he found that in such places as Bermuda, Halifax, Jamaica, Hong Kong, Sydney, and Malta, thousands and tens of thousands of pounds were spent, it did appear somewhat unreasonable that the Government should fail to push on, as they might do, the works at Haulbowline, especially as they undertook last year to proceed with them as quickly as possible. In connection with Haulbowline he would remind the Government that it was stated the Convict Prison there was to be done away with. He did not know whether any steps were being taken to carry out that determination; but he was reminded that the Prison Commissioners had represented that in consequence of the works at Chatham, and in other places in England, being near completion there would be a large number of convicts for whom it would be necessary to obtain labour. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member the Secretary to the Admiralty would say what the Government proposed to do in the way of naval works, and whether they intended to continue the employment of convicts not only in England but in Ireland. He wished further to know if it was intended to remove the convict labour from Haulbowline to Gal-way to be employed on naval works there, and if it was intended to commence immediately or approximately any new naval works?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, that in regard to the question which had been asked by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W, H. Smith) with reference to

  91
  Chatham, he had to say that the works which were expected to be completed with in the present financial year would not be finished until next summer, in consequence of the reduced number of convicts now employed at Chatham. A Vote of £8,000 would be required next year for the completion of the works. He was glad to find that hon. Members who had spoken had taken occasion to pay a just tribute of praise to those who were responsible for the design and execution of these splendid works. The docks at Chatham reflected the greatest credit upon Colonel Clarke, who designed them, and Mr. Bernays, who had for many years been engaged in the execution of the works. With regard to the necessary fittings for working the docks, a provision for the necessary hydraulic machinery would be made in the Estimates to be submitted to Parliament next year. His right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) had put a question with reference to the progress which was being made with the barracks at Keyham; and his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) had put other questions upon the same subject. In reply he might say that the site which had been selected for the barracks at Keyham commended itself entirely to the Board of Admiralty. They were less satisfied with the choice of sites at present submitted to them at Portsmouth; but no doubt a local investigation might suggest some ideas which had not yet been put before the Admiralty. In his own researches at Portsmouth he seemed to be surrounded by objects which were not in any way the most desirable for contemplation. These were the Gas Works and the Convict Establishment; and if they went to the Island, now used as the practice ground for the Excellent, they found that it was made ground, and not at all satisfactory in a sanitary point of view. They were taking a distinct step in the direction recommended by his right hon. Friend in commencing the construction of a barracks at Keyham; and although, as his right hon. Friend said, the supply of ships for the reception of seamen would in course of time cease, owing to the disappearance of such vessels from The Navy List, yet for some time to come there would be no difficulty in providing receiving ships of a suitable character for seamen at Portsmouth. The general question of barracks, as compared with ships for the
  92
  reception of seamen in the home ports, was one upon which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit there was a great diversity of opinion. He (Sir Thomas Brassey) lost no opportunity of consulting naval officers on the subject, and he certainly encountered a considerable divergence of opinion. When he looked to the practice of a neighbouring Power he found that in France there was a dual system, and the authorities there had not yet made up their minds as to the relative value of barracks versus ships. At present there were barracks at Brest and Cherbourg and ships at Toulon; and, therefore, he thought it would be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to establish, with absolute certainty, that barracks were superior to receiving ships. The progress at Keyham in the present year had not been quite as satisfactory as the Board of Admiralty could have desired; but the director of the works informed him that the delay had arisen from the necessity of settling numerous points. The lodging of seamen on shore was altogether a new thing in the British Navy, and the naval officers, before making up their minds on the point, had taken time to consider. Hence there had been a certain amount of delay in the progress of the works; but diligent progress would be made, and a much larger figure must necessarily appear in the Estimates next year for the execution of the works. In answer to the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. Puleston), he might add that it would take about two years to complete the present proposals in regard to barracks. His hon. Friend had suggested that it would be necessary to keep in view the growing demands for barrack accommodation. That was already done in the plan which had been adopted. The barracks consisted of blocks. Each block was capable of providing accommodation for 500 men. The present proposal was to erect two of these blocks, and when the whole scheme was carried out there would be room for eight blocks upon the entire site.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, he believed the scheme only made provision for four blocks.
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, the barracks would consist either of four or of eight blocks. At any rate, ample accommodation would be provided for 4,000 men on this site, and that was

  93
  recognized to be fully adequate to meet any demand that might hereafter be made. In reference to the interesting and not unanticipated question which came from his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), he would wish to make a very short explanation. No doubt, there had been a delay in carrying out the works at Haulbowline. It had arisen, in part, from the increasing difficulties which had been encountered. Another and an important cause of the delay had been the circumstance that there had been a combination of convict and free labour in the execution of the works. In the year 1868–9, when 460 convicts were available, the free labourers numbered only 150. In 1880–1, the number of convicts fell to 180, while the paid men rose to over 400. That, of course, had been an important change, and a change which he thought had been beneficial locally. The work was now being carried out in very much larger proportions than was first contemplated by local labour which had been obtained from the district. In reference to the total cost of the work, he had also some information to give his hon. Friend. The total actual cost of the works, up to the 31st of March, 1880, amounted to £309,000, and the expenditure this year would probably be £33,000, making the total, up to the 31st of March, 1881, £343,000. The total sum included in the Votes up to that date was £314,000. His hon. Friend asked why the Admiralty did not expedite the completion of the works? As he had already said, the question was complicated by the fact that it had been found necessary to combine free labour with convict labour. They would expedite the work very much by doing away with the present system and by employing a contractor; but the question was whether the change would be of advantage locally. The execution of the works by a contractor would be a quicker mode of carrying them out; but the probability was that if they put up the work to open tender the contractor selected to undertake the execution of the work might not be a local contractor, but a person coming from this side of the Channel; and, if that were so, it would be almost certain that the labour would be introduced from a distance, to the exclusion of the local workpeople. He questioned whether such, a change would
  94
  be altogether advantageous to those who were personally interested in the matter. His hon. Friend would be aware that last year great distress was experienced in the locality, and efforts were made to relieve that distress by giving a certain amount of employment at Haulbowline. No less than 120 workmen were taken on, making the total employed at that time about 500; and arrangements were made to increase the appropriation of money for the work. It was intended that the number should be reduced to the normal number of 400 on the 31st of March; but the distress in the locality continuing, the reduction was postponed, by the desire of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, at the present time, the number of labourers employed was 450. It was intended, however, to bring down the number ultimately to 400. He hoped that this explanation would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend. In conclusion, he might add that sensible progress was being made with the works. With regard to the question of his hon. Friend as to the employment of convict labour at Galway, he really was not able to answer that question. It rested more particularly with the Home Office, and he believed that an inquiry was about to be made with reference to the more advantageous employment of convict labour. A Committee would be appointed, and the experience of the Admiralty would be represented on it in the person of the Superintendent of Works. He hoped that a solution of the question would be arrived at in a short time, and that such solution might be advantageous to the interests of the Irish people.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he thought that the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman was, as far as it went, very satisfactory; but still these important works at Haulbowline had been so long before the public, and such great interest was felt in them in Ireland, that he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he could give any idea as to when the works might be expected to approach something like completion. When was it at all reasonable or probable to expect that the docks might be in operation for the use of the ships? If any reasonable statement could be given on this subject, the Irish people would be content to wait. He was glad to see

  95
  that there was so much proper feeling on the subject, and the remarks of the hon. Gentleman on the part of the Admiralty would be received with great satisfaction in Ireland and in the locality, especially if there were any reasonable notion conveyed as to when the docks would be completed.
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, he had already stated that it would take about two years to complete the works.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the Board of Admiralty had received any information as to the date beyond which convict labour was not likely to be available at Haulbowline? He was glad to hear, from the observations of his hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Brassey), that the subject had received so much attention at his hands.
  MR. PASSMORE EDWARDSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) had asked the Government if there was any probability of there being a new dock constructed at Malta; and the right hon. and gallant Officer behind him (Sir John Hay) suggested that it would be more desirable to erect one at Cyprus. Considering that the imagination of the public was aroused to a high pitch a few years ago upon this very question, and upon the superiority of Cyprus as a place of arms to stand between Europe and Asia, he thought the question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might receive one word by way of answer.
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEYremarked, that, with reference to the convict question, it did not rest with the Admiralty, but with the Home Office. The Admiralty were in no way responsible for it; and, no doubt, a solution would be arrived at by the Committee which was about to be appointed. With reference to the question of constructing a dock at Cyprus nothing of the kind was before the Admiralty. As to the dock accommodation at Malta, he was sensible of the great importance of Malta as a Dockyard station; and he was glad to know that they had, at least, one very fine dock at Malta. The Government were, he thought, showing that they took an interest in Malta by the expenditure which was taking place there, and he might properly refer to the very large item of £8,000 for torpedo boats in connection with that Establishment.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that before the Vote was put from the Chair he wished to express his regret at the answer made by the hon. Gentleman (Sir Thomas Brassey) to the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in reference to the works at Galway, and the employment of convict labour there. It was a subject on which they had had a very definite promise from the late Government; and he thought that in a question of this kind, when one Party succeeded another in Office, they ought to keep up these Administrative promises. He would not say that on some great question of policy the two Parties might not have a difference of opinion; but upon a question of mere Administrative policy, such as the policy of opening a harbour or building a pier, such as were contemplated at Galway, one Government ought to be bound by the promises of its Predecessor. He thought the First Lord of the Admiralty would allow that if the late Government had added a sum of £10,000,000 to the National Debt he would not consider it his duty to object, although he might not like it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would pay the interest on it. He really did think that on a question of this kind of providing increased harbour accommodation, by transferring convict labour from one place to an-other, there should be no difficulty placed in the way by Her Majesty's Government. The work at Galway could only be well done by convict labour. It would hardly pay to do it under other circumstances, but it was admirably suited for the employment of convict labour; and he therefore thought that, under the circumstances, the Government were bound to pay some attention to the promises of their Predecessors.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought the question adverted to by his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) was entitled to some reply from the Government. The policy of the Government, so far as he could see, was to continue any undertaking commenced by the late Government provided that it suited their own purposes. In that case they argued that all the undertakings entered into by a former Government ought to be respected. But if it did not suit their purpose then they said that the undertakings of former Governments were not binding upon them. He thought the re-

  97
  quest which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend was entitled to consideration. As an illustration of the truth of the statement he (Mr. Biggar) had just made, he would remind the Committee that when an application was made last year on the part of the landlords for loans, on the ground of the distress which prevailed, the late Government brought in a Bill for acceding to such application, and the present Government had followed up the policy of the late Administration by continuing to grant loans. The present Government had carried out in that respect the policy of the former Government. In regard to the case of Galway Harbour, he understood from his hon. and gallant Friend that the late Government actually undertook to supply convict labour by transferring it from a place where it was not wanted to a place where it could be beneficially employed. He thought that the present Government should be bound by the undertakings of former Governments, and if they did not consider themselves bound by the promise made in this instance they might at least take the trouble to reply to the request which had been made to them by an hon. and gallant Member of the House. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Thomas Brassey) had not given a very definite reply to the question put to him in reference to the construction of a dock at Famagousta. He therefore felt disposed to ask that some pledge should be given on the part of the Government that they would not throw away any more of the public money upon Cyprus. The idea of making it a place of arms was quite absurd.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the question of Famagousta and Cyprus has nothing to do with the Vote now before the Committee, and the discussion upon that question cannot be allowed to continue.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would only express his opinion that some Member of the Government ought to reply to the questions which had been put to them; and if they continued to refrain from doing so, he would certainly move to report Progress.
  MR. TREVELYANwished to point out that the Committee were now discussing Vote 11, and that it contained no allusion to Famagousta. In regard
  98
  to the construction of a harbour at Galway, he must remind his hon. and gallant Friend that it was proposed to construct a harbour for commercial purposes, and certainly not for the use of the National Navy.
  MAJOR NOLANtrusted that he might be excused; but the question was one which very naturally affected the national interests.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not think it was necessary to spend the Admiralty Votes on the construction of a harbour at Galway. He had no wish to treat lightly any question that affected the interests of the Irish Members, but he certainly did deprecate the discussion of extraneous questions on the present occasion. He thought hon. Members would agree that very full attention had been paid by the Admiralty to the wishes and interests of Ireland in these matters. It was very seldom indeed that the Admiralty exceeded any Vote included in the Estimates; but in the case of Haulbowline, for reasons not connected with the immediate pressing needs of the Navy, that had exceeded the total sum voted by several thousand pounds.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £398,450, Extra Estimate for Services not Naval.—Freight, &c. on Account of the Army Department, including Supplementary sum, £170,000, Transport Services (Transvaal).
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not want to detain the Committee, but he wished to ask a question concerning Her Majesty's Indian troopships. There were five special Indian troopships, all of which he believed had done good service.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he should like some information as to the condition of repair of these troopships, and also as to whether Her Majesty's Government intended to supplement the Indian troopship service, especially in regard to the transport work to be done in connection with South Africa?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Euphrates troopship has been paid off, and is to undergo a thorough overhauling; there-

  99
  fore she will not be sent out until next year. The other four ships are now at Portsmouth undergoing repairs. Two of them are undergoing considerable repairs, and the other two—the Serapis and the Crocodile—are having some slight alterations done to them. In all, I think, £120,000 will be spent on the vessels. As far as we know, the only Imperial service which is likely soon to be performed by any of them is that which will be performed by the Serapis. She will go back to Bombay.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he wished to call attention to this charge for transports in the Accounts of the Navy on account of the movement of the men and stores of the Army, and to point out that it was impossible for economy to be practised so long as the Army could go to the Admiralty chest and take money therefrom. He had already pointed out that the like practice of the Admiralty in demanding guns and stores from the War Office and making the charge fall on the Army Estimates, was calculated to lead to extravagance and inefficiency. To his own knowledge, that did occur; and he therefore thought it would be much wiser to allow the War Office to look entirely after its own expenditure for the movement of the men and stores of the Army. There was not a single item here of the work to be performed by the Admiralty for which that Department was not obliged to go outside their own Department to hire transports, and this duty could as easily and as efficiently be done by the War Department, aided as necessary by fit officers either of the Navy or Mercantile Marine—especially the latter—and many of whom might be found with matured experience fitted for the work of taking up transports. He knew very well he should not be able to effect the object he had in view, which was to make each Department bear its own expenditure—the one for its guns and stores, and the other for its transports; yet it was his hope that when he had passed away this duty would be taken up by someone else, and that the principle he wished to see adopted would be eventually established.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £152,523, Greenwich Hospital and School.

CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  (8.) £13,273, to complete the sum for the National Gallery.
  MR. D. GRANTsaid, he wished to ask whether it would not be practicable to light the National Gallery so that it could be kept open every night until 10 o'clock for 12 months? The matter was one of considerable importance; still he should not have brought it on but for the fact that the Trustees would not meet again until next year, and because they had the pleasure of the presence of one of that body amongst them to-night. The Gentleman to whom he referred would be able to answer his question and give him the information he desired. What he wished to know was whether the Trustees were taking any steps towards lighting up the National Gallery? Last evening he (Mr. Grant) drew up a form of requisition to the Trustees, and within a few hours—that was to say, before he left the House—he obtained 190 signatures of Members of Parliament in favour of obtaining from the Trustees some expression of opinion as to the course they would be willing to adopt for the purpose of carrying out the suggestion for throwing the Gallery open to the artizan and labouring classes. Unless it was open at night these classes would never be able to avail themselves of it, as they were always at work during the day. It seemed to him that providing the pictures were capable of being protected from the injurious influence of the light, and, at the same time, were so placed that they could be seen, it would be a great benefit to the people of the country, and to the people of London in particular, if the Gallery were allowed to remain open until 10 o'clock. The hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. E. S. Howard), who was one of the Trustees, no doubt, would answer him.
  MR. E. S. HOWARDsaid, he very much wished that there was in the House some other Trustee who had had greater experience of the working of the National Gallery than he (Mr. E. S. Howard) had had; but as he was the only representative of the National Gallery in the House, he had great pleasure in replying to the hon. Member to

  101
  the best of his ability. However, he could give no kind of official answer, as he had had no opportunity of consulting the other Trustees of the National Gallery; but he was certain of this—that it would not require the signatures of 190 Members of Parliament to persuade the Trustees to take a proposal of this kind into their consideration. It was to their interest—and he was sure they felt it to be so—that they should, as far as possible, make the Gallery which they had the charge of valuable to the public. But, though he felt they would take this proposition into their consideration without the slightest prejudice, and with every desire to do all that was in their power to accommodate the public, he still must say that he saw many difficulties in the way. In the first place, there was the question as to the kind of lighting that should be used. Gas was quite out of the question. There was the electric light; but he did not know that its advantages had been so demonstrated that it could be safely used in the National Gallery. They could not talk of it in any sense with absolute certainty. Experiments with this kind of lighting had been tried at the South Kensington Museum, and, as far as they had gone, they had succeeded pretty well. It was only this morning that they had had the Report of the Science and Art Department, in which the result of the experiments was recorded; the result was not yet satisfactory, and they should be permitted to go a little further before the Trustees had sufficient data before them on which to act. At present, they did not know whether the electric light affected pictures chemically. For himself, he did not express an opinion on the matter; but the fact must be thoroughly well known before they introduced the electric light amongst their great National Collection of pictures. There other difficulties to be considered—for instance, the difficulty of expense. At present, the staff of the Gallery was completely occupied, and it would be impossible to keep the pictures on view for any additional hours a-day without a large increase to the staff. The proposal was to keep the Gallery open after dark; and, looking at the number and the class of persons that would be likely to come after dark, the staff would, necessarily, have to be very largely increased. The staff could not be increased without great
  102
  cost, and that cost would have to be carefully measured. Then there was the difficulty that would arise from the accumulated bad air in the crowded rooms. If anyone would go into the National Gallery at 6 o'clock—at the end of a public day—he would find the dust flying about in a manner which could hardly be described, and the air in a wretchedly bad state; and he would, without doubt, come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to very largely improve the ventilation of the Gallery before any prolonging of the hours was possible. This would be necessary, not only for the sake of the visitors, but also for the sake of the pictures. No doubt, any evil which existed in the matter of ventilation would be remedied by the Government. The Government had shown every willingness to meet the requests of the Trustees for the alteration of the system of ventilation; but it was not altered yet—and they knew very well that these things always took some time to do. Then, besides the question of ventilation, there was the question—really an important one, though it might seem trifling—of the cleaning of the pictures. He did not allude to that elaborate cleaning necessary sometimes with old pictures, but the ordinary dusting and cleaning with silk handkerchiefs and brushes. Until quite lately, the National Gallery was, practically, shut to the public on students' days—two days a-week—and also for a whole month in October; but now it was open every day of the week all the year round, and, therefore, there was no time for this ordinary cleaning, except that which took place after the Gallery was shut in the evening, or before it was open in the morning. This was a practical difficulty, and, although he did not say it was an insuperable one, it was one which would have to be considered. In considering this requisition, which had been so influentially signed, the Trustees would have to consider whether the proposed additional cost of staff and of lighting the Gallery would be best spent on keeping open the Gallery until 10 o'clock at night, or in giving increased accommodation, which was very much wanted at present; in fact, which was absolutely essential. He did not think it was necessary for him to say any more than this. He did not wish to enter into a long

  103
  justification of the course taken by the Trustees, because he was sure they would give this and every other question that came before them their fullest and most careful consideration.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that seeing a Trustee of the National Gallery in the House, he would venture to draw his attention to a certain point, although it was a point of some delicacy. There was no provision made there for the wants and conveniences of human nature, and the result was that the visitors were put to very great inconvenience. He should have put a Motion on the subject on the Paper if he could have done so.
  MR. E. S. HOWARDsaid, this was a matter for the President of the Board of Works, and not for the Trustees, who had no power to alter buildings.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £1,279, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
  (10.) £8,600, to complete the sum for Learned Societies and Scientific Investigation.
  (11.) £7,101, to complete the sum for the London University.
  (12.) £2,500, to complete the sum for the Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report).
  (13.) £937, to complete the sum for the Sydney and Melbourne International Exhibitions.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should like to know what necessity there was for continuing this Charge? Originally, £10,000 was voted for this service; but the money was not expended, a considerable portion of it being returned to the Treasury. Last year the complement of the money was voted; but again it was not expended. Now they had another Vote which brought up the total again to the original amount, and, under the circumstances, he would like to ask the noble Lord whether there was any reasonable ground for supposing that the money would be required, and, if so, how it was proposed to spend it? He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was afraid the fact was that the Vote was really unnecessary; and, if that were the case, they should require some explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that £10,000 was promised to these
  104
  two Exhibitions. The Melbourne Exhibition only closed last year, and the grant in respect of it would come in course of payment during the present financial year. The money could not be paid before the present financial year.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Then, may we take it from the noble Lord that, although the whole of this money may not be expended during the present financial year, there will be nothing asked for in addition in a future year?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I think, in all probability, there will be nothing more asked for.
  Vote agreed to.
  (14.) £13.992, to complete the sum for the Universities, &c. in Scotland.
  (15.) £2,100, National Gallery, &c. Scotland.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I believe it was understood that the Irish Votes would not be taken to-night. I am in the hands of the Committee, however; and if hon. Members wish to take these Votes, I shall be happy to go on with them.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: It was arranged that they should be taken tomorrow; therefore, we cannot consider them now.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
(16.) £2,849,525, to complete the sum for the Post Office.
MR. SCHREIBERsaid, he was aware he was unable to propose the increase of this Vote; but, so far as it related to the London letter-carriers, he thought he could show that it ought to be increased, and he looked with confidence to the sense of justice of the Postmaster General and Parliament to increase it on some early day. The Members of this Committee were the last people who needed to be informed of the importance of the work of the letter-carriers, and the unfailing regularity with which they performed their duty. Perhaps there were some hon. Members who would love the letter-carrier more if he were less regular in the delivery of letters, especially in delivering documents composed of printed matter. His (Mr. Schreiber's) present object, however, was to call the attention of the Committee to the conditions under which these labours were performed, and the rate at which they

105
were remunerated, and to the complaints which arose under both heads. In summer and winter alike, the London letter-carrier was at his office at 5 o'clock in the morning, and that meant that, if he was a married man, driven by the dear-ness of house-rent into the suburbs, he left his bed, winter and summer, at between 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning, just as Members of Parliament were going to theirs. In sorting letters at the office, and delivering them on the walk, he was engaged between. 5 o'clock in the morning and 8 o'clock in the evening, making a day of some 15 hours. That was, a day of 15 hours, out of which he was employed, or ought to be employed, eight hours, but was generally engaged nine hours, or more. Under this head, therefore, the letter-carrier complained that he worked overtime, for which he either was not paid at all, or was paid at a rate lower than that he received for his ordinary work. His duties were so arranged that, if he lived a distance from the office, he was unable to return home during the time he was not on duty, and in that way he incurred a heavier expenditure than he would have to incur if he were able to rejoin his family. Well, how did the State pay this man whose hours were such as he (Mr. Schreiber) had described, and from whom it required the skilled labour of reading addresses, and sorting letters, and discharging the most responsible duty of delivering them? Why, starting with 23 s. a-week, his wages rose, at intervals of three years, 2s. a-week, so that in nine years he received 29s. a-week. After another interval of three years—or after 12 years in all—the maximum of 30 s. was reached. In addition to this, there were three good-conduct stripes, each carrying 1s., which the men could earn, and which would raise their wages to 33 s. a-week; and, lastly, the State supplied them with uniforms worth 1s. 6d. a-week—making, in all, 34 s. 6d. a-week. That amount the State plainly admitted to be inadequate, because it allowed the men to ask for, and receive, Christmas-boxes, and these were worth, according to a Circular Memorandum he held in his hand, 5s. a-week. But, even so, the letter-carrier found the dearness of house-rent, the cost of shoe-leather, and the cost of living away from home such that his wages were hardly sufficient to supply him with the necessaries of life. They,
106
therefore, prayed that, commencing as heretofore at 23 s. a-week, their salaries might rise, through a period of 12 years, to 35 s. by increments of 1s. a-year; and, furthermore, that the good-conduct stripes might be increased, so that letter-carriers eligible to receive them might not be kept waiting, as now, for two years or more before they obtained them. Lastly, they prayed that in their pensions might be reckoned what were known as their emoluments—that was to say, their Christmas boxes and their uniforms, making together 6s. 6d. a-week, the former of which the State, with inconceivable meanness, permitted the letter-carriers to receive as part of their wages, but refused to recognize as part of their pensions; so that it took 20 years of such service as he had described to earn a pension of ll s. a-week. He really would ask were not these reasonable requests, regard being had to the increased labours of the letter-carriers, as measured by the increased receipts of the Post Office since 1874, when the present wages were settled? Were these requests not reasonable, when they remembered that the letter-carrier now did sorter's work, and that the sorter was more highly paid than the letter-carrier, and that through the substitution of the letter-carrier the number of sorters had been largely reduced, with a corresponding economy and saving to the State? Were these not reasonable requests, when they remembered the hours which the letter-carrier worked, the cost at which he lived, and the responsible nature of the duties he performed? Lastly, was it unreasonable that after 20 years' service the letter-carrier should be able to look forward to a more generous pension than a pension of 11 s. a-week? There was another question not immediately connected with the amount of this Vote, but which he thought could be formally raised upon it, and that was, why was the letter-carrier, as such, to be debarred for competing for any vacancy which might occur in his Department? What was the reason of the rule—"Once a letter-carrier always a letter-carrier?" Why was not the letter-carrier to carry Hope at the bottom of his letter-bag? Why should he not be allowed to look forward to the day when he might find some walk in life less wearying than that of a postman? He would ask the

107
attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this matter. Let him do an act of justice—it would cost the Department nothing. As to this money question, he hoped the Postmaster General would not dream that it could be settled by empty generalities about economy and justice to the taxpayer, which began by begging the whole question. There was no economy in ill-paid labour and discontented service, and the question of justice to the taxpayer had no place until justice had been first done to those whom he employed. He was obliged to the Committee for the indulgence with which they had listened to this statement, and he confidently left the case of these poor men to the justice and generosity of Parliament.
MR. MACLIVERsaid, it seemed to him that the statements which had been made by the hon. Member for Poole could not have been in the possession of the Postmaster General before he made his Annual Report, which had been published that morning, otherwise a less glowing statement would have been issued. In all that had been said about the London letter-carriers he (Mr. Mac-liver) cordially agreed; but he wished to say a few words on behalf of those employed in a similar capacity in the Provinces and rural districts. Whilst it seemed to him, from the statement they had just heard, that the London letter-carrier was very much overworked, he ventured to say that they were still more so in the Provinces. Petitions had been presented to the Postmaster General from many districts throughout the country setting forth their claims; and he had no doubt that that right hon. Gentleman, when he came to inquire into the statements made in the Petitions and the statements that had just been made, would be able either to give the House some reasons for declining the claims of the letter-carriers, or to do something to ameliorate their condition. The letter-carrier had no Sunday's rest and no holidays. He commenced his rounds at half-past 5 in the morning, and finished at half-past 9. Men of the first class received 25 s. a-week after 10 years' service, and beyond that there was no promotion. The men of the second class had still more to complain of, inasmuch as since the present Government came into Office the wages
108
of the second-class men had been reduced by a sum of 2s. a-week, receiving only 15 s. a-week. Then, their work had also been increased; and he might go a stage further and state that the rural postman who had 15 s. a-week, and travelled 18 miles a-day on week-days and nine on Sundays, had, besides having no holidays, no definite prospect of a pension being given to him. This question of pensions for letter-carriers had not been very much debated out-of-doors. After all, it turned out to be a very small affair, because the number of postmen who served out the whole of the necessary service to entitle them to the pension was exceedingly few. Fully two-thirds of them, unable to stand the strain of the exposure and exhaustion, succumbed under it, and were compelled to quit it under 20 years, and they could not receive a pension unless they had been in the Service 30 years. He therefore seriously commended these facts to the Postmaster General, and hoped he would be able to say that something should be done for the poor letter-carriers in the rural districts.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he took this, the first opportunity he had had, of thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General for all the reforms he had instituted in the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to carry out that which he believed to be a great public duty to the best of his ability, and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would venture to say that the case hon. Members had brought before him would not escape his attention. If there was anything in that case which deserved correction or amendment, the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to it, as he had done to the grievances of the telegraph clerks and others. Since he had been in Office he had had a very difficult task to perform; but he had performed it with tact and temper, and for so doing deserved the best thanks of the Committee and of Parliament, and, he must also say, of the public. The Postmaster General had been generous enough to say that he had taken up and followed out the scheme for the establishment of the Penny Postage Savings Banks from his noble Predecessor in Office (Lord John Manners), which scheme, as he believed, would prove an inestimable been to the country. This

109
scheme would encourage habits of thrift amongst the working classes, and would inculcate those ideas, at any rate amongst the rising generation, which should be developed as early as possible, if they were to be prosperous as a nation. In this matter the right hon. Gentleman had done most valuable service, and he could only hope that his career as Postmaster General would be long enough to carry out all those reforms so much needed in the public interest.
MR. MONKdesired to join the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in thanking the Postmaster General for the useful reforms he had carried out, and the great consideration he had shown to the employés—both in the Post Office and in the Telegraph Service. He (Mr. Monk) had heard with great regret the somewhat bitter attacks which had been made upon the right hon. Gentleman, which attacks had been entirely undeserved. The right hon. Gentleman had spared neither time nor labour in endeavouring to alleviate the conditions of the employés in his Department. He had investigated with untiring industry all the complaints which had been made; and there could be no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman was spared for a few years longer to fill the post he now so worthily held, he would have done great service to the country, and to those who were employed in his Department.
MR. DAWSONsaid, that, no doubt, if the question before the Committee was the merits of the Postmaster General, they would all subscribe to what had been said by the hon. Member who had just sat down; but he (Mr. Dawson) had gathered that the question was the remuneration of the letter-carriers, and he felt inclined—though labouring under some difficulty as to speaking—to bring the case of the Irish letter-carriers under the notice of the Committee. Bad as was the condition of the letter-carriers referred to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Macliver), infinitely worse was the condition and infinitely worse was the pay given to the Irish postman. In Limerick, and towns of that nature in Ireland, the letter-carriers, he understood, although overworked, were paid from 16 s. to 20 s. a-week, whilst in England, in such places as Manchester and Liverpool, they earned from 25 s. to 30 s. a-week. The pay was, therefore, in-
110
adequate, much more so than in England. As to the rural letter-carriers, they received simply starvation wages. To his own knowledge, their districts were enormous and their pay was ridiculously small, far below what the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman would at all sustain when he carefully considered the facts. The wages, he believed, ran as low as 3s. or 4s. a-week, a miserable pittance that it was surprising such a Government as ours could think of offering for the labour of human beings. He (Mr. Dawson) had been struck by an observation of the Prime Minister in his Budget Speech, to the effect that great stress was being laid, as a sign of the increasing prosperity of the country, upon the rise which was taking place in wages. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn attention to this rise as a sign of the prosperity of the country. Now, for the past 25 years in Limerick the wages of the letter-carriers had not advanced in anything like the ratio that wages in other trades had advanced. Why was this? Was it because they were obliged to be better educated than the average of working men, or because more responsibility was cast upon them, and more trust was reposed in them? Was it because they had to be up early and late? Was it because they were under a great and rich Government that their pay was so bad? At any rate, whatever the reason was, he trusted their case would be taken under the consideration—the kind consideration, which he acknowledged it to be—of the right hon. Gentleman, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not leave out in the cold the poor Irish letter-carrier. He asked for the Irish letter-carrier no preference, and nothing at all beyond that which was given to similar servants in England—letter-carriers doing the same duty, working the same number of hours, and going over the same distances. But if, in his particular position, the Irish letter-carrier gave the same number of hours to the public, walked the same distances, and did his work as honestly and assiduously, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman, in drawing up a new scheme, would make no distinction between this unfortunate man and his brethren in other parts of the United Kingdom.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDwished the right hon. Gentleman to inform the

111
Committee whether, and when, he intended to make postage stamps available for telegrams, and whether, and when, indicators would be attached to letter boxes showing when the mail would be closed?
MR. FAWCETT: It will be as well to answer the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) first. The subject of making postage stands available for telegraph messages is now under consideration, and I trust I shall soon be able to arrive at a conclusion with regard to it. I fully appreciate the importance of the matter, and I perfectly see that if postage stamps could be used for telegraph purposes, the public would be saved a great deal of inconvenience, inasmuch as late at night, if a person wanted to send off a telegraph message, all he would have to do would be to put the required number of ordinary stamps on the necessary form, or on a postcard addressed to the Telegraph Department. This would arrive at the Office at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and would be sure to be sent off as soon as the telegraph office in the country or in the town was opened. Then, with regard to indicators, we have not obtained a Vote for this purpose yet; but I hope we shall do so this evening. We have had several different indicators presented to us for approval, and immediately the money is voted, and we have decided as to the best description of indicators, they will be attached to every pillar-box and wall-box in the United Kingdom. Now, as to the question raised by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Schreiber), I cannot enter upon the discussion without expressing my sincere acknowledgments to the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) for the extremely kind manner in which they have spoken of my efforts at the Post Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole has brought forward the case of the Metropolitan letter-carriers, and he has been supported by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Poole said he hoped I would not shelter myself under generalties about economy or the interests of the taxpayers of the country. I recognize as fully as anyone that there can be a false as well as a wise economy. But when the hon. Member for Poole talks about the general taxpayers, and appeals
112
to me to be liberal, he surely ought to remember that the money we spend is not the money of the Government. I have not a shilling to spend. Every additional shilling that we spend is obtained from the money subscribed by the taxpayers, many of whom are very much poorer than that class which hon. Members are now seeking to benefit. I cannot, therefore, conceive that a Minister could incur a more grave responsibility than to recommend an additional expenditure of public money without having assured himself that that additional expenditure was rendered necessary by the justice of the case. What does additional expenditure mean? The State has not a great fund of money or of wealth which is perennially supplied by the bounty of nature. Every shilling that the State pays represents money taken from the taxpayer; and, far from the State having any money of its own to spend, it is in this unfortunate position—that, at a very moderate estimate, every shilling which is spent, when you take into account the cost of collection, and the impediments which taxation causes, and when you also consider the inequalities—the necessary inequalities—of taxation, every shilling the State spends represents, at a moderate estimate, at least 1s. 3d. taken from the taxpayer's pocket. Therefore, when a Minister is pressed to spend public money, what is he to do? Is he to put his hands forcibly into the pocket of A in order to take money out to give to B, A very likely being much poorer than B? I, for one, must say I can never be a party to putting a hand into one person's pocket and taking money therefrom for the benefit of another individual, unless it is clearly and distinctly proved to me that the action can be defended on strict grounds of justice. With regard to the letter-carriers, I shall very carefully consider all that has been said by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Schreiber) and the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), as well as other hon. Members who may have taken part in the debate. But the Committee will, perhaps, allow me to remind them that I have again and again received Memorials from letter-carriers in almost every town in England, Ireland, and Scotland on this subject. These Memorials contain similar statements to those which have been made in this House

113
to-night, and perhaps I may state what I did with them long before the subject was mentioned in this Committee. I went through the bulk of them most carefully, and took notice of every statement which they contained. I analyzed them with the greatest care—I analyzed every case, and directly I had done so I caused inquiry to be made upon the allegations contained in them. I will give the Committee an indication of the sort of inquiry I considered it necessary to make in order to arrive at a just conclusion on this subject. In the first place, I have endeavoured to compare the remuneration of letter-carriers with the remuneration which is received by similar classes of persons in other trades—for instance, by railway porters, railway guards, and men in the employ of large manufacturers. I have caused inquiries to be addressed to many of the large municipalities, Railway Companies, and large employers of labour in order to enable me to arrive at a just conclusion as to the wages paid in other trades compared with those paid to the letter-carriers. My object has been to ascertain whether or not we pay the men the market rate of wages. I also desired those persons to whom I applied for information to tell me whether there has been any rise in the wages which they have paid during the last few years. I have also caused a most careful inquiry to be made to find out whether the length of the letter-carrier's day's work has increased since the time when he first took employment under the State. I have endeavoured to ascertain whether letter-carriers do more work than men in other trades, and whether the conditions of their employment are in any respects less satisfactory. I have not neglected the question of their chances of promotion, and I have made inquiries to find out whether they have less chances of promotion now than they had formerly; and whether, in the interests of the Public Service, the chances of promotion of letter-carriers should be improved. I undertook this inquiry on the very day that I came to a conclusion with regard to the demand that was made by the postal clerks and telegraphists. Not an hour has been lost in carrying it on, and I have not yet obtained all the information that I need in order to arrive at a just conclusion on the subject. This being the case, I feel that
114
I should be doing wrong to the letter-carriers, to the Public Service, and to this House, if I were to allow myself to be forced into a premature discussion before I have at hand the requisite materials to enable me to arrive at a just decision. I can only give this promise to the Committee. I will do my very best to arrive, on the one hand, at a conclusion which will be just to the letter-carriers; and, on the other hand, at a decision which will be just to the taxpayers of this country. If I find that the letter-carriers are underpaid, I will recommend that their pay shall be increased; if I find that in any respect their position can be improved so as to promote the increased efficiency of the Public Service, I shall recommend that such improvement shall take place; but if, on the other hand, I find that the wages which they are receiving are as high or higher than are paid by other employers for a similar kind of labour—then, it appears to me, that if I were to yield to pressure and give them more money, I should be wrongfully spending money which, as a trustee, I am bound to protect, and, under these circumstances, I should resist the pressure. I trust, after this representation, that neither the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this matter nor the Committee will think that I am wanting in courtesy if I do not now enter further into the subject. I will simply conclude by giving a promise that, as far as my own exertions are concerned, there will not be one hour's unnecessary delay in arriving at a decision, and my sole desire will be to arrive at a conclusion alike just to the letter-carriers and the taxpayers of the country.
MR. DALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the fact that in estimating the proper value of the services of the letter-carriers he had had regard to the wages paid to railway porters and others. He (Mr. Daly) wished to point out—and he did it in no fault-finding way, but because he thought the matter worthy of consideration—that there was this great difference between the persons employed by a Municipality or a Railway Company and a person in the employment of the Post Office—namely, that a very small offence committed by a person in the Post Office, such as a letter-carrier getting drunk on duty, or committing a

115
minor act of dishonesty, was, in the eyes of a Court of Justice, always regarded as a great deal more heinous than a similar offence committed by a person in any other trade. It seemed, therefore, that when the nature of the man's employment entailed on him greater punishment for a fault, he had a right, Tinder the doctrine of selection, to be paid better for the services he rendered. The position the right hon. Gentleman took, and the foundation upon which he based his decision, was a little unfair to the letter-carriers. He (Mr. Daly) merely threw out this suggestion, and he was sure that by a person like the right hon. Gentleman, who had devoted himself to his work with such conscientious care, and who looked upon those employed under him with such great sympathy, the suggestion would not be lost sight of. It was hardly fair to draw a contrast between persons in the position of letter-carriers and those engaged in the ordinary avocations of life, such as the work of a railway porter. He had himself been on duty on the Bench when minor offences were proved against letter-carriers, and he had seen the magistrates give far greater punishment to these men, from motives of public policy, than they would have inflicted upon workmen who had committed the same offences while in the employ of private individuals. However, he merely threw out this suggestion for the consideration of the Postmaster General.
MAJOR NOLANsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a small matter which would not involve a very great call upon the Treasury, and he mentioned it because the right hon. Gentleman had shown himself, very properly, extremely sensitive in the matter of taking money from the pockets of the taxpayers. The point he wished to draw attention to was the desirability of having telegraphed to country post offices the weather forecasts of the Meteorological Department. He did not believe that any considerable cost would be inflicted on the Post Office by adopting this suggestion. They got the weather forecasts for nothing, and the telegraphing would not be a very serious item. The cost of posting up the news after the telegrams were received at the country stations would be very little during the year, and
116
against this small cost he believed the benefit which would be derived by the country farmers from the use of these telegrams would be considerable. The system would be generally advantageous, as they would get, and be able to use all over the country, the opinions of the farmers in the various districts on the question of the weather. The Postmaster General said that the Post Office could not compete in the supply of news with private enterprize; but he (Major Nolan) had been at some pains to ascertain whether this objection would apply in the part of the country he was best acquainted with—that was to say, Ireland. He had been informed on really very fair authority—he did not say by the proprietor of any daily paper, but on very good authority—that it was extremely improbable that the proprietor of any daily paper in Ireland would in any way object or consider himself injured by the Postmaster General telegraphing these weather forecasts. Supposing the Department adopted this suggestion in Ireland, it would only, perhaps, necessitate the telegraphing of five or six words to each country district a-day. There were many reasons why the experiment should first be tried in Ireland. In the first place, it was more difficult for the Irish to get weather forecasts than it was for the English people to obtain them. The forecasts were given by the London papers, and these papers, owing to the admirable railway facilities of England, were circulated in the country districts very soon after they were published. In Ireland the forecasts were very seldom given to the newspapers, and railway communication was not as good there as in England; consequently, the probable state of the weather was not generally known throughout the country as it ought to be. It seemed to him that the objection urged by the Postmaster General did not exist in Ireland, and therefore he thought the Government would be acting wisely in telegraphing these forecasts. He did not suppose that much could be done this year, yet it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into consideration.
MR. CAINEmentioned that many English firms were in the habit of sending their samples to Belgium to be there re-transmitted to England, in order to save the postage in this country; and

117
asked whether the Postmaster General would consider the propriety of establishing a sample post at moderate rates?
MR. EARPsupported the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) in regard to weather forecasts, and stated that he knew of one farmer who, through receiving forecasts, had been much more successful with his crops than his neighbours who did not have the forecasts.
MR. BARRYdrew attention to the insufficient remuneration paid to postmasters and sub-postmasters in Ireland, and urged a consideration of their case.
MR. SCHREIBERwished to know whether letter-carriers would be allowed to compete for higher positions in the Post Office; and, also, whether, in considering the question of emoluments and remuneration, the Postmaster General would also consider the increased labour that letter-carriers had to perform?
MR. BIGGARcomplained that Irish sub-postmasters were very badly paid, and urged their claim to increased pay.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, one of the inquiries which he was making with regard to letter-carriers was whether their work had in any material degree changed since they first received their appointments. That consideration would, of course, involve the question of increased remuneration. With regard to promotion, that was a difficult question; but, without making any promise, he would consider whether appointments now closed to letter-carriers could be made open to them. With respect to sub-postmasters and receivers, their salaries were small; but the competition for these appointments was often so great that he had difficulty in making a selection. The reason was that these shopkeepers found that if they had the receiving offices, extra custom came to them in consequence. His attention had been directed to the practice of sending samples to Belgium, because of the cheaper postage, and that was an anomaly which ought not to be allowed to continue. That, however, was connected with a larger and more important subject—namely, the establishment of a parcels post. He looked forward with confidence to the establishment of a parcels post at no distant date, by which parcels of one, two, three, or four pounds could be delivered at a uniform rate in any town or village in England, Ireland,
118
or Scotland where letters were delivered. He should regard that as one of the greatest postal improvements since the establishment of the penny post, and no effort should be wanting on his part to establish such a system. With respect to weather forecasts, having spent a good deal of his life in the country, he knew the value of the forecasts; and when he was first asked to supply them he was inclined to accede to the request; but, on looking into the matter, he found that under the Telegraphs Act the Post Office was only to act as a transmitter, and not a vendor, of news. He hoped, however, to be able to get over that difficulty.
MR. DALYdrew attention to the inadequate salaries of letter-carriers in Ireland.
MR. FAWCETTreplied, that the rate of pay was regulated by the rate of the labour market.
MR. O'DONNELLobserved, that that was, no doubt, the case; but sometimes the pay was below the labour market. The Post Office was characterized by a spirit of general stinginess, and he thought it would be better if there were a little more humanitarian, and a little less of the economical, principle adopted in the Department, and that the highest aim and object of the Department should not be to get the extreme amount of work for the smallest remuneration.
MR. WARTONcomplained of the present arrangements for registering letters. Formerly the charge for registration was 4d., but it had been reduced to 2d.; but there was an extra charge of ¼d. or ½d. for the envelope, and that was not only a disadvantage to the public, but post offices frequently could not give the ¼d. change. He thought it would be much better, and would certainly be a been to the public, if the 2d. included both the envelope and the registration.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORinquired whether the Postmaster General could give the public an assurance that the practice of opening letters had been discontinued? Such an assurance would be a great relief to the public. It had been stated that the present Government had never resorted to that practice; but several Gentlemen had assured him that letters of theirs had been opened. He hoped the Postmaster General would not find it necessary to consult the Home Secre-

119
tary upon the point, but would be able to give the assurance himself.
MR. FAWCETTstated that the power of opening letters was never exercised except upon a Warrant issued by a Secretary of State; and he had no power to act in the matter himself. He would bear in mind the question as to registration.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH, observing that the Committee had been for the last hour or two spurring a willing horse, pointed out that while the proposal to increase the Vote by £120,000 would necessitate a Supplemental Estimate, the similar increase of other Votes would involve a total increase of £2,000,000.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYwished to call attention to a class of men in London whose case had not been mentioned. He referred to the countermen, of whom there were 40 or 50 in London. Their duties had lately been greatly increased, and he thought that what advantages were given to other Post Office employés should be extended to them also.
MR. O'DONNELLremarked, that Post Office expenditure brought in a good return. He was sorry the Postmaster General had not been able to give a more definite answer with regard to prying into letters. No doubt, the responsibility fell upon the Home Secretary, and, knowing the Home Secretary's advanced Liberalism out of Office, he was sure that now the right hon. Gentleman was in Office it would be no pleasure to give his countenance to such operation. In fact, he did not believe that all the letters that were opened were opened under the Home Secretary's Warrant. The clumsy manner in which some of his own letters had been opened and again fastened, led him to the conclusion that he had been the victim of the impertinent curiosity of some minor official. He trusted that in future they might either be opened more carefully or might be afterwards enclosed in a new envelope.
Vote agreed to.
(17.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £834,081, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
MR. MACLIVER: I approach this subject with some diffidence, because hon. Members will, no doubt, recollect how extremely sensitive we have found the Postmaster General whenever we have had any occasion to mention it; how he has lectured us at one time, scolded us at another, and indulged in the art of circumlocution when unwilling to give a direct answer to questions put to him. One feels regret that it should be so—that a Member who has shown so much zeal for the people of distant India should snarl at hon. Members who venture to remind him of grievances at home, and in the Department he administers, calling for prompt relief at his hands. Still, I am not going to follow his example by unnecessary complaints. His scheme for dealing with the telegraphists is before us in two editions, and my object in rising is to ask the Committee to consider how far that scheme is adequate and satisfactory. The fact of a large amount being conceded to the clerks—the fact of three months' retrospective pay being allowed to them—may be considered an ample justification of the demands which they have made. What is now required is to adjust the scheme in certain parts, so as to make it really acceptable to those for whom it is intended. This, I am persuaded, the Postmaster General will not refuse after his attention has been drawn to the points which I will now mention. First of all, the amount in wages to be expended upon the telegraph clerks by the new scheme is £29,524—no great affair amongst 6,000 clerks, out of a net profit of £500,000, which the Department boasts it has made. It is not, however, the money, but the disposal of it, which is at fault. There is an unjustifiable distinction drawn between the clerks in the Central Office and those in the districts of London; whereas their training and their duties are alike, and objection is taken to the scheme by the latter, because, in the language of their Memorial, 17 years must elapse before a clerk entering the Service at 12 s. a week can obtain a salary of 38 s. a-week, beyond which he can never expect to rise; although if classification were abolished, and his salary allowed to progress after that point, 24 years would elapse before, according to the Postmaster General's scheme, he could reach the maximum

121
of £130 per annum. Then, Sunday duty of eight hours in four weeks is still demanded, without remuneration, and can be claimed to the extent of two hours on every Sunday in the year, thus virtually depriving the staff of double that time, owing to the time occupied in going to and returning from work; whilst this duty was always paid for by the Telegraph Companies at an advanced rate, because the payment for overtime was calculated at the rate of seven days or 50 hours per week, instead of six days or 48 hours per week; and in any other field of labour the payment for such duty is far in excess of that given for ordinary work. I will not, however, trouble the Committee with details. It is probably a mistake of the authors of the scheme—for I suppose the surveyors made it—to compel second-class female clerks to commence at 8 and work until 9, according to each alternate duty, and also a mistake to omit senior clerks, who are distinctly provided for in the Vote, from the list of district clerks in London, whilst they are retained in the Central Office. I would rather deal with the scheme in its relation to the Public Service, which is, after all, the real question to which the attention of Parliament should be directed. First, as to the desirability in the public interest of having a thoroughly trained telegraph staff. Since the transfer to the Post Office, the work is not nearly so well done, when taken as a whole. There are messages, evidently done by old hands, which leave nothing to be desired; there are others which would be a discredit to a low form in an elementary school. The blunders of sense show complete ignorance. For instance, within the last fortnight a Parliamentary Report was issued to the Press, in which Lord Beaconsfield was one of the speakers in the House of Lords. An hon. Member despatched a telegram that his wife had been delivered of a "dear boy;" but the message sent was that she had been safely delivered of a "deal box." Another stated that the Pope had been buried at Salt Petre. Another message, with respect to Consols, was that '' Billy went a quarter higher." In another case a ship was ordered from Queens-town to Dundalk, instead of to Dunkirk. Telegraphing has, in fact, deteriorated in accuracy since the transfer. It is to the public interest to have a thoroughly
122
trained staff, and this can only be obtained by adequate payment. The best of telegraphists find a difficulty with certain classes of news. In the hands of those who are badly trained these difficulties are immensely increased, and difficult words and passages become mere guess-work. Secondly, is it desirable to combine telegraph and sorting clerks, and teach both branches indifferently? The duties are so entirely different that it would be just as reasonable that every doctor should be a lawyer as well. But even supposing such a heterogeneous combination desirable, is the Postmaster General justified in classing as sorters, telegraphists who are recognized as Civil Service clerks in an Act of Parliament? The telegraphists object to be classed as sorters or sorting clerks, and there is no reason why the existing telegraph staff should not be exempted from that classification. They did not join the Service as sorters. If the principle of combining the telegraphists and sorters be deemed expedient, the principle should apply to those who join the Service after the new arrangement is made. The pre-transfer clerks have a special claim to exemption. The maximum salary is too low if an efficient telegraph staff is to be maintained. The object should be to retain in the Service the most efficient men. If £2 10 s. is to be the maximum, the best men will leave, and the Service will be impoverished, as it is at the present time. The Provincial telegraphists think £200 a-year is not too high for the class of work they have to do. It should be remembered that many messages of a strictly private character have to pass through the hands of the telegraphists. I will read a sentence or two from the Playfair Report on the Civil Service on this point—
"We do not, it will be observed, propose to give a large salary to newly appointed clerks, even in the higher offices, for we are of opinion that the salary should he low in the earlier years of the service, and should rise more rapidly as the clerk gets older, when his responsibilities in life increase, and the value of his experience becomes greater to the State. The example of the open Professions, and the practice of private firms and establishments strongly confirm the view that good service will be better secured by good prospects in later life than by a high initial salary."
I think also there are too many classes in the new scheme. Are five classes necessary in the Telegraph Service? Why should there not be one class, with

123
a preliminary class? When a clerk joins he should pass through a probationary year. If at the end of that year his chief thinks he is not suitable for the work, he should be transferred to another class or dismissed. But when he is once on the staff he should be able to rise to the maximum without his way being blocked by impassable barriers. But the point I wish to put before the Committee is this—the fact that so large an addition is to be made to the Public Expenditure without satisfying the class to whom the money is to be given is a proof that it has not been judiciously distributed. There is, probably, no need to spend more money; but to satisfy the telegraphists, the existing staff, or at least the pre-transfer clerks, should not be classed as sorting clerks. Classification should be abolished, and the maximum salary should be increased, and pay given for Sunday duty and all overtime. Just one word in reference to something else in connection with the scheme. Unfortunately, the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in his Circular, has made use of what may be fairly called threats to the telegraph clerks. I am sorry to say that I find these threats have been carried out with the London staff. Offers have been made to the second-class to rise to £110 if they will give up agitation; and members of the Provisional Committee who are entitled to rise from £65 to £70 will have their promotion cancelled unless they give up all association with the agitation. I can give the names of the gentlemen who communicated this information. Another point is that the promise made by the noble Lord as to the retrospective action of the scheme has been broken. The noble Lord said the scheme would take effect from the 1st of April; but it is now said that that part of the scheme having reference to Sunday labour and overtime shall take effect from June 20. It is clear that this part of the Service is thoroughly disorganized, and I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, is it prudent to keep the Department in this disturbed state, simply from want of re-adjustment? I do not complain of the money amount of the scheme; but I do of the adjustment. It does require revision and re-consideration, and I hope such it will receive from the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought the Postmaster General ought not to put his hand into the public pocket in order to pay higher wages than were absolutely necessary; but he did consider that, in the present ease, the right hon. Gentleman got proper and efficient service for his money. At Swansea some telegraphists, who had been in the Service for five years, only got 15s. a-week. That was very inadequate pay, and he hoped the Postmaster General would consider the whole question.
MR. R. N. FOWLERdesired to support the appeal made by the hon. Members for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) and Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). Considering the responsible duties which the telegraphists had to discharge, £130 was, in his opinion, much below the maximum remuneration which they deserved. They could not expect them to remain in the Service unless they were ultimately remunerated by a sufficient sum, and it appeared to him that £200 a-year was not too large a salary for them ultimately to look forward to. He had great confidence in his right hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett), and, whatever difference of opinion there might be with regard to some points, he believed the Committee would agree that the administration of the Post Office could not be in more able hands than his. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not place this branch of the Service in a position more satisfactory to the persons employed. The country was deeply indebted to them, and he thought they deserved liberal treatment at the hands of every Member of the House.
DR. LYONSsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would have some consideration for the class of female clerks, whose position would be rendered worse rather than better by the new scheme. It appeared that while the wages of the first-class female clerks reached a maximum of 35s. a-week, they would now only receive 82.s. a-week. At the same time, he remarked that the rate of promotion was very slow, something like 20 years' service being required before the first class of female clerks was reached. There were only two females in the City of Dublin who were in the first class. Then, again, a very large deduction was made from their wages in time of illness; and they complained

125
that they were compelled to work overtime without compensation. He was quite aware of the difficulties involved in so vast an administration as the Post Office, and he believed it was generally recognized throughout the country that no one could possibly give more attention, or look to the position of the Service with more anxiety, with a desire to promote the interest of the Public Service, than the right hon. Gentleman now Postmaster General. He especially drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case of the female clerks, in the hope that he might find some means of improving their position.
MR. LEAMYunderstood that a serious grievance existed amongst the telegraph clerks on account of their being frequently called upon to work overtime, for which no payment was made unless they were occupied for one hour. He was also informed that the practice was to put the clerks on to extra work for periods of 50 and 55 minutes, so that they should get no remuneration for it. In that way they got through a great deal of work in the course of the year of a very useful kind, and without receiving any payment. He trusted the Postmaster General would see his way to improve this state of things by allowing compensation for the work done. With regard to the position of female clerks, he regarded it as almost a shame to the civilization of the time that so few opportunities were offered to girls for rising to respectable positions with fail-remuneration attached to them.
MR. DALYsaid, it was impossible to retain in the Service skilled telegraphists at the wages that were now paid to them; and he considered that if ever there was a system of false economy in the payment of men who discharged important and invaluable duties, it was that of which complaint was now made. It must be borne in mind that there were many messages transmitted by telegraph which contained matters of the highest importance to commercial firms, and which would, no doubt, be paid largely for by rival houses. Under the present system a person was put upon small wages, and, at the same time, intrusted with these confidential communications, which, perhaps, gave him an opportunity of obtaining, as a bonus for information, more money than he would receive as a half-year's salary.
126
Therefore, he said, if the Department placed men in a position of trust and responsibility, it was their duty to raise them above such temptation. The telegraph clerks also complained that, although they were led to expect by the Report of the Civil Service Commission, to which the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair) was attached, they were to be treated as officers of the Civil Service, yet they were now relegated to an inferior position. Moreover, it was said that in consequence of their having made known their grievances in a Constitutional manner, heavy penalties would be imposed upon them, and that they were to be dismissed from their position, while persons below them were to be educated to perform their duties. They were, unhappily, used to coercion in Ireland, but this was coercion of a different kind; and, although he would be the last person to approve any effort to disorganize the Department, he did claim, on the grounds of general and individual liberty, that it was legitimate for the clerks in question to put forward their grievances, in a Constitutional manner, before the tribunal of Parliament. He would not go into further details at that hour of the evening, because, whether he was mistaken or not, he was sure it was not in the disposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to allow any system to continue in the Department which was detrimental to the Public Service. Moreover, he believed, from a short acquaintance with him in public life, that he was not the man to be deterred from any course which he believed to be right by the mere fact of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stating to the Committee that £120,000 additional was to be expended on the Post Office Department, and another sum of £70,000 upon the Telegraph Branch. Therefore, he relied on the sympathy which he was sure dwelt in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman for all persons beneath him to place this matter on a right footing, and he felt he should estimate him wrongly in believing otherwise than that his first desire was to do justice between man and man, or that he would allow any of his subordinates to remain subject to temptation to betray their trusts by an unreasonable remuneration being awarded to them. He regarded this

127
matter as one which deserved the serious attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought there was a good deal of truth in what was said by the telegraph clerks as to their being underpaid and obliged to do extra work without remuneration. But he must express surprise in the way in which the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) had advocated the cause of these clerks, because he had said that the first remedy to be applied was to turn them all out and get a superior class of men.
MR. MACLIVERsaid, his complaint was that the Service was deteriorating by the infusion of an inferior class of men.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Exactly. The Committee were told that the greater number of these clerks were of an inferior class, and that the remedy of the hon. Gentleman was to substitute others for them. He hardly thought they would like that. He believed there was scarcely any fair ground of complaint as to the way in which telegrams in this country were sent, and anyone who compared them with those sent from one part to another abroad, would see that the foreign system was far inferior to their own. The hon. Member for Plymouth had held in his hand a number of telegrams, and had shown that there were mistakes in them; but the Committee would remember that of the millions of telegrams sent a certain number of mistakes was inevitable. These would probably be the fault of the clerks; but they were often the result of indistinct writing on the part of the senders. He thought it was hard upon these men to say they did not efficiently do their duty, because he believed that their duties were most efficiently performed; and he ventured to think that if the right hon. Gentlemen were to increase their pay it would meet with the general approval of the House.
MR. FAWCETTassured the hon. Member for Plymouth, who had said he was unduly sensitive on this subject, that he was not sensitive on his own account, nor was he annoyed at questions being addressed to him upon any matter connected with the Department over which he presided. The telegraph clerks had been encouraged for months past to take a course which might entail upon them serious evils that no one would regret more than himself. The hon. Member
128
for Plymouth was an employer of labour, and there were many other employers of labour in that House, and he would suppose a case in which an employer of labour received from his employés a memorial asking that certain grievances should be redressed, and that their position should be improved. Suppose that the employer, the very moment he received the memorial, sent back this answer—"I will inquire into every one of your alleged grievances; I will spare no effort to arrive at a fair conclusion upon them; and if, in the course of that investigation, I find it necessary to have a personal interview with you, I will seek that interview, and I will ask you to speak with the utmost frankness." Suppose that assurance given, and that the very moment it was given, someone began to encourage agitation, and to advise the employés to accuse their employer of evasion. Suppose, again, that the employer, in the fulfilment of his promise, had that personal interview with his employés, which lasted many hours, and that, after they had spoken with the utmost frankness, the employer said to them—" Now, long as this interview has been, it is quite possible that you may have omitted to state something which you may have wished to state, and, therefore, put anything that you wish to communicate into writing, and it shall be carefully considered;" that before two days had elapsed, and before it was possible to receive any written communications, outside influence was again brought to bear, and hundreds of telegrams were received from various parts of the country to the effect that the employés were entirely dissatisfied with the result of that interview, although not the slightest indication had been given of any such impression when the interview took place; that, week after week, the employer was pressed to come to a decision, although he had given the assurance that no effort should be spared on his part to this end; and that, before he could do so, outside influence was again brought to bear, and went so far as to recommend the employés to resort to the last extremity of a strike. Under those circumstances, what would the employer do? Undoubtedly, if he had an interest in those whom he employed, he would be sensitive with regard to an outside influence, which was misleading and injuring them. That

129
was his (Mr. Fawcett's) position. He was the employer, and he would tell the hon. Member for Plymouth that he was sensitive, not because he was personally annoyed, but because he felt that those whom he was anxious to serve might be hurried into a course on which there would be no retreat, and which would entail suffering upon themselves, their wives, and their children. It was impossible to over-estimate the serious responsibility incurred by those who advised public servants to strike. Who, he asked, would support them when they did strike? Was it the person who gave the advice? It was all very well to create a meretricious popularity; but, when that had passed away, who would find the displaced man with food for himself and his family? Undoubtedly, he did feel sensitive when he saw that a deserving class of public servants were being hurried on to a course which might possibly have brought poverty and ruin upon them. Now, the hon. Member for Plymouth said that the telegraphists who had been recently appointed were inefficient, and did their work badly. But this he absolutely denied, and he wondered that anyone who appeared as the friend of the class should have brought against them so unfounded and so unsupported a statement. Amongst the hundreds of communications which he received there was one that had produced a greater effect upon his mind than any other in connection with this subject. The writer was the proprietor of an important newspaper, who said that the work of telegraphists, owing to the improvements which had taken place in the instruments, had become more difficult, and that greater skill was required in consequence. At the same time, he said that the work was done with such remarkable accuracy that the rate of wages should be increased. It was that consideration more than anything else which had induced him to recommend a considerable increase of wages. The mistakes pointed to by the hon. Member for Plymouth were no reply to a statement of the kind he had alluded to. There was this newspaper receiving from three to six columns of telegraphic news in a single evening; and the manager had said that one of Mr. Gladstone's speeches, full of figures, had been telegraphed some hundreds of
130
miles away from the place where it was delivered, and he added that there was no report in any London newspaper more accurate than this report which had been sent by telegraph. He believed this would show the extraordinary development of telegraphy in the country, and the extraordinary skill and accuracy with which the telegraphists, so traduced by the hon. Member for Plymouth, now did their work. The Committee would also remember the important speech delivered in the Candahar debate by the Secretary of State for India. He believed that, notwithstanding the fact that the speech in question was not commenced before half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, four columns of it were telegraphed to the Provincial newspapers, and he knew that no more accurate report than that appeared in the London newspapers. It was no answer to such evidence as this for the hon. Member for Plymouth to produce a certain number of telegrams and say that they contained mistakes. Why, the wonder was that there were not 10 times as many errors than there were, considering the villainous handwriting in which some of the messages were written. The telegraphic business of the country was increasing in the most marked manner. Last year the number of messages increased from 26,500,000 to 30,000,000, and that increase was still going on. At the bottom of the weekly Return, which was laid before him, there was a statement of the number of public complaints, which he watched very carefully; and he could say that, while the number of messages was increasing, the number of complaints was proportionately decreasing. The hon. Member for Plymouth said that the amount of extra wages was very small—only £29,000. But it would be more than this during the present year, and in a short time the extra wages for telegraphists would not be less than £90,000 a-year. That represented a very considerable increase in their wages. The hon. Member for Plymouth objected to the telegraphists being classed as sorters. But those most acquainted with the Post Office administration had come to the conclusion that it was well, as far as possible, to combine the two branches of work, and the experiment had already been tried in Glasgow with the best results. All

131
those who entered the Service would be trained as far as possible in sorting and telegraphic work, so that if at any time there was an extra amount of work to do the strain now put upon the telegraphists would be removed. His hon. Friend who spoke last asked about the employment of women in the Telegraph Service now, and he (Mr. Fawcett) was glad to be able to answer the question, because it threw an important light upon employment in the country. He had lately decided that positions in the Telegraph Service should be competed for by open competition in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin. Forty female clerks were now wanted; and such was the anxiety to enter the Service which was so much abused that no less than 420 eligible, and some of them extremely intelligent, candidates had presented themselves for the situations. Therefore, the supply at present was far in excess of the demand. But, before leaving the subject of female telegraphists, he could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) that the position of each female telegraphist under the new scheme would not be worse than it was before; at any rate, when once the scheme was completed, there would hardly be a single female telegraphist whose position would not be improved. He had taken care that in every quarter the pay of the female telegraphists should be raised in exact proportion to the advance in the wages of the men. Now, he did not want to complain; but the remark he would like to make in reply to many observations which had been made was that the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) and others had judged of the scheme before it was possible to judge of it properly. That had been the case particularly with regard to the Metropolitan District telegraphists. The hon. Member for Plymouth had laid great stress upon their case, referring to a Memorial which had been circulated amongst Members of the House, and subsequently published in the newspapers. Unfortunately, those who circulated the Memorial did not take the trouble to communicate with him (Mr. Fawcett). If they had done so, before sending it to Members of the House, he could have shown them at once, as he had subsequently done, that almost all their apprehensions were un-
132
founded, and that the point on which they laid so much stress—namely, that there was to be a class of senior telegraphists rising to £160 in the Central Office, while there was to be no such class in a Metropolitan District Office—was an entire mistake. On the very day that Memorial appeared in the public journals he (Mr. Fawcett) was sanctioning a new scheme for senior telegraphists in the Metropolitan District Offices exactly analogous to that applying to the Central Office. It was said that the position of the telegraphists in the Metropolitan District Offices ought to be made exactly the same as the position of the employés in the Central Office; but he would like to point out to the Committee a most important difference between the conditions of employment in the District and in the Central Offices. There were only two or three District Offices in London open all night; many of them closed at 8 o'clock, and only a few remained open until 11 o'clock; while, on the other hand, a great part of the work at the Central Office had to be done at the dead of night, after 11 o'clock. The greatest pressure began at 11 o'clock, and continued until 3 o'clock in the morning, when long Press telegrams were being sent to Provincial papers. Therefore, it not unfrequently happened that two-thirds of the staff of the Central Office were on night duty, whilst scarcely any night duty was done in the District Offices. Then, again, all the more difficult and complicated instruments were worked in the Central Office, and there were very few of them used at the District Offices. What he wished to impress upon the Committee was this—that the scheme for the improvement of the position of the telegraphists was not yet known to the telegraphists themselves, because it would be necessary to revise every office in the country. What had taken place was this—the third class had been done away with; the third and second classes had been merged; the first class had been considerably enlarged; and the other superior positions had been increased to a proportionate extent. Take one large office—the scheme had not yet been submitted to him in a final form, but he knew its general drift. The office he was referring to was one of the most important in the Provinces, and the telegraphists had there com-

133
plained that they would not get any promotion. He could tell them what the promotion would be. There were in that office 10 senior telegraphists. That number would be raised to 22, or would be more than doubled, and the pay of those 22 would be considerably increased. In that office, moreover, there were at present only 32 first class telegraphists, and that number would be raised to 61 or 62, or, in other words, the number would again be doubled and the wages would be increased. Therefore, until these schemes were promulgated, it was impossible for any telegraphist in any office to know to what extent his position had been improved as to pay and promotion. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) he could only say he agreed with every word he had said. He (Mr. Fawcett) knew it was the worst of all economy to have inefficient service, and if there were clerks, as the hon. Member pointed out—and no doubt he was perfectly correct—who had been in Swansea during the time mentioned and were only receiving 15 s. a-week, he could assure the Committee that in the course of a very few weeks, when the revised scheme for Swansea was published, the position, both as to pay and promotion, of every one of the clerks, would be improved, and the men would be put in a position that would be satisfactory to the hon. Member. In considering this subject he (Mr. Fawcett) had felt that it was a most difficult problem that had to be solved for the whole Service. He knew of no question that was more difficult to solve than that of fixing what was the proper remuneration for certain work to be done. Of course, as had been well pointed out by the hon. Member for Swansea, the question of wages must ultimately be determined by demand and supply; but he had not been content to settle the question by any theoretical consideration, and in order to arrive at a just conclusion he had caused Circulars to be issued to leading employers of labour, such as bankers, Railway Companies, manufacturers, and others, and he had asked what they paid their clerks, what holidays they gave them, what were their duties, what were their prospects as to pensions, and what was done in the matter of promotion. In almost every case he had received an answer. These answers were carefully
134
examined, and he had done his best to arrive at a just conclusion in the interests both of the taxpayer and the telegraphists. It was idle to say that nothing had been done when the proposals which had been sanctioned by the Treasury for improving the position of the telegraphists and Post Office clerks would, in a few years, cost £150,000 a-year, which represented a capital sum of not less than £5,000,000 sterling. The inquiry, he admitted, was a long one, and his excuse for that was that it was a difficult and important inquiry; and the Committee would feel that he could have adopted no course that would be less justifiable than to have arrived at a hasty conclusion on the subject. Almost as soon as he commenced the inquiry he foresaw that probably its result would be that it would be necessary for him to ask the Treasury for a considerable grant of money; and he could not go to the Treasury and ask them to give him public money, amounting to at least £150,000 a-year, until he could give the most positive assurance that he considered that additional expenditure was necessary and just. He could not arrive at a conclusion as to its necessity and justice without a careful and elaborate and prolonged investigation. That investigation he had endeavoured to conduct to the best of his ability, and he could assure the Committee that he had had no other object in view than to do what was just to the telegraphists, while, at the same time, making no unjust demand on the taxpayers of the country.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that no doubt those who had listened to the admirably clear and fair statement of the Postmaster General would agree that the right hon. Gentleman had approached the question in a most painstaking spirit, and with a desire to do justice to all concerned. At the same time, it did not at all follow that there was so much blame to be attached to the telegraphists who had agitated, nor to the Members of Parliament who had sympathized with the telegraphists in their agitation. In the first place, it would occur to a good many Members that it was to be regretted that an earlier opportunity could not have been found for assuring the telegraphists at large that an increase of remuneration was to be given them—an increase so much greater than

135
appeared to be intended for them in the scheme.
MR. FAWCETT: It is stated explicitly in the scheme. The figures I have quoted are taken from the scheme.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that at any rate an unfavourable impression was allowed to go forth without any contradiction from the Post Office. He (Mr. O'Donnell) could not help thinking that the unfavourable impression—which, as it had turned out, was most unfair to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General—was due to a very large extent, or, at least, heightened, by that most unfortunate paragraph in the most unfortunate Minute issued by the Financial Secretary, which was interpreted as threatening pains and penalties. He was also satisfied that the Financial Secretary, whoso attention to his Department, and whose desire to meet the wishes of those who applied to him was recognized by all, no doubt meant nothing in the Minute but a kindly warning. At the same time he did not think it could be denied that the wording of the paragraph was calculated to convey the idea that any use by the telegraphists of their influence as Parliamentary electors on Members of the House would expose them to severe pains and penalties. He was convinced that that was not the meaning the Financial Secretary intended to put on his words; but that was the meaning that was promulgated, and that was the meaning which he confessed he (Mr. O'Donnell) had put upon the words. It was satisfactory to know from the Postmaster General that so much real benefit was about to be conferred upon the telegraphists; and he could only add an individual testimony to the general testimony to the immense importance of the work of the telegraphists in everyday life, and especially in the commercial life of a great country like this. With regard to the temptation that telegraphists were open to he would give an instance that had come under his own observation. In 1873 there came under his notice—but in such a manner that he could not make any definite use of the information—the fact that two or three telegraphists at one of the Central Stations in this City were exposed to very great pecuniary temptation by London merchants. Bribes were offered to them to disclose to these people the
136
mercantile secrets of their rivals in trade, and he was afraid that at least one of the telegraphists fell a victim to the temptation. On that point, however, he could say nothing certain; but there could be no doubt that heavy bribes were offered to these under-paid men to do this dishonest thing. He thought the Postmaster General had somewhat exaggerated the inference on his side to be drawn from the fact that 400 well-educated girls had entered into competition for 40 poorly-paid clerkships. Instead of that circumstance necessarily proving that these clerkships were valuable, it proved that the condition of multitudes of well-educated, tenderly nurtured, and most deserving women and girls of this country was miserable indeed. He would urge the Postmaster General not to permit himself to be turned aside from any intention he might entertain of doing all in his power to improve the condition of the female telegraphists by the fact that he might get 10 or 20—aye, or 50 applications for the poorest paid telegraph post in all the Service. He thought, nay, he was sure, that the Postmaster General had borne in mind the fact that though, since he came into Office, he had acted with all possible speed in dealing with the grievances of the telegraphists, a large number of them had been agitating in vain, year after year, till their very hearts had grown sick within them, and they had become only too liable to be influenced by rash counsels from outside. He (Mr. O'Donnell) believed the agitation had gone on in one shape or another for nine or 10 years. There were two or three points on which he wished to insist; and he would much rather have risen, if he could have done so, before the right hon. Gentleman made his admirable statement, so that the Committee might have had the advantage of having all these questions answered at once. He hoped they might look with confidence to the near future, to the time when overground telegraph wires would be altogether replaced by wires carried underground. He trusted they might receive an assurance from the Department that it was doing all in its power to get lines laid underground. From every point of view, from the point of view of danger to life, and the liability to get out of order, overground wires were condemned by every

137
experienced telegraphist in other countries. As almost a universal rule, the telegraphists of the country deserved all the credit that was given to them for the general expedition and extreme accuracy with which they did their work; but he was authorized to say a few words on this subject with regard to the Irish side of the Irish Sea. Complaints were only too frequent—and he must apologize for venturing to interrupt the conversation of two or three hon. Gentlemen opposite—as to the most imperfect working of the telegraph wires, especially when there happened to be any important item of intelligence, such as a very important debate in the House of Commons, to be transmitted to Ireland. Even in regard to last night, when there was such important Business transacted in this House, he knew that a leading Irish newspaper was embarrassed in a most extraordinary manner by the way in which the news reached it. Three columns were sent into the London office at 12 or a quarter past 12 o'clock at night; but they only reached the Dublin office at about half-past 2. He desired to do no more than just to quote that striking instance of the way in which news was transmitted to Ireland. He could take up more time on the matter, if necessary, especially with regard to the transmission of Parliamentary debates to the Irish newspapers. During the Recess, again, the speeches of Cabinet Ministers were not received satisfactorily, the leading Irish papers being by no means adequately served. He was sure these complaints would receive the attention of the Post Office. He had been asked to express a hope that the condition of the telegraph clerks who were loaned out to Railway Companies to act as railway telegraph clerks should be looked after by the Government. He did not profess to be well informed upon the point, and it was quite possible that the case of these clerks was within the purview of the proposed reform; but as, on some of the lines in Ireland, there were 70 or 80 of these clerks, all of them being extremely under-paid, and having a great deal of hard work to do, though perhaps not having that refined and highly cultured work to perform that was given to the clerks in the Central Offices in London, he had been urged to lay their case before the Department. On the
138
whole, he had to express his great satisfaction at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject, and he hoped that on the points that remained to be considered he would be actuated by a sense of fairness, having in view both the interests of the individual and the interests of the public.
MR. MACLIVER MR. MACLIVER, said, he wished to say a word with regard to the imputation contained in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that he (Mr. Macliver) had exercised outside influence upon the telegraphists. In common with other Members of that House, he had heard the complaints of the telegraphists, and had thought it his duty to bring those complaints before the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, so that, if he had erred, he. had erred in common with many others. There was one point in which, notwithstanding the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, his scheme had proved, in the opinion of the telegraphists, an entire failure. The skilled telegraphists were daily leaving the Service. Since the scheme had been made known, at least 50 of them had given notice to leave. He would give an instance to show how disappointing the right hon. Gentleman's scheme had been to the telegraphists. In one of the largest towns of Yorkshire—namely, Leeds, an agent of one of the Cable Companies went to get 40 clerks, and offered employment to so many of the telegraphists in Leeds. None of them, however, would engage; but the day after the scheme was published 40 telegraphists were ready to engage with the Cable Company, showing how unsatisfactory that scheme was considered to be. He (Mr. Macliver) was glad to hear now, from the right hon. Gentleman, that the scheme was so much better than the telegraphists supposed. These people would be delighted to hear that the scheme was so much better than they had ever known before; and, when they looked at the newspapers to-morrow morning, and read the right hon. Gentleman's statement, they would be simply ecstatic with joy. He hoped it might be as the right hon. Gentleman had said.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he only wished to make one remark upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General. His opinion

139
had been asked by some gentleman as to the dispute between the Postmaster General and the telegraphists, and he had felt bound to say that he should have regarded a strike of the telegraph clerks as a public, and almost a national, calamity that everyone should endeavour, as far as it lay in their power, to avert; and he had felt bound to say that it was a perilous thing to interfere with the discipline of a Public Department. He had, therefore, viewed with a certain amount of suspicion political and Parliamentary agitation; for the purpose of arranging the details of a Public Department; but he had felt bound to say this—that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General himself and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury could not be entirely acquitted of blame in the matter. The very fact of the large addition which was to be made to the salaries of the telegraphists, and the improvements which were to be brought about, was a proof of the long-neglected grievances of these people. The condition of the telegraphists had been such that no one could be surprised at their having been ready to resort to extremes, and, to his mind, to rather questionable means for getting their grievances redressed. One or two points with regard the Irish clerks which he wished to draw attention to were these. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman had paid a very high, and, so far as he knew, a very greatly-deserved, eulogium to the accuracy and efficiency of the work performed by the telegraph clerks of the country. As to the eulogium, he would ask the Committee to put side by side with it the salaries of these officials. He would put a case that was familiar to several hon. Gentlemen in that House. There was a newspaper published in Dublin that received from this House sometimes as many as eight or ten columns of news of an evening. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) himself had some experience of writing a column of newspaper matter; and he, therefore, knew what eight columns meant. He knew one of these clerks, and he was prepared to say that sometimes he had actually supplied to the newspaper eight columns of telegraphic news—that was to say, with his own hand he had to write eight columns of newspaper matter in one night. Well, he (Mr. T. P O'Connor) had once or twice, in the
140
course of his life, written eight columns in a single day; and he could assure hon. Members that, at the end of 10 or 12 or 14 hours, he was not very fit for any more work either that day or the day after. Of course, the clerk did not evolve the matter from his own. brain; but he had to write those eight columns with his own hand, and his ear and his brain were working. Would it be believed that the salary of the gentleman who had to write that quantity of matter was only 31 s. per week? He complained on behalf of the employés of the fact, as stated by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), that while the maximum payment of telegraph clerks in the service of private Companies was £200 a-year, a clerk in the Government service, employed in a Provincial post-office, was £130 a-year. He wished to know why there should be a difference of £70 a-year between the payment made to men performing precisely similar duties? These clerks had also, he thought, just ground for complaint that they had not afforded to them equal opportunities for obtaining preferment to those which were enjoyed in other branches of the Postal Service of the country. If the noble Lord wished to increase the salaries of these hard-worked telegraphists, let him advise his Government to reduce the expenses of the War Office, and of those Ambassadors who employed their time in plunging us into difficulties with foreign countries.
MR. HEALYsaid, the Post Office no doubt suffered, because it was a new one in regard to telegraphs; and although the telegraphists had no lineage of blood and plunder, they were, at any rate, entitled to fair treatment. Referring to the telegraph office at Cork, he described the arrangements for reaching the office at night as unworthy of the Department and of the city, and as a nuisance to the public having to use the office at night. He was satisfied that private telegrams of Members of Parliament were made use of by the Government, for on one occasion, when he had arranged to attend a meeting in Ireland, but did not know until the last moment where it was to be, a Government reporter—one of Mr. Gurney's men—had been sent to the meeting from London, although it was only on the previous night that he had sent the telegram

141
saying he would address that particular meeting.
MR. PARNELLasked whether the Postmaster General was aware that the postmaster at Cork had refused to give any work for which there was extra pay to telegraph clerks who had joined the agitation for increased pay; and, if so, whether he approved of such conduct?
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had inquired into this matter, and had found that there was no truth in the statement.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, whereas the first Vote taken for the Telegraphs Department was £360,000, it had now increased to £1,294,000—four-fold of the original Estimate. No other Department had shown the same development. With respect to the telegraph clerks, since they had received the franchise, they had used it to apply pressure to Members of Parliament for the furtherance of their own objects, although it was given to them to be exercised for the benefit of the community at large. If, instead of the Executive being responsible, Members of the House were to conduct the administration of Departments, there would be an end of all responsibility whatever. In the same way, if the Treasury was not to have control over expenditure, and Members of the House were to become promoters of it, the system which had worked so admirably in the past would be at an end. The telegraphists had been told that an Act of Parliament had given them a claim to be put in exactly the same position as the lower division clerks of the Civil Service; but on what ground that supposition rested had always been beyond his power of imagination to conceive. It was impossible to see why these men were to be assimilated to one particular section of the Civil Service more than another. They were admitted at ages varying from 14 to 18, whereas the lower division clerks were admitted at from 18 to 20 years of age. On the whole, the supposition that they had any legal claim to be in the same position as the lower division clerks appeared to him to be utterly baseless. With regard to the position of the telegraphists in the Government Service as compared with their former position under private Companies, what had taken place would be a warning to the Government to be careful against unduly extending the sphere
142
of their operations by entering every day upon some new field, and placing themselves at a disadvantage by undertaking the work of private persons. He pointed out that the Government Service was always more highly paid than that of Companies and private persons, and in the particular case of the telegraph clerks, the men themselves received higher pay than they had before.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, in reply to a question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Dungarvan(Mr. O'Donnell), he fully recognized the importance of underground wires. They were being rapidly increased, and he believed he was correct in saying that 10,000 miles of them had been laid down.
Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
(18.) 2,100, Monument to the Earl of Beaconsfield.
(19.) £5,000, Supplementary sum for Public Buildings.
(20.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, in aid of the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for executing the necessary repairs of the Caledonian Canal, and for meeting the outstanding liabilities of the Commissioners of the Canal appointed under 11 and 12 Vic. c. 54."
MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the payment of £10,000 in connection with the Caledonial Canal was an expense to the country that ought to be got rid of, and reminded the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury of the opinion he had just expressed against the expenditure of public money upon private enterprize.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that in ordinary years the receipts just about covered the expenditure on the Canal; but when, as in the present year, extraordinary repairs were necessary, the only source from which they could be met was a Parliamentary Vote, and the Commissioners therefore applied to Parliament in accordance with the Act. He adhered to the opinion he had expressed in the discussion upon the last Vote as to the undesirability of Government undertaking private enter-prizes.
MR. HEALYsuggested that the noble Lord should bring in a Bill to relieve the country of this liability. They were now asked for £10,000; but he believed the country would probably spend £2,000,000 on it in course of time, unless something were done to get rid of the liability.
MR. BIGGARsaid, this Vote was an exemplification of the system which prevailed in connection with a great many canals. The practice of supporting them by Parliamentary grants was altogether objectionable, and he held that the Committee were not justified in voting public money upon works of this kind for the purpose of putting profit into the pockets of private individuals, because it was quite clear that when any profit was made it went to the proprietors; whereas, if the undertaking did not succeed, the loss fell upon the nation. If the Caledonian Canal was not able to pay its own expenses, it was direct evidence that the Canal was not required, and therefore it would be no more than judicious to throw it up. At one time canals were legitimate enterprizes enough; but canal carriage, owing to extended railway communication, was now going out of use, although, of course, it was still required in some parts of the country, and where it was still used, and the shareholders were willing to have the responsibility, of course there could be no interference. But with regard to those canals which would not pay their working expenses, and came upon the nation to make up their deficiencies, as he had said before, it was clear they were not required, and the public liability in connection with them ought to be put an end to at once. He, therefore, concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) in saying that the Acts under which such liability now accrued should be repealed.
MR. CALLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether there was any intention of keeping open in Ireland water communication of similar character to that of the Caledonian Canal? He reminded the Committee that the Ballinamore Canal, which connected the Ulster Canal with the Shannon, was in such a state of ruin as to be wholly unworkable. These canals had been allowed to get into this state, notwithstanding that they were orignally constructed
144
by, and still belonged to, the Government.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that the question he was discussing did not arise upon this Vote, which only related to the Caledonian Canal.
MR. CALLANsaid, he would not pursue the question of the Irish canal system; but he had a right to refer to the utter uselessness of spending money on this Scotch monstrosity. He suggested that the poll tax once imposed in Scotland should be levied on the tourists who made use of the Caledonian Canal in summer, for the purpose of relieving the poor taxpayers in Ireland from this incubus of liability.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, as an Irish Representative, he objected to any portion of the taxes paid by the Irish people being expended in what he conceived to be an improper manner on Scotch works, while works of a similar character in Ireland were allowed to go into a state of disrepair. The Government did not ask for any money for the Irish canals; and he should, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000, which represented the proportion of Irish money included in the sum now asked for.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £9,000, be granted to Her Majesty, in aid of the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for executing the necessary repairs of the Caledonian Canal, and for meeting the outstanding liabilities of the Commissioners of the Canal appointed under 11 and 12 Vic. c. 54."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwas understood to point out that the Caledonian Canal was different in its character to the interior canal system in Ireland. He trusted the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division.
MR. BIGGARregretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County had moved the reduction of the Vote. He thought the right course would have been to divide against the whole Vote, inasmuch as no Member of the Government had shown that the Caledonian Canal was in any way required. For his own part, he regarded the expenditure upon this Canal as wholly unreasonable and uncalled for. But the truth

145
of the matter was that the subsidizing of these canals involved a certain amount of patronage in the appointment of secretaries, managers, engineers, and others. It was really plundering the ratepayers of the Three Kingdoms to continue to uphold these unnecessary and unprofitable works. He certainly protested against similar experiments being made in Ireland with regard to canals, and as long as he had a seat in the House of Commons he should protest against the expenditure of public money for such purposes. For these reasons, he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion, and thereby give the Committee an opportunity of dividing against the entire Vote.
MR. O'DONNELLremarked, that it was a curious circumstance in connection with an independent sort of people like the Scotch that nearly all the expenses of their trade, from herring-branding to canals, fell upon the taxpayers at large. He would not ask his hon. Friend to persist in his Motion; but he hoped that the voice of conscience would be heard in reference to these demands.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked leave to withdraw the Motion before the Committee.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(21.) £25,000, Supplementary sum for Mint and Coinage.
MR. O'DONNELLremarked, that some years ago the sovereign, upon the reverse side, used to bear a design emblematic of the Three Kingdoms; but that now the reverse side was monopolized by a representation of St. George and the Dragon. It would seem as if the Government had a difficulty in acknowledging that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was settled some years ago that the design of St. George and the Dragon should appear on the sovereign whenever the new coinage took place.
MR. HEALYsaid, the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had promised to give the Committee some information with regard to the Easter offering of the vicar of St. Botolph's.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, this was only a Supplementary
146
Vote, and he could not give any information as to the general question.
MR. HEALYsaid, that if he was in the House next year he should vote against the grant.
Vote agreed to.
(22.) £3,000, Supplementary sum for British Museum.
(23.) £4,500, Supplementary sum for Diplomatic Services.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he noticed an item of £2,000 for Mr. Goschen's expenses as Special Ambassador at Constantinople. Would the noble Lord inform him whether it was right that this should be made a public charge, and what was the object of the Embassy?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the understanding which had been arrived at on a former occasion as to Mr. Goschen's Mission was that the expenses were to be paid by the public, but that the right hon. Gentleman was to receive no salary whatever. The expenses were £2,000—that was to say, the expenses charged to the Exchequer were £2,000, and which was much less than the amount which would have been paid to an ordinary Ambassador. Mr. Goschen had not drawn the whole of his expenditure. He had not drawn anything on account of the almost necessary payments which he had made at Constantinople for charitable purposes—for instance, to the fund raised to assist the destitute portion of the subjects of the Sultan. Altogether, Mr. Goschen spent £2,000 in this way; but he refused to charge anything that he did not think it was fair to call upon the public to pay. The sum was £500 less than had been voted on the previous occasion, and the only amount included in the Vote in the nature of a salary was a sum of £100 or £200 to be paid to Mr. Goschen's brother for acting as secretary.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, no doubt it was perfectly correct that the money was less than the Mission had cost Mr. Goschen, and he had no fault to find with the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but was it not rather a strange thing that this country should be placed under an obligation to a private individual, however respectable that individual might be? If Mr. Goschen's

147
Mission to Constantinople was a matter of Imperial necessity, surely it was a disgrace to the country and to the Executive to allow him to be one penny out of pocket, or to do anything else than recompense him to the full. If, however, the Mission was merely a showy promenade for the purpose of removing a prominent Liberal from the near purview of home politics, he did not think it ought to be tolerated. The Vote was either a great deal too little or a great deal too much. They were now laying down a most dangerous precedent, and were perpetrating a public scandal of no slight description. If Mr. Goschen had been the Ambassador of this country, he ought to be paid as an Ambassador. What would be the invariable result of accepting this class of service gratuitously? Why, the private individual who, in this magnificent way, made the country his debtor, would expect a recompense of some other kind. If he did not get his Ambassadorial salary, he would think, perhaps, that he had a claim for a coronet. That might not be so in Mr. Goschen's case—in the case of a man of singular public virtue—but it was evident that if they sent public men all over the world on the business of the country at their own expense, they would have to recompense them in some other way. To his mind, it would be much better to pay in the sterling coin of the realm for the work Mr. Goschen had done—if it had been worth anything—and he had an opinion of his own upon that matter—than to be put to the necessity of having to recompense gentlemen executing similar labours by conferring upon them titles, stars, ribbons, gold sticks-in-waiting, and all the other paraphernalia supposed to be the due of those who performed distinguished services.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, this subject was very fully discussed last year—at any rate, it had been discussed for a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes, which was a long time for the consideration of a matter which really lay in a nutshell. It was stated last year, if Mr. Goschen was not paid all the money he was out of pocket on account of his Mission, it was simply because he would not take it. There were plenty of precedents for an arrangement of the kind that was come to. Special Missions had taken place almost every year for a
148
great many years past, in which the gentlemen who had performed them had received the money, and no more than the money, they had actually expended. In some cases these gentlemen had published the whole of their accounts; but in other cases only part of their accounts had been submitted to the Treasury.
MR. LABOUCHEREtrusted the hon. Member opposite would not divide on this Vote, as there did not seem to be any reason for such a course. Mr. Goschen had done very good work, and did not in the least complain of the way in which he had been treated. The hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated that the money Mr. Goschen was not paid, and which he had refused to accept, was certain charitable contributions made by him in Constantinople. It would be an open question whether the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury could legally assent to the principle that when a gentleman was sent on a special Mission he should charge the Treasury with charitable donations made by him whilst on that Mission. There was another reason why they should not push this matter, and it was this—that during a considerable portion of the time Mr. Goschen was at Constantinople Sir Henry Layard was permanent Ambassador there, and was in receipt of a large salary. He did not think the Committee really had anything to complain of in this Vote. If Mr. Gosehen had intended to receive any payment beyond his actual expenses—that was to say, if he had accepted what he had given for charitable purposes—it would have been necessary for him to have vacated his seat, and that was what they knew Mr. Goschen had not done.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division; but he should require the Vote to be affirmed. If Mr. Goschen had a claim upon the State for recompense, his seat should be declared to be vacated, for unless that were done his constituents would be deprived of an opportunity of expressing their opinion on an important crisis, and at a time when it was necessary that the views of the constituency should be taken. He was afraid that this arrangement would be a precedent under which dangerous jobs might be perpetrated. He would oppose the Vote for the sake of the principle which ap-

149
peared to him to be clearly involved, although he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
Vote agreed to.
(24.) £5,730, Supplementary sum for Colonies, Grants in Aid.
SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) had given Notice of his intention to move the reduction of this Vote by £2,721 for the ex-King Cetewayo. The hon. Member, however, was not in his place; and, under these circumstances he (Sir David Wedderburn) would have taken on himself to move the reduction of the Vote and to take the decision of the Committee upon it. However, since the Notice had been placed on the Paper, a Memorial had been presented on behalf of the ex-King, signed by a number of Members of Parliament, and an answer had been given to it. He believed that all the hon. Members who signed that Memorial were satisfied with the sympathetic reply given by the Prime Minister, and under the circumstances he would offer no opposition to the Vote. He would point out, however, that there was evidence forthcoming from a number of people in various positions, and all independent witnesses, as to the expediency and wisdom of restoring Cetewayo to his own country. He (Sir David Wedderburn) knew that the Colonial Office was not much in the habit of paying attention to, or being guided by, unofficial information; they maintained their own Agents, and were always guided by the information they received from them. But it was nevertheless a fact that there was a strong opinion among a great number of people in Natal that it would have the effect of preserving peace and rendering things much quieter in that part of South Africa if Cetewayo were allowed to return to his people. The settlement that had been arrived at had failed to give satisfaction, and even now civil war was taking place. The time, he knew, was not proper for entering into a debate upon this subject; but still he felt himself obliged to express an opinion on it.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he hoped that the Memorial which had been presented to the Prime Minister would receive the attention of the Government. It seemed to him that it was the legitimate sequence of the course pursued by
150
the Government that this unfortunate man should be released. They had considered it desirable to give up the Sovereignty of the Transvaal. That course he, for one, very much regretted; but, in giving up that Sovereignty, hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to have washed their hands entirely of the affairs of the country, and it appeared to him to be out of keeping with the rest of their policy to retain in prison a man whom they took charge of for the sake of a State that was at the time under British administration, but the independence of which had been since acknowleged. He knew the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Courtney) was a great friend of the Transvaal Republic; and he would ask him whether, representing the Colony in that House, he was prepared any longer to act as gaoler to an unfortunate Prince, to whom he (Mr. Fowler), differing from the opinion of many of his Friends on that (the Conservative) side of the House, believed this country had done great injustice. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would take the matter into their consideration, and would not, for the sake of a State the control of which they had given up, detain this unfortunate Prince in custody.
MR. HEALYsaid, he would like to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury whether this was likely to be a permanent charge upon the Treasury until Cetewayo was released, or whether the Cape Government was to pay part of it? Everyone who had read Cetewayo's letter must have felt that it carried on every part of it the stamp of truth. The man had dictated it to an interpreter, and there was no devious or doubtful statement in it. It was clear from this document that the British at home had been imposed upon; that Cetewayo had had no desire to make war upon our troops; and that it was merely in consequence of the action of Sir Bartle Frere, or whoever it was that had led the Government into the war, that he had taken up arms against us.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, an hon. Member had described him as the friend of the Transvaal Republic—
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The quondam friend of the Transvaal Republic.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, hon. Members could describe him as the friend of the

151
Transvaal Republic if they chose, for he had never shrunk from declaring his opinion on the annexation of the Transvaal; but he was equally open to the accusation of being a friend of Cetewayo. They could not look upon the condition of affairs in Zululand as satisfactory; but still there were many difficulties in the way of adopting the course pointed out by hon. Members. Hon. Members must be aware that Zululand had been parcelled out amongst 13 Chiefs, and if Cetewayo were released we should have to make terms with all of them. Even if we thought it right to restore the King it would not be easy to do so. As to the question put by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he would find that it had been suggested by the Colonial Secretary that the cost of maintaining Cetewayo should be borne partly by Natal and partly by the Transvaal. It was not fair to suggest that a portion of this cost should be borne by the Cape Colony, which had had nothing at all to do with the operations against the Prince. The matter was not yet settled.
MR. HEALTsaid, what he wished to know was whether the English Government had any Representative at the Cape in charge of Cetewayo, or whether he was simply in charge of a Colonial officer?
MR. COURTNEYsaid, that Cape Colony had passed an Act rendering Cetewayo's imprisonment in that Colony legal. The prisoner was under the charge of the Cape Government.
MR. HEALY: The English Government, then, have no influence in the matter?
MR. COURTNEY: The English Government has as much influence in this matter as it has in all other matters affecting the Colonies.
MR. CALLANsaid, it had been stated that there was a certain difficulty in this matter of restoring Cetewayo on account of the ultimate fate of the 13 Chiefs amongst whom Zululand had been parcelled out. If the difficulty really existed, he would suggest that, following the lines of their action in another matter, and to meet the justice of the case, they should leave these 13 Chiefs to be dealt with by Cetewayo, just as they had left Abdurrahman to the tender mercies of Ayoub Khan.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he understood that Cetewayo was under the Cape Par-
152
liament, and we had no authority to break an Act of the Colonial Legislature, so that, in reality, the Prince was entirely at the disposal of the Cape Government; and, if the Cape authorities thought proper, they could interfere with any arrangement of ours as to his destination. For instance, it might suit us—and he (Mr. O'Donnell) sincerely hoped it would—to restore Cetewayo to his Kingdom, in which event the Cape Colony might exercise a veto, and say—"You shall not restore this man." Even though there might be this legal difficulty, he trusted the Government had satisfied itself that there would be no opposition to the restoration of Cetewayo on the part of the Colonial Government. For his own part, he thought Cetewayo ought to be restored, as he believed there would be no peace in Zululand until that Monarch was once more among his people. To his mind, the 13 Chiefs were the 13 plagues of the country.
MR. DALYsaid, that if they were to keep Cotewayo in prison, as he had five wives, it was a serious thing for us to consider what would have to be done with his successors.
Vote agreed to.
(25.) £2,900, Supplementary sum for Houses of Parliament.
MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that before the Vote was put he wished to bring two questions before the Government for consideration during the Recess—two questions relating to the comfort of hon. Members. This Session, it had been computed by an ingenious statistician that nine or ten days had been spent in the Division Lobbies. He would suggest to the authorities that as the Lobbies were so much used it would be desirable to have them ventilated. At present they were in an unhealthy condition. Then, again, as a new Tea Room was to be provided, he would suggest that there should be an adequate supply of newspapers. At the present time there was always a rush for the papers; and looking at the fact that Members were kept in the House so late at night, and for so many hours, he did not think it was too much to ask that there should be some improvement in these arrangements.
MR. MONK: I rise to Order.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to know

153
whether there is any special reason for departing from the ordinary method of putting these Votes? You, Sir, seem to have departed from the proper order.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have departed from the order in which the Votes appear on the Estimates; but my reason for doing so was to consult the convenience of the Committee. The two next Votes are of a similar nature—namely, for Cyprus and the Transvaal, and it appeared to me more convenient to take them together.
MR. CALLANsaid, that, with regard to the arrangements of the House, perhaps the First Commissioner of "Works would inform them what newspapers were likely to be supplied to hon. Members? He made inquiries the other day as to what newspapers were supplied at present, and he found that there was only one London Times for the use of 650 Members of Parliament. But to make up for this there was an additional supply of the penny papers. There were three copies of The Daily News to one copy of The Times. Then, as to the local papers, he was informed that there was no subscription paid for them; but that such as were received were presented to the House. He would suggest to the First Commissioner of Works that he should publish an advertisement to the effect that the House of Commons would thankfully receive donations from liberal-minded country newspaper proprietors. The Belfast News Letter, and other papers, he was informed, were already supplied gratuitously; and he would suggest that the proprietors of The Manchester Guardian, The Manchester Courier, and such like journals should be requested to supply copies in the same way; but he would also suggest that they should be requested to send them at as early an hour as possible, and not keep them, as they did at present, until the news in them was stale. It was most disgraceful that the News Room of the House of Commons should be supplied gratuitously with the few local papers it received. With regard to the ventilation of the Division Lobbies, if hon. Members went into the Map Room of the House, they would find maps of almost every country in the world, and plans of many of the principal buildings in the world; but there was one building of which they would find no plan, and that was the British House of Commons. He would
154
suggest that it would be desirable to have a plan prepared and placed in the Library, showing the amount of space and the number of rooms in the House of Commons, and the amount of space and the number of rooms devoted to the use of Members. There were many rooms that would be most valuable to Members, and rooms which had been pointed out to the authorities as easily convertible into comfortable apartments for the use of those whose business brought them to that House; but whenever these rooms were spoken of, it was always said—"Oh, they are for officials." There was a great want of space complained of in the House; but if they went into the courtyards of the building they would find numerous doors leading to rooms occupied by officials. These apartments seemed to be allocated for the luxury of officials, while the comfort of Members of Parliament seemed to be lost sight of altogether. No doubt, it was an unpleasant subject to moot, and, no doubt, officials did not wish to have their perquisites interfered with; but these matters should be gone into when the convenience of those who were sent to the House of Commons by the country was in question. At the proper time he would make a Motion for a plan of the Houses of Parliament, showing each floor and the number of rooms, how each was allocated, and by whose authority they were occupied. Like all other institutions under the Government, although these were new Houses of Parliament, they were venerable in abuses. Surely an explanation in this matter could be given by the First Commissioner of Works. If it had not been for the illness of Colonel Forrester, the reporters would have continued to be cooped up as though they were in the Black Hole of Calcutta. Now, owing to Colonel Forrester's departure, these gentlemen occupied decent rooms, and not the disgraceful holes they had formerly been obliged to use.
Vote agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported.
MR. BIGGARmoved that Progress be reported.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 43: Majority 30.—(Div. List, No. 394.)
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmoved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND BILL.— [Lords.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND BILL.— [Lords.]

  [BILL 247.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the Bill was totally inadequate to the wants of the Irish people; but the Bishops had accepted it, and he supposed it must be accepted as an instalment of that justice which the people of Ireland had a right to expect.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, as it appeared to be the wish of the House, he trusted that they might be allowed to go into Committee on this Bill, which was simply for the purpose of carrying out the Act passed in 1879. He might add that the scheme, to which he could quite understand that some hon. Members objected to pledge themselves, would have to be submitted by the Senate for the approval of the Government.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this Bill must not be supposed to contain the provisions which the people of Ireland looked upon as at all adequate to the situation. There was in Ireland a University system established by Government, which was entirely repugnant to the character and instincts of the people. That system had been protested against for now nearly a generation, and the Irish people would be glad if the Committee abolished it to-morrow. The late Government, he admitted, had done something in the matter of prizes, which, although it was not in accord with the wishes of Irish Catholics, was, at any rate, free from some of the objections which attended the old system in the Queen's Colleges. But the Queen's Colleges were retained, and to this day re-
  156
  ceived £21,000 a-year from the Consolidated Fund, as well as other sums voted annually by Parliament. There was, in fact, nearly £40,000 a-year expended for purposes which were repugnant to the wishes of the Irish people. The Government had now introduced an Examining Board, which they called a University, and it was about to be endowed with £20,000 a-year, or one-half of the amount expended upon the already condemned system. That was the principal reason why Irish Members and the great bulk of the people of Ireland were dissatisfied with the present scheme; they felt convinced that had the Conservative Government been allowed to carry out their intentions when they were in Office, they would have allowed a charge upon the Church Fund very much larger than the present Government had assented to. It was well known that the present Government was committed to a system of secular education, and that they viewed everything that was not purely of that character with mistrust and antagonism. They would, if they could, eliminate anything like religion from education. The Conservatives, however, were more in accord with the population of Ireland, so far as this matter was concerned; and the feeling was that, had the scheme been repugnant to the Irish people, it would have received at the hands of the Liberal Government a larger endowment. They were not allowed to propose an increase in the amount to be charged on the Church Fund, although the Senate of the University had proposed a scheme to carry out which it would have been necessary that a sum at least twice as large as that now proposed should be given to the University. The present Government had forced the Senate to curtail their programme, thereby diminishing the prizes and other advantages which the University would otherwise have been able to hold out to its alumni, and the people had, in consequence, an institution which would probably end in conspicuous failure, not because there were not ample materials for the establishment in Ireland of a flourishing University, but because what was necessary to its development was withheld by those who had the government of the country in their hands.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  SOLENT NAVIGATION BILL.
  Select Committee on the Solent Navigation Bill, nominated of Mr. ASHLEY, Viscount FOLKESTONE, and Viscount BARING.
  Ordered, That Standing Order 236 be suspended, and that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—(Mr. Ashley.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.