Commons Sitting of 15 March 1883

MINUTES.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (Special Report).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES, 1883–4; CIVIL SERVICES (Vote on Account, £3,606,800); CIVIL SERVICES—Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS; Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; Class VI.—NON-EFEECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£6,240,100, Consolidated Fund.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Heading—Ogmore Dock and Railway*.
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—First Reading—Crown Lands* [122].
Second Reading—Bills of Sale (Ireland) Act (1879) Amendment [105].
Considered as amended—Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*.

QUESTIONS.

  WESTMINSTER ABBEY—THE OLD LAW COURTS.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he will be good enough to place in the Library of the House an architectural elevation, showing the proposed treatment of that part of Westminster Hall which will be opened to view by the removal of the Old Law Courts?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Until the whole of the buildings of the Royal Law Courts are entirely removed, it is impossible to form any opinion as to what should be done with the West Front of Westminster Hall. Whenever a decision is arrived at I will take an early opportunity of informing the House of any works that are in contemplation.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.
  MR. KENNARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps, if any, have been recently taken to recover the sum of £2,000,000, and increments, paid by Her Majesty's Government to that of the United States in excess of the requirements of the "'Alabama' claims," which sum remains over and above all known claims, and is now held in suspense in the Exchequer of the United States? The hon. Member said, that, before putting the Question, he would like to know whether the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had had his attention called to a statement in the public Press, to the effect that the fund was insufficient to meet all the claims outstanding, and that the probability was that when the claims were decided upon they would be apportioned pro rata. He believed it was an open secret that very large commission.—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is at liberty to put a Question, and to give any explanation that may be necessary to make the Question plain; but he is not at liberty to enter into new and debateable matter.
  MR. KENNARDsaid, his only object was to make the Question plain and intelligible, and, after the ruling of the Speaker, he would simply put the Question as it stood upon the Paper.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I assure the hon. Member that his Question is an exceedingly plain one and does not require any explanation. In reply to the hon. Member's Question, I have to say that her Majesty's Government has not made any such inquiries or demands.
  MR. KENNARDgave Notice that he would call attention to the matter on going into Committee of Supply.

  JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1875 —THE JUDGES' RULES—JURISDICTION OF ENGLISH HIGH COURTS OVER DOMICILED SCOTCHMEN.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he can give any further information as to the alteration of the Rule under the Judicature Act to prevent domiciled Scotchmen being summoned to the English Courts, which
  542
  he stated to be in draft on February 22nd; whether that draft alteration has been submitted to him; and, whether the proposed alteration is sufficient in his judgment to remove the hardship complained of; and, if not, whether he will take steps to induce Her Majesty's Government to insert in the Bill they propose to introduce in the other House for the amendment of the Judicature Act a provision to render the recurrence of such encroachments on the jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts impossible for the future?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The only additional information I have to give is, that the Rules in course of preparation by the English Judges will probably be presented to Parliament immediately after the Recess. I have not seen the draft of the proposed alteration upon the particular Rule referred to in the Question; but there will be full opportunity for considering the Rules when they are laid upon the Table of the House.

  LIGHTHOUSES AND BEACONS—THE NORTHUMBERLAND COAST.
  SIR WALTER BURRELLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it be not possible to obviate, or at all events to lessen, the danger attendant upon the position of the Knavestone Rock, off the coast of Northumberland, to seagoing vessels, either by replacing the beacon formerly standing upon that rock, or by blowing away so much of it as will insure a deepwater channel over it?
  MR. J. HOLMS (for Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): I am informed by the Trinity House that the beacon on the Knavestone Rock appears to have been discontinued about the year 1826, when the light on the Longstone was built which, when in line with the light of the Inner Fern, indicates the position of the Knavestone. The rock being thus marked by night and by day it is considered that there is no necessity for a beacon, more especially as the Trinity House are not aware that there have been any casualties which can be attributed to this particular rock.

  SCOTLAND—PRECOGNITIONS IN CASES OF SUDDEN DEATH.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is in a position

  543
  to state if any progress has been made towards the establishment in Scotland of a public inquiry into all cases of sudden death?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Public inquiries are frequently held under special statutory provisions into certain classes of accidents—namely, accidents in mines, shipwrecks, railway accidents, and boiler explosions; but sudden deaths, generally, and fires, are investigated by the Procurator Fiscal, and the results reported to the Crown Office. Greater publicity is, however, now given to sudden deaths by the Returns, which are published monthly in the localities, according to instructions given about a year ago. There is no present intention to make legislative provision for public investigation regarding all sudden deaths and fires in Scotland, as there does not seem to be any prevalent demand for so large a change in the law—a change which could only be carried out by the creation of a new staff of officials, who would be substantially Coroners, throughout the country, at great cost.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCELS POST.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Postmaster General, If he will lay upon the Table an estimate of the proposed increased expenditure which will be involved by the introduction of the Parcels Post?
  MR. FAWCETT: The information which we have as to the details of the expenditure connected with the Parcels Post are not sufficiently complete to enable me to lay before the House, at the present time, the Estimate asked for by my right hon. Friend. I have every reason to expect that the Parcels Post will be in operation by the beginning of July, and it is my intention to lay a detailed Estimate upon the Table before it comes into operation. I may state that it is anticipated that in the first year the expenditure will be covered by the receipts, and in the expenditure many items will be included which in ordinary business would be charged to capital.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DESTITUTION AT LOUGHREA.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his intention has been
  544
  directed to the destitution in the town of Loughrea and its immediate vicinity; if it is contemplated to take any steps, further than the proffer of the workhouse, to relieve this distress; and, if a sworn inquiry into the state of a department of the workhouse has been demanded of any of the guardians of that union?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the distress in Loughrea Union; but they do not consider it necessary to take any further step than to afford, to all destitute persons the relief provided under the Poor Law Acts. The Local Government Board have called upon the Guardians to appoint two additional relieving officers, in order that such officers may be within easy reach of all persons in different parts of the Union who may require relief. A sworn inquiry into the management of the workhouse has been held within the present week; but the Inspector's Report has not yet been received.

  ENGLAND AND SPAIN—GIBRALTAR— THE ANCHORAGE GROUND.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any demand has been made on Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Spain with respect to the anchorage ground at Gibraltar; whether Her Majesty's Government have proposed that the questions involved should be submitted to the decision of a Commission similar to that which adjudicated on the "Alabama" claims; whether such proposal has been accepted or rejected by the Spanish Government; whether the Spanish Government are intending to build forts at San Felipe which will command the Gibraltar anchorage; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will present to Parliament Papers on these subjects, including any Correspondence that may have taken place at former times in respect thereto, and the Papers recently laid before the Spanish Cortes?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No demand has been made by the Government of Spain with respect to the anchorage ground at Gibraltar, nor have Her Majesty's Government made any proposal of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend. Her Majesty's Government have no definite information as to

  545
  the intention of the Spanish Government to build a fort at San Felipe; but they are fully aware of the importance of the subject. The Correspondence referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth dates from the year 1825; and, as at present advised, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that they would be justified in incurring the expense which their publication would entail.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether any Correspondence had been laid before the Spanish Cortes; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government had been consulted on the subject before it was so laid?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAUEICEsaid, he should require Notice of that Question.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would ask the Question to-morrow.

  INDIA—PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If there is any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government or the Government of India to withdraw from the position taken up by the Government of India, in the Resolution of the 29th of November, 1881, by which it was determined, after the 1st of January, 1882, to separate the Military from the Civil Branches of the Public Works Department?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the effect of the Resolution to which he refers. It does not separate the Military from the Civil Branches of the Public Works Department, but simply transfers, for administrative convenience, to the Military Department the business in connection with military works previously conducted in the Public Works Department. There is no reason to suppose that the Government of India intend to withdraw from this Resolution, and the Secretary of State for India has no intention of interfering in an administrative detail of this kind.
  In reply to Mr. ONSLOW,
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, the whole matter of the Public Works Department was under the consideration of the Government of India.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—COUNTY COURTS —ASSISTANT BAILIFFS.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the suicide of John Walter, aged seventy, for thirty years an assistant bailiff to the Shoreditch County Court (as reported in the "Standard" of 24th February); whether deceased, being previously disabled by accident, had been refused an allowance by the Treasury; and, whether any consideration can be given to the repeated memorials of assistant bailiffs of County Courts, supported by the judges under whom they act, for a superannuation allowance such as is given to others in the public service?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE (for Mr. COURTNEY): My hon. Friend has seen the paragraph referred to, and can only say that the facts of the case, as regards the question of pension, were not before the jury. Assistant bailiffs of County Courts are appointed and paid by the high bailiffs, who can dismiss them at pleasure. They are, therefore, in no sense Civil servants; and it was no more possible to give Walter a pension from public funds than it would be in the case of any other private person not in the service of the State. With reference to the last paragraph of the Question, I am informed that the point has been considered, and that it is thought better, in the interests of the Public Service, that assistant bailiffs should remain outside the Civil Service, as at present.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENT OF GENERAL JAMES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether General James, lately appointed Assistant Commissioner of the Board of Works, Ireland, to take charge of the loans to Irish tenants for improvement of their holdings, is a superannuated English officer of Engineers; whether such officer, General James, has had any special opportunities of becoming acquainted with the wants of Irish tenants in relation to their holdings, or whether there are any special grounds for his selection as Assistant Commissioner; and, if he has not had such experience, what are the special grounds upon which he was selected to fill the post?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS) (for Mr. COUKTNEY): Colonel James was an officer of Royal Engineers who elected to receive retired pay when his period of service in Ireland as Commanding Royal Engineer expired. On retirement, he was allowed the rack of Major General. He was for 13 years on the Ordnance Survey, and has been specially employed on other analogous duties, and in 1879 and 1880 he was selected to assist the Irish Board of Works in examining works presented for the purpose of affording relief during the earlier period of distress, and subsequently in expediting the works of land improvement, for which loans had been granted to proprietors. On the passing of the Land Act, 1881, his services were again sought for by the Board of Works, in order that his experience in connection with the distress works might be taken advantage of to expedite the arrangements for granting loans to tenants. I do not understand what the hon. Member means by "special opportunities of becoming acquainted with the wants of Irish tenants in relation to their holdings;" but from his past experience and efficiency, I conceive that the appointment of Major General James is a very proper one.

  POST OFFICE—ALLEGED OVERCROWDING.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been directed to the statements in the "Lancet" that—
  "In the Post Office Department, which yields a revenue of over three millions to the State, we hear there is great pressure, and that financial considerations exclude proper regard for the health of the employés. This is also said to be true of the Savings Bank Department, in which clerks are encouraged to work thirteen hours a day in crowded rooms, heated and lighted with gas. A more certain manufactory of consumption could not he imagined. We have heard of an instance in Queen Victoria Street whore nearly one hundred of these employés are housed in a basement where gas is burning on the brightest days;"
  and, if he will take steps to investigate the truth of these grave statements?
  MR. FAWCETT: I can assure the hon. Member that the authorities of the Post Office are most anxious, as far as possible, to prevent the staff from being inconvenienced by over-crowding. The
  548
  provision of buildings is, however, one of the chief difficulties in administering a Department, the business of which is so rapidly increasing as that of the Post Office. I may mention that recently several new buildings have been taken, and enlargements are being carried out in the existing premises. Much relief will thus be afforded. With regard to the amount of overtime, I may say that no clerks have been required to work the number of hours mentioned by the hon. Member. It is difficult to ascertain the number of hours of extra duty worked, because overtime is generally paid for, not by the hour, but by the amount of work done. No clerks are employed in the basement of the Savings Bank; but the sorting of papers and book-binding are carried on there. I believe it is the case that inconvenience has been suffered from the necessity of using so large an amount of gas. The substitution of the electric light for gas is now under consideration.

  METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS— VENTILATORS.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If his attention has been called to the statement made by Sir Frederick Bramwell before the Committee of the House of Lords on the 19th of May 1881, with reference to an accident which occurred with an omnibus on the 28th of January in the Euston Road, in which he states that as the driver was proceeding to the City, when approaching the ventilator over the railway, a large volume of steam came up, frightening the horses, who both reared; in another instant that he lost sight of them, and that it was only by hearing their feet upon the pavement and the wheels striking against the palisade he knew where he was, and that had there been outside passengers they must have been thrown off; and, whether the ventilator in question is similar to those being now placed in the Embankment and Victoria Street; and, if so, what steps the Metropolitan Board now propose to take to protect the traffic from the recurrence of these or similar accidents in this neighbourhood, and what power they possess to remove those obstructions or nuisances which imperil the lives of street passengers?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I am aware of the evidence given by Sir

  549
  Frederick Bramwell before the Committee referred to by the hon. Member; and I may say that I entertain the strongest objections to the mode of ventilation by apertures into the street, and that I gave decided views upon the subject before Captain Galton, the arbitrator. The ventilators on the Embankment and in Queen Victoria Street are intended to be raised above the street levels; but though, perhaps, not so likely to frighten horses, they must necessarily be dangerous and obstructive to the traffic, and a nuisance to the neighbourhood. They have, however, been sanctioned by Parliament, in spite of the strenuous opposition of the Metropolitan Board and the City of London, and I am not aware of any steps which the Board or the Corporation can take for their removal.
  MR. W. H. JAMES: May I ask the hon. and gallant Baronet whether, notwithstanding these difficulties, the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the Corporation, can take any steps for the removal of the ventilators?
  SIR JAMES M'GAEEL-HOGG: My hon. Friend is well aware that, by the Forms of the House, there are very great difficulties; but, notwithstanding these, one of my colleagues has put a notice on the paper for the meeting of the Board of Works to-morrow, to discuss the question whether it is possible to bring in a Bill for the repeal of the obnoxious clauses. The General Purposes Committee will consider the matter, and I think they will have power to act.

  TURKEY—DISORDERS IN UPPER MACEDONIA.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the disorders prevailing in Upper Macedonia, and to the dangers likely to result to the peace of the Balkan Peninsula from those disorders; whether there was formerly a British Consul stationed at Prizrend, in that district; and, whether, considering the state of the country, and the desirability of having authentic information regarding it, Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of again sending a Consul or Consular Agent to Prizrend?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I regret to say that the Reports which reach Her Majesty's Government as to the state of Upper Macedonia are not satisfactory. A British Consular Officer was stationed at Prizrend from August, 1879, to July, 1880; but, owing to the danger arising from the lawlessness of the population, it was thought necessary to withdraw him. Her Majesty's Government do not consider it advisable at the present time to send another Consular Officer to Prizrend.

  IRELAND—NATIONALIZATION OF THE LAND.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Freeman" of the 8th instant:—
  "At a meeting recently held in London of gentlemen in favour of the nationalisation of the land, it was decided, on the motion of Mr. William Trant, of Battersea, that a monster deputation of Englishmen be organised to visit Ireland, and give a welcome and present an address to Mr. Michael Davitt on his release from gaol;"
  and, whether there will be any objection to the deputation on the part of the Irish authorities?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have seen the paragraph referred to, and can only say that on this or any other occasion on which crowds of people may be collected together, the Government will take such measures as they may deem necessary to preserve the peace.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—INDUSTRIAL INSTRUCTION OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as Chairman of the Local Government Board, it has come to his knowledge that the Board of Guardians of Mountmellick Union, Queen's County, appointed teachers to instruct the children in the workhouse in certain industries, and that the Local Government Board refused to ratify the appointments; whether the Board of Guardians, at their last meeting, protested against being obliged to discontinue the instruction of the children in useful industries; and, whether he can state on what grounds the Local Government Board objects to the children in workhouses being

  551
  taught industries that might he useful to them?
  MR. TREVELYAN: From the Reports submitted to me I find that the Guardians proposed to appoint two pauper inmates to instruct the children in spinning and fancy work. The Local Government Board did not consider them to be suitable persons to act as paid officers of the workhouse, and declined to ratify the appointments. The Guardians protested at a recent meeting against this decision. The Local Government Board do not object to the children in the workhouses being taught useful industries; on the contrary, they encourage such teaching in every way in their power; but they consider it necessary to see that proper persons are employed. I think, however, the matter wants some further inquiries, and I am making them.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SEARCHES IN PUBLIC- HOUSES.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the number of persons searched by Policemen and Marines in the public-houses of Dublin since the passing of the Prevention of Crime Act; and, the number of firearms and treasonable documents found upon the persons so searched?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The number of persons searched in public-houses is 545. There were no arms or treasonable documents found on any of them. I do not wish to diminish the significance of that fact; but I would remind the House that these searches were made, for the most part, at a time when no arrests had been effected, though it was known that a very considerable number of murderous weapons were in the City of Dublin. Searches in public-houses have not always been fruitless in Dublin. On the 16th of December the public-house of John Lawless was searched, and two guns, one revolver, a double-barrelled pistol, a bayonet, dirk, and pikehead, together with some gunpowder, were found. There have recently been found in the River Liffey and on streets four revolvers, 233 rounds of ball cartridge, six rifles, 13 knives or daggers, some bullets and percussion caps, and a bayonet, probably thrown out and got rid of in consequence of apprehensions
  552
  on the part of the persons in whose possession they were that their premises or persons might be searched.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—MISSION OF THE RED INDIAN CHIEF.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can state the result of the mission of the Red Indian Chief who last year visited this Country, had an audience with Her Majesty the Queen at Windsor, and an interview with Lord Kimberley at the Colonial Office; and, whether any assurance can now be given that his tribe will not be disturbed by the Canadian Government in the possession of the territory assigned to them?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: As a matter of fact, the person in question had no audience of Her Majesty nor interview with the Earl of Kimberley. The Colonial Office, however, in consequence of his application, referred the matter to the Government of Canada, and were informed at the end of last year that the allegation of the Chief Wah-Bun-Ah-Kee, alias Scobie Logan, that a movement was on foot to deprive the Indians occupying the Caradoc reserve of their lands thereon was totally without foundation.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTIONS OF BOARDS OF GUARDIANS—POWERS OF RETURNING OFFICERS.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a returning officer to a Poor Law Union has any power to prevent a solicitor, representing candidates seeking election as guardians of the poor, being present at the counting of the votes given at such election?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Under the General Orders of the Local Government Board, which have been in force for the last 20 years, a returning officer has a discretion as to the admission or exclusion of strangers on such occasions. I do not understand that the candidate or his proposers were excluded on this occasion, however. A complaint has been made to the Local Government Board that in a recent case in the King's County the returning officer declined to admit a solicitor, and the Board have asked him to state the reasons which influenced him in so doing.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—THE QUEEN'S COUNTY PRISON.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Queen's County Prison has been converted into an invalid convict prison for the use of the Country generally; whether, under a recent Order in Council, female prisoners remanded or committed in that Country can no longer be sent to the county prison, but must be sent either north, to Tullamore, or south, to Kilkenny; whether the cost of the conveyance and of escorts thrown upon the county has not been thereby considerably increased; whether the journey of 16 or 20 miles on cars in the winter inflicts such suffering on the underclad prisoners that magistrates prefer to discharge prisoners charged with trivial offences rather than subject them to it; whether any representation has been made by the magistrates to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject; and, whether he will statew hat decision has been arrived at respecting it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs of this Question. It is true that the cost of the conveyance and escort of prisoners has thereby been increased; but, on the other hand, it must be remembered that this is only a part of a general re-arrangement under the Prisons Act, under which the Queen's County effects a considerable saving by being relieved of the cost of maintaining its prisoners. In the case of a woman recently sentenced at Maryborough Petty Sessions to 24 hours' imprisonment for petty larceny, the magistrates, at the earnest request of the prosecutor, who pressed for leniency, altered the sentence, and ordered the prisoner to be kept in custody until the rising of the Court. This was quite an exceptional case, and is, I am informed, the only foundation for the allegations contained in the fourth paragraph of the Question. No representations have been made to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject from any Bench of Magistrates in the county.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Has not the Lord Lieutenant received any representation from the Grand Jury lately assembled?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not aware of any.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—ERECTION OF LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  LORD JOHN MANNEESasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the number of orders made by the Land Commissioners for the erection of Labourers' cottages, and the number of cottages which have been erected in consequence of such orders?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Land Commissioners inform me that the number of such orders made is 339; but that they are unable to state how many cottages have been erected in consequence of such orders. By Section 4 of the Labourers' Cottages and Allotments Act, a tenant who has been ordered to erect or improve a cottage is liable, on the complaint of any labourer employed on his holding, and in whose favour an order was made, to a penalty, recoverable before Justices in Petty Sessions, of £1 for every week—after six months from the date of the order—during which such order remains unobeyed. The enforcement of an order is, therefore, left to the person benefited thereby. I have asked the Board of Works to supply me with a statement of the amount expended through their Department for the last 10 years on labourers' cottages, and when I receive it I shall be happy to show it to the noble Lord.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Would it be possible to obtain information as to the number of cottages that have been erected?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I imagine it would be very difficult; but I will follow up the matter.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SALES TO TENANTS.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, How many applications have been made to the Land Commission of Ireland by owners of property to effect sales to their tenants; how many sales have been effected in pursuance of such applications; and, what amount of business, if any, has been done by the Purchase Department of the Land Commission Court since the passing of the Land Act, 1881?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER),in reply, said, there had been only two applica-

  555
  tions in cases where the rent-roll was over £5,000 a-year, and in both of these cases the tenants declined to pay the lowest sum which the landlords would take, and so the negotiations fell through. In other branches of the Land Sales Department there had been 405 loans applied for, amounting to £501,973. Of these, up to the present, 286 loans, representing £125,799, had been sanctioned, and 133 sales completed, and loans issued amounting to £59,426.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the Attorney General for Ireland would lay a Return on the Table embodying these facts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): Yes.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—COLLISIONS AT SEA.
  GENERAL OWEN WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the number of collisions at sea caused by steam vessels during the last two years, together with the number of lives sacrificed on these occasions; and, whether, from the sources of information at his command, he has reasonable cause to infer that many other casualties have been occasioned by steam vessels running at undue speed in thick and foggy weather, although direct proof of such may not be obtainable?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, that the information which was asked for by the hon. and gallant Member would be found in the Wreck Abstract which was annually presented to Parliament, and the Returns for the present year were now in the hands of the printers. As regarded the second part of the Question, it appeared to him to be put in some misapprehension; because the hon. and gallant Member asked whether there were many other casualties—collisions—which were due to steamers running at an undue rate of speed, and the inference would appear to be that all the other casualties that were reported were due to the fact that steamers ran at an undue rate of speed. He had only to say that he was not aware of any considerable number of casualties from collisions which were not reported in The Wreck Register, and that he did not believe that any considerable portion of those which were reported were due to those vessels having run at undue speed.

  STATE OF IRELAND—SEED POTATOES.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Would the Government take means to supply a small amount of good seed potatoes in those districts of Ireland in which there has been a partial failure of last year's crop, such seed to be sold for cash?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I can answer the hon. and gallant Member in no other words than that the Government are of opinion that the sale of seed potatoes should be left in the hands of private traders.

  NAVY—COASTGUARD STATION AT KINCASLAGH.
  MR. LEAasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If, in 1878, Admiral Phillimore, then Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves, recommended the building of a coastguard station at Kincaslagh, County Donegal; and if in consequence a site was at once selected; and, whether, inasmuch as a considerable amount of property and distress exist in the district, he will cause the work to be commenced?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS),in reply, said, he had not been able to verify the statement referred to by his hon. Friend; but the present Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves had not reported the erection of a Coastguard Station at Kincaslagh as an urgent matter, although it would be taken in hand before long, probably in the year 1884. If his hon. Friend found that no provision was made for this service next year, he would, perhaps, then renew this Question.

  LIGHTHOUSES AND BEACONS—TORY ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. LEAasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the work at Tory Island Lighthouse has been commenced, as promised on the 17th July last; what progress has been made; and, when it will be completed?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, it had been decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into the relative value of oil, gas, and electricity; and any alteration in the existing light at Tory Island would be postponed until this Committee had reported.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE BECHUANA CHIEFS.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, In what way, and at whose expense, Her Majesty's Government propose to provide for the Bechuana Chiefs; and where are they to be placed; and, whether the authority of the Transvaal Government, or what authority, is to be recognised over the territory which has hitherto belonged to those Chiefs?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, it is proposed to give small pensions from Imperial funds to Mankoroane and Montsioa, and such other Native Chiefs as may appear to have special claims on this country in consequence of former good services or promises of protection, and to find them locations somewhere in British territory. Sir Hercules Robinson has been desired to report where they can best be placed, and what cost may have to be incurred. Until his Report is received nothing further can be decided. As to the second Question, I can only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Earl of Derby's despatch of the 27th of January to Sir Hercules Robinson, in which he is informed that the—
  "Clauses of the alleged Treaty providing for the exercise within the territories in question of jurisdiction by the Transvaal Government cannot be recognized as valid."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not answered the latter part of the Question. He had stated that the Transvaal Government would not be recognized as the authority; he had not stated who was to be.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Of course, my answer to that implied the existing authority.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCELS POST.
  MR. BURTasked the Postmaster General, If he has fully considered the effect which the official notice in the "Post Office Circular," issued September 26th, 1882, will have on sub-postmasters and letter receivers throughout the Kingdom if it is rigidly carried into effect when the parcels post comes into operation, since many of them are, and have been for a great number of years, the agents of the Railway Companies for the collection of parcels; whether the contemplated change will cause a
  558
  most serious interference with a source of income for work that the persons referred to have done without interfering with the discharge of their official duties; and, whether it is intended that they shall have such an advance made to their allowance as shall be equivalent to the loss they will sustain if they are not permitted to act as agents on behalf of the Railway Companies?
  MR. FAWCETT: I am afraid it invariably happens that it is impossible to introduce any change, however beneficial, without some persons being prejudicially affected. With regard to the Parcels Post, I think it will be obvious to my hon. Friend that it would not be expedient to allow Postmasters to act as agents for private Companies, who will be in direct competition with the Post Office. It is, of course, only fair that some additional remuneration should be given to the Sub-Postmasters and letter receivers for the additional labour which will devolve upon them in consequence of the introduction of the Parcels Post.

  LONDON MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BILL—THE FELLOWSHIP OF FREE PORTERS.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in any measure affecting the Corporation of the City of London, inquiry will be made into the status of the Fellowship of Free Porters, a society subordinate to the Corporation; and, whether the mode in which their funds are administered will be investigated, and the system by which their wages are paid by means of tokens cashed in public-houses?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he was informed that it was not quite correct to say that the wages of the free porters were paid by means of tokens cashed in public-houses, these tokens being vouchers for work done. With regard to the former part of the Question, a good deal of evidence was taken on this matter before the Commission of 1854, and he directed the attention of the hon. Member to its recommendations.

  MOROCCO—ILL-TREATMENT OF JEWESSES.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign,

  559
  Affairs, If he can now state the result of his inquiry into the circumstances under which eight Jewesses were bastinadoed at Casablanca by order of the Interpreter to the British Vice Consul at that place?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Minister in Morocco has telegraphed, in answer to the inquiry which I stated on March 6 had been addressed to him, that it is true that eight Jewesses, said to be prostitutes, were flogged by the Governor of Dar-el-Baida, or Casablanca, on January 29. Amiel, a native Jew, who appears to be employed by the Vice Consul as an interpreter, but is not a paid official of the Foreign Office, was present at the punishment; but no certain information has yet been received as to whether he instigated it. Amiel's sons were also flogged and imprisoned by the Governor, with the consent of their father, for having discharged a pistol at the latter, when remonstrated with for having been led into vicious habits by these women. Sir J. Drummond Hay has directed Vice Consul Lapeen to dismiss Amiel from employment for having boon present at the flogging, and to express to the Governor disapproval of the flogging of women under any circumstances. Mr. Lapeen has also been instructed to inquire whether the punishment was inflicted at the instigation of Amiel. Full particulars are promised by post. As it has been stated that on a former occasion I denied the existence of such a place as Casablanca, I wish to point out that I carefully guarded myself from doing anything of the kind. What I said was that the Foreign Office had not been able to identify it at the moment, and that we had telegraphed to Her Majesty's Minister in Morocco for information. Dar-el-Baida, Sir, is not only not marked in the ordinary maps and books of reference, as Casablanca, but it is marked on several by the duplicate name of Anfa. On the Admiralty chart, and on the large map of Morocco, officially published by the French Government, the place is only marked as Dar-el-Baida. As soon, however, as it was ascertained in the Office that there was some doubt on the subject, I wrote a private letter, on March 7, to the Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, of which I am myself a member, suggesting that it was, no doubt, the Spanish name of a
  560
  Moorish town, and asking which it was. Those communications, however, did not pass in time for me to use the results in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member, whoso Question was asked on the 6th. The House will see that there has been no neglect on the part of the Foreign Office.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— ARTICLES 9, 10, AND 11 OF THE CONVENTION—REPAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What amount of money has been paid by the Transvaal Government in repayment of the sums advanced by Her Majesty's Government to meet claims for compensation awarded against the Transvaal Government under Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Convention?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: All the Transvaal Government has paid is £10,000—the results of the sale of captured property.

  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT— GRIEVANCES OF OFFICERS.
  MR. GORSTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it would be a breach of the Departmental regulations applicable to Inland Revenue officers to petition Parliament for an inquiry into their alleged grievances by a Parliamentary inquiry; and, whether it will also be a breach of discipline, under the General Order of January 3rd, 1883, for them to request Members of this House, representing the constituencies in which Inland Revenue officers are legally entitled to vote, to support a Motion for such inquiry?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The hon. and learned Member's Question refers to Papers which, on his Motion, have been laid on the Table, and to which, when circulated, I understood that he intended to call the attention of the House. The points he raises are really questions for debate, and could not be satisfactorily dealt with in a bare answer without full explanations. When the Papers are in the hands of Members, if the hon. and learned Gentleman calls attention to them by Motion in the usual way, I shall be able to deal with the subject fully, and, I think, satisfactorily.

  INDIA (MYSORE)—CESSION OF LAND.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If Sir James Gordon, Commissioner of Mysore, recommended Lord Ripon to approve the renewal of the concession of twenty square miles of land in Mysore for mining purposes to Messrs. Lavelle and Mackenzie and Lieutenant-Colonel Beresford; whether Sir James Gordon informed Lord Ripon that Mr. Mackenzie was senior partner of the firm of Arbuthnot and Co. of Madras, and Member of the Madras Legislative Council, and that Lieutenant-Colonel Beresford was Officiating Deputy Adjutant General of the Madras Army; was Lord Ripon made aware of the relations between Arbuthnot and Co. and the mining enterprises which had previously been attempted upon the lands in question; and, whether Lord Ripon knowingly sanctioned the connection of officials of the Madras Government and Madras Army with these proceedings, or why was he not informed upon those points?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The details of this transaction, so far as they are known in the India Office, wore explained to the House on the 14th of August last by the late Secretary of State, in answer to a Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The concession in question was granted in 1877, and was for three years, from March, 1876. In 1878, it was further extended to February, 1880, and in February, 1880, it was further extended for a period of three years. The terms of the concession were approved by the Government of India before the assumption of Office by the present Viceroy, who took his seat in June, 1880. There is no reason to suppose that all the facts connected with the matter were not at the time fully before the Government.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) ACT, 1878— INCREASE OF DRUNKENNESS.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the charges delivered, in the course of last week, to the grand juries of county Clare at Ennis, on Tuesday last, when Lord Justice Fitz-Gibbon told the grand jury that drunkenness in county Clare had increased from 960 to 1,511
  562
  cases (nearly 60 per cent.); of county Tipperary, at Nenagh, on the same day, when Mr. Baron Dowse said the cases of drunkenness in the North Biding of Tipperary had risen from 512 to 1,037 (over 100 per cent.); of county Cavan, on Wednesday, when Judge Harrison told the Cavan grand jury that the crime of drunkenness had trebled in their county; and on Friday, at Limerick, when Mr. Justice O'Brien called the attention of the grand jury of the county to "the very large increase of drunkenness," and Lord Justice Fitz-Gibbon told the grand jury of the city that,
  "While the convictions for drunkenness show a decrease, there was a considerable increase of that offence in the rural portion of that district;"
  and, whether it is a fact that these counties, in which it is stated by Her Majesty's Judges of Assize that drunkenness has enormously increased, are not subject to the existing Sunday Closing Act; and that, whilst in the exempted portions of the city of Limerick the convictions for drunkenness show a decrease, there was a considerable increase of drunkenness in the rural, non exempted portion of the said city?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked whether it was not the fact that the decrease in the arrests for drunkenness all over Ireland since the passing of the Sunday Closing Act amounted to 32,000; and, whether the increase referred to by the Judges did not relate to the last half-year?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to give Notice of this Question, which involves considerable local inquiry in Ireland; and the same remark applies to the Question of the hon. Baronet, which I hope he will place on the Paper of the House.
  MR. CALLAN: I have given Notice of the Question. Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Irish papers? Has he read the Charges delivered during the present week by the Judges throughout the country?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I read the Charges delivered by the Judges as they came out, but this Question was only put on the Paper to-day; and when a Question is placed on the Paper it obviously means that official information is wanted, and not information obtained

  563
  casually. It will take some time to obtain that information.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION COURT— COUNTY DOWN SUB-COMMISSION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the County Down Sub-Commission delivered at Newtownards on 8th March, in the case of James Smith, tenant; the trustees of the Marquess of Downshire, landlord; to the effect that farm buildings erected by a leaseholder in conformity with a covenant of his lease become the absolute property of the landlord on the expiration of the lease, and are chargeable with judicial rent as against the tenant who erected them, even where proof is given of an Ulster tenant right custom on the estate which has hitherto been held to override the covenant; whether this decision affects a large body of leaseholders on the Downshire estate who have invested considerable capital in farm buildings on the faith of the legalisation of that custom; and, whether he intends to take any steps in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Whoever answers this Question must act as the mouthpiece of the Land Commissioners; and, as my right hon. Friend is absent, I may be allowed to answer the Question. The Secretary of the Land Commission informs the Prime Minister that in this case the decision was given by a legal Assistant Commissioner in his judicial capacity. This decision is liable to review by the Land Commissioners sitting as a Court of Appeal; and the Commissioners think that they could not, with propriety, consent to any explanation or justification of his judgment being produced by the Assistant Commissioner for discussion.

  LOCAL AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATION —LEGISLATION.
  MR. PELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to economy and efficiency in Local Administration, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to enforce by legislation the simplification of areas and adjustment of boundaries of local authorities?
  MR. ALBERT GREYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will inform the House what steps the Government
  564
  are prepared to take in order to give speedy effect to the prayer of the memorial signed by sixty-eight Members of the House, in which they respectfully urged upon his attention
  "The pressing necessity of dealing in some effectual manner with the confusion and expense caused by the divided, overlapping, and conflicting areas of local and county administration; and that this should be done by calling on the local and county authorities to frame draft schemes within a certain period with the above object, subject to revision and confirmation by the Local Government Board, with power to the Local Government Board to frame schemes itself in those cases where no draft scheme shall have been presented to it?"
  MR. HIBBERT (for Mr. GLADSTONE),in reply, said: The prayer of the Memorial referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grey) has been fully considered by my right hon. Friend and by the Government. The simplification of areas, and the adjustment of the boundaries of the districts of local authorities, will necessarily be considered in connection with any scheme of local government; and in any measure on that subject it will be important to secure the practical assistance which can be rendered by county authorities in preparing schemes for dealing with the divided, overlapping, and conflicting areas of local and county administration. In the event of its being found impracticable to introduce a Local Government Bill this Session, the Government will consider whether a Bill should be brought in conferring upon county authorities such powers as those suggested. With regard to the unit of administration—the parish—considerable progress has been made by the Local Government Board, under the Poor Law Acts of 1876 and 1879, in annexing to adjoining parishes detached parts of parishes; and the Poor Law Act of last year will have the effect of incorporating, from and after the 25th of the present month, every detached part of a parish which is wholly surrounded by another parish, with the parish by which the part is surrounded. These preliminary steps to a simplification of areas will tend to facilitate the preparation of schemes by the county authorities.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE EASTER RECESS.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can

  565
  state the Bills it is the intention of the Government to propose for Second Reading before the House rises for the Easter Recess?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In the absence of my right hon. Friend I have to say that the Government hope, on Monday next and Tuesday morning, to be able to take the second reading of the Bankruptcy Bill, the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill, and the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, or as many of those Bills as may be possible, as these are the Bills which it is proposed to refer to the Standing Committees.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEinquired whether the Bankruptcy Bill would be the first Order on Monday?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir; it will.
  In reply to Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that it would be necessary to proceed with the Vote on Account to-night, at any hour at which it could be brought on. The first money Vote for the Navy must also be taken to-night.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I trust that the House will permit me to state the course which I intend to take with regard to the Motion which stands in my name in reference to the policy of the Government in the Transvaal. Having considered the statements that were made on behalf of the Government in both Houses on Tuesday, I should have felt it necessary, in any event, materially to modify the terms of that Motion. I have also had to consider, in view of the discouraging replies of the Prime Minister to me, and the fact that the adjourned debate to-morrow will probably extend very far beyond the issues raised by the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), how it may be possible for me to obtain means for bringing on any Motion which I may desire to move. Well, Sir, what I am anxious to do is to elicit the judgment of the House upon what appeal's to me to be the real and whole question at issue; and I wish to do that, as far as possible, in accordance
  566
  with the convenience of the House, which would not be consulted by any unnecessary repetition of debate. Therefore, what I propose is this. To the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham—which I fear I cannot myself support—an Amendment has been moved by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright); and, in the event of that Amendment becoming a substantive Motion, I shall propose to leave out all the words after the word "Transvaal," in the third line of that Notice, and to insert other words in their place. The Motion, as I propose to amend it, will then read thus—
  "That in view of the very grave complications that must attend intervention in the affairs of the Native population of the Western Frontier of the Transvaal after the policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government in 1881, and the serious consequences which are to be apprehended from the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give any practical effect to stipulations made in the name of the British Nation to guard the interests of Native tribes, this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government should, by the Convention of 1881, have committed this country to engagements which they are not prepared to fulfil."

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. HICKSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is now in a position to give an assurance to the House that the Affirmation Bill will not be brought forward for Second Reading till after the first week after Easter, as many Members have to be absent from the House during that week, in consequence of having to attend to their duties at Quarter Sessions?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In the absence of the Prime Minister, I may say, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, that we will undertake not to bring forward the Parliamenary Oaths Act (1866) Amendment Bill on the Thursday or Friday in Easter week; but I am unable to say at present what Business may be taken on the Monday following. An intimation, however, will be given to the House on that subject as soon as possible.
  MR. GORSTwished to ask whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Bill at all?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It certainly is the intention of Her Ma-

  567
  jesty's Government to proceed with the Bill.

  ARMY—APPOINTMENT OF QUARTERMASTERS.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the fact that, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 5 of the Royal Warrant for Pay and Promotion 1882, appointments of quartermasters in the Royal Engineers have recently been conferred on Warrant officers over forty years of age; and, if he will consider the advisability of so amending the Warrant as to substitute forty-five for forty years as the limit of age for such appointments?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that there had only been one case in which the appointment had been conferred under 40 years of age. It was under consideration to extend, in certain cases, the age under which the position of quartermaster might be conferred.

  PARLIAMENT—COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (SPECIAL REPORT).
  Leave to Committee to make a Special Report.
  Special Report brought up, and read.
  SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Colonel Alexander, Mr. Armitstead, The Lord Advocate, Sir Walter Barttelot, Sir Arthur Bass, Mr. John Bright, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Bulwer, Mr. Burt, Sir George Campbell, Lord Edward Cavendish, Sir Thomas Chambers, Mr. Henry Chaplin, Lord Randolph Churchill, Mr. Edward Clarke, Sir Edward Colebrooke, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Sir Richard Cross, Mr. Davey, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Dodson, Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Lewis Fry, Mr. Gibson, Sir Hardinge Giffard, Mr. William Henry Gladstone, Sir Gabriel Goldney, Mr. Gorst, Mr. Gourley, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Heneage, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr.
  568
  Beresford Hope, Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Attorney General, Colonel King-Harman, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. William Lawrence, Sir Baldwyn Leighton, Mr. Charles Edward Lewis, Sir Massey Lopes, Mr. Marum, Mr. Monk, Colonel Nolan, Mr. Henry North-cote, Mr. Richard Paget, Mr. Parnell, Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. Pemberton. Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Schreiber, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Walter, Mr. Whitley, and Mr. Yorke.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYfurther reported from the said Committee, That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Anderson, Mr. Armitage, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Baring, Mr. Barran, Mr. Boord, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Maurice Brooks, Mr. Thomas Bruce, Mr. Caine, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Corry, Sir Robert Cunliffe, Sir Donald Currie, Mr. Dalrymple, Mr. Richard Davies, Mr. Thomas Dickson, Mr. Ecroyd, Mr. Algernon Egerton, Sir George Elliot, Mr. Henry Fitzwilliam, Mr. William Fowler, Mr. Edmond Dwyer Gray, Mr. Albert Grey, Lord George Hamilton, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. John Holms, Mr. James Howard, Mr. Hubbard, Colonel Kingscote, Mr. Edward Leatham, Mr. William Lowther, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Maclver, Sir William M'Arthur, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. M'Lagan, Sir Alexander Matheson, Sir Charles Mills, Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr. Mulholland, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Sir Henry Peek, Mr. Arthur Peel, Mr. Albert Pell, Lord Algernon Percy, Mr. O'Connor Power, Mr. Puleston, Lord Rendlesham, Mr. Ritchie, Sir Nathaniel de Rothschild, Mr. Rylands, Sir John St. Aubyn, Mr. William Shaw, Mr. Slagg, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. Edward Stanhope, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. John Talbot, Colonel Tottenham, Sir Hussey Vivian, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
  MR. J. R. YORKE: I rise for the purpose of putting a Question to the

  569
  hon. Member for Leeds, the Junior Lord of the Treasury, of which I have given him private Notice. He was present yesterday "at the fifth annual meeting of the Hornsey Liberal Association, Northfield Hall, Highgate, Sir Sydney Waterlow, M.P., presiding." He is reported to have made use of the following among other expressions:—
  "In concluding his remarks "—I am reading from the report in The Daily News—"and speaking of Obstruction in the House of Commons, he said it came from a conspiracy of the Tory Party as a whole; and although the House had already benefited by the Forms of Procedure, yet it was perfectly clear that the New Rules that had been framed, although perfectly competent to put down Obstruction from a few men, wore not sufficient to deal with it from a whole Party."
  I pass over an unimportant passage and come to this—
  "They would not be able to read even the Bankruptcy Bill before Easter, and everybody knew that that was duo to a dangerous and malicious conspiracy on the part of the Tory Party."
  I wish to ask whether this report which I have read of his speech is substantially correct; and, if so, whether the hon. Member has anything to state to the House with respect to the expressions which he has used?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: The words quoted by the hon. Gentleman are, I admit, substantially correct. I frankly confess that I think the words "malicious conspiracy" are stronger than the occasion required. At the same time, I adhere to my conviction that there is on the other side of the House, for the purpose of obstructing the measures of Her Majesty's Government, a considerable amount of united action.
  MR. J. R. YORKE: In consequence of the answer I have received from the hon. Gentleman, I have to take the course which I trusted I should not have been compelled to deem necessary; because I think I may say with perfect truth it has never been my practice to interrupt the proceedings of this House with any untimely interposition on my part, either in the way of moving the adjournment, or by question of Privilege, or any other manner. The only occasion on which I have departed from that practice was when I was urgently solicited by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to do so; and on
  570
  this occasion, if the hon. Gentleman, instead of endeavouring, as I submit he has, to evade the question, had frankly and unreservedly withdrawn the odious—I say deliberately the odious—and undeserved imputation which he thought proper to make against the Tory Party as a whole, I should not have troubled the House with any interruption of its proceedings by moving any Resolution on the subject of Privilege.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand, from the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member, that he proposes to bring this matter before the House as a question of Privilege. I further understand that the extract from the newspaper which has been read by the hon. Gentleman refers to expressions which have been used by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) outside this House. I am not here to say that there may not be occasions when it may not be fit, and even necessary, to bring before the House expressions which have been used outside of the House by one of its Members; but I think that the House would do well not to make it a common practice to take notice of expressions used outside of the House, and to bring them forward as breaches of Privilege. I am bound to say that if these questions are to be treated as breaches of Privilege the House will set a dangerous precedent. I am aware that occasionally that course has been taken—that is to say, that notice has been taken of expressions which have not been used in the House, but outside the House, by Members of the House; but such occasions have been very rare. There was one such occasion in the year 1875, when a Member, speaking outside of this House of the Irish Party, did speak of that Party in language of a violent personal character. Notice was taken in this House of the expressions which had been used; but the expressions attributed to the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) are not of that violent character; and I think, after the withdrawal of the words "malicious conspiracy" by the hon. Member, that the matter should go no further; and, unless I am otherwise instructed by the House, I shall consider it my duty not to treat this matter as a question of breach of Privilege.
  MR. J. R. YORKE: With the fullest deference to your ruling, Sir, I may be

  571
  allowed to ask the hon. Member for Leeds whether he distinctly and unreservedly withdraws the words to which I have called attention.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I have already stated plainly that I do withdraw the words "malicious conspiracy." I suppose the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me.
  MR. J. E. YORKE: I will only submit to you, Sir, in extenuation of the course which I have taken, that in the year 1875, with respect to the very matter which you quoted, an hon. Member made use of the expression, with regard to the Irish Party, that they were "a disreputable lot." The hon. Member first explained that he had merely meant that their conduct was not creditable; but, nevertheless, en a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, he was called upon to apologize for having used that expression so explained. I mention this in extenuation for my having thought that the expressions of the hon. Gentleman, even after his qualified withdrawal of them, justified me in proceeding with the Motion which I was about to make.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—INTERFERENCE WITH LADIES ATTENDING PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the action of the Constabulary Force in the town of Castlecomer, in the county of Kilkenny, that whereas a public meeting of the ladies of Castlecomer was convened by placards, at their instance, to be held at the rooms of the Catholic Young Men's Society, for the purpose of considering the advisability of presenting an address to Michael Davitt, upon such occasion, as upon former ones, two policemen attended, and when requested by one of the ladies, Miss Annie M'Kenny, to produce their authority for such proceeding, they stated "that they had orders to follow these ladies wherever they went;" and, whether such action shall be continued in future?
  MR. TREVELYAN: My attention has been called to this matter. The meeting was one convened by public placard, and the police attended in the discharge of their duty. It is not the case that when asked by Miss M'Kenny
  572
  to produce their authority, they stated "that they had orders to follow these ladies wherever they went." They have no such orders, nor did they say so. It is the case, however, that there were persons concerned in the promotion of the meeting who are believed to be engaged in endeavouring to renew agitation iii the district, and whose movements the police have instructions to watch.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—STOPPAGE OF SALE OF NEWSPAPERS ON SUNDAY IN LONDONDERRY.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that in Londonderry, last Sunday, the police arrested the boys in the streets who wore selling copies of the Dublin "Evening Telegraph" of the previous evening, confiscated the papers, and summoned the boys, under a statute of William III, known as the Lord's Day Act; whether this was done because of anything illegal or objectionable in the paper itself, or merely in consequence of its sale on Sunday; and, if the latter, whether it is the intention of the Irish Executive to use the Forces of the Crown in Ireland for the prevention of the sale of newspapers on Sundays, in a manner not used in Loudon and other English towns under the corresponding English Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received the following telegram from the County Inspector of Constabulary at Londonderry:—
  "Acting under Mayor's orders, constables on duty last Sunday warned newsvendors not to offer newspapers for sale in streets, and when they persisted some of the papers were seized. The recent practice of crying out of newspapers in the streets here on Sundays gave offence to many citizens. Cases heard to-day at Petty Sessions. Papers ordered to be forfeited."
  It does not appear that it was because of anything illegal or objectionable in the paper itself; but because of its sale on Sunday. That is all the information I have on the subject. The proceedings were not prompted by, or with the knowledge of, the Executive; but were taken by the magistrates. The Irish Executive has no such intention as is suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  ROYAL MARINES.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. HOPWOOD,in rising to call attention to certain inequalities and defects of administration affecting the Corps of Royal Marines; and to move—
  "That the Military and Naval value of the Corps of Royal Marines deserves to be adequately represented on the Board of Admiralty, so that the just claims of the Corps may be recognised, and defects in its administration remedied; and that it he referred to a Select Committee of this House to inquire into and report upon the best mode of effecting the above objects,"
  said, no apology was needed to the House for occupying its attention with the grievances of this body, which was an arm of the Service of daily increasing importance to the country. It had had a curious and chequered history; but there could be no doubt that it was now a force of the highest value. In case of war, such a force was considered absolutely necessary by those best skilled in military and naval matters; but, unfortunately, it occupied a position where it was difficult to obtain an appreciation of what was its due. For this reason, he proposed a Committee of Inquiry, one of the first duties of which would be to suggest a remedy for the block and finality of promotion among the officers of Marines. There was no real employment for officers of this Corps above the grade of lieutenant-colonel, and the lieutenant-colonels themselves were engaged in work considerably beneath the dignity of those occupying a corresponding rank in the Army. In the Royal Artillery it took, on the average, 28 years to become lieutenant-colonel, 24 to become major, and 15 for a captain. In the Royal Engineers the parallel figures were 30, 23, and 16; but in the Royal Marine Artillery and Infantry the service for these ranks was longer than the longest time he had mentioned. Comparing the officers of the Royal Marines with those of the Line, the Line had greater advantages, because it had the employment on the Stall and half-pay
  574
  promotion, both of which were at present closed to Marine officers. On board ship, too, the Marine officer was, as far as the command of his men was concerned, often under a great disadvantage, both personally and in the exercise of discipline, owing to his having, in some instances, to refer to the senior executive officer, perhaps greatly junior to himself, under the captain of the ship, though, it was true, some captains did delegate some of their powers over the Marines to the officers of that body. Again, when active operations upon land, which were the avenue to distinction and reward, took place, what was the position of the Marine officer? The Admiral had in his hands the distinction to be gained, and he naturally leaned towards the blue-jackets. In Ashantee, Colonel Festing, who was in command of the Marines, was on shore for a couple of months, and won praise on all hands; but, as soon as reinforcements arrived, the Marines were returned on board ship, and 400 blue-jackets were sent on shore. And the same thing happened in Abyssinia, Zululand, and the war against the Boers. Another anomaly existed with regard to discipline. When the Marines were on board ship, they were under the Naval Discipline Act; but as soon as they stepped on shore, a difficulty arose as to whether they were subject to those provisions, or whether they came under the Army Regulations. This question cropped up lately at Port Said, and the rumour went that, some time after the bombardment of Alexandria, the Commander of the troops on shore refused to have the Marines unless they were put under the Army Regulations; and, after some 48 hours' delay in telegraphing home, the difficulty was removed by the Admiral giving way. But the Marine officer on shore had often this to contend with—that when it was necessary to inflict punishment, or to repress any acts of his men, he had to wait for an officer from the ship—one far junior to himself it might be—to come with the necessary powers to decide the matter. These examples showed that friction arose in the management of the force, and it was this friction which he wished to see prevented. Who ever heard of an officer of the Marines getting a G.C.B.? Yet he apprehended that some of them had shown by their services that they merited such

  575
  a distinction, quite as much as their more fortunate brethren of the Army and the Navy. Whenever wore the Marines included in a Vote of Thanks by Parliament for a single victory? There might be an isolated case; but it was a fact that they were omitted from the Vote of Thanks which was passed on the conclusion of the Egyptian Campaign, and the only reason given was that there was not an officer of sufficient rank in the Service to justify the Vote being extended to them. Bearing in mind the largo contingent of Marines that wa3 sent to Egypt, he put it to the House whether there ought not, in common justice, to have been a recognition of their merits by a General Officer being placed at their head? The question had been asked, why this had not been done; and the reply was—"We do not think it necessary." Who were the "we?" The First Lord of the Admiralty, and several other gentlemen who represented exclusively the Navy interests; and the injustice was particularly hard on the Marines, too, in this way—that, because there was no officer of general rank among them, they were not given a special Vote of Thanks for their services. The hon. and learned Member then drew attention to the difference in pay of the Marines and the Line in regard to officers and men alike, and said the distinction was most unfair and unjustifiable. The officers of the Marines were composed of men of equal station and worthiness, and yet were paid in a very disproportionate manner. Tie admitted that during the last two or three years, several matters in regard to this valuable Corps had been set right; but they were remedies long delayed, and their concession was no reason why the Marines should not seek to get other grievances redressed. Having pointed out that the conditions of promotion in the Marines were unfair in comparison with those in the Line, and that there was also an invidious distinction in regard to pensions, he said that in the Line a soldier received another advantage in deferred pay, which was denied to the Marine. It might be said that the Marine received more money in the shape of rations when at sea on board ship than another soldier, and so he ought; but when he was on shore a portion of money was deducted in respect of rations,
  576
  which reduced his pay below that of a Linesman. The officers of the Marines, too, were denied the privilege of Greenwich Hospital pensions, and the patronage of the Horse Guards was never distributed among general officers of that Corps. Considering their numbers and the position they occupied in relation to our national defences, he thought they should be treated in a more satisfactory manner. He was told that in regard to the pensions of widows of officers of Marines killed in action, or in circumstances which, under the Regulations of the Army, would entitle them to a pension, such claims had been lately denied by the Admiralty in the case of a lady whose husband had been killed at Tel-el-Kebir, though recently, just before, Admiralty Regulations had been issued stating that the Army Regulations were to be followed. Some years ago the same demand for inquiry was made on behalf of the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers, as he was now making for the Royal Marines; and the Government of the day agreed to the appointment of a Select Committee, whereby an improved state of things was brought about. He trusted the Secretary to the Admiralty would adopt a similar course on the present occasion. There was no doubt that, as far as the rank and file were concerned, the Marines had been a very popular Corps for enlistment; but there was a danger in straining that popularity by the perpetuation of injustice and anomalies. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving Ins Resolution.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM,in seconding the Resolution, said, that before he knew the hon. and learned Member for Stockport had given Notice of his Motion he had put down a somewhat similar Motion himself. It might be in the recollection of the House that a short time ago he had asked a Question of the Secretary to the Admiralty on the subject of the Marine Forces. The answer he received was not satisfactory to that Force. Since that time they had had considerable correspondence with Gentlemen interested in the question; and so strongly had it been represented to him that something must be done, and done quickly, in the direction pointed out by the Resolution, that he was induced to give Notice of the Motion, in the hope that the Secretary to the Admiralty might see

  577
  his way to think better of the answer he had then given; or, if that was not possible, to give him an opportunity to explain fully to the House his reasons for not acceding to what appeared to be a very fair and a very just demand. The question had been discussed before several times; Questions had been asked with reference to the Marine Force, and vague promises from time to time had been given; but, so far as he could make out, the practical benefits that had been derived by the Marines were nil. If this Motion were granted it could do no possible harm to anyone; whilst it would be the means of conferring a great boon on a most deserving class of men. As at present constituted, the Board of Admiralty consisted of the First Lord of the Admiralty, three Naval Lords, and one or two Civil Lords, and the First Naval Lord was the personage who had charge of the administration of the Marino Force. Besides that, there was a Deputy Adjutant General, who might or might not be consulted; but as he had no voice in the administration, he did not see how this gentleman was in a position to be of any great service to the Marines. It appeared to him to be a truism that, however friendly a Naval officer might be with the Force, naturally his first sympathy was in favour of his own Service. He had no doubt the reason why the Marine Force insisted on direct representation on the Board of Admiralty was because they felt that the anomaly that now existed would in that case be remedied. When they took into consideration the fact that the Marine Force represented one-third of the fighting force of the Navy, and that while the 26,000 men of the Navy were represented on the Board of Admiralty by three Naval Lords, the 13,000 Marines had no direct representation on the Board whatever, he thought a strong primâ facie case was made out for a Committee to inquire into the subject. With regard to their position under the Naval Discipline Act, they complained, with justice, that they had no particular status when on board ship. They had no right to demand immediate communication with the captain of the ship, and they also complained that they had no power to award the slightest punishment to their own men. During the late Egyptian War a force of Marines was lauded, 1,200 strong, and com-
  578
  manded by three superior officers. Not one of these officers could administer the smallest punishment, and when on outpost duty irregularities occurred on the part of the men, the colonel commanding had to send for a captain of the Royal Navy to come on shore to administer the punishment. He could not imagine a position more degrading to the officers, more likely to destroy esprit de corps, or to prevent due respect from the men to the officers. He quoted from a lecture recently delivered by a distinguished officer of the Royal Marine Artillery emphasizing the anomalies under which the Marines were when placed under the Navy Discipline Act, which conclusively proved that while the education of the Marine officer was a most expensive one under the present system, we were deliberately and recklessly throwing away the advantage which the State had a right to expect from this superior education. He could not but feel that the manner in which the Marines had hitherto been treated had greatly impeded the development and prosperity of the Corps. If the Corps had one of its officers on the Board who could have spoken authoritatively on matters connected with the Force, what he complained of would have been impossible. One of his correspondents had suggested one of three courses which were as follows:—1. That when with the Navy the Marines should have the same privileges, relative ranks, and pay as the Navy. 2. That they should be turned over to the War Office and lent for Naval service, being placed on the same footing as an Army officer for all things. 3. That, failing either of these, the Corps should be wiped out. Now, he (Viscount Lewisham) need say no more to show that when such a proposition as the third one could be seriously made, how deep-seated was the grievance. He had met the Marines in different parts of the world, both afloat and ashore, and had no hesitation in saying that they were superior, in physique and general efficiency, to the Marines of any other nation in the world, and that they would bear comparison with the smartest regiment in Her Majesty's Service. When they considered that there was no quarter of the world in which the blood of their Marines had not been shed, and that there was hardly a battle in which Eng-

  579
  land had been engaged in which they had not taken a distinguished part, he thought the House should unanimously agree to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Military and Naval value of the Corps of Royal Marines deserves to be adequately represented on the Board of Admiralty, so that the just claims of the Corps may he recognised, and defects in its administration remedied; and that it be referred to a Select Committee of this House to inquire into and report upon the best mode of effecting the above objects,"—(Mr. Hopwood,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that, having been employed o7n service in China, in which the Marines formed an important part of the Force, he was bound to state that a finer body of men than the Royal Marines could not be found. During his own experience, some changes in the organization and composition of this Corps had been made which had not boon beneficial, at least, to the officers of the Marines, while some had been so; but it was necessary that other changes should be carried out. The fact could not be gainsaid, that Naval officers by merely being in command of a few Blue-jackets on shore, thereby took command of Marines as well, was a great defect. He remembered the case of Captain Ellis, who had been a Marine officer at Trafalgar, but who, on landing, fell under the command of Naval officers who were not born till many years after that action. No doubt, care must be observed in making changes, for they must consider the Marines as part of the Naval Force of the country, and they must not allow any changes to be made which would interfere with that Force as a whole. He thought that this question would not now have been raised if Naval officers showed more consideration when officers of Marines went on shore; but that the latter should have the command of an Army Force would, in his opinion, hardly be fair to the Army officers.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought a case had been made out for inquiry by a Committee. This House had inquired
  580
  at various times into the position of different branches of the Service; and a Committee, over which the Chancellor of the Exchequer presided, rendered very good service in that way 12 or 15 years ago. He thought the time had now come when such an inquiry might be again made with great advantage. As regarded the Naval Discipline Act, the captain mutt be held entirely responsible for discipline on board ship, and this duty could not be delegated to any other person. Especially in these days, when this House criticized with great propriety any undue severity, it would never do to delegate to any other than the captain such a responsibility. The Marines should be regarded as part of the Navy, and they must disabuse their minds of any idea that the Navy could ever be conducted without a Force like the Marines. There were some points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport which he thought might fairly be accepted by the House, or at least inquired into by a Committee. He himself had made the very proposal which the noble Viscount (Viscount Lewisham) had proposed, with reference to a Marine officer at the Board of Admiralty. No doubt, when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the Admiralty, a change was made reducing considerably the number of the members of the Board; but public opinion changed again, and the Board was largely increased. If it was to be understood that the Board of Admiralty was to contain within it representatives of all the branches of the Service, then it was necessary that the Marines, who were one-third of the whole force of the Navy, should also be represented at head-quarters in the same manner. He entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member, that when Royal Marines were tried by court martial, one or more members of the court should be Marine officers. If the number of the Marines was to be increased, the questions of their pay and pensions might very fairly and properly be submitted to a Committee for inquiry. If the hon. and learned Member carried his Motion to a division, he should certainly divide with him.
  MR. EUGENE COLLINSsaid, it was generally admitted that sergeants of Marines made the best officers of that rank in the Auxiliary Forces; but they were treated with great injustice, as re-

  581
  garded pension and pay, when compared with non-commissioned officers of the Army serving in the same capacity. He trusted these inequalities would be removed, and justice done to this admirable Corps.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought that the House was much indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Stockport for bringing this question so prominently before them, for there was no body of men who had served their country more ably and faithfully than the Royal Marines. He was sorry, however, to have to say that, whether Conservatives or Liberals were in Office, but little attention was paid by the Administration for the time being to the wants, the requirements, and the necessities of this branch of Her Majesty's Forces. He did not understand that it was the wish of the hon. and learned Member who had brought this question forward that the Royal Marines should be taken away from the Navy, or that the captain in command of a ship should not have full power over every man on board it; but the Royal Marines wanted someone in whom they could trust to be placed on the Board of Admiralty. The Force now consisted of a fighting body of men numbering about 13,000, and they had every right to demand that one of their number, who occupied a superior rank, should be placed upon that Board. The Royal Marines had behaved admirably in Egypt; yet in consequence of the red-tapeism, which required that all Reports relating to them should be addressed home, not through their own commanding officer, but through the Naval officer in command, no mention of their gallant conduct had been made in Lord Wolseley's despatches. This was a practice that he thought should at once be done away with. If the officer who was in command of the Marines was to make his Report directly to the General it would be sent home with the other Reports. Another point to which he desired to draw attention was that all punishments of the Marines had to be referred to the Admiral or other Naval officer in command, and that, consequently, when Marines were landed, and the Admiral did not give any orders for placing them under the Army Discipline Act, the men were actually under no Discipline Act whatever, and could not be punished for the
  582
  offences they might commit. This state of affairs had actually occurred in the Crimea, when the Marines who were landed were under no such Act for at least a fortnight. In his opinion, when Marines were landed, they should be under the command of their own officers, who should always give the executive words of command. If a Marine officer of high rank were placed upon the Board of Admiralty, the question of pay and other grievances would be looked into, and thus satisfaction would be given to as fine a body of fighting men as could be found in the whole world. He hoped the Committee would be granted.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX,as one who had taken great interest in Naval affairs, thanked the hon. and learned Member who had moved this Resolution. Recent events had shown that the Marines were in the present what they had always been in the past, and that as Infantry soldiers or as Artillerymen they were without rivals. In Egypt they did good service at Alexandria with the armour-clad train, and in a number of other engagements; while as police at Port Said they had succeeded admirably. Yet there was no body of men who had suffered so much from uncertainty as to their condition, and from anomalies and hardships. If the Secretary to the Admiralty granted this Committee, where all their grievances might be thrashed out, he was sure that the Marines would be willing to abide by their Report. He was not going to press on the Government that the Royal Marines should be represented on the Board of Admiralty by a general officer, because he believed that a small Board was more useful and effective than a large one; but the very fact that he was unwilling to press that claim made him the more anxious to urge the granting of a Committee to determine what should be the future condition of one of the noblest branches of the Service. It was not a matter of surprise that the Marines should wish to have a more direct representation on the Board. If they had had it, there would not have been what he called last year that insenrate reduction of 600 officers and men, who six months afterwards would have rendered such invaluable service.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERsupported the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport. He urged last year that a general officer should be ap-

  583
  pointed to serve on the Board of Admiralty. At present matters connected with the Royal Marines were under the supervision of the Senior Naval Lord; but he had a great many things connected with the Navy to supervise, and the interests of the Marines would be more effectually looked after if they had an officer of their own to attend to them. Another grievance was that officers of the Royal Marines were debarred from holding staff appointments, though eligible for entering the Staff College, like officers of the Army. When they had passed through a two years' course of severe instruction, there was nothing whatever open to them. When officers of Marines had passed from the grade of colonel, when they became colonels commandant, they had nothing to look forward to. In Egypt the authorities, both Military and Naval, made great use of the Marines, who were sent to the front at Alexandria and at Tel-el-Kebir, because they were old soldiers—as the Marines were allowed to engage for 12 years, whereas in the Army men were not allowed to engage for more than seven or eight. The Royal Marine Artillery did good service also in some of the minor engagements when the Royal Artillery were put out of action. He humbly asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, as he had done two years ago, to allow the Committee to be appointed.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that although some observations had been made by hon. Members in the course of the debate with which he could not entirely agree, his feelings and opinions were altogether in harmony with all that had been said in praise of that gallant Force, the Marines. There was not a word that could be used too strong to describe the gratitude which the country owed to the officers and men of that Force. Apart from their daily and constant duties on board ship, in time of peace, they had often served so well in an extremity, and had been employed with advantage on so many occasions, that he thought there would be a general agreement amongst hon. Members that there was no Force more deserving of the confidence of the country. Therefore, speaking for himself and his Colleagues, he approached the subject with every disposition to do justice to the claims of the officers and men. His hon. and learned Friend who brought
  584
  forward the Motion did not appear to be aware of the important steps which the present Board of Admiralty had taken within the last two years with a view to redressing what appeared to be the grievances and inequalities from which the Marines suffered. Without entering fully into the question of the increase of pay granted to them, he might state that the money advantage of the changes of last year was represented by the sum of £24,000. As to the promotion of the officers, of course, it was difficult to equalize the rates of promotion in the different branches of the Service; but a good deal had been done to improve the position of the officers of Marines. They had been given the right of promotion from the rank of lieutenant to that of captain after 12 years' service, and at the present moment the senior lieutenant of the Corps had only 9½ years' service. Besides, it must be borne in mind that young Marine officers on appointment obtained at once the full rights of officers, and counted their service for promotion and retirement from the day of their appointment; while their brother in arms in another branch of the Service had to go either to Sandhurst or Woolwich, and spend a year, or two years, in undergoing a costly education, before he received his commission. Going higher than the rank of lieutenant, he might say that a Warrant had been prepared, and would very shortly be issued, granting to captains of Marines a brevet majority after 21 years' service, and to majors a brevet lieutenant-colonelcy after 28 years' service, or after seven years' service in the rank of major. Some delay had occurred in the preparation of the Warrant; but no injustice would be done to the Marines, because it would date from the time when similar advantages were given to the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. Other things had been done into which he need not enter in detail; but he had been furnished with a statement showing the comparative state of promotion in the three Corps—Artillery, Engineers, and Marines. The Return showed that the junior lieutenant-colonel of the Royal Artillery was born in 1837; of the Royal Engineers in 1838; of the Royal Marine Artillery in 1836; and of the Royal Marine Light Infantry in 1837. The junior major of the Royal Artillery

  585
  was born in 1843; of the Engineers in 1841; of the Marine Artillery in 1842; and of the Marine Light Infantry in 1844. The junior captain of the Royal Artillery was born in 1854; of the Engineers in 1850; of the Marine Artillery in 1852; and of the Marine Light Infantry in 1849. This Return, therefore, showed, not, of course, that the rate of promotion was exactly the same in the different Corps, but that it was not in a hopeless condition in the Marines. Something had also been done expressly in order to avoid stagnation, Marine officers being allowed optional retirement on gratuities after 12 years' service. With respect to field officers, whose number his hon. and learned Friend said had been reduced, he found that in 1863 there were in the Artillery no majors, 27 captains, and 56 lieutenants. In 1883 there were 14 majors, 32 captains, and 39 lieutenants. In the Infantry in 1863 there were no majors, 124 captains, and 234 lieutenants; and in 1883 there were 43 majors, 71 captains, and 108 lieutenants. That showed that the state of promotion was very much better now than it was 20 years ago. With respect to pensions, he could only say it was intended that the Marines, both officers and men, should receive their full share of military pensions. Hon. Members said they ought to receive Staff appointments, and, above all, that they ought to be allowed to go on to the generals' list for a share of general officers' commands in connection with the Army. From the Admiralty point of view they had no objection to that, and should be glad to see it done; and he understood from the late Secretary of State for War that before he left Office steps were ordered to betaken for the keeping of some sort of record or register of the qualifications of Marine officers who might be candidates for Staff appointments; because if such a record were not kept His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge would not have the means of selecting a Marine officer for such an appointment. He could only repeat that he was most anxious that Marine officers should have their full share of these appointments. As to the appointment of a general officer of Marines in Egypt that had been so much talked about, he might observe that the force of Marines at Telel-Kebir and in the other land opera-
  586
  tions was no more than a battalion, and that for that reason alone no major-general could have been appointed to command them. The questions of discipline which had been brought forward were well worthy of consideration. As the right hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir John Hay) had said, the captain of a ship was necessarily responsible for the discipline of the ship, and nothing could be done to invalidate his authority; but in the case of Marines on shore, especially when, though co-operating with a Military force, they were not placed under the Army Discipline Act, there was undoubtedly good ground for making a change. It was a matter that had been under the consideration of the Admiralty for some time before the Egyptian operations, and it was intended to introduce a clause dealing with it in the Naval Discipline Bill of the present year. It had been proposed to give the Marines a direct representative on the Board of Admiralty; but there were many conclusive reasons against that step. As things were, the Marines were perfectly well represented by the Deputy Adjutant General, and, besides, the Board was not intended to be a representative body. If the Marines were represented at the Board, other interests and classes in the Service might also claim to be represented, and the members of the Board would gradually recognize the dangerous principle that each of them represented a particular class. The principal objection was, that the Board was primarily consultative in its character and not administrative. The idea of an indignity being cast on the Corps of Royal Marines by their being represented only by a Deputy Adjutant General under an officer of high distinction, such as a Naval Lord always was, was surely dissipated when they considered that the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers were represented by Deputy Adjutants General. The Royal Artillery was a Corps consisting of between 22,000 and 23,000 men; it was a much larger Corps than the Royal Marines; and it had only a Deputy Adjutant General under an Adjutant General of the Army. Another consideration he would press was that the Board of Admiralty had really very little to do with personal questions. The Admiralty differed from many other Departments in the Public Service in

  587
  this—that the bulk of the business was not so much personal as material. The business which the Board had to determine was connected rather with the great work of maintaining the Navy in its proper condition, and it had not to do with mere questions of promotion and pay. Therefore, on these grounds, the idea of an officer of Marines being placed at the Board of Admiralty ought to be rejected. According to the terms of the Motion it was to be declared desirable to appoint a general officer to represent the Marines on the Board, and the question how this should be done was to be inquired into by a Committee. The Government were little disposed to assent to the appointment of a Committee on the subject, because there was always danger in the House interfering with the administration of a great Service such as this. The hon. and learned Member had brought forward the Motion in a speech full of martial ardour. His one cry was that money should be spent to relieve the alleged grievances of this Corps. He, who had always been thought to be an advocate of peace and economy, was now moving for a Committee to see how a warlike Service could be rewarded by having additional money spent upon it. The Government were quite pro-pared to spend it if it were necessary. The steps already taken were an earnest of their willingness, and if they were not sufficient they would see what more could be done. He asked the House not to appoint the Committee, but to leave the matter to the Government, who recognized the strong opinion which prevailed, to discover whether it was necessary to do anything more. If they did not do what was necessary, then the House could call them to account.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the hon. Member, in his concluding remarks, had recognized the strong feeling that prevailed in both the House and the country in favour of the Royal Marine Corps, who had, at all times, done their duty and proved themselves to be an admirable and a useful Corps. It was fortunate that two or three hours had been devoted to the discussion of the grievances of this Corps, because it enabled justice to be done to their merits, and secured full consideration for the claims presented. No Military body deserved better than this Corps had done; but the
  588
  argument the hon. Gentleman had used would weigh with him in declining to assent to the appointment of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman had gone fairly and frankly through the several statements made, in order to urge the House to grant the Committee; but his objection appeared to be fatal, that it was to inquire into and report the best mode of effecting an object which the Motion assumed was a foregone conclusion. It was not for the House to make the affirmation contained in the Resolution. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that it would not be to the advantage of the Service, or of the country, that the Corps of Royal Marines should be represented in the terms of this Resolution at the Board of Admiralty. Certainly, no officer sitting at that Board was understood to represent any portion of the Service; each was appointed because of his services, and of his general qualifications to assist in the administration of the Navy; and, undoubtedly, the duties were of the character which had been indicated. Some advantages, he hoped, might result from the discussion. He regretted very much that opportunity was not taken to employ a general officer when the Marines were sent out. It was said that they amounted only to a battalion, and that it was impossible to appoint a general officer to command a battalion; but if they were to be brigaded with the troops of the Line, looking at the great services they had rendered, why for the occasion might they not have been commanded by a general officer? It could not be denied that there was a certain amount of grievance in this direction. Officers who had served well and gallantly during a long period, and who had arrived at a time of life when they might reasonably expect to have the opportunity of showing whether they had qualities of a higher character than had yet been called for, were denied the opportunity when it seemed to occur. On a future occasion, no doubt, a remedy would be found for this admitted grievance. There were officers of the Royal Marines, of all grades, who had shown great capacity; and he saw no reason, simply because these officers had arrived at the rank of colonel or major-general, that they should be denied the opportunity of serving if the Army had need of their services. Undoubtedly, the

  589
  Marines existed for services in the Fleet. In time of emergency, they were of great use on land as soldiers, but, still, we must regard Marines first and foremost as sailors, who were bound to servo on ships. He thought some improvement might be made in the Naval Discipline Act, so that there should be no question as to the discipline to which Marines would be subjected when they were landed; but he would not anticipate discussion on that subject. After the discussion which had taken place, he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would not ask the House to divide, as there were many hon. Members, and he was one of the number, who would exceedingly regret having to go into the Lobby against what appeared, at all events, to be the interests of the Service. If grievances existed, they would be desirous to do everything in their power to remedy them; but he felt sure that a Committee of that House would not be the best means of effecting an improvement in the condition of the officers and men of the Royal Marines.
  SIR EDWARD REEDjoined in the appeal just made to his hon. and learned Friend not to divide the House on his Motion, as by so doing he would make many Members go into the Lobby against the Royal Marines, of whom they were the warmest admirers. The Board of Admiralty was in no sense a representative body; and although he would be very glad to see a Marine, and more especially an Engineer officer, added to it, such addition would not be for the purpose of direct representation.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he could not understand why officers of the Marines should not be eligible to every command and every honour that could be conferred upon the Line, the Artillery and the Engineers. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that the strength of the Marines in Egypt was too small for the formation of a brigade; but in the course of the discussion he had heard that the Marines numbered about 1,200 men.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANintimated that his remarks had reference to the Marines at Tel-el-Kebir.
  COLONEL NORTHremarked, that he was speaking not of them only, but of the Marines employed during that campaign. If there were 1,200 men, there
  590
  were virtually two battalions, and those constituted a brigade. They possessed no body of troops which had shown their loyalty and bravery in every part of the world more distinctly than the Royal Marines. The thanks of the Royal Marines were due to the hon. and learned Member for bringing forward this Motion, which it was his intention to support. He served with the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Committee of 1867, which did great service to the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers, and he could see no reason why a Committee should not be granted to go into the case of the Royal Marines.
  ADMIRAL EGERTONsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not divide the House. If the Motion, were pressed he should deem it his duty to vote against it. If they were to grant this Committee they would be, in reality, damaging the cause which they were all so anxious to promote. Such a Committee could not be nominated until after Easter; by the time its Report was presented the Session would be considerably advanced; and, meanwhile, the Admiralty would be deterred from taking those steps which the Secretary to the Board stated that they intended to take on behalf of the Corps.
  COLONEL MAKINSalso trusted that the Motion would be withdrawn. The discussion had had the good effect of drawing from the Secretary to the Admiralty a more satisfactory statement than those answers in courteous but peculiar language, which appeared to be common to the Front Bench when it was desired to give a question the go by. He believed the hon. Member was quite correct in saying that the scheme of promotion decided upon had not yet been made public. He desired to state one or two reasons why general officers of Marines should be employed where Marines were brigaded with Regular troops. If this had been done in Egypt, one inconvenience would have been avoided. In one action General Graham was absolutely unaware that the Royal Marines possessed men who were trained as field-gunners, and he kept the Royal Horse Artillery at work, while there were 400 Marine Artillery at hand, who would have been fully capable of relieving them at a time when they were practically exhausted. If there had been, a

  591
  general officer of Marines in command during that campaign, such a loss of force would have been almost impossible. At another time, a general officer was astonished when he was informed that the Royal Marines could have furnished him with a staff of telegraphists.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he should have been glad to yield to the appeals of his hon. Friends, but he had to consider the wishes of others in this matter, and he considered it for the interest of the public to press his Motion to a division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 39: Majority 21.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  NAVAL RESERVES AND COASTGUARD.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. GOURLEYrose to call attention to the Report of Rear Admiral H.E.H. the Duke of Edinburgh on the Naval Reserves and Coastguard. What he held first with regard to the Reserve Forces was that they should not be organized or regulated with a view to a small war such as that they had recently passed through in Egypt, but should bold in view the future possibility of a war with a large Maritime Power. Upon that subject, the Report which His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh had placed in the hands of the Admiralty was one of very great value; and in dealing with the details connected with the Reserve Forces he had placed before Parliament and the country an amount of information such as had not been conveyed by any Report since that of the Manning Commission in 1859. He (Mr. Gourley) would not call the attention of the House to the condition of the reserve ships of the Navy, as he had done last year upon Admiral Phillimore's Report; but he would like to ask a few questions. First, be would ask how many of them were armed with breech-loading guns, and of what calibre the guns were, and also how many of them were furnished with torpedoes, and how many with torpedo launches? He also wished to know whether any experiments were to be made with these launches in using electricity as a propelling power? If electricity could be applied it would in a large measure re-
    592
    volutionize ocean fighting, inasmuch as in a fog or in the smoke during a battle the I launches would be the means of causing an enormous amount of destruction. He quite agreed with the recommendation of His Royal Highness that more men should be kept on board ship and lesson shore. The Reserve Squadron was intended to be a fighting squadron, and to protect the Channel and our ports in case of emergency; and therefore, it was exceedingly desirable that these ships should have the highest amount of efficiency possible. But this could not be obtained and maintained when they kept such a large number of men of the Reserve on shore, where, naturally, they lost knowledge of their duties. The next point referred to by His Royal Highness was their power of manning cruisers. At present the Admiralty were in the habit of supplying vacancies from their iron-clad ships; but any Member who knew anything of yachting, or of the work on board small ships, would know that those men were not the most handy on board cruisers. What His Royal Highness recommended was that, instead of transferring men from the iron-clads, boys—the sons of Coast-guardsmen and others—should be apprenticed on board one of those vessels; and the effect of such a course as this would be to bring up a useful class of men without any extra cost to the country—a class of men who would, in after life, make very useful pilots. This recommendation would, if carried out, also effect a very large saving to the Admiralty, for by it they would be able to save the £70 or £80 a-year they now paid for roaring apprentice boys who were borne on the books of the Admiralty. Having dealt with the Coastguard Service afloat, His Royal Highness proceeded to deal with it on shore. With regard to the Coastguard in Ireland he recommended that the Rear Admiral at Queenstown should hold the command of that body in Ireland. The suggestion was a good one, and he should like to ask how many stations there were now in Ireland, and how many men quartered there at the present time? His Royal Highness also pointed out that the number of men now serving on the South Coast was larger than was required, for the object for which the service was established—namely, to prevent smuggling, which had now almost disappeared; and he suggested that

    593
    a number of those men, who had great knowledge of the life-saving apparatus, should be transferred to the North-East, in a dangerously rocky part of the coast where there were many wrecks and great loss of life. The next point referred to was the present mode of selecting officers for the Coastguard. At present there were 69 officers of superior rank in that Reserve who had little chance of returning to active service afloat, and who, if necessity arose to call on them, would not be found efficient for duty on board modern ships of war after passing so much time ashore. His Royal Highness suggested that younger men should be transferred to the Coastguard Service for shorter terms, say two or three years, and that at the end of that time they should return to active service afloat, an arrangement which would prevent the Admiralty having to place such a large number of useful men on half-pay. The hon. Member then referred to other points in the Report of His Royal Highness, including the suggestions relating to Second Class Reserve, the system of drill that should be adopted, especially in regard to the use of torpedoes, and the Naval Artillery Volunteers, a valuable Force, which should now have a capitation grant with a view to stimulating them to thorough and complete efficiency. In conclusion, he said the Report was a very valuable one, both in regard to the details given and the suggestions embodied in it, and he hoped it would not be allowed to rust in the pigeon-holes of the Admiralty Office.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought the House ought to thank the hon. Member for Sunderland for calling attention to this most excellent Report, for which they were indebted to His Royal Highness. He was certain that if that portion of it which referred to the men of the Reserve being employed a portion of the time afloat was carried out it would be a great advantage to the Service. The suggestion with regard to the appointments of the officers and their duties were also excellent. In the Navy Estimates money was taken to pay 20,000 Reserve men, and the suggestion was still in print that only 18,000 would be enrolled. If that was so, the proposal to enrol 10,000 Second Class Reserve men would not be carried out this year. He bore personal testimony to the ad-
    594
    mirable and useful class of men that could be drawn from the Orkney and Shetland Islands, and the Isle of Man, and he heartily approved the suggestion that the Second. Class Reserve men should be drawn from them. He had served in one of Her Majesty's ships with nearly 300 men raised in the Shetland Islands. There had been some difficulty at first in teaching the Northern fishermen the words of command, because they did not all speak English; but he had seen enough of them to know that in employing them in the Second Class Reserve they should be making use of loyal and excellent men. With regard to the Isle of Man, he lived within a comparatively short distance of it, and had occasionally visited it, while he often saw the Manx fishermen in the bays near his own house, and knew some of them personally, and he was satisfied that they could furnish them with 2,000 men fit for the Second Class Reserve. They were men of fine physique and excellent character, and he was glad His Royal Highness had called attention to them. He regretted to find that the Admiralty, while asking for 20,000 for the Naval Reserve, stated that they believed that they should only be able to raise some 18,000 men for that Force. He had read the Report with great interest, and he trusted his hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Brassey) would be able to assure them that steps would be taken to raise the extra 2,000 men from the sources indicated in the Report.
    MR. WILLIAMSONobserved, that very possibly the proposal that the men of the Second Class Reserve should receive only £2 10 s., while the men of the First Class Reserve received £6, might be somewhat inadequate; but he had no doubt that, if it were found to be so, the matter could be considered again another year. He himself rather thought that these fishermen, who derived from their industry at certain seasons of the year a good deal of money, would scarcely be tempted to leave their industry for 28 days for that very small amount. He suggested that if the Admiralty were not successful in getting the full number of these men, they should consider the best means of doing so, if necessary, by offering a larger monetary inducement. He hoped the Admiralty would consider, in connection with that very small money reward, the best means of determining

    595
    the period of service. He thought 28 days' service was too much for these fishermen to give; and if the Secretary to the Admiralty could tell them that that period might be divided into two or three terms of six or eight or ten days each, it might remove a difficulty. In any case, he considered the idea of reinforcing our Reserves from the fishing population was an admirable one, and the country was indebted to His Royal Highness for bringing it before the attention of the Admiralty. There were on the Eastern and Northern Coasts of Scotland 45,000 men and boys employed in the herring fishing trade, 30,000 able-bodied fishermen on the East side—better or more daring sailors than whom could not be found. They were always at home, and would form an admirable Reserve Force in times of emergency; and he hoped the suggestions of His Royal Highness would be carried out.
    SIR JOHN JENKINSurged the claims of the Naval Volunteers, and hoped they would receive more attention from the Admiralty than they had hitherto done.
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, that the Report of His Royal Highness the Superintendent of Naval Reserves was an important Paper, and he was glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland had called the attention of the House to its contents. Among the many valuable suggestions contained in that Report, perhaps the most important was that relating to the future strength of the Reserve. His Royal Highness recommended that the Reserve should be raised to a strength of 20,000 men, consisting of an equal number of First and Second Class Reserve men. This proposal had been adopted by the Admiralty. For the general purposes of manning the Fleet, and especially for the smaller vessels, the hardy fishermen who formed the Second Class Reserve were thoroughly efficient; and if these men were called out for active service it would not cause the inconvenience to the shipping trade which might be felt by the withdrawal of the First Class Reserves, who might be called the leading seamen of the Mercantile Marine. Drill batteries had long been established at points selected for the convenience of the fishermen, including the Shetlands, Wick, Peterhead, Brixham, Falmouth,
    596
    Penzance and Stornoway. He had announced last year that additional batteries were ordered for Kirkwall and the Isle of Man, and the question of a battery at Grimsby was under consideration. No difficulty would be experienced in increasing the Second Class Reserve from the present strength of 6,000 to 10,000; and twice that number of suitable men could be raised if necessary. According to the statistics recently published by the Commission on the Fisheries, the men constantly employed numbered 56,000; those occasionally employed, 38,675. The increase in the fisheries—all the men being British subjects—compensated, in some degree, for the gradual reduction in the British seamen engaged in the foreign trade. It was interesting to remark that while the development of steam had reduced the number of seamen in the foreign trade, the extension of railways had greatly stimulated the fisheries by the facilities afforded for a distribution offish to the inland markets. At the port of Hull, the number of smacks had increased from 40, in 1845, to 420 in 1881. At Grimsby they had increased from 70, in 1863, to 625 in 1881. Turning to the First Class Reserve, their present number was 11,316, and the reduction to 10,000 would be effected gradually by raising the standard of qualification. If it were necessary, no difficulty would be experienced in maintaining the First Class Reserve at its former strength. It was true that the percentage of foreign seamen had increased from 18,000, or 9·74 per cent, in 1871, to 14·6 per cent at the date of the latest Return, and the increase of traffic through the Suez Canal would necessarily tend to bring more foreigners into the British Mercantile Marine; but in the stormy seas of Northern Europe, and for Colonial voyages, English seamen would still form the majority of the crews. Throughout the Mercantile Marine they were always to be found in positions of responsibility. In the opinion of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, as of the Liverpool shipowners, whom he quoted last year, there was no evidence of deterioration in our seamen. With reference to the availability of the Naval Reserve on a sudden emergency, the increase of steam navigation had had a marked and favourable effect in shortening the periods

    597
    of absence of our seamen from the home ports. In the First Class Reserve only 207 men had obtained leave to engage for long voyages. Before passing from the subject of the Reserve, he desired to refer to the question of rank. Masters holding responsible positions in the Merchant Service could not undertake active duty in connection with the Reserve, and no commission had hitherto been given for a higher rank than that of lieutenant. It was proposed, however, to recognize the recent services of masters of transports in the Egyptian Campaign by making a certain number of promotions to the rank of commander. The hon. Member for Sunderland had referred to some other suggestions of His Royal Highness which the Admiralty wore not prepared to adopt. It was not thought expedient to complete the crews of the reserve ships. The disposable men in the home ports were usefully employed in gun-drill and in fitting out ships for commission, and they were constantly being drafted to seagoing ships. For the annual cruise of the Reserve Squadron the crews were completed, as his hon. Friend was well aware, from the Coastguard, whose efficiency must be maintained by occasional service at sea. With regard to the manning of the cutters, a proposal was under consideration to replace them to some extent with gunboats. By this means the duties of the Coastguard would be more efficiently performed. The vessels would be of a class to which the seamen of the Navy were accustomed, and a valuable opportunity would be afforded to our younger officers to gain experience in pilotage and to become acquainted with the Coasts of the United Kingdom. As to the practice of the Naval Reserve at a floating target, its necessity was admitted, and the withdrawal of gunboats from the Coast of Ireland would enable them to make better provision for this service. Referring to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir John Jenkins), he was aware that considerable disappointment had been felt in certain quarters at the hesitation of the Admiralty to give a capitation grant to the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers. Having been closely connected with this Force from the commencement, he was naturally anxious to see it established on a permanent basis; but that object could only be attained
    598
    by giving proof of its efficiency for some defined purpose and by minimizing the cost. The first promoters of the movement were well aware that the training of the Naval Volunteers would entail a large expense for the drills on shore and the exercises afloat, and on this ground, in tendering their services to the Admiralty, they specially insisted on their willingness to dispense with the capitation grant. As compared with the Land Volunteers, the Naval Volunteers were relieved of all expenses except the cost of uniform. They were drilled in the ships or batteries provided for the Naval Reserve, while the Land Volunteers were called upon to bear considerable expenses for drill-sheds. Highly favourable Reports had been received of the conduct and efficiency of the Naval Volunteers both ashore and afloat; but as yet no defined place had been assigned to them in the general scheme for the manning of the Navy. His Royal Highness proposed that they should take the place of the Coastguard; but that could be done with equal efficiency by men who had not been trained as Naval gunners. With these considerations in view, the Admiralty were not prepared to entertain the demand for a capitation grant. He was, however, able to give a satisfactory assurance on a point to which he believed the Naval Volunteers attached even more importance, and he was able to announce that a suitable vessel would this year be appropriated for the annual cruise. The marked success of the Coastguard life insurance fund formed an interesting feature in the Duke of Edinburgh's Report, and the success with which the scheme had been carried into effect reflected the greatest credit on His Royal Highness, The benefits accorded to the contributors were on a more liberal scale than those usually given. The management was in the Reserve Office, and there was only one paid official. The Admiralty had not lost sight of the proposal to extend the scheme to the Service afloat. Having last year given in detail the number of men in reserve for manning the Navy, it was unnecessary that he should recapitulate figures which had not materially changed in the interval. In conclusion, he could assure the House that they had an an ample Force at their disposal to meet any emergency which might arise.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES, 1883–4.

    DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In moving that 57,250 Men and Boys he employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services, including 12,400 Royal Marines, in the next financial year, I believe I shall be taking the course most convenient to the Committee if, before dealing with any question that may arise out of the individual Vote, I make a few remarks explanatory of the Estimates as a whole, and of the administrative policy which they embody and disclose. The net demand which in these Estimates we propose to make upon the public purse amounts to £10,757,000, as compared with £10,483,901, voted for the current year. But this comparison is not quite exact, for these Estimates comprise certain items connected with the Egyptian Expedition, amounting to £25,500, and are further swelled by transfers from Army Votes to the extent of £118,032; so that the amount which should properly be compared with the Estimates of 1882–3 was £10,613,468, showing a net actual increase on those Services which were provided for in the normal Estimates of the present year of £129,567. Now, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to a Paper which I have caused to be prepared and circulated with the Estimates, containing an explanation of the causes of the various differences in these Votes. A similar Paper-has for many years accompanied the Army Estimates, and I trust that those who watch with interest the course of Naval Expenditure may find its publication of some use.
    SIR JOHN HAY: Where is it to be found?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It was delivered to the right hon. and gallant Admiral a few days ago with his other Parliamentary Papers. If hon. Members will turn to the Abstract given on pages 4 and 5 of the Estimates they will find that, excluding for the moment the two Shipbuilding Votes and the Votes for Victuals and for Naval Stores, there are on the remaining Votes increases and de-
    600
    creases which result in a balance of decrease of £2,799. But if we wish to deal with normal expenditure only, we must deduct from these Votes the charges connected with Egypt which fall upon them, and we thus arrive at a decrease of £28,299. I do not know that any of these Votes call for particular remark from my present point of view, beyond this, that I cannot even see the figures on the Paper without contemplating with some satisfaction, and inviting others to view with the same feeling, the Vote for Retired Pay—that is Vote 15—in which for the first time we find a welcome abatement, due to the lapse of the first of the Terminable Annuities, created in connection with the commutation of retired pay. Year after year we have had nothing but constant additions to the charge under that head; but now at last this 10th year brings us an instalment of relief. We have thus, as I have said, already a net decrease of £28,299, and this is swelled by the Victualling and Store Votes, which give us a further decrease of £118,691, almost equally shared between them. For the former Vote we are able to ask for a diminished sum, chiefly because of the fact that the requirements of the Service during the year have not been so great as was expected, and because we have been able to commence the year 1883–4 with stocks somewhat better replenished than usual. With regard to the Vote for Naval Stores, for which a sum less by £60,000 than last year's Vote will be proposed to the Committee, it is so largely affected by the New Rule as to Appropriations in Aid, that it seems to deserve special remark. This is not the time, nor am I the person, to defend—if it needs defence—the new system, prescribed, as it has been, by the Treasury, with the approval, or, I may even say, at the instigation, of the Committee of Public Accounts. What I wish to say of it, from the point of view of the Executive Departments, is that it has, what I believe to be, a most wholesome and economical effect in encouraging those who administer them to turn useless stores and obsolete property into money, strictly under the control and sanction of the Treasury and of Parliament, and to employ the proceeds in providing for the Public Service. So long as the proceeds of the sales of old stores went to swell, without credit or acknowledg-

    601
    ment, the balances of the Exchequer, not only was there a temptation to those in charge of a Department to hoard useless property, which generally deteriorated in value, and which even sometimes cost something in the keeping, but also, if any old stores were disposed of, they had no direct inducement, in the interest of their own Department at least, to secure that the disposal should be effected on the most advantageous terms. But now all that is at an end. If now we are called upon to give new lamps for old, we are at least allowed to set the value of the old lamps against the cost of the new; and I believe the Committee will be of opinion that this arrangement is both right and reasonable. Now, these considerations apply with the most direct force to the Vote to which I am now inviting the attention of hon. Members. Some of our Dockyards have their creeks filled with old and worn out vessels—wooden ships of obsolete type—which are not only useless, but on which money is annually spent to watch them, and frequently to patch them, and pump water out of them, in order to keep them afloat. It would be hardly possible to conceive a less profitable application of public money. Now, it is by the sale of an additional number of these ships—a transaction, the details of which when we come to the Vote I shall be fully prepared to explain and justify—that we have been able to secure a diminution of the public charge under this Vote, which actually provides for an amount of stores for the service of the Navy virtually the same as the provision made under it in the current year. It may be interesting to trace for a moment the history of this Vote in recent years. From the gross amount of the Vote in these Estimates, and for the previous three years, we must deduct the amount expended on repayment on behalf of other Departments of the Government, which is now included in the gross Vote, a credit of the same amount being set against it. The amount available for purchase of stores for Naval Service for the coming year is thus £1,265,500. In 1882–3 it was £1,250,000, the apparent increase being accounted for by the fact that the liability for certain electrical and torpedo stores has now been transferred from the War Office to the Admiralty, who now provide for all such stores with the exception of explosives. In 1881–2,
    602
    the amount was £1,172,700; in 1880–1, it was £1,011,000; and in 1879–80, it was £1,030,000. The average of these four years, therefore, was £1,115,925; whereas, as I have said, the amount now proposed for the strictly Naval Service of next year is, after deducting the £16,500 taken over from the War Department, £1,249,000. These figures, I venture to think, sufficiently prove that this Vote has not been unduly weakened; and I have thought it right to dwell upon the subject in order to prevent any misapprehension. Now, resuming our review of the Votes, and adding the decrease on victuals and stores of £118,691 to the decrease already secured on the other Votes of £28,299, we have a total net diminution on all the Votes, save two, of £146,990. There remain the two Shipbuilding Votes, which I have kept to the last, and the net expenditure under these we estimate at an increased amount over this year of £394,589. This leaves a net increase on the whole of the Estimates of £247,599; and if we deduct from this the sum of £118,032, which I have already quoted as the result of the transfers between the Army and the Navy Votes, we are brought round again to the net actual increase of £129,567, which I have already stated to the Committee. Now, to those who have kindly followed the figures I have quoted, I have said enough to show what the main principle of policy which underlies these Estimates is—namely, that by thrifty administration we should be able to concentrate as much money as possible upon the Shipbuilding Votes; not by starving the other Votes, not have shown that this is not done, but by keeping a firm hand upon the expenditure under them, we have endeavoured to render available for the strengthening of Her Majesty's Fleet a larger proportion of the money which we ask for from Parliament than has, for many years at least, been devoted to that purpose. We propose, indeed, a certain addition, to the extent I have named—£129,567—to the burden of Naval Expenditure. I assure the Committee that it is with regret, and after much deliberation, that we do so. But we are responsible to the country for maintaining the Navy of England in a state worthy of her maritime position, and capable of undertaking

    603
    the manifold duties imposed upon it; and we believe that with this addition—I think I may call it a moderate addition—to the sum at our disposal, which the experiences of recent years and our knowledge of the requirements of the Service convince us is necessary, we shall be able to fulfil our task. Our programme is not of a startling or ambitious character. We have been invited by writers of great authority in the public Press to take another course, to open up a new era of great Naval Expenditure, and to launch forth upon a sea of new projects and unknown expense in shipbuilding. I have to thank hon. Members who entertain those views for their consideration and courtesy in not interposing Amendments on this occasion; but we are not disposed to follow that advice. In the first place, we believe that we are quietly and steadily making and preparing such additions to the Navy as fully to maintain our position. In the second place, I would ask the Committee what would be the effect in Europe if England were suddenly to embark on a now career of Naval Expenditure, and possibly set the example of a fresh international rivalry on the sea, which could in the end but add to the miseries which the system of portentous Military establishments on land already inflict upon the world? And, in the third place, we are of opinion that if ever there was a time when it would be the height of un wisdom to make a sudden and fresh start in Naval construction it is now, for it is hardly too much to say that at the present moment everything is unsettled. The gun and its mountings, the torpedo and its discharge, the degree and extent of a ship's protection, the character and position and distribution of her armament—these and many other questions are subjects of experiment and controversy; and the inventions of science and the versatile development of the art of war may at any moment dictate some new change. Surely, then, we are bound now more than ever to proceed carefully and tentatively, following closely upon known experience, and confining our operations to that which is absolutely necessary. This is the policy of Lord Northbrook and his Colleagues in the present Naval Administration, and it is the only one that the Government are prepared to recommend to Parliament and the country.
    604
    We believe that in what we are proposing to-night we are doing all that is necessary, while we are not imposing on the taxpayers of the country greater burdens than the necessity of the case requires. Now, Sir, let me direct the attention of the Committee more particularly to Vote 6—the Dockyard Vote the net expenditure included in it amounts to £1,556,000; but a portion of this may be described as being, in some sense, of an unproductive nature, so far as the building and repairing of ships are concerned. Just as the Estimates are hampered with dead weight, so this Vote includes within its own limits a dead weight of its own, in the form of incidental expenses; and it is satisfactory to observe that this is gradually and steadily dwindling. The amounts appropriated to yard and other services, for the last five years, are as follows:—In 1878–9, £273,177; in 1879–80, £229,160; in 1880–1, £208,988; in 1881–2, £197,676; in 1882–3, £177,554. In 1883–4 it is £178,038. This steady decrease is duo to a better system of account-keeping, and to economies consequent on an Inquiry into the subject conducted in 1880 by Mr. Hamilton, to whom the Admiralty and the Public Service of the country owe so much. The amounts proposed to be spent on actual effective wages in next year are, for new construction £504,659, and for repairs £443,484, making a total of £948,143. This will be found to be a larger sum than has been spent for many years on this service; comparing it, for instance, with the average expenditure on wages for the previous five years, which is, for new construction £454,242, and for repairs £350,402, making a total of £804,704; there is shown an increase in favour of the coming year of £143,439. Or, if we compare it with the present year alone, it shows an increase of £126,291. But wages are not the only element in the building and repairing of our ships. Of the materials and stores to be worked up into them it is not easy to form a precise calculation; but, from such information as I can obtain, I would estimate their value at from £750,000 to £800,000; and if we add to these sums the amount to be paid to private undertakings for ships and machinery, under the Contract Vote—in which I include gun-mountings, but exclude the item

    605
    for experimental services—namely, £1,031,300 we arrive, at a total of nearly £2,750,000 directly, actually, and effectively devoted to the maintenance of the Fleet. But the Committee will ask, with this large amount for wages, materials, and contract work, what work do you propose to do? We expect, if the Committee furnish us with the means, to build of unarmoured ships 3,948 tons in the Dockyards, and 2,270 tons by contract, being 6,218 tons in all, or a somewhat smaller amount than this year. But of armoured tonnage we propose to build 1,982 tons by contract, and 11,224 tons in the Dockyards, or 13,206 tons in all, as against 11,466 tons this year. The Committee will, probably, think that this is a very satisfactory amount. I wish, however, frankly to say that I think a slight modification ought to be made in the figures I have just quoted, which, however, does not affect the substantial effect of the general result. In the armoured tonnage—11,224 tons—which I have said is to be built in the Dockyards, are included, as hon. Members will see if they turn to page 204 of the Estimates, two new protected vessels, the Mersey and the Severn, which are to be constructed at Chatham. These are the two vessels which I described to the Committee in August last, one of which it was then intended to build by contract, but which are now both to be built at Chatham. They are vessels of a typo to which the scientific advisers to the Admiralty attach great importance, and they may possibly prove to be the pioneers of a future class. They will possess high speed, with their machinery, magazines, and buoyancy protected by an armoured deck, but with their armament unprotected. Now, it may be questioned whether these vessels ought to be reckoned as armoured ships, although, with their horizontal protection, there are many who consider them quite as efficient and formidable as certain of the ships which, with perpendicular armour, bear the undisputed title of "iron-clads." The Polyphemus has always, for instance, been reckoned as armoured, and the new ships deserve the rank quite as well as she does. But we are disposed, on the whole, to think that a better arrangement would be to place them in a new and intermediate category of "protected ships;" and if this was done, the figures I have quoted would be
    606
    altered in this way. I should then say that we propose to build 19,424 tons in all, whereof 6,218 would be unarmoured, 925 protected, and 12,281 iron-clad. Now, let me go back over the last five years, and state to the Committee how they stand in this respect. In 1878–9, 8,430 tons of armoured ships were built; in 1879–80, 7,427 tons; in 1880–1, 9,235 tons; in 1881–2, 10,748 tons—and these figures, be it observed, include the Polyphemus—and in 1882–3, 11,466 tons by estimate; whereas in 1883–4, excluding the Severn and Mersey, it is proposed to build 12,281 tons. These figures prove that it has been Lord Northbrook's desire gradually and cautiously, but steadily, to increase the amount of armoured shipbuilding, and how successful he has been in carrying his desire into effect. I will not further occupy the Committee with the recital of tedious figures; but I hope that I have made good our claim to the credit of having been able in our proposals to combine, in a degree not always attainable, a large and substantial addition to the Naval strength of the country with the smallest proportionate addition to the burden of the taxpayer; and that, after all, in my opinion, is the great object of Naval Administration. With regard to the individual ships included in the programme, it is unnecessary to give an exhaustive account of them to the Committee. The history of an iron-clad's construction at the present time is too often a record of hindrances and delays, which disappoint our best expectations; and whatever be the energy, and care, and foresight of the officers of the Department—and it would be difficult for one who sees them daily at their work to exaggerate their high qualities—they could not altogether avoid or prevent these delays, which occur especially in the closing stages of the shipbuilding career of a vessel. It is not only the increasing complication of the ship herself that is the cause, though that has something to do with it. The re-armament of the Navy which is now in progress, and not a day too soon, involves not merely the guns and their carriages, and all the questions connected with them, but also the manner in which the ship is to be built up and prepared to receive the gun and its carriage; and the slightest change in any one point implies delay. Similarly, the preparations for

    607
    torpedo armament and machine guns, and conning stations to protect the officers from machine gun fire, are a fruitful source of delay. And delay often means unavoidable waste, apart from the mere cost of new fittings. Thus it is that the Ajax and Agamemnon are only now practically complete. The Conqueror also, for similar reasons, will not be finished in this year, as promised; and I am afraid that all promises must be taken subject to contingencies of this kind, which I have only cursorily hinted at. The delays in her case have been connected with her armament of 43-ton guns; her auxiliary armament with Vavasseur mountings; her torpedo armament; and also with the now system of closed stokeholes for forcing the fires on occasion, and getting higher speed with the same engines. Her speed, however, has fully justified what has been done to her, being 15½ knots. The Edinburgh and Colossus have been also much delayed waiting for a decision as to the gun they are to carry, which is to be the 43-ton gun. The Impérieuse and Warspite are advancing well. Turning to the Admiral class, I have to say that further consideration of the barbette system has satisfied us that it was a wise decision to adopt it in preference to the turret; that is, taking into account the very extended protection against machine gun five which has been obtained at the top of the barbettes. The two new ships, therefore, which were indicated last year, will be of this type, and, in fact, sister ships to the Benbow. They are the Camperdown, to be built at Portsmouth, and the Anson, at Pembroke The Benbow is being built on the Thames by contract. Although these six ships are all alike in type, we have endeavoured to make some improvement—the Benbow, Camperdown and Anson will be five feet longer than the others, with a displacement of 10,000 tons, as compared with 9,700 in the Howe and Rodney, and 9,200 in the Collingwood, and they will have stronger armour in their barbettes. As to their armament, the Collingwood will carry the 43-ton gun, while the others are prepared to carry the 63-ton gun. We have, however, determined to place in one of them, instead of four 63-ton guns, two of the 100-ton B.L. guns of Elswick pattern, considering that this gun has been subjected to a sufficient test of experiments on trial to justify us in
    608
    taking this course. It will thus be seen that while adhering to the type, we are not omitting any occasion of developing the power of this class of ships. As to the repairing of ships—a work to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) most properly attaches great importance—we have been able, during the present year, to complete the repairs of all iron-clads on hand, notwithstanding that the demands on account of the Egyptian service seriously interrupted the work of the Dockyards.
    SIR JOHN HAY: Does this include the Thunderer?
    MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: The Thunderer will be finished, or nearly so, I hope.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: And the Shannon?
    MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: Yes.
    LORD HENRY LENNOX: And Shah?
    MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I am now talking of iron-clads. The only exception is the Bellerophon, which is being fitted as a seagoing gunnery ship, and the fittings of which take much time to complete. For next year we provide for repairs an increased sum of no less than £121,654 in wages, and included in the work so provided for are all the iron-clads ready for repair, except the Black Prince, and provision is made for the reliefs for the next year and a-half. The details of these matters will be more conveniently and appropriately gone into when we come to the consideration of Vote 6. With regard to the important question of the guns, it is generally agreed that any question as to their nature and design is better dealt with by the Representative of the War Office, who is responsible for their manufacture and supply. But I may say that, as far as the supply to the Navy is concerned, by the end of the financial year it is hoped to have the following number of new breech-loading guns completed:—11 12-inch, 8 9–2-inch, 4 8-inch, 127 6-inch, 20 5-inch, 53 4-inch, and 18 of another pattern of 4-inch, or 241 in all.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that these guns will be ready this year?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes; before the end of March this year. That is the hope we entertain. It will be observed that in these Estimates we

    609
    take over the whole charge for gun mountings.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Does the hon. Gentleman mean 1884 or 1883?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: 1883.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The year ending March 31. 1884?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; we hope to have complete by the end of March the number of guns I have mentioned.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: This month?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes; but I will ascertain the fact quite distinctly. From the information I have received I believe it will be so. I know that some of the guns have been already delivered; but I cannot answer for all. Hitherto, the Admiralty have provided all special mountings, such as those in turrets, which may be said to form part of the ship itself, and all machinery connected with such mountings; but in future they are to be responsible for the whole provision, and I believe that to be a step in the right direction. Turning to the immediate Vote before us, I have very little to announce in the way of change affecting the personnel of the Navy. But it is impossible for me to move this Vote without some reference, however brief, to the events which have happened since the Navy Estimates were last introduced in the House of Commons. It maybe held that when the two Houses of Parliament passed a Vote of Thanks to the two Services, the curtain, as it were, dropped upon that act in our military history; but I cannot move the first Vote in the Estimates without taking occasion, on the part of the Board of Admiralty, to express again their high admiration and appreciation of the conduct of all engaged in the Egyptian operations. The officers and men of the Navy may be said to be always on active service; they are always, so to speak, in face of the enemy; they are every day engaged in all parts of the world in the discharge of duties full of difficulty, responsibility, and danger. It was, therefore, nothing new for them to find themselves called upon, under the eyes of the whole world, to accomplish such a task as was laid upon them in Egypt. But, as far as I have been able to observe, not a single fault has been found with any part of their conduct, because there was no room for
    610
    fault-finding. I am not aware that even criticism has been extended to the naval part of the operations; and it is hard to say which has been more remarkably illustrated—the skill and high professional attainments of the officers, or the courage, fine spirit, and unbroken discipline of the seamen and Marines. It is our intention to ask Parliament, in the present Session, for powers to enable us to confer a benefit upon those whose conduct has been thus so worthy of praise. This is in pursuance of a decision at which my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty arrived long before these events. Shortly before he came into Office the loss of the Atalanta occurred. A subscription was, as usual, opened for the benefit of the relatives of the warrant officers and men who had lost their lives in her; but the public did not appear to be disposed to subscribe a sufficient fund to furnish the pensions required. It then appeared to Lord Northbrook hardly creditable that when such a disaster occurred the relief of the distress occasioned by it should be wholly thrown on the relatives of the sufferers and on the charity of the public; and he stated publicly that the Government would consider what could be done. When, consequently, the calamity to the Doterel occurred, my noble Friend begged the Lord Mayor to refrain from calling for subscriptions from the public, and subsequently we gave temporary allowances out of Greenwich Hospital Funds to the widows and near relatives of those who were then killed. The same course has been followed in the case of the families of those who lost their lives in Egypt. There is, however, some uncertainty how far the Greenwich Hospital Acts authorize us to let these allowances take the form of permanent pensions; and, therefore, a Bill on the subject will shortly be introduced, which, I hope, will receive the willing assent of the House. There is only one other matter to which I think it necessary to allude. We intend to make a slight alteration in the term for which men in future will be engaged in the Navy. At present a man engages for 10 years, from the age of 18, and then he reengages for a further period of 10 years. We propose that the first period should be 12 years, making the total service of those who continue 22 years, instead of 20. It appears to us that 38 is too early

    611
    an age for a man to leave the Service and commence to draw full pension; and we believe that seamen would be very glad to continue in the Service up to the not very advanced age of 40. Our proposal, then, is that the first engagement should be for 12 years, instead of 10 as at present. We do not anticipate that the change will cause any difference in the entry of boys, and it will prospectively have a considerable effect in diminishing the burden of deadweight, so that we shall be doing something for our successors. I merely make this casual allusion to our proposal, which does not in any way affect these Estimates, nor will it, of course, affect men now serving. Statutory powers will be required; and when the necessary measure comes before the House there will be every opportunity for its explanation and discussion. I have now completed my task to the best of my ability; and, apologizing for the length at which I have trespassed on the patience of the Committee, and thanking hon. Members for their kindness in listening to me, I beg to move the Vote for the number of men and boys.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That 57,250 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, including 12,400 Royal Marines."
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I have listened with great attention to the Statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, and I think it must be the universal consent of the Committee that nothing could have been more temperate, moderate, or more clear than the Statement of the hon. Gentleman; but I may, perhaps, be allowed to refer, in the first instance, to his later observation with regard to the conduct of the Navy in Egypt. The claims of that Service demand our first recognition. I am sure that everyone will join in the commendation which the hon. Gentleman has expressed on everyone engaged, from the Admiral, to the officers, men, and blue-jackets, and Marines, for their conduct in the late operations in Egypt. Whatever our opinions may be, and there are adverse opinions, as to the policy of those operations, it is not at all necessary, on the present occasion, to enter into that; for there can be no
    612
    doubt that every man has done his duty, and that the Navy has as fully maintained its ancient reputation as completely and thoroughly as in the old times. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the discipline maintained in the Fleet, and I think that discipline deserves more commendation than even bravery and daring; in fact, the credit of the British arms depends upon the discipline and good behaviour of the men of the Force, and it is especially to the discipline which was maintained that I desire to express my admiration. The hon. Gentleman has also referred appropriately to the question of widows' pensions, and the provision which should be made by the country for the families of those who have suffered and fallen in the discharge of their duties. I will not now enter into that; but I feel certain that the country and the House will be prepared to consider any proposal the Government may think fit to put before them, in order to provide against contingencies which, in connection with a Service like the Navy, must, unfortunately, frequently occur. I trust, indeed, that we may not have a recurrence of the particular calamities to which the hon. Gentleman has referred; but that calamities must occur in connection with the Service is unfortunately certain, and it is only just and proper that some provision should be made. The hon. Gentleman has referred also to the question of an alteration in the terms of engagement; but I will not discuss that question now. The hon. Gentleman is very well aware that the dead-weight upon the Navy is a subject which gave the late Board of Admiralty great concern; that great efforts were made, tentatively, to lessen that dead-weight; and that we called the attention of the House seriously to it. I shall cordially welcome, and gladly assist in, any efforts the present Board of Admiralty may make with reference to the ultimate relief which may be afforded, unfortunately not to this generation, but to those who come after us. The hon. Gentleman commenced with an elaborate and interesting statement as to the charge which falls on the Votes under the Estimates we are about to consider. I will not follow him in that elaborate statement, because I have neither the time, nor would it be to the advantage of the Committee that I should do so now. I shall not question the main facts he has

    613
    stated; but, from my own point of view, I must deal with what appears to me to be the gross charge under the old system of the Naval Service, and under the Estimates now before the Committee. Admitting that there are charges placed upon the Naval Votes which ought to be borne by the Army, it appears to me that while the Estimates presented to Parliament last year amounted to the charge of £10,600,000, the Estimates this year amount to £10,940,000, exclusive of the Transport Service. While I make no complaint whatever of that increased charge, I concur with the view which the hon. Gentleman has put before the Committee, that the Admiralty is responsible before the country for maintaining a Navy worthy of the country, and capable of maintaining and defending the position of the country in any emergency. I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Board of Admiralty are of opinion that by this addition they will be able to fulfil the duty which attaches to them; and I fully recognize the fact that upon them rests the responsibility of taking such steps, making such provisions, and asking for such supplies as shall enable them to provide a force in matériel and men which shall be sufficient to meet any emergency to which at any time the country might be exposed. I entertain the view that the Navy exists for a possibly sudden state of war. We are not to assume, because the sky is clear at the present moment—because there are no threatening clouds—that a storm cannot arise in the course of a few days, weeks, or months; and, therefore, I say, if we are to be at the cost of a Navy at all, it should always be maintained in a state of complete efficiency and readiness for the protection of the country in case of war. My earnest desire is that the occasion for its services in this respect may not arise; but it exists for, and the only justification of its existence is the possibility of a state of war, and the guarding of the country in such a state of difficulty and trial. It appears to me, therefore, that every ship in Her Majesty's Service should be as rapidly as possible brought into a state of complete efficiency. I am aware that it is not possible to maintain the Navy at every moment, and under all circumstances, in a condition of complete efficiency; but there should be no delay and no want of energy in the construction of
    614
    ships, or in the matter of repairs to ships, which are believed to be necessary for the defence of the country. The hon. Gentleman has referred in his speech—and I can heartily sympathize with his feelings in this matter, for I myself have had experience of the same trouble and anxiety—to the delays which attend the completion of ships. Those delays are intimately connected with a subject to which I have more than once drawn attention in this House, and to which, I regret to say, I feel it my duty to call attention again—namely, the supply of guns and ammunition to Her Majesty's Navy. In the year 1880, I believe, an understanding was arrived at between the Secretary of State for War and myself that a new class of guns should be supplied for the use of the Navy. The gun was to be breech-loading, and of 43 tons weight; but I think I am right in saying that from that time to the present—a period of more than three years having elapsed—the gun has not been supplied to the Fleet, nor is it yet in existence. Ships are actually waiting for these guns; and, more than that, there is a gun of a new class, to be supplied to ships of the Admiral type, which, I believe, is not yet designed. Sir, my hon. Friend made a statement just now which took me somewhat by surprise. I understood him to state that 241 guns of the new breech-loading class have been supplied to the Navy for the year ending 1883; but I must point out that this is not consistent with the statement made only three weeks ago by the Surveyor General of Ordnance in this House, in reply to my Question as to the number and calibre of guns actually on board ship. The statement then made was that there had been 56 8-inch and 84 4-inch guns supplied.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The other guns are ready, but not actually on board ship.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am very glad to hear they are ready; but I should have been much better pleased to hear that they were on board ship. The guns, it seems, are somewhere; but they are not delivered at the Dockyards, and are not in possession of the Admiralty; and, therefore, the expectations which were held out last year, and the year before, have not, up to the present time, been realized. But what has been realized is, that the ships for which the guns are

    615
    intended have been greatly delayed, are being greatly delayed, and are not ready for service when they ought to be ready for service. I venture to think that if they had been supplied under another system—that is to say, if the Admiralty had been solely responsible for the manufacture and for the obtaining of their guns, they would not have to come down to the House year after year and say—"The guns are not supplied to the ships; the War Office has Dot delivered them to us." This is a matter of very great import; and with regard to the observations which fell from my hon. Friend, I think I am right in saying that the country and this House will hardly be satisfied to receive from the Admiralty the statement that they themselves are not responsible for the supply of guns to the Navy. I know that they are hampered by difficulties, and by arrangements which have the sanction of usage, and it may be of the Government, and of many Governments, and I am not now attributing blame to the Admiralty in any degree; on the contrary, I am endeavouring to strengthen their hands for the discharge of the duties devolving upon them. But I say that as Parliament and the country will hold them responsible for the completion of ships for the Fleet, and for the efficiency of everything in them when they are sent to sea, it will not be sufficient for the Admiralty to say—"The guns are not ready; we do not know the size of the gun, or what the charge will be, and therefore we cannot complete the ships. ''The Admiralty is responsible for the completion of a ship, for the efficiency of its armament, for sending it to sea, and they are also responsible for the testing of guns placed on board ship, so that the men who are to work them may have complete confidence in their weapons. Now, I think I am right in saying that the 43-ton gun which is being built is not yet complete—it is a gun in course of construction, but it has not been tested; and I feel convinced that the First Lord of the Admiralty will not suffer a ship to go to sea with guns, the pattern of which has not been fully tried and tested. If I am anxious upon this question it is because I feel it to be one of the very last importance, and one that very greatly affects the accuracy of the Estimates presented to Parliament. If you have
    616
    not the guns you may just as well not have the ships; but if you have the guns they may be mounted upon a less costly and more rapidly constructed ship than an iron-clad, and make some use of them. Of so much importance do I regard this matter, that I shall feel it my duty, unless a more completely satisfactory account is given of the progress and construction of guns for the Navy, to move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the system under which the guns for the Navy are supplied, or else to move for a Royal Commission on the subject, whichever may appear at the time to be best. But I am convinced that an end must be put to the delay which hampers each succeeding Board of Admiralty, and adds, at the same time, to the duties of the War Office. My hon. Friend has referred to the additions which are to be made in the programme of last year—namely, the contemplated increased amount of shipbuilding and repairs. I am glad to see that a much more efficient provision for repairs has been made—the amount of repairs necessary for maintaining ships in a state of efficiency having for the last two years been insisted upon by myself as a point of the greatest importance—and once more I say that if a ship is not efficient, and is not intended to be of service again, the sooner it is abandoned the better. I do not want you to repair a single ship which you yourselves believe to be an undesirable ship for the Service; but if you are convinced that a particular ship ought to be repaired, then I say she ought to be repaired without delay. It is, therefore, satisfactory to find an increase in the Vote for repairing purposes, and that between 1,500 and 1,700 additional men will be engaged in completing work which has not been carried out as the Admiralty intended. I give the Board of Admiralty full credit for their intentions, but I had some doubt last year as to whether they would be able to carry out their programme; and I confess to a feeling that there is a possibility of their not being able to do so with regard to the programme of this year. But I do not now reproach my hon. Friend with the deficiency of the amount of repairs executed; and as the Admiralty propose to effect these repairs during the coming year, I will not, on the present occasion, pursue the subject.

    617
    There is one point I wish to refer to. The hon. Gentleman, as I think quite unnecessarily, referred to what might be the political effect in Europe if the Parliament of this country sanctioned a further addition to the expenditure on the Navy. Sir, I believe such a course would not have the slightest effect in Europe; at all events, it would not have an injurious effect, if the Government of the country thought it desirable to expend some £400,000 or £500,000 more in shipbuilding than they had done last year. I think it would act as a kind of assurance for the peace of Europe if it became clear that the Government were determined to resist aggression and defend our interests abroad. The Governments of Europe have probably much greater knowledge of the offensive and defensive forces of this country than nine out of ten Gentlemen have who sit in this House. They have information upon which they can place reliance, and the addition of a few hundred thousand pounds, more or less, to the Estimates for the defence of this country will, I am sure, have no other effect than to convince Governments disposed to be belligerent that we are watchful and prepared in case of need. Without advocating the embarking in any great Naval expenditure, I do certainly advocate the maintenance of the forces of the country at an efficient standard, and that standard, in my opinion, must have regard to the forces maintained elsewhere; it must have regard to the duties to be discharged by the Navy, and which are of a very varying nature throughout the world, because heavier duties fall upon the Navy of this country than fall upon the Navies of all other countries taken together. We have a large commerce, and practically we have to perform what are called the police duties of the seas, and we have, in consequence, to maintain an iron-clad Fleet equal to any emergency. Certainly, we have reason to be proud of the way the Fleet performed its duty on a recent occasion; but I say it is impossible for us to be contented, in view of the great responsibilities cast upon us, with anything less than a preponderating Naval Force; and in making that assertion I do not wish to say anything which may be considered as a menace to any Foreign Power. I repeat, however, that we have a commerce to defend greater than that
    618
    of all the rest of the world taken together; and to say, under those circumstances, that our Naval Force should not preponderate above the Naval Force of other nations, would be to say that we should descend from the position we have always occupied on the sea to that of a weak and dependent Power. No, Sir; our duty is clear. We must not act in panic, and by no means as a threat to other Powers, nor with any desire to exercise an undue or exclusive influence in the counsels of Europe. Our duty is simply to protect the interests which belong to this country; and for these purposes I say, in the language of the hon. Gentleman himself, we are bound to maintain a Fleet sufficient to discharge the duties, and fulfil the obligations, of the country. Well, the question is, whether the provisions which have been made are sufficient for that purpose?—but I do not propose to enter into a discussion of that question on the present occasion; because other opportunities for doing so will arise; and I now only wish to lay down the general principle on which the Naval policy of this country ought to rest, and that is that both our ships and men should be adequate to our great interests and responsibilities. It has been usual for the Secretary to the Admiralty to make some statement of the work done in the past year. My hon. Friend, however, has failed to do that on the present occasion; and it is, therefore, to be presumed that he reserves his statement on the subject until the Vote is reached. There appears to be a discrepancy between the amount of tonnage of armoured ships last year and that stated in the present Estimates, which represents about 600 tons. That discrepancy is so remarkable that it takes a good deal of Admiralty experience to be able to suggest an explanation of it; but I have no doubt that the ships have turned out to be more costly, and the number of tons is, in consequence, less. You have paid wages and have used materials, but you have not produced the fall result expected. But, then, I am at a loss to see how the increase claimed to have been accomplished during the year is arrived at. That remains to be explained; and I have no doubt some hon. Gentleman will put questions that will attract the attention of the Secretary to

    619
    the Admiralty to this point. There is another subject to which I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman's attention. He has spoken with considerable force, and with all the feeling which belongs to the Department, as to the principle sanctioned by the Treasury of taking appropriations in aid. I can understand thoroughly the cordiality with which these will be welcomed by the Departments of the Admiralty; but I would ask my hon. Friend whether he is himself quite satisfied that he will realize all the money he has taken to account in this way? No one more than I heartily endorses the principle that old and worn-out ships, which can by no possibility be of use for the Public Service, should be disposed of, even at less than they are worth, if it be possible to sell them. I have had some experience, however, of the result of the endeavours to get rid of old ships, and I am bound to say that the amount which my hon. Friend has taken into account under this head appears to me a very sanguine Estimate; and although I sincerely hope his expectations will be realized, the sum in question seems a large one to be obtained from the sale of ships of this description. The question, however, which is involved here belongs more properly to the Treasury. I am exceedingly glad that the Admiralty have taken into their own hands the arrangements with regard to gun carriages, by which one serious cause of delay will be removed. It will be for the experienced officers of the Admiralty to find out what is the best method of mounting guns, and to adopt it for the time being. Improvements will come, no doubt—you can never get the best thing for all time; but in this case you can utilize that which appears the best kind of gun carriage for naval purposes, until those improvements have presented themselves. I have noticed with regret that ships building by contract have not been completed as they ought to have been—I refer to ships of the Leander class, and some of the gun vessels. I do not see why there should be greater delay in building a man-of-war by contract than in building a merchant ship by contract. The designs of the unarmoured ships have been carefully considered. I know the Constructor's Department of the Admiralty are quite capable of doing their duty, and I as-
    620
    sume that the execution of the designs was carried out under the supervision of a properly qualified officer, and that time was mentioned in the contract; and it, therefore, does seem to me most extraordinary that the anticipations of the J Admiralty as to the completion of these ships are so frequently disappointed. There ought not to be such delays as now occur, and which go far to place them all in a position of doubt as to the performance of the work undertaken by the contractors. I reserve for consideration, when we get to the Votes, questions as to the number of men employed at the Dockyards in Portsmouth and Devonport. I am glad to see that there is a large increase in the number of men employed in the Dockyard at Malta, and I hope to hear that the anticipations as to the amount of work which will be got through up to the 31st of March will be realized. The Admiralty have undertaken that the Thunderer and Invincible shall be completed for sea at Malta; and when the hon. Gentleman comes to Vote 6, it is to be hoped he will give us some information on this subject. I shall also require information as to the sources from which the large increase in the Wages Vote, or in the expenditure for wages at the Dockyards, has been met. I assume that the money has come out of the Egyptian Vote. I do not know whether that is so; but the amount spent at the Dockyards has been in excess of the amount voted, and if the extra money has not come out of the Egyptian Vote I do not know where it has come from. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: From the Leander Vote.] That is very unsatisfactory, for, apparently, we have a sum voted for one purpose and put to another. If the money has not been spent on the Contract Vote, I give credit to the Admiralty for having made good use of it; but it ought to have been spent on the Contract Vote, and the hon. Gentleman should have come down to the House and asked for an extra Wages Vote if it was necessary. They are not acting fairly by the House of Commons or the country—certainly not by the House of Commons—in undertaking to spend a certain amount on a particular object, and then spending it on something else. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN made a communication across the Table to the right hon. Gentleman.] It seems the Admi-

    621
    ralty have been desirous that the money should be spent on the object for which it is voted, but that it has been prevented by a delay with the contractor. The House is not to be told that money is to be granted now for certain work, and that they are to remain satisfied with the provision for the coming year, and then find, six or 12 months hence, that the individual responsible for carrying out the engagement has not fulfilled it, and that the country is without the strength upon which it has relied. The contractors ought to be efficient for the Public Service. The contracts will not be complete for six or nine months. The ships have not yet been delivered at the Dockyards. There is one other point upon which I should like to have information when the hon. Member comes to the Vote itself, and that is the diminution in the provision for metals and armour and the increase in the provision for wages. All of us who have had anything to do with the actual administration of the Dockyards know perfectly well that if we employ a given number of men in shipbuilding we must have stores in proportion to those men. The hon. Member has said that they have received assistance from other sources in aid of this particular Vote for metals; but I fail to see that the resources they have obtained will be sufficient if the programme of the Admiralty is carried out. If they build this very large amount of armour tonnage for which they take credit this year they will want a larger amount of armour and metals to put on the ships. This is an estimate of his own, to which I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Member. I am glad to find that the Admiralty are of opinion that, so far as armoured ships are concerned, the barbette system is one which may be safely followed. Armoured ships should be built in proportion to the armoured ships of other countries, and in proportion to the duties we have to discharge; but I admit that the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member are of great weight. It is true the progress of inventions, and especially the progress made in regard to the power of guns, make it essential that the Admiralty should not proceed hastily or rashly in the construction of ships. They should proceed according to the necessities of the day, and to meet the exigencies of the country at the time. It may hap-
    622
    pen—I do not say it will, but it may happen—that we shall have some of these days to abandon heavily armoured ships, as men who went to battle in armour have been obliged to abandon armour. It may be—I do not say it will—that ships will not be able to carry armour that will keep out the projectiles which can be fired upon them. Experiments, very scientific and interesting, have been made upon this subject, and I doubt whether it will be possible for any ship to be sent to sea sufficiently heavily armed to resist the gun that will be manufactured in three, or four, or five years time. But we must build ships as rapidly as we can for the discharge of the duties of the day. At the present day, no doubt, armoured ships, protected ships, and unarmoured ships are necessary in our Fleet; and it will be the duty of the Admiralty to exercise its discretion—fully alive to its duties and responsibilities—in providing such ships for the time being as will suffice for the defence of the country. Reference has been made to the new protected ships of the Severn and Mersey class. These certainly ought not to be called armoured ships, or placed in the category of armoured vessels. The Mersey and Severn are only ships of the C class—larger and quicker ships of the 0 class—and clearly, though they may be called "protected," they are virtually unarmoured, as far as their boilers and space for seamen is concerned. I am afraid I have addressed the Committee at too great length; but the Navy Estimates involve matters that are of great interest to this country. They deserve the deepest and most careful consideration on the part of the country, and they are not to be disposed of in a few minutes' conversation across the Table. We shall have to renew the discussion which has now been commenced, I trust, very soon after Easter. I hope the hon. Gentleman will secure a day soon after Easter, so that we shall not have a repetition of that which I have called the time scandal—and I repeat the phrase—of considering the Estimates when the House of Commons has practically gone away, and there is neither time, inclination, nor strength to give adequate consideration to them. I certainly offer no opposition whatever to the Vote which has been proposed; and I trust my hon,

    623
    Friend will be prepared to give information on the points I have indicated, either now or when the next Vote is taken.
    SIR EDWARD J. REEDsaid, he wished to join in the tribute paid by the late First Lord of the Admiralty to the speech of the hon. Gentleman for its clearness and excellence. There was one part of that speech, however, which he could not altogether praise with fairness to others who were much interested in Naval matters, and who were as anxious that the Navy should be built effectually and economically as even the hon. Member himself, or his Colleagues at the Admiralty. The hon. Member, in view of the anxieties which had been expressed as to the condition of the Navy, seemed to think it was fair to those who had taken a part in expressing those anxieties to put them forward as inconsiderate advocates of some monstrous expenditure upon ill-considered ships, which would impose heavy burdens on the taxpayers of the country. He (Sir Edward J. Reed) begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that, if that was his opinion of the advocates of au increased number of armour-clad ships, he was completely deluding himself as to their motives and feelings in the matter. The case which they presented to the Committee and the country was this—that while a large expenditure was taking place upon the Navy they were not getting the value for their money, but were spending money on an immense scale, and in such a manner as no private concern would ever dream of spending it. The hon. Gentleman—for whom he ventured to predict a successful administrative career at the Admiralty, because of his perfect adaptation to the methods of the Department, and the clear and admirable manner of his exposition—had painted that night the condition of the Navy with a brush that was truly admirable. If he had any defect at all, it was of this kind—that he painted everything in such bright and favourable colours that one was almost disposed to distrust the thoroughness with which he investigated some of the questions. For instance, one of the complaints he (Sir Edward J. Reed) and others had made, and which he ventured to think the country would make before long, was this—that at a time when science and progress were increasing
    624
    the cost of their ships, and increasing charges for the Effective part of the Navy were inevitable, they allowed the Non-Effective Services to go on increasing in the dead weight they put upon the Public Service. At a time when they could not afford, apparently, to build themselves an efficient Navy, they could afford to pay people who were doing nothing in connection with the Navy over £2,000,000 a-year for half-pay and pensions. The hon. Gentleman took credit most properly—and he (Sir Edward J. Reed) was sure he was very glad the Admiralty felt themselves the relief they had acquired in this way—for the falling-in of Terminable Annuities to the extent of £8,000. But the hon. Member did not remind them that there had been an increase of more than £10,000 for pensions—that was to say, instead of the dead weight having diminished, they had £2,000 or £3,000 more to pay this year than they had last. He wished to ask what the Government were going to do to put a stop to this continual increase? The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Massey Lopes) moved for a Return, which was in the hands of Parliament, which showed that in, comparatively speaking, a few years the Non-Effective Service had increased from £1,000,000 to £2,000,000. It was now more than £2,000,000; and he wanted to know if these Non-Effective Services were to be allowed to devour the Navy altogether, for that was what they were going to do, unless some new policy was adopted by the Admiralty. He would give the Admiralty credit for all they had said on the subject. He had not a shadow of a doubt that they were anxious to do something in the direction of reducing this enormous dead weight; but he felt it was necessary for the House to bring some pressure to bear on them to force them to take some steps to relieve the Service of this burden. So far from the Estimates having altered the view of those who were anxious on these points, they seemed to him to illustrate on almost every page the strength of the arguments which had been advanced. After these arguments about the increase of the Non-Effective Charges came the other arguments about the growing up in the Navy of large and inevitable charges which a few years ago—only ten years ago—had no existence. They had taken

    625
    over £100,000 from the Army Votes, and he though the was right in saying they had an actual increase of about £38,000 for torpedoes and other things. The Admiralty had no means at all of escaping from these charges. As the cost of individual ships increased so did the Vote, and they were on the horns of this dilemma—they must either increase their outlay or go without the ships. They must do all they could to induce the Government to grapple with the items for Non-Effective Service and minor charges. He had said enough, be thought, to dispel the notion that there was anybody—at any rate, he had entirely disclaimed it for himself—who wished to run the Government and the country into increased expenditure for armour-clad ships. What he wanted was to see the money that was granted rightly expended. He would ask the attention of the Committee to what his view of these Estimates was—and he was bound to say it was a very different view from that of his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman); but he hoped that in any criticism he might offer it would be thoroughly understood that he was actuated by no desire to disparage the action of the Admiralty, for he should be happy to assist them by all the means in his power. It was only right that they should bring independent judgment to bear upon the Estimates, and see how they presented themselves to their minds. In comparison with last year the Government had knocked off £58,000 from the Votes for Provisions; and it was only by comparison that hon. Members could obtain any clear idea of the matter. They had knocked off £110,000 in Vote 10 for Naval Stores, which, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) had stated at the end of his speech, included various materials required for the construction of ships. They had also reduced the Vote for Medical Stores£4,000. There was a saving of £8,000 in regard to half-pay. Altogether he made up £180,000 of diminished expenditure, mostly in regard to materials which, if they were not bought now, would have to be bought later. Then the next thing he found was the extra credit of £99,000 as compared with last year—that was to say, the Admiralty were going to sell £99,000 worth more material than they did last year. As to this credit question, they had heard the Secretary to the Ad-
    626
    miralty that night explain what an admirable change had been effected in taking away the hand of the Treasury—[Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No.]—Well, in a large degree; he did not say it would be done entirely. He remembered that when the system which was now abolished was introduced, it was presented to the country as a most admirable improvement, and one of those devices of economists which were most worthy to be recorded with admiration by the world. He remembered very well, when he was out in Japan, he recommended that very thing to the Japanese Finance Minister as one of the features of our financial reform which deserved the imitation of all mankind; and now he was in the unfortunate position of having the Japanese Finance Minister, and everyone else to whom he had recommended that system, told that it was just as admirable a thing to get rid of it as it was to adopt it in the first instance. These things were very puzzling—he supposed they were all right; but, at any rate, they were deserving of notice. In addition to the sums of £180,000 and £99,000, there was the recognized admitted excess of £ 129,000; so that, if they added all these sums together, it would come out that the Admiralty were going to spend£400.000 more this year than they did last. Now, he wished to tell the Committee how they were proposing to spend it. Anyone would suppose, from the speech delivered from the Government Bench that night, that it was about to be expended to the confusion of the advocates of an increase in the number of ironclad ships; but he did not find that that was the case. Let him give his version of it. What he found was this—that the Admiralty undertook this year to spend in the Dockyards £15,000 more upon armoured hulls than they undertook to spend last year. He would ask the Committee to mark that statement. Not more than they, in reality, did spend, but more than they asked for from the House of Commons. That was £15,000 out of £400,000. Now came an item for which he gave them full credit—that was to say, they would expend on engines for iron-clads £162,000 more, which made £177,000. There were various sums for timber stores, coals, electric stores, and torpedoes, which made a total of £121,500; but there,

    627
    would be nothing from that to add to the iron-clad Fleet at all. There was £10,000 additional to the pension list—and on that point he hoped he might not be misunderstood. He would not advocate breaking faith with anyone who had become entitled to a pension. That was not his point. He knew that these things became an incubus upon the Admiralty to their misfortune; but, at the same time, they should be mentioned, in order to get the Admiralty to make some attempt to reduce these charges prospectively. They had had nothing as yet of the balance for the iron-clads. Out of the remaining £94,000, they were going to pay for replacing the boilers of the Polyphemus, do a good deal of work on ships they had lately finished, and spend £55,000 in repairing a yacht for Her Majesty, which, he believed, ought not to be repaired. He did not wish to say a word of complaint in regard to the Polyphemus. She was announced to the House as a great experiment—an experiment involving many experiments; and he did not think it was possible to make such efforts as were made in that vessel to adopt a totally new style of ship without incurring risks of unfortunate outlays. He did not blame the Admiralty; but they had to take the amount spent into account in considering how far the increased expenditure had brought an increase of the Fleet. The expenditure in repairing the Royal yacht he confessed he complained of. Fifteen or twenty years ago he surveyed that very yacht, and had to strain his judgment a little in order to consent to her repair, so bad was the condition in which she was. She was then, however, so extensively repaired as to make her almost a new vessel. He remembered that when he came up from her hold, he encountered a distinguished Admiral on the deck, who asked him what he had seen—how the vessel looked? He answered the question, when he was asked—"What is your opinion as to her repair?" and to this he said—"For myself, I do not think she ought to be repaired, because I think a new iron yacht ought to be built"—and he should say the same now. The gallant Admiral then inquired—"Do you mean to say that you would send the Crown of England to sea in an iron vessel?" and he had an-
    628
    swered—"Yes; but nothing on earth would induce me to send her to sea in that vessel, because a vessel of iron intended for the transport of a personage so precious to this country could be divided into so many compartments that she could not be sunk by a slight accident; whereas the vessel you are going to spend so much upon is of such a character that if she met with a collision in the North Sea, or in the Channel, she would go to the bottom like a stone. The Admiralty had some very curious arrangements in regard to these Estimates, which he thought it was strange to present to business men. They said the proportion of the cost of the ship was the only real criterion; that they would take the tonnage of the ship and put it in a fractional relation to the price of the ship; and then this curious thing often happened—a ship was complete in her tonnage, and then the Admiralty asked for £5,000, or £10,000, or £20,000 to complete a ship the tonnage of which was already built. That system had been carried on for a long time; but it was such an absurdity that the Admiralty had at last been induced to abandon it. Now, however, it had turned up again; and he would strongly advise the Secretary to the Admiralty to remove from the Estimate a statement which had no earthly value, and which must tend to embarrassment and trouble. He wished next to say a word or two upon the point on which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) had so much insisted. Last year the Admiralty promised that they would complete the Agamemnon for £4,800, the Ajax for £8,000, and the Conqueror for £30,700; but what were the facts? The Ajax, which was to have cost £8,000, had cost £21,000; while the Agamemnon had cost £14,800, instead of £4,800. The hon. Gentleman had stated that night that those ships were now completed; but he would like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was quite so sure that they were complete; whether they had their armament on board, and were ready for sea? He was afraid that the answer to that would not be so satisfactory as the Committee would wish. On the Conqueror £30,700 were to have been spent to complete her; but £7,000 more were now asked for to complete her. Twelve months ago the Admiralty stated that for £40,000 they would finish these three

    629
    new ships; but, in reality, they had spent £70,000 odd upon those ships, and had completed only two of the three. He was not putting these figures in order to censure anybody, but simply to throw a strong light upon the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and with a view to asking the Committee to record their opinion, if the opportunity should arise, upon a system in connection with the guns of the Navy which paralysed the Navy entirely, and prevented the Admiralty from doing what they proposed to do, and caused unavoidable delays from which they would gladly escape. There was another point he wished to call attention to, which bore upon this question. There was a ship called the Edinburgh, which was commenced as the Majestic. When the last Administration was in Office he had delivered what he regarded as a heavy blow at them on the last evening of the discussion on the Navy Estimates. The Conservatives had been in the habit of boasting that they had always come into Office and built a great Navy; while the Liberals who succeeded them had always let down the Navy; but having been in Office for six years the Conservatives had not completely built a single iron-clad, and from that time they had never put forward that proposition again. He hoped they never would put it forward again; but, unfortunately, this Liberal Administration, which, when it came into Office, promised to build ships more quickly, and had done better at first, were now falling behind; and unless they took care in regard to the Edinburgh, and did better than they had hitherto done, they would incur great discredit. The Edinburgh was commenced four years ago, and the Government proposed in these Estimates to advance her so little in the coming 12 months that she would be only four-fifths built at the end of that time. He ventured to say that no Government was able to justify such an enormous expenditure of time. Why had the Government fallen into this position? Entirely because of this question of the guns. He did not believe there was any other cause for it; and between these two Departments of the State the Navy was more or less paralyzed. He would appeal to the Secretary to the Admiralty not to be satisfied with having the Edinburgh finished a year or
    630
    two after he went out of Office, and not to let it be said that a ship which was commenced before he came into Office was not completed when he left Office. Taking the present rate of progress, it would take six years and a-half to complete this ship; and he must urge the Admiralty to be more energetic than they had been. In the next place, he wished to refer to the Severn and the Mersey. These two vessels had some protection in the water, but they had no side protection at all; and it was surprising, as they had no armour, that they were put by the Admiralty in the list of armoured ships. Some of the Members of the Government had put forward the extraordinary notion that these ships were not likely, in battle, to be struck between wind and water. The other night, when the Army Estimates were being discussed, a statement by the late Secretary to the Admiralty was quoted, to the effect that ships in future would be very little struck between wind and water. He did not mention this in deprecation, in any degree, of the merit of these vessels, but to confute a dangerous doctrine. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would not think he had borne too hardly upon the Admiralty, or had sought to weaken them in any degree; but had rather aimed at strengthening them by these suggestions.
    LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that, at that hour of the night, he should not proceed with the remarks he had intended to make, but would simply say that he dissented altogether from these Estimates. He considered them utterly un-valuable; and at some other time he should state his opinions on the fallacious way in which they were drawn up. At the same time, he wished to take this opportunity of congratulating the exponent of the policy of the Government in this matter on the admirable manner in which he had performed his task. He desired to ask the Chairman whether, when Vote 6 or 10 was taken, he could enter upon a general review of the policy of the Government in regard to these Estimates?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord wishes to enter into the general question of the Naval policy of the Government. When the Committee come to a special Vote, the noble Lord will have to confine himself to that Vote.
    LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he was most anxious to forward Public Business; and, at that hour, he had thought it better to postpone his remarks to a subsequent occasion. He must, however, mention that whereas last year the Navy Estimates were moved at 2 o'clock in the morning, and there was no opportunity of discussing them, hon. Members were now called upon to discuss the Estimates four days after they had been issued. Hon. Members had hardly had time to look over them, still less to master their various details; and he must appeal to the Secretary to the Admiralty to give him a subsequent opportunity of discussing the policy involved in these Estimates.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought some slight misapprehension existed as to the rights of hon. Members in discussing these Estimates as a whole. It had been held, on former occasions, that upon Vote 2—the Victualling Vote—it was fit that the discussion should arise, and travel over the whole of the Estimates, if there had not been sufficient time to consider them on Vote 1. He hoped there might be an understanding that if this Vote was given that night, as seemed necessary for the Public Service, a discussion should be taken upon Vote 2, and full latitude be allowed to hon. Members to raise any question of general principles affecting the Estimates as a whole.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the arrangement suggested was precisely that which had been adopted on many previous occasions, both in reference to these Estimates and to the Army Estimates. He thought it would be convenient to follow the same course now; and as there was the Vote for Wages, which it was absolutely necessary to take that night, to postpone the discussion till Vote 2 was reached, when there would be full opportunity for its renewal.
    MR. GORSTwished to ask when Vote 2 would be reached, because he must protest against a custom which it had been said would be altered, but which seemed to be still flourishing with vigour—namely, the custom which withdrew the Navy Estimates from discussion in Committee of Supply. The House had been in Committee only about two hours, and now they were asked to vote what was practically a Vote on Account of
    632
    the Navy for upwards of three months—for they were to Vote £2,500,000, and that would carry on the expenditure of the Admiralty for upwards of three months; and therefore it was very improbable, looking at the pressure of Public Business, that there would be any more discussion on this subject until July. The practice of the Government was to put down the Navy Estimates on the night when the necessities of the Public Service imperatively required thorn to be at once passed; and he protested against this practice, which was again pursued this year with the utmost coolness by the Government and their officers. This practice would, practically, withdraw the Navy Estimates from discussion in Committee of Supply to relegate them without discussion to the end of the Session, when the House was fatigued, and when the pressure of Public Business would prevent these Estimates from being discussed in a deliberate and ample manner.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not know what information the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had received; but someone had apparently told him that the Government were going to relegate these Votes to the month of July, and he condemned the Government before they had suggested that that should be done. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government had no such intention; and when the hon. and learned Member complained that the House had been in Committee only two hours, he must remind the hon. 'and learned Gentleman that that was not the fault of the Government. Supply was the first Order of the Day; but hon. Members having brought forward Motions, the hon. and learned Member ought not to complain. He blamed the Government for having done that which they had not done, and then for that which they were not going to do. It seemed to him that the arrangement now proposed would be convenient to the House; to take the remainder of the discussion on Vote 2; and he hoped the day was not far distant when the discussion could be resumed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) appealed to me on a point of Order just now; and I am bound to say that I stated the Rules correctly, as they have been handed to

    633
    me. After the first Vote there is no right in hon. Members to discuss the general policy of the Estimates; but there have been occasions when, by an understanding somewhat of the nature proposed by the hon. Member the Secretary to the Admiralty, a general discussion has been taken on Vote 2. Under the circumstances, I think the same indulgence should be extended on this occasion.
    SIR JOHN HAYasked whether these Estimates would be made the first matter in Supply when they were again put forward?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes; certainly.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had to complain of the way in which the Government trifled with the Committee. He had more than once complained of there being no Minister in that House responsible for the Navy Estimates. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty certainly conducted his business with the greatest possible ability, but he had not sufficient power; and over and over again the Committee were called upon to discuss the Estimates without there being a Cabinet Minister present. That night they had to discuss the Estimates in the presence of a Minister who had nothing to do with them; while the hon. Gentleman who was responsible for them could not fix a day for the further discussion. He thought the Committee were entitled not only to know that the Navy Estimates would be the first Order of the Day when they were again to be discussed, but to have an assurance from the Government that that discussion would not be postponed until such a day when, practically, there could be no discussion at all. He did not wish to inconvenience the Committee by moving Progress; but he must press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an under taking that this discussion should be renewed at a proper date. Every year these Estimates had been brought forward when everybody was out of town, and the result was that very great abuses had crept in. Last year the Secretary to the Admiralty had promised that there should be a full inquiry into the grievances and complaints of the Dockyard men, by a Committee of the Admiralty. This inquiry had been put off to such a date that it was impossible
    634
    to discuss the recommendations of the Committee. He had received that day a letter from Devonport, the writer of which he would not name, because the Admiralty were averse to anybody asking anything of a Member of Parliament; but he found that only yesterday was an order received with regard to engine-room artificers, and they greatly complained of the manner in which their claims were treated. They were now bound to serve 22 years instead of 20 years, which was the maximum of other Departments, before they could obtain pensions. When an order was sent to a Dockyard only a day before the Navy Estimates were to be discussed there was no opportunity for Members representing Dockyard constituencies to make themselves acquainted with the grievances complained of. He must, therefore, support the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) seemed inclined to back up the Government; but aristocratic considerations would always make ex-officials support the Government of the day. He hoped the Government would seriously consider the claims which Dockyard Representatives had to attention, and would give some authentic assurance that the resumption of this debate would be fixed for a time when there could be a full attendance of Members on both sides.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it was very desirable that these Estimates should be fully discussed; but it was quite out of his power to announce the exact day when the discussion would be resumed. It should, however, be resumed as soon as possible; and, in his view, it should be before the Whitsuntide Recess. Nothing but overwhelming necessity should interfere with that being done.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he thought that promise should be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Portsmouth. If the debate on these Estimates was taken before Whitsuntide, he should consider the House very fortunate. He looked with considerable alarm on the diminution of men under this Vote 1—a diminution of 250 men—for that seemed to show that the Government were suiting the men to the money, rather than the money to the men. That was a policy

    635
    which he thought should be avoided as much as possible. He wished to have some explanation of the reason of this diminution; and there was another question which he thought germane to this Vote. There had been rumours abroad that the health of the boys who went into competition for Naval cadet-ships was suffering from over-cramming. As that was a serious matter, he would like to know whether the Secretary to the Admiralty could give the Committee any information as to the condition of those boys, and as to whether there were any signs of their having suffered from competition?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had not heard anything about the cadets on the Britannia being over-crammed; but he would make inquiries. If he found there was any truth in the matter he would let the hon. Gentleman know.
    MR. PULESTONreminded the Committee that similar speeches and promises were made last year; but, notwithstanding, the Navy Estimates were not taken until the very end of the Session, when the House was half empty. Indeed, for many years past the Government had promised, no doubt in good faith, that the Navy Estimates should he brought on at a time when they could be adequately discussed; but, somehow or other, those promises had never been fulfilled. What he wanted to put to the Government was, whether it was not possible, in view of the importance of the Estimates, and the difficult)' of getting anything like a debate, that the Estimates could not be fixed for some day—say a Monday—on which there would be no discussion on the Motion to go into Committee? Surely the New Rules must count for something. This Session there ought to be some improvement made on preceding years.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it was evident his words had not reached the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Puleston). He had, a few moments ago, said it was to his official interest to get the Estimates voted early, and he would do his utmost to get an early day for their discussion. He gave a much less decided pledge than that last year about the Army Estimates; but the Committee would remember that it was fulfilled to the letter.
    MR. PULESTONfully appreciated the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he found no fault with the Members of the Government. Force of circumstances had prevented the Estimates being taken early in past years; and he merely made these observations in the hope that it might be found possible this year to carry out the understanding arrived at.
    MR. GORST,as a point of Order, asked if it was possible for an hon. Member to move that only half the amount now asked be voted? He did not suggest the taking of that course on the present occasion. The Committee would have much greater power over the Estimates if it could be moved that only one-half the sum for wages should be taken now, and the other half the next time the Committee sat.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite competent for the hon. and learned Member to move any reduction of the Vote.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that further discussion on the Vote should come on before Whitsuntide. He would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Budget would not be brought in, this year, before Easter; and that, judging from certain expressions of feeling, the discussion on the Annual Financial Statement would very likely occupy several nights. After the Budget there would be the Army Estimates, and other important Business. He did not wish the right hon. Gentleman to give an absolute pledge on the subject; but it certainly would be interesting to the Committee to know whether the Government would give a second night for the Navy Estimates before they took the second reading of the Parliamentary Oaths Act (1866) Amendment Bill? He was perfectly justified in asking that question, because it was quite evident that upon that Bill there would he several nights debate.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the pledge he gave was clear and straightforward, and he did not think he ought to be pressed for anything further. He was not the Leader of the House, and he had gone as far as he considered it his duty to go. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had thrown out a bait which had been thrown out to

    637
    other Governments before. It was very tempting to take Votes on Account; but all Governments had declined to do it, both with regard to the Army and Navy Estimates. There was nothing which could weaken the financial control so much as Votes on Account, and he certainly must resist any proposal made to that effect.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought there might be some misapprehension as to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). It would be perfectly competent, as the Chairman had ruled, for the hon. and learned Gentleman to move to reduce the Vote by one-half; but then the question would arise whether, having once been reduced, it could be re-voted? He (Sir E. Assheton Cross) apprehended there would be great difficulty in carrying out the course hinted at in the question of his hon. and learned Friend. He agreed that in regard to Army and Navy Estimates, Votes on Account were practically unknown, and that to take such Votes would mean the introduction of a dangerous practice. At the same time, he must back up the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. Puleston), and others, as to the absolute necessity of taking the next Votes at an early period. They ought to distinctly understand that they had a positive pledge from the Government that they should have a whole night before Whitsuntide for the discussion of the Navy Estimates.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he was sorry to trouble the Committee again; but he could not allow the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pass by without a word of explanation. There was a sort of plausible virtue in not taking Votes on Account in regard to the Army and Navy; but the fact was that the Government really did take Votes on Account. What was the Vote they were now asked to pass but a Vote on Account? It was a Vote of upwards of £2,500,000, which had to be spent in carrying on the Naval Service of the country for a period of upwards of three months. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said they never took Votes on Account in regard to the Army and Navy. It was quite true they never took them under that name; but they did take them nevertheless.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, they commenced the Business of the evening by a protest from the other side against his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), saying that Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House combined together to prevent Business being carried on. What had been going on for the last half-hour? If he might venture to give the Government a piece of advice, it would be that they should remember that if they gave an inch, hon. Gentlemen opposite would immediately cry out for an ell. He never heard more handsome offers than those made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. ["Question!"] Hon. Gentlemen cried "Question!" They wasted half-an-hour, and then, if anyone protested, they cried "Question!" The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not give more distinct pledges; therefore, let this "nagging" and protesting cease, so that some Business might be transacted.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere), on account of the great position he held in the House, was, no doubt, entitled to read the Opposition lectures, and they accepted them with great deference. What he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) wanted to point out was that they had got from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer no pledge at all. All the right hon. Gentleman had said was that he took great interest in the matter—as, indeed, they all did—and then he went on to say he was not the person to decide; that he had to refer to others. He noticed that a Committee of the Cabinet had just entered the House—two moderate Liberals and two advanced Liberals—and, therefore, he would again ask whether the Government would give the Committee a pledge that the adjourned debate on the Navy Estimates should come on before Whitsuntide? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not give such a pledge without consulting somebody else. Could the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) do so?
    MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had spoken about the waste of half-an-hour in what he was pleased to call "nagging." What, after all, was half-an-hour if, by means of its waste, they secured a proper and adequate discus-

    639
    sion of the Estimates? All the Estimates had been neglected by the present Government; and of late the Indian Budget, despite its importance, had been put off till the very last week of the Session. He did not think the pledge asked for by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was at all unreasonable. The Committee ought certainly to receive a pledge that the Navy Estimates should be brought on again before the second reading of the Parliamentary Oaths Act (1866) Amendment Bill was taken, or else it should run through the country that the Government preferred that the House should neglect its Constitutional duty rather than they should be prevented foisting an Atheist upon the House.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a Parliamentary pledge that the Navy Estimates should be discussed before the Whitsuntide Recess; and unless the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), or some other Member of the Cabinet, repudiated that pledge, he was quite content to abide by it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £2,633,300, Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines.

    CIVIL SERVICES (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,606,800, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, viz.:—

    CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

    Great Britain:—

    £

    Royal Palaces

    6,000

    Marlborough House

    1,000

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds

    20,000

    Houses of Parliament

    7,000

    Beaconsfield Monument

    500

    Public Buildings

    30,000

    Public Offices Site

    5,000

    Furniture of Public Offices

    2,000

    Revenue Department Buildings

    55,000

    County Court Buildings

    6,000

    Metropolitan Police Courts

    1,500

    Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

    3,000

    New Courts of Justice, &c.

    9,000

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    50,000

    Science and Art Department Buildings

    4,500

    £

    British Museum Buildings

    2,000

    Natural History Museum

    3,000

    Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

    2,500

    Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

    75,000

    Metropolitan Fire Brigade

    2,500

    Disturnpiked and Main Roads (England and Wales)

    35,000

    Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland)

    5,000

    Ireland:—

    Public Buildings

    30,000

    Royal University Buildings

    Science and Art Buildings, Dublin

    Abroad:—

    Lighthouses Abroad

    2,000

    Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

    5,500

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

    England:—

    £

    House of Lords, Offices

    6,000

    House of Commons, Offices

    6,000

    Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel

    10,000

    Home Office and Subordinate Departments

    15,000

    Foreign Office

    10,000

    Colonial Office

    6,000

    Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

    4,000

    Privy Seal Office

    500

    Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

    25,000

    Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

    5,000

    Civil Service Commission

    7,000

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    9,000

    Friendly Societies, Registry

    1,500

    Land Commission for England

    4,000

    Local Government Board

    50,000

    Lunacy Commission

    2,500

    Mint (including Coinage)

    20,000

    National Debt Office

    2,500

    Patent Office

    5,000

    Paymaster General's Office

    4,500

    Public Works Loan Commission

    1,500

    Record Office

    4,000

    Registrar General's Office

    12,000

    Stationery Office and Printing

    90,000

    Woods, Forests, &c, Office of

    4,000

    Works and Public Buildings, Office of

    8,000

    Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

    Secret Service

    6,000

    Scotland:—

    Exchequer and other Offices

    500

    Fishery Board

    2,500

    Lunacy Commission

    1,000

    Registrar General's Office

    2,000

    Board of Supervision

    3,000

    Ireland:—

    Lord Lieutenant's Household

    1,000

    Chief Secretary's Office

    6,500

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    300

    Local Government Board

    10,000

    Public Works Office

    8,000

    £

    Record Office

    1,000

    Registrar General's Office

    3,000

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    6,000

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

    England:—

    £

    Law Charges

    17,000

    Public Prosecutor's Office

    600

    Criminal Prosecutions

    34,000

    Chancery Division, High Court of Justice

    26,000

    Central Office of the Supreme Court, &c.

    20,000

    Probate, &c. Registries, High Court of Justice

    14,000

    Admiralty Registry, High Court of Justice

    2,000

    Wreck Commission

    2,500

    Bankruptcy Court (London)

    7,000

    County Courts

    20,000

    Land Registry

    1,000

    Revising Barristers, England

    - -

    Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

    2,000

    Metropolitan Police

    100,000

    County and Borough Police, Great Britain

    1,000

    Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies

    90,000

    Prisons, England

    70,000

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

    70,000

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    4,000

    Scotland:—

    Lord Advocate, and Criminal Proceedings

    10,000

    Courts of Law and Justice

    5,000

    Register House Departments

    6,000

    Prisons, Scotland

    20,000

    Ireland:—

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    20,000

    Supreme Court of Judicature

    15,000

    Court of Bankruptcy

    1,500

    Admiralty Court Registry

    200

    Registry of Deeds

    3,000

    Registry of Judgments

    500

    Land Commission

    30,000

    County Court Officers, &c.

    15,000

    Dublin Metropolitan Police (including Police Courts)

    25,000

    Constabulary

    250,000

    Prisons, Ireland

    30,000

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    25,000

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    1,100

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.

    England:—

    £

    Public Education

    550,000

    Science and Art Department

    60,000

    British Museum

    25,000

    National Gallery

    1,000

    National Portrait Gallery

    500

    Learned Societies, &c.

    3,500

    London University

    2,000

    Aberystwith College

    1,000

    £

    Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report)

    1,000

    Transit of Venus, 1882

    500

    Scotland:—

    Public Education

    110,000

    Universities, &c.

    3,500

    National Gallery

    400

    Ireland:—

    Public Education

    150,000

    Teachers' Pension Office

    500

    Endowed Schools Commissioners

    200

    National Gallery

    300

    Queen's Colleges

    2,000

    Royal Irish Academy

    500

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.

    £

    Diplomatic Services

    60,000

    Consular Services

    60,000

    Suppression of the Slave Trade

    1,500

    Tonnage Bounties, &c.

    2,000

    Suez Canal (British Directors)

    400

    Colonies, Grants in Aid

    5,000

    South Africa and St. Helena

    1,500

    Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

    9,000

    Cyprus, Grant in Aid

    - -

    CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.

    £

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    120,000

    Merchant Seamen's Fund Pension &c.

    1,000

    Pauper Lunatics, England

    - -

    Pauper Lunatics, Scotland

    - -

    Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

    65,000

    Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland

    4,000

    Friendly Societies Deficiency

    - -

    Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

    800

    Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland

    600

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.

    £

    Temporary Commissions

    6,000

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    2,500

    Total for Civil Services

    £2,916,800

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    £

    Customs

    100,000

    Inland Revenue

    100,000

    Post Office

    100,000

    Post Office Packet Service

    120,000

    Post Office Telegraphs

    270,000

    Total for Revenue Departments

    £690,000

    Grand Total

    £3,606,800

    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought this was a question which, as

    643
    proposed, might give rise to considerable discussion. Everybody knew that in respect to the Civil Service Estimates a Vote on Account must be taken. It was not clear, however, for what length of time that Vote ought to be taken. He knew it had been customary in former years to take Votes on Account for two months; but, under the New Rules, and other circumstances, it was questionable whether it was necessary to take it for so long a time. It was always understood that this Vote on Account was to be of a limited character; and he should have thought that, without detriment to the Public Service, it might now be taken for a shorter period than two months. He hoped the Government, without any Amendment being proposed, would consent to reduce that amount, so that the Vote on Account might not be taken for two months, but for, say, one month.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the Vote which was now asked on account was, practically, for two months, though, literally speaking, it was for seven weeks. He was not aware that a Vote for less than two months had ever been taken. On one or two occasions a Vote for three months had been asked for—once by their Predecessors. The Government could not possibly, under the circumstances, ask for a Vote on Account for less than two months. There was no possibility of their being able to get anything in regard to the Civil Service Estimates which would justify them in saying they would not require a Vote of Credit for so long. Therefore, he could only say that, while conforming to what he promised the Committee just now—namely, to take as many Votes in Supply as early in the Session as possible, he must press for a Vote on Account for two months.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that when he was Secretary to the Treasury the present Chancellor of the Exchequer himself insisted upon a reduction of the time of the Vote on Account from two months to six weeks. There was very great difference in the circumstances of the present year from those of any year which had gone before. This year, when Supply was put down it could be proceeded with from Vote to Vote. The reason why Governments had found it impossible to make headway with
    644
    Supply was that on the Motion for going into Committee, private Members could raise discussions on other subjects. The Prime Minister, in moving the New Rules, referred to the advantage of Supply being taken much earlier in the Session. What he thought the Committee had a right to expect was not that there should be no Vote on Account, but that a Vote should not be taken for the whole of the Civil Service Estimates except for a very limited period, and that no second Vote should be taken until some progress had been made in the earlier Classes of the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew better than he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) did what the prospects of the Government were with regard to their own Business; but what he contended was that, under the circumstances of the present year, the experiment of taking a Vote for a month or six weeks should be tried. He was satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman would take off one-fourth of the Vote, he would be supported by the Committee.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the House had been given to understand that if private Members gave up the facilities they previously enjoyed for raising discussions on going into Committee of Supply, that very mischievous practice of the Estimates of the year being relegated to a late period of the Session would be brought to an end. That was one of the advantages which was constantly urged on the Ministerial Benches during the passing of the New Rules through the House, and the Government had now an opportunity of carrying into practice the principles they had laid down. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be absolutely necessary that a Vote on Account should be granted. That everyone admitted. It was, however, also said that a Vote on Account was necessary now, because of the early occurrence of Easter. But the Committee must bear in mind that the Vote on Account they were now asked to grant would practically carry them up to the 1st of June. That could scarcely be necessary. He did not wish to move the somewhat crude Amendment, that the Vote be reduced by one-half; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to take a Vote for half the amount now proposed he would find he

    645
    could do so without detriment to the Public Service, and he would certainly find no objection raised by the Committee. There was no desire to hamper the Executive Government with regard to the management of the National Services; but there was a desire that the Government should so regulate the amounts they asked for as to insure to the House of Commons practical control of Supply. They had hitherto been familiar with the practice of having the Estimates hurled at their heads at the latter end of July, or in the month of August; but they were assured solemnly by the Prime Minister that that would not occur again if the House gave him the power that he asked for under the New Rules. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to meet the wishes of the Committee, and thus allow the discussion to terminate in an amicable manner.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would recollect that the circumstances of the year were somewhat exceptional. They were not, however, exceptional exactly in the direction which had been stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were exceptional in this respect—that Parliament had sat up to the very eve of Easter without a single Government measure having passed a second reading. He had no doubt that at some future period they would hear of the mismanagement of Business, and the waste of the time of the House by the Government. He should be glad to know in what way it was possible to have prevented the present state of things? He did not complain that 11 nights were occupied by the debate on the Address; and he did not suppose it would be denied that since then their time had been almost exclusively taken up by the necessary discussion of Supply. The consequence was they had now arrived at a period of the Session when it was absolutely necessary some progress should be made with the legislation the Government had proposed. He did not suppose there were any hon. Gentlemen opposite who desired that the Session should be distinguished by no legislation whatever; therefore, they would be scarcely unwilling to afford the Government an opportunity of taking the opinion of the House on some of the legislative projects which they had laid, and wore desirous of laying, before the House. He trusted the course
    646
    the Government now proposed to take would be assented to by the Committee.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the noble Marquess had certainly made a most melancholy confession when he admitted that, despite the reform of the Rules of the House in the way the Government, not the House, wished, the Government were in the deplorable plight that they had not yet succeeded in obtaining a second reading of any one measure. The noble Marquess now said—"Let us postpone the Civil Service Estimates, in the hope that we may be able to ask the House to consider some of the measures which hitherto we have been unable to bring before its notice." He (Lord George Hamilton) did not think such an issue ought to be put to them now, because what were the facts of the case? This Vote on Account was not merely for a long period, but it was a Vote on Account for by far the largest Civil Service Estimates ever yet presented to the House of Commons. Ever since the present Government had been in Office the Civil Service Estimates had not been taxed in the House. The consequence was they had increased at an unparalleled rate, and they now amounted to £3,000,000 more than they were when the late Government left them, and to £1,600,000 over the last Appropriation Account. If this fact were combined with the knowledge that the House of Commons had during the time referred to no control over the Estimates, cause and effect were brought very close together, and the Liberal Party, if they chose to sanction the increased expenditure, would be responsible for it. It was well known that if certain items once got upon the Estimates they generally remained there, and constituted a permanent increase of expenditure. As the Government must have a Vote on Account, if they could not undertake that the Estimates would be discussed during the next two months, then he thought the Committee would do well to grant a Vote on Account for one month only.
    MR. E. N. FOWLERpointed out that the New Rules made it impossible for hon. Members to raise a debate upon any subject in which they took an interest, except upon the Address to Her Majesty; whereas it used to be open to any Member to raise such questions on going into Committee of Supply. The

    647
    Government now took Mondays forgoing into Committee of Supply without Question; and not only had they obtained Mondays, but Thursdays also. The Committee would recollect that the Prime Minister said last year that it was not the duty of the Government to keep a House on private Members' nights; and the consequence had been that last Session the House was counted out on six successive Tuesdays. As the Government would not give Members any help in bringing forward their questions on Tuesdays, and as they had no power to raise them on going into Committee of Supply, Members were entirely in the power of the Government, having no means of advocating and defending their opinions. Under the circumstances, they had but one course to pursue, and that was to take every opportunity which the Forms of the House presented of exercising the very small privileges left to them. Such an opportunity occurred on the Address; and if the Government had passed Rules which rendered the course he had indicated necessary to private Members, they had no right to complain that the Opposition had availed themselves of the Constitutional opportunity which then presented itself for bringing forward questions in which they took an interest. There was no other course open to them; and he considered it unjust and improper, on the part of the Government, to twit the Opposition with the debate on the Address.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, this Vote on Account was not larger than had been asked for by the late Administration on one occasion.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Vote on Account which the late Government were allowed to take was £1,200,000. The Estimates then were very much less than the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the Vote was accurately stated by the right hon. Gentleman at £1,200,000; but only that amount was taken for two months, because a considerable sum had already been voted.
    MR. SALTsaid, he felt that the Government which came to the House from time to time for Votes on Account for the purpose of managing Public Business confessed that it had driven itself and
    648
    the Business of the country into a corner. He wished to point out how extremely important this Vote was which they were now asked to grant, and which would, no doubt, be granted. Having voted the £3,660,800, the Committee to that extent, and possibly to a much greater extent, would have diminished their proper control over the Votes; because when, at a future time, they came to criticize the Estimates, they would he told that they had already voted the sum in question, and that it was impossible they could now deal with the subject-matter of the Votes. Supposing that objection were raised to an Estimate, how were the Committee to deal with it when they found that a large sum on account had already been voted? This was putting the House and the country in an unfair position with regard to the Estimates. He put it to the Government that, owing to circumstances over which they had very little control, the Estimates of last year were brought forward so late in the last Session that it was absolutely impossible to discuss them properly; and it was, therefore, the more incumbent on Members of the House, in regard to the Estimates of this year, to see that there was no extravagant item in them which was not submitted to full examination. Speaking for himself, he repudiated entirely, and with some degree of indignation, the charge that it was the intention to discuss the Estimates at such a length as to obstruct legislation; but if there was in the mind of the noble Marquess or the Government any such idea, it was easy to deal with it in this way. Let the Estimates be put before the House at the proper time; and if there were any unusual delay, or unfair and unnecessary criticism, it would then be time to charge Members with delaying the Estimates for the purpose of obstructing legislation. He thought hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House had a right to complain, when the Government charged them with dealing with the Estmates in such a manner as to prevent the discussion of Government Bills. He put it as strongly as possible to the Government, whether they would afford an opportunity for discussing the Votes properly when they next came forward? And he could answer for it that, so far as he was himself concerned, and he believed he might say so

    649
    far as hon. Gentlemen on those Benches were concerned, they would be submitted to perfectly fair and even generous criticism.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he thought he could give the hon. Member exactly the assurance asked for; because the rule was laid down in 1866, and ought to have been, if it had not been, rigidly observed, that the taking of a Vote on Account did not preclude objection to, and indeed refusal, of any new Vote. It was well understood that the taking of Votes on Account involved no new principle; they were asked for every year in connection with the Civil Service Estimates.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had apparently understood the observations of the hon. Gentleman who preceded him in precisely an opposite sense to what he (Mr. Lowther) did. He had not understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the House would be precluded from objecting to any new Vote, but to ask that the promise of an opportunity for discussion should be given before any Vote was given at all. The impression now conveyed was that if they consented to as Vote on Account they would hear nothing more of these Estimates. The noble Marquess himself had stated that the next two months were to be employed in getting on with legislation.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had stated nothing about the Estimates not being submitted to further consideration during the next two months.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had not supposed that the noble Marquess referred to the fact that no progress was being made in legislation for the purpose of indulging in historical retrospect only. He (Mr. Lowther) presumed that the Government hoped to make progress with legislation through the Vote now asked for, and he considered that this view was not an unfair construction to place upon the words of the noble Marquess. That being so, hon. Members were, he thought, entitled to ask for an assurance that they would have an opportunity of discussing the Civil Service Estimates within the next two months. The proposal did not appear to him an unreasonable one, and he hoped it would be acceded to, in
    650
    order to obviate the necessity of moving a reduction of the Vote.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, hon. Members opposite appeared to be under some misapprehension as to the Civil Service Estimates. The increase this year was about £1,300,000 more than for the year 1880, and the four heads of Elementary Education, Irish Police, Land Commission, and Grants in Aid, including the contribution to Main Roads were more than enough to account for it. The Grants in Aid this year were nearly £1,000.000 more than in 1880; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite took these facts into consideration they would see that the whole argument on which they based their opposition to this Vote fell to the ground. He trusted that the Vote would be allowed to pass.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought the justice of the case would be met by giving the Government one month's Supply. They would have Mondays and Thursdays in every week after Easter for bringing forward the Civil Service Estimates; but his feeling was that if they allowed the whole Vote to be taken that evening, seeing that there were four or five Government Bills to be considered, read a second time, and probably dealt with in Committee, the Prime Minister would come down after Easter and ask for another Vote on Account, alleging that it was absolutely impossible to proceed with the Estimates in the then state of Public Business. Under the circumstances, he felt it his duty to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,660,800.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, ha granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that the proposed Vote was presented in one form by the noble Marquess, and in another by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman treated it as a matter of course that a Vote of two months' Supply should be taken, because it had been taken on former occasions. That, however, was a principle against which, he thought, the Committee ought to protest in the most solemn way, especially as under the

    651
    New Rules there was no necessity for a Vote on Account. The noble Marquess, on the other hand, had approached the matter in a totally different spirit, by saying that the Vote should be granted under the peculiar circumstances of the present Session. He trusted the Government would be able to promise an opportunity for the discussion of the Estimates before the Whitsuntide Recess.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it was the invariable custom to take a Vote for two months on account. He could only say that, nothing would surprise him more than to find they could not get, at any rate, one evening in the week after the Recess for the discussion of the Civil Service Estimates; and, unless something extraordinary happened, he assumed that the first evening after the Recess would be devoted to their consideration.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, the Government had stated that there had been no opportunity up to that time of taking the second reading of measures in which the country and the House were interested. But he pointed out that this had been altogether an exceptional year, inasmuch as Easter fell much earlier than it had fallen for many years past, and the Session had commenced a week later than usual. The consequence was, naturally, that the Government had less time in which to carry on its Business before Easter.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 59: Majority 21.—(Div. List, No. 37.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrew, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  BILLS OF SALE (IRELAND) ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 105.]
  (Mr. Monk, Mr. Patrick Martin, Mr. Corry, Mr. Eugene Collins.)
  BILLS OF SALE (IRELAND) ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 105.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MONK,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was the complement of the Act of last year, which had proved of great advantage to
    652
    this country. He had received letters from Dublin stating that many of the extortioners dealt with by that Act had found their occupation in England gone, and were making arrangements for transferring their operations to certain cities and large towns in Ireland. This Bill, he believed, had the approval of every Irish Member, and of the Chambers of Commerce in Ireland, and it would have the support of the Attorney General for Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Monk.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, the sum of £6,240,100, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  QUESTIONS.

    THE PUBLIC OFFICES—EXPLOSIONS AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD AND AT THE "TIMES" OFFICE.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Perhaps I may, with the indulgence of the House, be allowed to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the House any particulars with respect to the explosion which has taken place at the Local Government Board Office; and whether there is any truth in the report that an explosion has also taken place at The Times office?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The particulars I have received from the police are, that at five minutss past 9 this evening an explosion took place on the ground floor of the Office of the Local Government Board, in Charles Street, Westminster, wrecking a room, and breaking much glass, and causing other damage in the neighbourhood. There are many conjectures as to the

    653
    cause of the explosion; but it would not be right to state them until there has been an official inquiry. No person has been injured. In reference to the other matter to which my right hon. Friend refers, I have seen a gentleman connected with The Times office; and it appears that previous to the explosion at the Local Government Board Office, at about half-past 7, there was found outside The Times office a canister containing some explosive material, which seems to have slightly exploded, but with no serious effects. Those are the facts I have received.
    MR. PULESTONasked whether there was anything to indicate in a similar way the cause of the explosion at the Local Government Board Office?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: At present I have no information of anything having been found; and, in fact, the explosion was of such a character that there was hardly likely to be anything found.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, that no person had been injured, referred to persons at the Local Government Board Office only, as he had heard it reported that several persons at The Central Press office had been injured and taken away in cabs?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The information I have received does not bear that out.

    CROWN LANDS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to the management of the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues of the Crown, ordered to brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 122.]
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.