Commons Sitting of 20 March 1884

Preamble
MINUTES."—SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.—.£3,531,050, CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.—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.—NONEFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERCVIES; CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS; REVENVE DEPARTMENTS.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£10,432,850, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Offered—First Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Provisional Order* [142]: Life Leaseholders Enfranchisement* [143].
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 1).
Committee—Report—Dublin Museum of Science and Art* (re-comm.) [59].
Third Reading—City of Norwich (Mousehold Heath) Provisional Order* [105]; Local Government Provisional Order* [127]; Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order* [106], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CORK BUTTER MARKET BILL.

    INSTUCTION TO THE SELECT COMMITTE. POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
    MR. MOORE, who had the following Notice on the Paper relating to the Bill:—
    "To move, that it he an Instruction to the Committee that they do provide that the Butter Inspectors shall not be accompanied by, or interfered with by, any Butter Merchant, or Broker, or other person, save and excepting the officials of the Market, during their inspection, and that the Trustees do frame bye-laws to protect the Inspectors from all pressure and undue influence in the discharge of their duty,"
    said, that he had been in communication with the promoters of the Bill and with Lord Fitzgerald, and had received an undertaking from them upon certain points of the measure which he considered of vital importance. He therefore proposed to postpone the Motion of which he had given Notice. The most important question raised in the Bill related to inspection. Great censure had been cast upon those who inspected the butter in the Cork Market, and great injury to the trade had resulted

    273
    therefrom. The inspection had not been honest, but had been conducted under great pressure, and what had taken place now re-acted in such a way as to deteriorate the price of butter. All he wished now to provide for was——
    MR. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Member wished to postpone his Motion. If he wishes it, and there is no opposition, it will be done as a matter of course.
    MR. MOORE: Yes, I wish to postpone it, as I have been in communication with the promoters of the Bill, and have received a very satisfactory statement from them.
    Motion postponed till To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND —CONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the late Rev. Dr. E. Scott, principal of the Wesleyan Methodists College, Belfast, was placed on the senate of the Royal University of Ireland as the representative of the Irish Wesleyan Methodists; and, if he could explain why the vacancy caused by the death of Dr. Scott has not been filled up by a gentleman of the same representative character?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I answered this Question on Monday last in reply to the noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton), and I then stated that in filling up the vacancy caused by the death of Dr. Scott the Government had regard to the proportion of the several denominations in Ireland.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—SUSPICIOUS DEATH AT DONEGAL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a young man named James McCanley met his death under peculiar circumstances in a hotel in Donegal town; whether, at the inquest, all the witnesses except the proprietor gave evidence that no signs of intoxication could be seen on the deceased at a late hour on the night of his death; whether the father of deceased
  274
  expressed his dissatisfaction at the inquiry made at the coroner's inquest, and made a sworn declaration before the resident magistrate that, to the best of his judgment, his son died from some ill-treatment received; whether the body bore marks of violence; whether the father of deceased, in a letter to The Derry Journal, asked for a public investigation into the cause of his son's death, and made formal application to the resident magistrate for an inquiry; whether the police have taken any stops since to seek further evidence; and, whether the Government is prepared to institute the inquiry asked for?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there is no ground for suspecting foul play in this case. The deceased was found dead in the hotel in which he was employed. Several witnesses proved that when last seen he was the worse for drink. A whiskey bottle, containing eight glasses, had been accidentally left out, and was found empty near the deceased. Neither the doctor nor the police found any marks of violence on the body, and the medical evidence at the inquest was that the deceased died from alcoholic coma, and a verdict was returned accordingly. Some days afterwards a letter appeared in The Derry Journal from the father asking for an inquiry; but the only ground for suspicion alleged in that letter was the appearance of the body, which had been fully explained by the doctor as arising from natural causes.

  STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE PROTECTION TO MR. T. F. ROE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why Mr. Thomas F. Roe. J.P., Carrolton, Dunmore, county Galway, is allowed police protection; how many constables attend him; and, how many outrages have been committed in the district within the last three months?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Roe is allowed police protection in consequence of apprehension by him of danger, owing to a feeling against him in the district. His protection force consists of three men. Three outrages, consisting of two incendiary fires and a threatening letter, have been committed in the district during the past three months. The protection is not under the Prevention of Crime Act.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—THE SALT TAX.
  MR. BURTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the complaint made in the petition presented by the Natives of Chingleput, Madras, last month, to Lord Ripon, that Government "levy Duty of two rupees, or thirty-two annas, on three annas' worth of salt;" and, whether this taxation does not exist now throughout India, though in many parts the cost of carriage equals the cost of salt and Duty?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I have not seen the Memorial referred to. If the price of salt at Chingleput is only three annas per maund, a duty of two rupees would have to be paid on three annas' worth of salt. This taxation certainly exists throughout India, and in some parts, far from railway communication, the cost of carriage is, no doubt, equal to both, first cost and duty.

  INDIA—GOVERNMENT HOUSE AT OOTACAMUND—MR. GRANT DUFF.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as reported in the lending European journal in India, The Pioneer, and extensively copied into other Indian papers, that Mr. Grant Duff has spent
  "40,000 rupees on silk hangings for Government House, Ootacamund, and has passed the item through the public accounts under the the heading of repairs?"
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, when Mr. Grant Duff arrived in Madras he found that the Government House at Ootacamund, which had been begun some years before he left England, required to be finished and furnished. The amount sanctioned by the Government of India for furniture was Rs. 125,000; but we have no details of the particular items on which this sum has been expended. There has been no expenditure no repairs.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Is the gentleman referred to the same Grant Duff who in this House denounced so strongly the extravagant expenditure on this and other public buildings in India?
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, this was a very large palace, and he dared say it had several times been denounced in that House; but Mr. Grant Duff was not in the least answerable for the building of it.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—THE BATTLE OF EL TEB.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Has he ascertained how many Soudanese troops were killed at El Teb, and how many were wounded on the same occasion; and, will he state what are the estimated figures?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: We are still without Sir Gerald Graham's full despatch containing- particulars of the battle; but I imagine we must shortly receive it. I would, however, remark that it is not usual for a General to give more than a conjectural estimate of the loss of an enemy in action, and that he has obviously no means of arriving at a correct result in such a matter. Of course, it would be impossible for him to make even a conjectural estimate of the number of wounded. I will inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as the despatch is received.
  MR. GIBSON: So far what I have heard from the noble Lord amounts to nothing. Bearing in mind that the newspapers have stated specifically that our troops buried about 2,500 bodies of Soudanese troops; and bearing in mind also that I asked this Question, a week ago, and postponed it in order to enable the noble Lord to obtain information, I think he might have telegraphed specialty to the Soudan to ascertain if there was any foundation for the report.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman a week ago, we expected before this to receive a despatch which would probably contain all the information which General Graham is able to give. It does not appear to me to be desirable that the onerous duties which fall to officers when engaged on active service of this description should be increased by sending to them more telegrams than are absolutely necessary. This is a subject of no great importance for the moment, because it does not appear that any action can be founded on the information.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Who is bringing home the despatches?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGION: I understand Captain Lloyd.
  MR. GIBSON: I shall put another I Question on this subject next week.

  ARMY—THE DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it will not be possible to appoint one Roman Catholic master (out of five) to the Duke of York's School, provided that a suitable candidate can be found?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the masters are Army schoolmasters, and are four, not five, in number. At present there is no vacancy. They do not conduct the religious instruction of the pupils, for which other arrangements are made. The appointments are given to those candidates among Army schoolmasters who, on educational grounds, are considered most eligible, and if a Roman Catholic fulfils those conditions he would be selected. I may add that there are at this time 81 Catholics out of 480 boys.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— SOLICITORS' APPRENTICES.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether a solicitor's apprentice must, before being admitted to practise, swear—
  "That he caused a notice of this application to be admitted a solicitor to be posted in the Law Club, No. 25, Nassau Street, in the city of Dublin, six days previous to sweating this affidavit;"
  if so, whether he is prepared to recommend that the foregoing paragraph be expunged from conditions of admission?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I will answer this Question for my hon. and learned Friend. The practice is, I believe, correctly stated in the Question. The admission of solicitors is in the hands of the Incorporated Law Society, and the Irish Government has no power to interfere with their regulations.

  ARMY—CHELSEA HOSPITAL—A ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPEL.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the recommendation of the Committee, that a suitable chapel shall be provided within the precincts of Chelsea Hospital, for the service of the Roman Catholics, will be carried out?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I am now considering this question, with several others raised in the Report of the Committee referred to, and I hope shortly to arrive at a decision.

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND—GRANTS FOR BUILDINGS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the grant formerly voted for the Queen's University in Ireland amounts to £4,000 a year, and if all the duties discharged by that University are not now discharged by the Royal University, the expenses of which are defrayed out of the Surplus Church Fund (Ireland); and, whether the Government will apply the money in accordance with the statement of the then Lord Chancellor, when introducing the University Bill in 1879, that—
  "The Vote of Parliament which had, up to that time, been taken for the expenses of the Queen's University would of course apply itself to the now University?"
  MR. COURTNEY: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary asked me to answer this Question. It appears that it is true that the late Lord Chancellor is reported to have used the words quoted by the hon. and gallant Member; but the provision then contemplated has since been superseded by means which are much more ample. The sum of £74,000 has been voted by Parliament for providing suitable buildings for the Royal University. The maintenance of that building is thrown upon Parliament, and the annual sum of £20,000 is taken from the Church Fund to meet other expenses of the University.

  SCOTLAND—THE SASINE OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Clerks of the Third Class in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, do not perform duties of as responsible and difficult a character as Clerks of the First and Second Classes; and, whether the time has not arrived for the revision of the numbers of the Second Class in terms of the Treasury Minute of 27th March 1881, which provides that—
  "The numbers of the Second Class will be subject to revision hereafter, when experience shall have shown to what proportion of the Staff it may be necessary to entrust work which, while subordinate to that performed by the Assistant Keepers and First Class Clerks, is of a more responsible and difficult character than can be required from the Junior Clerks of the Department?"
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Keeper of the Sasines Office is primarily responsible for the distribution of the work of the Office. The Treasury had received no representation from him that the amount of work of a responsible character which he performed by the junior clerks is more than is performed by the superior clerks.

  INDIA (BOMBAY)—THE MAHARAJAH OF KOLAPORE.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to the circumstances of the death of the Rajah of Kolapore in a struggle with a European ex-soldier named Green; whether the Maharajah, being of invalid health in mind and body, was taken out of the charge of his relatives and placed in charge of Green?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, full particulars of the circumstances connected with the death of the Maharajah of Kolapore have been received from the Government of Bombay, and have been considered by the Secretary of State in Council. The Maharajah having, in 1881, become hopelessly insane, it was deemed advisable, in the interest of his health, to remove him from Kolapore to Ahmednuggur, where he was placed in charge of his former guardian, Mr. Birch, assisted by Private Green, who had already shown himself a careful, kindly, and judicious attendant, and a suitable number of servants. On the 25th of December, the Maharajah, who had been subject to occasional fits of violence, assaulted Green, who, without using unnecessary force, endeavoured to get him into a chair. His Highness resisted, and fell, and shortly afterwards died. The opinion arrived at by the Bombay Government, that the fatal result was entirely duo to the diseased state of the Maharajah's spleen, and that no blame could be attached to the attendant, was based upon the result of a post-mortem examination. A careful inquiry was held before the district magistrate, and a jury of Native gentlemen of different castes, selected, in view both of their position and intelligence, who reported that the death was accidental, and that the evidence showed the Maharajah to have been well treated by the persons, both European and Native, who attended upon him.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ALLEGED OUTRAGE AT RATHMORE, CO. WEXFORD.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the alleged outrage against himself, reported by James Bourke of Rathmore, county Wexford, was ever investigated by the authorities; whether the evidence of the people living in the adjoining houses was taken as to a shot being heard; whether it is in consequence of the shot being alleged to have been fired that extra police are quartered on the district; whether any and what other outrages have been alleged; and, whether the county and district is generally peaceful; and, if the Government intend to relieve the locality of the police tax?
  MR. TREVELYANin reply, said, that the outrage referred to was the firing of a shot into the house of Bourke, who was unpopular in the district and "Boycotted." No sworn investigation was held, but the police made careful inquiries. It was true that the people in the neighbouring houses did not hear the shot; but that the shot was fired was beyond doubt, for the police found the window broken and some of the charge in the roof. The district had not been proclaimed under Section 18 of the Prevention of Crime Act; therefore no tax would be levied for the police.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in respect of that part of Stellaland and Goschen which is left outside the new Transvaal frontier line; and, whether it is proposed to remove the freebooters from that district, or to confirm them in the property which they have seized from the Natives?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, our information is that very few White men have trekked into the country beyond the now frontier line; but, whether few or many, it would be manifestly inconvenient for me to give an answer to my hon. Friend, as it would be immediately telegraphed out to that country. All I can say is that much will be left to the discretion of Sir Hercules Robinson and Mr. Mackenzie, after consideration on the spot, and that the claims of justice will undoubtedly be regarded by the

  281
  British Commissioner, who has on several occasions in this country publicly said that, subject to rules and conditions, there is no reason, in his view, why the White man and the Black man should not live side by side.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— AMOUNT OF THE GRANT PER HEAD OF POPULATION.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Returns, just issued, of the Expenditure from the Grants for Public Education during the year 1883, showing an aggregate income for England and Wales of £5,829,781 6s. 9d., or an average of £1 17 s. 0¼d. per head, and for Scotland £y906,068 3s. 1d., or an average of £2 1s. 2¾d., If he can state what was the aggregate income for Ireland in the same period, and what the average per head; and, whether he will cause Returns to be given for Ireland precisely similar to those for England and Wales and Scotland, so as to facilitate comparison?
  MR. TREYELYAN, in reply, said, that the Return should be given as an Appendix to the Annual Report.

  INDIA-BENGAL TENANCY BILL.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of India has appointed, or is about to appoint, a Commission to inquire into the suitability of the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Bill to the various local requirements of Bengal and Behar; and, if so, whether it is true that that Commission will consist of three officials pledged to the policy of the Bill, together with one non-official nominally to represent the zemindars, who has notoriously opposed the views of the zemindars in recent discussions?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I can only give the same answer to this Question as that which I gave the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) last Monday, that the Secretary of State is not aware of any intention on the part of the Government of India to appoint a Commission of the nature suggested.
  MR. GORSTasked whether the hon. Gentleman would say whether the Secretary of State would make inquiries?
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member would give him reasons to suppose it was desirable to inquire into the matter, he could an-
  282
  swer on behalf of the Secretary of State that he would do so.
  SIR GEOEGE CAMPBELLalso asked if it was not the case that two Commissions before this Bill was brought in had not inquired into the reports, and whether this was not the second year that the proceedings had been delayed in consequence of the departure of the Government to Simla?
  MR. J. K. CROSS, in reply, said, that no doubt there had been some considerable delay, but it did not arise from the cause named by the hon. Member.

  INLAND REVENUE—FREEING OF THE DEE BRIDGES—STAMP DUTY ON THE PURCHASE MONEY.
  MR. HENRY TOLLEMACHEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury have demanded, through the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, that the Corporation of the city of Chester, who are promoting the Chester Improvement Bill, shall pay ad valorem duty on the purchase money and transfer of mortgages in connection with the proposed freeing of the Dee bridges; whether there is any precedent for such demands being made in the case of works of public utility, such as the freeing of bridges; and, whether the Treasury still insist on these charges being made?
  MR. COURTNEY: Yes, Sir; the. Treasury have refused to exempt this transaction from the statutory stamp. This course is in accordance with precedent in similar cases; and, however desirable the proposed improvements may be from a local point of view, I see no reason for making any contribution to it, oven indirectly, out of the National Revenue. In a Memorial received on the subject, it was practically admitted that a waiver of the duty would be tantamount to a contribution out of public funds.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883—BANKRUPTCY OF BLAKEWAY AND THOMAS.
  MR. GREGORYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has received any Reports from the Official Receiver in the bankruptcy of Blakeway and Thomas; and, whether he can stale whether any and what steps have been taken for the arrest or prosecution of the absconded debtor?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The Board of Trade have received through the

  283
  Chief Official Receiver in Bankruptcy a letter from the trustee in this bankruptcy, in winch it is stated that the firm stopped payment on January 30th. The petition was presented by Mr. Thomas on January 31st, and on the next day, February 1st, a warrant was issued for Blakeway's apprehension at the instance of a creditor; and on the following day another warrant was issued, also at the instance of a creditor. Both these warrants were placed in the hands of detectives, who have been actively engaged since that time in endeavouring to trace Blakeway in all parts of the United Kingdom. These warrants are still in the hands of the police.
  MR. GREGORY: Has any attempt been made to trace him abroad?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No; there does not appear to have been any such attempt.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH CLERKS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can see his way to acceding to the application of the telegraph clerks transferred to Dublin since Mr. Scudamore's scheme, and engaged on Sunday and night duty, to be placed on an equality with their brother clerks previously in Dublin in regard to the term of their annual leave of absence?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the question of annual leave is about to be carefully examined, and until this is done I am unable to say what decision may be arrived at in the case of the clerks to whom he refers.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE RIOTS AT LONDONDERRY.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether steps have been taken to bring to justice the man Rutledge, who, according to the evidence of the approver Marshall on the trial of Thomas Doherty at Sligo Assizes, fired two shots from the window of the Corporation Hall at Derry on 1st November last; whether his attention has been called to the declaration in the charge of Mr. Justice Murphy, that persons who were close to the man who fired the shot which wounded Dunnion were equally guilty; whether Doherty was found guilty of aiding and
  284
  abetting the outrage, and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment; what measures have the Police taken to ascertain who were his accomplices; and, whether proceedings will be instituted against persons who were conspicuous, and who can be proved to have fired shots or flung bottles or other missiles from the Corporation Hall, on that occasion?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Marshall was not an approver as alleged. He was not a Crown witness. He was taken to Sligo and examined by the prisoner's counsel, with the object of upsetting the case for the Crown, by swearing that Doherty did not fire shots and that Rutledge did. The Crown got a verdict against Doherty, despite his evidence; and it would be extremely unlikely that the Crown could rely upon him as a witness in another case. As to Doherty's accomplices, there was nothing to show who were such, although the police have made all inquiry in their power. Any person who can be identified as having taken a conspicuous or active part in the riot will he proceeded against.
  MR. O'BEIEN: Has a secret inquiry been held?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No; not at least under the Prevention of Crime Act.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— INEQUALITY OF SENTENCES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can explain to the House how it was that Hannan, an Orangeman who, on the 25th January, drew his revolver and attempted to shoot the sentry at Omagh Barracks, Tyrone, was released on bail, and only punished by a fine, whilst Lawrence Kenny, who fired at a soldier who was not on duty, at Mullingar, was sentenced to penal servitude for life, the offence in the latter appearing to be less serious?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Hannan was not tried on a charge of attempt to murder, and I am advised that the evidence would not have sustained such a charge. He was tried on a charge of having arms in a proclaimed district, and was fined by the magistrates in the exercise of their discretion. In the case of Lawrence Kenny there was a deliberate attempt to murder, and he was tried and convicted accordingly.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—TEACHERS IN CONVENT SCHOOLS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, while the convent national schools are, according to Sir P. J. Keenan, the Resident Commissioner of National Education, "remarkable for their efficiency in secular teaching, and especially so for their moral and religious results," the nuns who teach in them are deprived of the advantages of the increase accorded to classified teachers; and, whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to removing this inequality?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have stated this Session that convent national teachers in Ireland are in all cases at liberty to adopt the principle of classification, and when they do their salaries are the same as those of secular teachers. I will look again into the matter; but, having regard to what I have stated, my doing so must not be taken as in any way holding out hopes of any alteration.

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND —THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the provision in the Royal University Statutes against students holding scholarships, or other similar prizes, at the same time in the University and in the Queen's Colleges is evaded by the practice of paying, at the termination of the College Session in June the amount of scholarships which are awarded in October, for one year, thus enabling students to compete for University prizes in September, before the legal term of Queen's College scholarships has expired; how many students of the Queen's Colleges have won University prizes in this manner; and, whether the practice is an infringement of the University Statutes; and, if so, whether steps will be taken for its discontinuance?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received letters from the Presidents of the respective Queen's Colleges emphatically denying that such evasion takes place. The present arrangements by which scholarships are obtained—and they are obtained by three instalments
  286
  at fixed times—Christmas, Easter, and June or July—existed long before the establishment of the Royal University, and no change has been introduced. The academical year commence, as it has always done, in October, and ends in June or July.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, in order to get at the root of this matter, I bag to give Notice that I will move for a Return of the names of the students of the Queen's Colleges who obtained the scholarships in the past two sessions, and the number of marks obtained by each.

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND —THE QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many students are attending the Queen's College, Cork, this session in the Faculty of Arts; how many scholarships are available for this number; how many scholarships are vacant for want of competition or otherwise; whether any action will be taken in reference to the vacant scholarships; how much of the entire grant for the Queen's College, Cork, is devoted to the Arts Department; how many of the Arts students at present attending lectures were unsuccessful candidates for exhibitions at intermediate examinations; and, how many of them failed to obtain honours at the Royal University examinations in the subjects in which they hold Queen's College scholarships?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, 36 undergraduates are attending Queen's College, Cork. There are 20 scholarships open to competition, and 10 which might be held in continuation from last year. Of the 20 two are vacant from want of competition, and five from candidates not reaching the required standard. Of the 10 three are vacant from not having been filled last year, and one from the holder not having returned to the College this session. The senior scholarships available for graduates, who are not required to attend courses of lectures, are not included in these figures. The statutes of the College empower the Council to apply the unexpended balance of the scholarship fund in giving exhibitions to unsuccessful candidates who show sufficient merit, and each year they do so apply such balance, or a large portion of it. The hon. Mem-

  287
  ber's inquiry as to what portion of the College grant is devoted to the Art department is somewhat ambiguous. If it is intended to refer to the salaries of Professors who hold Chairs which are wholly or in part Art Chairs, the answer is £2,728. I am going to make inquiries into the question of the relative proportion of Medical to Art students, and the manner in which the funds of the College are distributed.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I beg to give Notice that I will call attention to the state of this College. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House whether it is a fact that five students of this College have been rusticated and deprived of the scholarships for attempting to expose the misuse of the public funds?
  [No reply.]
  MR. O'BRIEN: As the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to know anything about the matter, I beg to give Notice that I will put a Question on the Paper with regard to it.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Really, I think it is too much for the hon. Member to expect me to give information without giving me dates, or anything else. I am perfectly aware that several students have been punished for disorderly conduct—[Cries of "No, no!"]—disorderly conduct and insubordination, after ample investigation; and it can hardly be said that they were unfairly treated by the Staff of the College for their insubordination, the only excuse for which was that they imagined they were the subjects of inequalities. People must obey the laws of the Institution in which they are.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked whether out of five entrance scholarships in Literature only two had been awarded; and whether the Government would consider the propriety of issuing a Royal Commission to investigate the state of affairs in the College?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, there were only two competitors. He could not advise the appointment of a Royal Commission.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—CORK DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM—DISPOSAL OF DECEASED INMATES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  288
  If it is a fact that subjects for dissection are supplied to the Queen's College, Cork, from the Cork District Lunatic Asylum; and, if so, whether it has been done with the sanction of the Board of Governors; and, if such be the case, what was the total number supplied during the College Sessions 1881–2 and 1882–3, and the average expense of each?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he was in communication with the Inspector of Anatomy, and would answer the Question as soon as possible.

  INDIA—DACCA COLLEGIATE SCHOOL— FLOGGING OF STUDENTS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to a recent sentence of public flogging inflicted upon certain students of a high school at Dacca, on the charge of being concerned in a brawl or disturbance with the police; and, whether these youths belonged to some of the most respectable families of Dacca and the neighbourhood?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the Secretary of State's attention has been called to certain Indian newspapers, from which it appears that three boys, seemingly students of the Dacca Collegiate School, were convicted on different charges of assault, and sentenced to be whipped. In two, if not in all, of the cases the whipping was to be by way of "school discipline." There is no information in the India Office as to the family or respectability of the boys thus punished. The case is receiving attention.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—THE SALT TAX.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to the Address of the people of Bellary, containing a population of a million and a half, petitioning the Viceroy for an alleviation of the Salt Tax, and declaring that—
  "That the prohibition of the manufacture of earth salt, without a corresponding reduction in the price of sea salt, inflicts an unmitigated hardship upon the poor ryots, who have now almost to do without this important and necessary article of food, to the detriment of their health and the usefulness of their cattle,"
  and that—

  289
  "The recent rules under the Salt Law afford scope to unscrupulous men to harass the people;"
  whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Address of the people of North Arcot, containing a population of nearly two millions, declare that—
  "The Salt Tax is so heavy and prohibitive that people cannot obtain salt for their own requirements, and that their cattle are ravaged with various diseases owing to the want of this indispensable article of life;"
  whether the Indian Government keep the Home Government regularly informed upon the expression of native grievances with respect to the Salt Tax; and, if he can state the number of Petitions against the Salt Tax which were presented to British Authorities in India during the past year?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I have read the address of the people of Bellary petitioning for an alleviation of the Salt Tax, as reported in The Madres Weekly Mail, but I have not soon that of the people of North Arcot on the same subject. the Government of India do not send home Returns of all Petitions giving expression to Native grievances with respect to the Salt Tax, nor can I state the number of such Petitions presented to the British authorities during the past year.
  MR. O'DONNELL: But are there any means by which the Natives can make their grievances known?
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, they always had the opportunity of petitioning the Secretary of State.

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND —THE QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether in Queen's College, Cork, in October 1882, out of live entrance scholarships in literature, only two were actually awarded; whether, on that occasion, there were fewer competitors than there were scholarships proposed for competition, and what was the number of competitors; whether the two successful students, whoso answering was thus deemed satisfactory, according to the Queen's College standard for the distribution of £20 scholarships, were mere passmen at the Royal University, neither of them having there
  290
  obtained an exhibition nor honours of any kind in any literary subject; whether the answering of these same two students in the competition, also for the science scholarships, was so satisfactory, according to the Queen's College standard, that they were placed on the list of science scholars as well, and were only not awarded £20 scholarships in science, in consequence of a College rule restricting the holding of double scholarships; whether, at the Royal University, these students were mere passmen in science, as in literature, neither having there obtained an exhibition, nor honours of any kind, in any subject, literary or scientific; whether, of the five students to whom the £20 science scholarships were actually awarded, only one obtained honours, and these only of the second class, in even one subject, at the University examination; whether, of the remaining four to whom these £20 scholarships in; science were awarded in the Queen's College, only one was even a passman at the University, the names of the other three not appearing in the University matriculation list for 1882–3; and, whether he will take into consideration the propriety of advising the issue of a Royal Commission, fully to investigate the state of affairs in that College as regards the number of its students, their educational status, and its standards of examination for the distribution of scholarships maintained out, of public funds?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Report; of the President of the Queen's College, Cork, already before this House, and the published calendar of the Royal University of Ireland, afford replies to nearly all of the hon. Member's inquiries. It is the case—as shown by the Report—that in October, 1882, only two entrance scholarships in literature were awarded. Five were available, and there were only two competitors. These students were also placed on the list of science scholars; but under the College regulations they could not hold the double scholarships. Their names appear in the Royal University Calendar as passmen. I cannot undertake to advise the issue of a Royal Commission; but I have communicated to the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) what, I propose to do.

  INDIA—ALLEGED ASSAULT BY AN OFFICER UPON A NATIVE PLEADER IN THE HIGH COURT, MEERUT.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the assault by an Officer of the King's Dragoon Guards at Meerut upon a distinguished Bengalee pleader of the High Court, practising at the Meerut Bar; whether Captain Rogers was accused of having, on two different occasions, ridden up to this native barrister, and applying to him a most opprobious epithet, lashed him with his horse whip for not having salaamed to him; whether the accusation was proved before the Cantonment Magistrate; whether the sentence of the Court declared that—
  "It is proved that the Officer did assault Babu Bhola Nath Mookerjee without provocation, and that the abusive words used by him were such an intentional insult as he knew to be likely to cause a breach of the public peace;"
  whether the Cantonment Magistrate sentenced the said Captain Rogers only to a fine of less than 200 rupees; whether the only reason given by the Cantonment Magistrate for so light a sentence was that, if he had given a heavier sentence, he would have been bound by Law—
  "To make a special Report to the Commanding Officer of the regiment to which Captain Rogers belongs;"
  and, whether the Military authorities have taken, or intend to take, any notice of conduct unbecoming an Officer?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, neither the Secretary of State for War nor the Secretary of State for India has any knowledge of the case referred to.

  INLAND REVENUE—SOLICITORS' LICENCES.
  MR. W. H. SMITH (for Mr. GIBSON)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What was the amount received in the year 1883 in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively, for solicitors' licences; what is the amount paid for each solicitor's licence; whether the members of any other profession are obliged to take out licences for practice; and, whether he is prepared to abolish or lessen the exceptional
  292
  treatment to which, in this respect, the solicitor profession is subjected?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the amount received in 1883 for solicitors' licences was £109,104. Of this £'87,015 was received in England, £13,780 10 s. in Scotland, and £8,278 10 s. in Ireland. The rates of duty are—(1) For solicitors practising in London within 10 miles of the General Post Office, or within the City or Shire of Edinburgh, or in the City of Dublin, or within three miles therefrom, £9; (2) forsolicitors practising beyond the above-mentioned limits, £6; (3) for solicitors who have been in practice less than three years, half the above rates. Appraisers and house agents are required to take out an Excise licence of £2 a-year, auctioneers of £10, and bankers of £30 a-year. Before 1853 the rates were £12 for town and £8 for country solicitors respectively; solicitors who had been in practice loss than three years paying, as now, only half rates. These rates were reduced after full consideration in 1853 to their present amounts, and the new rates were confirmed by the Act of 1870. I am not prepared to propose any further alteration in these licences.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— BATTLE OF EL—TEB ALLEGED KILLING OF WOUNDED ARABS,
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement of The Times correspondent in Eastern Soudan:—
  "On the way I passed over yesterday's battle-field with Captain Slade, and there found a wounded rebel who by some mysterious chance had not been killed yesterday after the fight;"
  and, whether, as this statement implies, the wounded of the enemy, with the exception of this one man, who were unable to leave the field of battle were killed; and, if not, whether he can state how many wounded were taken, prisoners?
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Secretary of State for War, If there were any prisoners taken in the two battles in the Eastern Soudan?
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any wounded

  293
  Arabs have survived the late engagements; if so, can he state what becomes of them when the battle ground is occupied by the English; and, has any reference been made to the subject in any of the communications that have passed between the Military authorities and the Government?
  THE MAUQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to these Questions, I will, with the permission of the House, read a telegram from Sir Gerald Graham on the subject. It is dated from Suakin, at 10.30 last evening—
  "At El Teb no wounded man injured unless he attacked our men. Fifteen prisoners were made by General Davis. Two others feigning death attempted to murder a sergeant of the Black Watch. My aide-de-camp, Lieutenant Scott, rescued five men from a heap of wounded at El Teb, of whom one made an attempt to attack with his knife, but was disarmed. Of these I sent one with a letter to garrison of Tokar; the rest were afterwards released at El Teb. At Tamai the wounded continued to fight to the last. General Stewart was nearly stabbed while giving water to a wounded man. Corporal Moffat, R.E., and a wounded Infantry man were attacked and injured by men feigning to be dead. Many other cases occurred. Generally speaking the enemy neither gave, nor accepted quarter, and our men were obliged to kill them in self-defence. It is, however, no question of colour or nationality. Our men like these blacks who fought so well, and are friendly with them when they will allow them. If wounded European soldiers were to continue fighting they would be killed by their enemy in self-defence."
  MR. HEALY: Has the noble Marquess seen the sketch in The Daily Telegraph, by Mr. Melton Prior, in which there occur the words, "Shooting wounded rebels in rifle pits?"
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, I have seen the sketch; but I do not know that it in any way impugns the accuracy of what I have stated.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—SALE OF DRINK LICENCES BY AUCTION IN TANJORE, TINNAVELLY, AND NORTH AUCOT.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to the appearance of official advertisements in the Madras papers offering for public auction the right of making and vending intoxicating drink in the districts of Tanjore, Tinnavelly, and North Arcot; whether it is true that the population of these districts, though, exceeding six millions in number, have no control over the establishment of the system of Drink
  294
  Licence Auctions in their midst; whether the system of Drink Licence Auctions has been only recently introduced; when was the system approved by the Madras authorities; and, whether the consent of the Home Government was given to the measure?
  MR. J. K. CROSS, in reply, said, he was unable to give much information upon the subject. No change in the Madras Excise system had been reported, nor had any allusion been made to it since the last Report. The details asked for were not in possession of the India Office, but would be included in a Report called for from the Governor of Madras.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZAT10N)—EXTOR TION OF EVIDENCE.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the statement in The Times of Monday, by its correspondent in Alexandria, that the mudirs of all the Egyptian provinces, having complained that they are unable to maintain order because they have no power, and having requested to be allowed to extract evidence by means of torture, Mr. Clifford Lloyd has expressed the opinion that, without the concession of some authority to these mudirs, there must be anarchy; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will assent to accord to the mudirs, who ask to be allowed to employ torture, power to judge and punish the misdemeanours of their fellow subjects?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have no confirmation of the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, and there is no intention of conferring on the Mudirs of the Egyptian Provinces such power as that to which he alludes.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—DECISIONS OF THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will cause inquiry to be made respecting the statements in the following paragraph taken from The Leinster Leader of Saturday the 15th instant:—
  "Last week we stated publicly that the decisions in the eases heard al the last sitting in Naas had not been given. Several times our

  295
  representatives made inquiry of the responsible officer of the Sub-Commission, and on every occasion the answer was that the cases had not been decided. Yesterday we learned with astonishment that the judgments in these important cases had been given at the Birr sitting more than a fortnight before. They had been withheld from our reporter; they appeared in no newspaper; how they were given we do not know. But this is not all. They were not communicated to the tenants, nor to the tenants' solicitor. Appeals against the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners must be lodged within a month. How are tenants to know what judgments have been given in their cases;"
  and, if he will take steps to secure that the judgments shall be promptly made known to the parties?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commission inform me that the Deputy Registrar of the Sub-Commission could not have said that the cases mentioned were not decided, and it was improbable that he did so. In any case it is no part of the duty of the Deputy Registrar to inform the Press of the Sub-Commissioners' decisions. He is bound to communicate them to the persons interested, in the manner laid down in the Commissioners' regulations, and of which the persons concerned are fully informed. With regard to the time for appealing, although it is limited to a month, the Land Commissioners have power to extend it; and they would do so in any case on being satisfied that there had been a neglect of duty on the part of the Deputy Registrar in notifying the Sub-Commissioners' decision. But, as I have said, there is no obligation on the part of the Deputy Registrar to notify the Sub-Commissioners' decisions.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, that surely it was not the duty of the Registrar of the Sub-Commissioners to suppress those facts from the knowledge of the Press.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the decisions were notified to the solicitor for the tenants?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that if any complaint were made that they were notified, and it was ascertained that the Deputy Registrar neglected his duty, in such a case the time for appealing would be extended.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrequested the right hon. Gentleman to answer the last clause of his original Question.
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is nothing to show that the Deputy Registrar has neglected his duty. It is perfectly competent for the tenants and their soli-
  296
  citors to proceed in the manner indicated in my answer.

  INLAND REVENUE—RETUEN OF OFFICERS ABOVE 63 YEARS OF AGE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would have any objection to furnish a Return of all Collectors and Supervisors of Inland Revenue and Superintending and Chief Clerks in Collectors' Offices of sixty-three years old and upwards?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): No, Sir; I do not see that any good end would be served by such a Return, and it is not usual to give in a Parliamentary Paper the ages of gentlemen in the Public Service.

  ARMY—EXPEDITIONARY FORCE TO THE SOUDAN SMALL ARMS—CUTLASSES AND BAYONETS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, If he can state whether the bayonets with which the Forces under General Graham are armed are of Government manufacture, or were obtained by purchase?
  MR. BRAND, in reply, said, that no bayonets had been obtained since 1880, and that it was quite impossible to say whether they had been purchased or were of Government manufacture. General Graham had been asked to send home a sample of the bayonets in use by the British troops in the Soudan.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—CONSUL HEWETT.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHasked the Under Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs, If he would explain why Mr. Consul Hewett is kept in England, when his presence is needed on the Coast of Africa, where hostilities between Bonny, New Calabar, and Eckreeki men are with difficulty kept in abeyance, pending the Consul's return to his post; whether Consul Hewett is kept in this Country "on official duty;" and, who is acting as Deputy Consul, to look after British interests, during Consul Hewett's nine months' absence from the Bights?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Consul Hewett returned to England in consequence of severe illness. His health

  297
  is now fairly re-established, and it is hoped that his return will not be long delayed. Owing to the scarcity of European residents, it has not been found possible to find a qualified person to act for him. I may add that during Consul Hewett's residence in England his advice has been largely employed by the Foreign Office, and has been found of very great use.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—THE STEAMSHIP "ELEPHANT."
  DR. CAMERONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of his Department has been called to the case of the Elephant, a steamer of under 200 tons burden nett, which sailed from London, on February 17th, for Portsmouth, with a cargo of machinery intended for H.M.S. Impériouse, and is supposed to have gone down with all hands in the gale of 20th of February; whether it is a fact that she carried two boilers on deck, and that portions of the machinery carried projected through the hatchways, preventing them from being closed; and, whether she was inspected previous to being sent to sea; and. if so, by whom?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the case of the steamship Elephant, and I have ordered an inquiry into her loss by the Wreck Commissioner's Court. Until the Report of that Court has been received, I am unable to give a complete answer to the hon. Member's Question. I may say, however, that a Surveyor of the Board of Trade saw the Elephant the day before she left, and her disc was then considerably out of the water. No surveyor was present at the time she actually went away.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE RIOTS AT BALLYMOTE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in pursuance of the order made at Ballymote, on the 7th ult., by Mr. Moloney, R.M., in the shooting affray case, that James Murray, senior, should be committed to take his trial with the other persons accused, any steps have been yet taken towards trying him at the Galway Assizes, fixed to open on the 22nd instant, and if he will be tried accordingly; whether Joseph
  298
  Murray has yet been proceeded against, as promised, for aiding and abetting in the riot, and if he will be tried at the same assizes; whether the Crown will summon to the Galway Assizes those persons who attended at Ballymote for several days to give evidence against the Murrays, and whose evidence was not taken there; whether two of the Crown witnesses against the Murrays were committed for trial on the unsupported evidence, in each case, of one of the Murrays, and why the magistrate in. one case refused to accept bail, though solvent and ample bail was tendered; whether the houses of the Murrays have been searched for arms since the occurrence of the affray; and, whether, of the thirty-seven persons holding excise licences for revolvers in the district, the three Catholics only have paid the excise licence, and whether the Department has yet begun proceedings against the rest?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, unavoidable delay has occurred in the case of James Murray owing to the serious character of the injury he received in the riot, his life having been in danger. He is summoned to appear before the magistrates this day. The Sessional Crown Solicitor is gone down to prosecute. His son, Joseph Murray, is also summoned to appear before the magistrates to-day. With regard to the persons to be summoned as witnesses to the Assizes, the Crown Counsel and Crown Solicitor who have charge of the case will do what they consider right in the interests of justice. The witnesses against the Murrays who were committed for trial were, in the opinion of the Resident Magistrate who dealt with the case, committed on full and complete evidence. The reason that bail was refused was that the life of the injured person was in danger. Immediately after the affray the workshop of the Murrays and all the persons therein were minutely searched for arms. It was considered that it would be useless to search their house. It is not for me to answer Questions with regard to the action of the Inland Revenue Department; but I may say that I am aware that proceedings are being taken in four cases, and inquiries being made in the others, with a view to ascertain whether they are proper cases for prosecution. I presume, however, those men hold magisterial licences.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary whether every case in which it appeared the Excise licence had not been paid was not a proper case for prosecution?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member had better put the Question to the Secretary to the Treasury.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— OUTRAGES IN KILKENNY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any information is in the hands of the Government with respect to certain recent acts of disorder and outrage in the village of Windgap, Rossenany, county Kilkenny; whether, with regard to the following several acts: kicking at doors, and calling offensive names, at midnight; firing shots into the house of a man named Jackman; breaking of windows in the house of a man named Purcell; and cutting of harness and destroying property on the highway; representations and tenders of evidence, connecting a certain individual with those offences, were repeatedly disregarded by Sergeant O'Beirne, of the local police force, while he persisted in searching the houses of respectable farmers, members of the Land League; and, whether he will now take steps, by due inquiry on the spot, to make the guilty party or parties amenable?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am informed that in November last a shot was fired into the house of a man named Jackman, and a few days afterwards he received a threatening letter warning him not to work for a man named Purcell. The latter is unpopular, because, in pursuance of an agreement, he holds a farm as security for money lent to a neighbour. There has been no more recent act of disorder or outrage of a serious character in the district. The cutting of harness and destruction of property referred to were of a trifling character, and are believed to have resulted from a drunken quarrel. The injured person refused to give the police any information, although he stated he knew who did it. No representations were made to Sergeant O'Beirne, nor evidence tendered to him connecting anyone with these offences; but he has used every endeavour to trace the offenders. The houses of two men who do not bear a good character were searched for
  300
  arms. I see no ground for ordering any special inquiry with regard to the matter.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE RIOTS AT LONDONDERRY—TRIAL OF THOMAS DOHERTY AT SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to an article, on the trial of Thomas Doherty at Sligo, in The Londonderry Sentinel of last Thursday, declaring the charge of Mr. Justice Murphy to have been "a one-sided charge," accusing him of "displaying an amount of ill-concealed hostility to the loyalists," and of "attempting to cast odium and discredit on the party of peace and order," and, specially, whether his attention has been drawn to the following expressions:—
  "The jury bargaining with Crown Counsel as to the verdict they would be allowed to bring in, the Judge winking at this utterly unjudicial transaction, giving his tacit sanction to an irregular compromise, and finally wringing from an unwilling jury a verdict of 'guilty,' which they were plainly not prepared to give. This was what was witnessed in the Courthouse at Sligo.
  "It is as clear as noonday that the jury did not return a verdict of guilty, and that poor Doherty was not legally convicted of the crime charged against him. But the Government demanded a victim, and they have not been disappointed:"
  and, what conclusion the Irish Executive have come to upon consideration of this language?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the article referred to appears to be an extremely unfair comment upon the proceedings at the trial of the prisoner Doherty. The evidence as to his guilt appears to have been convincing, and both Judge and jury seem rightly to have discharged their duty. Articles of the nature referred to, of which there has been a vast number in Ireland, are, in the interests of justice, much to be deplored. It is not, in the opinion of the Government, a case in which any action should be taken further than this expression of opinion.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the trial of Doherty at the recent Sligo Assizes, for unlawfully wounding a boy named Durwin, at Derry, on the 1st November last, the jury being unable to agree, applied to the sub-sheriff to know if a verdict of guilty of the lesser offence in the indict-

  301
  merit was returned whether the punishment would be light, stating that, if such were to be the case, the jury would agree; whether the sub-sheriff, without the knowledge or intervention of the judge, did not thereupon put himself in communication with the Crown counsel, and obtain his assurance that the punishment would be light, which was stated to the jury, and followed by their finding a verdict of guilty; and, what, if any, steps the Lord Lieutenant intends to take in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he was informed that there was no foundation whatever for those allegations. A similar charge was made in open Court by counsel for the prisoner, and the Judge asked the jury if there was any foundation for it, saying, at the same time, that if there were he would discharge them and try the case with another jury. The jury repudiated the charge, and assured the Judge that the verdict was disinterested.
  MR. HEALYasked whether they were now to regard it as judicially laid down that if a jury communicated with any person they would be discharged and the prisoner tried by another jury? In the ease of Hynes, the jury was allowed to separate, and yet Hynes was hung on their verdict.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, this was a communication of a definite nature, which, if the jury had accepted it, must have influenced their verdict.

  PORTUGAL—THE CONGO RIVER TREATY.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for War, If an opportunity will be afforded to the House to express its opinion on the Treaty between this Country and Portugal in regard to the Congo, according to the pledge given by the First Lord of the Treasury on April 3rd of last year—
  "That the Treaty should be made known to Parliament before ratification in such a way and with the intervention of such an interval that Parliament shall be enabled to exercise an independent judgment upon it;"
  and, whether the House may be assured that the Treaty shall not be ratified until such opportunity has been obtained?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The pledge given by the Prime Minister last year appears to be accurately stated in the Question of my hon. Friend; and,
  302
  in conformity with that pledge, the Treaty between this country and Portugal in regard to the Congo and the Correspondence relating to it has been laid on the Table. The Treaty has not yet been ratified. I believe that there are on the Paper one or two Notices of Motion calling attention to this subject; but the hon. Members who have placed these Notices have not yet obtained a day for bringing them forward. No doubt they will do their utmost, if they desire to discuss the question, to obtain a day. At the present moment I am not in a position to make any arrangement on behalf of the Government with regard to giving a day for the discussion; but there is no immediate intention of ratifying the Treaty, and the House will not be taken by surprise, as the ratification will not take place until full Notice has been given.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, the noble Marquess had stated that there was no immediate intention of ratifying the Treaty. Would the noble Marquess be good enough to answer the last part of his Question?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I really do not know whether the House is desirous to discuss the matter. All I can say is that the House shall not be taken by surprise. If they wish to discuss it I have no doubt an opportunity will be found.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Remembering what occurred in regard to the French Treaty of 1860. I would ask the noble Lord whether he will give the House a similiar assurance to that given in 1860, to the effect that the Treaty will not be concluded until the House has had an opportunity of considering it?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Before the noble Lord answers that, and remembering what occurred last Tuesday, I would ask whether, supposing an hon. Member who has a Notice of Motion on this subject obtains the first place on a Tuesday, the Government will undertake to keep a House?
  THE MAUQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), I have to say that I do not remember what occurred in 1860, and, therefore, I cannot undertake to give a similar pledge. With reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell),

  303
  I have to observe that it is beyond the power of the Government sometimes to keep a House on Tuesday. But if this matter should be brought forward on a Tuesday evening we will do the best we can.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Supposing that private Members should fail in getting a good place, will the Government pledge themselves to give facilities for the discussion?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTTNGTON: I have already said that I am not in a position at present to make any arrangement on behalf of the Government, but that the Treaty will not be ratified without the House being informed of it, and it appears to me that that will be the time for raising the question as to a discussion.

  ARMY—THE ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS.
  MR. GABBETTasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain why the 5th Battalion Royal Minister Fusiliers (County Limerick Regiment) is not placed on the same footing as the other battalions of the regiment, in having the advantage of an Adjutant from the Line under the now system, its present Adjutant having served only in a West Indian regiment, and Officers of West Indian regiments having been excluded from appointments as Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces under the new system?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The adjutant of the 5th Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers was appointed under the old system, under which he is not liable to removal till he reaches the age of 55 years. I may add that he is reported to be a very efficient officer.

  NAVY—THE ACCOUNTANT BRANCH— PAYMASTERS.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the intention of the Lords of the Admiralty to alter the existing regulations with reference to the Accountant Branch of the Navy, in which the block is no great that there is no promotion whatever from assistant paymaster to paymaster, many of the former of which rank have been in the service upwards of fourteen years?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether
  304
  their Lordships' attention has been directed to the present stagnation in the promotion of Assistant. Paymasters of the Royal Navy; and, if so, whether it is proposed to take any steps to remedy the same?
  MR. GABBETTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will state the number of Paymasters of the Royal Navy who will reach the age for compulsory retirement during the present and five following years; if, taking into consideration the small number of compulsory retirements of Paymasters, R.N. which can be reckoned on during the next six years, and the stagnation of promotion of assistant Paymasters which will be caused thereby, he is prepared to offer inducements to the senior Paymasters to retire, or introduce any measure to compensate the assistant Paymasters for their long and increasing detention in the junior rank?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, in answer to these Questions, I beg to say that there may be a temporary slackness of promotion in the paymasters' branch; but it is purely temporary, and there is no intention of adopting any special measures with regard to it. The number of paymasters who will reach the ago for compulsory retirement before the end of 1889 is 17; but this number must by no means be taken as including all who will retire, as it seldom happens that officers remain on the active list to the end. During the last three years I find that only one-tenth of the actual vacancies have been created by ago retirements.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—THE POST-MASTERSHIP OF KEITH.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence between the Post Office and the Treasury relative to the appointment of Mr. Fraser to Keith Post Office?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that there had been no correspondence between the Post Office and the Treasury in reference to the appointment of Mr. Fraser as Postmaster of Keith.

  NAVY—ADMIRALTY PENSIONS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty will consider the ex-

  305
  pediency of giving the age pension to pensioners who had retired from the service prior to 1878?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The Order in Council of 1878 restricted the age pensions to 7,600, and limited the combined pensions from Public and Greenwich Funds to 2s. 6d. a-day. These restrictions were imposed in consequence of the rapid increase in the annual charge. Age pensions are payable from Greenwich Funds, and were given as a charity in lieu of an asylum. It would be inexpedient to admit that men retired at any particular date have a superior claim to pensions of this nature.

  ARMY ESTIMATES—THE MEDICAL VOTE.
  MR. GUYDAWNAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, seeing that the Committee of Supply had no fitting opportunity last Session for the discussion of the important questions raised by the Medical Vote of the Army Estimates, he will undertake that an adequate opportunity shall be given to the Committee during the present Session for the discussion of that Vote?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am afraid I can only say that I will make the best arrangements I can for bringing on these important Votes at a time which will be convenient to the hon. and gallant Member and to the House.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— ALLEGED FLOGGING Of CAMEL DRIVERS.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the London papers of Tuesday, describing the infliction of several dozens of lashes, by order of Admiral Hewett, upon sixteen Egyptian camel-drivers of the Carrier Corps, who accompanied the recent British expedition against Osman Digna; whether this flogging was inflicted upon these Egyptian carriers as a consequence of the sentence of a Court Martial for an offence against Military discipline committed by them during this expedition of Thursday last, or simply by the direction of Admiral Hewett; whether these carriers come under the definition of Sub-section 10 of the 168th Section, Part 5, of the Army Discipline
  306
  and Regulation Act of 1879, which provides that—
  "All persons, not otherwise subject to Military Law, who are followers of or accompany Her Majesty's troops when employed on active service beyond the seas, shall be subject to Military Law as soldiers;"
  whether, if so, corporal punishment for persons subject to Military Law as soldiers has been abolished by Statute; and, whether he can inform the House under what authority, Statutable or otherwise, these Egyptian carriers were flogged, and the number of lashes they received?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Admiralty have received a telegram from Admiral Sir William Hewett on this subject, from which it would appear that the newspaper reports of what took place are somewhat exaggerated. Admiral Hewett reports—
  "Some of the gendarmerie having refuse to work and obey orders, I punished the chief offenders, an immediate example being necessary. I did not consider it amounted to mutiny, and, therefore. I did not think it worth reporting to your Lordships. The remainder of the men obeyed orders, and gave three cheers for the Khedive."
  Two others, for refusing to obey orders, were to be flogged; and, on arriving at Cairo, an officer was reduced to a lower rank for setting a bad example to his men. Camel-drivers accompanying troops on active service would come under the provisions of the Army Act. In addition to any statutory powers under the Army Act, Sir William Hewett exercises under a commission from the Khedive all the powers of an Egyptian Governor of Suakin under the Egyptian law.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the noble Lord whether camel-drivers do come under the Army Discipline and regulation Act of 1879 as persons subject to military law, and whether there is any difference as regards the power of Admiral Hewett over those persons subject to military law, and over other persons subject to military law; whether, as Admiral Hewett claimed the right, as it appears he did, to flog the camel-drivers, he claims a similar right to flog any other persons in the expedition?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I understand the Question to be whether the camel-drivers come under the operation of the Army Discipline Act? I

  307
  understand that they would come under that Act.
  MR. PAEXELL: My point is, whether any persons composing the expedition, and subject to the Army Discipline Act, would come under the Admiral's power to flog with the permission of the Khedive?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I conceive that Admiral Hewett would act at Suakin and in its neighbourhood by the authority of the Khedive as Governor under the Egyptian law.
  MR. PAENELL: Am I to understand that Admiral Hewett, under the commission of the Khedive, would have power to flog British soldiers; if not, what difference is there between the case of the camel-drivers, who are subject to the Army Discipline Act, according to the statement of the noble Lord, and the case of any other persons in the expedition who are likewise subject to the Army Discipline Act?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of this Question?
  MR. GOEST: I should like to ask a Question of the noble Lord, or of the Judge Advocate General, whom I see in his place—Whether it is not a principle of International Law that the Commander-in-Chief of a belligerent force within the lines of an Army exorcises the authority of the nation to which he belongs; whether, therefore, Admiral Hewett has not a right to enforce British law as opposed to Egyptian law within the line's of his Army; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will direct him to administer that British law in such a manner as not to inflict torture?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps the Judge Advocate General would also be kind enough to say whether flogging in the Army and Navy, both in the field and at home, was not abolished by an Act of this House?
  MR. OSBORNE MOEGAN: I have no difficulty in answering the Question of my hon. Friend. Flogging has in such cases been abolished by Statute. As to the Question of the hon. and learned Member opposite, it involves a very nice question of International Law, to which I should be sorry to reply offhand; but if my hon. and learned Friend will be kind enough to put it in writing, I will do my best to answer it.
  COLONEL MAKINS: I should like to ask whether, as would appear from the telegram read by the noble Lord, these men were flogged because they refused to cheer the Khedive.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not know what inference the hon. and gallant Member may draw from the telegram. That is not the inference I drew from it.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Is it not the case that the punishment of flogging in the Soudan has been abolished by General Gordon, acting under the authority of the Khedive, and that in proof of that abolition he has caused whips and other instruments of torture to be publicly burnt? And can the noble Lord produce the text of any document withdrawing Admiral Hewett from the authority of General Gordon?
  [No reply was given to this Question.]

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM HEWETT'S PROCLAMATION—OSMAN DIGNA.
  MR HEALYasked, Whether a counter-proclamation, withdrawing the reward of £1,000 offered for the body of Osman Digna, dead or alive, has been issued; if so, what are its terms; and, if the Government can give any assurance that Copies of the Document have been circulated as widely as the original offer of a reward?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have received information that another Proclamation has been issued withdrawing the former, but I do not know in what terms.
  SIR WILFEID LAWSON: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has made any inquiry into the details of the taking of the lives of Admiral Hewett's two messengers, and whether the taking of those lives was the cause of the Proclamation?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It will not be necessary to make any inquiry on the subject, because, independently of that statement of Admiral Hewett, the Government thought it necessary to cause that Proclamation to be withdrawn.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: If the first Proclamation should result in a bringing in of the head of the murdered Osman Digna, will General Graham be compelled to pay the reward which he

  309
  offers, and will the Government reimburse him, as they gave him a discretion for which he would then have to pay?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think it is impossible for me to give an answer to a hypothetical Question of that kind.
  MR. HEALY: The noble Lord has not answered the second part of the Question.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have given all the information that we have. A Proclamation has been issued with drawing the former one; but in what way it has been circulated, or in what terms it has been couched, I do not know.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would repeat the Question on Monday.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Is it not a fact that no notice or mention whatever has been made of a counter-Proclamation by any of the newspaper correspondents?
  [No answer was given to this Question.]

  EGYPT—THE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM.
  MR. KENNARD (for Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the following statement of the Cairo Correspondent of The Siandard, which appeared in that paper on March 12th:—
  "The state of Egypt is indeed causing apprehensions in every respect. Not only are crimes of violence largely on the increase, but the greatest difficulty is experienced in collecting the taxes. The absence of any fixed or settled Government is giving rise to intense and general discontent throughout the whole Administrative system. The steady downward movement towards chaos, which has been slowly going on for the last two years, is now proceeding at a terribly accelerated pace;"
  further, to the statements made by General Gordon to the Correspondent of The Times, at Khartoum, on March 8th:—
  "It is a certainty that the Mahdi will raise the tribes between Khartoum and Berber. This is not owing to disaffection, but to fear caused by the pronounced policy of the abandonment of the Soudan.… It is no longer a question of days, but of hour?;"
  and, whether, in view of the gravity of the situation in Egypt and the Soudan, Her Majesty's Government will now proclaim a definite British Administration of Egypt, and appoint a British Governor General to restore order and
  310
  good administration for the Soudan, in co-operation with the Sovereign Power?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Government have received no information which confirms the statement of the Correspondent referred to. With regard to the latter part of the Question, it is exactly the same as one which was put on the Paper on a former occasion by the hon. Member, and is one to which it is impossible for me to give any further answer than I have given on several occasions.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Can the noble Lord give us any further information as to the state of affairs in Egypt, and especially with regard to the communication between Khartoum and Cairo?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Telegraphic communication does not appear yet to have been restored, and it further appears that the district around Berber is more or loss disturbed. Sir Evelyn Baring stated a short time ago, that although the telegraph was cut, information would be able to reach General Gordon in two or throe days. We have not received from Sir Evelyn Baring anything modifying that statement.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he wished to make a personal explanation. He had read a report in The Times, which he presumed was correct, of a statement made on Tuesday afternoon during the debate on the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) as to the views which he was alleged to have expressed on that subject in the United States, he was in the United States in 1882, and in 1881; but he had never made a speech there, never saw a reporter, and took care to avoid that most obnoxious person the interviewer. What the hon. Member had imputed to him was, no doubt, a kind of bucolic invention. He took that opportunity of mentioning the subject, as he was sure that the hon. Member would not intentionally misrepresent him.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he had first seen the statement in an American paper, and he had afterwards read it in an agricultural journal. He was extremely sorry to have misrepresented the hon. Member. He was not the first person

  311
  who had been hoaxed by a Yankee paper, nor would he probably be the last.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the noble Lord a Question with regard to the conduct of Business. I see on the Notice Paper to-day the Navy Estimates, and also a Vote on Account for the Civil Service. I wish to ask, Whether it is intended to proceed with the Vote on Account, and, if so, at what hour; and, also, what course is going to be taken with regard to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, and whether there is any probability of the second reading being taken to-night; and, if not, what arrangements the Government will propose for going on with that Bill?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Government propose to take a Vote on Account in respect of the Civil Service Estimates to-night, and the Navy Estimates will he taken at whatever hour they may be reached. With regard to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, as we were not able to take the second reading on Tuesday morning, although there appeared to be a general concurrence of opinion in the House, we propose to consider that Bill again at a Morning Sitting to-morrow. I wish also to give Notice that as it is possible, and even probable, that the end of the debate is very nearly reached, we shall propose to put down after that Bill the Committee on the Election (Hours of Polling) Bill, and after that the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the fact that the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill involves a very wide question, in reference to which Members from Ireland differ very widely, and that, the Bill is absolutely certain to be talked out if the course announced by the noble Marquess is pursued, he will not consult the general feeling of Irish Members as to the choice of Government Bills relating to Ireland which he will put down for to-morrow's Sitting?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There is very little probability of the House being able at the Morning Sitting to-morrow to make progress beyond the second Bill I have referred to; and
  312
  if the hon. Member think it to be impossible to dispose of the Bill I have named, there shall be put down as the third Order the Revision of Jurors and Voters List (Dublin County) Bill.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked why, if Supply was urgent, it could not be taken after the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill to-morrow?
  MR. GIBSON: I would like to ask the noble Lord, after what conference has he decided that the Bill which he intends to put clown as third Order is likely to be one most pleasing to the House and having the best chance of being passed? Is the noble Lord aware that the Irish Government are pledged to the highest point that they can be pledged to go forward with the Sunday Closing Bill?
  MR. HEALY: I would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) whether be is aware that the Bill against which he now hints opposition was read a second time without a single word of discussion on Monday night?
  MR. TREVELYAN, as responsible for advising the Leader of the House with regard to Irish Business, might say that he had heard from many quarters that it would he impossible that the Sunday Closing Bill would have any chance of passing as the third Order on any day whatever; and with regard to the Jurors, &c., Bill, it was a very small Bill, that passed the second reading without any discussion, and he had every reason to believe the reason for that was that it was a Bill to which there was no serious opposition in any quarter of the House.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) wished to take part in the debate in Committee on the Elections (Hours of Poll) Bill, and he was a Member of the Committee on Indian Railways which would be sitting to-morrow.
  MR. GORSTasked why the Elections Bill was to be taken before the Merchant Shipping Bill, which involved the loss of human life; and whether they were to understand that the Shipping Bill was adjourned sine die?
  MR. BROADHURSTasked whether the noble Lord could give any assurance when the House would get to the Representation of the People Bill, which was of far greater importance and interest

  313
  to the country generally than the Cattle Diseases Bill?
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary to the Treasury for what amount it was intended to take a Vote on Account?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Paper had been circulated for some days; the Vote on Account would be for two months.
  MR. RITCHIEasked whether there was any truth in the rumour that the Government proposed to take the Representation of the People Bill de die in diem?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The present necessities of Supply will be met, if we are able to obtain the Votes I have mentioned to-night; to postpone those Votes till to-morrow will make them too late for the operations be frequently described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Besides, there will be no certainty that we shall obtain the Votes at a Morning Sitting, on account of the Motions that may be made on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair; and if we do get into Committee there is no certainty that the Votes will be obtained before we are compelled to break off. As to the Hours of Polling Bill taking precedence of the Merchant Shipping Bill, the President of the Board of Trade is not now in the House; but I am under the impression that he gave a distinct pledge to Members interested, that it should not be brought forward without ample Notice. In these circumstances, it would be impossible to bring it forward at one day's Notice. Thy Franchise Bill it is proposed to take on Monday next. As to proceeding de die in diem, the Government at present have no intention to ask the House to come to a resolution of that kind. With reference to the engagement of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) on the Committee on Indian Railways, I would point out that the House does not sit until 2 o'clock; there are Questions and preliminary Business; and the Cattle Diseases Bill will probably occupy some little time, so that when the Hours of Polling Bill is readied, it will be in the power of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire to be here.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked whether, if the general discussion on the Navy Estimates were not completed on the first Vote, it would not facilitate Business if
  314
  an understanding were come to that it might be resumed on the second Vote?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I understand that has been done on a former occasion; and, so far as it depends upon the Government, it may be done again.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked on what occasion the Navy Estimates would be taken after to-night?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the proper time to settle that would be when Progress was reported.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  NAVY—MARINE ARTILLERY AND INFANTRY.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    VISCOUNT LEWISHAM, in rising to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and Report upon the expenditure incurred for the professional training and technical instruction of the Officers of the Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry, the position these Officers occupy, and the duties they perform, both afloat and ashore, when serving under the Naval Discipline Act, and further to inquire and Report whether the administration of the Royal Marine Forces adequately provides for the due representation of their special interests, and sufficiently secures economy and efficiency of the public service,"
    said, that two reasons had induced him to give Notice of the Motion he had just road—the first, that having no personal interest, beyond the interest that all hon. Members who looked to the state of the defences of the country no doubt felt in the question, he could not be accused of prejudice; the second, that it would give an opportunity to hon. Members, who had so often spoken on the question before, to fill up the gaps he feared would be apparent in the remarks he would venture to make. In this Resolution he asked the Government to pledge themselves to nothing. He merely asked for this inquiry as an act of justice to a deserving body of men. Last year he seconded a similar Motion made by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr.

    315
    Hopwood), the chief reason given for resisting which was the objection felt to the demand that there should be an officer of Marines on the Board of Admiralty. Without having altered his own opinion, he did not now put forward that demand. A Committee could in a short time ascertain whether the present system was a good one or not; and he thought the Marines would be willing to abide by their decision. Rightly or wrongly, dissatisfaction existed through all branches of the Marino Force; and the Admiralty should be glad of the opportunity of vindicating their administration, especially as the request for inquiry was not made in a. spirit of hostility. He wished to call attention to the expense annually incurred in the support and maintenance of the Marine Forces, and to show that the benefits which the country ought to receive from the expenditure of a large sum of money upon those Forces were practically thrown away. He desired also to point out what appeared to him to be a defect in the present administration of the Forces. It was difficult to arrive at the annual sum expended; but he believed he was correct in saying that it amounted to £l,000:000. The pay and pensions of Marine officers alone amounted to £160,000 a-year; and before the country could make use of the services of a Naval Marine Artillery officer a sum of about £900 was expended upon his education and training. Owing to the fact that the sum for this instruction was scattered over several Votes—such as the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, the Establishment of the Excellent, and the Ordnance Votes—it was impossible to arrive at a perfectly accurate estimate, and he would be glad if the Secretary to the Admiralty would tell the House what the exact sum was; but they knew the pay, while under instruction, of a Marine Artillery officer was £350, and that of a Marine Light Infantry officer £150; and he believed, from a careful estimate prepared for him, that the instruction of a Marine Artillery officer cost £550. making up the sum of £900 above referred to. It would be interesting to know the relative costs of converting a civilian into an efficient Marine—Artillery or Infantry—officer, and of imparting Artillery and Infantry information to a naval officer. One thing was clear—in one, case the
    316
    whole expense was incurred to make the civilian a scientific and practical officer fit to command a trained Artillery force, and to perform the duties required of him by land and sea; in the other case, the naval officer had to master so many other subjects, that the Artillery instruction and cost thereof were merely incidental. The special grievances of which the Marines complained were the hopelessness of advancement of officers of rank, the non-employment of Marines in the Intelligence and Ordnance Departments, the careful exclusion of Marino officers from employment on Committees on military and naval subjects, and the fact that there was no proportion of Marine officers on naval courts martial. It was well understood that captains of ships and the officers serving under them must be responsible for discipline on board; but when the Marines were on shore, officers of that Force should be responsible for the discipline of the men in the operations in which they might be engaged. He believed that the Marines were perfectly satisfied while serving under the Army Discipline Act; but when serving under the Naval Discipline Act and the Admiralty Instructions, the whole system of discipline was entirely changed. The responsibility of officers became nominal; they had no power to punish their own men, and they themselves might be tried by captains and commanders of ships without any one of their own body sitting on the court martial. This was extremely prejudicial to the Service, humiliating to the officers, and demoralizing to the men. It was a notorious fact that a Marine officer engaged in military operations might be ordered about by any young executive naval officer. When Marine Artillery were landed, they were not employed as Artillery, but as Infantry, under the command, perhaps, of some young naval officer who was, perhaps, not in the nursery when the officer of Marines was already in the Service. He was not aware whether the Secretary to the Admiralty had seen a piece called Iolanthe, which was very popular last year. One of the principal characters in that play was named Strephon, who was in the extraordinary position of being a fairy down to the waist, but below that he was only mortal; when he wished to enter a room by the keyhole, which was rather the custom

    317
    among fairies, he found that up to a certain point he could pass through the keyhole with considerable ease, but the moment that point was reached, the more active part of his person was left dangling hopelessly outside. That, in his opinion, very aptly described the present position of the Force of Marines in relation to the Board of Admiralty. He wished to know whether it was the opinion of the Admiralty that the work for the performance of which the officers of the Marine Artillery were specially trained could be equally well done by officers of the Navy who had no such special training; and, if that were their opinion, what was the object of spending money on the instruction of Marine Artillery officers? He held that clear rules ought to be laid down for the guidance of officers of Marines when they were used as a land force, and that the men when landed ought to be commanded by their own officers. He did not intend on that occasion to press for the addition of a Marine officer to the Board of Admiralty. He might be allowed to observe, however, that it was very curious that while the Marines were under the Board of Admiralty there was no one on that Board who possessed a knowledge of military requirements or with experience of the internal necessities of a military system. He only called attention to the subject, not to ask for an officer of Marines to be placed on the Board, but to see if it would not be possible for the existing powers of the Deputy Adjutant General to be extended. Referring to the employment of Marines in the neighbourhood of Suakin, he asked whether it was not a fact that they who were a trained military force were then placed under the command of a naval officer? Judging from the actions of the Board of Admiralty, it would seem that in their opinion military knowledge was most valuable on board ship and nautical knowledge on shore. Other questions to which he should like to have an answer were whether the Marine Force at Suakin was not considerably under-officered when the enemy was attacked, and whether the Marine Artillery were supplied with machine guns and light ordnance? Another matter to which he wished to call attention was the mode in which a force of Marines, consisting of 497 rank and file and 11 officers, had
    318
    been convoyed from Malta to Alexandria. They were placed on board the Gilsland, in which there was boat accommodation for only 100 men—a circumstance which might have led to a terrible catastrophe. The decks had no scuppers, there was no moans of swinging the hammocks, there was but a limited allowance of water, the mess deck was filthy, the bulwarks only 2 feet high, with a rail above, and there was no protection from sun or rain. That such a large body of men should have been sent 1,000 miles on the open sea in winter with such a want of accommodation surely required explanation. There was some mystery about the chartering of the Gilsland, and he hoped they should be allowed to have the Report. He was informed that "the men went on board cheerfully, and agreed among themselves that there should be no grumbling." The cheerful way in which officers and men had taken the indignity was beyond all praise. There was some question of increasing the number of men in the Army. He would like to say a word for the Marines. He did not know whether hon. Members had seen the article bearing on this point in The Nineteenth Century, of May last, by General Schomberg. What the General proposed was that the Marines should be the constant auxiliary of the Army as well as the Navy, in peace as in war. General Schomberg said—
    "The Marines are frequently employed as an auxiliary to the Army as well as the Navy—witness their services in Spain, Syria, China, India, Africa, and Egypt—but an auxiliary only in time of bitter need and war. Let the Marines be a standing and constant auxiliary to the Army as well as the Navy—in peace as in war—and augment them so as to enable them to furnish, portions of the Eastern, Western, Mediterranean, and, perhaps, eventually Australian garrisons. It would certainly be an advantage to the Line and Royal Artillery to be relieved of a portion of the burden of foreign service, which weighs heavily upon them, and, with the ever-recurring interruption of our small wars, renders the formation of a Reserve for the Army slow and difficult. If the Marines were raised in number so as to enable them to take a portion of routine Colonial service—say, at Malta or Gibraltar, Hong Kong or Bombay, and Halifax—this pressure would be considerably relieved; and the Navy would have a Reserve Force and a Landing Force to draw upon at all its outposts. Such a force at hand might have actually prevented some of our late minor wars. Moreover, the Marines, at their present diminished numbers, are a very inadequate Reserve for the Navy. If the late Egyptian Campaign had been a great war, the chief Naval Reserve would have been drained at the outset.

    319
    After the Marine contingent had sailed for Egypt there remained in England loss than 100 trained Marine Artillerymen and 600 trained Marine Infantry. Is this a satisfactory condition for the first Reserve of the Navy? However admirable its training may be, its present strength in numbers is quite inadequate."
    One point more. Last year the Secretary to the Admiralty concluded his remarks by asking the House not to appoint the Committee, hut to leave the matter to the Government, who recognized the strong opinion that 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. Well, nothing of any importance had been done; and now, as the Government had thrown down a challenge, the House ought to take it up and insist upon the appointment of the Committee for which he asked. If this question of Marine grievances was a bubble, the sooner it was burst the better. But if it was not a bubble, the longer the sense of grievance continued the greater the dissatisfaction would be. The Marines were always ready; they had shed their blood freely in every part of the globe, and their history was identified with the history of this country throughout the world. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
    CAPTAIN PRICE, in seconding the Motion, said, that the Marines were the last to complain, but they were the first to meet with a want of consideration from whatever Government happened to be in Office. The House was entitled to know the facts of the case with respect to the Gilsland. About 500 Marines had been sent out in the Poonah—a fine ship, capable of carrying a much greater number. On the arrival of the vessel at Malta they were transferred to the Gilsland, which was in a very filthy condition, to proceed to Alexandria. The officers and men of the Marines, however, had not uttered one word of complaint; if ordered to go in a dung-boat, they would have gone; their only object was to get to their destination as soon as possible, and to be the first in the field. But when he heard that the 38th Regiment was ordered not to embark in that vessel because it was not in a fit condition, he thought himself perfectly justified in calling attention to the subject. If his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty placed himself in the
    320
    position of the officer in charge of these men, he would have sufficient pride in his corps to feel some discontent. He asked the other day whether the ship had not been condemned for carrying troops by the military authorities, and the hon. Gentleman said that it was in the hightest degree improbable that the military authorities had been consulted in the matter. Why was it improbable that the military authorities should have been consulted? It was strictly in accordance with the Queen's Regulations that a ship of that kind should be inspected. Those Regulations not only directed an inspection, but required that a Report of the inspection should be made-out. Some further explanation was required as to what happened on board the Gilsland. The reason given for transferring the Marines was that the vessel would only accommodate 400 men, but nearly 500 were sent out in her. It was not the first or even the second time that such a tiling had happened. It happened when the Marines were transferred from the Orontes to the Tamar at Gibraltar, the excuse then also being that the Tamar was not large enough to convey a Line regiment. There was a case in 1872 when the Juno was employed to take a battalion of Marines to Japan after having been condemned for the transport of troops. He was quite certain that if such a slight had been put upon a regiment of the Line, 50 military officers would have risen to denounce the proceeding. He wished also to inquire why it was the officers of Marines were never allowed to sit on courts martial held on members of that branch of the Service? He suggested that a clause should be added to the Naval Discipline Act providing for the amendment of the Regulations on that point. There could be no possible objection to that course, which he said had been attended with many advantages.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the expenditure incurred for the professional training and technical instruction of the Officers of the Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry, the position these Officers occupy, and the duties they perform, both afloat and ashore, when serving under the Naval Discipline Act, and further to inquire and report whether the administration of the Royal Marine Forces ade-

    321
    quately provides for the clue representation of, their special interests, and sufficiently secures economy and efficiency of the public service,"—(Viscount Lewisham,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    LORD HENRY LENNOXwished to express his thanks to the noble Lord for bringing forward this Motion, and especially for his declaration that no censure on the Government was intended. He maintained that the naval policy of the Government should be held distinct and apart from any political considerations. There was no force in the Navy at one time more neglected than the Royal Marines, and none which had rendered such splendid services to the country abroad during recent years, especially in the late actions before Alexandria, at El Teb. and at Tamanieb. He was quite sure that the Admiralty intended no slight upon the Marines by placing them on board the Gilsland, but provided the best accommodation in their power. He thought the Government ought not to refuse to appoint a Committee. If the Marino Force was in n satisfactory condition, that fact would appear more clearly after inquiry. If it was not, the Committee would render an important service. The Royal Marines had assumed too commanding a position in the eyes of the country to have their claims put off by a mere official reply. What they wanted was a Committee of Inquiry to see that one of the most splendid forces in the Service was administered with the greatest possible economy and efficiency. For these reasons he cordially supported the Motion.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he also supported the Amendment of the noble Lord. Just before the commencement of the difficulties in Egypt some discussion arose as to the advisability of diminishing the numbers of the Marine Force. He was, however, bound to say that the services which had been rendered by the Marines, not only as a naval and military corps, but as a police force in Ireland, would probably remove all idea of decreasing the strength of the force. He thought that some steps should be taken to increase the numbers of the Corps, which had been reduced from
    322
    30,000 at the beginning of the century to 12,000 at the present time. He hoped that the Government would see their way, not only to grant the proposed Committee, but also to give it authority to act in the way he suggested, with a view to promoting, as it would also do, the efficiency of both the Army and the Navy.
    MR. GORSTcomplained that no Member of the Cabinet was present, and supposed that the subject was not worthy of their consideration. The Marines appeared to be a kind of outcast force, acknowledged neither by the Army nor the Navy; but he felt sure that if a Joint Committee of the Admiralty and the War Office were appointed, some valuable understanding might be arrived at with regard to this important branch of the Service. The Marines had rendered good service wherever they had been engaged, and had prevented battles being lost owing to their extreme steadiness, which resulted from there being a large proportion of old soldiers among them. But so little were they considered or noticed either by the authorities of the Army or the Navy, that in one of his despatches the General in command in Egypt never even mentioned the fact that the Marines were engaged in a battle which they had done much to win. He knew that many of the officers of this Corps were so dissatisfied with its present position that they were desirous to see it turned into a part of the Army. No doubt a brigade of that kind would be extremely useful. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to say anything about the unfortunate arrangement by which Marines, when landed, still remained under the command of an officer of the Navy, and that without the General in command having any direct authority over them. The Secretary to the Admiralty informed him last year that the position of the Marines was to be dealt with by legislation; and he believed that a Bill on the subject was actually introduced. But what he complained of was that the Government brought in Bills and did not pass them. He wished to impress upon the Secretary to the Admiralty that he should not only introduce a Bill, but pass it through Parliament. It was, however, useless to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, as he had no power to act. There ought really to

    323
    be a Cabinet Minister present who would be able to give the House some assurance that the subject should be dealt with during the present Session. It was the unfortunate position of the present Government that necessary measures excited but little enthusiasm among their supporters, and that unless Ivy some legislative action they could create political capital there was but little chance of Bills being carried. He hoped the Committee would be appointed, and that their recommendations would stir the Government into action.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, this question had been raised last year in another form. On that occasion he had supported the Government; but he was bound to say circumstances were very different this year, and that some inquiry into these statements, which were repeated year after year, would be advantageous in the public interest. This question ought to be debated without Party spirit. Experience had shown in late years that departmental inquiries had not satisfied the requirements put upon them, although he was afraid that nothing which was done within the walls of the Admiralty, whether the present or any other Government was in power, would entirely satisfy the claims made from time to time upon the Department by the different interests which might think themselves aggrieved. It seemed to him wise that an inquiry such as was suggested by the noble Lord should be made; and he thought it would be better that it should not be conducted by a Committee of the House, but by a Royal Commission, which should consider the very important questions raised by the Motion with reference to the professional training and technical instruction of officers in the Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry. The appointment of officers to these Corps was, in his view, a matter of extreme difficulty to every Board of Admiralty. he had been informed that of nine probationary officers last year only one passed the examination, which indicated a state of things that could not be satisfactory to those who had to administer so valuable a Corps as that to which the Motion of the noble Lord referred, and whose desire would, of course, be to secure the most suitable junior officers for the Corps. There could only be one opinion as to the high
    324
    efficiency, gallantry, and usefulness of a Corps which had always discharged its duty, whenever and wherever called upon. The Marines were always perfectly ready for duty, and they always did their work admirably; a fact which was borne out by the figures furnished by the Secretary to the Admiralty, which showed that there was a larger proportion of efficients in the Marines—proportionately to the whole strength of the Corps—than in any other branch of the Service. These were not the only grounds on which he thought there should be a full consideration of the position in which the Marines stood as compared with other branches of the Service. The Motion of the noble Lord was very full and ample. It proposed not only that inquiry should be made as to whether the administration of the force sufficiently secured economy and efficiency of the Public Service; but it also proposed that inquiry should be made as to whether the administration of the Royal Marine Forces "adequately provides for the due representation of their special interests." He did not understand clearly the meaning of this phrase; because, as far as he knew, there was nothing which an officer of Marines would wish for less or wish to avoid more than a representation of special interests, their solo desire being to secure the complete efficiency of the branch of the Service to which they be longed. He hoped a Royal Commission would be appointed, because such an appointment would enable the Government in selecting the Members to go beyond the House of Commons, and obtain an inquiry and a Report which no ordinary Committee of the House could make or produce. The Admiralty during the past few years, owing, doubtless, to a necessity for economy, had been compelled to reduce the strength of the Marines by 600 men. he thought it I would be wise to reconsider the establishment of this branch of the Service, and to go back to what was, in his view, the opinion of the country, instead of acting on the view of any particular Board of Admiralty that might have been in Office. He hoped the Government would accede to the Motion of the noble Lord, I modified, as he (Mr. W. H. Smith) suggested it should be, in order to secure efficiency in a most important arm of the Service.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANexpressed his satisfaction and pleasure at the friendly tone—if he might so describe it—in which this Motion had been brought forward and dismissed. Even the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who had a lively imagination, and evolved by its means a picture which was by no means flattering of the administration of the Admiralty, did not apply it to the present Government, but to the normal state of things existing there. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, although he had been two years at the Admiralty, he had failed to detect any contemptuous feeling for the Marines amongst his Colleagues at the Board. The noble Lord had asked the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire as to three distinct questions in reference to the Marine branch of the Service. Taking the proposals in inverse order, he would deal first with the last branch of the proposal, which was that the Committee should inquire—
    "Whether the administration of the Royal Marine Forces adequately provides for the due representation of their special interests, and sufficiently secures economy and efficiency of the Public Service."
    The right hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House had alluded to the awkwardness of the phrase, "due representation of their special interests;" and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could not think of anything less likely to secure "economy and efficiency" than the appointment to the Board of Admiralty of an officer whose function it should be to specially represent the interests of the Marines. He could only repeat his statement of last year as to the nature of the business which came before the Board. There were few cases in which a distinctly Marine question came before the Board at all. The business was conducted under the direction of the First Lord, by the Senior Naval Lord, and the Deputy Adjutant General of Marines; and he conceived that no system which could be invented could better represent the relation between the Marines and the Navy. On board ship, and, in fact, under all circumstances, the Marines were essentially a part of the Navy. The duty of the Board was to secure the efficiency of the Service as a whole. Any attempt to set up the Marines as a separate Corps from
    326
    the Navy would be a mistake, even in the interests of the Marines themselves; for the Board, as at present constituted, most adequately, in his opinion, represented the relations between the Marines and the Navy. He did not think, therefore, that there was any ground for inquiry as far as the third branch of the noble Lord's Motion was concerned. The second part of the Motion had reference to the position which officers of Marines occupied, and the duties they performed when serving both afloat and ashore under the Naval Discipline Act. As to their position when afloat, he had heard it argued that they ought—of course, under the captain of the ship in which they served—to be entirely responsible for the discipline of their men; and he admitted that there was a great deal to be said in favour of that argument; but there was an obvious inconvenience, in that seamen and Marines serving in the same ship would be under different discipline for offences which might be of a precisely similar character. With regard I to the relative position of seamen and Marines on shore, he had made last year a statement of the views of the Government on the subject. When Marines served on shore as a distinct Corps in conjunction with the Army there was no difficulty, because they were placed under the Army Act. But occasions arose, as, for instance, in 1882 at Alexandria, when they were temporarily serving on shore, and were subject to recall to their ships at any moment; and it would then be inconvenient to place them under the Army Act, as they might be one day: under one discipline and the next day under the other. But if such a detachment remained subject to the Navy Act, reference had to be made, for purposes; of discipline, to the officers of the ships. This was felt to be a serious inconvenience and grievance on the part of: Marine officers. It was, therefore, the desire of the Government to give the senior officer commanding a detachment the power of punishment. A clause to that effect had been introduced into the Naval Discipline Amendment Bill of last year, which, having passed the House of Lords, the Government had very reluctantly withdrawn, owing to the pressure of Public Business; and it was intended to introduce a similar measure this year, as the Go-

    327
    vernment thought that no further time should be lost in limiting the necessary alterations in the law in this respect. It appeared to him, however, that to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the discipline of the Royal Marine Forces would be a very unusual course. The question of discipline was one of the greatest, delicacy, and would be treated in a far better manner by a body of men of practical experience than by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. He was afraid, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government, with every desire to assist the noble Lord's wishes, and the wishes of those who supported him, would be unable to assent to this part of the noble Lord's proposal. With regard to the noble Lord's proposal that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into and report upon the expenditure incurred for the professional training and technical instruction of the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry, without at all being understood to condemn the present system, he thought an independent inquiry into the subject might be of great assistance to the Admiralty; and the question was one which Her Majesty's Government were quite willing, if hon. Members desired it, should be referred to a Select Committee of that House, which was a proper and a fitting tribunal to refer such an inquiry to. The large number of probationers who had failed to pass showed that there was something wrong with the existing arrangements. With regard to the other matters which had been referred to by the noble Lord and by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price), he could only declare in the most positive terms that there had been no intention whatever to put an indignity upon the Royal Marines, or to subject them to any discomfort beyond that which was unavoidable. As many officers had been sent to Suakin with the Marines from the Mediterranean as could be spared in view of a contemplated landing at Alexandria. The arrangements had been made mainly under the advice of the Commander-in-Chief on the spot, and there had been no desire to impose upon the Marines any services which were not proper and usual. Coming to the great question of the Gilsland, he again entirely disclaimed any intention of treating
    328
    the Marines worse than battalions of the Line were treated. It must be remembered that, the arrangements for securing transports in the Mediterranean to convey the troops were not made in the ordinary way, as in time of peace, but by telegraph. The Gilsland was one of the ships in the Port of Malta which were available for transport. She had just concluded a successful voyage, she was in good condition, and was owned by a good firm; and exactly similar ships had taken the regiments from Suez to Suakin. He must remark upon this point that no complaint whatever had been made of this ship by any officer or man convoyed by her, the only complaint with regard to her that had reached his ears being made by the noble Lord and by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Price). He must repeat that he was satisfied that this complaint did not originate with the officers and men of the Royal Marines who were engaged in the expedition; and he was afraid that those who made the complaint were doing the Corps a very sorry service. The Government had received no information that the authorities had refused to allow troops of the Line to proceed by the ship; and, inasmuch as the vessel had been engaged for the express purpose of conveying the Marines, he did not see how the military authorities could have had an opportunity of inspecting her. His answer, therefore, to the noble Lord was that the Government would not object to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the system adopted for the appointment and preliminary training of officers of the Marine Artillery and Marine Light Infantry; and if that met the views of hon. Members he should be willing to move it on some subsequent occasion; but he must oppose the particular Motion of the noble Lord. No Board of Admiralty had done so much for the Marines in the same number of years as the present Board. They had increased the pay of the men to an extent represented by the sum of £24,000 a year; they had equalized the promotion and the prospects of the officers; and they had conferred other smaller advantages, he might add that last summer a Committee was appointed at the War Office to consider the question of the employment of Marine officers with the Army cither as adjutants of the

    329
    Auxiliary Forces or on the General Staff. That Committee, was presided over by his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and. one of its Members was Sir Francis Festing, then Assistant Adjutant General of Royal Marines. Sir Francis Festing did not induce the Committee to agree to all that he proposed; but his views were fully expressed before the Committee, and he was highly gratified by the spirit in which they considered the claims of the Marines. The Committee made recommendations for facilitating the employment of Marine officers, as far as that was possible according to the Army system. Nothing was further from the intention of the Admiralty than to do anything to check or discourage the high spirit and the zeal of both the officers and the men of this force. We had often to depend upon them in emergencies; but even if we had not, there could be no question about the high spirit and the attainments of the officers, and the solid, sterling qualities of the men. If any ground for discontent existed in the force the Admiralty would do what they could to remove it; but they were unable to assent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole subject mentioned in the noble Lord's Motion, because such a course would not be in accordance with usage, nor, in their opinion, conducive to the public interest.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he thought the country was indebted to his noble Friend (Viscount Lewisham) for advocating the claims of this distinguished Corps. He must confess that he was disappointed at the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty; yet he was glad that he had announced the willingness of the Government to go so far as he had stated. While great compliments were paid to the Marines, yet, so far as their grievances were concerned, very little was clone for them. He did not find, from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that any of the grievances set forth were in any way contradicted. There might be some difficulty in putting officers of the Marine Forces on the Admiralty Board; but whenever the good things were given away they never found their way to the Marines. The Marines were somehow always left out; and he did not for a moment believe that men whose conduct was so distinguished in all parts
    330
    of the world, in every kind of service, would continually come into that House with grievances if those grievances did not exist. It was said that if they gave the Admiralty time, no doubt everything would be set right. He did not say that it was the fault of any Board of Admiralty; but, clearly, there was something wrong about the system by which this gallant Corps was always left in the lurch.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 36: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 47.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

  NAVLA DISCIPLINE ACT, 1866—PUNISHMENTS IN THE NAVY.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR FREDERICK MILNER, who had given Notice of his intention to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the powers given by the Naval Discipline Act of 1866 ought not to be used to inflict penal servitude on voting men and boys of good character for offences against discipline involving no moral guilt,"
    said, that it was high time that this serious question was looked into. It was causing agitation throughout the country; and a Petition, which had received 8,300 signatures, had been, or would be, presented to the House. He readily acknowledged, as every Member in the House would, the great necessity for enforcing discipline by severe punishment, and no one would take any objection that this should be the case. But they must remember that their soldiers and sailors not only exposed themselves to dangers, and hardships, and privations for their country's sake, but they volunteered, in joining the Service, to give up some of the most valued rights and privileges of citizens; and he thought that it was the duty of their countrymen, to interfere when undue severity was exercised towards their sailors. He would remind the House that the Naval Discipline Act of 1866 became law without any debate either in this House or the House of Lords, upon the different stages of the Bill. The Houses considered that it was right that extraordinary powers should be granted; and he supposed that on that account they did not think it necessary to examine too closely into the

    331
    details. It was read a first time on the 20th July, 1866, and it received the Royal Assent on the 10th August. By it insubordination might be punished by imprisonment not exceeding two years or penal servitude; but he contended that the framers of the Act could only have intended that this extreme penalty should be applied to extreme cases and to old offenders. The sentence of penal servitude could be for life, or for any term not less than five years; and it involved dismissal with disgrace, the forfeiture of pay, allowances, gratuities, &c., and incapacity to serve Her Majesty again in either civil or military service. This was a terrible punishment to pass upon a young seaman who had previously borne a good character, and who, in a moment of rashness, had assaulted an officer. It was never expected by those who advocated the abolition of flogging that a far more cruel and degrading punishment should, be substituted and inexorably enforced. Previously, when a man had received a flogging he resumed his duties, and some men who had been flogged had attained to honourable positions, one having become post captain of a ship. But now men, who formerly could have regained their position, were sent to penal servitude, and obliged to herd with felons of the lowest class, and their lives were blasted and ruined. He had carefully gone over the Returns from the 1st January, 1870, to the 31st December, 1882, and found that for the offences to which his Motion referred 75 men during that period had been sent to penal servitude, and of these 29 had previously had very good characters, and 34 had had fair characters. Of that number seven were boys under 20, five of whom previously bore good characters; 10, five having good characters, were 20 years of age; eight, two having good characters, were 21 years of age; eight, three having good characters, were 22 years of age; 11, one having a good character, were 23; eight, two having good characters, were 24. Of the boys under 20, therefore, more than one-half were of good character before they were convicted and sent to penal servitude. Since the existence of the present Admiralty the number had increased. In the time of the late Government the average yearly number of cases was seven; but during the present Government the average yearly number was 12, including six cases where the
    332
    young man's character was good. Previously, no boy of 18 or under was sent to penal servitude; but under the present Administration there had altogether been four boys under 18 years of age sent to penal servitude. With reference to the case of the boy Lewis Price, who was convicted in March, 1882, he believed that the offence which the youth committed was more or less a serious one, as he knocked down his senior officer. The boy threw himself on the mercy of the Court, and no evidence was produced; but he understood that the youth had received a good character from the captain of the ship on which he served. There was no evidence to show that he was drunk at the time; but as he was cook of the mess he would not only receive his own allowance of grog, but also part of the rations of the other men. It was therefore reasonable to assume that a boy of his age, 18 years, could not have consumed that grog without suffering from the effects of it. The offence was committed before the Order of the Admiralty that the allowance of grog should not be given to boys of 18 years reached the youth's ship. He thought the House would agree with him that to send a promising lad, who had received a good character from his captain, into penal servitude was a very serious thing. A Report had been made concerning this boy's case; but the Admiralty had declined to produce it. He submitted that a document of that character ought not to be kept secret, and that if it contained anything which tended to exculpate the boy, the Admiralty should make the fact known. There were three other boys who were undergoing the terrible punishment of penal servitude at the present time; and he could only fear that when they were set at liberty they would be added to the criminal classes of the country. Last November a Petition was presented to the Prime Minister, signed by no loss than 12 Members of Parliament, earnestly praying that this matter might have the serious consideration of the Government. He was informed that no notice was taken of that Petition, and that it was not even acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman or by his Secretary. There was, undoubtedly, a serious agitation going on in the seaport towns with regard to this question; and he had little doubt that the quality of the seamen who were to

    333
    join the Navy would be seriously interfered with unless the Admiralty did something to stop this terrible penalty being inflicted for slight offences. He would again remind the House of the splendid services rendered by our sailors on land and sea; no one could think of the gallant, heroic conduct of British sailors without feeling that too much could not be done to promote the interest and welfare of such brave and noble men. He thought it terrible that for an offence against discipline young men in the Navy should be ruined, when in civil life a small fine would have been considered sufficient punishment for an offence of a similar nature. He considered that for a young man of 18 or 20 a sentence of two years' imprisonment at the very most in a naval prison would be a sufficient punishment in all conscience for the offence, especially if he had borne a good character. The lad could then be permitted to rejoin the Service, and show that his first boyish offence was one he would never seek to repeat. He sincerely trusted that the Admiralty would consider whether some steps ought not to be taken immediately to remedy such a terrible state of things as he had shown to exist.
    MR. WARTONbelieved that in the case of the boy Price the sentence was reduced from five years' to three years' penal servitude. But the Admiralty had committed no act of mercy in reducing that period of penal servitude; for the dreadful nature of the punishment lay not in its duration, but in its character. He was in favour of strict discipline, and in the olden times there was a sharp, short, and effectual remedy for boyish offences, which did the youths a world of good and did not ruin their lives. Nemesis was pursuing a Radical Government in this matter. A Radical agitation with regard to this matter was got up by the Radical Member for Birmingham; and the result was that when the present Government came into Office, they were thwarted by the very agitation which they helped to promote. Such was the result of an ill-considered agitation got up for Party purposes, which had proved a difficulty to those who created it when they found themselves in Office. There was an increasing number of young men who were subject to this terrible punishment of penal servitude; and he hoped that if the Ad-
    334
    miralty authorities could devise any other punishment in its place they would not be ashamed to retrace their steps.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he could not conceive how it was logical to lay the recent increase of sentences by courts martial to penal servitude to the abolition of flogging, and to assume that, if Hogging were now permitted in the Navy, a sentence of 40 or 50 lashes would be the equivalent punishment infletedd in cases where a court martial now deemed that five or seven years' penal servitude was a necessary punishment. Therefore, the argument that because that punishment was taken away, courts martial were driven to give five, seven, or ten years' penal servitude, seemed to him not to be supported by facts. When a discussion of this kind occurred, in which discipline was concerned, the opinion was almost always expressed that it must be secured by "severe" punishment, meaning, by that, some punishment out of all proportion to that which would be given in civilian life for some breach of the law. This was always assumed by naval and military men, who, no doubt, thought that they knew more about punishments and their effects than other hon. Members. He begged to contest that. On the civil side of life, in the administration of the law, they claimed to know more about the matter than naval men. Their experience was greater. There were many more offences and temptations to them possible than were contained in the Naval Code. The law, in those cases, was duly enforced by a moderate punishment, and many lawyers would be positively shocked at the length of imprisonment inflicted by courts martial; and he wanted to call the attention of military and naval men to the fact that a feeling existed that a lighter amount of punishment might be adopted quite efficaciously to produce the results which were desired. The Admiralty had the matter in their own hands, and they ought to revise the sentences passed on men tried by courts martial. There ought to be a permanent officer at the Admiralty, like the Judge Advocate General for the Army, to go into these matters, and whoso duty it should be to call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the punishments ordered. At present, instead of the sentences being revised by a responsible

    335
    officer, they were handed over to some clerk or other, who was vouched for to the House as being a gentleman of some experience and knowledge on the subject. Having entered his protest against the present mode of inflicting punishment, he would ask his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), when he replied to the observations which had been made during the debate, to state whether it was a rule of prison life that a man sentenced to penal servitude had, by good behaviour, an opportunity of securing the remission of three months of every year? If that was not the case in naval and military prisons it ought to be. It was so as regarded every criminal sent to other prisons. He thought it right to ask the question in order that this privilege might be secured as a right to naval and military offenders. Another excuse for his rising was, that he was about to call attention to the cognate matter on the military side on the Army Discipline Act.
    SIR H. DKUMMOND WOLFF, in supporting the object aimed at in the Notice of the hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Milner), said, that nothing had created a greater sensation than the punishment which had been inflicted on a number of young men for offences against discipline. The class of punishment introduced of late was far more degrading in its character than the former punishment for such offences. In the town of Portsmouth there had been two or three cases of this description which had caused the greatest sensation; and he had been asked to present a Petition signed by many thousands of the inhabitants of that town, protesting against the unnecessarily degrading character of the sentences inflicted for offences which were not in themselves morally disgraceful. Formerly these offences would have been punished with a few strokes of the cat; but now young men of good character, for only losing their temper, were punished with penal servitude, and sent to herd with rogues and felons. He had made an application to the Admiralty with reference to some of these cases, and the response was that they would reduce the sentence from five years to three years. But it was not so much the length of the sentence to which he had desired to call attention as to the fact that these young men—whose characters were not bad, and
    336
    whose offence was committed in a moment of haste and ill-temper—had entailed upon them such disgraceful and painful consequences. It would have been more desirable, instead of shortening their sentences, to have committed them to imprisonment in some naval gaol, where there would not be the same deteriorating influences. He thought that it would be a very desirable tiling that orders should be given to officers who were likely to sit upon courts martial not to use their power of inflicting penal servitude. Offenders might be sent to naval prisons, where they would not be associated with that unhappily degraded set of men who filled our penal establishments. He thought that some method might be found for avoiding the degrading necessity of penal servitude, and the danger of men being deterred from entering the Navy by a sentence so terrible in its nature.

    NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY—THE ARMOUR-CLAD NAVY.—OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, before proceeding to his Notice of Motion, to which he wished to invite attention, he would thank the hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Milner) for having brought forward a subject of the greatest possible importance, and reminded him that, as they had been promised that evening a Naval Discipline Bill, he would be able to recur to that question, and to obtain a reply to his remarks from the Treasury Bench. He now turned to the Resolution that he had himself put on the Paper. He desired to obtain the appointment of a Select Committee of that House on the condition of our armour-clad Navy. Although he knew how inconvenient it was for the Secretary to the Admiralty, at that period of the night (9 o'clock), not to have an opportunity of introducing the Navy Estimates, the hon. Gentleman would forgive him, because that was a matter cognate to the matter on which the hon. Member would address them, and of the greatest importance to the country. It deserved to be treated separately, and to be considered by a Select Committee, in order to see whether, in the first place, we had enough iron-clads; and, secondly, whether they were of the right character. The Navy Estimates which they were about to discuss were slightly reduced, while our iron-clads were insufficient in number, and some of them of a character

    337
    which he was surprised to see put before the House in a Return that had just been laid on the Table as ships that were considered as at all efficient for the Public Service. That Return was of a fragmentary description; and he observed, from the ordinary source of public information, that it had led the public to believe that we had 62 ironclads. Before analyzing the figures, he remarked that he was aware it might be said that the granting of a Select Committee to investigate the number or the condition of our ships was interfering with the responsibility of the Board of Admiralty. He had heard that argument before, but it had not been allowed to prevail; many Select Committees had been appointed, and he thought the time had come when another should institute the inquiry that he now suggested. The present Board of Admiralty had extremely able officers on it; but, unfortunately, none of them were in that House, and the House had lost the advantage of the presence of the First Sea Lord, who was responsible for advising the Admiralty as to the defence of the country and the number of ships that was necessary. If, however, a Select Committee were appointed, that gallant Officer would be called before it, and would state the reason why the number of ships was, in his opinion, sufficient or insufficient, and point out the duties they had to perform. The Return which he held in his hand—as to which he had had some correspondence with the Secretary to the Admiralty—omitted information of the greatest possible importance to the country. The state of the boilers and also of the hulls was omitted from it. He had himself made up that Return with great labour, so as to have the information that ought to be given; but, being given by himself, it was of no value; whereas, if given by the Admiralty, it would be of great value to the House. The suggestion that it might supply information to foreign countries ought not to weigh with the House. Foreign countries might get at that information just as he had done. He wished to have a Committee which would inquire of the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty as to the condition of the ships of the Navy. The present First Sea Lord, an officer of great distinction and ability, held the same Office when his right hon. Friend
    338
    (Mr. W. H. Smith) was at the Admiralty. That information was given to the House in 1879 by the consent of his right hon. Friend and of Admiral Sir Cooper Key. It was also given in 1882, with the consent of the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) and of Admiral Sir Cooper Key; but in 1884 a different course was taken, for some reasons which he could not understand. Information, which every foreign Government and every person could have who would take the trouble, was now withheld from the House and the country, to whom it would be useful. He, therefore, thought it desirable that a Select Committee of the House should be appointed to ascertain from the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty the condition of our armour-clads, and why the important information to which he had alluded was now withheld from the public. He was anxious to analyze some of the figures in the Return, and he was glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty present, because he had obtained some information as to the condition of ships which were now put before them as being efficient ships, from the valuable book of which that hon. Gentleman was the author. There was a class of vessels—armoured ships in commission—on page 2 of the Return. There were 28 ships placed there. Of these, four were not down for repair or alteration; and according to that statement they were efficient for the Public Service. He would give the case of the Defence. He referred to the Return of 1882, and he found that in 1882 the pressure of the boilers of the Defence was 15 lbs., which they know was below what was required, and that she would require now boilers, for which no provision was made. Therefore, she was not an efficient ship, though she was put down in the Returns. Then there was the Glatton, which was good enough in her way; but she was not what could be called a sea-going ironclad ship; there was a pressure of only 18 lbs. in the boilers, and, though tolerably useful, she ought not to be considered anything but a coast defence ship. Then there were two other ships—the Hydra and the Gorgon. He should like to know what the Civil Lord (Sir Thomas Brassey) thought of them? They were of the Cyclops class, and the Cyclops herself had some superstructures put

    339
    upon her, which made her a little better than she was. At page 181, vol. 1, of the Civil Lord's work, he found these words—
    "If such hesitation was felt as to the despatch of these vessels on a coasting voyage in the summer season they can scarcely be accepted even as coast defence vessels for service in the English Channel."
    It was hardly right to let the country suppose that ships of that character were armour-clad sea-going ships. They might be harbour ships. Therefore, as regarded the first table, he should like to reduce the 28 to 24. He came next to the armoured ships in reserve, in which class 14 vessels were given. It was astonishing to read as sea-going armoured ships in reserve—as complete in the First Reserve—the names of the Prince Albert, the Cyclops, the Hecate, the Scorpion, the Wyvern, the Vixen, and the Viper. The Wyvern, the Vixen, and the Viper were no more efficient seagoing ships of the Navy than was "Noah's Ark." That 14 he must reduce by seven, leaving seven as really available for public service. When he came to the ships waiting for repair, he looked in vain in the Estimates to see that any repairs were going to be made. What was the use of the Admiralty including as waiting for repair the Water-witch? He wished to read to his hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty a document which he believed had been signed by him. But whether it had been signed by him or not, he was, at least, a Member of the Board of Admiralty which had produced this document for the use of the House; and if the Civil Lord had not signed it, it would be an advantage to have such a Committee as he suggested to inquire why such a document had been placed on the Table of the House—
    "The speed of this vessel at sea has never exceeded five or six knots, and although 10 years old it has never been trusted out of sight of land."
    He should like if his hon. Friend would tell the House when and how this vessel was to be repaired, and why it was stated that they were going to repair vessels, when hon. Members looked in vain for any indication in the Estimates that money was to be asked in order that the repairs might be carried out? Then, again, why were they told that 62 ships were available, when seven had to be
    340
    deducted which were not yet completed? the real fact was that, instead of 62 ships being available, there were only 40; and if the hon. Gentleman opposite said, when he came to investigate the condition of the French Fleet, that 19 wooden vessels ought to be deducted from the list, then he said that the Lord Warden and the Repulse ought to be deducted from our list, which would reduce the number to 38. He would now ask the House to look at the condition of the other Navies, taken from official information, in order to see whether this country had anything like the number of ships it ought to have for the service of the State. It had always been supposed in this country that we were equal to any two other Naval Powers. With 38 available iron-clads, and 11 of these necessarily on distant stations, the number at home was reduced to something like 29; and this number, he ventured to say. was not enough for the Public Service, or for the defence of the country. The French had 20 ships of the first class—Amiral Duperré, Foudroyanté, Dévastation, Friedland, Trident, Redoubtable, Colbert, Richelieu, Océan, Suffren, Marengo, Couronne, Surveillante, Héroine, Flandre, Valeureuse, Gauloise, Savoie, Provence, and Revanche. They had also the following ships of the first class available for Coastguard defence:—Caiman, Indomptable, Terrible, Fulminant, Tonnerre, and Furieux. He remembered mentioning in the House last year that the French at that time had 19 iron-clads in process of construction, and some doubt was thrown upon the rapidity of their construction. But five of those vessels had since been launched, and those five were at this moment fitting for sea. The French had the following ships of the second class:—Bayard, Turenne, Vauban, Du Guesclin, La Galison-nièrre, Victorieuse, Triomphante, Montcalm, Reine Blanche, Atalante, Alma, Belliqueuse, Jeanne d' Arc, and Thétis. As most of those vessels were wooden ships, he was quite willing to deduct them; but two years ago nine of these ships were employed at Tunis. They had, in addition, the following ships of the second-class Coastguard, and which were available for Channel service:—Tampête, Tonnant, Vengeur, Cerbère, Betlièr, Bouledogue, Tigre, Taureau, and Onondaga. Some of these ships were unfit for sea; but the French had at this moment, deducting

    341
    the wooden ships, 35 iron-clads fit for service, and they had building at the moment no fewer than 14 ships, three of them by contract. They were—Requin, Guerrier, Jean Bart, Formidable, Amiral Baudin, Charles Martel, Brennus, Neptune, Hoche, Magenta, Marceau, Vauban, and Duquesne. He was not prepared to believe that these ships were not advancing with considerable rapidity. He was uncertain about those that were being built by contract; but he believed the others were advancing as rapidly as the five which had been added to their Navy since this time last year. He would take only one other Power as a further illustration—Italy. The Admiralty, no doubt, had the most excellent information respecting the condition of the Italian Navy, because the Colleague of his hon. Friend opposite had as good information as anyone in the world in reference to this question. In the first class they had the Duilio and Dandolo, which were almost unrivalled for power. He thought we had only one ship—the Inflexible—which was a match for cither of them in regard to speed and armour. In the second class the Italian Navy had the Ancona, Castel Fidardo, Maria Pia, S. Martino, Palestro, Principe Amadeo, Roma, and Venezia. In the third class there were the Affondatore, Formidabile, Terribile, and Varese. Although it might be contended that the first-class ships of the Italian Navy were not a match for any of our vessels in the same class, and that it was not desirable to build more largo ships, we ought, he contended, to have more small ones. The Italians were building five ships, two of 19-inch and three of 18-inch armour, and all of them must be considered formidable ships. They were the Italia, Lepanto, Andrea Doria, Ruggiero de Loria, and Francisco Morosini. If they calculated the Navy of Italy as our Navy was calculated—that was, good, bad, and indifferent—they would find that the Italians had 19 ships to our 62, and the French had 64 to our 62. But making the deductions which ought to be made, and reducing the number of our ships to 38, it would be found that there were 46 or 47 formidable ships ready for sea belonging to the Italian and the French Navies. That, he maintained, was not a proper condition for this country to be in. The statement was made that there was a
    342
    decrease in the Estimates. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No.] Well, the statement had been made in the ordinary sources of information that there was a decrease in the Estimates by about £85,000. But he was now glad to hear that the Estimates had not been reduced. It seemed, however, that the Government had not added to the building very much, because the account was very small. It was nothing like what it ought to be in order to add to the building. The Government were only building seven iron-clads, one of them by contract: while the French at this moment were building 14, and they had now a Navy, deducting wooden ships, which was equal to our own. It was certain we were not equal to the two Naval Powers he had mentioned in the number of iron-clads, and that was a point which he wished to urge upon the attention of the House. It was for that reason that he desired the appointment of the Committee, and in order to ascertain whether Sir Cooper Key, who was responsible for the Navy of this country, had a sufficient number of ships for its protection. He maintained that if Sir Cooper Key came before a Committee of the House they would hear from him—after a certain amount of loyalty had been shown towards the defence of his Colleagues—that he had not a sufficient number of ships to protect the trade and commerce of this country in the event of war and against a combination of European Powers. He was not taking into account the ships of the German Navy, which must, of course, be considered; but there were two European nations of great naval power which were at this moment making the most strenuous exertions to improve their Navy, and both of which, if combined in numbers—but he did not say in power—were superior to the Navy of England. There were many Members in the House most competent to investigate this matter; and if the Committee was nominated entirely from the Ministerial side of the House, it could not but declare that the naval power of England, as represented by its ironclads, was far below what it ought to be, and what the country believed it to be. There were at present 38 British iron-clads, and 7 building; 29 French, and 8 building; and 14 Italian, and 5 building. This was the condition of the

    343
    three great Naval Powers and the number of their ships. He also had to appeal to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to add two columns to the Returns, showing the condition of the boilers and the condition of the hull of each ship. There must be something wrong if the Government were afraid to supply this information, especially having regard to the fact that it was given in 1879, and again in 1882, when Lord Northbrook, as now, was at the head of the Admiralty. As to the guns, he understood that other nations were manufacturing guns of much greater size than we. The Italian Government was having guns of 110 tons for some of their fillips, while our heaviest guns did not exceed 81 tons. Such a Committee as he had suggested ought also to inquire into this question of the armament of the Navy. They were now confronted with the question whether this country was to be satisfied with guns of smaller power than those of other countries. They had been told that there were 280 merchant ships ready to be placed at the disposal of the Admiralty in case of war; but it turned out that them were only guns for 50 of these. What was the use of patriotic shipbuilders supplying their ships if guns were not forthcoming for them? The officers and in on of the Navy and Marines were as ready and able as ever to do their duty; and it was, therefore, the snore incumbent on us to see that they were provided with sufficient ships and efficient guns. He was sure the House would allow him, before passing from this subject, to refer to the brilliant services recently rendered by the Navy and Marines at Tamanieb, and to the heroic death of the three young naval officers in defence of their guns. The House sat under the shadow of the great Abbey in which the gallant deeds of our most famous naval officers were recorded for our example. But he did not believe that among them all were names to be found more deserving of our grateful recollection than those of Almack, of Montresor, and of his dear young friend Houston Stewart, who, when the square which covered them had to retire, remained with their brave comrades by their guns, and, under the death-thrusts of the enemy, disabled them, so that, though temporarily in possession of the foe, the guns could not be turned against our troops.
    344
    "Brave hearts, to Britain's pride once so faithful and so true."
    They now slept beneath the sands of Africa; but their names would ever deserve to be celebrated in song and story. The House would, he was sure, sympathize with House who mourned them, and would not think it wrong in him to allude on this, the first opportunity, to their gallant conduct and heroic death. It was for officers and men such as these that he pleaded with the House for a Committee to see that sufficient ships and efficient guns were provided.
    LORD HENRY LENNOXregretted that, in the event of the Government refusing the Committee asked for, there was no possibility of their being able to go to a Division on the proposition of his right hon. and gallant Friend. What his right hon. and gallant Friend had said was so true that the Return presented to the House almost amounted to a burlesque. The Government now refused to give the House any Report as to the state of the boilers and hulls of the ships, and they included in their Return of lighting vessels ships like the Water-witch, which he thought had long ceased to be classed even in the category of hospital ships. His right hon. and gallant Friend who had just spoken had alluded to the mawkish feeling against allowing foreign countries to know too much about our Navy. There was not a foreign country which had a Navy, or which aspired to have a Navy, which did not know as much of the number and condition of British ships, and the number and weight of the guns, as hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. Why, then, was not this information given openly and authoritatively to Parliament? He agreed with his right hon. and gallant Friend in saying that he could not understand the Government refusing this information now, having regard to the fact that it was given in 1879, and again in 1882. The only conclusion he could come to, and that the country would come to, was this—that, owing to the parsimony and cheeseparing policy of the Government, the condition of the hulls and boilers was too bad to be made public. Of course, the Admiralty would not grant the Committee asked for, and he was exceedingly sorry that he and those who agreed with him could not go to a Division and show their strength, or, at any rate, the

    345
    strength of their convictions. It was a remarkable fact that is right hon. and gallant Friend had incorporated, into his speech in support of the appointment of a Committee quotations from the writings of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. He himself had last year supported his arguments by references to the hon. Gentleman's books on the Navy. Certainly, there was no one to whom the public owed so much in regard to this branch of the Public Service as to the Civil Lord. There was another point he had intended to allude to, and that was that now most celebrated class—the Cyclops and Hecate class. Those who wished to see a strong and powerful Navy had to live on promises. The Secretary to the Admiralty every year promised something which next year he had to confess had not been performed, and that had been going on for 16 or 17 years. They were told that the vessels of the Cyclops and Hecate class were to be made into fine sea-going vessels. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the experimentalization on the Hecate had been successful; and whether it was to be continued on other vessels in that class? He could not see anywhere in the Estimates any allusion to an intention to make the rest of that class into sea-going vessels. He reserved to himself the right of making general observations after the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, and the further right of making very much longer and fuller observations when the Estimates came into Committee.
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, that after the disparaging statements which had recently been made in many quarters the Government were not unprepared for the criticisms which had just been addressed to them. He must, indeed, confess that it was not unnatural for one connected with the Admiralty to hare some sympathy with the advocates of increased Estimates. The Government were, however, satisfied that the provisions they were proposing in the present Estimates, and in those which they had made in preceding years, were sufficient to maintain the naval supremacy of the country. He might go further, and say that they would regard it as impolitic, in the circumstances in which they found themselves, to propose those sensational Estimates which some
    346
    crities of their policy seemed to demand. Last year he had laid before the House a general view of our position, and this year, after a further examination in the light of the latest, official information, he could confidently say that there was no material change in our relative position as it was then described. For themselves, the Government accepted the assurances which had been given to the French Chambers that the increased construction for the French Navy was designed not so much to increase the number of iron-clads as to compensate for the withdrawal of the wood-built ships from the list of effective vessels. He ventured to say that a comparison of Estimates would supply the best answer that could be given to those who would charge the Government with supineness ov indifference to the naval interests of the country. The total expenditure for the Naval Services, including ordnance, had increased from £10,550,000 in 1879–80 to £11,499,635 in 1883–4, and the Ordnance Vote alone had increased from£212,000 in 1879–80 to £512,549 in the present year. A large proportion of the expenditure on the Navy was practically automatic, or, at least, directly dependent upon the number of men voted for the Fleet. The distinctive policy, therefore, of any Administration was mainly indicated by the fluctuations of the Shipbuilding Votes. To his mind the great increase in the expenditure upon these Votes—namely, from £3,227,000 in 1880 to £3,961,000 in 1883–4, and practically to the same amount in the present year—was a complete answer to the charges of supineness and inaction which had been brought against the Department. The expenditure upon shipbuilding alone—I for armoured ships, including machinery—for the years 1883–4 and 1884–5 was actually double that of the year 1879–80. This large increase had not been obtained by neglecting repairs. The number of men employed on repairs had been largely increased, and in point of preparation to meet any emergency the condition of the Fleet ought to be regarded as highly satisfactory. They had actually ready for sea, or in a condition to be put to sea in a very few weeks, no less than 18 iron-clads, including such ships as the Dreadnought, the Ajax, the Agamemnon, the Conqueror, the Hotspur, the Rupert, and the Devasta-

    347
    tion. They had in the foreign yards the Thunderer, the Scorpion, the Wyvern, and for harbour defence at Bermuda the Viper and the Vixen. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken very lightly of these vessels; but he could assure him that they were in very good repair, and were very valuable for defensive purposes. Of unarmoured vessels, there were the Mercury, the Bacchante, and others. There were 13 corvettes, many of them the finest vessels afloat, nine gun-vessels, and 29 vessels for coast defence. With the exception of the Warrior, Black Prince, and Resistance, and eight unarmoured vessels, of which five were wood-built, and as to the re-armament of which some doubt existed, every defective vessel not actually in commission was included in the repairing programme. With respect to the Hecate class, the Government acknowledged that reconstruction of the superstructure was advisable, and they claimed it as a very creditable feature in their programme that they had at last addressed themselves to the alterations required in these vessels. By the simple addition of a superstructure costing some £12,000, vessels of this class were raised from the position of mere harbour defence ships into iron-clads capable of making long sea passages in safety, and especially adapted by their light draught for coast defence. It was proposed to take one vessel of this class in hand every year until the alterations were completed. In conclusion, he hoped this statement would be considered a satisfactory reply to some of the criticisms which had been addressed to the Government.
    MR. JENKINSasked whether it was intended that the new boilers to be placed in reconstructed ships should be of steel or iron? He believed that a large number of foreign iron-dads were in a worse condition than our own iron-clads. Naval critics were, for the most part, always complaining that the Shipbuilding Vote was not increased; but, in his opinion, the Board of Admiralty was to be commended for not proposing a larger Estimate. The fact was that shipbuilding was in a transition state, and ship built 20 years ago were now comparatively useless. He thought that the Admiralty could be relied upon for keeping the Navy in an efficient condition. Our Navy ought to be superior to
    348
    any combination of Naval Powers winch was at all likely to be formed against us. But the Admiralty claimed to have done that already; and. if that were so, there was no use in building more ships. He thought there was a tendency to overrate the importance of iron-clads. What we wanted far more than ironclads was powerful cruisers ready at the shortest notice to go to the most distant stations, and so constructed as to be able to perform the longest voyages. Thus capacity for carrying fuel was of the first importance. Good organization, too, was most essential, and we ought to pay particular attention to the torpedo and the ram. In these days, as much as at any other period, the most skilful seaman would win the day. A great deal was said about the Italian iron-clads; but with such seamen as we possessed we needed not to fear them. The Admiralty had done much in the matter of training officers and seamen for the Navy; and in spite of shortcomings he considered they were entitled to the gratitude of the country for the efficient condition in which they had placed the Service. The training of officers and seamen ought to be maintained at a high standard, and it was of the highest importance to keep them afloat as much as possible. If we did so, we had no occasion to fear any combination of Foreign Navies.
    MR. T. C. BRUCEcould not claim to speak from technical knowledge; but he feared that the margin of strength over the Navies of foreign countries was dangerously small. He had always understood that the British Navy ought to be superior to any probable combination against it; but after the discussion which had taken place he did not think that condition was fulfilled at present. Our Navy; ought to be stronger, at least, than any two other Navies. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the superiority of our men; but it would not be wise to trust to that superiority alone. There ought to be an equal superiority in ships and material, if our supremacy was to be maintained. At the present time we were subject to great changes in the conditions of war, both by land and sea. There were two lessons which the war of 1870 had impressed upon all thoughtful men. One was that a whole nation might be formed into an Army, and the other that the

    349
    railways might be employed in carrying enormous bodies of men upon one point of attack. The result of the latter state of things was that the Power which could most successfully so concentrate its attack obtained an overwhelming superiority. Thus our enemy would be able to combine its forces in aggression against us, and the need of keeping up our naval supremacy was not less, but-greater, than it was in former times. He thought the bearing of that state of things had by no means been so fully recognized as it ought to have been by successive Governments. He did not recommend the foreign military system for our adoption. On the contrary, it was a happy thing for us that we were able to retain our Army in its present rudimentary condition. But although that system was not strictly applicable to our Navy, its existence in foreign countries made it imperative to retain our naval pre-eminence. It was, therefore, very unfortunate that it could be said with any appearance of truth in the House of Commons that our Navy did not enjoy the absolute supremacy which was on all hands admitted to be so necessary, especially as our ships were scattered all over the world, and we had to defend so many Colonial and foreign interests. He was certain the country would gladly sanction any expenditure which would place us in an assured position. He was not an alarmist; but he remembered that the peace of Europe depended on one man's life, and the troubles arising out of the aggressions of the French or of the Russians were not impossibilities. All he wanted was that a country with boundless resources and vast responsibilities should be found fully equal to any emergency. It was impossible for him to say what the state of Europe might be a year or two hence. A change in its condition might come very quickly; but the construction of an iron-clad Fleet was a slow and difficult operation, and required foresight and exertion long before it might be wanted. Did we not know that our nearest neighbour was turning to foreign adventures, which might bring us into collision with her unexpectedly, and that in Asia there was another Power whose boundaries were brought near our own, and with whom some differences might easily arise? Knowing the enormous stake which depended on our Navy, there
    350
    ought to be no possible doubt as to what should be done; and if his right hon. Friend did not obtain the Committee for which he asked, he hoped the Government would, at all events, take such steps as would make us feel that our Navy was in a position of undoubted superiority.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he could assure the Government that the Navy Estimates, which were about to be brought before the House, had been received with consternation by the Naval Profession, and by hon. Members who, like the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), felt indignation at the supine-ness of successive Boards of Admiralty. He remembered an instance in which one First Lord of the Admiralty spoke the truth. He referred to the late lamented Mr. Ward Hunt, who, in the first blush of his accession to Office, told the House that the country possessed only a paper Fleet. He remembered how the statement confounded the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues, who, he had no doubt, subsequently remonstrated with him upon his conduct, for neither he nor any other First Lord had ever ventured to tell the House the truth since. They had heard in the House and on platforms, and seen in the public prints, repeated comparisons between the French Fleet and our own. Did the Admiralty venture to say that the comparison was erroneous? So clear was the demonstration that everybody expected that the Government would this year have asked for £500,000 more for the purpose of placing the Fleet in a proper position. The hon. Gentleman opposite could not tell them the secrets of his prison-house; but he believed that he and his Colleagues would have asked for £500,000 more were it not that they were controlled by other influences. He could not understand how we lavished £28,000,000 a-year on our Army in England and India, and yet the Army could not give us influence in the Councils of Europe; while the Navy, which constituted the real defence and power of this country, was neglected. It was able to fight Egyptians and Arabs, but could scarcely be put in the field against the enormous Armies of civilized Europe; and yet we spent only a paltry sum of less than £11,000,000 a-year upon that Navy which was the only ground we had for claiming preponderance among

    351
    the nations. It was admitted by the Admiralty that our Navy was barely sufficient for the defence of the country, and that in the event of war the loss of one or two iron-clads would positively endanger our safety, and then it would be too late for the Admiralty to address itself to the task of providing n proper system of defence. Let the Admiralty ask any of our distinguished naval officers whether, comparing ship with ship, they did not unhesitatingly give the preference to the Trench, though a sailor generally thought any old tub in which he might have served superior to the finest ship afloat? The French ships had higher speed—[Sir THOMAS BRASSEY: No.]—and they were all provided with breech-loaders; whereas ours were still armed with muzzle-loaders. The Secretary to the Admiralty would say that they were going to supply the Navy with breech-loading guns; but many a year must pass before that could be done. Would the officials at the Admiralty say that in the ships of the English Navy there were any machine guns throwing shells? He believed there were not; whilst the French had 23 of these machine guns, which could fire 30 rounds in a minute. Would they deny that the number of combatants on board our ships was smaller than on board French ships, and that not only was their number of men smaller, but the proportion of combatants also? All the elements of superiority of the French over the English ships were admitted by the Government except that of speed. Let the House consider how the English Navy was supplied with smaller craft and cruisers. Would the Civil Lord of the Admiralty dispute the fact that in the Indian Ocean, and in the China Seas, there were three vessels going 17 knots an hour, one French, another Russian, and a third Italian, while England had not a single vessel that could compete with them? There was one French vessel in the Eastern Seas, named the Tourville, which was capable of eating up every one of the corvettes and gunboats stationed there. Was it true that this vessel carried a pivot gun, while English vessels only carried broadside guns? If they had not machine guns, at least they began to supply them with Nordenfelt guns; but he would ask whether the vessels in the Indian Seas were not ordered to prepare for the reception of
    352
    these guns three years ago, and whether they were yet supplied with them? Then, with regard to torpedoes, he asked how many great harbours were provided with them? There was not a single first-lass torpedo boat for the defence of Bombay Harbour, the second largest city of the British Empire in India. If a French Fleet or a Russian Fleet were to attempt to enter it, they would find it absolutely defenceless except for two or three harbour gunboats, by no means the best even of their kind. He had a Return before him—it was not an official Return, but the Admiralty could contradict it if it was not accurate—which showed that at the close of 1884 both Russia and France and Germany would have more torpedo boats than we had. The Return showed the number of first-class and second-class torpedo boats, and the totals:—British, 24, 53, total 77; Italian, 23, 20, total 43; French, 50, 32, total 82; Danish, 5, 5, total 10; Dutch, 15, 0, total 15; Austrian, 4, 10, total 14; German, 8, 3, total 11—money was asked to build 70 more of all sixes; Russian, 10, 90, total 100; Greek, 20, of both classes, total 20; Swedish, 5, 3, total 8. the officials of the Admiralty always referred with pride to their Mercantile Marine; but how could they utilize it, even if they would, when, owing to their desire for economy, they had no stores wherewith to convert them into armoured vessels? the fact was that, instead of having swift cruisers fitted with the best modern appliances, instead of having torpedo boats and stores by which the Mercantile Marine might be made available for the defence of the country, the Admiralty, whichever Party was in power, kept things down to the lowest possible point. The Government did not hesitate to spend money upon wars in Egypt, and upon all sorts of extravagances the country would perhaps be better without; but when it came to providing for the very life-blood of the country, they seemed to grudge every shilling, and instead of having an armour-clad Fleet equal to any in the world, they reduced its expenses to the lowest point and came to Parliament for a miserable £11,000,000. When Gentlemen like the right hon. and gallant Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) protested, they laughed at their criticisms and

    353
    pooh-poohed their remarks. It was idle to say that the request, for a Committee arose from a groundless alarm, which was merely the dream of an enthusiast. If the Navy was in such an excellent state, why not quiet popular alarm by proving that the statements respecting it were unfounded? They were afraid to do so, because, if the country came to suspect the real condition of affairs, they would demand, as a matter of economy, that a much larger expenditure should be made on the Navy. His remarks were directed as much against one Government as against another there was not a pin to choose between them; both were under the thumbs of the permanent officials of the Admiralty, who dare not ask the Treasury for the sum required to be spent upon the Navy.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he did not underrate the difficulties with which successive Boards of Admiralty had to contend; they had frequently to make a choice of evils, and to do the best they could for the country in circumstances of difficulty. His right hon. Friend had called attention to matters of the gravest importance; but he did not go so far as he (Mr. W. H. Smith) was prepared to go in reference to some of the ships that were treated as being efficient. More than he had mentioned were in a crippled condition in 1882, so far as their boilers were concerned. The Agincourt, the Achilles, the Minotaur, the Valiant., the Defence, the Gorgon, the Glatton, and one or two others were in a crippled condition; and since then other ships that had been referred to had fallen into that condition. The boilers were put into the Agincourt in 1876; and it was quite certain she would not serve out another commission without new boilers. The boilers of the Alexandra were put in in 1875; she was commissioned in 1877; and she had been at sea ever since. The boilers of the Téméraire, were put on board in 1876; she went to sea in 1877, and had not had a day's rest since. In these cases the wear and tear must have been very considerable. Within a very short time these vessels would become completely inefficient for active duties if they were not taken in hand for repairs. Only one ship out of the first list of 28 had been dealt with during the last four years so far as boilers were concerned. That, at all events, said something for
    354
    the condition in which they were found when the present Board came into Office. He by no means wished to press the Government to undertake expenditure that was not required; but it was the most short-sighted policy to allow ships to get into a condition in which no private owner would consent to retain them. He did not ask the Government to do any thing more than private owners would do—to exercise the same economy, foresight, and care in the use of the material they had at their disposal. The statement that had been made by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, as to the sufficiency of the Navy to maintain our supremacy, involved enormous personal responsibility. Were the ships relied upon all ready to do the work required of them in the event of sudden war? He was not an alarmist; he believed that a state of fitness was the best possible prevention of alarm; and if the ships on which we relied were in perfect condition, we could rest with greater security. In all human probability, if war over came upon us, it would come without warning, as the last war came upon Europe with only three weeks' notice. Were the Admiralty certain that they could so dispose of our Fleets as to protect corn and cotton coming in and cargoes afloat, and so; prevent any suspension of the supply of vital necessities? He did not urge these considerations from any Party motive. He had endeavoured as far as possible, ever since he had had anything to do with the Navy, to avoid making references to the question in a Party spirit, or saying anything which could in the slightest degree embarrass the Government of the day, or even when in Office attempting to make Party capital out of a question which was altogether beyond Party. He urged the appointment of a Committee, because if the Admiralty took such Members as the hon. Member for Falmouth and others on their own side into a Committee Room and proved the case of the Admiralty before them, they would, to a large extent, relieve themselves of a personal responsibility resting upon them. There was, no doubt, a widespread sense of insecurity which arose out of repeated allegations that Foreign Powers were increasing their Navies rapidly, and out of all proportion to the duties they were called upon to discharge. We had 80 per cent of the carrying trade of the world; we had our

    355
    squadrons on various stations from which we could not withdraw them, and they I wore a positive source of weakness so far as the fighting strength of the Navy was concerned. In the event of war, the first demand would be for an increase of strength in some of these quarters, and cruisers would be required for the protection of commerce. It was requisite to satisfy the House and the, country that, with the money which had been appropriated, adequate force could be provided to protect the interests of the country if we were threatened with sudden war. There was nothing in the objection that inquiry would give information to Foreign Powers; for those who had the management of their Navies knew a great deal more about our Nary I than many of us did. He had had practical evidence of the fact. The Government might suppress printed documents; but if he wanted information as to the condition of the Navy he could get it at Berlin, Copenhagen, or Paris, if he chose to spend a little money. The only effect of withholding information from the people of England was to create the impression that it could not be given without damage to responsible officials; and he did not think that was | fair and just to them. It must be remembered that it would take from three to six weeks to fit out any ships belonging to the Merchant Navy as cruisers for the protection of our commerce. We could not do it by anticipation. There would be a tension of diplomatic relations, and the object of any Government; would be to avoid giving the slighest ground for the suggestion that we had made up our minds to go to war. There would be the greatest indisposition on our part to take any ships in advance, while the agents of Foreign Governments would be able to purchase ships, in this country with the view of employing them against us in the event of war. No doubt we might look to our Commercial Marine to assist us to a considerable extent in the event of war; but to look to it entirely for the protection of our commerce in time of war would be about as wise as to rely upon our Volunteers for making war abroad. Our corn, our coal, our cotton, and our manufactures were carried by ships which could only steam at the rate of eight or nine knots an hour; and, if unprotected, they would infallibly become the prey of fast cruisers in time of war, and they
    356
    would, therefore, require quite as much protection from Her Majesty's ships as our Commercial Fleet of sailing vessels did in times past. The duties that would devolve upon our vessels of war would, therefore, be considerable and grave, and it was in these circumstances at least reasonable that we should see that our preparations were sufficient. In the belief that the Motion of the right hon. Baronet would go far to strengthen the hands of the Government, he trusted that it would in some form or other be accepted.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that a most interesting subject of discussion had been introduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of York (Sir Frederick Milner), the gist of whoso observations was contained in the Notice which stood upon the Paper in his name—that the powers given by the Naval Discipline Act of 1866 ought not to be used to inflict penal servitude on young men and boys of good character for offences against discipline involving no moral guilt. That was a proposition to which he could almost assent without observation, and he believed that the Admiralty would also be quite willing to accept as a rule of conduct the very words of the hon. Baronet's Motion. The hon. Baronet had pointed to the great increase of late years in the number of persons sentenced by courts martial to penal servitude; but he had forgotten to observe that the increase was due not to a growing tendency on the part of courts martial to increase the severity of the sentences, but to an increase in the number of those offences for which the law authorized that punishment to be inflicted. The Admiralty had very little power to review sentences pronounced, by courts martial; and, indeed, any wholesale reduction in the sentences by the Admiralty would have the effect of lessening the authority of the courts martial. To do away with the extreme punishment on board a ship would be very dangerous, because on board ship order and discipline were preserved by moral rather than by physical force, although he admitted that extreme and exaggerated sentences were by no means calculated to diminish crime. The Admiralty by no means approved of exaggerated sentences being passed, and in many cases where it was shown that a man had been severely punished for a

    357
    first offence the punishment had been mitigated. In the case of Lewis Price, which had been referred to, the Admiralty had thought it right to refer the matter to Captain Markham for his opinion; but that officer stated that although his own belief was that the man was under the influence of liquor when he committed the offence, he was unable to obtain, at the time, any evidence to that effect. Captain Markham having reported that he had been unable to find any extenuating circumstances in the man's conduct, the Admiralty had felt themselves unable to interfere in the matter. Then the question was raised as to the inequality of sentences. No doubt this was a difficult subject. There might be considerable disparity in the sentences assigned by courts martial; but it had been found impossible, even in the ordinary Civil Courts, to secure uniformity of sentence. Still the Admiralty endeavoured to equalize the punishments in the best way they could, according to the best judgment they could form of the circumstances of each case. All the cases were carefully investigated by members of the Board, whose duty it was to inquire into them, and they were treated in no slip-shod or careless manner; but if the Admiralty wore always to interfere largely in the sentences of courts martial, such a proceeding would be extremely prejudicial to the position of courts martial in the Service. It was intended to bring in a Bill to amend the Naval Discipline Act, and that would probably afford an opportunity for some further debate on this point.
    MR. HOPWOODpointed out that the hon. Member had not fully answered his question whether a person sentenced to penal servitude by a court martial could by good conduct secure the reduction of three months out of every year?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied, that when a man was sentenced to penal servitude he passed out of the hands of the Admiralty into the hands of the Home Office, and he believed that good conduct did procure a certain amount of remission of sentence. The Government could not assent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the condition of the Iron-clad Fleet, as proposed by the gallant Admiral (Sir John Hay), because that would be taking the matter out of the hands of the Government and of the Admiralty. In fact,
    358
    they would be thereby assenting to a Vote of Censure upon themselves. It was impossible for the Government to allow an inquiry to be instituted into the state of the Fleet on the supposition that its condition was unsatisfactory, and that they had consequently failed in their duty. He was astonished to find that he had got himself into trouble by producing the Return to which allusion had been made, and he was in the position of the man who vowed that he would never do a good-natured action again. Hitherto, an Annual Return had been presented giving a great deal of information which realty was of no use in the shape of financial Estimates of the cost of repairs before those Returns had been taken in hand. Those Estimates were merely guess-work, although they were honestly and truthfully given. That Return of the state of ships was originally moved for by his hon. Friend the Civil Lord, when he was an independent Member of the House; and it had been an Annual Return presented every year, but not laid on the Table till July or August, when it was of little use to hon. Members. Then there was a Return regarding boilers, moved for by the right hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir John Hay). He believed it was only issued twice—in 1879 and 1882. It appeared to him that there was a great deal in those Returns which was unnecessary and misleading, and that it would be desirable to prepare a unified Return, and to present it with the Estimates. But the reward he got for his exertions in this respect was that this Return was very warmly denounced. It was not an argumentative or a controversial Return at all, and there was nothing misleading in it. He objected to state what was the condition of the hulls of ships, because that could not be ascertained until the vessels were opened up for repairs. It had been said that excessive secrecy was preserved with regard to the boilers. That was not so. The Admiralty were not called upon to publish to the world the actual state of every ship in the British Navy; but they; were quite willing to give Members of the House any information they might desire. The Admiralty did not refuse to give the House of Commons information; but they refused to publish a Return which would make the whole world acquainted with the weak spots of our ships. The right hon. Gentleman oppo-

    359
    site said that every particular regarding our Navy could be ascertained in any capital in Europe. He supposed that the right hon. Gentleman meant that the information could be obtained by means of money. The Admiralty had no reason to believe that their officers could be thus bribed to betray their trust, and he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have suggested such a thing. The responsible engineer officer at the Admiralty stated that the general condition of the boilers of the Navy, excepting in the ease of a certain class of ships, was better than at any former period, and that now boilers were in store for the nest two years. Boilers were now made of steel, and he believed that even in the private trade they lasted for 12 or 14 years. The Reports on Boilers showed that the wear and tear during the first commission of a vessel was often practically nil. That showed that the boilers were strong, and also testified to great care on the part of the officers. The exceptions to which he had alluded when speaking of the generally satisfactory condition of the boilers of the Navy were ships of the class of the Warrior, Achilles, and Minotaur. These ships, whose boilers would last for more than a year and a-half, would not have new boilers until a determination should have been come to as to what should be done with them. As to the question of boiler pressure, experience showed that a reduction as great even as 25 per cent in that pressure would make very little reduction in the steaming capacity of the ships in the Navy. The general condition of the vessels, so far as their boilers were concerned, was very much, better than it had been; and he did not think it was necessary for the House of Commons to watch the Admiralty which the sedulous care which had been shown in many quarters in this respect. Speaking generally, he should now, as he had on former occasions, decline to join in comparing our ships with those of other countries, believing, as he did, that such a course would not, in the first place, lead to a settlement of the question at issue; and that, in the second place, it would certainly not tend to the maintenance of the good feeling which ought to be maintained between this and other countries. He had listened with much interest and a great deal of sympathy to the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth Mr. Bruce), for he agreed
    360
    in thinking it important to consider the position in which this country stood in reference to our Navy, and the only point upon which they differed probably was as to the actual margin of superiority at present possessed by this country. He could not admit to the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that in any way the Board of Admiralty were under the thumbs of their professional advisers. He should have thought it was in human nature that the exact reverse of this would be the case, and that professional advisers and constructors would be only too anxious to spend public money in new and extended projects of shipbuilding; while the Admiralty would have to keep them in check, because they had to consider, not only what was required in the public interest, but how far it was either necessary or advisable to increase the public burdens. While, as he had said, he should decline to compare our Navy, ship by ship, with the Navies of other countries, he might, in reference to a statement which had been made by an hon. Member, say that in the Report of the Budget Commission on the French Naval Estimates for this year it was stated that, in speaking of Foreign Powers, they must set aside the English Navy—
    "With which our Fleet cannot enter into comparison for the number of first class iron-clads, cruisers, and torpedo boats."
    With regard to the observations the hon. Member for Chatham had made as to; our ships in the Eastern Seas as compared with those of other Navies, many of the alleged facts must not be taken as accurate; while it must be observed that some of the foreign vessels named were of the newest type, while ours have, most of them, been for some years in commission; and if comparisons were advisable at ail, they should be comparisons between ships of a similar class and age, and not between vessels which were in many respects dissimilar. With reference to Nordenfeldt guns, he might say that a full complement of those guns had been sent out to all vessels on the Eastern Station. It was of no use for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to threaten the Admiralty with their responsibility; they were fully alive to it, and they had shown their sense of it ever since the present Government had been in Office. If the Navy was unable to discharge its duties, it was not their

    361
    fault, but that of their Predecessors, for no iron-clad ships could have been laid clown since the Government came into Office that would have been ready for service at this moment. As soon as they panic into Office, it was their policy steadily to increase the number of iron-clad ships. They had not proposed a sensational increase to startle foreign nations, and perhaps promote a rivalry, but had modestly and steadily, and at the same time very effectively, increased the amount of work in the Dockyards year by year.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he was anxious in a few sentences to call the attention of the House to a matter of great importance to the country. However excellent the Navy might be, it was quite certain that our ships would not be able to do the duty which the country expected of them, if they could not find coals and supplies when they required them. When he filled the Office of Secretary to the Colonies a circumstance occurred which directed his attention to the defenceless state of many of our coaling and naval stations abroad, and led to his recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of those stations. That Commission instituted a very exhaustive inquiry into the matters which were referred to it, and about two years ago presented a Report to the Government. That Report had, of course, not been published, and it was not advisable that it should be, because it contained matter of the gravest importance, which it was absolutely necessary to keep secret. He did not know the contents of the Report; but he was confident that recommendations must have been made by the Commission which would entail considerable work and expenditure in placing our Colonial seaports and stations in a proper state of defence. He had hoped that the Government would have laid before the House some proposal founded upon that Report, which he was confident would have had the unanimous support of the country. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War informed him some time ago that he expected to make a statement upon the subject in proposing the Army Estimates. That statement, however, was not made, and he was extremely disappointed that the noble Marquess had not made it on Monday last. This was not a
    362
    Party matter, but it was one which was of most vital importance to the future of the country. A small expenditure upon the Colonial seaports and stations now would be of the greatest value to the country in the event of a war breaking out. He hoped the Government would make a shipment showing that they recognized their responsibility in the matter, and that they had not neglected to take action.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was indebted to the right hon. Baronet for calling his attention to the subject. He omitted to mention the matter in his speech of Monday last, but would make a statement as to what it was proposed to do in regard to the Report of the Commission which was appointed during the period of Office of the right hon. Gentleman when the Fortification Votes on the Army Estimates came before the Committee. It was easy for a Royal Commission to recommend large fortifications; but the difficulty was to devise the means by which the works were to be carried out. He could assure the House that the subject had not been lost sight of by the present, Government, who fully acknowledged its importance. It had been occupying the attention of the Government for some time; but he had only learnt a short time before that the right hon. Gentleman intended to call the attention of the House to that question, and in consequence he was not prepared then to go into it; but he would lose no time in informing the House as to what were the views of the Government on the subject.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, in rising to move—
  "That 56,950 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services fur the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, including 12,400 Royal Marines,"
  said: Sir, I wish to commence the observations I have to make in moving these Estimates by stating to the Committee precisely how they compare with those which it was my duty to propose

  363
  last year. The net amount required to be voted for the Service of 1884–5 is £10,811,770, or a decrease of £87,730 below the total amount that has been voted for the current year. If, however, we exclude the Supplementary Estimate for Military Operations in Egypt, and contrast the normal Estimates for the two years, the sum at present exceeds that which was asked for last year by £59,470. But hon. Members will observe that we anticipate a falling-off in the amount of receipts which we are allowed to use in aid of the Votes to the extent of £41,817, so that the total sum available for the Service, whether derived from Votes of Parliament or Appropriations-in-Aid, will be £11,595,711, as compared with £11,578,058—a difference in favour of next year of £17,653. It is by this amount only that the resources placed at our disposal, if these Estimates receive the approval of Parliament, will be increased. In connection with a comparison of the Votes there are two small points to which I may, in passing, allude. I mentioned last year that we provided a reduced sum for Teams in the Dockyards, according to a plan by which the War Department would undertake the duty with military transport horses. This arrangement, which would have been advantageous, has not been found practicable; so that we have this year to resume the charge, amounting to over £8,000. The second matter is that Votes 1 and 2 have been disturbed by the transfer, under Treasury direction, to the Wages Vote of a sum of £37,500 for money allowances in lieu of gratuitous clothing, and in aid of boys' kits, hitherto charged under the Victuals and Clothing Vote. This is a mere matter of accounting which makes no difference in the expenditure under the two Votes. Sir, in moving this Vote for the number of Seaman and Marines, it will be my duty, in the first place, to invite the attention of the Committee to several questions affecting the personnel of the Navy. When I made a similar Motion last year, I availed myself of the opportunity to express the high sense entertained by my Colleagues at the Board of Admiralty of the manner in which the Navy had discharged the duties entrusted to it during their recent military operations in Egypt. And now it is again my privilege to propose this Vote to the Committee while we have under our eyes a still fresher
  364
  evidence of the sterling and versatile qualities possessed by the officers and men who make up this noble Service. This is not the time, of course, to review recent events; but I am sure the Committee will share the admiration we feel for the conduct of the Naval Force while engaged in operations which, though limited in extent, have been, in many particulars, exceptionally trying and difficult. At the same time, I may give expression to the deep regret with which we have heard of the loss of some of our gallant seamen and Marines, and of four officers—Lieutenants Royds, Almack, Montresor, and yet another who, it was hoped, would have lived to carry, in the third generation, into the highest ranks of the British Navy the honoured and familiar name of Houston Stewart. With regard to the general conduct and character of the seaman of the Navy, the reports received have been highly satisfactory. Commanders-in-Chief on Foreign Stations have expressed warm admiration of the physical qualities of crews sent out to recommissioned ships, and there is comparatively little complaint of drunkenness and misconduct, the only dark spot being a tendency, especially on the part of the younger men, to insubordinate conduct towards their superior officers. I may, perhaps, quote one or two of the most recent testimonies we have received. A report concerning some drafts who were stopped on their way home, and landed at Port Said, says that the men were of fine physique, and presented a smart and creditable appearance; that from the 16th to the 24th of February there was only one case of drunkenness or disorder; that the usual leave was given; and that the behaviour of the men on leave was very good. Again, General Earle reports of 500 blue-jackets recently lauded at Alexandria that their "conduct was irreproachable." And I may be allowed to read an extract from a letter from Lord John Hay, which is equally satisfactory. Writing to Lord Northbrook, he says—
  "The accident to Euphrates has made the business of transferring crews somewhat inconvenient. But for the presence of Thunderer and Orion we would have been obliged to put some-of the men into bilitary barracks. However, the only paid-off crew is Superb's, and they are so well behaved that they have only 50 men on the General Leave List; and I am able, therefore, to give leave to almost all of the ship's company, oven to-day (Christmas). I mention

  365
  this, because when yon hear so much doubt expressed about discipline in the Fleet, think what would have happened in former days if you had let a paid-off ship's company loose on Christmas Day."
  In a subsequent letter, referring to the same subject, he says—
  "The Superb's paid-off crew did not commit themselves any way, either afloat or ashore, so far as I have ascertained; this is creditable for Christmas Day."
  I believe that no words I could use would be so effective as these simple facts as to the conduct of men—we have no reason to suppose exceptional men—in trying circumstances; and they show how excellent is the stamp of those who now man our Foot. In order fully to maintain their number, the Committee will observe that we propose to increase by 150 the number of boys to be trained, while the reduction of seamen is in the non-combatant classes of domestics, &c., and is in large measure duo to the withdrawal of the London at Zanzibar. Now, Sir, there can be little doubt that it is the petty officers upon whom mainly depend the sound spirit and high tone of the men of our Fleet. The expression "backbone" does not somehow appear so appropriate when speaking of sailors as when speaking of soldiers, because there are people who think that a soldier should be all backbone, whereas a sailor should be all arms and legs. But if we may apply the word not to the individual, but to the Service, we may truly say that the petty officers and chief petty officers are the backbone of the Navy. It is not too much to say of them that they are the most all-round highly trained men in the lower ranks of Her Majesty's Service. They require to be steady in conduct, patient in temper, unswerving in obedience, cool-headed in command. At the same time, they must be of quick intelligence, in order that they may be able to master and to practice, not only the noble old-fashioned art of seamanship, but the less poetical and more intricate forms which are assumed by the manifold development of modern science when applied to purposes of war. Now, Sir, some time ago the Admiralty received Memorials, bringing forward most temperately and reasonably certain points in which the petty officers thought their position ought to be improved. These Memorials were carefully considered with a desire not only to recognize the just claims of this class, and to offer
  366
  every necessary inducement to men to qualify for higher ratings, but also to stimulate competition, and raise gradually to the highest point the standard of qualification. We have, accordingly, provided for an improved rate of pay to seamen petty officers and chief petty officers, based on the principle of giving ii reward to men of meritorious character, who have kept their rate for some years. The seamen petty officer of the second class will receive 2s. a-day, instead of 1s, 11 d., as at present. The first class will commence at their present rate of 2s. 2d.; but after four years' service as such will receive an increment of 3d. making 2s. 5d. The chief petty officer's initial rate will be raised from 2s. 7d. to 2s. 8d., and after three years he will receive an increment of 6d., making his ultimate rate of pay 3s. 2d., instead of 2s. 9d., as at present.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: May I ask if this increment will commence from the date of their appointment as chief petty officers?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: From the date of their appointment. These proposals affect continuous-service men of the seamen class, and do not apply to the artificer class, whoso remuneration, must be regulated by the market value of labour, the only exception being the case of the armourers. This is a class of growing importance, owing to the more complicated naval artillery now in use; and it is necessary to attract good men to the Service. With this view it is proposed to establish a new rating of armourer's mate, who would be a second class petty officer, intermediate between the armourer and armourer's crew, with pay of 2s. 8d. a-day. Further, the attention of the Board has been directed to the signalmen. They will, in common with others of the seamen class, profit by the proposals I have described; but there are two reasons why it appears desirable to give some additional advantage to them. In the first place, with the growing prominence in naval tactics of fleet evolulutions under steam, it becomes important to secure the service of superior men for signal duties; and, in the second place, the nature of their employment precludes them from sharing in the special allowances given to other seamen for gunnery and torpedo qualifications. We, therefore, intend to grant them some improvement in pay,

  367
  probably dependent on special qualification; but as the details have not yet been approved by the Treasury, I am am unable to describe our proposals definitely. The cost of the increases of pay which I have just enumerated will be somewhat in excess of £9,000 a-year. Before I pass from the petty officers and seamen, I must mention another subject which intimately concerns the comfort of the men and the efficiency of the Service—namely, that of the sick berth staff of the Navy and the nursing staff in the naval hospitals. The Board appointed a Committee to inquire into it; and this Committee, under the able presidence of Admiral Sir Anthony Hoskins, have submitted a Report which shall be laid upon the Table. They represent that the present arrangements for nursing the sick in the Navy afloat and in hospitals are unanimously pronounced to be unsatisfactory, especially in that the men who act as nurses are without any previous knowledge or training, and that: there is no practical guarantee of their competence. For the present male civilian nurses they recommend that a trained sick berth staff be substituted. This staff they propose should be recruited from boys, as far as possible taken from Greenwich Hospital School, and subjected to the usual training in seamanship in the training ships. From the training ships they would pass to Haslar Hospital for special instruction in their duties, and thence, if found fit, receive their rating as sick berth attendants and enter the regular nursing service. Promotion to higher ratings and: increases of pay will follow upon exanimation and good character. An important point is that each man will be called upon to do a fair share of home and foreign service in ships and hospitals, and that on return from foreign service the men will be employed in hospitals and harbour ships alternately, thus being usefully and economically occupied and acquiring improved training, instead of being exposed to the injurious influence of the comparatively idle life led by the spare sick berth staff at present. With regard to hospitals, the Committee recommend that a staff of the best class of lady nurses be employed in certain hospitals to superintend the nursing duties and to train the boys for this first appointment. This scheme, in its general outline, the Admiralty have decided to adopt, and money for its gra-
  368
  dual introduction is provided in these Estimates. I feel sure that the change of system will commend itself to all who are interested either in the efficiency and health of our seamen, or in the largo general question of the treatment of the sick. It has also been represented to us that the warrant officers of the Navy, a most deserving class of officers, laboured under disadvantages in certain respects. This case also has been carefully inquired into; and while we are unable to recognize the necessity of any change in their special instance, affecting pay, retirement, or widows' pensions, there are certain points in which we either have met or propose to meet the views expressed to us. They will be allotted a largely increased number of Greenwich Hospital pensions for officers on the Retired List; their orphans will be admitted to a right to compassionate allowances similar to that of other ranks in the Navy; and a definite relative rank with the Army has been assigned to them. I believe that these are advantages which will be fully valued by the warrant officers. I pass now to the higher commissioned ranks, as to which I would say that it is necessary to look carefully from time to time to the state of the lists of executive officers as to employment and promotion. The zeal, ability, and high accomplishments of those who now fill those ranks cannot be too highly praised; and by all accounts we never had better officers to command ships, or better junior officers coming on to succeed them, than at the present time. Now, Sir, in reviewing the position of the various ranks, our opinion is that the right policy is to meet such hardships as may arise without making any unnecessary changes. Since the last important revision of the Lists in 1870 some modifications have been made, especially in 1875; but the scheme then adopted is, on the whole, working well, and there is no desire to make any substantial alteration. With regard to the Admirals' List, it must, of course, exceed the number actually required to provide officers for employment, because the flow of promotion from below depends upon the number of retirements by age and casualties producing vacancies in it. The consequence is, that while there is sufficient choice, many good officers are inevitably left unemployed. As to the captains, there was, in 1882 and 1883, a certain stagnation in promotion to flag

  369
  rank; but this year and hereafter the vacancies will occur at a rate of five or six a-year, which is sufficient. Although young captains are left unemployed, perhaps, longer than is desirable, on the whole the state of the Captains' List is satisfactory. It certainly should not be increased, and it would not be wise to reduce it in numbers. The Commanders' List is in a better condition, both as to promotion and employment, than probably at any former time. Of the lieutenants, the same cannot be said. This is, perhaps, the most important rank in the Service, containing many excellent officers of long service, who are well worthy of promotion, and naturally expect it. But they cannot all, or nearly all, be promoted without unduly crowding the list of commanders; besides, it is essential, in the interest of the Service, that some of the younger officers of the rank should be promoted. The present Board of Admiralty have done much to improve the prospects of the older lieutenants. In 1881 the number of annual promotions to commanders was increased from 20 to 25, further than which it was not right to go. The number of superior Coastguard appointments has also been increased by six. But we recognize the fact that something more is required. After all, it comes to this, that, as in the corresponding rank of major in the Army, many good officers must retire. But we do not wish to increase the number of retirements, nor to raise the inducements, which are sufficient. Besides, the officers are doing excellent work; and in the event of a war occurring, every man on the Lieutenants' List would be required. We have, therefore, decided to make a substantial increase in the pay of lieutenants of 10 years' standing, which will, we trust, be taken as some recognition of the value attached to their services. The precise effect is this. The pay of a lieutenant of over 10 years' seniority, with seven years' service in that rank, of which three have been in a ship of war at sea, will be 12 s., exclusive of his ordinary extra allowances. As to half-pay, he will have a certain advantage in attaining the 8s. 6d. rate. This will make no alteration in the principles upon which promotions have hitherto been made, according to which long service has always been duly recognized as giving a fair claim, although not to the exclusion of the selection of younger men.
  370
  Before leaving these personal questions there is one other subject to which I must allude. It is a matter which Lord Northbrook and his Colleagues deem to be of the highest importance to the efficiency of the Naval Service—namely, the establishment at the Admiralty of a small but definitely organized Intelligence Department. I believe that successive Boards of Admiralty had felt the want of a systematic mode of collecting foreign intelligence, and the Committee which inquired into the Secretary's Department in 1879 recognized the great importance of the subject. Its importance has, in fact, greatly increased of recent years, and the difficulty of securing the most recent information has increased also. The changes which have been introduced in ships and guns, and in the power of ships to keep the sea, the consequent alteration, in the naval value of individual ports, the increased facility of communication and movement, all combine with many other circumstances to render it more than ever necessary for the Board of Admiralty to have every information ready at hand, and available for immediate Use in connection with naval operations in all parts of the world. The Intelligence Department of the Army—itself, by the way, only a creation of some 10 years ago—will no doubt be, as it has been, of immense use for naval purposes; but we have felt that we require, besides, to have the assistance of an officer acquainted with, and able to handle, subjects of a purely naval character. Lord Northbrook has, therefore, appointed an Intelligence Committee, consisting of the Senior Naval Lord, a naval officer appointed for three years for this special service, an officer of Royal Marines attached to the Committee, and a gentleman from the higher Division of the Admiralty Office. The necessary provision for this new Department has been made under the Admiralty Vote. Turning now to the great question of the building and maintenance of ships, I would recall to the Committee the extent of the proposals which I submitted for approval last year. I estimated that we should spend in wages under the Dockyard Vote £504,659 for now construction, and £443,484 for repairs, while under the Contract Vote for Ships and Machinery the expenditure would be £1,031,300, making a total sum of £1,979,443. With this amount we expected to complete 7,143

  371
  tons of unarmoured ships, including those which are known as protected ships, and 12,281 tons of iron-clads, or 19,424 tons in all. Now, I am glad to be able to inform the Committee that this result has been nearly attained, and in the case of iron-clad ships exceeded. What we now believe that we shall have accomplished by the end of this month is to have built in the financial year 19,059 tons in all, of which 12,548 will be armoured and 6,551 unarmoured. Although, however, this satisfactory result has been secured, its distribution is somewhat different from that which was intended, because less has been built by contract and more in the Dockyards, the Benbow, which, as the Committee is aware, is under construction in a private yard, having been delayed, owing to circumstances which I shall explain when I come to speak of individual ships. These figures prove that we have accomplished on unarmoured ships quite as much work as—indeed, rather more than—we anticipated. Hon. Members, however, who were present during the consideration of Vote 6 last year may remember that there was some discussion as to the value of this mode of computation by tons. By a ton, in this sense, is not meant a ton of displacement, but a unit determined by the proportion between the total ultimate cost of the ship, measured by the labour spent on her, and the weight of the ship in tons; and the weak point of this mode of computation obviously is, that as one of the elements in it—namely, the cost of the ship—is subject to variation and uncertainty, the unit which depends upon that element may also vary in value. The matter could not be more clearly explained than in a passage in the Report of the Into Accountant General of the Navy, published with the Navy Accounts in 1881, which passage I would ask leave to quote, although it is somewhat lengthy, as I think it most desirable that the Committee should fully understand the point. Sir Robert Hamilton says—
  "The ton as a standard of measurement of proposed constructive work is used to arrive at a certain estimate of the cost of an assumed quantity of work. When a ship is designed the number of tons weight is estimated, and the total labour required in her construction is also estimated. The money value of the labour, divided by the number of tons, gives the cost per ton in labour. This forms the measure of the progress of the ship, and, according to the
  372
  amount expended for labour on her, she is said to have had added to her so many tons. But, if the cost has been under or over-estimated, a correction has to be made so as to bring the calculated into harmony with the realized tonnage. In fact, what is called a ton is not, strictly speaking, a ton at all, but merely a convenient expression for money spent or to be spent. It is possible to state what amount of money is spent on labour on a ship, and after the vessel is actually completed to state the actual tons weight of hull constricted; but the figures which represent the tons about to be added to that ship, or which, during her construction, are calculated to have been added, are only approximate."
  The Committee will perceive that the effect of this mode of computing is, that if, as a ship advances towards completion, it becomes apparent, as, unfortunately, it frequently does, that her cost will exceed the estimate originally formed, it follows that what has been called a ton was not really a ton, and that when the ship is completed we shall have built a greater number of so-called tons than are comprised in the total weight of the vessel. Well, Sir, I frankly expressed last year my opinion of this system of calculation, and I confess that the further my experience and investigation of the subject extend, the more reason do I find to avoid ascribing a too scrupulous and definite degree of accuracy to this measure of shipbuilding progress. But I can assure the Committee that, although not mathematically and essentially accurate, it is, at least, perfectly honest. The statements in these estimates of tonnage built in the present year, or expected to be built in the coming year, are made up in the Department by the same persons and on identically the same basis as all the similar statements submitted in past years; and if we are to maintain empower of comparing year with year, it is imperative that the system, however imperfect it may be, should remain unaltered. Any correction that might be called for in the figures for one year would be due to fluctuations in the value of a ton, not only during that year itself, but in previous years, whoso figures also would be in turn subject to correction, and so we should have to go back indefinitely. On the whole, although I have thought it right to make these criticisms, my opinion is that the system which has been so long followed may be allowed to continue; and it is the belief of those who administer it, that although it may fall short of theoretical accuracy,

  373
  it furnishes a true and equitable representation of the work which from year to year is done in building ships for the Navy. As, therefore, the iron-clad tonnage now estimated to have been added to the Fleet in this year is 12,548 tons, as compared with 11,321 tons which we announced our intention of building, and with 11,321 tons built in the previous year, I think I may claim that the present Board of Admiralty has carried out in this year that process of steadily and gradually raising the armoured strength of the Navy which they have announced as their uniform policy since their accession to Office. With regard to individual ships, the printed programme indicates the progress which we anticipate, and as to many of them I have little of interest to say. In many cases their progress is subject to occasional interruption and hindrance on account of difficulties which arise from new requirements or alterations suggested by the experience or inventive skill of our professional advisers. That such delays are costly, that they are to be lamented, and that prudent administration will carefully guard against them, and when they cannot be resisted will yield to them only with extreme reluctance, I most fully admit; but there are many cases in which we cannot complain of them. It is a matter on which no strict rule can be followed, and of which a broad and practical view should be taken. If it is unwise and wasteful both of time and money to depart unnecessarily from original designs, it would, on the other hand, be the height of folly to shut the door against improvements, or to insist upon a hasty and premature settlement of disputed points in respect either to ships or to their armaments. I make these observations, not because I have any unusual delay to excuse at this time, when, on the contrary, I believe we are rapidly overcoming its main causes, but because we often hear the delay of a ship's completion spoken of as being in itself a crime. Of its evils we are fully sensible, and of the necessity of checking them; but it must not be forgotten that duo deliberation, at least, is justifiable in order to complete in the most perfect form each of those huge engines of warfare which our Dockyards produce for the service of the country. Hon. Members will observe that steady progress is being made with the Admiral class generally.
  374
  The Collingwood, will very soon be brought to Portsmouth; and without any delay a trial will be made both of her speed and also of the working of her barbette mountings. The knowledge thus gained will be of the greatest use as a guide in the completion of the other vessels of the class; and this is one of the advantages of having on hand two or more ships of similar type. In the case of the Colossus, for instance, the delays as to her conning tower and the mode of loading her guns have been serious, and we have therefore decided to advance her and to keep back the sister ship, the Edinburgh, in order that our experience in the one ship may obviate the danger of having to do and undo work in the other. The Colossus has her new heavy guns on board, and a tedious alteration in her 6-inch armament, arising out of the introduction of the Vavasseur system of mounting, is now settled. These two ships, I would add, give the most excellent promise as regards speed. Similarly, it is proposed to advance the Impérieuse before her sister, the Warspite, both of which vessels have been launched during the year, and it was intended that the former ship should be completed next year; but this may be somewhat affected by the loss at sea of one of her sets of boilers, which has occurred since the programme was prepared. I have already alluded to the fact that the Benbow has been retarded in the hands of the contractor, partly from reasons connected with her building and the manufacture of her armour, and partly in consequence of her novel armament. As I informed the Committee last year, she will carry two heavy steel guns of the Elswick pattern, weighing 110 tons, and discharging a projectile of 1,800 lbs. The details are now settled, so that there will be no further hindrance on this account. So much, Sir, for the vessels named in the programme last year, the progress in which I feel sure the Committee will consider most satisfactory. But, it is not only thus that we have been better than our promise; besides these, we have thought it right to lay down and make a certain progress with a now iron-clad ship at Chatham. She is named the Hero, and will be almost exactly a second Conqueror. The Conqueror, which is now completed, has so fully realized the expectations of her designers, that we considered we could not make a more

  375
  useful addition to the Navy than by repeating her. This is the only new armoured ship that I have definitely to announce to the Committee on this occasion, although it is our intention later in the coming year to lay clown a new ironclad at Portsmouth, whoso exact type is not yet finally settled. I am thus led to the consideration of our proposals for the future. Some of those I have already indicated. The Colossus will, we hope, be completed, and also the Impérieusé; the other armoured vessels will be advanced steadily. I come next to the class of protected ships, of which two are under construction at Chatham. Of these Merseys, as they may be called, after the first which was laid down, we propose to build three more—one at Devonport and two at Pembroke. The fact that we contemplate building five of such vessels is a proof of the value, which, on the opinion of our highest professional advisers, we attach to them; and I would point out that ships of this class have this conspicuous merit, that they are distinctly capable of being effectively employed on two alternative uses. They are admirably suited by their size, speed, and other qualities for service as cruisers, and for ordinary peace duties on foreign stations, while, on the other hand, if mounted with heavy armour-piercing guns, it may be, I think, safely claimed for them that they would be in the fullest sense effective battle ships, and would be most formidable aids to our larger iron-clads in a naval engagement. We therefore consider that we could make no proposal more worthy of the support of this Committee than the increase of the number of these most valuable vessels. If hon. Members will now turn to Appendix No. 20 in the Estimates, they will find a list of the now ships which it is proposed to build in private yards, concerning which I should like to say a very few words, and I would first call their attention to the torpedo cruiser to be named the Scout, the contract for which has been taken by a Clyde firm. She will be a vessel of 1,430 tons; 220 feet in length, and 31 feet in beam; with a coal capacity of 300 tons, which, in case of necessity, may be filled up to 450 tons, which would enable her to steam at 10 knots speed, 4,600 knots and 7,000 knots respectively; her estimated speed with forced draught will be 16 knots; and she will curry a light armament of guns
  376
  and machine guns, but will be chiefly formidable owing to her power in torpedo discharge. She is designed for the employment of the Whitehead torpedo, and, in fact, she represents the cheapest vessel that can be produced for this service with the speed I have named, and with sea-going qualities. The question of constructing such a vessel has been hindered in solution by difficulties regarding the under-water discharge of torpedoes at full speed; and for the settlement of this important question the Polyphemus has afforded us the means for the most valuable experiments and investigation, great, progress having been made in overcoming the difficulties of the problem. The Scout is entirely open and unprotected, and protection would, of course, greatly increase the weight and cost of the vessel. I need hardly dwell upon the two despatch vessels which are to be built on the Tyne.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: What will be their size?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNEEMAN: I can answer that question, I think; they will have a 1,400-ton displacement. They will be of the class of the Salamis, Lively, and Enchantress; but will be capable, if suitably armed, of being used for the same sort of purpose as the Scout. In the list of proposals also appears a torpedo depot ship, which is indicated as a new Hecla. The Hecla, as the Committee knows, was purchased out of the Vote of Credit in 1878, from a mercantile firm, for whom it had been built, and was converted and fitted as a torped and submarine mine depot and factory ship. If a ship is to be built to fulfil these duties the first condition will be that she should have a speed much higher than the Hecla's, which is only 12 knots. It is obvious that a vessel not only valuable in herself, but containing so valuable a cargo, and unable from the very condition of things to fight in her own defence, must owe her safety mainly to her speed. The new vessel, if built, would be of the merchant ship type, with her machinery and steering gear protected against light shell and machine guns. She would carry, besides a store of torpedoes, a number of first class torpedo boats—that is, boats of 18 to 20 knots speed, capable of going 1,000 knots with their own fuel—and she would be provided with hydraulic cranes by which to lower these boats at

  377
  sea when required. This is a description of a very interesting new departure in shipbuilding; but I wish candidly to: state to the Committee that, although we have inserted this item in the programme, we have not yet finally decided to proceed with it; the sum taken is only enough for a commencement, and we do not require to come to a decision until later in the year. There are high naval authorities who attach the greatest importance to such a vessel, who consider that she would, with her power of launching first-class torpedo boats, be a most invaluable auxiliary to a fleet of iron-clads. There are others who fear that, with her vulnerability and with the extreme value of her cargo, she would be a source of danger and anxiety more than equivalent to her usefulness; who doubt the feasibility of lowering boats of the length of first-class torpedo boats in any but exceptionally favourable states of the sea; and who hold that the money she would cost would be far better expended in multiplying torpedo ships of the Scout class which I have just described. I have thought it best frankly to indicate the various conflicting opinions which are under the consideration of the Board. I may mention, what I think my hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Brassey) stated earlier in the evening, that money is provided for adding, by contract, a superstructure to the Cyclops similar to that which has been placed upon the Hecaté; but we have thought it prudent not to proceed with it until the Hecaté has been tried at sea, probably with the Reserve Squadron in its summer cruise. The general result of our proposal for the coming year is this. We intend to build of iron-clad ships, 10,500 tons in the Dockyards, and 2,114 by contract; and of unarmourcd, 5,555 tons in the Dockyard, and 2,510 by contract; giving a total, armoured and unarmourcd, Dockyard and contract, of 20,679 tons. The wages to be spent in the Dockyards on the advancement of ships will be £541,202, and the amount of contract work—including materials and wages—£309,750. The wages to be spent in the Dockyards on repairs will be £419,840. This question of the repairs of Her Majesty's ships, and the best way of conducting and controlling them, is one to which my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has given much atten-
  378
  tion, and he has had in this the valuable assistance of Mr. Barnaby, the Chief Constructor of the Navy, who, by a re-arrangement of the work of his Department, has been brought of recent months into more direct connection than formerly with the work of the Dockyards. At the same time, we are anxious to satisfy ourselves how far the conditions under which we invite contracts from the private trade are such as to secure us the best results. On these two points Lord Northbrook has resolved to invite a small Committee of gentlemen experienced in the general shipbuilding trade of the country to advise the Admiralty, and we anticipate much assistance from them. I do not know that I need detain the Committee by any further remarks on shipbuilding topics; but I cannot leave the subject without saying something as to the questions we have had under our consideration affecting the officers and workmen in the Constructing Department. A year and a-half ago we had received a number of Memorials from classes and individuals in the Dockyards on the subject of their pay and the other conditions of their service, and I undertook that they should have an opportunity afforded of personally stating their case. Nothing could be more satisfactory to the Board than the way in which the views of the men were laid before us; but, to our great regret, circumstances have hindered us in coming to a decision on the cases submitted. The principal circumstance was this—that a Committee, ably presided over by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord, which was engaged in considering an improved organization of the whole Constructors' Department, submitted a Report which recommended, amongst other things, a radical change in the whole status and position of one of the most important classes in the Dockyards—namely, the leading men of shipwrights. When this Report had been duly considered and approved, so far as its own recommendations went, we had further to consider how the changes it proposed would affect other trades and ranks among the workmen; and this has been found so complicated a matter that, although no unnecessary delay has occurred, I am still unable to say that the questions raised have been fully decided. From our present position, I have no doubt that before the

  379
  Dockyard Vote is reached the matter so long pending will be concluded. Until the main classes were dealt with, it was obviously undesirable to deal with even minor and collateral cases. I think it right, however, to say that whatever changes my hon. Friend will be able then to announce, a general increase of pay will not be included in them. We were not able to see that there was any case for such an increase when the matter was first taken in hand, and the present condition of the labour market furnishes even less justification. I am sorry that we are thus compelled to intimate a further delay, but I trust it will be short and final. Sir, I fear that I have exhausted the patience of the Committee; but I have yet a few words to say on the subject of armament. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) made a statement on Monday night of the progress made by his Department in supplying guns for the Navy. The progress made during the past year is, however, not to be measured by the number of guns actually manufactured; while we are engaged in a large re-armament, the advance made towards settlement of patterns and types is the most important matter, and in this I am glad to say an immense stride has been made during this year. I may remind the Committee that four years ago little or nothing had been done in this country in preparing for an alteration of armament. Other countries had been quicker to recognize the necessity, which arose not so much from any advantage of breech-loading over muzzle-loading as from the employment of slow-burning powder, entailing for its due consumption a great length of gun. Breech-loading guns of the old type have no advantage whatever over muzzle-loaders, while the latter have the great merit of simplicity. But guns of the new type are two or three times as long as the old; in one case, the pattern we have adopted has a length of 36 calibres; and it is this which makes breech-loading indispensable. Well, Sir, the Government, shortly after we came into office, recognizing the greatness of the task, and anxious to avoid mistakes, appointed an Ordnance Committee to advise them. This step may have had the immediate effect of causing delay; but the result has abundantly justified
  380
  it, because the details of the problem are now being rapidly solved, and we have the confidence which arises from thorough consideration. With regard to the lighter armament, the Committee are aware that there has long been a controversy regarding machine guns, which were originally designed mainly as a weapon against torpedo boats, but have now come into more extended use. Some Navies have adopted machine shell guns, while in our Service a bullet-firing gun has been preferred. We are now able to supplement our machine gun armament by a quick-firing shell gun, which we believe will be a formidable and useful weapon. It will be a breech-loading gun, firing a 6 lb. shell, capable of firing 10 aimed shots a-minute with considerable range, and penetration sufficient to pierce an ordinary ship's side. Of those guns 200 have been ordered for the coming year. The actual position of affairs is this. There are two guns of this kind—tho Hodgkiss and the Nordenfelt—that are very nearly equal in merit, and the Ordinance Committee have had considerable difficulty in saying which is the better of the two. We have determined to take half of the one and half of the other—as we thought it desirable to have an alternative gun, and to be sure of obtaining a supply—on the condition that the ammunition should be interchangeable. I have now referred to all the points to which I wished to allude, and, thanking the Committee for their patient attention, I beg to move the Vote.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That 56,950 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, including 12,400 Royal Marines."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. F. EGEETONsaid, that at that late period of the night it would be impossible in any detail to criticize the very clear statement of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, or to go into the many very important subjects which had been placed before the Committee. There were one or two points, however, upon which he would venture to make a few remarks to the Committee. In the first place, he wished to say a word with regard to the remarks with which the hon. Member commenced—namely, his

  381
  graceful allusion to the naval services which had been rendered by our seamen and their officers in Egypt. For his own part—and he was sure on the part also of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side, as well as of hon. Members opposite—he might say that he looked with the greatest admiration on the manner in which these services had been rendered, and that it was with the deepest regret that he had learnt of the loss of three gallant officers. [An hon. MEMBER: No; four.] Yes; that four gallant officers had fallen, albeit, so gloriously, in the performance of their duty. The next point the hon. Gentleman touched on was the question of the good conduct generally of the blue-jackets and Marines during the past year. He (Mr. A. F. Egerton) was sorry that the hon. Member, when he referred to that good conduct this evening, had not remembered to touch upon the subject to which attention had been drawn by the hon. Member for the City of York (Sir Frederick Milner). Probably the hon. Member had forgotten, while he was making his speech, that those remarks had been made by the hon. Member for York.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANXERMAN: I alluded to the prevalence of insubordination.
  MR. A. F. EGERTON: The hon. Member did not allude particularly to what fell from the hon. Member for York.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I answered the hon. Baronet earlier in the Sitting. I made a long speech before introducing the Estimates.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that, such being the case, he would pass from the subject, merely observing that what had happened showed the justice of the statement it had been his (Mr. A. F. Egerton's) duty to make some four or five years ago—and a very unpleasant duty it was—in defence of the punishment of the lash. He was sorry to say that he had been compelled to defend the infliction of that punishment on several occasions. He was afraid, how-over, that no punishment had yet been invented to satisfactorily take its place, and that the punishments which had been substituted, whether or not they had led to excessive hardships, had, at any rate, failed to produce the effects which had been expected of them. The
  382
  next subject that the hon. Gentleman had touched upon was the various increases in the rates of pay in certain branches of the Service; and no doubt the Committee on the whole would consider the hon. Gentleman's statement a very satisfactory one. They must take that statement, of course, on the authority of the Board of Admiralty, who must have carefully investigated all the details of the subject. It was absolutely necessary that we should have a good article; and it must be satisfactory to the Committee, who had to pay for it, to know that we were getting that good article. But there was one point with regard to warrant officers upon which he would like a little further explanation. In the time of the late Government there was a question frequently brought forward which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had recognized as the harbour-ships question. Were the new rates of pay to apply to all the warrant officers, or only to those in seagoing ships, and not to those in harbour ships? He believed in the time of the late Government there was a different rate of pay to warrant officers on harbour services to those in sea-going ships. As to the increase of the lieutenants' pay, the state of the Lieutenants' List had been the crux of every succeeding Board of Admiralty for the last 20 or 30 years. He was happy to say that something had been done to alleviate the hard case of the lieutenants, although, of course, he knew it was impossible that all officers of that class in the Service could expect to reach a higher grade. With regard to the Intelligence Department, he thought his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) might well congratulate himself on the adoption of the new system by the present Board, because, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was in Office, he had that subject seriously under his consideration, and he had begun to take stops to create such a Department. He was happy to find that those steps had been followed out, and that the new system would be brought into action by the present Board. At this time of night it was impossible to enter at any length into the shipbuilding programme of the Admiralty. That must be deferred to a future occasion; but there was one point in connection with these Estimates; which was rather remarkable, and re-

  383
  quired explanation. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would look at pages 191 and 204 of the Estimates, he would find that the latter page showed upwards of £2,000 less than page 201. He could not understand how that discrepancy had arisen, and he thought the two Estimates ought to be prepared from the same basis; but this discrepancy was prima facié inexplicable, although, no doubt, the hon. Member might be able to explain it. While on the subject of ship-building, he wished to make some remarks on the difference between the time taken to build an iron-clad in a Royal Dockyard and the time required in a private yard. That was a matter which seemed to him to be of some importance. It had always struck him, as a humble subordinate member of the Board of Admiralty, that the Dockyards took an inordinate time to build an iron-clad. He would not speak of the Inflexible, for that was an exceptional case. It took seven or eight years to construct, but it was attacked in a serious manner in the House of Commons, and great delay took place in consequence; but, generally speaking, a ship took, at least, one-third more time to build in a Royal Dockyard than it did in a private yard. He ventured to think, though with the greatest possible respect for the able Professional Department of the Admiralty, that this must be owing, to some extent, to a want of decision in the initiatory stage of the building of an iron-clad. He assumed that, when a private shipbuilder received an order for an iron-clad, he had all his plans cut and dried, and at once proceeded to build the ship as ordered, and his plans were not much interfered with—at any rate, if he was building for a Foreign Power and not for the British Government. But as to the building of an iron-clad in a Royal Dockyard, the hon. Member knew as well as he did what went on. The iron-clad was commenced, and when she had been in progress for about a year-and-a-half certain modifications were introduced by order of the Board and by the advice of the professional advisers, very wisely, no doubt, and the result was that she would be a better ship when she came out of the deck than what she was first intended to be; but still he ventured to think that speed was or ought to be an element of con-
  384
  siderafion in regard to the building of ships. But, perhaps, it might, sometimes be wise not to strive after absolute perfection, as we seemed to do, and that it would be better if ships were turned out in a shorter period than they now were. I That was all he had to say at present as to the programme for shipbuilding; but he might have more to say upon it when the Committee came to consider Votes 6 and 10 in detail. There was one other I point which was not touched upon by the hon. Gentleman, but with regard to which he should like some explanation. That was the question of the naval cadets. There seemed to have been, at the last examination on board the Britannia, a large failure to pass on the part of the cadets; and, in fact, it was alleged that the naval cadets at present were inferior in ability to those of the last two or three years. He should like to know whether there was any truth in that allegation, and if there was any reason to be assigned for this circumstance—whether the curriculum was placed higher than it ought to be, or whether the class of naval cadets recently admitted was of an inferior stamp? These were points upon which he wished to address the Committee at this stage of the discussion. He thought, on the whole, that the Committee would be satisfied that the Admiralty were making the best use of their resources. Individually, he should be very glad to see another £500,000 added to the Estimates for shipbuilding, and he did not think the country would object to that additional expenditure; but he thought the programme, as far as it went, would be considered satisfactory by the Committee.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, with reference to the case of the warrant officers, a concession was made to them in 1881, which was before he came into Office, and what he proposed now was to give them the other advantages of which he had spoken. He did not think there was actually any discrepancy between the figures on page 191 and 204.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the real fact was that, if the tons built in 1883 were compared with the tons built in 1884, it might be shown that instead of 11,400 tons, only 9,325 tons had been built. If the figures were compared with a Return issued last year, showing the Estimate

  385
  for 1833, it would be found that the advance made was only 9,325 tons, instead of 11,400 tons given in the present Estimates. But it was impossible to go into these matters now, and he thought it would be better to give the Vote now, and arrange for a discussion at a proper time.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. Egerton) as to the delays in building ships; but he thought the hon. Member was wrong in supposing that the Constructive Department or the Professional Advisers were to blame. In the building of a ship the Naval officers had to be satisfied that it contained all the latest improvements; and it was very likely the Constructive Department would prefer that those officers should be kept away from the ship. With regard to the cadets, he had laid on the Table the oilier day a Report of the Examiners on the last occasion; and that showed that, although there were one or two points upon which the cadets did not reach the level of ordinary school boys, yet, on the whole, the examinations were satisfactory, and in some respects the Examiners spoke very highly of the performances of the cadets. There was no reason for the implication that the cadets were falling off.
  LORD HENEY LENNOXsaid, he only wished to make a few observations at this hour of the night: but he wished to remark that it was unusual for the Representative of the Admiralty to answer questions of hon. Members, when he knew that there were other Members wishing to speak. He considered—and when the time came he hoped to prove—that these Estimates were most inefficient, and most misleading to the public, as to the strength of our Navy, and as to what was being added to it. So far as he could make out, the Admiralty were going to complete two iron-clads in the year—one of the first class, and one armoured cruiser. The Estimates had only been in the hands of Members six days, and in that time it was difficult to master a document of that kind. Then, as far as he could see, the Government did not intend to lay down more than one first-class iron-clad at Portsmouth, and there was only to be an advance of 375 tons, which was scarcely enough for the preliminary business of laying her
  386
  down. Altogether, he considered these Estimates so inefficient, that he should have liked, if he possibly could, to have an opportunity of addressing the Committee upon them at an earlier hour. It was no fault of the hon. Gentleman that he had not had that opportunity, for the hon. Gentleman had applied himself till 11 o'clock to making statements—a most inconvenient plan—and all he could say was that he hoped the hon. Gentleman would undertake, in some such way as he did last year, that an opportunity for discussion should be given. If that were done, then these Estimates would come up again at a no very distant period, and so the House would be able to discuss the policy of the Government. He believed his hon. Friend near him agreed with him on this point.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid, with regard to the complaint with, which the noble Lord began his remarks, that it was often the most convenient course for the Representative of the Ministry to rise and reply to particular points as they were raised, instead of waiting to answer several questions together. The noble Lord had found fault with the Admiralty for only laying down one iron-clad this year; but the noble Lord had altogether omitted the ship that was begun last year, and which they had not promised. Instead of hiving it down at the beginning of the new year, they had laid it down at the end of last year; so that there were really two iron-clads in progress which were not in progress last year. With regard to the resumption of the debate, it was not for him to make any engagement as to Vote 2, for that could only be done by the general agreement of the Committee; but, although he was very sensible of the inconvenience of the proceeding, still it was made compulsory upon the Government, and if the Committee would agree to the Vote, the debate could be resumed at a later day.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the question was, when the discussion would take place. If the Vote was given to-night, then there ought to be an early discussion, as there was last year. It would probably be in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an engagement to that effect. The subject of the Navy was of far too much importance to be hurried.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERsaid, there was last year some misunderstand-

  387
  ing as to the course of procedure; and he wished to know under what Vote attention could be called to the position of the naval engineers and engine-room artificers?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It can he done upon Vote 1, when it comes on.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give some assurance as to the date or the period within which the discussion would be resumed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): It is impossible to name a date; but I am in a position to say that on an early day, before Whitsuntide, we will take care that the debate shall be resumed. After what has fallen from the Chairman as to Vote 1, I hope the Committee will agree to give the Votes for the men and for boys upon this understanding.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the Committee would now assent to the Vote, upon the understanding which had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was, no doubt, exceedingly inconvenient that the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty should have been made to-night, and that no discussion whatever should be taken upon it for, perhaps, a couple of months; but still the necessities of the Public Service seemed to require that the Committee should forego for the present the most useful and important discussion that would have, at some time or other, to be raised. Under these circumstances, and on the understanding suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought the Committee ought to give way.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his extremely fair statement—a statement that was both fair and reasonable.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £2,671,800, Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,531,050, 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 1885. 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

  Public Buildings

  30,000

  Public Offices Site

  5,000

  Furniture of Public Offices

  2,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  50,000

  County Court Buildings

  6,000

  Metropolitan Police Courts

  1,500

  Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

  3,000

  New Courts of Justice., &c.

  5,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  50,000

  Science and Art Department Buildings

  4,000

  British Museum Buildings

  2,000

  Natural History Museum

  1,000

  Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

  1,500

  Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

  75,000

  Metropolitan Fire Brigade

  2,500

  Disturnpiked and Main Roads (England and Wales)

  20,00

  Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland)

  5,000

  Ireland:—

  Public Buildings

  30,000

  Royal University Buildings

  500

  Science and Art Buildings, Dublin

  500

  Abroad:—

  Lighthouses Abroad

  2,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  8,000

  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

  250

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  25,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  500

  Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

  6,000

  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

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.

  England:—

  £

  Public Education

  550,000

  Science and Art Department

  60,000

  British Museum

  25,000

  Ashburnham Manuscripts

  National Gallery

  2,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  600

  Learned Societies, &c.

  3,500

  London University

  2,000

  University Colleges, Wales

  2,000

  Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report)

  1,000

  Transit of Venus, 1882

  100

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  110,000

  Universities, &c.

  3,500

  National Gallery

  400

  Historical Portrait Gallery

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  130,000

  Teachers' Pension Office

  500

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  200

  National Gallery

  300

  Queen's Colleges

  2,000

  Royal Irish Academy

  600

  CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.

  £

  Diplomatic Services

  60,000

  Consular Services

  60,000

  Suppression of the Slave Trade

  3,000

  Tonnage Bounties, &c

  2,000

  Suez Canal (British Directors)

  400

  Colonies, Grants in Aid

  5,000

  South Africa and St. Helena

  1,000

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

  9,000

  Cyprus, Grant in Aid

  Fortune Bay Fishery Claims

  CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.

  £

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  120,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c

  1,000

  Pauper Lunatics, England

  Pauper Lunatics, Scotland

  Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

  50,000

  Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland

  4,000

  Friendly Societies Deficiency

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  500

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland

  600

  Commutation of Annuities

  Cochrane's Deposits

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.

  £

  Temporary Commissions

  5,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  2,500

  Total for Civil Services

  £2,841,050

  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

  £3,531,050

  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that after the engagement which had just been made in the case of the Navy Estimates, and the similar engagement made a few days ago in the case of the Army Estimates, there ought to be some engagement entered into by the Government now that the Civil Service Estimates should be brought on within the same period of time—namely, before Whitsuntide. It was very inconvenient that these Votes on Account for all the great Services of the State should be brought on at the very latest possible moment which would fulfil the requirements of the law. He really did not know whether the Public Service had not now arrived at such a point that some shortening of the process by which the Ways and Means Bill passed through Parliament might not be advantageously made. Everybody must see that though the practice of the House was founded upon the most careful anxiety to secure the proper discharge of its financial duty to the country, yet the time required to carry out all the Forms of the House was so considerable that the House was placed in a most ridiculous position sometimes, and had to vote millions of money in this way without any opportunity for inquiry or consideration. If the Government desired to take a Vote on Account for two months, which he thought was rather a long period—though, no doubt, if a Vote for that period was not granted a second would have to be asked for—he thought that some pledge should be given that Committee of Supply should be resumed on the Civil Service Estimates on some comparatively early day. He would remind his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was no opportunity for bringing forward questions of a general character which was at all analogous to the opportunity afforded by Supply.
  MR. HEALYwished to remind the Committee that the time was now nearly half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. He thought the Government had had enough of All-night Sittings for one week, without asking them on Thursday to renew such distressing experiences. He and his Friends had a series of discussions and complaints to bring forward on various Irish Votes; and, of course, such matters might lead to a very long discussion. He would, therefore, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was at all a reasonable thing to begin, at half-past 1 in the morning, to take a Vote of this kind, which involved an expenditure of £3,000,000, and travelled over all the various classes of the Estimates? If a Tory Government were in Office and were to propose to do such a thing there would be the most indignant protests from the Liberals. If the Government wanted the money some arrangement should be made whereby a pledge should be given to the Irish Members that they would have some reasonable opportunity of discussing Irish matters—such, for instance, as the question which was raised this afternoon in regard to the Queen's College at Cork. The Irish Members also wished to have an opportunity of debating the instructions issued by the National Board in Ireland; and they wanted, further, to discuss the operations under the Land Act, and the suppression of public meetings by the police. All these matters were pertinent to the Vote now asked for. Of course, they were quite prepared for some statement on behalf of the Government that they really required the money; but the Committee should not be asked to vote it without an opportunity for discussing these things. It was absurd and preposterous to expect them to discuss them with any satisfaction at this hour of the morning; and he hoped to hear from the Government some statement as to the way in which they proposed to afford facilities for bringing on these subjects.
  MR. ARTHUK ARNOLDsaid, he rose to move that the Vote he reduced by the sum of £500, that being the amount charged for certain Irish electoral statistics which had been ordered by the House of Lords. On the 7th of February the Earl of Limerick moved in the House of Lords for certain statistics showing the number of lands, tene-

  393
  ments, and hereditaments in Ireland in each county or borough, and the number of inhabited houses in each county, city, or borough in Ireland, and showing also the different classes of rating. The main object of the Return—indeed, the only point about it—lay in the desire that it should show the different classes of rating of the various properties. The granting of that Return was opposed by Lord Carlingford on the part of the Government, and the reason which that noble Lord gave for opposing it was that the officers who would be charged with the preparation of the work in Ireland were engaged in other important duties, and could not undertake the work satisfactorily. Lord Carlingford stated that the Return could not be compiled for two months, and that the carrying of the Motion would be highly inconvenient. Lord Limerick, nevertheless, persisted in taking a Division, and succeeded in defeating Her Majesty's Government in five votes. Under these circumstances, a Vote for the cost of preparing these Returns had been presented by the Government in the Estimates laid before the Committee. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would only state very briefty the objections which, as it appeared to him, this House ought to entertain against granting such a Vote. They had to bear in mind that in this House there were 103 Members from Ireland; and although this question of the extension of the franchise in Ireland had been a very prominent subject for the last year or two, no Motion whatever had been made for electoral statistics of this sort in this House by any Member representing an Irish constituency. Last year there was on the Paper an elaborate Motion for a Return of electoral statistics; but not a single Irish Member proposed an Amendment on that Motion, with the view of getting what the Earl of Limerick asked for in the House of Lords. He thought the Irish Members, in their own self-defence, ought to protest against proceedings which so palpably condemned their own conduct; for was it to be supposed, if these Returns were really required, that every one of 103 Irish Members would, have failed to make a Motion on the subject? But the main reason why he would impress on the Committee that the item for covering the cost of these Returns should not be granted was that
  394
  the Return asked for was positively and entirely useless. It was useless for the reason that since Lord Beaconsfield most wisely and justly resolved to have the Act of 1867 upon a rating qualification, without any regard whatever to the amount of the rating or the assessment, there had not been a single Motion made in this House for a Return of electoral statistics based upon this sub-division into rating qualifications. Why was that so? Because such a Return would have been entirely useless. The Act of 1876 established the principle that a rated dwelling of any rateable value would confer the franchise; and, therefore, from that time forth, such Returns as Lord Limerick had obtained were of no value whatever. No doubt, before 1876, it was not unfrequent to have Returns moved for in this House which would show the different rating values; but since that time there had been no such Returns moved for, and none presented, a fact which showed that there was no desire on the part of any single Member of this House—English, Scotch, or Irish—to obtain any Return of the kind. He would not say a word as to the question of privilege involved in what appeared to be the initiation by the House of Lords of a Money Vote; and he would not dwell on the reproach conveyed by this Return upon the Irish Members of this House, who seemed to be treated as though they had neglected their duty to their constituents. But he based his opposition to this item in the Vote mainly and entirely upon the absolute uselessness and worthlessuess of the Return which had been ordered by the other House. He asked every Member to do his duty to his constituents by not consenting to waste the public money. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,530,550, 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 1885."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
  MR. PLUNKETdesired to say a word or two on the most extraordinary Motion which had just been made. When he first heard of the proposal, he could not think it was quite serious, nor, indeed, until he saw the hon. Gentleman rise to support it. He would notice some of the

  395
  arguments which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward. In the first place, the hon. Member said it would be a reproach to the Irish Members to pass this item in the Vote, because they had taken no earlier action in the matter.
  MR. ARTHUR AENOLD: I said they had taken no action.
  MR. PLUNKETrepeated, that they were charged with taking no earlier action. He would like to say, upon that point, that the Irish Members had no idea whatever, until they saw it introduced in the Government Bill, that the Ministry intended to propose the extension of the household franchise to all the counties and boroughs in Ireland; and, under these circumstances, it would have been absurd to base a demand for a Parliamentary Return upon an abstract question of franchise. What was the hon. Gentleman's other objection? It was that there was no necessity for this Return at all. The hon. Gentleman had stated that there never had been a suggestion made that such a Return should be moved for since the Reform Bill of 1867 or 1868. But the hon. Gentleman had forgotten that several Returns on the subject had been provided to the two Houses of Parliament; and, therefore, that argument, oven if it were true, came to nothing; though, as a matter of fact, it was wholly inaccurate, for Returns had been moved for by Mr. Pim, the late Member for Dublin, as well as by other Members. Now, the present Return had been ordered by the House of Lords; and it was intended to procure some information which many hon. Members of this House considered would be of the utmost importance in the debates which were about to take place on Reform. He refused to say, by anticipation, whether the policy of the Government was right or wrong in regard to the adoption of this sweeping measure of household franchise; but it was clear that they could not debate it unless they knew what the real character of the Reform was likely to be, and what practical result it would produce in Ireland. It was a great sign of weakness, in the case of the hon. Member, that he should try, by a Motion of this kind, in an empty House, at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, to deprive hon. Members of the opportunity which might be afforded them by the granting of this Return. he did not like to use the
  396
  word "unfair;" but it was clearly most unusual to do such a thing of so serious a character.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Why did you not move for the Return yourself, here?
  MR. PLUNKET: Because there was no necessity. It was moved for and obtained almost on the first day of the Session in the other House. How was the Motion met when it was made by the Earl of Limerick? The Government resisted it; but the only ground on which they opposed it was that, at the time it was moved for, it would entail some further work on certain officials in Ireland, who at that moment would be unable to perform it. But that was nearly two months ago. No doubt, the desire was to procure the Return in less than two months. It would have been very valuable if it could have been laid before Parliament before the second reading of the Franchise Bill was brought on; but it was absolutely essential that they should have it for the purpose of further debate on the measure in Committee. Unless they had it, they would be acting in the dark—not knowing where they were going. The only difficulty which caused objection to the granting of the Return in the House of Lords had now disappeared. It was stated, at the time the Motion was made, that the officials concerned were busily engaged, and that the preparation of the Return would interfere with their other business; and it was said—"You cannot have it for two months." But that ground of objection had now passed away, and the heavy engagement of the officials no longer existed. It would, therefore, be possible, according to the very terms of the statement which Lord Carlingford then made, to have the Return completed now; and it was a monstrous thing that, after Parliament bad ordered a Return of this kind, a Motion of this sort should be brought forward, and based on the most flimsy arguments ever heard, for no other purpose than to deprive the House of Commons of information which was absolutely vital to the fair discussion of this important question. He trusted that the Government would not support the Motion which had just been made.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, no one in the House would accuse him of support-

  397
  ing this Vote because the Return would be such as to induce this or the other House to view with, disfavour the Bill extending the franchise to the counties. The Government were undoubtedly, as the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) said they ought to be, content with the statistics they had already got; but it by no means followed that they should look too narrowly at the request of the other House for fresh statistics. It was not quite the case, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur Arnold) said, that statistics of this sort had not been in question since Lord Beaconsfield extended household suffrage to boroughs. The Return which the House of Lords asked for was, in fact, the continuance of a Return that was granted to Mr. Pim, the late Member for Dublin. That Return was examined, and examined with some interest, by the Members of the present Government with reference to the Franchise Bill which was now before the House. Mr. Ball Green was requested by them to make an approximate Return of the ratings in the Irish counties—they did not require more than an approximate Return, because they believed in the principle of household suffrage which was laid down by Lord Beaconsfield. The Return which Mr. Ball Green made dealt with a good many of the most representative counties in Ireland, and it was of a nature to fully justify them; but the House of Lords preferred to have a more comprehensive set of statistics, from which, however, they could not gather results that the Government could not gather from their exceptionally correct Return; but, out of courtesy to the Upper House, hon. Gentlemen ought not to refuse this money. It was for the Upper House to say what information they wanted in order to decide upon a Bill which would, he hoped, at no long period be presented to them. Those of them who were in Parliament in 1860 could not but remember very vividly the enormous number of Returns that were asked for, even in the House of Commons, before a very moderate extension of the franchise was granted. The House of Commons had been content with the Return which was moved by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), one of the most comprehensive and, at the same time, concise Returns relating to the sub-
  398
  ject that was ever laid before the House of Commons; but, at the same time, if the Upper House, in its wisdom, desired to have statistics in a more complete and comprehensive form than the Government had obtained, the House of Commons would do ill to refuse to vote the necessary money. It would be a decided act of discourtesy by this House towards the other House that a Return which this House asked for and obtained not very many years back should be refused to the Upper House now. The reasons they would give for refusing the money would be quite inadequate; and he, as one of the very oldest friends of the franchise question in the House of Commons, should be sorry to see the Bill extending the franchise to counties go to the Upper House, coupled with a distinct refusal to grant to the Upper House the convenience of a Return which the House of Commons asked for since household suffrage came into operation.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it was a fortunate thing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) had spoken at an hour of the morning when the Press could not report his words; because what would Lord Carlingford think to-morrow if he were to read the right hon. Gentleman's speech? When did the Government get this additional light on the question? When did their minds become open to the necessity of the Return? Lord Carlingford's speech, in "another place," was as strong in opposition to the Return as the Chief Secretary's speech was in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman said they ought not to refuse the Return, because it would be discourteous to the Upper House to do so. Was there ever such an argument? They were not to refuse any Amendments made to the Franchise Bill, because it would be discourteous to the Upper House. Was that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? No; of course not; that would not exactly suit the convenience of the Government. If a proposition were carried in the House of Lords, in spite of Lord Granville and the Members of the Government in that House, it would be found, when the proposal came down to the House of Commons, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was willing to support it by speech and vote. That

  399
  thoroughly illustrated the character of thie Gentleman they had to come in contact with in dealing with Irish affairs. The right hon. Gentleman absolutely ran counter to Lord Carlingford on this question; he tore up every argument that noble Lord made, and threw to the wind the whole case on, which the Government rested. He could not but blush for the right hon. Gentleman in his position. He (Mr. Healy) cared little whether the Return was presented or not. If the statistics were to be prepared for Ireland, let similar ones be prepared for England. [An hon. MEMBER: we do not want them.] Exactly so. Neither did the Irish; but they were forced clown their throats. Why should they not be forced down the throats of the English? Because the House of Lords believed there was a majority in Ireland unfavourable to the extension of the franchise to the Irish counties. What compensation was to be obtained for the presentation of this Return? He was at a loss to know by what means they could be able to give their Lordships a rebuff for the absurd Return they had asked for, except by voting for the Motion. He was only sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was so inconsistent as not to defeat in the House of Commons what his own Cabinet Ministers and his official superiors had endeavoured to defeat in the House of Lords.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was a large number of Irish Members, some of whom were Conservatives, in the House of Commons. If this Return was necessary, why did not an Irish Member in this House propose it? If, when a Liberal Government was in power, the Conservatives were to go to the House of Lords, and, in defiance of the Liberals in that House, obtain a Vote, and if the Members of the House of Commons were then to be told by the Liberal Government that the Vote was not to be refused, because it would be discourteous to the Upper House, what, in the name of Heaven, was the use of having a Liberal Government? The Government were perpetually knocking under to the Conservatives in this House; and now they were prepared to knock under to the Conservatives in the House of Lords. Lord Carlingford strongly opposed the Return, and said it would be months before it could be obtained.
  400
  Everyone could understand why the Return was asked for in the House of Lords. It was for the purpose of delaying the Franchise Bill, because if, when the Bill went to the Upper House, the Return had not been presented, their Lordships would say—"But we have not got this Return; we must wait;" and they would make it an excuse for not, passing the Bill, or for throwing out that portion of it which related to Ireland. He hoped the Government would show a little backbone, and would oppose the Return. [Cries of "Divide!] It was all very well to cry "Divide!" but it was not right hon. Members should have to go down on their knees whenever the question of voting away the money of the taxpayer came up. There were a few Gentlemen calling themselves Radicals, and hailing from some Scotch borough or county, who were always ready to go down on their knees to the House of Lords and vote money away whenever they were asked. He had always protested against the practice, and he should continue to do so.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he joined with his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on the versatility of his abilities. The arguments which were brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the Return were of a most flimsy and trivial character. Why had not the Government put their foot down, and declared that, if it rested with them, every occupier of a house in Ireland as well as in England should have a vote? He was surprised at the Conservative Party taking up this position. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) carefully studied the writings and speeches of Lord Beaconsfield, he would have known that that statesman gave up the idea that the voting was to be regulated by differential rating. The House of Lords insisted upon this Return for the purpose, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), of delay. What good could the Return do? It could not be ready for months, so Lord Carlingford said. [An hon. MEMBER: Two months.] Well, two months were months. He presumed that the Government had not been audacious enough to order the Re-

  401
  turn to be prepared without, first of all, having obtained sanction of the House of Commons. If the Return could not be obtained for two months, three or four months ago, it could not be obtained in less than two months now, even if money were voted to-night. The second reading of the Franchise Bill was put down for Monday next. He did not imagine it would be passed that night, because he had the greatest confidence in the unexhaustible power of speaking against time which hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches possessed. If the second reading of the Franchise Bill were passed in the House of Commons, even within a week or two, what would they want with this Return? The principle would have been affirmed, and this Assembly would have declared its opinion long before the Return could be presented. The House of Commons ought not to be put in the position of waiting the pleasure of the House of Lords until they got a Return which could be of no real value to them.
  MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) might have been a little more communicative by explaining to the House why the House of Lords wanted this Return. There was, perhaps, something in what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) said—namely, that it would be, in some degree, discourteous to the House of Lords to refuse to grant the money for the preparation of the Return. He (Mr. Illing-worth) thought that, upon the whole, they had better allow the Vote to pass. If there was any information contained in the Return which their Lordships could avail themselves of, let them do it. He thought the Return would prove very strong evidence in favour of extending household suffrage to Ireland, because the more humiliating the Return was as to the miserable ratings which prevailed in Ireland the more conclusive was the case that they required a revolution of affairs in that country. Perhaps it would not be desirable to furnish the House of Lords with any frivolous excuse for obstructing or defeating the Reform Bill; and, therefore, if their Lordships could get any comfort from the Return, the House of Commons would act wisely in granting it.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, they had heard something about discourtesy which might be shown to the House of Lords if this Return were refused. Were the House of Lords so very careful to be courteous to the House of Commons? Did the House of Lords show a very great desire to be courteous to the House of Commons with reference-to measures upon which the Government felt strongly, and which were passed through the Lower House by large majorities, but which were most unceremoniously kicked out by their Lordships? Take, for instance, the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. That was a measure which the Government believed to be of much importance, a largo measure of policy with regard to Ireland, and it was passed by a considerable majority in the House of Commons. The courtesy of the House of Lords was conclusively shown by the vigorous manner in which they kicked that Bill out. Had it come to this—that the Conservative minority in the House of Commons, when they could not get what they desired, called in the aid of their big brother the House of Lords, where the Conservative Party were dominant? They would have to be discourteous to the House of Lords. The House of Lords was very discourteous to the House of Commons. The House of Lords was hostile to measures that the majority of the House of Commons believed to be just and necessary both for Ireland and for England. It was notorious that the House of Lords was in flagrant opposition to the views of the majority of the House of Commons, especially with regard to matters relating to Ireland. Upon the very next opportunity the House of Lords would be discourteous to the House of Commons; and yet, forsooth, the Commons were to deal with them in a polite style! The House of Lords refused the House of Commons Acts of Parliament, and the House of Commons must refuse them this Return. He did not understand the propriety, or the decency, or the necessity for the course recommended by the Government. He thought it rather paltry on the part of the Government and on the part of the House of Commons to show this delicacy with regard to the other House of Parliament. The House of Lords wanted this Return simply and solely to furnish itself with

  403
  ammunition to fetter the House of Commons in its action. He did not understand at all why they were to bow courteously to the House of Lords, and hand over what they wanted for the purpose of striking at the majority in that House, and for the purpose of striking at the Government itself. For his own part, he liked to deal with an enemy as an enemy, and with a friend as a friend. In this matter the House of Lords was neither a friend to the Government nor to the House of Commons; and he failed to see any good reason for acting in the manner proposed by the Government on this occasion.
  MR. WESTsaid, it was perfectly open to them to object to the Return being-made. He wished to show every proper courtesy to the House of Lords when it was consistent with, his duty to the taxpayer; but this was a question of an expense of £500 to the taxpayers of the country for a useless Return.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 85: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 48.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, with reference to the question as to whether the Government would give a similar pledge with regard to the Navy Estimates to that given in the case of the Army Estimates, it would be their duty to give a day for discussion during the period indicated in the case of the latter Estimates. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had asked him whether the Government could give some further time for the consideration of the Civil Service Vote on Account, with regard to which he said there were some six or seven important questions to be discussed the practice, as long as he had sat in that House, had been not to take any debate on a Vote on Account with reference to matters of current expenditure, on the understanding that it did not cover any new charge, as any such question must be discussed on the Estimates themselves. If it were the case that every detail of the current expenditure could be discussed upon a Vote on Account, it would be obviously
  404
  impossible to carry on the Business of the House; and, therefore, all that the Government could do was, with great respect, to resist such a proposal, and to ask the Committee to carry out in the present instance the former practice of the House.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had deprecated what he described as the pernicious practice of discussing upon Votes on Account questions which arose upon the Estimates themselves. If this were a pernicious practice, he would remind the Committee that it was a practice initiated by the present Government. Irish Members objected to the custom of supplanting and setting aside the regular Constitutional discussion of the Estimates by the mean and furtive method of asking for a Vote on Account, and relegating that discussion to a period when no real discussion could be taken—namely, to the month of July or August. He wished to point out that the Government were asking for two-thirds of £1,000,000 in connection with the Public Service in Ireland at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning. What, answer was it to him, when he said that several important questions with reference to Ireland were involved, to reply that those questions could not be considered because the Vote on Account covered no new charge? The salary of the Chief Secretary was no new charge. It was the same that was paid to his Predecessors 10 or 12 years ago, no doubt; but if they had cause to find fault with the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman within the next six months, what answer was it to them to say that the charge was an old one? It was an answer of a most shallow character. Altogether there were nine or ten Votes on which he thought it desirable to bring forward a discussion as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government, although he did not think it would be necessary to have a separate, or a very long debate, on them. All he desired to say could be very well brought within the limits and compass of a single debate—at a Morning Sitting, for instance. At any rate, it was very unreasonable to ask for two-thirds of £1.000,000 at 20 minutes after 2 o'clock in the morning. He held that the settled and recognized charges for

  405
  the Government in Ireland involved payments which the Irish Members, in the performance of their public duty, felt bound to call in question. He would press on the Government the desirability of giving them au opportunity for the consideration of the policy Constitutionally involved in the Vote of this sum of money. If the Government refused this reasonable concession, he knew very well what public feeling and public sentiment would declare about it in Ireland, and what the opinion of hon. Members sitting near him would be on the matter.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHpaid, he agreed with what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few moments ago—namely, that if all matters connected with the Civil Service Estimates were to be discussed on these Votes on Account they would never get to the end of the Session. He, however, did think that one observation of the hon. Member who had just sat down, with regard to the manner in which the present Government had substituted Votes on Account for regular Supply, was perfectly justified. No doubt, it was justifiable that the Government should ask for a Vote on Account with which to commence the financial year; but he did not think it right that they should ask for repeated Votes on Account as they had done. The promise of the Prime Minister would not be redeemed merely by putting down Civil Service Estimates, and by a night's discussion on such Motions as could be then brought forward before going into Committee. What he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mean was that a full night should be given to a discussion of the Estimates in Committee of Supply itself before asking for a fresh Vote on Account. As to what the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had said, if he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) might venture to make a suggestion, it would be this—it was not for him to say whether the hon. Member, and those who agreed with him, were or were not justified in wishing to discuss this Vote on Account; but if it were agreed to do so, might it not be possible to discuss the matter on Report, if the Report were the first Order tomorrow? That would cause no delay in including the Vote in the Ways and Means Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that, having looked at the Paper for to-morrow, he found it would be absolutely impossible.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Why?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Because there are such a number of Questions on the Paper.
  MR. HEALY: Is this not as important as the other Questions?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: There is a Morning Sitting.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): But it is occupied.
  An hon. MEMBER: It is an arrangement with the Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the Morning Sitting to-morrow was for the Cattle Diseases Bill, and other subjects that were down on the Paper; and there would be nothing to be gained by putting the matter off until then. What he rose to say was that they should fulfil literally the promises they had given just now—namely, that there should be one full day for the discussion of the Estimates after Easter.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he would suggest that the Government should give Saturday for the discussion of this particular question. If they did that, hon. Members who did not wish to attend could stay away, and Members who felt a particular interest in certain Votes could come and have an opportunity of discussing them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken as if these Votes on Account were things that were desirable, and that the House did not need any opportunity of discussing them; but every genuine and Constitutional Liberal amongst them would say that it ought to be rendered difficult for the Government to carry such Votes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if they discussed all these questions there would be no time to consider them adequately. So that it came to this—a Bill was presented to them, and they were told—"You have no time to discuss these things; you must pay the money without looking into them." They were told that the money must be voted at once, so that the matter might be settled, and that the

  407
  discussion on the Vote could be taken at the time the Government had fixed; but it would be found that the time that suited the Government was the end of the Session, when hon. Members had neither the patience nor the temper for these debates. It came to this—that at the beginning of the Session it was too early to discuss these matters, and at the end of the Session it was too late, so that an end was put to discussion altogether. He sincerely hoped that the House would resist this sort of principle and this sort of practice.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the hon. Member (Mr. Justin McCarthy), following in the wake of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), had forgotten the extreme stringency of the financial rule winch required such proceedings as the Government now proposed. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that at the beginning of the year no Department had the money to go on with, for the reason that all that was in hand on the 31st of March had to be paid back into the Exchequer. It was necessary to begin the year anew; and, therefore, at the beginning of the New Year it was essential that they should have a Vote on Account; and it was absurd to say that this practice was introduced now for the first time, for, as a matter of fact, it had been in existence for 20 years. Before the contention of the hon. Member was conceded, they would have to consider the small space of time during which these Votes could be given. They must be given in time to pass the different sums of money before the 31st of March; and it would be impossible, with that duty before them, to conceive the House of Commons entering with any detail upon an examination of the different items which were comprised in a Vote on Account. That would be, in principle, to carry on the discussion on Votes of Supply for 10 days or a fortnight—it would be impossible. He agreed that it was not right to go on multiplying Votes on Account, and that it was right to impress on the Government the desirability of avoiding that practice. The present Government, however, had not been singular in the course they had taken as to Votes on Account. ("Mr. WARTON: They have—very.] He (Mr. Courtney) was afraid the hon. and learned Member was not aware of the deeds of the last Govern-
  408
  ment—that they had endeavoured to got a Vote on Account for three months instead of two, and that they had come for a second Vote within three weeks of receiving the first. A third Vote on Account was unusual, he admitted. The Committee must remember the limited number of days they had for the discussion of Supply. Hon. Members must have some regard to proportion. If they would appropriate their time in some ratio to the work to be done, they might avoid three Votes on Account; but if they were to have three nights on the first class, it was, he maintained, impossible to avoid repeated Votes on Account. It would be impossible to take the discussion on Saturday, as had been proposed, in time to get the Votes included in the Ways and Means Bill. To-morrow would be the latest date for the Report, if there were a Sitting on Saturday. The Report would be taken to-morrow, the First Reading of the Ways and Means Bill on Saturday, the Second Reading on Monday, the Committee stage on Tuesday, and the Third Reading on Wednesday, together with the First Reading in the House of Lords. The House of Lords would be asked to sit on Wednesday—an unusual day for them to meet—the three remaining stages would be passed on Thursday, and the Royal Assent would be received on Friday.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member declared it was impossible for them to discuss these subjects in detail, because they would not have time to do it. Why would they not have time? Why could they not do in an orderly and methodical manner that which they were now doing piecemeal? What was the most important work of this House? Was it not to discuss the £60,000,000 of expenditure? They did not scruple to spend 30 days in passing Coercion Acts; but they begrudged the time necessary to discuss the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that five or six questions could not be discussed on Votes on Account, otherwise it would render the taking of those Votes impossible. And so said he (Mr. Healy). These Votes on Account should be rendered impossible—they were unconstitutional—things of modern growth. It did not convince him to say—"If you discuss Votes on Account you will render them impos-

  409
  sible"—let them be impossible. To that he should agree with all his he art. What was the House of Commons? It was an Assembly representing the people; and to his mind it was much more necessary for them to discuss, in the interest of the taxpayer, how this £3,500,000 was to be spent, than for them to discuss the second reading of the Cattle Diseases Bill. There had grown up, on the part of Ministers, a feeling the vary reverse of that which had made the liberties of the country the expression. It used to be said that money was everything; but now the Government wanted them to vote it as a matter of course. The people were represented here as a check upon the Crown; the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were engaged in spending the money of the people in the interest of the Crown; therefore, the Committee had a perfect right to look upon them with suspicion. He denied the right of the Government to put a pistol at the heads of hon. Members when they asked for this money. In former times games of this kind were received in a very different manner; and though the Sovereign, on this occasion, was represented by a very polite Minister, he saw no reason why the Committee should be led away by him. If the Chief Secretary did not make it the desire of his life——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member is wandering away from the Question before the Committee.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Question, or part of it, was the salary of the Chief Secretary; therefore he was entitled to discuss the right hon. Gentleman's dealings with Ireland. They began this discussion upon a different matter; and he should very much like to know whether, in voting this £3,500,000, it was the ruling of the Chair that they could only discuss one part of the expenditure involved, because otherwise he should discuss the action of the Chief Secretary in bringing about this debate. He had been endeavouring to point out that if Irish grievances were met as English grievances were, there would be no difficulty in the matter, and to show that the Chief Secretary's only anxiety was to bowl over the Irish Members in defence of the particular class of whom he was
  410
  champion. The bent of the right hon. Gentleman's mind seemed to be to justify everything done by his subordinates—it seemed to go to his soul to admit that anything which the Executive had done in Ireland was wrong; and even his literary skill was strained to the utmost in the endeavour to conceal the fact that the allegations made by the Irish Members were true. Was that the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman addressed to English questions? No; because English Members would not tolerate it. When, however, he had a majority at his back, he thought he could deal with Irishmen and Irish questions as he liked. [Cries "Order!"] What was the point of Order? He very much regretted that the Government did not see their way to giving some time for the discussion of this subject. He and his hon. Friends were not in any unreasonable mood; but they thought that that hour of the morning—half-past 3—was not the time for going into the subject. There was one subject they were specially anxious to discuss, and that was the Queen's College, Cork. The Cork papers went to press at 3 o'clock, and not a word could appear of what now took place in this House. The Business of this House was to deal with the grievances of the people, and it was for that purpose the people sent Representatives here; but what good could be done by going into this question at this hour? He put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would deal with an English question in this way; and he must ask the Government to give some further time, and at an earlier hour, for this discussion. They were not in an unreasonable mood unless driven to the wall, and then they could fight as well as anybody else.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it was obvious that the Report of these Votes must be taken some time tomorrow. In the ordinary way the Report would be put down for an Evening Sitting; but why should not the Government having promised to take the Cattle Disease Bill as the second Order of the Day, put down the Report third? There were no Notices as Amendments to the Report of Supply, and there was no reason to suppose that any would be put down. The Irish Members were anxious to discuss the Votes

  411
  on the Report; and he could not suppose that the Bills which the Government seemed disposed to put down after the Cattle Bill—namely, the Sunday Closing Bill and the Elections (Hours of Poll) Bill—were of such importance as Supply. It seamed to him that if the Government wished to obtain this Vote, and to give the Irish Members an opportunity of discussing what they wished to consider, they would put down the Report of Supply after the Cattle Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, hon. Members would have the fullest opportunity for discussing these matters when the real Vote was taken; and if they would; trust him he would do his utmost to insure their having an opportunity of discussing the particular points to which attention had been called. He could not say more than that. As to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, the matter stood thus—After the Cattle Disease Bill they intended to take the Elections (Hours of Poll) Bill, and the Revision of Juries (Dublin) Bill next. So far as the Elections (Hours of Poll) Bill was concerned, the Government were willing to put that down third; but as they wished to accommodate themselves to the feeling of the House, it was really a question for hon. Members on the other side to decide, by saying which they would prefer to take first. They were prepared to put the Report of Supply second; and that, he hoped, would give hon. Members a full opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that, considering the circumstances, the last statement of the right hon. Gentleman went further in the direction of reasonableness than his first statement; but it was of importance to Members to know at what stage of the Session they would be able to discuss the question. He would not ask for a date; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would indicate the week.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it would be premature to do that now; but he would do his utmost to arrange for the Vote so to come on that hon. Members should have a full opportunity of discussion.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resloved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, the sum of £10,432,850 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.

MOTIONS.

  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Bill to confirm an Order made by the Board of Trade, under "The Sea Fisheries Act, 1868," relating to Ramsholt, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 142.]

  LIFE LEASEHOLDERS ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHARLES Ross, Bill to enable holders of houses and cottages on leases for lives to purchase the fee simple of their property, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHARLES Ross, Sir EDMUND LECHMERE, and Mr. PULESTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 143.]
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.