SUPPLY—NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE.

HC Deb 05 March 1885 vol 295 cc133-222

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY,

in moving— That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £330,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray additional Expenditure for certain Navy Services arising out of the Military Operations in Egypt, and connected with Shipbuilding in Her Majesty's Dockyards, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, said: Sir Arthur Otway, before this Vote is put, it may, perhaps, be for the convenience of,, the Committee that I should offer a few words of explanation. The first two items included in this Supplementary Estimate provide for the pay and victuals and the number of officers and men which are now overborne. There has been an increase in the number of officers on full pay of about 120. That increase has been necessary, partly on account of the military operations in Egypt, and partly in consequence of the increase in the Naval Force in the Red Sea. The number of seamen overborne, partly owing to the same causes, is 330. We have also to provide for a larger force of Marines, the number overborne being 170. Recruiting has been going on briskly and most satisfactorily for the battalions now serving in Egypt, and there is an excess of 920 boys over the number voted. In recent years it has been found that the number of boys in training has been insufficient to maintain the necessary strength in the blue jacket classes, and we shall be obliged to propose a considerable increase in the number of boys in the Estimate for next year. When the House, in December, sanctioned an increased expenditure, it was understood that in the Dockyards we should do all that was in our power to hasten shipbuilding, without materially increasing the number of men. A scheme of profitable overtime has been recommended by the officers of the Dockyards, which scheme has been approved by the Admiralty. It will involve an extra sum for wages of about £38,000 for the Home Yards, and £9,000 for the Foreign Yards, chiefly in respect of the valuable Yard at Malta. It is not necessary to ask Parliament for the full sum involved in this increased expenditure, for the reason that we have been unable to expend, under Vote 10, Section 2, the entire sum voted last year for gunnery in consequence of the delay in the delivery of the gun-mountings. A less sum has also been required than was estimated for repairs and alterations of ships. I regret extremely the delay in the delivery of the gun mountings. We have pressed Messrs. Armstrong to use all possible despatch; but in consequence of the difficulties inseparable from the introduction of new patterns, some portion of the payments anticipated this year will be necessarily post- poned until the next financial year. The Vote of £30,000 for Stores is the necessary consequence of the increased amount of shipbuilding. We have devoted the increased expenditure in stores and shipbuilding and wages more particularly to pushing forward those iron clads which are now in the most advanced stage; and we hope in the present financial year to complete the Colossus, and in the next financial year the Collingwood, the Edinburgh, the Warspite, and the Imperieuse. The larger portion of this Supplementary Vote may be described as being entirely in connection with the Egyptian Expedition. A sum of £250,000 for transport is an addition to a sum of £ I 70,000 which has been provided in previous Supplementary Estimates, and it is exclusive of the repayment to the Indian Revenue for the transport of the Indian Contingent. That payment cannot be made in the present financial year. The list of ships which have been engaged for the transport of the Egyptian Expedition is distributed as follows:—Troops and horses, 13 ships, one hospital ship, five condensing ships, five tank ships, seven for camels and mules, 25 for railway material, including the employe's on the railway, nine for stores, one ice ship, two colliers, and two tugs. The approximate cost averages 17s.6d. per ton per month for the troop-ships, and from 11s. to 12s. for the cargo vessels. I believe that these rates are quite unprecedented in the experience of the Admiralty. At the time of the Crimean War, the rate was 45s. to 50s. for vessels affording very inferior accommodation; and for the ships taken for the last Expedition to Egypt we paid 30 per cent higher rates than those which we are paying at the present time. I am sure the Committee will be glad to be assured that every care has been taken to provide for the requirements of the gallant men we have despatched on the Expedition to Egypt. The (ranges, one of the finest vessels in the Peninsular and Oriental Company's Service has been taken as a hospital I ship, and has been most carefully fitted up. The condensing arrangements at Suakin will be capable of furnishing 1,200 tons of fresh water per day. We have now at Suakin two or three ships with ice-making machinery. In addition, we are despatching one small refrigerating vessel with a cargo of 400 tons of ice to be kept frozen. By these arrangements we propose to keep up a supply of ice, not only to those for whom it is so essential—namely, the sick; but we hope also that there may be some to spare for the troops generally. With these observations, I beg to move the Vote for the additional Expenditure for Navy Services arising out of the Military Operations in connection with the Egyptian Campaign, and for Ship building in Her Majesty's Dockyards.

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £330,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray additional Expenditure for certain Navy Services arising out of the Military Operations in Egypt, and connected with Shipbuilding in Her Majesty's Dockyards, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885."—(Sir Thomas Brassey.)

MR. W. H. SMITH

I do not propose, Sir Arthur Otway, to find any fault whatever with the provision which the hon. Gentleman seeks to make for seamen and Marines, for the victualling and clothing of the seamen and Marines, for the transport expenses, and for the other services included in the Vote; but I cannot help expressing my very great sorrow that my hon. Friend has had again to announce the further postponement of the completion of those ships which the House so earnestly desires. The hon. Gentleman has been obliged to toll us that while a larger sum has been expended in wages in the Dockyards and in stores for building ships, there is a delay in the furnishing of the gun-mountings, which places in the hands of the Department something like £40,000. Hon. Members who are acquainted with the working of the Department will know what that means. A delay in the delivery of gun-mountings to the extent of £40,000 means that the ships for which the gun-mountings are required are incomplete, and are not able to take the sea until they are provided. Therefore, there is to be a further unexpected delay, which certainly comes upon the House by surprise.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

The saving upon gun-mountings does not cover the whole sum of £40,000. The actual saving on gun-mountings alone is £19,000.

MR. W. H. SMITH

My impression was that the gun-mountings covered the whole saving. I presume that the statement of the hon. Gentleman relates to Sub-Section 2 of Vote 10—the Vote under the head of Machinery.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

There is also a saving of £18,000 on the repairs and alterations of ships; and the two items together come to about £40,000.

MR. W. H. SMITH

At all events, we have an intimation conveyed to the House that the gun-mountings necessary for the guns in order to enable the ships to take the sea have not been supplied; and, therefore, the ships on which the country was entitled to rely, and on which it thought it could rely, cannot be available for the service of the country. These ships were promised to be in readiness and efficient at a certain date; and as they are not, it shows that sufficient foresight has not been exercised, and sufficient care taken to secure that, as far as the Admiralty were concerned, the promise made to the House should be fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman has stated that the Collingwood, the Edinburgh, the Warspite, the Imperieuse, and the Colossus, will be delivered in the course of the coming financial year. I am sure that the House will receive that statement with satisfaction. But I would ask my hon. Friend if he is quite certain that the guns and mountings will be ready for them in time? From the information which has been furnished to the House I very much doubt whether the guns and mountings will be ready in the coming financial year. I hold that there is no security whatever that the guns and gun-mountings will be in the possession of the Admiralty when required. And now I cannot help referring to what is not in the Estimate as well as what is. On the 23rd of October, Parliament was informed that the Admiralty had carefully considered the whole position of the naval defences of the country, and that the Government would make a statement to the House in the course of the month of November. I think the inference to be drawn from that was that the Government had fully considered the whole subject, and had made up their minds as to the course it was necessary to take, and the additions that were necessary to be made to the Navy in order to provide additional strength. If they did not contemplate an addition to the strength of the Navy, at all events they had made up their minds as to what they did intend to do. Well, November passed, and on the 2nd of December a statement was made in this House which led us to believe that a large addition would be made to the strength of the Navy. But up to the present moment not a single ship has been ordered. Four months of the financial year have elapsed, and nothing of the kind has been done.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

Six Scouts have been ordered.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Well, I am very glad to hear that. I was only, however, repeating the information given by my hon. Friend to the House in answer to a Question. I understood him to say that the tenders would not be dealt with until the 6th of March.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

Six have already been ordered.

MR. W. H. SMITH

The answer which I obtained to a Question the other day was that no one ship had been ordered. At all events, there is no provision in these Estimates, nor has any been made in the course of this financial year, for payment to any contractor of a single farthing for the building of a single ton. The position I wish to take is this—that the Government ought to realize the necessity for this provision, and the sooner it is made the better, in every sense of the word. It does not cost more to build a ship as rapidly as it can be built consistently with good work than to spread the building of it over a long period of years. On the contrary, we have evidence before the House, given before a Committee appointed by the House, including that of Mr. Barnaby, the Chief Constructor of the Navy, that it costs less to build a ship rapidly. Rapid shipbuilding is conducive to greater economy than slow shipbuilding, which involves an unnecessary expenditure of time. Then, again, there is the question of torpedo boats. We were promised that a certain number of torpedo boats should be built within the year. If there is one thing in which this country is more deficient than another at the present moment, as compared with the Navies of other Powers, it is in torpedo boats; and, from what we all know, great reliance in future naval wars will be placed on torpedo boats for the defence of harbours and strong places. But though four months have elapsed since the statement was made to the House, not one single step appears to have been taken, as far as I can see, to supply this deficiency. I say that good faith has not been kept with the House by the delay which has taken place. For four months no torpedo boat has been ordered, so that there has been the delay of one-third of a year, the information before the House being that a torpedo boat could be built within a year. Yet not one has as yet been commenced.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

Ten torpedo boats have been ordered.

MR. W. H. SMITH

No doubt they have now been ordered; but why has such delay occurred? I have only mentioned the matter for the purpose of this discussion; but I take it that five or six Scouts and 10 torpedo boats have just been ordered. The impression left on the House by the statements of Ministers in December last was that they were going to deal with this matter promptly, and that their promises would be forthwith fulfilled; but they have not done so. The engagement into which they entered with the House ought to have been carried out forthwith. I make no complaint of the extra ironclads not having been commenced, for we know that the plans and specifications with regard to iron-clads require very careful consideration and take some time to prepare; but this class—namely, the belted cruisers and the torpedo boats, are all vessels, the types of which have been studied and decided upon, as has already been explained to the House, and I cannot see why there should have been any delay whatever in forthwith giving orders to the contractors to proceed with them as rapidly as possible. We were told by the Admiralty that one of the principal merits of their programme was that, by the nature of the steps they were taking, there would be no delay; that when once a contract was entered into it must go on. With regard to the torpedo rams, the belted cruisers, the vessels of the Scout class, and torpedo boats, they were to be built by contract, and would consequently be completed rapidly. I must say that the only interpretation which could be placed on language of this character was that the Government intended to proceed with them rapidly. And they obtained the confidence and approval of the House because the programme was one that could be carried out rapidly, and, therefore, one that would give satisfaction to the House and to the county. On another occasion we were told that the Government intended to ask for tenders from the shipbuilding firms as soon as possible, as every one of the ships, except the torpedoes, would take more than a year to build. Now, would the Peninsular and Oriental Company, or the Royal Mail Packet Company, or any other great shipping concern, after realizing the fact that it was necessary to make an addition to their fleet, consider that an engagement by their Chairman to build certain ships as soon as possible had been complied with by postponing the issue of a tender for four months? Yet that is exactly what Her Majesty' s Government have done on the present occasion. After the statement made to the House on the 23rd of October the Government ought to have known they intended to do; and it was not unreasonable to expect that all the drawings and specifications and necessary arrangements would have been made before their statement on the 2nd of December. The day after that approval of the House had been obtained the tenders should have gone out with a request that contractors should state in what time they would be able to complete their contracts. If the Government really realized that these boats were necessary it would have been both economical and sound policy, as well as their duty, to have them completed for sea as soon as possible consistently with good work. I wish again to refer to the information we possess so far as the future is concerned. I should be out of Order if I were now to go into the Estimates for the coming year; but I may say that I notice that no provision is made for several of the ships that were undertaken to be put in hand on the 2nd of last December. I notice also that, as far as the House is aware, no provision is made in the Estimates for the coming year for three out of the 10 Scouts that were undertaken in December last to be completed in the course of the year. Instead of building 10 Scouts as rapidly as possible, it is now proposed to postpone the building of three of them until after next year. I hope that some explanation will be given to the House of this extraordinary departure from the solemn engagement made with the House, if not now, at all events in moving the Navy Estimates for the year.

MR. CARBUTT

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had endeavoured to impress upon the Government the necessity of proceeding with the ships with more vigour, and more especially of going on with the torpedo boats, to which they were pledged. He was inclined to believe that in future wars torpedo boats would be quite as useful as line-of-battle ships. He desired, however, in the few words he proposed to say, to refer, not so much to shipbuilding, as to the deplorable condition in which they were in respect of guns. He might state, without fear of contradiction, that they had not one single breech-loading steel gun of large calibre at the present time which bad been fired and tested. He, therefore, thought he was justified in saying that they were in a deplorable condition; and if the country were not in the remarkable condition in which it was placed at the present moment, he thought the House ought to insist upon the Government having some proper system upon which the manufacture of guns could be carried on. Recently there had been several instances in which guns had exploded, and they were still going on manufacturing guns, although they could never tell whether the guns, when turned out, would explode or not. Notwithstanding several inquiries no explanation had been forthcoming.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! There is no reference to guns in this Vote, and the hon. Gentleman is out of Order in discussing a subject which will come on for discussion upon a future occasion.

MR. CARBUTT

said, he bowed to the ruling of the hon. Gentleman; but he must remind the hon. Gentleman that he had allowed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) to enter into the question of guns.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Member for Westminster was in Order in discussing the question of gun-mountings, because there is an item of £30,000 for gun-mountings.

MR. CARBUTT

said, that as the Estimate covered a sum for gun-mountings, if not for the guns themselves, he would be in Order in calling attention to the Question.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is nothing whatever in the Vote which touches the question of guns, although there is an item relating to gun-mountings. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, must confine himself to the gun-mountings if ho enters on the subject now.

MR. CARBUTT

said, that, in deference to the ruling of the Chairman, he would confine himself to the question of gun-mountings. What he wished to called the attention of the Committee to was the system upon which all these manufactures were carried on. There was not a single responsible head to whom they could go and ask why such a thing had happened, or to give a reason for anything that occurred. If an hon. Member put a Question in the House he only got an evasive answer. He had repeatedly put Questions to the Government, and generally the answer given did not convey the slightest information. For instance, if the Government were asked how far a gun would fire they always gave the estimated, and not the real distance. His objection to the Manufacturing Department was that the gentleman who had charge of it knew nothing whatever of the subject. As a matter of fact, at the present time, the Department intrusted with the manufacture of gun-mountings, and things of that description, were presided over by an Artillery officer, who had no special knowledge of the subject. He had to depend upon some other officer, or foreman, or manager, under him; and he (Mr. Carbutt) maintained that, under such circumstances, the country could not be served with that efficiency which it was entitled to demand. If they were not at the end of the present Parliament—for he presumed that it would end this year—he, for one, would move for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the whole subject. He thought it was a national disaster not to have a Manufacturing Department at the head of which was a man who knew something about guns and the material for making them. As the Chairman had already called him to Order, he did not know that he need go into the question further; but when it came up again on the Vote for guns on another Estimate, he would take the opportunity of returning to the subject, and entering into it more fully.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee that there was great inconvenience in disoussing' gun-mountings now, and having to wait for the Army Estimates before they were able to discuss the guns. He understood that the Army Supplementary Estimates would give au opportunity to the hon. Gentleman to raise the question of the guns on Monday; and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would bring it forward with all the ability and knowledge he possessed. Various questions were involved in the present Vote, and first of all he would refer to the increase of Marines. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty informed the Committee that the Marines were 170 over the proper number, and that an additional sum of money was required in order to make provision for them. He did not see, however, any additional sum of money in the Estimates on the Table for the increase of Marines; and, considering the onerous duties now thrown upon the Corps, he had hoped to find in the Estimates submitted to Parliament some provision for the permanent increase of the Force. He was sorry that the Marines had not been further strengthened, for it was quite certain that the 12,400 men now voted were not sufficient for the purposes to which the Marines were continually applied in South Africa, in North Africa, and in various other parts of the world. They were seasoned and gallant soldiers, who were employed, not only in their own duties at home and on board ship, but in assisting the Army in the discharge of military duties abroad. He was quite certain that everyone who was acquainted with the nature of the duties performed by the Force would agree with him in opinion that it ought to be materially strengthened. He thought he understood his hon. Friend to say that the boys in training were to be increased by 920.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, his statement was that the boys were now overborne by 920.

SIR JOHN HAY

presumed that the Vote about to be taken in the Navy Estimates proper would provide for the overborne boys; but he was not certain whether that was so or not, and he was afraid that the number was not quite sufficient for the purpose. A noble Lord in "another place," a Colleague of the present Civil Lord, was reported to have said that the reason why there were so few boys in training was that, although there was an insufficient number, it was in consequence of the deplorable loss of two of their training vessels which occurred some years ago. He was quite sure that it was impossible for the Admiralty to justify the small number of boys now in training by the fact that, four or five years ago, some two vessels were lost. There was an ample number of boys to be obtained, and this was not an adequate defence for the Admiralty for neglecting to increase the number, so that they might be able to keep up a proper supply of men for the Fleet. With regard to the £10,000 to be voted for stores for shipbuilding purposes, he really was astonished to see such a sum proposed by the Admiralty three or four months after their promise that the sum of £5,000,000 or upwards should be expended for increasing the efficiency of the Navy. It was said by the Secretary to the Admiralty, in the Autumn Session, that at least a sum of £5,000,000 was necessary for the proper increase of the Fleet; and he certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to intimate that immediate steps would be taken to apply that money, which the House was quite ready to grant, and to do all in the power of the Admiralty to increase the number of ships, both armour-clad and of all other descriptions. Until this moment they had had no information as to whether anything had been done to carry out that promise; and in the Return which had been laid upon the Table of the House, and delivered that morning, they found that the condition of the armour-clad ships was one that must be extremely unsatisfactory to the country. He found, from the Return which was before the House and in the hands of hon. Members, that the Collingwood was not to be completed at Portsmouth until this time next year. The time for the completion of the Rodney was "uncertain" The Impérieuse would not be finished until January, 1886; the Warspite was "uncertain;" and with regard to the ships laid down in 1882, the Benbow was not to be put out of the hands of the contractors until July, 1886, and they knew that it was probable that two years would elapse before she was efficient for the public service. The completion of the Camperdown, building at Portsmouth, was "uncertain," and the Howe, building at Pembroke, was also "uncertain" Those vessels were laid down in 1881 and 1882. The completion of the only ships laid in 1883—the Anson and the Hero—was also "uncertain." Those two ships represented ships laid down in 1882ߝ and 1883–But the Return did not allude to the condition of ships which were in hand in the years 1880 and 1881; and it was worth while for the Committee to consider what chance there was of these ships being completed when it was found that other vessels laid down years before were not yet out of hand, as in the case of the Ajax, the Conqueror, the Edinburgh, and the Colossus. Among the new ships which were indicated in the Return, and which were promised in December at Portsmouth and Pembroke, were two new armour-clads whose type was not yet decided; and in regard to new armour-clads which were to have been built by contract, the statement was that they had not yet been ordered. Thus it would appear that the ships that were to have been built in the Royal Yards had not yet had their type decided; while others which were to have been built in private Yards had not yet been ordered. That was certainly not what the House of Commons expected when the promise of the Government was made in December last. It seemed to him that the country was being trifled with in regard to its naval affairs; and he must say that though he had the greatest respect for the gallant Admirals who sat at the Admiralty Board, some of whom were his own personal friends, yet he could not conceive how they could consent to sit at that Board, and allow the country to be trifled with, when they knew the defenceless state they were in both in regard to ships and guns, especially when compared with foreign nations. Other countries were increasing their Fleets with the greatest possible rapidity. He did not forget that the Admiralty, on the 11th of July last, put forward a statement, by the mouth of the First Lord of the Admiralty—that if they were granted £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 tomorrow, for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the Navy, the great difficulty would be how they would be I able to spend the money. That statement was made on the 11th of July, and in October they awoke to the fact that a sum of £5,000,000 was absolutely necessary for our naval defences. In the month of December they promised to spend that sum; but, having made that announcement, they had not, up to the present moment, taken the slightest step to expend the money which Parliament was ready and willing to grant. They came down now with a Supplementary Estimate in advance of the ordinary Estimates of the year, which was totally inadequate for the purposes for which it was required. He had no wish to delay the Business of the Committee, and he thought that the £330,000 now asked for had better be granted, in order that the Admiralty might wake up again from the slumber into which they had fallen since December last. At the same time, he was bound to say that the country ought to know how the Admiralty had neglected the public interests, and if the money were voted care should be taken to see that it was properly spent.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

was understood to express an opinion that, whenever Supplementary Estimates were given to the House, the original Estimates should be combined with them, so that the total amount might be shown for each item. He hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would see that done in the future. Then the mixing up of various items relating to different matters in one amount was very inconvenient. For instance, the sum required for the construction and completion of the railway in Egypt should have been kept entirely separate and distinct from every other item.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he was not surprised at the protest which the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay) had made in regard to the delay in spending the money which was necessary to maintain the Fleet in a proper state of efficiency. It was quite evident that the country were now paying the cost of the desertion of General Gordon, for it was obvious that the money which would otherwise have been spent on the Navy was now required for other purposes, and that a good deal of it would be wanted for the Soudan Expedition. He had risen now for the purpose of calling the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to certain serious mishaps which had happened in Africa in regard to the working of the Gardner gun at the last serious battle which occurred in the Soudan.

MR. CARBUTT

wish to know whether the hon. Member was in Order, seeing that he (Mr. Carbutt) had been ruled out of Order for introducing the question of guns?

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, the point he wished to raise had reference to gun-making, which he thought would come in under at least three heads of the present Votes. He might add that his remarks on the subject would be very brief.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will be quite out of Order in referring to the Gardner gun.

MR. GORST,

on the point of Order, wished to say that his hon. Friend was complaining that a Vote of money would be entirely useless, and that the men and boys, who appeared on the Estimates, were being destroyed by ineffective guns.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see any connection between the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and the point of Order. I still retain my opinion, that any discussion of the Gardner gun, on a Vote in which there is no mention of guns whatever, would be entirely out of Order.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

desired to call the attention of the Chairman to the fact that the Vote was to defray additional expenditure for certain Naval Services arising out of the military operations in Egypt; and Vote 10 referred to naval stores for building and repairs in connection with the Meet. The gun he wished to call attention to was strictly a naval gun in charge of the Naval Brigade.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already ruled that the hon. Member is out of Order. This Vote has no connection whatever with guns.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had complained, as they generally did, that the Estimates were not sufficiently high. He had not risen with any object of that kind. Since his earliest childhood England had had no Navy; but, somehow or other, she seemed to have got on uncommonly well with the ships she had. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite were last in power they obtained a sum of £6,000,000 for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the Navy; and he believed that what they really did was to provide three ships. He was sorry that the Vote was taken upon two distinct items—namely, the Naval Services arising out of the military operations in Egypt, and the shipbuilding in Her Majesty's Dockyards. He thought it would have been a great deal more convenient if the two items had been kept separate. He must, however, accept the fact that they were not kept separate, but were included in the same Vote. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had gone through all the different items; and he gathered from the hon. Gentleman's statement that the first and second were really rendered necessary in consequence of the Expedition to Egypt. As the military operations there had necessitated assistance from the Naval Brigade, and the employment of a number of officers and Marines, he would not contest that Vote; but he did contest the sum of £250,000 for conveying troops from this country to Egypt. He gathered from the Secretary to the Admiralty that that was exclusive of any charge for Indian troops; so that this sum of £250,000 was really a charge for the troops which had been conveyed from this country. Probably the Chairman would rule him out of Order if upon this Vote he were to raise the whole of the Egyptian Question; but he would assume that this country was perfectly right in going to Egypt; perfectly right in maintaining troops, and in maintaining order there. That was, the country was told, the reason why they were there; and they were further told that they had the right of adjusting the Southern Frontier of Egypt. But why was this country called upon to defend Egypt, or to adjust the Southern Frontier? The reason was that the Egyptians could not do it themselves. It was all very well for a country to say—"I cannot fight;" but when they asked other nations to come in and fight for them, the least they could do was to pay for the fighting. The House had had many Votes and discussions on this subject, and he had heard very different statements from the Treasury Bench; but he had never yet discovered, ever since these Votes were first brought forward, why in the name of goodness, admitting that they ought to go to Egypt, when the Egyptians themselves could not maintain their position, and govern their own country, the Egyptians ought not themselves to pay for it. They were told, it was true, that Egypt could not pay the money that was required. But, of course, that was sheer nonsense. So long as they were able to pay their Bonded Debt, and to pay extortionate interest to usurers who called themselves bondholders, so long would they find their Exchequer empty. What would have happened in Egypt, if this country had not come forward? Where would the bondholders have been? They would have disappeared entirely.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The financial policy of Egypt is not a subject for discussion under this Vote. The hon. Member is introducing a matter which is not in any way involved in the present Vote.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the point he desired to raise was that this money ought not to be in the Estimates at all, because it ought to be charged upon the Egyptian Government. The issue he desired to discuss was, whether the Egyptians were not perfectly able to pay the money themselves. He had no wish to go into the whole of the Egyptian Question, and this was the sole point he wished to bring forward. As he thought the Egyptians were able to pay the money, and as we were not bound to pay it, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £250,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £80,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray additional Expenditure for certain Navy Services arising out of the Military Operations in Egypt, and connected with Shipbuilding in Her Majesty's Dockyards, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, the Committee were very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) for having called attention to the discreditable neglect on the part of Her Majesty's Government to fulfil their promises in regard to increasing the efficiency of the Navy. The way in which the Committee was treated by the Government was exemplified by the state of the Treasury Bench at that moment. There was not a single responsible Minister of the Crown upon it—an any rate, no Minister who had a right to advise the Crown in reference to this question. The same delay and the same neglect animated the Government in every respect. When the First Lord of the Admiralty was imperatively called upon to look into the state of the Fleet, he was sent by the Government upon a fruitless mission to Egypt. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, who always did his best, according to the power given to him, one or two questions in regard to these facts. He wanted to know what had been done in reference to the leading stokers of the Navy, the pensions to wives and orphans of seamen and Marines; and also what steps had been taken to satisfy the representations which had been made from different classes in the Dockyards as to the position they occupied and the treatment they received? More than two years ago the right hon. Gentleman who was now Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) promised that the grievances of different classes of Dockyard employés should be carefully looked into. In 1883, certain representations were made which, since then, in almost every instance, had been entirely neglected. The regulations which were recommended in regard to the examinations had been altogether set aside by the Government; and he understood that persons in the Dockyards, who had been compelled to pass a severe examination, found themselves superseded by persons who had passed no examination at all. He certainly felt himself unable to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). His regret was, not that it was a Vote of £330,000, but that the sum proposed was not a great deal larger. He hoped before the debate closed that the Secretary to the Admiralty would give a full explanation to his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) and the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), and would enable the Committee to go away with the belief that, notwithstanding the absence of these lazy Cabinet Ministers—["Order!"] The hon. Gentleman opposite who called him to Order was not the Chairman, and if he was out of Order he presumed that the Chairman would correct him. Notwithstanding the absence of all these—he would call them active—Cabinet Ministers, who had brought the Navy of the country into such an inefficient state, he hoped to be assured by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty that the interests of the Navy would be properly regarded in future by Her Majesty's Government.

MR. PULESTON

said, he had listened with much pleasure to the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and he hoped that the Secretary to the Admiralty and other Members of the Government would give some explanation of the present extraordinary position of affairs in reference to the pledges they had given to the House last Autumn. He hoped that explanation would be given now, and that they would not have to wait for it until they reached the ordinary Navy Estimates of the year. It was a matter of congratulation that the Prime Minister himself was present at the early part of the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman must have been startled by the disclosures which had been made by the right hon. Member for Westminster. It must, indeed, have very much surprised the Prime Minister, as it surprised everybody else, to find that, after all that had been said by the Government last Autumn, after months had elapsed since the discussion which took place in the Autumn Session in December, when they had supposed that the Admiralty would come forward with plans ready cut and dried, and after the utter reversal by the authorities of the Admiralty of all the statements they had previously made in that House and in "another place" as to the requirements of the Navy—it must have surprised everyone to find that nothing had been done to give good effect to the pledges of Her Majesty's Ministers. They were told in the middle of last year by the First Lord of the Admiralty that their Navy was much superior to that of Prance, and superior, indeed, to any other Navy in the world, and that there was no sort of foundation for what he termed the exaggerated statements which had been made in regard to the inefficiency of the Navy. All of a sudden, under the influence of an agitation raised in the country when the country had become alive to the danger which existed in consequence of the weakness of the Navy, the same noble Lord at once reversed his statement, and acquiesced in the opinion that was forced upon him by the unanimous verdict of the country. They were then told in the House of Commons that a sum of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 would have to be spent upon the Navy. They came there that night in order to consider the Supplementary Naval Estimates, and they naturally looked to those Supplementary Estimates to find the commencement of the important expenditure which had been promised. They were certainly unprepared for the condition of things which had been brought before them that night in the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty. He had not the least idea of casting any imputation upon the hon. Gentleman, or of saying one word that was disrespectful of him. The hon. Gentleman could only do that which it was in his power to do; but certainly nothing had ever occurred in that House of a more startling character than the answer which the hon. Gentleman had given to the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith)—that actually nothing but a few tenders had been issued for Scouts. No tenders whatever appeared to have been issued either for belted cruisers or torpedo boats, and this was four months after the first promise in regard to the matter was given by Her Majesty's Government. Every hon. Member in that House, upon whatever side he sat, whether he liked the increased expenditure or not, whether he was of the same opinion as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) or not, wont away from that Committee in December last fully impressed with the one idea that some millions of money were to be carefully and wisely expended upon the Navy. It did not occur to any Member of the House that he would be allowed to come back again in the month of March and listen to such an answer as that which had been given by the Secretary to the Admiralty to the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). He did not think there was a parallel for such a startling circumstance to be found in the history of the country. First there was the extraordinary reversal of policy on the part of the First Lord of the Admiralty from a condition of boasted safety, in which nothing ought to be done and nothing would be done, to a conviction forced upon him by the voice of the country that not only something, but a great deal, would have to be done. In the next place, they were led to believe that plans and arrangements would be laid down during the Recess with the view of expending some £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 upon the Navy; and now hon. Members came back to the House, three or four months after the promise was given, to be told that absolutely nothing had been done except an order issued for a few Scouts. He was sorry that the representations which had been made in the House of Commons had not only been treated with disrespect, but with apparently utter and supreme contempt. That would not matter very much if it were not for the condition of the country, which rendered it essential that this increased expenditure upon the Navy should be undertaken. Her Majesty's Government well knew that it was essential, and events which had since transpired showed the folly of delay. Let them only look at the state of Africa, and the feeling of insecurity in our Colonies. It was impossible to conceive anything more serious. He was sorry that the First Lord of the Admiralty had not a seat in that House. It was always a source of trouble to the House of Commons when the First Lord had a seat in "another place." It was impossible for the Admiralty to be represented by Gentlemen who possessed the entire respect of the House more than the Secretary to the Admiralty, and the Civil Lord, whom he was glad to congratulate on the first occasion of his appearance in his official capacity; but they knew that the power was vested in others and not in them, and he concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) that it was a scandal that none of the chief Ministers of the Crown should have been present on the Treasury Bench upon an occasion like this. He was glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had returned to his place. He had not risen now to discuss matters connected with the Dockyard expenditure. He thought he might fairly assume that all questions connected with that expenditure would come on in regular order in the discussion of the Navy Estimates proper; but he was entitled to have a full explanation of the conduct of the Board of Admiralty, who appeared to him to have done nothing but utterly neglect the duties imposed on them by Parliament, the responsibilities of which had been fully accepted by them.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to know from the Chairman, if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to inform him, when he would be in Order in referring to the jam of the Gardner gun? On what Vote could he raise that question?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman will be perfectly in Order in raising that question on the Vote which refers to the guns in the Army Estimates. I presume that those Estimates will not come on to-night. When the Army Estimates are proposed they will include a Vote for guns.

MR. SEXTON

wished to ask a question with reference to the operations of the gunboat Wasp, which had been wrecked upon the West Coast of Ireland, and which, at the time of its last cruise, was in charge of a navigating officer who had only been recently appointed, and who was entirely unacquainted with the coast? It was said that the gunboat had been employed in assisting certain landlords in serving notices of eviction. He should like to know if the Secretary to the Admiralty approved of the use of Her Majesty's ships, and the services of the officers and seamen of the Royal Nary, in turning out of their homes a number of wretched persons who were obtaining a precarious livelihood on that part of the Irish Coast? He did not think that the people of England would approve of the employment of the seamen and officers of the Royal Navy for any such purpose; and he would ask upon what conditions the ships of Her Majesty were placed at the service of the landlords in Ireland for the purpose of serving civil processes? He would be glad to receive any indication of what the Government proposed to do in the matter. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had on a former occasion asked a Question in that House, to which the reply on the part of the Admiralty was that with regard to transports every invitation would be given to Irish shipowners to send in tenders. But he had read in an Irish newspaper of the 2nd instant a statement to the effect that the Admiralty having invited tenders for contracts, they were duly-forwarded by the shipowners; but that none of the work had been allotted to then. He begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that unless the undertaking given to the hon. Member for the City of Cork was carried out—the Belfast firms, for instance, being as competent as any in the Kingdom—it would provoke considerable comment from Irish Members from the point of view that the promise given had turned out to be nothing more than a delusion.

MR. CAINE

said, with regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Sligo, that the shipowners of Ireland would have the right of tendering as a matter of course, and that the Admiralty accepted the lowest tender that was most suitable, no matter from what part of the country the tender might come. He would now refer for a moment or two to the complaints made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) with regard to vessels of the Scout class and torpedoes. It was only on the 2nd of December that the House sanctioned the building of those six Scouts; the plans were got out within a month after; and if the right hon. Gentleman remembered the difficulty there was in getting out plans, he believed he would say that to get the plans ready by the 2nd of January was very quick work indeed. The Admiralty having the wish that the orders should be spread throughout the country, 37 shipbuilders were invited to send in tenders for the construction of ships of the Scout class; it took over a month to get all the information required for tendering; a week was then given to the manufacturing firms to consider, and to get out their tenders. That was a short time; and a week for the Admiralty to consider the plans was, in his opinion, also a short time, and yet the 27th of February was the date on which the purchase of the ships of the Scout class was finally settled. He regarded this as one of the smartest things ever done by the constructive staff of the Admiralty. He did not think it would be unreasonable to give shipbuilders seven or eight weeks for sending in their plans. It should be remembered that in the case of an ordinary firm purchasing a merchant ship, three weeks was the period given to the buil- ders to take out their quantities and send in estimates; and he did not think that the time named was too long with regard to vessels to be constructed for the Admiralty. "With regard to the torpedo plans, a Committee had been appointed, to conduct important experiments before coming to a decision, and the delay had been simply in consequence of the desire of the Board of Admiralty to secure the best type under the circumstances. With regard to gun-mountings, in consequence of new and better guns having been invented, new machinery had become necessary which would greatly facilitate the getting out of the gun-mountings in future. The delay that had taken place was attributable solely to the necessity of having new machinery.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he hoped it was not to be understood from the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the lowest tender was always accepted, because the Admiralty had never proceeded on that principle before. He had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that.

MR. CAINE

No; the lowest tender consistent with sound shipbuilding.

SIR JOHN HAY

understood that the Black Prince had been at one time stated to be not worth repairing, and that the Bellerophon had been in process of repair for five years. As far as he was aware, there was no immediate prospect of those repairs being completed. He would ask the hon. Gentleman in what state of repairedness those ships might be.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, it was desirable to bring forward a ship to complete the number of ships which were now maintained in the Channel Fleet. As the right hon. and gallant Admiral would agree, it was extremely desirable to bring forward a ship well adapted to the training of seamen. A large number of their young seamen were sent to the Channel Fleet. The Back Prince was very suitable for that purpose, and she would be so employed.

SIR JOHN HAY

What is the condition of the Black Prince?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, she had been surveyed with regard to fitness, and it had been found that her boilers were in good condition.

SIR JOHN HAY

asked why the Bellerophon had been so long under repair?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, he could only speak with regard to the Black Prince. He believed that the repairs of the Belleroplion would be completed very shortly. It was at one time thought that she might be used as a gunnery vessel; but he believed it was now intended that she should relieve one of the iron-clads stationed abroad.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he believed that the Belleroplion had been more or less under repair, in the Dockyard, for five years. She had gone to Devonport towards the close of 1879; she was intended first to be used as a gunnery vessel; but at last, he believed, there was some question as to whether the guns it was intended she should carry could be had or not. His right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) had referred to the Black Prince and the Warrior. Now, the Black Prince had been put aside some years ago because of the expense that it was estimated would be incurred in repairing her. It was estimated that the cost of making her an efficient ship would be £120,000, for she would require to have new boilers and alterations made in her armour. He understood that the Admiralty had spent £40,000 upon her, which would make her less inefficient for 18 months only, at the end of which time the result would be that the whole of the money would be found to have been thrown away—that was to say, that the money would disappear in the time mentioned. Again, the Warrior was in almost the same condition. It was obvious that she could not remain serviceable for more than two years; and he doubted whether, in case of war, she could serve out another year, even with the money that had been spent on her. The result of this was that they had two ships on which they could not rely in case of war. It was impossible to rely on them; they were not capable of steaming at full speed even with the alterations which had been made, and the repairs which had been executed, and the whole of the money now being spent upon them would be practically wasted.

MR. ONSLOW

said, that, observing a charge of £250,000 for conveyance of troops from this country to Egypt, he wished to know whether the ships employed were those paid for by the Indian Government, and in which troops were sent out to India? He was not aware that these hired ships were usually employed to bring troops home; on the contrary, he was inclined to the opinion that the Government of India used only the ordinary troop-ships for this purpose. Now, it seemed to him that if these troop-ships, which were paid for by the Government of India, were being used for the conveyance of troops to Egypt, the Indian Government would pay indirectly for the conveyance of those troops. If his view of the case were correct, he should like to know whether any extra expense would be placed upon the Indian Government in consequence of the troops leaving the country in the troop-ships referred to? He wished to make it clear that no expense was put upon India on account of this Vote.

MR. CAINE

said, that the intention of the Government on the point raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was that no expense at all should fall upon India with regard to the Egyptian Expedition.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was, in his opinion, most unsatisfactory. He was glad to find, although the hon. Gentleman contradicted himself twice in saying so, that the contracts referred to by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) were given out altogether irrespective of nationality; but he went on to say that the Government were bound to have due regard to the requirements of different parts of the country with respect to the disposal of these contracts.

MR. CAINE

I said it was the wish that every part of the country should have an opportunity of tendering for these ships.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he had thought that the meaning of the hon. Gentleman was that, while due regard was to be had to economy, regard was also to be had to the dispersal of work in the parts of the country which most required it. But it appeared that he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. If no regard was to be had to nationality, it was a remarkable circumstance that none of the contracts had reached Irish hands. Now, that was a matter upon which Irish Members felt very strongly indeed. In Belfast, certainly, there were some of the most eminent and successful shipbuilders in the world, and they were selected to construct ships for which he believed was the most go-ahead and successful of American Lines—namely, the White Star Line. It seemed to him a most extraordinary thing that in Belfast, where work was so sadly wanted, and where encouragement was so much required, there should not be a single Government contract being executed. According to a statement in the public Press, it appeared that there was reason to believe that the work that was expected to go to a large Irish shipbuilding firm would go to the Clyde, although no official intimation had been given. If that were the case, ho thought that Irish Members would be justified in contrasting the amount of work given to Glasgow in times of prosperity and withheld from Belfast in times of need. The hon. Gentleman had given the same answer with regard to transports as with regard to shipbuilding; he said that these were employed irrespective of nationality; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) repeated that, while it was said that nationality was not considered, Irish nationality was excluded in the matter of transports.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, he might assure the hon. Member who had just sat down that there was no question whatever of nationality in this matter. Anyone could obtain the terms of the contracts on application at the Admiralty. In case the Inspector sent on behalf of the Admiralty reported that the execution of the work could be fittingly done by them, the applicants were placed upon the list. Irish firms were treated in the same manner as English and Scotch firms. One Irish firm had been put on the list, and had been invited to tender for some of the ships that were to be constructed.

MR. SEXTON

What is the difference between the prices?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

I do not know what the figures were; I cannot give any information upon that subject.

MR. DAWSON

complained that in the case of contracts with regard to other branches of the Service which were given to Irish firms, the firms in question had not been fairly treated. He knew of a firm that obtained a large supply of material, a short time ago, for the purpose of executing a contract; but although they were told, when they tendered, that it would be a very large contract, they only received a very small order. Ho hoped that Irish firms would in this matter have the same chance as English and Scotch firms.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

Certainly. An Irish firm is now building a vessel for the Admiralty.

MR. DEASY

said, that the vessel referred to was only a tank-ship, which would cost only a few thousand pounds, and he did not think they had much to thank the Government for on that account. The Dock Company applied to the Admiralty to be placed on the list, and the Admiralty sent down an Inspector, who went through the Lock-yard, and expressed himself highly pleased with the plant there, and reported favourably to the effect that the Dock Company were capable of turning out a ship of 1,500 tons displacement. Improvements had taken place in the Docks since that time, and there was little doubt that they could turn out a ship of 2,000 tons. But the Government took credit for having given them this little ship to build; and, although they were placed on the list in April, it was not until the autumn that they were asked to tender, and it was not until the senior Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) threatened to make this matter unpleasant for the Government that they obtained even the order in question. Now, this Dock Company built steamers for some of the largest ship owners in the world; and he did not think that there was a shipbuilding firm in Ireland which could turn out a vessel in a more satisfactory manner than the Royal Victoria Dock Company. Of course, the Belfast firms could build larger ships; but he believed, for the size of the ships, that no shipyard in the Kingdom could give more satisfaction than Passage Dock. One very important question raised in the course of the debate, by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), had not been dealt with by hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the Government Bench. The hon. Member referred to the loss of a gun-boat conveying troops for the purpose of evicting some unfortunate persons in Ireland, and he thought the matter was one which demanded some explanation at the hands of the Admiralty. It seemed to him strange that the Government should employ the ships of the Navy for the purpose of carrying out evictions, and he thought that the landlords should have been required to transport the troops from the mainland at their own expense, if troops were necessary, seeing that they had the police of the district at their command. Before the debate closed he trusted that some answer to his hon. Friend's inquiry would be forthcoming. They were told that there was no prejudice at the Admiralty against Irish firms; but he doubted that very much. He had himself asked the hon. Gentleman representing the Admiralty last autumn a Question with respect to the supply of meat for the Navy; but he could get no reply whatever on the subject. He had now to complain that, although the tenders of the Irish houses were at a lower price than those of the Danish firms, the contract was given to a Danish firm at a higher price. He had asked the hon. Gentleman to compare the prices of the Irish house with those of the Danish house, and he declined to do so. If the hon. Gentleman wished to show that there was no prejudice at the Admiralty against Irish firms, he thought he should have no hesitation in placing a statement of the prices on the Table of the House, so that they might see that no injustice had been done to Irish firms. When the Estimates were presented he should feel it his duty to go more fully into this matter. He had also asked another Question of the Secretary to the Admiralty that evening, and the answer to it had been very unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had also made reference to it. He (Mr. Deasy) had asked whether any Irish, firms had tendered for the supply of transport vessels to Her Majesty's Government; whether their tenders had been accepted; and whether those tenders were as low as those of English and Scotch firms'? The hon. Gentleman had replied that the matter was still under investigation; and that when the Admiralty considered the tenders they would ignore nationality altogether, and that they would give a fair chance to tho3e Irish firms who tendered. He trusted the Admiralty would bear that in mind when they came to decide on the matter; and he would point out that if the Government wished to convince Irish Members that there was no partiality in the case, and no prejudice against Irish firms, they need only place the prices on the Table of the House when the contracts were accepted. He hoped that before the ordinary Estimates came forward the Government would be able to assure them that they had accepted contracts for shipbuilding in Ireland. It was all very well for them to say that they accepted the lowest tender; but they asked nothing more from the Government than that they should give Irish firms fair play. They were entitled, however, to say that a due proportion of the money to be expended on shipbuilding should go to Ireland, and that Irish firms should be allowed to compete amongst themselves for work to the amount of that sum. It was not fair to place a ship-building yard which had never had an opportunity of constructing ships for the Government on the same footing as a shipbuilding yard which was in the habit of doing Government work. In common justice the Government ought to allocate a fair portion of the Navy Expenditure amongst Irish firms.

MR. GILES

wished to explain to the House what was the practice in commercial circles as to issuing tenders. He, of course, assumed that the Government had followed the usual practice. If work was to be given out, and the principal firms—say 10 in number—of the particular business—take shipbuilding, for instance—were selected, the persons making the selection would feel that any one of the firms would be quite competent to carry out their views, and, therefore, when the tenders were sent in, they would accept the lowest. If, however, the person having work to give out advertised publicly for tenders, he was by no means bound to take the lowest, because it very often happened that the lowest tender was received from a firm whom he knew to be incompetent. He (Mr. Giles) had had occasion to send out tenders for shipbuilding; and amongst the firms from whom he invited tenders were Messrs. Harland and Wolff, of Belfast. He should have been quite prepared to give them the work if their tender had been as low as that of others; but it was not. With all their eminence as shipbuilders, they could not work as cheaply as the people of the Clyde or the Wear, or even as cheaply as the people at Southampton. He only men- tioned this that Irish Members might not have any feeling that Ireland had been lost sight of in matters of this kind. As he was upon his feet, he could not help alluding to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon-port (Mr. Puleston). He was very sorry, indeed, to hear from the hon. Member that the preparation of the designs for the new iron-clads were out of the hands of the designers within a month, and that the other preliminaries to the construction of the new war vessels were completed with equal rapidity. He could excuse the anxiety of the country to see their Navy considerably strengthened; but there was an old adage it was well to remember—namely, "Sometimes the most haste is the worst speed." He was persuaded that it was not always wise to hurry too much in the preparation of the designs of their fighting ships.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, he must ask permission of the Committee to refer, in the first place, to the question put by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) with reference to the employment of gun-boats on the coast of Ireland. With regard to the question of policy which was raised by the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman, lie (Sir Thomas Brassey) had no opinion to offer; it was not competent for him to discuss that point. He might, however, explain to the hon. Member that it was the duty of the Admiralty to furnish vessels to the various Departments of Government when required for the execution of public duty. He was asked by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Deasy) with reference to the tenders for provisions. He feared he could not comply with the request of the hon. Gentleman by laying on the Table a Return showing the prices at which the various competing firms tendered for the supply of provisions for the Navy; indeed, it would be a breach of confidence to make a revelation of that nature. He assured hon. Members from Ireland that the Admiralty wished to deal with the country they represented in a spirit of fair play; and that if tenders should come from Ireland for the building of ships or the supply of provisions at prices which enabled the Admiralty to allocate contracts to that country, it would be a great satisfaction to the Admiralty to do so. He was glad to hear from his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Giles) that he appreciated the necessity of giving great care and consideration to the designs of ships they were putting out to contract. He reminded the Committee that Lord Ravens-worth's Committee, after most careful inquiry into this particular subject, recommended, in a very able Report to the Admiralty, that the greatest care and deliberation should be exercised in maturing the designs of ships before inviting tenders from private firms for the construction of the vessels. It was very properly urged by Lord Ravensworth's Committee that much public money could be saved by greater care being taken in the preparation of the designs. The Admiralty had been anxious to follow the recommendation of Lord Eavensworth's Committee on the first occasion which had arisen since the Report was made; and, therefore, special pains had been taken to make the designs for the cruisers, and the Scouts, and other vessels which they were putting out to contract, as perfect as possible before the commencement of the work. He was persuaded that, although there might be some delay in putting out the vessels to contract, by exercising due care and deliberation in completing the designs a gain in time and economy would in the end accrue. Having, he believed, answered all the questions which had been raised by hon. Members, he need not detain the Committee longer.

MR. DAWSON

said, there was one other matter to which it was well attention should be called. In the matter of shipbuilding and the supply of provisions, the particulars of the requirements were well known to the English firms who tendered for the work; but it was not so in Ireland. By what means could Irish shipbuilders and merchants ascertain clearly and accurately what was to be tendered for? Were advertisements issued in the papers? In the absence of information on the point, it appeared to him that the contracts were so vast, and the amount of money involved so great, that Irish firms were not acquainted with all the details. Besides, to permit of many Irish firms tendering for the large and immense requirements of the Navy, it was necessary that a change should be effected in the banking system of Ireland. Sup- posing that a firm of Irish shipbuilders possessed the knowledge of the amount of money required to comply with some of the tenders, it was of the greatest importance to them that they should be able to go to one or other of the banking concerns in Ireland, and to say—"We want to tender for such and such contract, and on condition that we get the work we shall require so much money; will you advance it to us? You will, of course, be sure to obtain the repayment of the money, because you will practically have the security of Her Majesty's Government." He should like to know what were the means of information at the command of Irish firms who were rather new to contracts of such magnitude? Were advertisements published in the newspapers?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, that when any shipbuilding was to be given out, it was the practice of the Department to communicate with all the firms on the Admiralty List.

MR. DAWSON

inquired if the hon. Gentleman was acquainted with all the shipbuilding firms of Ireland who were competent to tender for Government work? If tenders were invited by advertisements, probably a firm of whom the hon. Gentleman was not aware might see their way to make an offer. What he desired to know was, how Irish firms were to enter into the competition; how they were to become possessed of knowledge of the conditions with which they were to comply?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, that if any of the Irish shipbuilders would communicate with the Admiralty, Inspectors would be sent to their yards to see if they were capable of doing Government work; and if they were found to be capable, he would take care they were placed on the Admiralty List.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that in reference to the claim set up to have a portion of the Admiralty work allocated to Ireland, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey) had said it would be a breach of trust to disclose the prices given for the various articles supplied to the Navy. He (Mr. Biggar) was not acquainted with shipbuilding; but, as an old trader, he was persuaded that if the Government wished to get the best and, indeed, proper value for their money, they must not stick at disclosing the contract prices. It must be well known to all persons that there was great variation in the quality of work done by shipbuilders, just as there was a great difference in the quality of the other articles supplied to the Navy. It was, therefore, of the greatest importance in the interest of the public, as represented by the Admiralty, that prices at which articles were supplied should be known. Under the present secret system, it was quite possible for shipbuilders to get a sum from the Admiralty altogether disproportionate with the class of work done. Such a state of things, however, would soon cease if it were possible for criticism, to appear in the newspapers and through the voices of Members of Parliament with regard to the mismanagement of the Department in this particular. He knew that Harland and Wolff, of Belfast, were eminently competent to do the work of the Admiralty, for they were as good shipbuilders as it was possible to find. Harland and Wolff might ask higher prices than some other shipbuilders; but, at the same time, they did immensely better work, and therefore it was to the interest of the public that the Admiralty should give the preference to that firm. The same principle applied to all the other articles supplied to the Navy. Take the case of pressed beef. No doubt, the American pressed beef could be obtained at a cheaper rate; but, as regarded quality, it was not to be compared with the Irish beef. Instead of perpetuating the antiquated and stupid system of keeping the prices paid secret, the Admiralty ought in every case to publish them. If people then found that higher prices were being paid for particular articles than those at which they could afford to supply, they would, no doubt, tender. It stood to reason that the result of disclosing the prices would be that a much larger number of people would enter the competition. The great temptation in regard to contracting was the hope of large profit. He remembered that at the time of the American War the Government had to give for pressed beef a far higher price than the trade value of the article. The occasion was an emergency, and the supply was wanted in a hurry. The number of people who, up to that time, had been tendering for this particular article had been very limited, and they had been paid such extravagant prices, and had made such enormous profits, that others rushed in and contracted at prices even lower than they could afford to take. The result was that the Government recouped themselves for all the extravagant prices they had previously paid. The observance of secrecy led to no good whatever, and therefore he hoped that, after consultation with the Admiralty Authorities, the hon. Gentleman (Sir Thomas Brassey) would be able to see his way to introduce an entirely different system.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he could say, of his own knowledge, that the system of secrecy with regard to Government contracts was attended with very great danger of corruption, if not peculation. He recollected a case which came under his observance some years ago. A contractor had sent in to a large Public Department tenders at a certain price for an article which was not very extensively used. He tendered at such a figure as involved loss. He tendered three times over, and each time his tender was disregarded; and another contractor, whom he knew personally, informed him that his tender, which was something like 50 per cent higher, had been accepted. Well, now, the contractor whose tender was disregarded was a sensible man, and, instead of troubling himself to still further lower his price, met an official of the Department, and explained to him his grievance. "Oh," said the official, "if you will dine with me to-morrow, I will introduce you to Mr. So-and-so." The contractor accepted the invitation; and the consequence was, that the next time he tendered, his tender was accepted, and for aught he (Mr. A. O'Connor) knew, the tender of the gentleman had been accepted by the Department ever since. Such was one of the results of the secrecy observed in regard to Government contracts. So much for the contract system. Now, it had been said that the Admiralty was perfectly free from all prejudice as regarded Ireland. He wished he could think so. Five years ago he was at some trouble to point out to the House the practical "Boycotting" which Ireland experienced at the hands of the Admiralty. Every single thing which the Admiralty could do to deprive Ireland of a fair share in the funds which the Admiralty had to distribute, was done. If there was any possibility of curtailing expen- diture in Ireland, it was taken advantage of; no opportunity was seized of making something like a fair distribution of the National Expenditure. Let them take the case of the Dockyards, which was only one branch of the Services included in this Supplementary Estimate. Under that head there was always something like £1,750,000 expended at home and abroad; at home about £1,600,000 was expended. One Dockyard in England received £330,000; another got £270,000; and another got £200,000. What did Ireland get? The large sum of £900, not 1–1,600th part of the total sum expended. If the Committee turned to the Victualling Vote, they would find a similar state of things—Ireland obtained a sum equal to l–72nd part of the whole Vote. These were the most important Votes taken by the Admiralty, and this was the way in which Ireland was treated. When he referred five years ago to this system, it was not contested by the then Secretary to the Admiralty and the present Postmaster General (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). All the right hon. Gentleman said was—"Oh, we are doing something at Haulbowline, and we intend to spend £25,000 a-year there."As a matter of fact, the Admiralty had not spent that amount of money. The Government had not spent as much money at Haul-bowline as they said they intended to spend, and the reason assigned was that they were obliged to employ convict labour on that kind of work, and Ireland was so free from crime that they could not get enough convicts. Now that the convicts had been removed from Haulbowline, the difficulty attending the mixing of free and convict labour had been removed. All the contracts came to England; all the money for victualling was expended in England; all the money for Admiralty services of every kind and description was spent in England and for the benefit of England. In Ireland there was spent nothing except £193 under one Vote, and a somewhat similar sum under another Vote. There had been ample opportunities of testing the sincerity of the Government in this respect; and, after the experience he had had in connection with the distribution of Naval Expenditure, he should be very chary of accepting any assurances from the Government.

MR. P. J. POWER

said, he was glad to hear the Representative of Her Majesty's Government who had charge of these Votes say that the Admiralty were actuated by feelings of fair play towards Ireland. He was sure that personally the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey) was actuated by no other feeling. At the same time, he thought that the figures which his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had given showed that in their dealings to wards Ireland, the Admiralty did not act up to their professions. According to the statement of his hon. Friend, who was regarded as an authority upon such subjects, Ireland received a mere bagatelle in proportion to the enormous sums expended on Dockyards in other parts of the United Kingdom. No one could contend that the people of Ireland did not contribute their fair share of taxation; indeed, most people acknowledged that now-a-days the taxation paid by the Irish people was altogether out of proportion to their means—altogether out of proportion to what the richer parts of England paid. He, therefore, thought that a certain amount of restitution was due to the people of Ireland. He spoke on this subject with some difficulty, because he knew he addressed a Government who believed implicitly in the principles of Free Trade. He was, however, prompted to say that, inasmuch as the English Government had in times past destroyed the industries of Ireland, it was only due to the people that they should receive something now by way of restitution. According to an authority—Mr. Froude—who could not be said to be particularly favourable to Ireland, England had destroyed Irish industries and——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is now travelling beyond the limits of the Question. It is not competent for him to discuss the general policy of the Government towards Ireland when the items of certain Supplementary Votes are under consideration.

MR. P. J. POWER

said, he had no doubt strayed away from the Question, owing to the fact that he was not yet conversant with the Rules of Debate. This, however, was a time when Her Majesty's Government could mend their ways by giving to Ireland a little more of the money the Irish people paid to them in the form of taxation. He did not know whether he should be out of Order in alluding to the question of chaplains. If so, he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey) a question concerning the employment of chaplains. Within the last few days he had received letters from boys in his own part of Ireland desiring that he should give them notes of recommendation with which to endeavour to enter the Navy. Before complying with the desire of his correspondents, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman what provisions were made in the Navy for providing chaplains for Catholic boys?

MR. KENNY

said, that as he observed that one of the items of the Vote was for the conveyance of troops, he would like to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Caine) if he would explain to the Committee the circumstances under which the Poonah was recently disabled?

MR. DEASY

said, he thought the Irish Members were entitled to an answer to the statements made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). With regard to the works at Haulbowline, he might say that he had visited them recently, and he was astonished to find that they were in a more advanced state than he expected. At the same time, he was bound to say that, at the present rate of progress, it would be a long time still before the works would be in proper working order. The floating dock would be finished shortly, and the dry dock could soon be completed; in fact, if the Government exerted themselves, they could within six or eight months launch a vessel from the dry dock. Instead, however, of employing a large number of men on the work, they employed a very limited number. He believed that not more than 400 men were employed at the present time, and the weekly sum paid to these men did not exceed £350. It would, of course, be of great consequence to the people of Queenstown, and indeed to the people of Ireland generally, if the Government were to lay down a vessel in the dry dock immediately. But, owing to the fact that no provision whatever had been made for the accommodation, in Haul-bowline Island, of the workmen, it would be useless to commence work for some time to come. He would like to know from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey) if any steps had been taken for the erection of the necessary buildings on the Island when the docks were completed? It would be a very unfortunate thing if, after expending £500,000 on this work, the docks should lie idle for three or four years more, simply because there was no accommodation for workmen on the Island, and no plant set up for the building or repairing of ships. Could the Government give the Committee any idea as to the time in which the docks would be completed; and would they state further if they intended to take steps to have houses and all the necessary accommodation for workmen, and the appliances required by those workmen for the carrying on of their trade, provided by the time of the completion of the docks? He had heard it was intended that the docks should be finished in the course of three years.

MR. CAINE

said, that some of the subjects alluded to by hon. Members did not rightly come under the present Vote. If they looked at the Estimates relating to the Dockyards they would see that the sum of £82,000 had been expended altogether, and that of that amount Ireland had received £36,000. That had been, or was going to be, spent at Haulbowline. With regard to the transport Poonah, she had been bringing troops home in the regular course, and was not one of those transports included within this Supplementary Vote. The accident which had happened to her was entirely unforeseen, and the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company, to whom she belonged, could not be held responsible for what had occurred; much less could any blame be attached to the Admiralty.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who represented the Admiralty, whether or not he was disposed to make a reply to the point raised by himself (Mr. Biggar) and another hon. Member as to the desirability of publishing the prices paid by the Government for provisions, and as to the desirability of giving the public some idea of the contracts entered into for supplying necessaries to the Navy? This appeared to him to be a matter of great importance, and one deserving the attention of the Government and the Committee, seeing that the present practice was perfectly contrary to the public interest. Some reply should be given by one or other of the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench representing the Admiralty. What argument was there to be urged in favour of the present system?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, that, in reply to the hon. Member, he was obliged to state that, under the present arrangement, to publish the details asked for would be a breach of confidence on the part of the Government, to which exception might properly be taken by the firms supplying the Admiralty. He should be happy to comply with the suggestion which had come from hon. Gentlemen opposite and consult with the officers responsible for the administration of the Department in relation to contracts; and if more publicity could be given to these transactions without a breach of confidence, he should be happy to consider what steps the Government could take in the matter.

MR. DEASY

said, the hon. Gentleman had not answered one of the questions put to him—namely, that with regard to the works in progress at Haulbowline Docks. Had provision been made for the erection of houses at Haulbowline Island for the workmen to be employed when the docks were finished?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, the Admiralty could not at present pledge themselves as to the decision to which they would arrive at with regard to the completion of buildings and the equipment of the buildings at Haulbowline. All the Government could say for themselves was that they had added considerably to the annual expenditure for the prosecution of the works at Haulbowline. Free labour had been substituted for convict labour, and 400 persons were now employed. When the Navy Estimates for the year were proposed, he should probably be able to give fuller information upon this matter.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Caino), in reply to an observation he (Mr. A. Connor) had made some time ago—and a reply which he was sorry to say he had not heard—had stated that the Government were spending some £36,000 a-year out of £82,000 in Ireland for Government purposes, without including shipbuilding. This amount, he believed, was spent on Dockyards. Probably the hon. Member would have the Committee and the country to believe that that represented something like the ratio of expenditure in Ireland compared with that in Great Britain.

MR. CAINE

Only as far as one matter is concerned—namely, Dockyards.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Very well. If the hon. Gentleman would allow him, he would state to the Committee the facts with regard to the expenditure under Dockyard Vote, No. 6.

MR. CAINE

said, that his statement had reference to the expenditure under Vote 11, on page 19 of the Estimates. He had pointed out that the Government were spending £36,000 on Dockyards in Ireland out of a total sum of £82,000.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman's statement was correct as to 1884–5 in regard to this particular Vote. This was a year in which the Vote for England was exceptionally low, and the Vote for Ireland exceptionally high; but it was only one out of a large number of Votes. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) had not been complaining of this item at all. What he tad complained of was that, under Vote 6, out of a total expenditure of £1,500,000 Ireland obtained only £965. There was a very great difference in proportion between £965 and £1,500,000, and £36,000 and £82,000. Well, he came to the next Vote for the Victualling Service at home. Here, again, out of a total of £72,000 Ireland only received £1,000. It was altogether misleading for the hon. Gentleman to take one particular item out of one particular Vote which happened this year to be more than usually favourable for his purpose. It was unfair for the hon. Member to bring forward these two items to endeavour to lead the Committee to believe that they represented something like the proportion spent on the Navy in Ireland as compared with the expenditure in England. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) still complaimed that the expenditure on the Navy in Ireland was something like 1–400th part of what was expended in England. If the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to ascertain, by means of the furnished Returns, what the Ad- miralty had done year after year, he would see that the sum voted for expenditure in England was nearly always exceeded, and that it was never, or hardly ever—not once in 50 times—exceeded in Ireland. He argued, therefore, that the conduct of the Admiralty, so far as Ireland was concerned, was exceedingly unfair. He did not see how the Government could expect to find Irish Members consenting to a Vote of this kind, until they got a trustworthy assurance that, in the future, something like fairness would be adopted in regard to this Vote.

MR. PULESTON

said, he was sorry to interpose between the Committee and the division which hon. Members wished to take; but he desired to urge for an answer on the subject of the tenders asked for for the construction of ships. He took it that not many would support the hon. Member who had moved the reduction of the Vote; but he should like to know whether or not they were to have an explicit statement from the Admiralty as to what was to be done under the practical Resolution adopted last autumn, before the Vote was taken that evening? If such a statement were not made that night, when would it be made? As he had said, he was sorry to interpose; but he was under the impression, and others besides himself in the House were under the impression, that the Budget had something to do with this reticence on the part of the Government. He was glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. If there was to be a Vote of Credit, would the extra amount to be spent on the Navy come on later, so as to be put into the account of another year?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, the information the hon. Member asked for had been laid before the Committee when the Navy Estimates were moved.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 66: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 41.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. PARNELL

said, he desired to say a few words upon the shipbuilding contracts, or rather the contracts which had been given in Ireland for the construction of ships of the Royal Navy. He was glad to say, and he wished to express his obligations to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey), that in reference to a particular vessel—namely, the tank vessel—which was under consideration when this subject was last before the House, a Cork firm of shipbuilders had been successful in obtaining the contract. But he had since learnt that this tank vessel was the only ship the building of which had been given to any shipbuilder in Ireland. Now, the cost of building this vessel was not excessive; it only amounted to a sum of about £8,000. He congratulated the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty upon having seen his way to give that contract to the Passage Docks Company; but, at the same time, he was bound to take this opportunity of saying that he considered the total result as regarded the number of contracts which had been given most unsatisfactory so far as Ireland was concerned. The particular firm in Ireland to which he referred had never throughout its existence received any contract until now from the Admiralty for the building of a vessel. It had done some odd jobs in the nature of repairs and so forth, but it had never before received a contract for the building of a complete vessel; and the position of Ireland with regard to the proportion of work which was given out to shipbuilding firms was most unfavourable. Now, he did not know from what cause this might arise—whether it was that the Irish firms had been lost sight of or not by the Admiralty, that they were not invited so often as the English and Scotch firms to tender for the construction of vessels; nor did he know whether it arose, on the other hand, from some favouritism on the part of those who had the acceptance of the tenders—but this he did know, that the result was that Ireland did not get her fair proportion, or anything like her fair proportion, of the Admiralty work. While Ireland contributed her full, and more than her full, proportion to the Imperial Exchequer for work of this kind, she got little or nothing in return. He was sure it must strike the Committee, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the sum of £8,000 spent on building ships in Ireland was not a fair proportion to be spent in that country of the millions which had been voted for this purpose; and he would ask the hon. Member whether some different system to that which at present obtained could not be adopted? The Belfast shipbuilders were noted amongst the famous shipbuilders of the world. It was known that Messrs. Harland and Wolff were the first to invent the new system by which the length of vessels was very greatly increased in proportion to their width, and that, in consequence of this invention, America had been brought several days nearer this country. How was it, then, that Messrs. Harland and Wolff had not yet obtained any contract from the Admiralty connected with the large sum of money which had been already voted for increased shipbuilding, and which they were asked to supplement that night? When Irish Members applied to Her Majesty's Government to see the tenders they were told that they could not be produced. Why could not the Admiralty, following the rule which was adopted by all private firms when contracts were given out, and when they invited contracts, publish all the tenders, whether successful or unsuccessful? Such a plan might conduce to the lowering of prices in the future. Those who had tendered in the past and been unsuccessful, would see how and why they had been unsuccessful; they would be encouraged by the knowledge of the difference there was between them and the successful competitors to cut in at a still lower price in the future. All Railway Companies, all contractors, and all private firms who had occasion to call for tenders for particular work, were in the habit of publishing the replies they received to their request for tenders; and if in the commercial and manufacturing and building world the adoption of such a custom had been found of advantage, why should it not be found of advantage in relation to the Admiralty also? Why should not the House have before it a list of the replies and of the tenders received with reference to the building of particular ships? Why should not these be laid on the Table of the House, so that hon. Members might be absolutely sure that fair play had been observed, and so that the unsuccessful competitors might be in a position to make still lower tenders hereafter, to the great advantage of the Public Service, and also to the advantage of the public purse? He supposed he should be told that in the present case it was a case of accepting the lowest tenders. Well, if it was a question of accepting the lowest tenders, there surely could be no objection to laying the highest as well as the lowest upon the Table of the House, so that hon. Members might see exactly how matters stood, or that they might be able to ascertain how far short Irish contractors were from the English standard, and that it might be possible for the Irish shipbuilders to correct their prices for the future, and to enter successfully into competition with the Tyne, the Clyde, and other great shipbuilding centres in England and Scotland. He did not know what the present rules at the Admiralty were in this matter, and how far they might be precluded by the conditions under which the tenders were asked for from publishing these Returns; but it would be perfectly possible for them to change their rule for the future, and to give the House all the information required. Of course, the breach of confidence that the hon. Gentleman had pleaded that night could not prevail in the future. He (Mr. Parnell) wished to take this opportunity of bearing testimony—testimony which he was enabled to bear in consequence of having paid personal visit to the works—to the great facilities which could be obtained for the construction of war vessels in the yards of the Passage Docks Company. This Company was capable of constructing ships of a very large class indeed. Their machinery was admirably adapted for the work; and he earnestly hoped that the result of the attention which had been directed to this matter would be that in the future they would not see the magnificent shipbuilding establishments in Cork and Belfast entirely neglected by the Admiralty as they had been in the past, but that they would be given a fair share of the Imperial Expenditure on ships of war.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had not been present during the somewhat lengthy discussion which had taken place upon these subjects. If he had been present he would have heard the assurance he (Sir Thomas Brassey) had endeavoured to give to hon. Members from Ireland. The firms he had recommended were well known to the Admiralty, who shared the hon. Mem- ber's high opinion of their capabilities. They had been invited to tender for the more important ships which were about to be put out to contract, and for his own part he should be glad to hear that they had been successful.

MR. DEASY

wished to put a question to the hon. Gentleman with regard to the departure of the troops from Ireland for the Colonies and elsewhere. They embarked at Queenstown, but not on their way directly to their destination. They were taken to England, whence they were provisioned and sent on their journey, and the result was that the people of Cork, who might naturally have expected to be called upon to supply provisions for the outward voyage, had nothing to do with these contracts. This seemed to him a monstrous thing. Of course, the system he complained of had to do with the Army, and did not properly come under the Navy Estimates. He would be out of Order in going into it at any length, and also in referring to an evil for which he thought a remedy should be found—namely, the co-operative system, whereby officers prevented their men from making any purchases outside the barracks. This latter subject did not come under the Vote at all, and he would not further deal with it. All he would ask at the present moment was what, in future, the Government intended to do with regard to embarking troops for service abroad, and the victualling of such troops?

MR. CAINE

replied, that the business of the Admiralty was to charter ships to the War Office, arm they had nothing to do with the embarkation of the men, or of leave or permission given to the men to go on shore.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

wished to say a word or two, having had charge of a deputation which had waited upon His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, on a subject which had an important bearing on this question. His Royal Highness had assured the deputation that in future, so far as possible, troops would be embarked direct from Cork or Queenstown, and not brought over to England in the first instance. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had no doubt that His Royal Highness intended to carry out that pledge faithfully.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

1. CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 18S4–5).
cc179-87
1. CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE. 2,923 words
cc187-222
2. CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART. 14,031 words