Commons Sitting of 16 March 1885

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Thomas Russell, esquire, for Glasgow City.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES; CIVIL SERVICES—CLASS VII. — MISCELLANEOUS; CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS—£3,533,650, VOTE ON ACCOUNT; CIVIL SERVICE EXCESSES. PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Local Authorities (Expenses of Conferences)*[88].

QUESTIONS.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—ARKLOW BREAKWATER.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he has received the special report called for on the subject of Arklow Breakwater, the foundations of which have given way, and whether he can state its purport; whether it is the fact that the grant of £15,000 and loan of £20,000 barely cover the contract and purchase-money paid to the Wicklow Copper Mining Company for their interests in the harbour; whether he can now give any estimate of the probable cost for extra work consequent on the failure; whether the ratepayers who guaranteed repayment of the loan, and who, through their representatives, condemned the plans of the Board of Works from the first, can now be held responsible or be called on to pay anything outside the amount guaranteed; and, whether the Government will fulfil their part by completing the harbour works in a satisfactory manner without further cost to the ratepayers?
  MR. HIBBERT: This matter is still under inquiry, and, pending the receipt
  1226
  of a definite Report, which will be made as soon as possible, it would be premature to make any comment on the specific statements and Questions of the hon. Member. I can only assure him that the subject shall have my best attention.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—HORSES FOR OFFICERS.
  MR. CORRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the privilege of keeping a private horse, or otherwise, which was granted some years ago to the resident magistracy, will now be extended to the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: I do not quite understand the Question of the hon. Gentleman. The officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary are, and have been for many years, required to keep a private horse, for which they draw forage allowance.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS—CLOONCLARE DISTRICT, CO. LEITRIM.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the extensive parish of Cloonclare (county Leitrim), within which are held the Petty Session Courts of Manorhamilton and Kiltyclogher, there is only one resident magistrate, Mr. Algeo, and whether Mr. Algeo is now prevented by old age and feeble health from discharging magisterial duty, and the business of the Courts of Manorhamilton and Kiltyclogher is left to depend upon the casual attendance of justices living outside those districts; whether three resident gentlemen, Mr. Michael Maguire, Mr. Laurence M'Dermott, and Mr. John M'Grimes, junior, have been recommended by Catholic clergymen, Poor Law Guardians, ratepayers, and. others in North Leitrim, for appointment to the Commission of the Peace, and whether the Lord Chancellor will appoint them; whether Mr. Thomas Corscadden, of Hollymount, has been recommended; and, if so, by whom; whether his position is that of tenant of grass farms; whether he has been continually under police protection for a long time past; and, whether there is any intention to appoint him?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I find that 20 Petty Sessions were appointed to be held in this district in the six months to the 31st December last, and that only one fell through for want of magistrates. Mr. Algeo attended 13 of these. He is the only local magistrate who attends at Kiltyclogher; but there are four others who attend at Manorhamilton. The names of the gentlemen mentioned have been before the Lord Chancellor and the Lieutenant of the county; but it has not been found possible to appoint them. Mr. Corscadden, who has a property of close on £600 a-year, has been appointed on the recommendation of the Lieutenant of the county. He had been under police protection; but it was withdrawn, at his own request, in August last.

NAVY—WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF WARRANT OFFICERS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Board will now consider the question of compassionate allowances to the widows and orphans of Warrant Officers who have not died on active service?
MR. CAINE(who replied) said: The widows of warrant officers who do not die from the effects of injuries received on duty receive pensions of £25 a-year. It is not proposed to alter these pensions, or to make special provision for children.

NAVY—NAVAL PENSIONERS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to give to Naval Pensioners employed on the Permanent Staff of the Steam Reserve, and to Non-Commissioned Officers and men of the Royal Marines, employed on the Permanent Staff of the Auxiliary Forces, the advantages now accorded to Army Pensioners on the Permanent Staff?
MR. CAINE(who replied) said: It is not intended to give pensioners employed in the Steam Reserve any additional pension for such service. The system on which pensions are given in the Navy is not analogous to that in force in the Army. Marine pensioners employed on the permanent Staff of the Auxiliary Forces will receive the same rate of extra pension as is accorded to Army pensioners.

SCOTLAND—INSPECTION OF RIVERS UNDER "THE RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT, 1876."
MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether there is at present in Scotland any Inspector of Rivers under "The Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876;" and, if not, when it is intended to appoint one?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR),in reply, said there had been an Inspector of Rivers; but he understood his appointment was not to be renewed. The proper method of making the inspection of rivers in Scotland was at present under consideration.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH STATION AT LEITRIM.
COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Postmaster General, If the Post Office authorities have as yet decided to establish a telegraph station in the town of Leitrim, taking into consideration the fact that twelve fairs are held annually in that town, and that a most influential memorial calling the attention of the Post Office authorities to this subject, and signed by the entire of the Leitrim Grand Jury, and by traders, farmers, and cattle dealers, was forwarded, several weeks ago, to the Post Office authorities?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Memorial alluded to by the hon. Member, which was addressed to the Acting Secretary of the Post Office in Dublin, did not reach his hands until the 2nd instant. Inquiries are being made on the subject of the Memorial, and as soon as they are completed I will look into the matter, and see whether it is possible to meet the wishes of the Memorialists.

LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—INADEQUATE SENTENCE— CASE OF CHARLES FOSTER, LEEDS ASSIZES.
MR. BARRANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a prosecution conducted on behalf of the Treasury at the Leeds Assizes in November last before Mr. Baron Pollock, when Charles Foster pleaded guilty to charges of forgery under aggravated circumstances, in reference to two sums of £12,000 and £3,000, and was sentenced by the learned judge to two months' imprison-

1229
ment without hard labour; and, whether the existing Law is adequate to deal with so grave an offence, or if he is aware of any circumstances, in Law or otherwise, which would account for the light character of the sentence?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, the Crown had the power of remitting a sentence which might appear to be excessive; but it had no power to make a sentence more severe. All he could say was that the ordinary law was quite sufficient for the punishment of offences of this character.

MOROCCO—FRAUDULENT CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS AGAINST NATIVES.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the inquiry made into the alleged fraudulent claims of British subjects against Natives of Morocco, and the assurance he gave, in November last, that the matter would not be allowed to drop, Whether he will lay Mr. Pay ton's Report of the Casablanca investigation upon the Table of the House?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Mr. Consul Payton reported on the conduct of a Consular official for the information of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, on receipt of the Report, discharged the official concerned; but it is not a public document, and could not properly be laid on the Table.

MOROCCO—JUDICIAL CRUELTIES.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to a statement in The Globe of 17th February that, on a charge of having stolen a bullock, a man's eyes were cut out by order of one of the local authorities in Morocco; and, will Her Majesty's Government continue to protect the Sultan of Morocco from Foreign aggression without insisting on the reform of his administration?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have no official information of such an outrage having been committed; but Her Majesty's Minister will be instructed to report upon the facts of the case. Her Majesty's Representative at Tangiers exerts all the influence which he can bring to bear to prevent abuses in the
1230
administration of Morocco, and to promote reform.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD—CHELTENHAM MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH.
MR. J. A. CAMPBELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the action of the Town Council of Cheltenham in electing, on 2nd February last, to the office of Medical Officer of Health of that town a gentleman who at the time of his appointment did not possess all the qualifications required under the Orders of the Local Government Board with respect to the appointment and duties of such officers, Section 1, Article 1; whether, in contravention of the said orders, Section 2, Article 4, a notification of the said appointment, instead of being made to the Local Government Board within seven days, was delayed until the 25th of February, by which time the gentleman elected had furnished himself with the qualification of which he was deficient at the time of his election; and, what steps the Local Government Board propose to take in the matter?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL(who replied) said: It appears that the Town Council of Cheltenham, last month, appointed to the office of Medical Officer of Health a gentleman who at that time possessed a surgical qualification only. He had since obtained a medical qualification. The appointment was not reported to the Board within the time required by the regulations. The Board have asked for particulars as to the appointment; but I may state that, seeing that the gentleman elected has now both a medical and a surgical qualification, the Board would not regard the fact that at the time of election he had one qualification only as being in itself a sufficient ground for withholding their sanction to the appointment.

AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE CAMEROONS.
MR. BARRANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the statement contained in the Central News telegram from Berlin, published in The Globe newspaper on Wednesday, March 11th, relating to proposed cessions to Germany at the Cameroons and Victoria, is correct; and, if the result of

1231
such cessions will not involve the relinquishment of the British claim to the Cameroons Mountain, and the environment of the Settlement of Victoria by German territory; and, whether the town of Bota is also to be ceded to Germany, this town being part of the district belonging to the Baptist Missionary Society, purchased from King William, of Bimbia, forty years ago by the said Society?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Negotiations for a friendly understanding between England and Germany as to their respective Protectorates in the Niger and Cameroons Districts are pending, but not concluded. Whatever may be the result, proved rights of private persons will be respected. But this is only one portion of the general scheme, by which it is hoped that all the questions which have been under discussion between the two Governments as to West and East Africa and the South Pacific may be settled by mutual concessions. The details will be laid before Parliament as soon as the negotiations are sufficiently advanced.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—CATTLE DISEASE (IRELAND).
MR. CLARE READasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the number of cattle reported to be attacked with pleuro-pneumonia in the North and South Dublin and Rathdown Unions in January and February 1885; the number of cattle so affected in the rest of Ireland, and in England and in Scotland during those months; and, seeing the large export of store cattle that is carried on through the port of Dublin, if some more stringent and successful measures cannot be taken to eradicate that fatal disease from the cowhouses of that city?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The subject referred to in this Question is one of such importance that I think I shall be justified in going into some detail in answering it. It appears that in the month of January last the number of cattle reported to be attacked with pleuro-pneumonia in the North and South Dublin and Rathdown Unions was 138, and in February 166, or a total of 304. In the rest of Ireland during that time there were only nine cattle reported to be attacked—namely,
1232
two in January and seven in February. In the same period in England and Scotland the numbers were, for January, 89; for February, 56—a total of 145. The prevalence of this disease in the Dublin dairy-yards has been engaging the careful attention of Lord Spencer, and some time ago he directed that such members of the Veterinary Staff as could be spared for the purpose should devote their special attention to the state of disease and the working of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in the Dublin Unions. Accordingly, since the beginning of February last, four, and sometimes five, Government Veterinary Inspectors have been occupied in making careful examination of the cattle in the dairy-yards of the city and suburbs, and have detected a considerable number of cases of disease. They have also obtained several convictions against persons for failure to report disease in proper time, and for other offences of the kind. Furthermore, an Order in Council has' been passed to enable diseased cattle to be removed for slaughter in properly constructed vans to a specified slaughter-house, instead of having the slaughter carried out in the dairy-yard; and one locality, containing a number of dairy-yards in which disease has been prevalent, was, on the 9th instant, declared to be an infected area. All infected places declared by the local authorities are placed under the supervision of police, and the number of cattle thereon is carefully checked. The infected places are visited by Government Inspectors as often as practicable; and it is hoped that the efforts which are being made will result in a material diminution of the disease in the Unions named.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.
MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he cannot now state what provisions in the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition regard as vital, and thereby obviate debate on points that cannot be conceded without destroying the measure?
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked, Whether, considering the number of Amendments on the Paper, relating to the

1233
changes in the names of the electoral districts, the Government did not consider that it would tend to shorten the passage of the Bill, if one or two Gentlemen from each Front Bench were to meet and determine what alterations should be made?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In reply to the last Question, the names excite so much interest that the House would hardly be willing to trust any Members with the final settlement of the subject; and I fear we shall have to discuss the names in the House. Still, I should hope that, on the earlier names, we might arrive at something like general principles. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), I have to say that the answer of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that it is unusual to state in advance what points in the measure are vital—is, I fear, the only reply which I can make. It is the intention of the Government to ask the House to adhere closely to the Bill as proposed, except where its provisions are departed from by general consent.

AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE FAMINE IN ZULULAND.
MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Sir Henry Bulwer, Governor of Natal, has taken any steps to relieve the famine now prevailing in Zululand; and, what is the most recent information on the subject which Her Majesty's Government have received from His Excellency?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, the only information on the point that we have received from Sir Henry Bulwer relates to the state of distress in the Reserve Territory, mainly owing to the influx of refugees from Zululand proper. Instructions were given to the Sub-Commissioner in the district, to provide for a distribution of mealies to those who, on inquiry, might be found to be in need of relief.

LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE DUBLIN POLICE AND CLUBS.
MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police ever visit those clubs in Dublin which had connected with them men who were convicted for card-sharping and betting; and, whe-
1234
ther it is a fact that the only time the police were ever known to enter any of those betting clubs was on one occasion when they were called in to arrest one of the parties for stealing a watch?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the police frequently visit each one of these clubs. They are not aware that any of the members of the clubs were ever convicted of card-sharping. On one occasion a member of one of the clubs called for and obtained the assistance of a detective to arrest a member of the same club for the alleged larceny of a watch. The case proved to be one of unlawful detention without criminal intent, and the magistrate before whom it came dismissed it.
MR. BIGGAR: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the police have ever visited the Stephen's Green Club, where a large amount of gambling goes on nightly?
[No reply.]

ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— THE SOCIETY ISLANDS.
MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, by a Convention of 1847, the Government of France entered into an engagement formally to acknowledge the independence of Raiatea and other of the Society Islands, and never to take possession of the said Islands, either absolutely or under the title of a Protectorate, or in any form whatever; whether, notwithstanding this Convention, the French flag has been hoisted at Raiatea; at what date this infraction of the Convention took place; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to secure the due observance of the Convention of 1847 on the part of the French Government?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the declaration of 1847 is to the effect stated by the hon. and learned Member. The French flag was hoisted over one of the Islands of the group called Raiatea by a French Naval Commander without the authority of his Government. The incident occurred in 1880. Representations were at once addressed to the French Government, who disavowed the act of their naval officer, but requested that their flag should be allowed to remain temporarily hoisted at Raiatea pending negotiations which had com-

1235
menced in relation to the declaration. This request was acceded to, and the provisional maintenance of the French flag at Raiatea has been periodically renewed during the negotiations which have been carried on with a good prospect of success.
MR. GORST: Am I right in concluding that the French flag has been flying at Raiatea from 1880 to the present time—that is to say, about five years?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes; that is so.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE IRISH CIRCUITS.
MR. GIBSONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Is there any objection to laying upon the Table a Copy of the Report of the Committee of the Irish Judges on the subject of the Irish Circuits?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER),in reply, said, that there would be no objection.

NAVY—THE ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, STONEHOUSE.
MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he is aware that the nurses at the Royal Naval Hospital, Stonehouse (Devon), are often obliged to work nineteen hours a-day (even on Sunday) without remuneration for extra time; and, if he will take steps to stop these protracted hours and limit them to the time for which the nurses stipulated to serve?
MR. CAINE(who replied) said: At Plymouth Hospital the nurses are on duty 15 hours a-day—that is, from 6 A.M. to 9 P.M., and when on ordinary night duty, which is three times a-week on an average, have a watch of four hours in addition, without payment for "extra time," so called, except when looking after critical cases, when they get an allowance of Is. a-night. There are no stipulated hours of duty. Leave is granted for one day a-week and alternate Sundays.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— GOREY PETTY SESSIONS.
MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the population of the Petty Sessions district of Gorey, county Wexford, is principally Catholic; whether all
1236
the magistrates attending Gorey Petty Sessions are Protestants; whether he can state what qualifications the two most recently appointed magistrates, Messrs. Turner and Hore, had, and whether one of them has any experience or training except that to be obtained from an insurance and rent office; and, whether there are several Catholic gentlemen in the district perfectly qualified to act as magistrates, and why they have been passed over?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The population of the Gorey district is principally Roman Catholic. I understand the magistrates who attend Petty Sessions there are Protestants. Colonel Hore, who owns a property of £350 a-year, was made a magistrate by the late Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of Lord Maurice Fitzgerald. Mr. Turner, who is agent to a large landowner in the county, was appointed by the present Lord Chancellor on the same recommendation. No such names as those referred to in the last paragraph of the Question have ever been before the present Lord Chancellor.

VOTES OF THANKS—THE CAMPAIGN IN THE SOUDAN.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been directed to Votes of Thanks to officers and men who have gained victories in former wars; whether thanks were not voted for Barossa, Meeanee, the Alma, and on other occasions, without waiting for the conclusion of the campaign; and, whether, having regard to these precedents, Her Majesty's Ministers will take an early opportunity of expressing the gratitude of the House to the brave men who fought at El Teb, Tamai, Abu Klea, Gubat, and Kirbekan?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir; the statements made in the Question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman are quite correct, and my attention has been called to them. At the same time, there are precedents, as I pointed out last year, pointing in a somewhat opposite direction. I think I can only repeat the answer I gave the other day—namely, that we consider, in the present state of things, it would be somewhat premature to discuss the question, but that the Government are ready to give it their best consideration,

1237
and will endeavour to act on the precedents dealing with the subject.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he has considered and is prepared to act on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction in reference to Elementary Education, and more especially the recommendation that linear drawing should be one of the subjects required to be taught in Elementary Schools, as being essential to the education of artizans?
MR. BROADHURSTasked the vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he will endeavour to make provision in the New Code for more efficient instruction in drawing and modelling?
MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the whole of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction have been for some time past under our consideration; but we feel that it is important that those which apply to elementary schools should be first dealt with, in order that the scholars may be able, when they leave school, to avail themselves of the facilities for technical instruction offered by the Science and Art Department, the City Guilds, and other public Bodies. The recommendations as to drawing in elementary schools are now receiving special attention, and I hope very soon to be able to lay our proposals before the House. With respect to modelling in elementary schools, we are not prepared to go on with it at present, as we are watching an interesting experiment which is now going on at Burslem, on the success of which our decision will somewhat depend.

FRANCE AND CHINA—INTERNATIONAL LAW—SEIZURE OF THE STEAMSHIP "GLENROY."
MR. SUTHEELANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has been informed that the British steamship Glenroy has been detained by a French man of war at some distance from Shanghai, and subjected to search, in consequence of (as reported by Lloyd's) having on board a certain quantity of lead, which is, and always has been, a regular article of export from this
1238
Country to China; and, if any intimation has been received from the French Government declaring lead, or other ordinary merchandise, as contraband of war; and, if so, whether he will state, for the guidance of shipowners, the view adopted by Her Majesty's Government on this subject?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have received a telegram from the Governor of Hong Kong to the effect that the British steamer Glenroy had been detained by a French man-of-war, on the 11th instant, between Hong Kong and Shanghai, in consequence of her having on board, as part of her cargo, a shipment of lead, which the French Commander treated as contraband of war. Information has since been received of the release of the Glenroy, the lead having been placed at the disposal of the French authorities. No intimation has been received from the French Government declaring lead or any other merchandise, except rice, contraband of war. Her Majesty's Government have protested against rice being treated generally as contraband of war; but the legality of seizures by belligerents of articles alleged to be contraband of war is a question to be decided, in the first instance, by the competent Prize Court. In the present case, Her Majesty's Government are informed that lead is one of the most common and necessary articles of commerce shipped to China at this season, and is used for making linings for boxes of tea. Having regard, therefore, to the assurances given by the French Government that their right of search would be exercised with forbearance and consideration for the commerce of neutrals, Her Majesty's Government trust that the representations which they propose to make respecting this seizure will result in the release of this shipment.

THE DYNAMITE EXPLOSIONS—REWARDS TO CONSTABLES.
SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the rewards bestowed upon Constables Cole and Cox for their gallant conduct during the recent dynamite explosions, he proposes also to recognize the conduct of Constable King, who, on the night of the explosion at Scotland Yard, re-

1239
moved the dynamite, at great personal risk, from the base of Nelson's Column?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, there was no intention to do so. The circumstances of the cases were wholly dissimilar.

NAVY—SHIPS PITTED WITH THE ELECTRIC LIGHT.
SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What ships we have at Suakin fitted with the electric light, with a view to its being utilised to assist the outposts on dark nights against the stealthy attacks of the Arabs, who are making nightly raids on the camp, and have, on more than one occasion, inflicted injury on the troops; and, whether, on former occasions, the electric light has been found of the greatest use in protecting the outposts from attack?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY,in reply, said, that some of the ships at Suakin were fitted with the electric light, and it had been in use for some time past.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—QUALIFICATIONS—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—MR. M. KILKELLY, ATHLONE.
MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, at the last Parliamentary revision, Mr. Michael Kilkelly, of Athlone, was objected to by the Conservatives on the ground that he held his premises jointly with several members of his family; whether it is true that the revising barrister disallowed the objection; whether Mr. Kilkelly has been nominated for Poor Law Guardian in Athlone Union; whether the Conservatives have raised the same objection to his qualification that they did before the revising barrister; and, what answer the returning officer intends to give?
MR. LEWIS: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to submit to you, Sir, that the Question is altogether out of Order. It relates to no public matter whatsoever, but refers merely to the claim of a private individual to be placed upon the Parliamentary Register as a voter; to the decision given by the Revising Barrister; and to a further claim made on behalf of the same gentleman to be appointed a Poor Law Guardian. If such a Question is in
1240
Order, I fail to see what Question can be held to be irregular.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I also rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask, Sir, whether the hon. Gentleman, in asking you to give a decision on a point of Order, is at liberty to express his own opinion upon the matter?
MR. LEWIS: I am submitting to you, Sir, as a point of Order, that this is simply a Question asking whether the qualification of a certain private individual has been objected to, and what course the Returning Officer intends to take in the matter? I maintain that such a Question violates everything in the nature of decency and Order.
MR. SPEAKER: I must certainly acknowledge that the last paragraph of the Question cannot come within the limits of a proper Question to a Minister of the Crown. It asks "what answer the Returning Officer intends to give;" and I must rule that that portion of the Question is irregular, and cannot be put.
MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHY: Then I will put the Question down to the last line, which, after your ruling, Sir, I will omit.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Well, Sir, the last line is, I think, the only part of the Question I very much care to answer. The facts of the case are these. Mr. Kilkelly's nomination as a Poor Law Guardian has been before the Local Government Board, and they have advised that it should be allowed, which has accordingly been done.

CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN BOUNDARY.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the important letter from The Times Correspondent with Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission in Afghanistan, which appeared in that paper on the 3rd March, and especially to the following extracts:—
"I have pointed out the great strategical importance of Pul-i-Khatun, a place which has always been considered Afghan, and beyond the pale of discussion. Another important position is Penjdeh, in the Valley of the Murghab. Its inhabitants have always been subject to Afghanistan, and it is occupied by an Afghan garrison. Russia does not desire the definition of the Afghan frontier, for it will put an end to her successful system of stealthy encroachment. …. Three years ago the nearest Russian

1241
outposts on the road from the Caspian were at Krasnovodsk and Chikislar, 700 miles from Herat; now they are at Pul-i-Khatun, only 150 miles from Herat. Three years ago the nearest Russian outposts on the road from the Oxus and Merv were at Katra Kurghan, say 500 miles from Herat; now they are at Yolatan, 140 miles from Herat. Nearly all this progress has been made by unopposed encroachments since we evacuated Kandahar;"
whether it is true that the Russian troops have occupied Zulfagar, 40 miles south of Pul-i-Khatun, Ak-Rabat, and Penjdeh (all four places being on Afghan territory); whether any further advance has been recently made beyond these places, and where Sir Peter Lumsden's force is now stationed; and, whether he can now, consistently with the public interest, state that Her Majesty's Ministers intend to protect the absolute integrity of all Afghan territory, including these important positions, from Russian occupation and influence, in accordance with their own pledges and those of the Ozar's Government?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have seen the letter referred to. The Russians have occupied Pul-i-Khatun and Ak-Rabat; but Penjdeh is held by the Afghans. We have not heard of any further advance being made beyond the places above mentioned. It would not be for the public interest that I should make any statement such as that suggested by the hon. Member.

INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND).
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Board of Works are in a position to furnish a Return, showing in respect of each of the larger rivers in Ireland—the area of the Catchment basin; the average rainfall in each; the estimated percentage of evaporation, having regard to soil and inclination; the discharge capacity at the mouth; the capacity requisite to discharge the rainfall minus evaporation?
MR. HIBBERT: Sir, I regret to find that there is no such information in possession of the Board of Works as would enable me to give any useful reply to this Question. At the same time, I admit that the information, if obtained, would be both interesting and useful; but as it would be difficult to give a satisfactory Return, except after a con-
1242
siderable lapse of time, and at great expense, I trust that the hon. Member will not press for it.

TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE WEST OF ENGLAND BANK.
MR. H. S. NOETHCOTEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he can take any steps to bring to an early conclusion the process of liquidation of the affairs of the West of England Bank, the proceedings in whose case have now been pending for several years?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act of 1888 did not apply to the liquidation of Companies, and that the Department of the Board of Trade had no knowledge of, neither had they the power to interfere in, the matter.

ARMY—DEFENCE OF MILITARY AND NAVAL STATIONS.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is his intention to make any proposals to the House for improvements in the seaward defences of Portsmouth, Plymouth, Malta, and Gibraltar, which are stated, on the authority of the First Lord of the Admiralty, to have been under his consideration for some months past?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It will, probably, be more convenient to state fully the views of the Government upon the subject of the defences of the military and naval stations at home and abroad when the Annual Statement on the Army Estimates is made. I may state, however, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that a certain limited amount has been annually devoted to the improvement of the defences of the military ports; and we have recently, as stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty, had under our consideration proposals for providing for their more rapid completion. It is necessary, however, to look at the question of the defences of the Empire as a whole; and the protection of some of the Colonial coaling stations is considered, at present, to be the most urgent service. Having regard to the heavy demand on the War Department for armaments for the Navy and for the coaling stations, it is not probable that we shall make any large proposals for the military ports in the present Session.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would give Notice to call attention to the subject on going into Committee.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—EMBODIMENT OF THE MILITIA.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can inform the House how long the battalions of Militia now called up will be embodied, or if it is his intention to embody other battalions of the same regiments after those now called up have gone through a course of training?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is not intended to embody Militia battalions of the same regiment in succession. Considerable expense and inconvenience are involved in embodying and disembodying Militia battalions.

ARMY—ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH—MEALS OF CADETS.
SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will have any objection to quote from or lay upon the Table any Report from the Medical Officers who have recommended that so long an interval as from 7·55 A.M. for breakfast to 2·15 P.M. for luncheon is an improvement on previous arrangements for the gentlemen cadets at Woolwich; and, on what authority he states that the cadets approve of the abolition of their two intermediate meals, and of the present arrangement?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In their last Report the Board of Visitors strongly recommended a change in the mode of living of the cadets at the Royal Military Academy; and the Governor informs me that the medical officer himself fixed the hours of which the hon. Member complains. The new arrangements have been made solely in the interests of the health of the cadets. I will make inquiries whether the intervals between the meals cannot be lessened without seriously interfering with the scheme of daily studies. My authorities for the statement that the cadets prefer the new arrangement are the Governor and the Adjutant of the Academy.

INDIA—THE BENGAL TENANCY BILL.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Mr. Mookerjea, Native Member of the Viceroy of India's Council,
1244
subsequently to the introduction last month of the Bengal Tenancy Bill, moved for a delay of three weeks to permit of the Bill being published in the vernacular Gautee; whether this Motion was negatived; whether Mr. Mookerjea then moved for delay of three weeks to give interested parties time to study altered Bill; whether Sir Steuart Bayley, on behalf of the Government, said that "he thought three weeks' delay would mean one year's delay;" and, whether this signified that during that time the annual exodus to Simla must take place?
MR. J. K. CROSSasked what the hon. Baronet meant by "vernacular Gautee?" He apprehended it must be a misprint, otherwise he could not understand what it meant.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he presumed it was a word in the vernacular dialect of Bengal.
MR. J. K. CROSS: I presume it really means The Vernacular Gazette, and I am told that there is no such vernacular as Gautee. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say the debate in the Legislative Council on the Bengal Tenancy Bill, as reported by the Select Committee, began on the 27th ultimo. The last proceedings of the Legislative Council which have been received are dated 14th ultimo. The hon. Baronet will therefore see that I am unable to answer his Question.
MR. GORSTasked, when the Returns he moved for last Session as to the cost of the annual exodus would be laid on the Table?
MR. J. K. CROSS,in reply, said, he would be able to give a definite answer shortly. They had the Returns for three years; but they were not consecutive, and he had asked the Indian Government to complete them before laying them on the Table of the House.
MR. ONSLOW,in reference to the last part of the Question, asked, whether it was not the fact that the Viceroy, instead of going to Simla, was going to attend a most important gathering at Rawul Pindi?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Yes, Sir.

CENTRAL ASIA—ENGLAND AND RUSSIA—THE NEGOTIATIONS.
MR. ASHMEAD-BAETLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the date of the new

1245
agreement between the British and Russian Governments; whether any-advance of the Russian troops has taken place since the date of that agreement; and, whether this agreement in any way recognizes that Penjdeh, Ak-Rabat, and Zulfagar, are on debateable territory?
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state the date of the agreement recently entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia as to the occupation of the position at present taken up by their respective Forces?
MR. GLADSTONE: My answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth is this. First of all, I had better remind the House that on Friday I stated—
"That it had been agreed between Russia and England that no further advances should be sanctioned on either side."
I spoke then on the strength of communications from St. Petersburg, and the latest of those to which I referred was a telegram from the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg, dated the 5th of March. On Saturday, in order to obviate any possible misapprehension—that having been a telegram from the British Ambassador—Lord Granville sent to St. Petersburg, to Sir Edward Thornton, a telegram containing the words I have quoted, referring to the assurances that had been exchanged between the two Governments. Earl Granville then desired the British Ambassador to ascertain whether M. de Giers agreed that the assurances referred to constituted an agreement to the effect stated by me. To that telegram I have no doubt we shall shortly have an answer; and, in the meantime, it would, perhaps, be wise of me to go no further than to give the date, which I have done. Then the hon. Member asks me whether the agreement—though the word "agreement" is a little fallacious—arrangement I should prefer to call it—includes the position occupied by the Afghan Forces; and, if so, whether it has received the adhesion of the Ameer? Inasmuch as we cannot command the movements of the Afghan Forces in the same manner as the Emperor of Russia could command his, the expression we used was, that "further
1246
advances would not have our sanction." The whole arrangement certainly did, in our intention, include the positions occupied by the Afghan Forces. It was not, however, possible to obtain for it the adhesion of the Ameer, on account of the time it would take; and it was thought desirable that such an arrangement should be put into operation as soon as possible, while it would require a considerable time to communicate with the Ameer in order to obtain his cohesion. What we did was to urge upon the Afghan Forces not to make further advances; and that was the reason why we did not think fit to keep an arrangement of that kind in abeyance till we could communicate with the Ameer.
MR. BOURKE: Are we to understand that until the Government receive an answer from St. Petersburg this agreement does not really exist, or has not been assented to by the Russian Government?
MR. GLADSTONE: What I stated was that we conceived the arrangement had been assented to on both sides; but that, for fear that some "further advances" might take place owing to some ambiguity, and in order to ascertain that there is an identity of view on the points I have named—although as to that I have no apprehension as far as the substance is concerned—Lord Granville has sent that telegraphic message. I have no doubt that I shall soon be able to communicate the substance of the reply to the House.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the last two paragraphs of his Question—namely—
"Whether any advance of the Russian troops had taken place since the date of that agreement; and, whether this agreement in any way recognized that Penjdeh, Ak-Rabat, and Zulfagar were on debateable territory?"
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he did not think it desirable to reply to the particulars of the hon. Member's Question at that present moment.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible to lay upon the Table the despatch of March 5?
MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; most certainly not. It would be very unusual, and I think most decidedly against

1247
the public interest, to pick out a particular telegram in the course of a Correspondence for publication.
MR. GORSTasked whether the telegram to St. Petersburg had been sent subsequent to the statement of the Prime Minister?
MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I thought I had said so. My statement was made in this House on Friday, and the telegram was sent on Saturday.
MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask one further Question of the Prime Minister, in regard to his reply to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), in order to clear up a point which seems to me to be doubtful. Are we to understand that it is quite clear that it is not open to Russia to depart from the agreement, or rather what now appears to be the unconfirmed arrangement, which has been referred to until the reply to Lord Granville's telegram has been received?
MR. GLADSTONE: The object of Lord Granville's telegram is not to make a new arrangement. It is simply to insure perfect accuracy as to our understanding of the arrangement which now exists.
MR. E. STANHOPEgave Notice that tomorrow he would ask the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the statement made by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Autumn, that we had requested the Russian Government to withdraw from the positions they had occupied in the neighbourhood of Afghanistan; whether any answer had been received to that communication; and, if the Russians had withdrawn from the positions referred to?

POLICE (METROPOLIS)—WANDSWORTH POLICE COURT.
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the acknowledged inadequacy of the accommodation provided for the Wandsworth Police Court and its defective condition, he will use his authority to prevent the continuance of this grievance?
MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had undertaken to give his attention to the subject of the accommodation at this Court, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF LEASEHOLDERS BILL.
MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of his agreeing to give a day for the Motion of the honourable Member for Cardiff, he will, at the same time, name a day for the Debate for the Second Reading of the Bill for the Enfranchisement of Leaseholders, which stood first on the Order Paper on the 4th March, and which lost its favourable position on that occasion through the pressure of Government business?
MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, there was no day that could be given for the purpose of forwarding this Bill.

PUBLIC HEALTH—PATENT MEDICINES.
MR. PULESTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the following, from an article in The Lancet, viz.:—
"Scarcely a day passes without the record in the papers of an inquest on some poor deluded victim who had been sent to his last account from an over-weening confidence in one or other of the much-belauded patent medicines. The facility afforded for obtaining a narcotic, whether it be in the form of opium, morphia, or the deadly chloral, is a consideration which cannot be overlooked. In no other country can poisons be purchased wholesale without a strict inquiry as to the purpose for which they are required; but in England they are sold openly, and without restriction, under the guise of patent medicines;"
and, whether, having reference to the proposed legislation on this subject, he will cause inquiry to be made, with a view to obviating the evils arising from such a condition of things if they are shown to be as stated?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am afraid, Sir, that, considering the very large number of Notices on this subject in both directions which have appeared in medical and other newspapers, it is quite out of my power to give an opinion on any particular observation contained in them. I do not even know when the article to which the hon. Member refers appeared, and the Question gives no date. I have already stated that the whole question has been the subject of careful inquiry, and that legislation will be proposed either in this or next Session.

EGYPT (FINANCE, &c).
MR. BOURKEsaid, he wished to ask the Government a Question with regard to the arrangements for the settlement of Egyptian Finance. Information had reached him to the effect that the Agreement was to be signed to-morrow, and he would be glad to know if that was the case; and, if so, whether Papers would immediately be laid on the Table upon the subject?
MR. GLADSTONE: I think I can give an answer to that at once. I dislike to repeat the answer I have already made, but it does appear to me to be very near its close; at any rate, I can give the House this satisfaction, that the Papers are now in the course of preparation with all possible rapidity. They are delayed by nothing except the necessity, with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar, of communicating with Foreign Ministers as to certain reports of their conversations contained in them. These Papers are in the course of preparation with all the rapidity that the Foreign Office by its exertions can possibly command, and will be laid on the Table without delay, I think I may say, whatever happens.

PUBLIC OFFICES—THE TREASURY— MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
MR. MACARTNEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the junior Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), who, it is understood, had accepted office as Junior Lord of the Treasury without salary some years ago, is now in receipt of a salary from the Treasury?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; such is the case. From the 1st of next month, the commencement of the next financial year, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds will be in receipt of the salary which is usually paid to each of the Junior Lords of the Treasury.
MR. MACARTNEY: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received the usual notice by a paper signed by two other Members of the fact stated by the right hon. Gentleman?
MR. SPEAKER: I am not in receipt of any such notice.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: If the hon. Member puts any further Question on this subject, I shall follow it by a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ask, whether the hon. Member for Leeds has ever been brought before the Land Commission and had his rent reduced?
MR. SEXTONasked, whether the hon. Member for Leeds would have to resign his seat in consequence of taking Office?
LORD RICHARD GROSYENOR: I beg to say that my hon. Friend did resign his seat when he took Office, and was duly re-elected.

EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— REPORTED FALL OF KASSALA.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask, Whether the Government have any information with regard to a matter mentioned yesterday in some newspapers as to the reported fall of Kassala?
LORD EDMOND FITZMA URICE: No information has been received of the fall of Kassala, but only a telegram received from Sir Evelyn Baring, forwarding a telegram received by him from Consul Baker at Suakin, in which it was stated that it was rumoured at Suakin that Kassala had fallen, but there was no reliable news either at Suakin or Cairo.
SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked, Whether it was not the case that the Governor of Suakin had received intelligence from Kassala, that the garrison was still holding out, and that two more attempts upon the town had been repulsed, but that as famine was present in the garrison, and that the ammunition was failing fast, it was impossible to hold out beyond the end of March; and, whether, under those deplorable circumstances, in the interests of humanity and for the honour of England, Her Majesty's Government would not make some effort even now to relieve these heroic men, and thus to save the country from the indelible disgrace which the massacre of the garrison must entail upon us?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE,in reply, said, that with regard to the statement of fact contained in the Question, his reply was in the affirmative, that such information had been received.

THE BUDGET—REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE—PROBATE DUTY ON FREEHOLD PROPERTY.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of increased taxation being necessary for the financial year 1885–6, he will consider the advisability of charging probate duty on freehold property in the same manner as it is now charged on leasehold property?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS),in reply, said, he would take into consideration any suggestion made to him by his hon. Friend; but he could give the House no information as to the Budget until he introduced it.

EGYPT—ZEBEHR PASHA.
MR. MONKasked, Whether the Government could confirm the report of the deportation of Zebehr Pasha?
LORD EDMOND FTTZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; I have information confirming the reported arrest of Zebehr Pasha.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.

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

  NAVY—HIRED TRANSPORTS.

    RESOLUTION.
    DR. CAMEEON,in rising to call attention to the system of chartering hired transports pursued by the Admiralty; and to move—
    "That the system of chartering and managing hired transports pursued by the Admiralty officials is un business like, extravagant, and detrimental to the satisfactory working of home preparations for foreign wars,"
    said, that two Committees had been appointed to investigate into the conduct of the Egyptian Campaign, one being that presided over by Lord Morley, and the other the Select Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the working of the Commissariat and Transport Services. He had read the Reports, and anyone that chose to look into them would, he thought, be struck at the extraordinary number of instances in which elaborate and costly preparations at home were neutralized owing to late
    1252
    arrival in Egypt. The Carthage, for instance, was chartered at £7,500 per month, or £250 per day, for use as a base hospital and transport for the sick. She went out to Ismailia, and arrived late The landing arrangements at Ismailia were extremely defective. In order to facilitate landing, a portable pier was constructed at Woolwich, but it did not arrive at Ismailia until a very short time before the conclusion of the campaign—too late to be of any use. There was a line of railway in existence, and in order to utilize it, locomotives were purchased in England and sent out to Ismailia. These engines arrived several days late. Others were purchased at Alexandria, and went round with the Expedition. It was intended to land them at Ismailia by the aid of a vessel named the Recovery, which was fitted for the purpose; but, on their arrival, the Recovery was not to be found, and when she arrived, it was too late to be of use. A telegraph, corps of the Royal Engineers was maintained in this country, so as to be ready in time of war. That corps was sent out to Egypt, but arrived a week late. There was, again, the iron ration—a ration which the men were expected to carry about with them constantly, so that they should not be in want of a meal if cut off from the Commissariat Department. That ration was sent out, but it was not available until Cairo had been seized. Huts were sent out; they arrived late. A siege train was sent out, but was landed only on the day of the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. The transport animals all arrived late; and this was especially the case with 800 mules, which had been in the hands of the Government months before. This delay, some of his friends said, was owing to the Admiralty's penchant for hiring slow-going steamers. A most respectable shipowner wrote him that, in consequence of the manner in which he had been treated at the Admiralty, he had given up all attempts to treat with the Government. Commission and brokerage, another gentleman told him, was at the bottom of the whole business. A Mr. Baughan, who had the charge of giving out the charters, had a brother-in-law in the office of a firm of ship-brokers, and that firm obtained for their clients an enormous percentage of the charters given out, and so difficult was it to get a charter through

    1253
    any other channel that one company of shipowners, itself managed by a very old-established shipbroker, had, his correspondent informed him, thought it proper to charter their vessels through that firm. Another correspondent called his attention to evidence given by the Chief Constructor at the Admiralty (Mr. Dunn) before the Royal Commission on Merchant Shipping. From that it appeared that there was a rule in the Admiralty not to accept vessels which did not comply with certain requirements, and which were technically known as being on the Admiralty list. The Chairman of the Commission, in reply, remarked that, for some branches of the Government service, they took ships which did not comply with the requirements of the Admiralty. Under those circumstances, he (Dr. Cameron) asked for a Return, which he thought might give some light on the subject. He explained to the then Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) why he wanted the Return. He told him (Dr. Cameron) that it was unusual to give such a Return; but he did not wish to conceal anything, and he gave the Return. That Return was ordered to be printed on 27th July last. It purported to be a Return of all the chartered vessels for Egypt, and to state whether they were chartered direct from the owners or through brokers. The first thing that struck one about the Return was that it omitted the names of a large number of transports. The names of the following were not contained in it:—namely, Euphrates, Patna, Nautilus, Pharos, Peshawur, Thames, Osmanli, Sesostris, Adowa, and Belgravia. He should like the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Caine), whom he understood was to reply, to explain why these vessels were not in the Return. Turning to the Return itself, what struck one was this—that out of the 72 vessels chartered, no less than 15 were chartered from one firm of brokers—Messrs. Ellis and Son—and out of £860,000 paid for these vessels, no less than £175,000, or a little over a fifth, was paid for vessels chartered through Messrs. Ellis and Son. Other charters were obtained through other brokers, but the amount paid for these was comparatively small, and there was nothing to compare with the transactions of the Messrs. Ellis. His object in bring-
    1254
    ing forward the Motion was, if possible, to obtain a reform of a state of things which appeared to be most detrimental to the public interest. The hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had not long been in Office, and, when on the Radical Benches, used to joke at the red tapeism that prevailed in the Government Departments; and he (Dr. Cameron) could hardly fancy that he had already been so long at the Admiralty as to have become so permeated with red tape and officialism that he would do anything rather than return a straightforward and businesslike answer. He had explained to the hon. Gentleman his points, and had given him time to inquire into them; and he hoped he would reply in the frank, open manner that was characteristic of him a few months ago. He (Dr. Cameron) told him of the alleged brother-in-law arrangement. He understood he had looked into the matter, and it was true that Mr. Baughan, who had the giving out of the charters, was connected with the firm of Messrs. Ellis, or had some connection or relative in the office. That was a matter of fact. He knew that blood was thicker than water, and he should not find fault with a man who did a good turn to his brother-in-law. If, at the same time, he could do a service to a relative and the State, it might be argued that he was all the more valuable a servant of the State on that account. But in this case it was hardly so; and he (Dr. Cameron) objected altogether to the system of brokerage and commissions in this matter. There were very grave objections to the system which divided the responsibility of land and water transport between two Departments. In the first place, if they intrusted one Department with the duty of providing the money and another with spending it, they would certainly have extravagance; while, with two Establishments, they multiplied the chances of breakdowns. The only justification of which the present system was capable was this—that the Admiralty knew all about ships, their management, and chartering, and the War Office knew nothing about them. If all the inconveniences of the present system were to be encountered simply in order that an official at the Admiralty should hand over to a broker his responsibili-

    1255
    ties in the matter of hiring ships, it seemed to him that an official at the War Office might as well be intrusted with the business. He need not delay in talking to any man who had a knowledge of commercial matters of the importance of dealing with principals; when others were dealt with, the purchaser—in this case the nation—must indirectly pay the commission. But that was not the extravagance he denounced. The extravagance he denounced lay in the mismanagement of the system of transport in such a way as to render nugatory the most costly and elaborate preparations at home—mismanagement which, if we had to meet a warlike foe, might be fraught with very disastrous consequences to the nation. He had already made a reference to the very defective landing arrangements at Ismailia. It must be borne in mind that it was intended from the first to make Ismailia the base of our operations, and the Engineer officers, taking time by the forelock, fitted up at Woolwich a portable pier. This pier carried a railway and cranes, and a shears or derrick for lifting heavy weights. At this point, it was proper to remark that there could be no doubt as to the meaning of the word "late" in connection with the Expedition. The date of its commencement and completion were planned from the first. As to the end of the campaign, Sir Garnet Wolseley had stated his intention of occupying Cairo on the 15th of September; and, as a matter of fact, he entered the city on the 14th, so that the end of the war was anticipated by only one day. As to the commencement, the simultaneous massing of the English Military and Naval and the Indian Forces showed that the date of the seizure of Ismailia must have been determined on long in advance. The Engineer officer who was to put up the pier went to Woolwich and inspected it, and he arrived at the Suez Canal before the Expedition. Ismailia was occupied on August 20. The pier was not sent out in his vessel, but in three others. The first of these vessels, the Canadian, arrived on August 23; the second, the Stelling, after a 19 days' voyage, on September 5; and the third, the Lechmere, on September 8; these two List arriving 16 and 19 days respectively after landing of first troops, and eight and five days respectively before the battle of Tel-el-
    1256
    Kebir. The pier, which would have been invaluable had it been received in time, was thus rendered utterly useless; the cranes were never taken out of the ship; and as to the shears, one of its legs was left behind, so that it would have been useless if it had arrived. These preparations for the initial stages of the campaign were sent out in slow vessels of 9 to 9£ knots an hour. Both the Stelling and the Lechmere were chartered through brokers, one of them through Messrs. Ellis and Son. He had mentioned the locomotives sent out for the purpose of working the railway on which it was intended to rely for transport. These were sent in the Lechmere, a 9£-knot vessel, chartered through Messrs. Ellis and Son, and arrived only a week before the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. Happily, other engines had been procured at Alexandria, and brought round with the Expedition. These were to be landed at Ismailia by the Recovery, which was specially fitted with apparatus to lift heavy weights; but when they arrived the Recovery could not be found, and they were sent on to Suez, where there was an antiquated machine, described by Colonel Wallace as—
    "A crane, with a curious sort of engine with belting, not gearing, which gave way with the second heaviest engine lifted."
    The heaviest lift was 20 tons, and Captain Hext, R.N., who had the charge of the crane, thus described the operation—
    "The two last engines were a heavy lift, and we had to screw the safety valve of the crane's boiler before we could stir them. The Arab stoker bolted when he saw the steam pressure go above 40 lbs.; but we got it up to 52 with a trusty English stoker. I should not care to have a heavier lift; but, if you send them, they are bound to come out. I think the man who sits on a safety-valve and knows his own danger deserves the Victoria Cross."
    As to the Recovery, Colonel Wallace said he never heard of her arrival. He said—"She may have come, but she was not in time to be of any use to us." It appeared, however, from a question put to Colonel Wallace by the Surveyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Brand), that the Recovery did arrive, but she was 10 days late, arriving at Ismailia on September 1. She was also chartered through Messrs. Ellis. Being of no use for the purpose intended, she was used as a tug. There was another tug—namely, the Storm Cock, a vessel of 328 tons, which was charged at the rate of

    1257
    £750 per month, or about £2 5s. 8d. per ton per month. The most expensive vessel chartered was the Catalonia, at the rate of 35 s. per ton per month. The next highest was the Carthage, which was chartered at 30 s., and only four other vessels were chartered at rates above 25s. Every other vessel, including the tug Recovery, was charged more than £1 per month less than the Storm, Cock. She was chartered through Ellis and Son, and belonged to Mr. W. Beckett Hill. Several of Mr. Hill's vessels had been chartered by Messrs. Ellis and Son—the Tower Hill, the Ludgate Hill, for example. The Notting Hill was amongst the vessels belonging to the same owner, but she was stated in the Return to have been chartered direct from Mr. Hill. Of all the cases of mismanagement connected with this Expedition the case of the Notting Hill was, perhaps, the most gross. After the Transvaal War the Government had a quantity of mules left on their hands as surplus at Natal; and, in anticipation of their being required for the war in Egypt, a telegram was sent to Natal asking how many spare mules they could supply. The Commissary in charge of the station was also Admiralty Agent at Durban, and he had told the Committee that there was not the smallest difficulty in obtaining transport on the spot or fitting out, and that it was customary to use small vessels suited to the transport of from 200 to 250 animals each for the purpose, as being more convenient to deal with than larger vessels. He further gave evidence that, had he been intrusted with the business, he could have got the mules to Egypt in good time. On the 24th of July, when the order was given to take up the transport, the Notting Hill was at Algoa Bay, 500 miles from Natal, and laden with wool. On that day Mr. Ellis, of Messrs. Ellis and Son, called at the office of one of the great Cape Companies and asked them if they could not engage to take home the load of wool, in order to leave the Notting Hill at liberty to undertake the transport of mules. Now, in the Return, the Messrs. Ellis and Son were not given as the brokers through whom the Notting Hill was chartered. The order to procure the transport had only been given on the 24th of July, and the bargain was completed on July the 27th. Meanwhile, Messrs. Ellis and
    1258
    Son had been endeavouring to arrange for the transport of the cargo of wool, and all he could say was that if the Messrs. Ellis and Son had not got their commission, it was hard lines on them, and they deserved to get it. Evidently, the Cape Liner people had their suspicions aroused in connection with the business, and on the following day, the 25th, the representative of one of the leading lines applied at the Admiralty and stated that they had an empty vessel on the spot ready to take the mules to Egypt. Their offer was refused; they were told their vessel was too small. About the same date, a telegram was addressed by the Admiralty to the "Transport Officer, Algoa Bay." Such an address was as vague as would be an address to an officer at the Bay of Biscay. Port Elizabeth was the port of Algoa Bay, but there had not been a Transport Officer there for many years. Such was the evidence given before the Committee. Accordingly, the telegram asking the Transport Officer at Algoa Bay to detain the Notting Hill went kicking about South Africa, there being no Transport Officer at Algoa Bay. Ultimately it found its way to the Adjutant General, who forwarded it to the Admiral at St. Simon's Bay. Thus, a great deal of valuable time had been lost. Now, that telegram had been burked in the Correspondence on the subject ordered by the Select Committee. Several telegrams which had been ordered by the Committee had been suppressed, and that was one of them. On July 29th, however, the Admiral at St. Simon's Bay sent home a telegram stating that the Notting Hill was not available, but that empty steamers could be had at the Cape for the transport. On the 27th of July, the regular Cape traders had apparently heard enough to convince them that they were not in the race for the transport of the mules, and they determined to take the wool cargo from the Notting Hill. It was arranged that they were to receive the entire freight for the wool, and a premium of £2,000; and on the very day on which that arrangement was concluded with those trading,. Companies, the bargain with the Admiralty was concluded for the charter of the Notting Hill for the conveyance of the mules, pay to commence on July 28th. The owners of the Notting Hill had agreed to give £2,000 premium on

    1259
    the freight for bringing home the wool, and they got £3,000 from the Admiralty for expenses of transfer of cargo, and £1,000 for the number of days allowed them to get rid of the cargo. Their charter was for £4,000 a-month. As a matter of fact, however, instead of the prescribed number of days for getting rid of the cargo, they had taken 10 or 11 days, and they did not arrive at St. Simon's Bay until August 7. Now, he wanted to know whether they had been paid for the 11 days, or for the number at first fixed? Three weeks more—for which the country paid another £3,000—were wasted at St. Simon's Bay in refitting. Upon arriving at Durban, it was found that the Notting Hill did not contain accommodation for the whole of the mules. She started on September the 5th, and did not arrive at Aden—five days from Suez—until a week after the fall of Cairo. The mules were afterwards disposed of to the Indian Government at a very high figure; but notwithstanding the good bargain with the Indian Authorities, the cost for the chartering of the Notting Hill, the forage for the mules, the equipment for drivers, and the coal expense of the transport which we were put to, more than swallowed up the total price received from the Indian Authorities. From a commercial point of view, the nation would have been a gainer had the mules been slaughtered at Natal for the sake of their hides and hoofs. Everyone must remember the bargain of Moses Primrose, which was regarded as a type of everything foolish in trading; but it was a model of wisdom as compared with this fiasco, which had cost the country from £20,000to £25,000, without having even a gross of shagreen spectacles, like Moses Primrose, to show for it. All those preparations might have been efficiently carried out, if the transport had been ordered through either the Admiralty Agent at Durban, or through the Admiral at St. Simon's Bay. He thought he had said enough about the 15 vessels besides the Notting Hill chartered through Messrs. Ellis and Son, to show that however well their brokerage arrangements might act in practice, they did not turn out for the public interest. It appeared to him, however, that even in other cases the work of the Admiralty in hiring steamers had not been conducted
    1260
    in a business-like manner. The Royal Engineers Telegraph Corps, for instance, was a corps that was maintained in efficiency in time of peace to be in readiness for time of war. In the Egyptian War their services were of the first importance, and yet the Telegraphist Corps had been sent out in the Oxenholme, the champion sluggard of the Fleet, described in the Return as an 8 J-knot vessel. The consequence was that they did not arrive until August 28, after the engagement at El Magfar, the capture of Tel-el-Mahuta, the occupation of Mashama and Kassassin, and on the date of the first attack on Kassassin. Meanwhile the communications had been conducted somehow. Colonel Salmond, the officer sent out to erect the pier, which arrived too late, had turned his attention to the effort of getting together a scratch band of telegraphists. Luckily, Arabi's men, in cutting the telegraph wires along the railway, did not remove them, and Colonel Salmond looked about for someone who could solder them together. He found a man there who, he thought, knew how to solder the wires and "make earth." By means of pantomime he assured himself that the man understood what he wanted, and it was upon that Arab tinker that our Army had been dependent for telegraphic communication during the first week of the war. He (Dr. Cameron) did not know whether the Government had offered him any remuneration or recognition of his services. The chief Army medical officer complained bitterly of the suffering to the wounded, because, as he had said, owing to the defective telegraphic arrangements, the wounded were arriving before the telegrams announcing their approach, and in the absence of the necessary preparations they were frequently left uncared for for some time. Take another instance. The siege train was rather an important item in a campaign, and Captain Rawson, of the Navy, the principal naval transport officer, in his evidence, had said that the Chief of the Staff wanted the siege train so badly that, directly the vessel had arrived with it, he sent a written requisition that they should land it at once, but they succeeded in landing it only on the day of the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. This siege train had been sent out in a vessel of only nine knots an hour. Then, as to the Carthage, he was

    1261
    not going to argue the question, as to which authorities were divided, whether she was the best sort of vessel to employ as a base hospital and transport for the sick and wounded. But she was hired for that purpose, the pay commenced on the 25th of July, and it was at the rate of £7,500 a-month, or £250 per day. He did not dispute that she was quite worth that figure; but it was a large one, and if the nation was content to pay it, it had at least the right to expect that the vessel would be available for the purpose for which she was hired. As a matter of fact, instead of hastening on to Alexandria, and starting thence with the Expedition, she left England on August 9th, wasted 26 hours coaling at Malta, although she could carry coal for three weeks' steaming, and might perfectly well have coaled at home while fitting out—arrived at Alexandria after the Expedition had started, wasted some 40 precious hours there, and did not arrive at Ismailia until after the first engagement had been fought. As a consequence, the wounded and sick were put to great suffering and inconvenience, and all the medical arrangements were upset. It might be said that all these things occurred in the Expedition of 1882, and that there was nothing of the kind in connection with the present Expedition. He was not quite so certain of that. The Authorities were just as complaisant about the management of the Expedition of 1882 before these inquiries had been held. On referring to the Appropriation Accounts for last year, he found some correspondence between the Accountant General and the Secretary of the Admiralty, in which an increase in the pension of Admiral Mends—against whom personally he had not a word to say—was recommended on the ground that the Transport Department had been on several occasions—
    "Successfully tested by the severe strain of war, and this was notably the case in the last Egyptian Expedition, the success of which depended to a great extent upon the celerity of the movement of the component parts of the Force employed."
    Moreover, in connection with the present Nile Expedition, he might mention one instance which showed that the want of distinct differentiation of responsibility for given duties still existed. Mr. Roper had invented a kind of raft,
    1262
    which he was anxious to have tested on the Nile, and he wrote to Lord Wolseley and to the Admiralty on the subject. From Lord Wolseley he received a letter, stating that he had handed his communication to the Director of Ordnance and Stores for transmission to the Admiralty. From the Admiralty he receivd a letter stating that the matter was one which concerned the War Office, and that accordingly his application had been forwarded to that Department. Again, a want of business management was demonstrated by the manner in which, if he was correctly informed, the Canadian boatmen were brought over to this country. As everyone was aware, there were first-class lines of steamers running between this country and Canada, and the obvious course would have been to bring over these men by the regular line of steamers. However, if he was correctly informed, the Ocean King was chartered, and went out to Canada empty for the purpose of carrying the men here. One improvement, however, had taken place in connection with, the present operations. Since the publication of his Return, the shipowners had ceased to complain of undue favouritism to the Messrs. Ellis and Co. But complaints were as rife as ever of the want of anything like open competition, and that, consequently, the best, cheapest, and most expeditious means of transport were not obtained. He begged to move the Motion that stood in his name.
    MR. PULESTONrose to second the Amendment. In his opinion, enough had already been stated to justify the House in accepting it. He was told that the Committee of last year was not going to be re-appointed. If that was so, the time of the House would be occupied in going into details which would otherwise come before the Committee. The refusal to re-appoint the Committee would be a public scandal, in view of the facts which had already been brought out. It might be said that officials and Members of the Government were busily occupied; but the Committee would not require their attendance at any time when their services were required elsewhere. He did not entirely concur with all that had been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); but he had no hesitation in supporting the Motion. It had repeatedly been stated in the House

    1263
    that the Commissariat and the Transport Departments should be specially and separately organized if we were to avoid in future a repetition of the scandals which appeared to be always occurring whenever arrangements had to be made in connection with war or rumours of war. He hoped the Government would say that they were prepared to agree to the adoption of some different system. He did not see why the system of brokerage should be maintained with such unerring regularity instead of going into the open market. It was not necessary to approach his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Sutherland), who was at the head of one of the largest Steamship Companies in the country, through half-a-dozen brokers. Indeed, business could often times be transacted in a much more satisfactory manner when there was no third party to intervene. This question had been so often discussed that he should have thought some satisfactory system would by this time have been adopted, especially seeing that Members on the Treasury Bench had expressed the opinion that it would be better if Transport and Commissariat arrangements were placed in the hands of one Chief with a separate Department. He considered that open competition, open tenders, and an open market would bring the Government much better arrangements than they had hitherto been able to make. The time must soon come for the abolition of the present system, which not only retarded the progress of our soldiers and sailors when fighting our battles in foreign lands, but which also resulted in a needless expenditure of money. He should like to hear whether the Admiralty had really discussed this matter at all, and he hoped that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, when he came to reply, would be able to state what course the Admiralty proposed to adopt. He seconded the Resolution with great satisfaction, and trusted that this would be the last time that the House would hear anything of the subject.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the system of chartering and managing hired transports pursued by the Admiralty officials is un business like, extravagant, and detrimental to the satisfactory working of home preparations for foreign wars,"—(Dr. Cameron,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. SUTHERLANDsaid, that, as one who had had something to do with shipping affairs and with the arrangement of vessels and transports for the Admiralty, he listened to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow with very great interest and curiosity. He certainly thought that his hon. Friend, seeing the notion he entertained on this subject, was perfectly right in bringing the matter before the House, and his hon. Friend was to be credited with having discharged, in a manner that few persons could have done, a duty which could not have been agreeable to him. It was no part of his (Mr. Sutherland's) business to defend the action of the Admiralty in this matter; he left that to the able and more responsible hands of his hon. Friend on the Government Bench. But having had at various times a good deal to do with transport arrangements, he should like to place before the House the result of his own experience. Before doing so he would allude to one or two points mentioned by his hon. Friend in the course of his speech. In the first place, the words of the Motion appeared to be somewhat vague in their character. His hon. Friend, in his Motion, said that—
    "The system of chartering and managing hired transports pursued by the Admiralty officials was un business like, extravagant, and detrimental to the satisfactory working of home preparations for foreign wars,"
    which meant that the transport work of the Admiralty was transacted in an un business like manner. That was a very easy way of bringing forward an accusation, because it was quite certain that there was a very great difference among people as to what was and what was not a business-like manner of transacting such affairs. He believed that the Admiralty could only do their work in a business-like manner when they acted as an individual would act in any business transaction for his own interest and profit. If the Admiralty had fulfilled that condition, they would have conducted their business to the advantage of the country and with as great an economy as possible. There were two or three ways in which freight on a large scale might be hired. The first method was to advertise for public faci-

    1265
    lities. Another was to employ a broker to hire ships. Or, thirdly, a merchant might himself have a chartering department in his own office and transact the business himself. As to the first, no merchant or shipowner who understood his business would ever put up at public tender the large amount of tonnage required for transport. In the business with which he was connected he had to find tonnage in the course of the year for between 300,000 and 400,000 tons, and his Company never invited tenders for it, but chartered it themselves. There was a time when they did invite tenders, and they found that when the market was favourable the contractor carried out the operation, and that when it was unfavourable he frequently failed. Other reasons could be adduced why, in the case of the Admiralty, this system should not be adopted. There was such a reason in regard to secrecy. It might be of the greatest posssible importance that they should hire transport without the public knowing anything of it; and another reason was that transports were sometimes wanted in the greatest possible haste, and to endeavour to secure them by public competition would inevitably cause delay. Then the Admiralty might engage a broker and place the whole of their business in his hands; and he believed they could easily find a firm of sufficient credit and integrity to undertake the work. But he thought they had adopted a still better plan in conducting the business in their own Office, for he believed that they possessed in their Department all the knowledge that was required for the work. Such knowledge was not to be picked up in a single day; and if the suggestions of his hon. Friend were carried out, and the work transferred to a new Department, it could only be properly performed if the machinery which had the necessary experience were transferred with it. He had reason to complain of the Admiralty in some respects, because he thought they would do much better for the public if they confined themselves to faster vessels. But, on the whole, he thought that public opinion in all parts of the City of London was to the effect that the business of the Admiralty had been done with the greatest possible efficiency. Mistakes might have been made here and there; but it was easy to be wise
    1266
    after the event. The Expedition to which the speech of his hon. Friend referred was most speedily and efficiently carried out. Nor did he find in his hon. Friend's speech any suggestions as to how the work could have been better done. His hon. Friend thought that the Admiralty paid more than the market price. If his hon. Friend were able to prove that that had been done on a considerable scale, he would have made out a case which a Committee would be bound to inquire into. It might happen, without any fault of theirs, that the Admiralty would be obliged to pay 15 or 20 per cent more than they would have had to do 24 hours before. Various inconsistencies and incongruities might perhaps be pointed out in the hiring of certain ships; but the explanation did not lie altogether on the surface. It might happen, for instance, that a ship of 3,000 tons was taken up at a higher figure than a ship of 4,600 or 5,000 tons. But it might also be the case that the smaller vessel would carry out a battalion much more conveniently and at a less cost for coals and other matters. His hon. Friend had stated that a large sum had been paid for the hospital ship Carthage—some £58,000 or £59,000—which would have covered her cost.
    DR. CAMERON: I said nothing of the cost. I merely stated that £7,500 a-month had been paid for the vessel.
    MR. SUTHEELAND: The original cost of the ship was something like £150,000, and the Admiralty paid a large sum for the Carthage simply because they could not get her for less. The most expensive ship they hired was the Catalonia, for which they paid £1 15 s. a-ton per day. But the Cunard Company had that ship in regular and most valuable employment; and they could not be expected to remove her from that employment for a two months' charter for the comparatively paltry pittance of 15 s. or 20 s. per ton a-day. Ships now could be chartered at a very much smaller cost than they could be three years ago, because shipping had received an addition of 1,500,000 tons, and shipowners were glad to accept very low rates. His hon. Friend stated that vessels had been chartered which were not on a certain Admiralty list. To what list did his hon. Friend refer? If he mistook not, his hon. Friend alluded to something

    1267
    which had happened during the tenure of power of the late Government, when they were building a large number of ships and Mr. Ward Hunt was First Lord of the Admiralty. The basis of that list was a very simple one—that every ship should be divided into com partments, that in the event of one compartment being filled the ship might still keep afloat. This implied a good deal of courtesy on the part of the enemy, because it implied that he would keep firing into that compartment. There was no doubt that the compartment idea was a good one in itself; but shipowners were not led to believe, as his hon. Friend supposed, that only vessels on the list would be chartered——
    DR. CAMERON: I quoted a statement made by Mr. Dunn, and the remark of the Chairman of the Commission upon it.
    MR. SUTHERLANDunderstood that his hon. Friend had a grievance upon this point; and if not, he did not see the relevancy of his observations. No shipowner thought that the Admiralty would confine themselves to this list. In his view, his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow had not succeeded in establishing that the service of 1882—the period to which his accusations referred—was not, taken all in all, thoroughly well done. What were the facts of the case? In the middle of July the first vessel was taken up for the transport service, and within three weeks of that date 200,000 tons of shipping were engaged for the transport of troops to Egypt. Within some six or seven weeks of that date these 200,000 tons of shipping had conveyed the Army a distance of 3,000 miles, Tel-el-Kebir had been fought, and the object of the campaign had been accomplished. That was a result which was highly creditable to the Mercantile Marine of this country, and none of the statements of his hon. Friend had detracted in the smallest degree from the broad general efficiency displayed by the Government Department in carrying out the work.
    MR. MACIVERsaid, he very much regretted the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), for he had made serious personal charges against Gentlemen who were not present to defend themselves, and who could not have an opportunity of defending themselves from charges which were, he be-
    1268
    lieved, without foundation. He knew many of the vessels which had been named by the hon. Member, and in almost every case he had been wrong in his facts. There was a certain amount of partial truth in what the hon. Member said; but if he had told the whole truth it would have altogether changed the views which he had endeavoured to get the House to accept. He did not personally know either Mr. Baughan or the Messrs. Ellis; but he indirectly knew a great deal about them, and certainly shipowners generally had very different views about them to those adverse views expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) used the word "job." There was no shipowner who believed that there had been the least jobbery.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he did not charge anyone with jobbery; but only said that a system like this, if pursued in another country, would have been called by that name.
    MR. MACIVERsaid, it appeared to him that both that charge and those brought against the Admiralty by the hon. Member for Glasgow had been made on entirely insufficient grounds. The Admiralty Transport Department had, undoubtedly, sometimes made mistakes. We all made mistakes; but he believed, and it was the belief of the vast majority of shipowners, that the Transport Department of the Admiralty did its work with perfect honesty, and, upon the whole, cheaply. If there was a fault to be found, it hardly lay at the doors of the Transport Department; but it did at the doors of those who were instructing them. If the Department hired slow ship sometimes when they ought to have chartered faster ones, the reason was that the prices which were at this moment paid for ships were so low, that no owners of valuable and fast vessels could afford to give them at the prices. With regard to the Belgravia, which was a Glasgow ship, the hon. Member omitted to tell the House the price at which the owners would give her services; but he was sure they could not give her to the Government at 11 s. or 12 s. 6d. per ton, which was about the rate for cargo ships, or even 17 s. 6d. per ton, which was given for other vessels well adapted for troop-carrying, but not so fast or so valuable as the Bel-

    1269
    gravia. He did blame the officers of the Admiralty for not taking such vessels as the Belgravia and those of the Peninsular and Oriental Company; but it would be utter folly for the owners of those valuable vessels to take such prices as the Admiralty, under the pressure of undue economy, were at present giving. The hon. Member for Glasgow referred to a variety of things connected with the transport business—mules, ships' pumps, railway engines, telegraph wire, and Canadian boatmen. The hon. Member might have finished each story with the words "too late," and he did so by implication. But who was responsible for this constant system of "too late?" The earlier Egyptian Expedition terminated much earlier than was anticipated; but if it had not terminated as early, every one of the things mentioned by the hon. Member would have been required. The hon. Member also suggested that the Admiralty should deal direct with the shipowners when they wanted to charter vessels; but did he know that the Admiralty had quite recently as many as 1,100 steamers offered them? It would have been impossible for the owners of all these to have treated directly with the Admiralty, and such a system would be quite absurd and unreasonable. The proper way for doing it was, as the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Sutherland) had suggested, to employ agents to find the Government the vessels they wanted. The hon. Member for Glasgow referred to the price paid for the Storm Cock. This vessel belonged to a class of which there were not more than two or three in the country, being a very powerful twin screw-tug. It was therefore absurd to compare this vessel with trading vessels of any ordinary kind, or to expect that it could be had at the same rate. The Recovery, which belonged to the Liverpool Underwriters' Association, was a vessel with exceptional appliances for lifting heavy weights, and, had the war continued, would have been extremely useful. He doubted if there was another steamer like her in this country, and therefore it was unreasonable to expect that she could be had at as cheap a rate as vessels of an ordinary description. He thanked the House for having permitted him to reply to the very unfair and inaccurate statements made by the hon. Member for Glasgow.
    MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he thought the Transport Department of the Admiralty could not be charged with want of energy. In his opinion, the case of the hon. Member for Glasgow that the stores were always too late, broke down on examination. The late campaign in Egypt was fought out before a base had fairly been formed. Sufficient military reasons could be adduced for this course, and therefore the charge that the Admiralty were too late could not be sustained. Looking to the tonnage employed, the result of the Expedition was one of which they ought to be proud. In all wars it always would be found that military exigencies arose against which it would be impossible to provide in a moment. In his opinion, the stopping of the transports and the preventing them entering the Suez Canal, were due to such military exigencies, and not due to mismanagement by the Transport Department of the Admiralty.
    MR. GILESthought that the discursive onslaught made by the hon. Member for Glasgow on the Transport Department of the Admiralty was a little exaggerated, and somewhat undeserved. The hon. Member had said the operations of the Transport Department were unbusiness-like and extravagant, and suggested that it would have been well if the Government had issued tenders to the shipowners; but after it had been stated that 1,100 vessels were offered to the Admiralty without tenders, he left it to the House to imagine how many would have been offered if advertisements for tenders had been sent out. It was not too much to say that, had they advertised, every old tub in the Kingdom would have been offered to them. As to the charge of extravagance against the Department, he could only say from his own experience that the shipowners were by no means satisfied with the prices they got, and did not think them at all extravagant. The hon. Member complained that some owners employed brokers; but just as a landowner employed agents, so also many shipowners had their business managed by brokers, and he thought the Government acted wisely in selecting in this way the vessels they considered would answer their purpose. He was bound to say, when he heard the reflections that had been made upon the Head of the Transport Department, that in his opinion they were entirely undeserved.
    SIR JOHN HAYobserved, that though there were many points in the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow with which he disagreed, yet they had been, he thought, so well answered by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Sutherland) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver), that he would not again enter upon them. There was only one point upon which he felt compelled to say a few words. That was, the reference that had been made to Sir "William Mends. He had the honour of personal acquaintance with that officer, and could state that it was to his arrangements that the admirable landing of both the English and the French Armies in the Crimea was carried out. From that time forward Sir William Mends had had the greatest experience in the transport of troops. Having held Office in the Admiralty, he could say that no officer of our own or any other Navy had had more experience or been more successful in the many operations he had conducted, including those connected with the Persian War, the Abyssinian War, and the late military operations in Egypt. He thought the House would hardly consider it consistent with his duty if he had not risen to bear this testimony to the great ability of a fellow-officer.
    DR. CAMERONexplained that he had specially guarded himself twice against saying one word against Admiral Mends.
    MR. D. J. JENKINSsaid that with regard to brokerage he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Sutherland). It was impossible for all shipowners to tender their ships personally to the Admiralty; but he thought that when it could be done it would be a saving to the Public Service. He considered that the Admiralty were rather lax when employing ships on time charters in their conditions as to speed. There could be no doubt that a great many difficulties that had arisen in connection with the service had arisen from the fact that the Admiralty had chartered ships which had not proved themselves capable of attaining the speed contracted for. Some of the ships guaranteed to steam 10 or 11 knots did not make more than seven. He could not understand why the Admiralty should give such extraordinarily high prices for chartered ships. If ships accepted freight and did not come up to
    1272
    the stipulated speed, the owners should be fined. He also thought that the Admiralty were to blame in chartering the Carthage, which was a ship of some 5,000 tons burden, as a hospital ship. Half the capacity of that ship was taken up with engines; and, from his experience, he considered that a ship with a speed of 10 knots would be much better as a hospital ship. With regard to the fresh Expedition, he thought it would have been better if the ships for the conveyance of troops from India to the Soudan had been chartered through the agents at home instead of through their brokers in India. That would have been more economical. He trusted the result of this discussion would be the removal of abuses in connection with the Department which were known to exist.
    MR. CAINE,speaking on behalf of the Government, said, it would take too long a time to go into all the charges which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had brought forward; and, perhaps, it would be sufficient, after the speeches which had been delivered by hon. Members on both sides of the House, if he (Mr. Caine) summed up what were the real facts with regard to this Expedition. He would remind the House that this Expedition was ordered on the 21st of July; that over 65 ships were despatched by the 17th August; that everything with regard to the Expedition was over on the 13th September, the date of the victory of Tel-el-Kebir; and all that was done, although the Expedition was more or less complicated by the fact that Lord Wolseley had suddenly adopted a concealed change of base from Alexandria to Ismailia; that he stopped all the portion of the Expedition, with the exception of the troops, and allowed none of the vessels which had come under the hostile criticism of his hon. Friend to go through the Suez Canal until the troops were through; that his object was to secure the position and water supply; and that it was impossible to land any material of war until that was done. What surprised him, knowing as he did something about the chartering of vessels, was this—that under these very exceptional circumstances so few instances of mistake and neglect had been brought against the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Glasgow had, however, brought a deliberate charge, which could

    1273
    not be passed by, against a well-known firm of shipbrokers—Messrs. Ellis and Son—and against a gentleman—Mr. Baughan—whose business it was in the Admiralty to charter ships. Messrs. Ellis and Son had been chartering ships for the Admiralty since the Crimean War. They were one of the oldest firms in the business, and they had obtained a special knowledge of the requirements of the Admiralty, and it was not, therefore, to be wondered at that owners of ships placed their vessels in the hands of Messrs. Ellis and Son for tender to the Admiralty. The hon. Member suggested, as he (Mr. Caine) understood, that they got an extra number of ships engaged in consequence of some favouritism, owing to there being a relative of Mr. Baughan in their office. Those who heard his hon. Friend's speech would be inclined to suppose that this relation of Mr. Baughan's was really a partner interested in the pecuniary results of these transactions. As a matter of fact, however, the person referred to was in the office of Messrs. Ellis and Son, and enjoyed the munificent and remunerative salary of £70 a-year. That would give the House an idea of the influence this gentleman possessed in Messrs. Ellis and Son's office. He was glad that the shipowners in the House had spoken up for Mr. Baughan, and had not left the defence of that gentleman to him. They had, in fact, borne so striking testimony to his integrity and ability as to leave him (Mr. Caine) little to say on that subject. But with respect to the Messrs. Ellis and Son, he must say that they were a well-known firm, having business relations with the largest firms in the Port of Liverpool and other ports. A number of ships were always placed in their hands by shipowners throughout the country, and they were able to submit by far the largest number of ships that came under the notice of the Transport Department of the Admiralty. In the present operations, Messrs. Ellis and Son had furnished, only a week or two ago, to the Admiralty a single list of 75 ships, of which, as yet, only four had been chartered, simply because now, in the unfortunately depressed condition of shipping, the ships offered were greatly in excess of those available during the previous Expedition. He noticed that his hon. Friend, in his speech,
    1274
    paid an unconscious compliment to Messrs. Ellis and Son, in saying that they outwitted a leading firm engaged in the Cape trade. Any broker or any firm that could outwit his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire (Sir Donald Currie)—who was at the head of the "Castle" line of Cape steamers—must be very sharp-witted indeed. Now, as to the question of brokerage, the hon. Member seemed to be under the impression that the brokerage was paid by the Government. This was not the case; the brokerage was paid by the owners of the ships. Out of the 72 vessels on the list which his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) moved for, 34 were chartered from brokers and 38 from owners; and if his hon. Friend examined the list, he would find that the ships chartered by the shipbrokers were not, on the whole, dearer than those chartered direct from the shipowners. The hon. Member had very severely referred to the delay in the arrival of the Carthage, which was chartered at £750 a-month for a medical transport and hospital ship, and which, he said, did not arrive at Alexandria until three days after the departure of the Expedition to Ismailia, and that it was not available until after two engagements had been fought, thus throwing the medical arrangements out of gear. But he (Mr. Caine) had already explained that this ship was one which was stopped by Lord Wolseley; and, indeed, instead of applying the phrase "too late" to this and to other cases, it might be said that they arose from Lord Wolseley being "too soon." It was the marvellous rapidity with which Lord Wolseley carried out the campaign, not that these vessels were "too late." With regard to the Notting Bill, no doubt it had taken longer on its journey than had been expected; but it was by no means a costly ship for what it was required to do, and if its work had to be done over again, it would probably be done in exactly the same way. As to the pier of which the hon. Member complained, because it was sent in three ships, that was because it could not be got into one. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Recovery and to the lifting of locomotive engines. It must be borne in mind, however, that the Recovery was half a tug and half a salvage vessel, and that the cost of building such a vessel would have been very great.

    1275
    In these circumstances, therefore, £600 per month was a reasonable rate for such a ship. The vessel was not intended to lift locomotives, but to lift sunken ships and lighters in the Canal. The hon. Gentleman had wrongly described the Oxenholme as an eight-and-a-half-knot ship. As a matter of fact, however, in the course of this Expedition, the vessel steamed 10 knots one day and 11 knots on another. The figure quoted by the hon. Member from the Return was a wrong description. Complaint was also made that the Canadian boatmen were not brought to this country and transhipped. They were not brought to this country for the reason that they were taken to Alexandria direct in a steamer, the Ocean King, which was lying in Montreal at the time she was engaged for the service, and was not sent out from London as his hon. Friend alleged. Reference had also been made to the Storm Cook, and it was asked why £750 per month was paid for this vessel, which was also chartered from Messrs. Ellis and Son. It was a very exceptional steamer, there being only two such in existence, and this sum had. been paid because the vessel could not be obtained for less. At any rate, he thought the price paid was exceedingly reasonable. He had endeavoured to go categorically through the various charges brought forward by the hon. Member. He hoped he had shown the House that, although there might have been some little delay here and there, the carrying out of this exceedingly difficult piece of transport work, if summarized by his hon. Friend, would be found to reflect the greatest credit upon the Department, and he felt sure there was not a single firm of shipowners that could have done it so well.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he felt bound to congratulate the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Caine) on the facility and rapidity with which he had acquired the habit of making a defence. One would almost think his speech had been prepared beforehand. His hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had met the usual experience of those who exposed grievances and advocated remedies. He had been accused of and condemned for making many charges which he never made. His hon. Friend had complained not so much about the
    1276
    price paid for the vessels, as for the unfortunate circumstance that the vessels were useless for the purpose for which they were chartered; and, in spite of all the denials that had been given, the fact remained that it was so. For instance, the Carthage was a case in point; for though it was undoubtedly a very fine vessel it arrived too late; and the same remark applied to the Recovery—that it was not at hand when required; whilst, as to the Notting Hill, he did not think there could have been or could be greater bungling. The charges brought forward by his hon. Friend showed clearly that there was a want of cooperation between the Admiralty and the War Office. There was not that cooperation which insured the prompt and efficient discharge of work that had to be done. No doubt, the Expedition was successful; but anyone, in reading over the evidence and noting the mishaps which occurred, as well as the want of organization indicated by the evidence brought before the Committee, would see that they had reason to congratulate themselves that the Expedition was so successful as it really turned out to be, for it was perfectly certain, owing to this want of harmony and divided responsibility, that if we had had to face in Egypt an enemy worthy of the British arms, the result might have been different. He was glad that the question had been raised, because he believed his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow had done good service in bringing it before the House and the country, and he thought if the Admiralty would adopt the plan practised by the firm over which his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Sutherland) presided it would be advantageous. He knew for a fact that great complaint had been made by the shipowners in the City, that no vessels, however good they might be, could be chartered except through one particular firm of brokers. He could not see that any harm would result from the Government adopting the practice of allowing the public to know that they were open to receive tenders for the chartering of vessels; because it seemed to him that that was the most advantageous way of carrying out work of this nature. He hoped that when the new Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Caine) brought his business qualifications to bear on the chartering of vessels and the purchase of

    1277
    stores, he would not, at the end of his official career, have so many failures to account for and regret as had been disclosed in connection with the Egyptian Campaign of 1882.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he could not help expressing his sense of the amusement he experienced at the judicious vagueness of the defence adopted by the Representative of the Admiralty. It seemed to him that that defence dealt more with the arguments not brought forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) than with the specific accusations which he had brought forward. The evidence upon which his hon. Friend based his case was given before the Select Committee on Transport and Commissariat which sat last Session; and, although he (Dr. Farquharson) agreed with those hon. Members who believed that the war had been a great and a brilliant success, he thought that, as had been said, anyone who had read the evidence taken before that Committee would feel convinced that that success would have been still more marked had the arrangements entered into by the Admiralty in regard to chartering merchant vessels been better carried out. He did not think that his hon. Friend the Junior Lord of the Admiralty had made out a good defence upon this point. At all events, it was quite clear that the present system was capable of great improvement, and he quite agreed that his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) had done good service in bringing it forward. He (Dr. Farquharson) maintained that, through these defects, great suffering had been endured by wounded and invalid men in consequence of the non-arrival in time of the ships conveying the hospital appliances and commissariat. He had heard tonight with some surprise that the Committee, of which he had the honour of being a Member last year, was not to be re-appointed during the present year. He regretted that step, for he believed that the re-appointment of that Committee would be a great advantage to the Service.
    MR. GOURLEYsaid, he had hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Junior Lord of the Admiralty would have expressed his intention to confer some mark of honour upon the masters and officers of the Mercantile Marine who had been engaged in the service of the
    1278
    Government for several months during the Egyptian Campaign, and had conducted the Transport Service so satisfactorily, and without any casualty whatever. He thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had made out a very clear case in favour of the re-appointment of the Transport and Commissariat Committee of last year, and had done good service in the matter. He should support his hon. Friend if he went to a division. If the present system of chartering vessels was not based upon favouritism, it certainly was a very bad system, for the Transport Department of the Admiralty did not always engage those ships which were best adapted for transport, and in many cases they had not chosen the fastest. He thought that in all cases, excepting periods of severe pressure, ships should, as with the Emigration Commissioners, be engaged by public tender. He did not think that the defence of the Admiralty with regard to Messrs. Ellis and Son had been made out satisfactorily, because the Admiralty could, under the terms of the Post Office Mail Contracts demand the use of ships so employed from their owners.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

  NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY—THE SINKING FUND.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MARRIOTT,in rising, according to Notice, to call attention to the present state of the Navy, and to move a Resolution, said: Sir, the subject of the deficiencies of the Navy has been for some time past well before the public. Special attention has been called to the subject by certain of the evening papers; and it has been discovered, in the last two or three years, that Members of the Government are particularly amenable to any expressions of opinion given in the evening papers. I do not know why they should make a distinction between morning and evening papers; but, practically, the Government has been very much carried on lately by what I may call Government by the evening papers. Hon. Members will recollect how, a short time ago, there appeared a series of articles on The Bitter Cry in one of the evening papers, and that the Govern-

  1279
  ment immediately appointed a Commission to inquire into the question of the housing of the Metropolitan poor. About a year ago, the same paper, The Pall Hall Gazette, made an onslaught against the Government, and urged them to send to Egypt that unfortunate General, Gordon. Many other means had been suggested by other counsellors for dealing with the Egyptian difficulty, but they were entirely neglected, and the Government once more listened to The Pall Mall Gazette, and sent General Gordon out on his ill-fated mission. It was due to this paper that attention was called to naval deficiencies in October or November last; and it was certainly strange that while Admirals and various officials connected with the Admiralty had been pointing out to the Government the danger that existed, their complaints were entirely passed by; but the moment that the articles appeared in this journal, the Government paid them immediate attention, and such attention, too, that they actually came down to the House and submitted proposals for increasing the Naval Estimates by no less a sum than £5,525,000. I have no hesitation in saying that that increase appeared to be due wholly to the agitation of The Pall Mall Gazette. With regard to that £5,525,000, I am sure I, for one—I hope I do not show an undue curiosity—should like to know what has taken place in the official circles of the Government. Report says that a Committee of the Admiralty was appointed, and that they recommended an expenditure not of £5,525,000, but of something like £11,000,000 sterling. Now, we know that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey) is a Gentleman whom we can respect, and he always shows great respect to this House by coming down here with carefully prepared speeches. I had the pleasure of listening to his speech when he proposed the Estimates, and the whole of us formed the idea that a sum of £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 would be spent in remedying the deficiencies of the Navy. Yet the hon. Gentleman has now come to the lame conclusion that only £5,525,000 is to be spent, and that not at once, but to be spread over five years. That is the proposal of the Government through him, and it comes merely to this, that in five years another £1,000,000 is to be added to the Naval Estimates. That
  1280
  shows the Government have never realized the gravity of the naval condition of this country, and have no adequate idea of our naval defences. They are now going to meet this demand in a huckstering, and what I may call a Party, spirit, to please their own Party, both in this House and out of it, instead of recognizing the real wants of the country. Now, it is worth while inquiring why the condition of the Navy should be the subject of complaint, not merely among all the officials, but that there should be a widespread anxiety in the country and abroad, which has even moved the Government themselves to confess their shortcomings? The historian of the future, when looking back to the year 1868, and coming down to the present time, will call the interval "the Gladstone period;" for in the year 1868, the present Head of the Government became, for the first time, Prime Minister of what was then a great, powerful, and universally respected Empire. Well, in that year, the Naval Estimates were £10,896,871, or close upon £11,000,000. Now, if we go back to the happy period when the present Premier first become Prime Minister in this country, and compare it with the year 1883—and I bring it to this year, because it is the only year the statistics are collected—we find the following facts. Some of them are very satisfactory to the country, and I have no doubt if some Party historian were writing a history of the period, he would attribute all this to the benign influence of a Liberal Government. It seems that between these years the population increased by nearly 5,000,000; the increase in the imports and exports between 1868 and 1883 amounted to £210,000,000; while the increase in the value of our shipping was £1,509,000. The property assessed to the Income Tax has increased £171,082,000. Now, taking that increase, which was brought about not by the Government, but in spite of them, people would think that the Naval Estimates would have increased in proportion. Yet what is the fact? Why, I gave you just now the Naval Estimates in 1868 and in 1882–3. They were £10,662,184, and thus, far from showing an increase, they exhibit a decrease of £234,687, as compared with the Estimates of 1868. Well, now, that is an astounding statement. I do not believe

  1281
  it is known, believed, or realized by the country at large. I feel certain that the evening paper to which I referred has done enormous service to the country in drawing attention to this subject, and in having able writers to bring those figures before us. I hope they have been studied by all. I am sure that, if encouraged, the Secretary of the Admiralty will speak. These figures have been in print for some time; they have astounded me, and I think they must have astounded everybody. Here is a vast increase in the population and property of the country, and a decrease in the Naval Estimates which are to provide for the defence of the country. In other words, we are increasing the wealth, but reducing the power to protect that wealth. I have no doubt—indeed, we know it is a fact—that our power has actually been diminished during the last five or six years; whilst other nations have been maintaining their expenditure and increasing their power. In the same period of time Germany, Russia, France, and Italy have increased their expenditure to the extent of £4,273,886, or about £1,000,000 each, while this country has gone backwards. We know the Prime Minister has always been a great and prominent advocate of economy. His great object has always been to present himself before the nation as above all an economist, and present to the nation a favourable Budget. I do not know exactly what the Royal Horse Guards' next Budget will be; but I imagine it will be somewhat disappointing to himself, and especially to the nation. The result of his policy will, in fact, be a serious money loss, as well as a great blow to the prestige of this country. There has, perhaps, been economy; but it is economy at the sacrifice of efficiency, and the sacrifice of the blood and wealth of the country. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has, by devoting all his energies and abilities to legislation, produced some good measures—some which were sensational, and some of which were harmful and detrimental to the interests of the nation—but in devoting all his energies to legislation he has neglected administration and government, and he has forgotten that there is someone else to consider, for in a great Empire like this, not legislating alone for 35,000,000
  1282
  of people, but for something like 300,000,000, administration and government are of far greater importance than the legislation which has been going on in this country for the last 15 or 16 years; and, moreover, the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's Administration has been permeated by this narrow spirit of economy bearing everything down with it. If we could only get behind the scenes, we should find, I have not the least doubt, that the officials at the War Office and the Admiralty have done their duty to the State by pointing out the requirements of their Services and the state into which everything was falling for want of the necessary supplies, and that these officials have given proper advice; and we should also find that, at the Treasury, the Estimates of these officials have been sifted and cut down, and the country sacrificed to the supposed necessities of the Department. The object—the paltry object—of the Treasury is to get everything cheap, so as to show the country, if possible, that the Government of the present Prime Minister is much cheaper than the Government of other Ministries. I regret, however, that I am also compelled to reflect upon the Administration of the last Government, which also stinted the Services owing to the baneful influence of the Prime Minister. It has proved to be a very difficult thing to resist that influence in this House. You will all remember a Gentleman who was highly respected by every person and by every Party in this House. He was the type of a true English Gentleman, distinguished for his honest opinion and plainness of speech and his inability to say anything which was not straightforward and true. I refer to the late Mr. Ward Hunt. Well, when he became First Lord of the Admiralty, and upon examining into the state of the Navy, and seeing its condition, he blurted out the truth, and made use of those famous words—"It is a phantom Navy." We know the sensation which those words produced at the time; but we also know that pressure was brought to bear upon Mr. Ward Hunt, who was afterwards induced to admit that he might have spoken too strongly, though there appears to be no doubt now that he spoke the truth, but that the influence of the economist was too strong for him. The late Prime Minister inherited

  1283
  the same evil traditions of 1868, and the Navy again suffered, so that, at the present time, we are in a very dangerous position, and our naval strength is very small compared with that of other nations. The public want to know the truth with regard to the Navy. The present Ministry has no policy; they only seek to catch what they think to be public opinion, so as to got a majority in the House and the country. What is really required is that public opinion should be guided and led by those who conduct the Government of the country. Instead of pandering to public opinion, a Ministry should lead, and, if necessary, oppose public opinion. Instead of trying to catch public opinion they should have a policy of their own, and more especially they should devote themselves to keeping up the naval strength of the country. What, I ask, is the result of all this spirit of economy, marring our administrative power? Why, that, at the present moment, this country is only slightly superior to France in first-class iron-clads, whilst it is behindhand in guns and torpedo boats; and in four years' time, at the present rate of progress in both countries, we shall be equal in iron-clads, and still inferior in guns and torpedoes. We have at the present time something like 30 first-rate iron-clads to France's 19. At the end of the year we shall have 37, and France 30, and in four years each Power will have 48. But many of these vessels are older than the French, and older than the time which I think Lord Northbrook has set down for the efficient life of an iron-clad—namely, 17 years. After 17 years, we are told, they become obsolete and useless. In that respect we shall see that we have only 14 first-class iron-clads built within the last 17 years; whilst France has 17; and, at the present time, we have seven launched and completed, whilst France has eight. Both nations have six on the stocks, and I admit that we are promised four more; but the promise is not to be fulfilled for four years, and the Navy of France will continue to be equal, if not superior, to our own. I have only been referring to first-class ships; but in torpedo boats and guns there can be no doubt of the superiority of other nations over ourselves. In torpedo boats we are far behind France, Germany, Italy, and Russia; that is a scandal to the Naval
  1284
  Administration of this country. This country has more valuable shipping ports than any country in the world, and torpedo boats are the most available for their defence. But these are practically undefended at the present time. What caused me to put down my Motion was this—that I felt that this country had for years neglected her Navy. She has not spent enough money upon it; and the consequence is that, whilst other nations are advancing, we are standing still, or rather going back in proportion to our requirements. What we want is statesmen to rule the nation, who have courage of their opinions, and who will be prepared to form and guide public opinion, instead of being its slaves. We see how Prince Bismarck, in the Parliament of Germany, is not afraid even to oppose public opinion.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he rose to Order. What had the doings of Prince Bismarck to do with the subject before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. and learned Member is somewhat wandering from the subject, which is that the House go into Committee of Supply.
  MR. MARRIOTT: I merely wished to point out how Prince Bismarck, in advocating the establishment of lines of steamers for Australia and elsewhere, has the courage of his convictions; and we want statesmen who are capable of forming opinions, and of showing that they have the strength to maintain them. I consider that I am doing a kindness to the Ministry in pointing out what are the true feelings of the people and the real wants of the country. Anybody can see that by our neglect of the Services we have lost power and influence in our negotiations with Foreign Powers, and that by our timidity we have encouraged their aggressiveness. If we had a larger Fleet we should have kept our former position as mistress of the seas, and the country would not have had to put up with and suffer the many insults and rebuffs as we have done during the last few months. If we are to be respected we must be strong; and I say the proposals made by the Government last December are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. We want to spend something like £7,000,000 or £10,000,000 at once, in order to bring us up to the relative position which we held in 1868; and

  1285
  however we may raise the money, whether we borrow, or suspend the Sinking Fund, it would be a most economical outlay in the end, for it would place Her Majesty's Government, when negotiating with other Powers, in such a position of strength, that they would be able to command peace. If Her Majesty's Government had taken up a firm attitude, and announced some time ago that they were prepared to spend at once £10,000,000 upon our Navy, I do not think we should have had the rebuffs we have had from Germany, or the encroachments we have had to submit to from Russia. I hope we shall no longer fetter our strength for the sake of the miserable contingencies of Party Government, and thus continue to bring a great nation into disrepute, besides causing a great and unnecessary expenditure in blood and treasure. In conclusion I beg to thank the House for the manner in which it has heard me. I believe sincerely in the spirit of the Motion which I have to lay before the House, and therefore I propose—
  "That considering the present acknowledged insufficiency of the British Navy, and the great depression of the Shipbuilding Trade, it is advisable to defer the payments made in respect of the National Debt for one year, in order to apply the Surplus Revenue of the Nation to the building and repairing of Ships in the National Dockyards and private Shipbuilding Yards."
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that, a Motion having already been made and negatived, the Resolution of, the hon. and learned Member could not be put from the Chair.
  MR. CARBUTTsaid, he had no intention to follow the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) into the many political subjects which he had touched upon; but he wished to say that there was reason for the great alarm and apprehension felt in the country that we were not now fully prepared to meet our enemies in case the necessity for doing so should arise. He was certain the 2,000,000 voters who had been enfranchised would take care that the Government looked more after the protection of this country than they had been doing of late; and he believed they would not protest against any reasonable expenditure of money for the preservation of the honour of the Empire. The Government should never bark unless they were prepared to bite,
  1286
  and they should never threaten unless they were prepared to strike. His own impression was that with regard to guns we were in a very backward state; indeed, it seemed that for some years past the country was altogether indifferent about the matter, the consequence being that we had rapidly fallen behind other countries with respect to it. But when he remembered all the difficulties and trials which the French underwent at the time of the occupation of their country by the Germans, and reflected that perhaps the same thing might happen to us at a future time, he thought it was necessary that that subject should be inquired into very closely. We had no reliable guns, and Lord Northbrook himself had admitted, in a speech made in "another place," that there had been a most regrettable delay in supplying breech-loading guns for the Navy. The House ought to inquire whose fault that was owing to, and should take care that that state of things should not continue. As a manufacturing nation, he considered we ought to be able to maintain our own, and not be dependent for the supply of our guns on foreign nations. On a former occasion he had said that at present they had not one single large breech-loading steel gun that was capable of doing any good work. He desired to qualify that remark, because on the day that he made it a trial took place in Her Majesty's Ship Collingwood with two 43-ton steel guns that were prepared for the Edinburgh; and since then two more had been placed on board ship. So that they had four of those 43-ton guns that were able to fire to a certain extent; but, judging from the account that had been given of the trial, they could hardly consider those guns in a condition to be of any service to them at present, as they were unable to fire these guns with full powder charges. It was monstrous that they should go on building those guns on the assumption that they would do so and so; and not only that, but that they should make 63-ton guns and 110-ton guns on the same principle without thoroughly testing them, and satisfying themselves that they were really capable of doing the work that should be expected from them. Those 43-ton guns were originally designed to fire with 400 lbs. of powder, whereas at present they fired

  1287
  with only 298 lbs. His contention was that the Government had never encouraged the manufacturers of this country, but had entirely ignored them. The firm of Messrs. Whitworth, although it had never been able to get a single order from Her Majesty's Government until lately, had continued to make guns for the Brazilian and other Governments, and had done very good work. He did not blame the present Government, who, he believed, had done all they possibly could. The late Government was as much to blame as anybody. What he blamed was the system. When it was admitted by the heads of both the Army and the Navy that the Woolwich gun was a failure, and the system had broken down, arrangements ought to have been made for the adoption of a better system. A remarkable paper had been read at the United Service Institution by Colonel Maitland, the head of the Gun Department at Woolwich. He stated that up to 1875 the British Artillery was as good as that of any other nation. Then, he said, there came a period of stagnation; and since that we had been endeavouring to make up our leeway. Science advanced so fast that the Power which waited the longest was always in the best position, supposing it were not caught napping. In effect, this was an important admission that we had been left behind by other nations; and it was a fortunate thing that we had not been caught napping. If we were to maintain our position as leaders and colonizers, it was necessary that we should be fully prepared to maintain our own. From another passage in the paper it appeared that the author admitted that we had obtained the benefit of German experience in adopting steel, and of French experience in adopting breech-loaders. Now, to his knowledge, the Germans were making steel guns 25 years ago, and the Russians 20 years ago. The French were only awakened to the fact that they were not in a position to compete with their neighbours by the occurrence of the Franco-German War. It did seem strange that we should be the leading nation in the manufacture of steel, and in the application of the inventions of Bessemer and Siemens, and yet that we should be 15 or 20 years behind other nations in adopting steel guns. Fortunately, Sir Joseph Whit-
  1288
  worth had continued his researches, and he was glad to find that the Government had given orders to Sir Joseph Whitworth for his material. In consideration of the number of guns which had burst on different occasions, and of the fact he had before referred to, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), that the Woolwich gun had failed, it was necessary that all our large guns should be thoroughly tested, almost to destruction, so that their weak points might be discovered, and some definite decision arrived at as to which was to be the gun of the future, for we ought not to go on making guns without knowing what we were doing. On a previous occasion we made 100 Armstrong guns; we then tried one, which failed, and nearly the whole 100 were wasted. He would press the Government to test one of these large guns, if possible to destruction, and let us know whether we had got a thoroughly trustworthy system. The smaller guns had given a great deal of trouble. An 80-ton gun had burst at Gibraltar; it was one of four bought from Sir William Armstrong. These four guns cost £86,000; and one of them having burst, it was only natural to suppose that the others might do so. As long as there were any doubts on the subject men could not work these guns with the confidence which they ought to have. There had been a Committee of Inquiry and experiment, and it appeared to have tried numerous experiments on the 6-inch gun, one of which burst on Her Majesty's Ship Active. What he asked was that some Committee should be appointed in the matter, so that all guns should be thoroughly tested, and a Report upon the subject made to Parliament; for his impression was that our whole system of manufacture was wrong, and that we had never attempted to make trials of any gun even when we had the chance. When we purchased the Neptune there were four 9-inch steel guns, made by Messrs. Whitworth and Co. The right hon. Member for Westminster, who was then at the head of the Admiralty, promised that they should be tried; but they had not been tried; they had been taken out and sent to Woolwich to be put aside as old iron, and the cost of replacing them was £120,000.

  1289
  For these things he did not blame the right hon. Gentleman; but he blamed the permanent Officials at the Admiralty, who were too strong for their political Chief. It was this anomaly that we must remedy if possible. He believed that the present Surveyor General of Ordnance was doing all he could to rectify all that was wrong; but he was not a gun-maker, and he ought to have some official who could give him sound advice. He had nothing of the kind; but he was dependent upon an Inspector General of Gunnery, who had not had much experience. He was told that the last gentleman appointed was junior to every manufacturer in the service of the Government. The appointments were made for five years, and that time was barely sufficient for a responsible official to obtain' the experience he required. We ought not to go on spending millions with our organization in its present chaotic state. If we would let the Admiralty get guns where they liked we should produce something like competition between the two Departments; and this would sharpen the intellects of both, with the result of benefiting the whole country. France had formerly adopted much the same system that we had, and had only one Government Department; but when the war broke out the French awoke to the fact that they were not in a position to cope with the Germans. Since that time the French had done what he should very much like to see the English Government do; they had encouraged private manufacturers to put down plant, so that in case of war the Government could apply to them for help. The Government had sent round to foreign manufacturers to obtain information with reference to guns. He believed this country had nothing to learn from foreign manufacturers; and that if, instead of going abroad, the Government had gone to manufacturers in this country, they would have found them in a position to supply any demand made upon them. An American Gun Commission had visited England, France, Germany, and Russia, and the conclusion they came to was that the French system was now the best. The French system, he might say, encouraged private manufacturers, and took advantage of the Government establishments to make experiments. He would suggest that a Committee should be appointed
  1290
  to whom manufacturers might send guns to be tried. There were already two or three guns which had been brought under the notice of the authorities, but which were untried. If the Government would adopt that course the country might soon be put in a position to cope with any other nation. The matter of guns had, no doubt, frequently delayed the building of ships; but if the Admiralty manufactured their own guns, or, as he had said, went where they chose for them, it would bring about competition between the two Departments, and with great benefit to the country. Further, experiments should also be made with respect to the powder; and manufacturers in this country should be encouraged to compete in the matter, with a view of arriving at some clear and definite decision as to the best powder to use, for that which was now in general use was by no means satisfactory in every respect. He had been told that, if a manufacturer wished to have any powder tried, he had to pay the Government £10 for every shot fired with the powder. That charge ought to be abolished altogether. An effort should be made to encourage firms to manufacture powder which would not be inferior to the German powder now in use. His object in making these remarks was to encourage the authorities in well-doing, and impress upon them the uselessness of expending money upon steel works at Woolwich.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Carbutt) had stated that both the late Secretary of State for War and he himself had asserted that the Woolwich gun had broken down. He found no reference whatever in Hansard to anything of the kind, and, to the best of his belief, he made no such remarks as that to which the hon. Member had referred. What he did say was that circumstances had rendered it necessary that there should be a breech-loading gun instead of a muzzle-loading gun adopted in the Navy, as the increased charges which had to be used required that the gun should be longer than could be loaded from the muzzle on board ship. The then Government, with the advice of their professional officers, determined to have a breech-loading gun for the large ships then in course of construction with the greater power which experience

  1291
  showed to be attainable. He, however, and his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for "War (Colonel Stanley) never suggested that the Woolwich gun, as a gun, had broken down, or that Woolwich was incapable of furnishing guns of the kind required. He felt bound to deny the truth of many of the statements which had been made about him and his administration at the Admiralty in the course of the debate. He, of course, was prepared to submit to criticism; but when matters of fact were concerned the truth should be known. It had been stated that in France the Navy had a complete factory of their own for the supply of guns. If the Government of this country adopted the French system they would have to establish an independent factory, probably much larger than the Woolwich factory was at the present time, and also reserve to themselves the power to fall back upon the private trade. That, of course, implied a very large expenditure of public money and a new departure, which he supposed the Government would take into their consideration.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Carbutt) had done a great service in bringing forward the question of guns. He thought it would be a very bad plan for the Navy to make its own guns; but until the Ordnance Department became a manufacturing Department, with permission to obtain guns from private manufacturers, they would have no satisfactory supply of guns for this country. He was astonished that Secretaries of State for War should accept the responsibility of the enormous Estimates which they brought forward, because a large portion of their Estimates was for manufacturing purposes. The Estimates for the manufacture of guns ought to be kept separate, and there should be a Minister of the Crown for the Department to whom the country would look for an efficient weapon. The guns of this country, both for ships and for the defence of their ports and coaling stations, were in a most deplorable condition; and if war was to break out they would find themselves almost disarmed, and with the necessity of spending millions of money on a system not yet determined upon. He heard with great satisfaction the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton
  1292
  (Mr. Marriott), who had not intervened hitherto in naval debates, and who pointed out that the Navy was causing the greatest anxiety to the country. Had it been in his power to move the Resolution which stood in his name he should have done so; but the Forms of the House prevented him bringing it forward. He should, however, like to enforce the sentiments which that Motion contained. The Motion read as follows:—
  "That the condition of the Navy causes the greatest anxiety, and that, in order to restore the Naval superiority necessary for our National existence, this House is of opinion that no Naval Estimate is satisfactory which does not enable the Admiralty to complete without delay, as an addition to those now building, thirty-three completely armoured iron-clad ships, twenty-five armed cruisers, three hundred torpedo vessels; and, further, for the increase of the Marine forces to twenty thousand men, and boys to seven thousand."
  He wished to say a few words upon the subject of that Motion. It was quite evident that the country was anxious about the condition of the Navy, and that anxiety was justified, because the Admiralty had shown not only anxiety, but vacillation of purpose. What confidence could be felt in a Naval Administration whose mouthpiece in the other House stated last summer that if £4,000,000 were given to the Admiralty in excess of the £10,000,000 in the Estimates, they would not know what to do with it; then, some four months afterwards, they said that £11,000,000 was necessary; then that they would be satisfied with £5,000,000; and then, when the Navy Estimates were introduced, asked only for £1,500,000? It was said that the proper course to take would be to appoint a Royal Commission. Last year and the year before he suggested the appointment of a Committee of the House; and he believed last year his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) supported him. The reason why he desired that there should be a Committee of the House at that time was that the public mind was not alive to the question, and because the information which might be obtained by that Committee would, perhaps, have awakened anxiety. But it was too late now to ask for Committees or Commissions. He thought it desirable at the time to have the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was responsible for the defence of the country, before the Committee, to tell them whether he was satisfied that the Navy was suffi-

  1293
  cient; that it had proper guns; and that, in the event of a war, he would be able to make such arrangements as would be adequate for the protection of India, the Colonies, their commerce, and their own shores. But now the insufficiency of the Navy was confessed. The Admiralty confessed it. He saw with great regret distinguished officials, one of whom had a seat in "another place," and who was able to explain to Parliament the wants of the country, satisfied to remain at the Board and justify the vacillation which had prevailed there from the month of July last year down to the present time. He held that the gallant officers at the Admiralty were bound to resign their position if they could not obtain from the State that which they believed to be necessary for the defence of the country. That had been done by other officers before with good effect. In 1868 the defences of the country were insufficient, and two Lords of the Admiralty—the late Admiral Seymour and himself—having seats in that House were unable to defend the Navy Estimates. They placed their resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister. The result was that the First Lord was replaced by another, a new Board was constituted, and eight ships were put on the stocks, instead of three or four which were before determined upon. That was entirely in consequence of the resignation of two Lords of the Admiralty who had seats in that House. It would be much to the public advantage if officers who had recommended £11,000,000 at one time and £5,000,000 at another should have resigned Office when they found the sum so greatly reduced, as it afterwards was, not in consequence of their own convictions on the subject, but owing to the pressure of the Treasury. His hon. Friend (Mr. Carbutt) had alluded to France as the country with which they ought to compare their Fleet. At the present moment they had 19 ships built and building that could go more than 14 knots, while France had 26 ships of the same class. In addition to these 19 vessels, they had 14 which were efficient and fit for battle, while the French had 12 ships of that description. It was, however, impossible to consider this last class as efficient for the protection of the country, and, therefore, the first figures held good. Now, he had suggested that they should build
  1294
  33 new ships capable of going more than 14 knots, because then they would have 52 vessels of that class, or twice the number the French had. The hon. Member for Perthshire (Sir Donald Currie) in December said he was satisfied Great Britain should have a Naval Force sufficient to contend against any three Powers, and double the Navy of France. He was urging the Admiralty to follow that judicious advice. He had spoken of the French Navy; but when he added the Italian Navy he found they had a grand total of 23 iron-clad ships, which, if added to the French total, made it more necessary that the number he had suggested should be added to the Navy of this country. Upon that point he might remark that the Secretary to the Admiralty, on the 6th of December, 1884, laid on the Table of the House a Return. He had promised to amend that Return; but for some reason, by the Return before the House, it appeared the Admiralty were building 17 ironclad ships, when they were in reality only building six. That was somewhat misleading; and he therefore thought it right to point out to the House the great error into which they would be led if they accepted that Return. It might be asked what did they want 52 ironclad ships for, putting aside the question that this country might have to meet the combined Fleets of any two nations, and putting aside the question of the protection of the commerce of the country? At that moment there was what was called a Channel Fleet; but two only of the ships which composed it were ships that could steam, or could defend themselves against any of the first-class iron-clads of other Powers. It might be said that there were a great number of ships in the Coastguard. They might be good enough for training men in, but everyone knew that the armour was thin; and, practically, the only iron-clad ships of any value were the two in the Channel Fleet, the three under repair, and the eight in the Mediterranean. Of course, he did not include in that number the ships upon the stocks; but of the nine ships on the stocks only two had any date mentioned at which they were likely to be ready. That being so, the country had nothing to rely upon at home in the event of war. At that moment there were in China three Russian iron-clads, all very

  1295
  good ships, and four French ships. A war was going on in China, and a question of blockade might arise, and either the French or the Russian Squadron could come down on Hong Kong and insist upon getting supplies from there, which this country, as neutral, had no right to give. Was it right that war should be going on where this country had such enormous interests, and that there should not be a single ship which could say—"You cannot have supplies, for we will not allow you." If at that moment either of the two Powers he had mentioned went to war with this country and sank a vessel in the Suez Canal, the coasts of India, China, and the Colonies were at once at their mercy. Therefore, it was the business of this country to take care for the protection of all these places, as well as to keep up its good name as a neutral, that it should have a sufficient police of the sea to protect them. Their great Colonies were ready to bear the cost of building ironclads themselves if the Admiralty would only set them the example by providing ships for the defence of their own coasts and trade. There was another point upon which he should like some information, and that was the condition of the boilers of the ships which were now available. The information he had endeavoured to obtain, and which he believed was correct, was such that he believed there were not 15 ships which had boilers which did not require almost immediate change, and it was a very well-known thing that the changing of a boiler could not be effected in a day. So far he had spoken of the iron-clad ships; but an iron-clad fleet was not an efficient fleet, for an iron-clad ship required at least two attendants. It required a coaling vessel, and it required a vessel of the Scout class, for the purpose of keeping off torpedo vessels and other work. There ought to be 104 of these vessels to attend upon their ironclads, and a certain number of ships to be employed as rams, three or four of which should be attached to every fleet. Torpedo vessels were also wanted, and colliers to supply the fleet with coal. All these ships were necessary; yet none of them were at present being prepared. He saw with dismay the activity of Russia and Germany in the manufacture of torpedo boats. The Admiralty talked of building 10, which would be about a sufficient number to
  1296
  protect the Thames. Each of their harbours ought to possess a flotilla of those boats. Altogether, 300 would not be too large a number to build. As to masted iron-clads, be believed that they ought no longer to be built. Much cost would be saved by building mastless iron-clads only. In considering how much money might fairly be demanded for naval purposes, they ought to remember that in 1860, and the following years, £12,500,000 were annually voted for the Navy, out of which £1,000,000 only was spent on the dead weight. Now the annual Vote did not exceed £10,000,000, £2,000,000 of which were spent on the dead weight. In recent years £46,000,000, which ought to have been spent on the Navy, had thus been saved. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would disgorge some of that plunder there would be plenty of money to spend on the Navy. As to armoured cruisers, there ought to be four of them to each of the six great lines of ocean communication. It would be wise to build 30. In regard to the Marines, 12,400 were the number now borne on the Estimates. Seven thousand of these were necessary for the service of the Fleet, while the remainder were on shore learning their military duties. Now, however, the Marines were called upon to serve elsewhere than at sea, many of them being at that moment with the Army at Suakin. They performed their duties right well; but 12,400 men were not sufficient for the services which they were now called upon to perform, and their strength ought to be raised to 20,000. Steps ought to be taken to increase the number of boys in training for the Navy, and a reserve of stokers ought to be formed. At present, their complement of stokers was deficient by 3,000 or 4,000; and he feared that in an emergency they would be unable to obtain the necessary number from the Merchant Navy, unless they should, unfortunately, be set free by the blockade of their ports and the destruction of their merchant ships.
  MR. BRANDsaid, he was not aware that the question of armaments was to be brought forward, or he would have been able to have given a detailed answer. The right hon. and gallant Member (Sir John Hay) had argued that it would be a very good change if the Ordnance Department were made into a separate Department to supply the Navy

  1297
  as well as the Army. He might remind his right hon. and gallant Friend that the Admiralty had already been made responsible for the gun mountings, and that the question of the construction of guns was now being seriously considered by the Heads of that Department. It was true, as was complained, that the Government paid a high price for what was known as cocoa powder to the German manufacturers; but it was a special article, and it had been decided by the Ordnance Committee that it was the best powder which could be used for heavy ordnance. His hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth Districts (Mr. Carbutt) appeared to labour under a misapprehension on several points. He complained that the Heads of the Departments at Woolwich, and the officials who advised the Secretary of State in those matters, were not sufficiently experienced. The fact, however, was that the present Director of Artillery was an officer of great experience; and Colonel Maitland, the Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factory, was also a distinguished artillerist. It was true that this official was only appointed for five years; but he might be retained in his post for a longer period if the Secretary of State should think it desirable. His hon. Friend was also mistaken in saying that there was not a Committee of scientific or skilled officers to whom important inventions could be referred. Such a Committee had been appointed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was now sitting.
  MR. CARBUTT: I did not say there was no such Committee; but that important inventions were not tried.
  MR. BRANDobserved that his hon. Friend was equally wrong there, for during the last few months an officer had submitted the design of a new gun to the War Office, and had been given every encouragement. His gun, when made, would be submitted to the Ordnance Department. He did not complain of criticism, which was often valuable and encouraging; but when attacks were made upon the Government for delay in the manufacture of breech-loading ordnance, it ought to be remembered that the French Government adopted breech-loading ordnance 16 years ago; whereas we had only adopted it during the last five or six years. He did not, however, think matters were so serious as his hon. Friend supposed. The Go-
  1298
  vernment had done their best to encourage private enterprize, and especially in the direction of steel making. But time was required for the development of manufactures of that kind, as much capital was expended, and manufacturers wanted some assurance that their capital would meet with an adequate return. He thought he could say that the manufacturers at Sheffield and Newcastle were satisfied with the assurances which the Government had given. The result was that now, within a few weeks, besides Whitworth, Firth, Cammel, and Vickers, of Sheffield and Elswick, would be able to supply the Government with heavy forgings. Whitworth was at present able to build up guns for the Navy, and Vickers would be able in a very few weeks to do the same thing; while the Government had spent £100,000 in plant to increase the manufacturing capacity at Woolwich. There only remained one question for him to mention, though, perhaps, it was the most important of all—namely, the question of the design and pattern of their guns. He was sorry the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton) had hinted that the Committee which had recently been appointed implied dissatisfaction with the guns now manufacturing for the Royal Navy. But there was no such object and no such fear. The system of manufacture and the designs employed had never been called in question. It appeared to the Secretary of State that it would be of very great advantage if a Committee were appointed, consisting of members of the Ordnance Committee and of gentlemen of very great experience outside the Department. The Committee consisted of Sir William Armstrong, Captain Noble, Mr. Lees (representing Messrs. Whitworth), and Sir Frederick Abel, besides Sir Frederick Bramwell, Mr. Barlow, and other members of the Ordnance Department. All the recommendations made by the Committee were completed, and would be forwarded to-day; but the Report itself had not yet been furnished. The recommendations that had been made would be embodied in it. They had recommended that certain guns of present design should be strengthened in the chase with a view to their using slow-burning powder. Guns of future construction would be adapted for this powder. The Committee had recommended that no

  1299
  alteration should be made in the 12-inch guns, mark II., or the 6-inch guns, mark III., forming the armament of the Conqueror and Colossus. But, speaking generally, with the exception of some slight alterations for strengthening guns, the Committee approved of the present system of gun construction. The Ordnance Department, he thought, had received some rather unmerited abuse. He was quite convinced that there were no officers more capable and more thoroughly experienced than the present Constructor of Artillery and the present Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factory. They were working in cordial cooperation with the great private firms; and he felt perfectly sure that, with the help of the private trade, encouraged as it now was by the Government and the resources of Woolwich Arsenal, the Government would very shortly be able to complete the breech-loading armament of the Navy.
  MR. BIRKBECK,in rising to call attention to the increased depredations by foreign trawling vessels on the English drift-net fisheries on the East Coast, and the losses incurred there from by owners and fishermen, and to the inadequate protection provided by the Admiralty Authorities for enforcing the provisions of the North Sea Fisheries Convention, said, he must apologize for detaining the House a very few minutes while he referred to a grievance which his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty thoroughly realized and appreciated. That grievance was the totally insufficient number and the unsuitable class of vessels provided by the Admiralty Authorities for putting into force the provisions of the North Sea Fisheries Convention. During the autumn months there was a fleet of large fishing vessels, amounting to about 1,000, fishing in the immediate vicinity of the East Coast; and there was also, he regretted to say, a number of foreign trawling smacks, which did an enormous amount of damage, and the Admiralty afforded insufficient and unsatisfactory protection to their English vessels. On one occasion an owner in one night lost no less than £400; another owner lost £600; and last autumn it was estimated that the owners of Lowestoft suffered to the extent of £10,000, and Yarmouth only a little less, so that the House would now see the importance of ade-
  1300
  quate protection being given to this large fleet. The Admiralty Authorities knew perfectly well that the North Sea Fisheries Convention was passed two years ago, and that an Act of Parliament was passed in 1883 embodying the provisions of that Convention; and under the Articles of the Convention there was special reference to the duties of providing cruisers for the protection of their fishing vessels. But no provision had as yet been made for that purpose by the Admiralty. The Secretary to the Admiralty was fully aware that a chart had been handed in to the Admiralty in May last, indicating the very spots in which those depredations had taken place, and naming the time when the cruisers ought to be on the grounds for the protection of our fleet. Another complaint was that the vessels which were sent out by the Admiralty did not carry out the duties they were sent to perform. He might mention that one of those cruisers—namely, the Cherub, instead of being out on the fishing-grounds and protecting the vessels, remained in harbour doing absolutely nothing from October 31 till November 7. In another instance she was four days in harbour. He therefore regretted that the commanders of those vessels did not carry out the orders given them by the Admiralty as he believed, but remained in harbour instead of being out on the fishing grounds. If trawling smacks remained out in the North Sea for eight weeks, surely Her Majesty's cruisers ought to be able to do the same. He would especially urge the Admiralty Authorities, without delay, to make the necessary arrangements for providing at least four sailing cruisers for the district referred to, and not steam tenders, as the latter did more harm than the Belgian vessels with their "devils." He would now refer to a communication from the secretary of the Drift-Net Protection Society, in which that gentleman spoke of—
  "The arrival of fishing boats with great loss of gear, caused by foreign trawlers."
  He added—
  "I have every reason to believe that a Belgian trawler of Ostend (No. 200), done £500 of damage alone. Some fishermen are laying their boats up, having lost all their gear."
  The hon. Member also referred to a daring outrage which had been perpetrated by an Ostend trawler, which crossed the

  1301
  nets of one of our fishing luggers, the Nil Desperandum, about midnight, cutting the warps. As she continued her course, the master and one of the crew went in a boat to pursue her, and obtain, if possible, her number. The crew, as the boat neared the trawler, could see two men coming up out of the cabin with guns, and when within 30 yards of her one of the men discharged his piece at the men in the boat. They at once fell to the bottom, fearing they might be killed. They could, however, see that the other man stood ready with his gun to fire, and they accordingly let the boat drift away in order to escape. On arriving in port Baxter, the master and owner, at once went to the Custom House and made depositions. The depredations were wholesale; 20 fishing-boats having lost 1,770 nets. That showed the absolute necessity of an adequate number of Government cutters being sent to protect the boats; and it was indispensable that each cruiser should have as pilots fishermen who knew the ground. Those cutters would also act as admirable training vessels for the Navy, and would be able to render valuable service in the saving of life. If the protection were not granted, the result would be that the fishermen would be driven to provide armed cruisers themselves, and there would be open war between them and the foreign vessels. He had only attempted to give a bare outline of what was going on at the fishing-grounds. He, therefore, called upon the Government to do for English fishermen what every other country was doing for theirs. It was a duty which England alone neglected; and it was nothing short of a scandal that a Maritime Power like England should so utterly neglect an important trade that did so much for the food supply of the nation.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDdrew the attention of the Admiralty to the case of the old navigating officers of the Fleet, who had complained for a long time of their position, but whose complaint had not received the amount of attention which it deserved. Some years ago a change was made in the Service by which no new navigating officers were appointed, and by which their duties were transferred in many cases to executive officers. The duties of those officers were extremely important. The navigating officers were responsible for
  1302
  the safe navigation of the very valuable ships of the Navy. They had to take them into and out of action, and steer them through intricate channels; and if any mishap occurred the navigating officer was responsible, and was severely punished. What those officers felt deeply was the position of subordination and inferiority in which they were placed in comparison with the youngest officers of the executive branch. It had been alleged that this subordinate position in which they were placed was what had always been the case. He believed that was not so. Several appointments which used to be filled up by the appointment of navigating officers had been taken away from that class. The scale of their retirement was also very much less than that of the executive branch. They complained that while the Royal Marines, the Paymasters, the Engineers, and others had been allowed opportunities of stating their grievances before the authorities, no such opportunities had been permitted to the navigating officers. For years past none of those officers had been sent for, while representatives of the other classes had. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty to allow some of those officers to see him privately to state their grievances, and to answer any questions he might put to them. It was not to the interest of the country that any class of officers in Her Majesty's Service should be allowed at that time to remain discontented and dissatisfied.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, the Surveyor General of Ordnance had referred to a letter which he wrote the other day to the newspapers as to the appointment of a Committee. No one objected to the appointment or to the constitution of that Committee; but when the Surveyor General told the House that its appointment would not lead to delay, he ventured to join issue with him, and to say that the appointment of the Committee would be, without doubt, the cause of some of the delay. The Surveyor General had told the House also that the new guns were to be strengthened in various parts. But how were the guns to be strengthened without causing delay? What he wished to impress upon the House was that it was of the greatest importance that there should be no delay in arming the new turret ships, and

  1303
  any measure which caused delay was to he regretted. All that he asked for was that the House and the country should be placed in possession of the fullest information as to the condition of these new guns.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsupported the hon. Member for South Warwickshire (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) in the appeal which lie made in favour of the navigating officers of the Navy. He believed they were a most deserving class of men who had been neglected by the Admiralty for a long time past. There were several other cases with regard to the different to lasses of officers in the Dockyards who had for a long time been memorializing the Admiralty with a view of securing some improvement in their position, but who had not yet received any reply to their application. He referred especially to the established skilled labourers in the Dockyards. [The hon. Member proceeded to read a letter from a distinguished Admiral, who pointed out the respects in which England was mainly deficient in a naval sense.] He was not at liberty to mention the Admiral's name; but would say that he was one of the most distinguished officers of the day, and spoke with the authority of all those naval officers with whom he was in constant communication. The letter said that it seemed incredible to the writer that, in the present critical state of affairs with Russia, this country was making no preparations whatever. No one knew how soon the Navy might be wanted in the Baltic, and that they ought to be in a position to bombard Russian forts if necessary, asking, at the same time, whether they had the ships, the guns, or the men necessary. The writer expressed the opinion that they would find themselves greatly deficient in torpedo vessels, of which the Russians had 94 in the Baltic. He had quoted this letter in order to show the strong opinion which prevailed among naval officers on the subject of the Navy. If they had to trust merely to such agreements as that foreshadowed by the Prime Minister to defend the country against Russia, they would have but a broken reed to rely upon.
  MR. PULESTONjoined in the appeal on behalf of the navigating officers of the Fleet.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, England was at that moment face to
  1304
  face with the gravest political danger, being threatened with war with one of the Great Powers of Europe; and, as must be admitted on all hands, England was no match, at sea, for several combinations of two Powers against her. If she lost her naval supremacy, England could, in two or three months, be brought to her knees by a combination of hostile Navies, starving her into submission. It remained for this Government, which had brought the Army to its present deplorable condition, so that a Force of 25,000 men could not be sent abroad without depleting every regiment in the country, to allow the Navy to sink into its present inferiority. He hoped that the Government would now address them selves to carrying out the defence of the coaling stations, to the building of a large fleet of torpedo-boats, and to the addition of at least six fast sea-going cruisers to the strength of the Navy.
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, a number of important speeches had been made on this Motion; but he hoped that hon. Members would not consider that he was showing them any disrespect if he refrained from making a separate reply to each, as he anticipated making a very full answer in introducing the Navy Estimates. He might, however, correct the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) on a matter of fact. It was not true, as surmised, that the Admiralty made a demand on the Cabinet to the extent of £11,000,000. In November they put forward a proposal for increased shipbuilding, and the Estimates which he was about to move made ample provision for carrying out the plans submitted on that occasion. When he made the statement on the part of the Government in December, other matters besides shipbuilding were referred to. It was intended to make provision for accelerating the construction of steel guns for the Navy. This item did not fall under these Estimates; but if hon. Gentlemen turned to the Army Estimates, they would find that a large addition was made in those Estimates for strengthening the Navy in the matter of guns. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck) had called attention to the question of the protection of the fisheries. On behalf of the Admiralty, he (Sir Thomas Brassey) deeply regretted the depredations which

  1305
  were committed by foreign vessels on the East Coast fisheries; and also the failure, if there had been a failure, on the part of the commanders of gun-boats to be present at the rendezvous, which were pointed out by those representing the fisheries. He could promise that the Admiralty would consult with the Admiral Superintendent of the Reserves, and would do all that lay in their power to give protection to the fisheries. The hon. Member had spoken against the employment of steam vessels on this service; but the Admiralty had received a request from the Scottish Fishery Board to remove the sailing cutters from their waters and to substitute steam vessels. No doubt, in the case of a calm, a steam vessel would be much more effective in pursuit than a sailing vessel; but, however that might be, he could assure the House that the Admiralty would do all that lay in their power to give protection to the fisheries. The hon. Member for South Warwickshire (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) had drawn attention to the case of the old navigating officers. Everyone acquainted with the Navy knew what a valuable class of men they were. The changes that had been made with a view to increasing the knowledge of navigation in the Service had, no doubt, like other changes, involved a certain amount of hardship to individuals. He would be happy, on the part of the Admiralty, to promise that they would give a due consideration to any representations which the deputation such as the hon. Member asked them to receive might make.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

  DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Sir Arthur Otway, in introducing the Navy Estimates my first duty is one which I am sure the Committee will allow me readily to perform. It is the duty of paying a tribute of well-merited praise to the officers, seamen, and Marines, who have been engaged in serving the country on the Nile and at Suakin. The progress of Lord Wolseley's Expedition has been most materially aided by the
  1306
  able surveys conducted by Captain Hammill, and by the zealous efforts of Captain Bedford and the officers and men under his command. At the engagement of Abu Klea two promising officers—Lieutenants Pigott and De Lisle—and a brave little band of seamen died defending their guns against overwhelming numbers. The rescue of Sir Charles Wilson by Lord Charles Beresford was a feat of arms equally remarkable for the skill and gallantry displayed. I particularly desire to place on record the services rendered by the naval engineer, Mr. Ben-bow, on that occasion. When under fire he succeeded most effectually in repairing a disabled boiler. At Suakin the prolonged defence by Commodore Molyneux and the Force under his command has been a most trying service. We rejoice to have given to the Marines the reward they most value. They are to occupy a post of honour, which must also be a post of danger, in the Army which is about to take the field under Sir Gerald Graham. Passing from these stirring events to the administrative business of the Navy, the Estimates it is my duty to move amount, with the appropriations, to a total for 1885–6 of £13,090,440. The corresponding amount for 1884–5, excluding the Supplementary Estimates for Egypt, was £11,645,711. Of this large increase we have £1,154,000 under the Shipbuilding Votes—a considerable advance on the £800,000 promised in December; £76,000 for pay, food, and clothing, and £173,200 under the Works Vote. Taking the Votes in detail, I propose to deal first with those which relate to the personnel. Commencing with the officers, we have to make provision for an increase of 100 on full pay. The addition is rendered necessary by the large number of ships in commission on the China Station and in the Red Sea; and it is also due, though to a slighter degree, to the appointment of an Admiral on the Australian Station. The growing importance of the duties attaching to the Australian command renders it extremely desirable that an Admiral should command the Squadron. Passing from the officers to the seamen, we have made an important alteration in the term of continuous engagements. The first period of service, under the new Regulations, has been

  1307
  extended from 10 to 12 years. Our experience shows that the change is not unacceptable to the boys and to their parents, and it will be a great advantage to retain men longer in the Service. In the small vessels, when first put into commission, a large proportion of experienced seamen will not be unwelcome to the officers in command, if caught in heavy weather in the chops of the Channel or in the Bay of Biscay, on first leaving England. The present Estimate provides a considerable addition to the number of boy s. The experience of recent years has shown that the number for which provision has been taken is insufficient. At the present time, the service boys are 650 in excess of the number voted. We expect that the present strength will be fully maintained in 1885–6, and provision has been made in the Estimates accordingly. The total number of service boys in the present Estimates is increased from 2,500 to 3,100; and we propose to take 300 more boys for training. Although steam has been so largely substituted for canvas in the Navy—a change which, I have no doubt, is rather painful to old sailors like my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay), and, indeed, to all ardent lovers of sailing—it will be found that the demand for seamen in the Navy has not diminished. We have more ships in commission, more men in the gunnery ships; and at the present time we have no less than 1,000 under instruction in the torpedo, electrical work, and submarine mining. These are some of the reasons which we have to urge for the great increase in the number of boys. In addition to these proposals, provided for under the normal Estimates, we shall ask Parliament to vote 500 officers and men and 500 Marines for service in Egypt. Their pay, as I have already explained in answer to a Question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), will be included in another Estimate for the Egyptian Expedition. In connection with the manning of the Navy, I may state that steps are about to be taken to give more general instruction in gunnery. In former days, when the complements of ships consisted mostly of seamen, all of whom were trained at the guns, the non-combatants were comparatively few. At the present time, in our modern
  1308
  mastless ships the non-combatants are about 30 per cent of the complement. This large proportion of undrilled men is a source of weakness, and we propose to remedy it by the Regulations about to be issued. Although, Sir Arthur Otway, the Charge will fall upon the Vote for Medical Services, it may be convenient, at this stage of my statement, that I should refer to the recent improvements which have taken place in the sick berth staff of the Naval Hospitals. The Navy will be gratified to learn that Her Majesty takes a deep personal interest in this subject; and on behalf of the Admiralty I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without expressing our acknowledgments to Sir John Reid, the Medical Director General, for the pains he has taken in re-organizing the Service. The details of the new arrangements were described to the Committee last year by my Predecessor. The general supervision of the nursing is entrusted to the Sisters, who have had experience either in the Civil or Military Hospitals. In future, all the attendants on the sick will have received a systematic training. The changes, of course, have involved some additional expense; but the country will not grudge it. The modest salaries we give them are, indeed, a very imperfect acknowledgment of the gratitude we owe to these devoted Sisters, who by day and by night are giving their care to the sick and wounded seamen and Marines. And now I turn to a question which will greatly interest hon. Members representing the Dockyards. I need scarcely say that I refer to questions of pay and allowance. Hon. Members will see that without an increase in the number of men there is an increase of charge under these Estimates amounting to £33,000 for allowances to men trained as gunners and torpedo men, and for the larger proportion of petty officers and the increased number of artificers serving afloat. The establishment of the rating of chief stokers is the most recent boon conceded by the Admiralty. We have been glad to give a deserving class of men the advancement and promotion to the rating of a chief petty officer. There are several questions pending with reference to pay and allowances to engineers and paymasters. They have earnestly pressed for the abolition of what is

  1309
  known as the 11 years' rule. Their appeal has been referred to a Departmental Committee. The Admiralty are sensible that the calculations of promotion have turned out less favourably than was expected, and have not been altogether verified by the result. We agree in the main with the views of the Committee, that one-half of their junior time should be allowed to count for increase of pay and pension until the completion of 11 years' senior service, and then all, as at present. The necessary communications are now taking place with the Treasury; and we hope, in the course of the ensuing year, to make an arrangement which will be satisfactory to the engineers and paymasters. In the numerous and pessimist discussions with reference to our naval position which have recently filled the usual organs of public information our resources for manning the Navy have been called in question. I wish, therefore, to take this opportunity of stating that while in time of peace we sometimes feel the pressure of the new requirements for the training of the Navy which absorb a considerable number of our men, and we are in consequence occasionally short of men available for draft, we have a large reserve to meet a real emergency. We have, in ships serving on foreign stations, a considerably larger proportion of supernumeraries than was formerly the case; and at the home ports, in gunnery ships, in flagships, and harbour ships of all classes, and in the Steam Reserve and elsewhere, we have a Force which may be roughly estimated at not less than 13,000 men. Behind them we have the Marines, 6,200; the Coastguard, 4,000; the Pensioner Reserve, regularly drilled, 1,950; the Naval Reserve, 19,000; and the Naval Artillery Volunteers, 1,600. The total personnel of the Navy, including Pensioners under 50 and the Naval Volunteers, constitutes a Force of 86,000 men.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In that total are the officers included?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Yes; the total number of men of all classes, on the active list, is 57,000, and the complements of all ships which can be made ready and sent to sea in 12 months are 68,000. If we were engaged in a war of magnitude we should, no doubt, require to strengthen the Navy more par-
  1310
  ticularly in the lieutenants and engineers and in the engine-room complements. But in the Mercantile Marine we have a practically inexhaustible reserve of skilled navigators, competent naval men, experienced engineers, artificers, and firemen. The Naval Reserve, more especially the Second Class Reserve, could be recruited to any strength required from the fisheries, the source from which the best sea-faring element in the French Inscription Maritime is derived. And now I turn to the Shipbuilding Votes. I have already given the total increase in these Votes. The Estimates supply the details, and I therefore proceed at once to explain the steps taken to accelerate the construction of ships in fulfilment of the undertaking which was given to Parliament in December. I will deal first with the work in the Dockyards. Under the present Board of Admiralty, large additions have, from time to time, been made to the number of men employed in the Dockyards; and it has been thought advisable by the Admiralty, and also, I believe, by the House of Commons, not to increase very largely the number of men employed in shipbuilding in the Dockyards; but it was the general sense of the House that we should rely upon the contract supplies for any large extension of building. In these circumstances, having to undertake additional shipbuilding work without increasing the number of men, we determined to concentrate our efforts on ships in an advanced state of progress, and a sum of £40,000 has been granted to be spent within the present financial year for the purpose of pushing forward ironclads by profitable overtime, in accordance with the scheme which was recommended by the officers of the Yards. By these means, in spite of the unforeseen causes of delay with which we are only too familiar, we have been able to make considerable progress with all of these vessels. The Colossus is now practically complete, and the Collingwood, Edinburgh, Warspite, and Impérieuse will be completed in the ensuing financial year. It was intended to complete the Impérieuse at the same date as the Colossus; but there has been an unforeseen cause of delay owing to the foundering of a steamer carrying important parts of her machinery from the Thames to Portsmouth. The additions which will be made to the strength of the Navy in

  1311
  the two ensuing years are as follows:—In 1885–6 we shall complete the four iron-clads I have already mentioned, and in addition three protected ships of the Leander class, the Calliope, two fast despatch vessels, and two gun-vessels. In 1886–7 it will be possible to complete the iron-clads Howe, Rodney, and Hero, and probably the Benbow; the two protected vessels, the Mersey and Severn, nine Scouts, the Landrail, and six gunboats; in all 22 vessels. I wish that it were possible to promise further acceleration of the work of shipbuilding. Delays in completion have given occasion for the severest criticism to which the Admiralty has been subjected. Every Board has regretted the delay, and every Board has been unable to bring ships to completion as rapidly as they desire. I am sure that my hon. Friends who have had experience at the Admiralty will concur with me when I say that we see the ships advancing most satisfactorily up to the launching stage. The delays occur later, and they are attributable mainly to the transition state of the armaments of the Navy. "When the prospect of war is not imminent, no Administration of a first-class Power would be justified in refusing to entertain the proposals which are put forward by our able staff of gunnery officers. A great Service like ours demands perfection, and is sensitively jealous of the slightest superiority elsewhere, even in the smallest detail. In the future we cannot hope to be wholly free from the difficulties due to change and improvement; but we believe that we have now settled within certain limits all the problems of gunnery which have in recent years prevented the rapid completion of our ships. And now, Sir Arthur Otway, I turn from the subject of the completion of ships to the laying down programme. The delays in completion, to which I have referred, have necessarily affected the laying down. The Committee will observe that only a small amount of progress—in point of fact, a mere commencement—is contemplated in the two armoured ships which are to be laid down in the Dockyards. We have decided, as I have just stated, that for the present it is better to concentrate our efforts on ships near completion. At the same time, I would remind the Committee that, by placing the two iron-clads in the programme,
  1312
  we insure that the preliminary works will be taken in hand. The actual building can be vigorously pushed forward as soon as labour becomes available from the completion of the other ships. The laying down programme for the Dockyards includes, in addition to the ironclads, a torpedo ram, to be commenced very shortly at Chatham, and one vessel of the Scout type to be laid down at Devon port. And now, Sir, having stated what has been and will be done in the Dockyards, I have to explain the steps which have been taken to put out to contract the ships approved in December. The sanction of the House to the new programme of construction was obtained on the 2nd of December. The designs for the Scouts were completed on the 31st of December. Those for the belted cruisers were ready on the 27th, and for two iron-clads on the 29th of February. Tenders were invited for the six Scouts on the 5th of January. They were received on the 24th of February, accepted on the 27th, and the keels of four of those vessels have already been laid down. In the case of the Scout class, the Constructors of the Admiralty were extremely anxious to give the firms tendering an opportunity of proposing simplifications with a view to reductions in the cost, or suggesting improvements which were likely to increase the efficiency of the ships. For this reason a longer time than usual was given for the submission of tenders for the Scout class. Another reason I may name to the Committee for the extension of time is this. We have largely added to the number of firms invited to tender for the Admiralty work. No less than 84 firms sent in tenders for the vessels of the Scout class. In the case of the belted cruisers and the iron-clads, the private trade has had less experience in ships of that class, and for that reason the Constructors of the Admiralty did not attach so much importance to any suggestion that might be made, and therefore less time was allowed to the contractors for sending in tenders for the larger vessels. But while less time was originally proposed by the Admiralty, in deference to the expressed wish of the contracting firms, the time for sending in tenders has been extended to the 17th of April. I am very sensible that the public has been impatient at the apparent delay in these preliminary steps

  1313
  and many hard things have been said of the Admiralty. But I can assure the Committee that we have not been halfhearted or reluctant to obey the will of the country that the Navy shall be strengthened. Those who condemn the Admiralty so readily make no allowance for the inevitable complications which must be found in designs for ships of war, as compared with vessels of the Mercantile Marine. In former instances, as it was clearly shown in the evidence before the Earl of Ravens worth's Committee, loss of time and money has been caused by calling for tenders prematurely. The Earl of Ravens worth's Committee recommended that designs should be more carefully worked out before tenders were called for; and we determined to follow the judicious recommendation of the Committee. I can assure the Committee that time has not been lost by the extra care bestowed on the plans for the new ships. On the contrary, I am assured it, will, in the end, secure an earlier completion and prevent much wasteful expenditure on alterations. The Committee should remember that these designs and specifications control and guide an expenditure of no less than £3,500,000; and that, although the designs were sketched out before a statement could be made to Parliament, the magnitude of the work of settling details may be inferred from the sum which is to be expended. I am assured by the technical advisers of the Admiralty that they are engaged—incessantly and constantly engaged—in the revision of designs. No sooner is a design made perfect than some invention is brought out which necessitates a reconsideration of details, and it is that revision which accounts for the long time required to prepare the designs of which I have spoken. Having explained the cause of the delay in putting out to contract the additional work, I would point out to the Committee that the expenditure proposed on the new vessels is slightly in excess of the amount approved by the House in December last. The amount has been increased from £800,000 to £812,000. We have also made some modifications in the list of ships to be put out to contract. The new contract work includes two iron-clads instead of the one iron-clad proposed by my noble Friend in "another place." My right
  1314
  hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) has alluded in the course of his remarks to a discrepancy which I frankly confess exists. Our scheme includes five instead of three belted cruisers, six instead of 10 Scouts, and 10 torpedo boats. Five torpedo boats are to be ordered later under the arrangement which I have already explained to the House in answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley). The two iron-clads which are to be built by contract will be of the single-turret type already described to Parliament in December. With regard to the rate of progress in the building under contract, it is quite unnecessary to remind the Committee that when our proposals for additional building were brought forward in December a strong objection was made that the scheme of construction was to extend over a period of five years. But on this point it is an obvious remark that it is not for us to determine beforehand the Estimates of future years; all we can determine is the extent of the addition to the Estimates in 1885–6, which are alone under our control. We propose to add to those Estimates the sum of £812,000 for the purpose of carrying forward the construction of these new ships. We believe that this provision will be sufficient to make good progress with all the ships for which orders are being given; but if experience should show that we have under-estimated the rate of progress, we shall not retard the operations of the builders in deference to financial considerations. Sir, I have endeavoured to explain in sufficient detail our programme of building in the Dockyards and by contract, and it therefore only remains for me to bring the figures together. Our whole scheme of ships to be laid down is as follows:—Four iron-clads of the first class, five belted cruisers, one torpedo ram, seven Scouts, five gun-vessels, and 15 torpedo boats, of which 10 are to be ordered at once. Having given a list of the ships laid down, let me compare the tonnage proposed now with that in former years.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: Does that include the iron-clads which we were told had scarcely been begun?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: It includes both. I said the ships laid down. Our programme of shipbuilding in the Dockyards gives for armoured tonnage

  1315
  practically the same tonnage as for the present financial year. In the class of protected tonnage we have an increase of 600 tons; in the contract programme the total building is increased from 4,624 to 11,338 tons. The Dockyard and contract programmes combined give a total of 14,423 tons for armoured vessels, 6,087 tons for protected, and 7,542 tons for unarmoured vessels, or a total of 28,052 tons. If we make a comparison of this tonnage as proposed for 1885–6 with the tonnage of former years we arrive at this result. The armoured tonnage is increased from an average of 8,051 tons per annum in 1877–81 and 11,948 in 1881–5 to 14,423 tons. Our protected tonnage is 6,087 tons, or, together, 20,500 tons for 1885–6. In unarmoured vessels the average construction for the last six years has been somewhat less than the programme for 1885–6. Having given the total tonnage to be built, I would invite the special attention of the Committee to the large amount of building proposed in the new class of protected vessels. The protected class is represented in our Dockyard programme chiefly by vessels of the Mersey type. In the case of the Mersey, the protection is by means of an armoured deck with numerous water-tight compartments. The protected tonnage comprises, in addition to the 1,248 tons we propose to build of the Mersey class, 2,820 tons of belted cruisers. These ships were fully described to Parliament in December. They are of a much more powerful type than the Merseys. They are armoured with a 10-inch belt, and are therefore much more protected on the water-line than any foreign ironclads of the second class. In point of speed they have a marked superiority over any armoured ships afloat or building. We announced in December a speed of 17 knots. By our latest estimate the speed will be increased to 17½ knots. So far as we know, the only vessels of superior speed now building for any Navy are three now building for Italy and two for the Government of Japan. I would point out that those vessels are without armour protection; and it is certain that, owing to their smaller displacement, they could not hold their own in the long run at sea against the belted cruisers. It has been said that we ought to give prefer-
  1316
  ence to the type represented by the Esmeralda, which has an advantage in point of speed over the belted cruisers. But this, I can assure the Committee, is not the view accepted by the Board of Admiralty. Our Naval Colleagues are of opinion that the armoured belt of our new cruisers gives them a decided superiority over any of the cruisers they are likely to meet. In addition to their armament of guns they will be fitted with effective means for the discharge of torpedoes. Now, I turn to a question upon which much opinion has been expressed in a sense adverse to the course we feel called upon by our duty to take. I refer to the limited number of torpedo boats in our programme. The rate of construction proposed in December has been criticized as insufficient. Well, Sir, I venture to express the opinion that the criticism to which I refer has been occasioned by an imperfect appreciation of the great additions which we are really making to the Fleet, and in a form more necessary than what is technically known as the torpedo boat. The Board of Admiralty do not regard torpedo boats capable of being used only for coast defence as the type most required for the British Navy. We are more anxious to push forward the construction of vessels of a powerful type, capable of keeping the seas for an extended period in all weathers. Our programme of construction in that class of vessels which we think most effective includes, in addition to the torpedo ram already mentioned, two despatch vessels—the Surprise and the Alacrity—specially designed for service as torpedo cruisers, the nine Scouts, and the two steel-gun and torpedo vessels under construction at Devon port. We have 14 vessels of a total displacement of 21,500 tons; and if we compare this programme with the programme of construction for the French Navy, we find that the torpedo flotilla in progress in France includes four vessels of the Condor type, 1,260 tons, and eight of the Bombe type, 321 tons. The total tonnage of these vessels being 7,602 tons, as against 21,500 which I mentioned as being under construction for the British Navy. Turning from torpedo vessels to torpedo boats, we have actually under construction four of the first class and two of the second class. The number of torpedo boats of the

  1317
  first class now building in France is 10, in Italy six, and in Austria four. Our expenditure on the torpedo flotilla during the ensuing financial year will not be less than £400,000, as against £231,000 taken in the French Estimates for similar vessels. Having explained our policy in regard to the larger vessels, I may point out, in connection with the subject, that for the defence of our ports a formidable flotilla could be extemporized out of our steam pinnaces and launches. We had an example of what could be accomplished in this respect in the interesting operations for the defence and attack on Portsmouth carried out some years ago under the direction of Captain Gordon and the officers of the Vernon. Those who were present, and who saw the steam pinnaces, specially fitted for the purpose, driven at full speed over the booms, would probably be of opinion that for such rough usage as would be experienced in war the pinnaces were better adapted than the swift but fragile torpedo boats. It will be, perhaps, satisfactory to the Committee to be informed that we have 180 steam launches and pinnaces fitted with Whitehead torpedoes, and 170 steam cutters fitted with spar torpedoes. If these boats be reckoned efficient for the defence of our harbours by torpedoes, I think it will be the opinion of the Committee that we are somewhat better provided in this respect than is generally supposed.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Are they not abroad?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: No inconsiderable number of them are abroad; but we have a very large number available at home. Now, I desire to make a few observations on our repairing programme. Hon. Members may have observed that the wages of men employed on repairing have been reduced in these Estimates by nearly £40,000. That is the very satisfactory result of the improved management of boilers, the greater durability of iron and composite construction, and of the arrangements which we have been able to make for the extended absence of vessels from home. We have been able to keep vessels longer abroad, because our ship yards abroad have become more and more capable of efficiently repairing our ships. I am able to say that in this way two iron-clads have
  1318
  been ordered for repair abroad, and we are confident that the work will be done in every respect satisfactorily. We send out vessels from England to those stations where the Dockyards are not well adapted for large repairs; but in future, when those vessels have performed a certain period of service, they can be transferred from the Cape to Bermuda, and those on the Pacific to Hong Kong. A great economy has resulted. Turning to the repairing programme, which includes the completion of the Black Prince, I may say that we have taken this ship in hand because the boilers are in good preservation. Ships of the older type are well adapted, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, for the training of officers and men, which must be kept in view in connection with ships of the Channel Squadron. The alteration of the Minotaur and sister ship has been considered by the Board during the past year. It has been proposed to give them twin screws, compound engines, and to fit them as torpedo boat carriers at a cost of £250,000. The expense of any attempt to bring these vessels up to the ideas of the day is so formidable, that we have decided that no alterations in these ships should be made. Belted cruisers will do all the work which the Minotaur is capable of doing, and they will do it better. Passing from the iron-clads to the unarmoured vessels, the three large frigates have at length been taken in hand. We have completed the Raleigh. In the ensuing year we shall complete the Inconstant, and make good progress with the Shah. The Committee will be glad to know that the following iron-clads are now ready for sea. The list includes the Devastation, Ajax, Thunderer, Hotspur, Rupert, Orion, and Iron Duke. The Conqueror is practically complete; and with regard to the Inflexible, as no repairs of importance are required, she could be made ready for sea in about three months. The Monarch and Swiftsure will shortly arrive in England, and then they will be at once taken in hand. Of the unarmoured vessels we have an ample number of reliefs. Passing on to the Gun Estimates, I have already stated to Parliament, in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) with regard to the heavy guns, that the War Office has undertaken to complete them

  1319
  sufficiently early to prevent any delay of the ships. Of the guns of lesser calibre provision is made for 101 6-inch and 43 5-inch guns, and we are expecting to receive 150 quick-firing guns at the end of the present financial year. We also provide 100 more in 1885–6; and of machine guns of various calibres we take money for 300 during the ensuing year. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the minor armament is becoming more and more an important feature in our Ordnance Estimates. Of a total amount of £418,000 taken for guns in 1885–6, no less than £285,000 is for 6-inch guns and lighter ordnance. The amount taken for naval ammunition, &c. in the Army Estimates for 1885–6 is £297,860, being an increase of £115,476 over the amount for 1884–5. The total provision for ordnance for the Navy under Army and Navy Estimates combined will be somewhat in excess of £1,000,000. Descriptions of new types to be laid down usually form a prominent and interesting feature of the statements made in moving the Navy Estimates. In December last the statement which I was then called upon to make necessarily anticipated much which I might be called upon to say on the present occasion. I desire, however, to take this opportunity of correcting an erroneous impression which may have gained circulation from recent publications in the newspapers. The Admiralty have been charged with deliberately sacrificing the naval power of the country to mean and paltry considerations, and that assertion has been supported with a list of the 12 largest ships which have been lately launched in England and France. Sir, I should be sorry to present myself before the Committee as an advocate of a policy of shipbuilding in which competition in dimensions was to be the primary test of merit; but, in justice to the Admiralty, I wish to put forward the result of the comparison of all the ships which are now building, or which are now included in the programme of the two countries. The average tonnage of our 14 ships is 9,530, as against the average of 8,523 tons for the 15 ironclads in the French programme. We have never insisted on any arbitrary limitation of size. I cannot pass from the subject of shipbuilding without saying that I am not unconscious that the
  1320
  Admiral class has been challenged by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed); but as his Motion must ultimately give rise to exhaustive discussion, I feel it my duty to postpone the observations which I might make on behalf of the Admiralty rather than engage at the present time in an imperfect and desultory discussion. In the meantime I am authorized to say that the Admiralty unanimously approve the design of our ships. The trials of the Collingwood are, perhaps, the most remarkable incidents of the past year in connection with shipbuilding. At the measured mile the speed realized in the Collingwood reached 16·8 knots, a very high figure; and at the load draught a speed of 16½ knots is confidently expected. Difficulties have been experienced in perfecting the breech mechanism for the 43-ton guns; but on the occasion of a recent trial the gear was found to work in an entirely satisfactory manner. I am desired by the Constructors of the Admiralty to express their great obligations to Mr. Rendel for his advice, which has so materially tended to this satisfactory result. On the Vote for New Works—Vote 11—we have an increase, as compared with last year, amounting to £173,000. It has been our policy to concentrate our expenditure on the building of ships; but we have now to deal with demands which cannot be postponed. We have to provide torpedo boats, ships, and every other description of vessels of this kind, and we have to provide the means to test the efficacy of those vessels as well as of gun mountings. At Malta we shall make good progress with the new graving dock commenced last year; and we are also making provision for increased dock accommodation in other parts of the world. We take £15,000 for a grant to a private Company at Hong Kong who are completing a dock of sufficient dimensions to receive ships of the largest class; and we are also pressing upon the Indian Government the necessity of providing a dock at Bombay capable of admitting iron-clads of the Admiral class. At the Cape we have availed ourselves of a recent opportunity to purchase a repairing slip and some land adjacent to our present yard. In conclusion, we may ask ourselves this question—Are the Estimates we are now proposing to Parliament sufficient? It

  1321
  is impossible for those who are responsible for the administration of the Navy to say that any Estimates fully provide for all the wants of our great Sea Service. There must be many things less perfect than we could wish. But if we test these Estimates by another standard, and compare the amounts at our disposal with the sums voted in other countries, the provision we are making should be ample. The present Estimates provide for an expenditure on building, as distinguished from repairs, amounting in round figures to £3,000,000 sterling, or double that proposed, according to our best information, for the Navy of any other Power. The cost of building being certainly not greater, on the whole, here than elsewhere, the additions to the Navy may be taken as proportionate to the expenditure. Such, then, are the facts with reference to the matériel and personnel of the Navy. I say that we are making adequate provision for the development of our Navy; and our Navy is, after all, only the point of the spear. Our resources for construction and manufacture give us a greater power than we could possibly derive from an unlimited reserve of ships and weapons, which the process of invention tends to render obsolete. Every war demands some special type of ship, and our resources for building external to the Dockyards are unrivalled. In the Crimean War, when our industrial resources were far less than at present, three floating batteries of 3,000 tons, and protected by 4-inch armour, were completed in the short space of three months. In less than five months more than 200 gun-boats and 100 mortar-boats were completed for sea. In less than three months from the date of signing the contract, the establishment of Mr. John Penn produced and fitted on board the gunboats 80 engines of 64-horse power. It was thus that we were enabled, as Viscount Palmerston reminded the House of Commons, to raise the strength of the Navy from 212 ships in commission in February, 1854, to 590 ships in commission in March, 1856. The Mercantile Marine, if it is a vulnerable point, is also a valuable resource. The merchant steamers could not meet on equal terms regularly-built vessels of war; but they could defend themselves against ships of their own class,
  1322
  and could accompany our squadrons as look-out ships, despatch vessels, and store ships. Of the 7,000,000 tons of British steam shipping afloat, more than 1,000,000 is classed on the Admiralty list, and more than half of this 1,000,000 tons is specially capable of performing service as cruisers owing to their high speeds. I would not lightly use language which would lull the country into a false security; but I venture to express the hope that when due regard is paid to our vast resources, to the condition of the Fleet on any fair comparison with other Powers, and to the large reinforcements of the Navy we are now proposing, these Estimates may be accepted as sufficient. We are making a great step in advance in response to a strong popular demand. It will be for the Parliament of the future to provide for these continuous efforts, by which alone a great Navy can be maintained.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That 59,000 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, including 12,900 Royal Marines."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am somewhat at a disadvantage in rising at seven minutes past 12 to comment on a statement of an hour and a-half, but which was by no means too long considering the importance of the subject. My hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Brassey) certainly did not say more than was necessary, or more than was expected by the Committee. He alluded to the service of the seamen and officers of the Fleet during the past year. No words which can be used in Parliament can adequately express the gratitude due by the country to those men who have done such admirable work on the Nile, and in other dangerous enter prizes in which they have been engaged. The Secretary to the Admiralty referred to the good service Captain Hammill had done in surveying the Nile, and the good service Captain Bedford had done in superintending the transport arrangements. I venture to say that if it had not been for the work done by those officers and the blue-jackets, the Nile Expedition would have been practically impossible. It is to their work that Lord Wolseley owes his successful arrival at Korti, and the supply of provisions necessary for the enterprize.

  1323
  Reference has also been made to the loss of men. There has been a heavy loss. The men have died most gallantly in the service of their country, and have shown that they can fight on shore as well as navigate ships on sea, and in most narrow and difficult waters. I am sure, therefore, that the thanks of the country will be given to them most heartily whenever Her Majesty's Government ask for a Vote of Thanks from Parliament. The hon. Gentleman referred to the increase in the Estimates. I will postpone any remarks I have to make as to the increase in the Shipbuilding Vote until I have run through the least important, but still important, question to which he referred. He spoke of an increase in the number of officers. I cannot help feeling, Sir, that there must be a considerable increase in the number of officers employed, especially in the number of torpedo and gunnery officers. That is a question which will require the very serious consideration of the Admiralty. There is no doubt that there is a far greater demand now than there was in the past for skill and scientific treatment in the management of the new and most powerful instruments of warfare. That demand will have to be supplied in some way by the Admiralty. Well, reference has also been made by my hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Brassey) to the importance of the Australian command, involving the employment of a Flag Officer. I entirely agree with him; but that is only another illustration of the growing demands which are made on the Navy in all parts of the world; demands for protection, demands for supervision, demands for adequate representation of the interests and duties of the country wherever Colonial enterprize is found. I entirely concur in the course which has been pursued with regard to the extension of the first term of service. I think that it is an advantage to the men themselves, and certainly it is a great advantage to the nation, because the experience which is gained by the men no doubt adds greatly to the discipline and steadiness of the crews of the ships, whether they were going down Channel, or crossing the Bay of Biscay, or sailing on the West Coast of Africa, or in any other part of the world. Remark was made by my hon. Friend as to the number of men borne. I was
  1324
  looking this morning at the Estimates with respect to this point; and I find that, notwithstanding the demands which are now made and recognized by the Admiralty, notwithstanding the fact that we are to have 1,000 men in Egypt—500 Marines and 500 blue-jackets—the Navy, all told, will be only 59,000, as against 58,800 in 1881. Well, Sir, I am by no means saying that 1881 was a standard to which we could go back; but if the number was not excessive in that year, it certainly suggests to the consideration of Parliament, and of the country, whether 200 men more are sufficient to counterbalance the drain which a serious war, such as that in the Soudan, involves, and which the circumstances and conditions which we have now to face—much more serious circumstances and conditions than those of 1881—are causing. I should like to know, as the question of manning has been mentioned, and as the question of an adequate reserve has been brought under the notice of the Committee, how many ships and what ships are ready, whether the complements are made up, and in how many days could those ships be fully manned? I have made inquiries myself, and I have been given to understand that it would not be possible to man the ships which are in the first reserve at Portsmouth under three weeks from the present time, because there is a deficiency of stokers and artificers, and you have not got a system ready for immediate application. It is this unreadiness in the present condition of the Navy which we have to complain of. Well, Sir, we are told that there is a very large reserve to meet emergencies. I believe there is a large reserve; but I should like to know whether the Admiralty have any system whatever by which that reserve could be made available in case of a sudden outbreak of war; whether they have any view in their own mind of what they would do in the event of war—how they would find ships to do the work which is required of them; how they would find ships to protect the trade and commerce of the country, and those especially which are engaged in bringing food into the country? We have not been informed by my hon. Friend on that point. My hon. Friend laid great stress upon the building programme for the coming year. I con-

  1325
  fess I was a little surprised to find that he made no reference whatever to the building which has been accomplished during the past year. It is a usual thing for the Secretary to the Admiralty, or the First Lord of the Admiralty, as the case may be, in making the Annual Statement with regard to the Estimates, to show what they have done in the past year; but to-night the hon. Gentleman made no reference to what has been done in the last 12 months. With regard to the building programme, however, the hon. Gentleman said that in fulfilment of the undertaking made in December the Admiralty had concentrated its efforts in advancing ships, and that £40,000 had been expended, or had been given to the Dockyards this year to be expended, on profitable overtime, so as to make considerable progress with the ships; and considerable progress had consequently been made. Well, Sir, I have taken pains to ascertain from the Estimates what progress was made during the past year, both in the Dockyards and in the contract work. I think it is well to do that, in order that we may judge by the work which has been done whether there is any hope whatever that the promises held out to us as to the future will be realized. I take the Dockyard Estimates for 1884–5, and if my hon. Friend will turn to page 204 he will be able to follow me. The hon. Gentleman will see that in order to realize the promise to build in 1884–5 10,500 tons, it was proposed to advance the Anson to 2,207 tons, the Camperdown, to 2,485; the Collingwood, to 4,978; the Colossus, to 6,150; the Edinburgh, to 4,509; the Howe, to 3,380; the Impérieuse, to 4,900; the Rodney, to 3,935; the War-spite, to 4,414; the Hero, to 1,033; the new vessel, to 387; a total of 38,378 tons. Now, if the hon. Gentleman turns to page 210 of the Estimates for this year, he will find that it is shown that the Anson has been advanced to 2,171 tons; the Camperdown, to 2,486; the Collingwood, to 4,857; the Colossus, to 6,150 (being assumed to be complete, although, I believe, she is not complete); the Edinburgh, to 4,685; the Howe, to 3,581; the Impérieuse, to 3,925; the Rodney, to 3,909; the Warspite, to 3,842; the Hero, 1,032; the new vessel, nothing—that is to say, that between the two sets of figures there is a total
  1326
  difference of 1,740 tons. Instead of 10,500 tons being built, as promised, only 8,760 tons were built. But on page 197 of these Estimates it is claimed that instead of 10,500 tons having been built, 10,745 tons have been built. In point of fact, these figures are absolutely fallacious. Of course, the promise to build certain tonnage has never been fulfilled by any Government, certainly not by the present one; there has always been a very considerable deficiency. Now, Sir, I will read an extraordinary note which appears on page 197 of the Estimates—
  "It must be understood that the tonnage corresponding to the expenditure of a certain sum of money for labour will not necessarily have any reference to the weight of materials worked into the hull when that sum is expended."
  In other words, it is here argued that a ton is not a ton. But there is another note here which is equally curious—
  "This amount includes the pay of leading men of shipwrights up to 1st July. These officers were at that date made Inspectors, and have since been paid out of the Salary Vote. By this alteration there is an apparent loss of about 323 tons for 1884–5; and 436 tons for 1885–6."
  That note means this—that if you double the pay of a man, you get double the work out of him. But that is not so. If you increase a man's pay so that he shall wear a top hat instead of a cap, and you can call him an Inspector, you have no right to assume that you get more tons out of him. If you spend money in building a ship, to a certain extent, and in taking it to pieces again, the tons built, and those taken to pieces, are called additions to the Fleet. That is an extraordinary statement. I have protested against its being made in the past, and I protest against its being made now, because it invalidates the statement which the Secretary to the Admiralty makes. The hon. Gentleman has told us that a certain work will be done. That work will not be done; the ships will not be built in the proportion and to the extent which he desires, and to the extent which he endeavours to lead the Committee to suppose. I make no charge against my hon. Friend; but there is this very curious fact to be noticed—that notwithstanding the inaccuracy and fallaciousness of this Estimate as to the number of tons built, the cost of building has increased enor-

  1327
  mously during the last three years. In the Estimate of 1883–4 it was estimated that 11,490 tons were built, and that they cost at the rate of £33 6s. 9d. per ton—that is to say, the assumption of the Department was that every £33 6s. 9d. paid in wages and so forth meant a ton of a ship. In 1884–5 the Estimate was increased, and £34 8s. 9d. spent in wages was assumed to be equivalent to a ton, and now we find that the equivalent in wages of a ton is £35 5s. 9d. I do not know why a ship should cost more in wages than it did three years ago. I do not see why the increase should be so rapid as it appears to be, though I should not quarrel with the fact if we got the ships in return. There seems to be a kind of paralysis, or an extraordinary condition of things, which prevents us getting the ships when we spend the money. If we take the case of protected ships—shown on page 204 of the Estimates for last year—it will be found that the Mersey was to be advanced to 1,339 tons; the Severn, to 955; the Thames, to 662; the new Mersey, 814; another new Mersey, 61; Calypso, to 1,470; Calliope, to 1,397; the Pyladts, to 772; the Amphion, to 1,443; the Arethusa, 93; the Leander, 164; the Phaton, 92; the Mariner, to 520; the Racer, to 520; the Icarus, to209; the Melita, 87; the Swallow, 50; and the Acorn, 80. I went through the corresponding figures also, as they are shown on page 210 of this year's Estimates, and I will give them to my hon. Friend if it is necessary. I find they show a deficiency of 1,297 tons, 10,513 tons were promised, and only 9,216 were built. In other words, of protected ships, only four-fifths of the tons promised were built. The Contract Vote shows the same thing. The Benlow was advanced to 3,451, slightly more than was promised; but the other contract ships show a deficiency of 511 tons. Taking the whole together, the programme shows that we had 20,679 tons promised, and that only 17,111 were built, a gross deficiency of 3,568 tons. I will illustrate how this is done by the case of the Arethusa, Leander, and Phœton. It was shown in the Estimates of 1883–4, page 204, that each of these vessels required 251 tons to be built in them to complete making 753 tons in all. Of these tons the Estimates of 1883–4 provided for—Arethusa, 251; Leander, 55; Phœton, 92; a total of 398.
  1328
  The Estimates of 1884–5 provide for—Arethusa, 93; Leander, 164; Phœton, 92; total, 349. Now, the Estimates of 1885–6 provide for the Arethusa, 214; and for the Phœton, 275; a total of 489. In the three years, therefore, it is provided that 1,236 tons shall be built into ships, in which only 753 tons were required. The ships have not grown bigger, and only one of them, the Leander, is now in course of completion. These facts require grave consideration, for they strike a blow at the confidence which the Committee ought to place in the Estimates of a great public Department like that of the Admiralty. I wish to lay down no rigid rule. I know I that one ship may have to be advanced at the cost of another, and there may be frequent displacements; but when a great effort has been made, and £48,000 more wages have been granted in order to enable the Department to complete their work, and great results are said to have been obtained, and when, nevertheless, we find that that shows a deficiency of about one-sixth on the whole building programme of the year, I say enough is shown to give cause for very serious alarm to Parliament. There is one other point in connection with the speech of the hon. Gentleman to which I wish to refer; he spoke of the desire of the Admiralty to fulfil the undertaking they entered into with Parliament last December. Well, I will remind him of what that undertaking was. It was to contract for two iron-clads, five belted cruisers, two torpedo rams, 10 Scouts, 30 torpedo boats of the first-class, 10 more to be built every year, and two iron-clads in the Dockyards. He said—
  "We shall proceed at the utmost speed, consistent with due economy, in the Dockyards; and with regard to contractors, no obstruction will he imposed upon their exertions.—(3 Hansard, [294] 458.)
  Then the hon. Member went on to say he proposed to raise the construction of armour-clads in the Dockyards to 12,000 tons—that is to say, 1.2,000 of the tons of which I have been speaking in regard to wages, and to build of unarmoured ships in the Dockyards 5,500 tons, making in all 17,500 tons. He proposed to raise the construction of armour-clad ships by contract 3,050 tons, and of unarmoured 8,940 tons, making 11,990, and adding 350 tons of torpedo boats—the construction of which he said is a very

  1329
  costly mode of expending money—a total of 13,310 or 12,340 tons. Thus we have a grand total of construction of 29,810 tons for 1885–6 as compared with 20,679 tons for the present financial year, being an increase of 9,131 tons. Already the undertaking of December last has been reduced by 1,760 tons. The hon. Member asks Parliament to believe that they have fulfilled their undertaking. Well, I would much rather that they had come down and said—"We repent of our engagement and our undertaking, and we think we offered to do too much. We believe that a cold fit has come on Parliament and the country, and that we can well retire from the undertaking we made." But instead of that the hon. Gentleman came forward and said—"We have fulfilled the undertaking by proposing in Parliament to do some 7½ per cent less than we stated in the House of Lords on the 2nd of December we would do." Without wishing to say a single word that would be personally offensive to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that I do not think that is keeping faith with Parliament or the country in the way we had the right to expect that the First Lord of the Admiralty would keep faith with us. I am afraid I am occupying a great deal of the time of the Committee, but it is not my fault; these subjects at this moment are of very grave and deep importance. I would ask to be permitted to say a word upon another point which has struck me as very extraordinary in regard to these Estimates. There seems to me to be an enjoyment in the use of figures amongst some persons. An alteration, a change in figures, seems to produce a certain amount of satisfaction. Instead of noting down 7,500, it is very easy to write down 9,500. It is a small matter; but it is an indication of the use and of the value of figures in the Admiralty. On page 211, in regard to the propelling machinery in the Estimates of 1884–5, we find the Benbow, Howe, Rodney, and Camper down, all shown as of 7,500 indicated horse power, and the Hero as of 4,500 horse power. Well, in the Estimates of 1885–6 we find that the machinery has, all of a sudden, gone up in the case of the Benbow, Howe, Rodney, and Camper down to 9,500 horse power, and in the case of the Hero from 4,500 to 6,000 horse power; in that way they show 2,000 horse power above the
  1330
  Estimate of 1884–5, as regards the larger ships, by a stroke of the pen. How could that change have occurred? It might be that the Admiralty had found some mode of suddenly increasing and developing the power of machinery which is three-fourths constructed, but I am at a loss to know what that mode can be; the circumstance is an unusual one, and it seems to me to require some explanation. Of the four first ships only 9,265 horse power were to have been constructed after the 31st of March, 1885; but there, again, on page 215 of the Estimates of 1885–6, we find that there is a considerable excess in the work to be done. Although it was assumed they were so near completion, the Estimate shows 9,873 horse power to have been constructed, and 985 remaining to be constructed after the 31st of March, 1886. Well, Sir, I now wish to say a word or two with regard to the torpedo boat business. My hon. Friend has spoken with considerable detail on the subject of torpedo boats. He first rests his case on the fact that we have 170 steam pinnaces, varying from nine to 12 knots speed, which are attached, most of them, to ships in commission, in ordinary, or in the first reserve, very few of which, I think, are in excess of the requirements of those ships which will have to go to sea. But he says these are to be a great resource for the defence of our mercantile harbours and of our coasts. Well, it seems to me that this is a new view of the case; but I do not wish to derogate in the slightest degree from the importance of the statement he has made. Let us realize what our position is. No first-class torpedo boats have been added since 1880. Five years have elapsed, and no first-class boats have been laid down. We have none at the present moment which can compete with the French, with the Austrian, or the German new boats. Mr. White's new boats, that were mentioned the other day, are very useful; but although seven have been delivered, only two are fitted. We were told that four first-class boats are building, and two second-class are in course of construction; but it is a curious thing that, although a torpedo boat can be built with economy and advantage, if your design is complete in six months, these boats were building last year, and, according to the Estimates, are not to be completed this year, and it is this delay

  1331
  and procrastination against which I so strongly protest, both in the interests of the Service and the country, and also in the interests of economy. The additions by the present Board, since 1880, are two wooden boats ready, five wooden boats built, but not fitted, and four first-class and two second-class boats now building. Ten first-class boats are now to be commenced, and tenders have been invited. Since 1880 first-class boats have increased from 84 to 113 feet and 120 feet in length, with corresponding increase of speed. English builders have supplied France, Germany, Russia, Austria, Italy, Greece, the Brazils, and the Argentine Republic with such boats, in many cases as patterns. I say they have served as models, for in Austria, Russia, and France, a considerable number of similar boats have been built like them, and I am informed that they answer quite as well as those the English builders furnished. The hon. Gentleman gave us some information with regard to France. I desire, as much as I can, to avoid reference to Foreign Powers, as I think such reference is not desirable. We have to consider what we have for ourselves, for our own protection, and for the defence of our country, and not so much to take into consideration what other countries are doing. As a matter of fact, France has 56 first-class torpedo boats, Germany 18, and has voted money for 75 more, and Russia 115; whilst England, at the present moment, has only 19 of the older and smaller first-class boats. We at present have none of the improved boats afloat. Austria is building boats 135 feet by 13 feet 9 inches, which are to have a speed of 24 knots light, and 22 knots loaded. If the Government had only ordered these boats, which they admit to be necessary, when they made up their minds that an addition to the Navy was required in October last, they might have been delivered in May or June; and who can say how soon these boats may not be required? Who would dare take upon himself the responsibility of saying that these boats may not soon be exceedingly necessary? Who will say that the time may not come when they would be extremely useful in the defence of the country? I want to know when these boats, which are now to be ordered, but which have not yet been ordered, are to be furnished? I believe that the Go-
  1332
  vernment would have experienced no difficulty whatever, looking at the state of trade, in acquiring all the 30 which they admit to be necessary in a year's time, or, at the outside, in 18 months. The hon. Gentleman says the Government cannot pledge the Estimates of next year. That is perfectly true. They cannot pledge the Estimates of next year, but they are pledging the Estimates of next year if they leave work unfinished which they have partially undertaken to do this year, and they are pledging the Estimates of next year in a manner which would be most embarrassing and compromising to those who follow the hon. Gentleman and his Government. But, Sir, there is another question that arises out of the torpedo boat question. Where are the torpedos which are to be used in the torpedo boats? I understand that proposals were submitted to the Admiralty with reference to the supply of torpedoes, proposals which were invited by the Admiralty and submitted to them some months ago, but that yet no tender has been accepted. Now, it is notorious that our supply of torpedoes at the present time would not last three months of actual war. Every torpedo in store would most probably be used up in three months in actual warfare; and, as I understand it, we have not at the present moment means at Woolwich of producing more than 80 torpedoes a-year. That number, in the event of our having a serious conflict with any powerful enemy, would probably be used up in the course of a single week. I think the Committee and the country have a right to know whether steps have been taken to provide torpedoes for the torpedo boats. With regard to the Colossus and the Conqueror, it was stated that those vessels are practically complete. Well, last year, at this time, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant said that the Conqueror was complete. I happened, however, to have been at Chatham, and to have seen the tubes of her guns without a breech-piece. Well, a gun cannot be said to be complete without a lock or the means of using it, and that was the position of the guns of the Conqueror at that time. I believe that since then the breech-piece has been settled upon, but the loading apparatus has not been supplied. Though these guns may be

  1333
  complete as far as the Dockyard is concerned, there is no chance that they will be complete for service for two or three months after the breech-loading apparatus has been supplied, and that has not yet been delivered at Chatham or at Portsmouth. It will not be delivered at Portsmouth until after the breech-loading apparatus has been tried and found satisfactory. We are, therefore, in this position—that if war were to break out, neither the Colossus nor the Conqueror could be made available for service, though they have had enormous sums of money spent upon them, and have been within a measurable distance of completion for very many months. And that leads me to ask another question. We were told that the Anson, the Hero, and the Camper down were all to be completed within four years of the date at which they were laid down; but if I turn to the Estimates I find that the hydraulic mountings for the guns, which take two and a-half years to make, have not yet been ordered. How is it possible for ships to be complete in 1886 when the hydraulic mountings, which will take two and a-half years to make, have not yet been ordered? We are now in the year 1885, and supposing that these hydraulic mountings were ordered before the end of this month it would take at least until October, 1887, before the ship could be ready. It is these unfortunate delays, and the inability of the Department to make up its mind, and to the fact that there were so many minds to be brought together into one way of thinking, that these vessels remained so long incomplete. That is what makes me so exceedingly concerned, and so exceedingly anxious with regard to the future of the Navy of this country. The hon. Gentleman said a word or two about repairs, and we have heard something already about guns. I will not go into the gun question to-night, because that is a matter on which probably the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) and the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Brand) will have something to say on Thursday, and the hour is so late that I will not detain the Committee on the question; but the hon. Gentleman's remarks with regard to the Minotaur and the Agincourt remind me of the views of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant expressed with regard to
  1334
  these ships only a short time ago. He said that the Minotaur, and the Agincourt, and the Achilles would soon be out of order, and as these were important vessels it would be worth while to put them in order. We are told, however, now that this work is not to be done on account of the cost. It is said that the repairs will cost £200,000, and that, therefore, it is not worth while effecting them; and that, to my mind, is another instance of the inability of the Admiralty at any one time to grasp a question and settle it. If the Minotaur was to be repaired in 1884, how is it that the Admiralty have now come to the conclusion that it should not be repaired. I urge this because of the great importance of taking a complete view of the adequate strength of the Navy. Until it is decided to put the ships on one side, they are regarded as being valuable to the Service of the country, and their existence is pointed to as an argument against the building of other ships. It is said, when the necessity of increased construction is impressed upon the Admiralty—"Have you not got these magnificent vessels of 10,000 tons burden? What more do you want?" These vessels, when it answers the purpose of the Government to use the argument, are pointed at to account for so much displacement and so much strength. In reality these vessels should be struck off The Navy List and put on one side, left out of the calculation and not regarded in any way as ships valuable for the Service. A ship which is known to be one that can be no longer relied upon should be at once treated in that way. I will not go through the list of ships to be repaired; but it strikes me—and I say it with a strong desire to assist the Admiralty in dealing with this question—that they have not made a sufficient provision for repairs and for contingencies, and that that is really the reason why they fail to carry out their programme. The truth is that ships come in which must be repaired—ships that are not expected, and for which provision has not been made, and yet the repairs are urgent, and must be effected. The repairs, as I say, being urgent, the ships are forthwith taken in hand, and then down goes the programme. You spend the money, but you spend it on purposes wholly distinct from those originally contemplated. I believe that the figure

  1335
  put down for repairs this year, compared with that of last year, will be found insufficient for the purpose. Now, there are one or two other questions that I am afraid, even at this hour, I must ask the Committee to consider. There was a Committee appointed to inquire into the condition under which ships are repaired—namely, the Committee on the Building and Repairs of Ships, and that Committee sent in some valuable and important recommendations. It said—
  "That vessels, when designed and laid down in the Dockyards, or contracted for, should he completed to receive the hest armaments and mechanical inventions known to exist, and thus great expense would he avoided and time saved. It appears in evidence that in the case of ships built in the Dockyards at least three years out of six might he saved by this course; and the Committee considers that the gain to the naval strength of the country by the more rapid completion of vessels possessing fittings of the most approved type at the time they were designed would more than counter-balance any advantage that might be gained by adopting the latest improvements at the cost of serious delay during the construction of the ship."
  Other recommendations of the Committee were—
  "1st. That the Admiralty should obtain the armaments they require, either through the Ordnance Department of the War Office, or by direct contract with private firms, as may from time to time appear desirable. 2nd. That encouragement be given to the general engineering talent of the country to design, manufacture, and supply the carriage and hydraulic arrangements for working and loading the guns."
  That was confirmed in a Circular sent round by Mr. Barnaby, Director of Naval Construction, to the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors in January of this year. He stated generally that the causes of slow progress are—
  "1. The money voted by Parliament provides for a given number of tons of armourclads each year. If this will just build the equivalent of two ships in a year, and it is desired to build each ship in three years, it will follow that not more than six ships should he in progress together; but, as a matter of fact, twice that number are often found in progress together, by order of Parliament. 2. With so many ships in progress, delays in settlement of questions of armament and alterations are submitted to, and men are withdrawn and sent to other ships, thus spreading the money and the tons built over 12 instead of six ships, greatly increasing the cost per ship, and halving the rate of building."
  To translate that, I think it means that if only the Chief Constructor of the Navy was allowed to build ships in three years he would be able to do so; but
  1336
  hitherto he has been compelled to take double the time in order that he might make a show—in order to make it appear that the Admiralty has double the number of ships on the stocks at the time. I want to know whether the Admiralty are prepared to follow the advice given in the Report of the Committee I have referred to, and to act upon the opinion expressed by their own Constructor, because it is absurd to say that Parliament has ordered these ships to be built in this way? It is the Admiralty that proposes them to Parliament, and the Admiralty who are responsible for the policy of shipbuilding and the administration. Are the Admiralty, I ask, prepared to adopt the policy laid down by that Report, and by their own officer, or do they intend to persevere in the course of laying down more ships than they can complete in a specified time, as they ought to complete them, with due regard to economy? I want to know if these recommendations are going to be attended to? Now, what is the cause of this delay and failure? The Committee sat and inquired very carefully—we had evidence brought before us to show that it would be possible to build fast cruisers in 18 months, if the Admiralty put them out to contract. By a letter from Elswick I learn that two or three fast cruisers, 18-knot type, could be turned out in 18 months from the date of the order—turned out complete, with armament and everything on board ready for her crews. The armour-clads would take somewhat longer, from two years to two years and three months. Messrs. John Elder and Co. are prepared to build and deliver two fast protected cruisers to carry heavy guns and steam 18 knots within 15 months after signature of unalterable contract—or an armour-clad of the Conqueror class within 24 months, or of the Admiral class within 30 months, rigged and ready for sea with fittings for armament, the Admiralty providing the guns. Now, I believe that Parliament desires above all things promptitude, vigour, and a rapid completion of all the work that has been undertaken; it does not desire to have a great show of ships which are totally useless when they are on the stocks, or while they are incomplete, and which are an extravagant expenditure every minute they lay in course of construction over and above the time that it ought to have taken to

  1337
  finish them. What we want is to have the naval strength which is required for the country ready, and we want to know who is responsible for the delay—that delay which nothing seems capable of overcoming, and which prevents that completeness which Parliament requires? Are there divided counsels? Are there intentional delays anywhere? Is it impossible to get questions settled? Is there an absence of an individual who would absolutely order the work to be done? Is it the guns that cause the delay? The Earl of Northbrook says it is not; but the Bellerophon, according to the Estimates, is still, after five years, waiting for the guns she ought to have had years ago. I believe the guns have been changed frequently, and that the old intention as to the armament of the ship has been altered. Then the carriages are referred to as a cause of delay. I am told by some persons that they cannot be had; but the carriages are now entirely in the hands of the Admiralty, and they have the whole of the mechanical power of England to go to in order to get the carriages. Even if there are patents in the way of the Government, by the power they possess they could still have the work done. I came across an old friend the other day—a distinguished naval officer, and he said to me—"I cannot tell how it is, but the whole system is a make-believe of readiness when we are not ready; and that if war were to break out we should not be able to turn out a Meet without delay, which would prove injurious, probably most disastrous to us." I regret that the House did not go into Committee to-day at an earlier hour, so that there might have been a full and proper discussion upon the condition of the Navy, when the whole subject might have been thoroughly sifted and thrashed out. I think that an inquiry ought to be instituted; but I do not think that it ought to be conducted by a Committee of this House. The Committee of 1848 was appointed in the month of February, and it reported in August upon the Navy Estimates; but it did not present a final Report until the year 1851. Now, I do not think we can afford to wait for three or four years for the Report of a Committee sitting twice a week for four hours at a time, and withdrawing probably from
  1338
  the Department officers who are most urgently required at the present moment for the discharge of important duties pressing on them every day and every hour. Of course, they would find it necessary to defend the policy which is carried out at the present time, and to exculpate themselves; and that exculpation would, of itself, withdraw their minds from the proper discharge of their duties. As I have said, I think an inquiry is necessary; but I do not think that it should be an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons. Such an inquiry would probably end in the complete mystification of the country, and the public would most likely fail to arrive at the causes of the evils which exist. I think the Government itself should appoint specially qualified men to inquire into special Departments of the Service which are capable of improvement. I should like to see four or five men deputed to consider the whole question of shipbuilding, to consider whether the system which now prevails is at all a safe or proper one, or whether it is creditable to the capable undertaking of any business operations or enterprize. What is it that we do? We order a ship to be laid down, but we are careful not to order all that is necessary for that ship on account of the circumstances and conditions which surround the Estimates from year to year. The result is that everything is taken in driblets. The engines are ordered by driblets. All the materials which go to make the ship are ordered by driblets. Any private person wanting a vessel would order everything that was required at the outset to be ready to put into the ship, so that no delay should be caused for want of material to the shipwrights and fitters, and there would be an immense economy both of money and of time. Let me refer to the cost of alterations. I happen to know that £ 10 or £12 a ton are lost in armour alone, which would not be the case if the whole design had been completed in the first instance. Then there is something else—we want to know something about the manning of the vessels of which my hon. Friend has spoken. We want to know whether the provision made for manning the ships can be improved, so as to put the manning of all vessels in a complete state of efficiency within a week of a vessel being put in commis-

  1339
  sion? I do not think it could be done now; but unless we know from the directions given by qualified persons what the system is and what can be done—unless the instructions given are laid upon the Table by the Admiralty, and action is taken upon them in the course of a week or two after they are received, I am afraid we shall make no real progress. I cannot but say that a great deal of the failure to complete the programme from year to year, and a great deal of the inaccuracy which prevails in the figures, is due to the want of cordiality in the working which exists within the Admiralty itself. It arises from a vast number of zealous officers in their several Departments, working most conscientiously no doubt to the best of their ability in the discharge of their several duties, being brought together to decide matters which from their very conscientiousness they are prevented from deciding, and which prevents them from arriving at positive conclusions, simply because their decision has to be given upon work altogether outside their several provinces. The result is that matters of real importance to the country are seriously delayed or sacrificed. What we want is a man of vigorous grasp, with a will to control, direct, and order; with a sense of personal and individual duty and responsibility, who would be responsible for having everything done for the country without loss of time. It should be the work of one man, and I think it is the duty of one man to undertake the task. I am asking this not in panic or alarm, but with a deep sense of responsibility. The Navy exists for the country—it is not a mere expensive toy; not a mere matter of display; but if there were not a possibility of war, if there were no probability of war, if there were not almost the certainty that some time or other the Navy would be required to protect the country there would be no excuse for a Navy at all, and no justification for spending£10,000,000 or £12,000,000 a-year in order to keep up the Navy. But I do insist that if the Navy is to be maintained, as many ships as are necessary should be maintained in a state of efficiency. I am convinced, in my own opinion, that the Navy is not ready to perform the duties it might be called upon to discharge in case of war, and more particularly of sudden emergency.
  1340
  I am convinced that war, and a sudden war, is quite possible. We have been told by the Secretary of State for War, although it is not necessary for us to be told that by a Minister of State, as we can see it for ourselves, that there is cause for very grave anxiety, and that a sudden emergency might arise, Then if there is cause for anxiety there is an additional reason why the House and the country should see that our defences are adequate for the task they may be called upon to perform. It is essential that we should be secure in our homes, in our trade, and in our commerce, and that there should be no interruption to the native industries of the country, or to our food supply. It is the duty of the Admiralty to see that their arrangements and provisions are adequate to the necessities of the case. I speak strongly and plainly, because I feel deeply the responsibilities of the Admiralty. I feel deeply our own responsibility. I know that the provisions which exist are not adequate, and therefore it is that I express my earnest hope that the Government will take such steps as are necessary to bring order out of chaos, and to re-assure the country that the Navy, as far as the matériel and the personnel are concerned, if the actual service of the country required it, are perfect, and that they deserve the complete confidence and trust of the people of this country.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that those who were acquainted with his career in the House of Commons would believe him when he said that he had no intention of making a speech at that hour of the night (1.15). Still less did he intend to enter into the elaborate criticism which had been undertaken by his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith); but he hoped when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose that he would at least give some hope of affording him (Lord Henry Lennox) an opportunity, on a future day, of stating the objections he entertained to these marvellous Estimates which he would refrain from stating that night. If he did not feel that he was more or less responsible for the excitement which had been created in the public mind in regard to the state of the Navy he might have remained silent; but as he felt that his speeches and humble

  1341
  efforts had had something to do with the arousing of public attention to the subject, he felt that he would be wanting in his duty if he did not rise at once and tell his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty that he had listened to his speech with alarm. He maintained that there had been nothing more nor less than a deliberate breach of faith in regard to the engagements deliberately entered into with Parliament last December. The Secretary to the Admiralty, with his usual ability, had tried to conceal it, by contrasting the expenditure of money the Admiralty were going to undertake this year with that of France. Hon. Gentlemen must know as well as he (Lord Henry Lennox) did that labour in France was much cheaper than in England; and the contrast, which his hon. Friend had considered it desirable to make, was altogether a fallacious one. He had only one thing more to say, and it was this. He desired forcibly to point out to the Committee that, after all that had been stated in December last, all that was promised now was four new iron-clads—two by contract, and two in the Dockyards—and they had the high authority of the Secretary to the Admiralty himself for saying that the two to be built in the Dockyards had scarcely been commenced, and that they were really nothing but paper ships. All that he desired at the present moment was to draw the attention of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to that point, and also to ask whether he was right or wrong in pointing out that, according to Vote 6, No. 10, the number of men employed this year, as compared with the number employed last year, notwithstanding the provisions which had been made, was really 47 less? He might have made a mistake; but he would appeal to the Secretary to the Admiralty to put him right. Keeping to his promise, he would not say one word more, except to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold out some hope that this discussion would be resumed at an early day.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that he had been about to make an appeal to the Committee in the sense of what had fallen from the noble Lord. It appeared to him that it was desirable upon this, as upon previous occasions, that they should take the Vote for Men and the
  1342
  first Vote for Money at once, on the clear understanding that the discussion should be continued on an early day on the next Vote, and also, so far as shipbuilding was concerned, on Votes 6 and 10, which came later. If that understanding were arrived at, and it was the understanding that was followed not only last year, but in previous years, his noble Friend would have a full opportunity of making his comments, and they would be able to get over the difficulty of deferring the Vote for Men and the first Money Vote until a future day. He, therefore, asked the Committee to agree at once to the Vote on that distinct understanding.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he had only one question to ask—namely, when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to renew the discussion? It was very important that it should be renewed as soon as possible; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some idea of the day upon which the Navy Estimates would be resumed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the course which was pursued last year would be followed this; and the Navy Estimates would be taken, after Easter, on the earliest day consistent with other urgent Business.
  MR. W. H. SMITHremarked, that if the course adopted last year were practically and substantially followed this year, he thought the Committee would do well to agree, at once, to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £2,728,100, Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines.

CIVIL SERVICES.

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £8,409, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was an item contained in this Vote upon which he should ask the Committee to divide—namely, the item of £548 9s. 4d. for Fees paid on the Installation of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick

  1343
  Ernest Albert of Wales as Knight of the Garter. There was another item of a similar objectionable kind—namely, an item of £360 for special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons. He thought it was ridiculous for the country to be called upon to pay a large sum of money to some private individual whenever Her Majesty bestowed the Order of the Garter upon him. He would not object to Her Majesty conferring the Garter upon any Member of the Royal Family, or upon the whole country if she chose; but what he did object to was that when Her Majesty took occasion to confer the Garter upon a Member of the Royal Family the country should be charged the sum of £548 9s. 4d. He supposed that these fees went to the Garter King-at-Arms, or some other officer who ought to be wiped off the face of the earth. As he had said before, it was perfectly ridiculous that the country should be called upon to pay these sums of money. If they were necessary at all they ought to be paid by the person upon whom the Order of the Garter was conferred. He would, therefore, propose to reduce the Vote by the sum of £548 9s. 4d. and also by the next item of £360.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote by two separate items at the same time.
  MR. LABOUOHEREasked if he would be precluded from afterwards moving the reduction of the item of £360 in the event of the Motion for reducing the Vote by £548 9s. 4d. being negatived?
  THE CHAIRMANasked what was the amount by which the hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce the Vote?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he proposed to reduce it by two separate sums which amounted to £908 9s. 4d., but he had received an intimation that it would not be competent for him to propose the reduction of the two items together; and as the first item was the larger sum, he wanted to know whether, if his Motion were negatived in regard to that sum, he would then be precluded from asking the Committee to agree to the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £360, which constituted the second item? Personally he had no desire to take two divisions, especially at that late hour of the night, and probably the Chancellor of the
  1344
  Exchequer would prefer that the decision of the Committee should be taken upon the two items together.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was afraid that by the Rules of the House it would be necessary to decide upon one item at a time.
  MR. LABOUCHEREwished to know whether, in that case, he would be precluded from moving the reduction of the Vote by the minor sum?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be in Order in moving the reduction of the larger sum first, and of the smaller sum afterwards.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, under those circumstances, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £548 9s. 4d.
  MR. SEXTONwished to know, as a point of Order, whether the Motion to reduce the Vote by £548 9s. 4d. would preclude any other Member from moving the reduction of the Vote by a larger sum? He himself desired to move the reduction of it by the sum of £ 1,147 18s., payable to Surgeon Wheeler for attendance on Mr. Shaen Carter, in pursuance of a verdict against the Crown, given in the Court of Exchequer in November, 1883.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would still be competent for the hon. Member to move a reduction to that effect.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £548 9s. 4d., for Fees paid on the Installation of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales as Knight of the Garter, he omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that though it had always been the practice to include these fees in the Estimates, there was the strongest reason for doing so in the present case, which was that of a Royal Prince. The fees themselves varied from £130 down to £1, and were paid to Garter King-at-Arms and other officers who attended the installation.
  MR. LABOUCHEREremarked, that, if his hon. Friend could give no further information upon the matter, he should certainly divide the Committee against this item.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he did not think that the Secretary to the Treasury had improved matters by the explanation he had given. There was a strong feel-

  1345
  ing throughout the country that the public money ought not to be voted to individuals except in return for work done, and the work done ought to represent value received. The matter was very different now from what it used to be in olden times, when these fashions and ceremonies were of much more importance. [Cries of "Oh!"] He knew that whenever an hon. Member alluded in that House to the opinions of the millions outside, a large number of whom were about to be enfranchised for the first time, he was received with something like ridicule. Nevertheless, the opinion of these people was of great importance, and would prove to be of the highest importance hereafter. However foolish it might be thought within that House, nothing created so much irritation of feeling in the minds of the working classes as these petty Votes on behalf of distinguished persons who were not believed to have done any work that would justify the payment. He would certainly support the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in an earnest protest against this Vote.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury rather aggravated than mitigated the absurdity of the first item in the Vote. It only required the explanation of the hon. Member to make the whole proceeding much more extravagant than the wildest creation of Mr. Gilbert and Sir Arthur Sullivan. What was the Vote? It had been described as one that was necessary in order to carry out an ancient custom, and the money appeared to have been expended in buying banners, helmets, and swords—exactly what the stage manager at the Savoy did in placing upon the boards one of the operas of the two distinguished gentlemen he had had just named. He wondered how an expenditure of this sort could be tolerated with patience by any enlightened Assembly. He thought everybody would acknowledge that they had now made a certain progress in civilization, and that it was not necessary to adopt nowadays the dress and customs of the Middle Ages. What would be thought of the hon. Gentleman himself if he took it into his head to come down to the House preceded by banners, wearing doublet
  1346
  and hose, and accompanied by all the paraphernalia which might have distinguished a Secretary of State in the days of James I. He saw that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) laughed at that suggestion. He would ask the Committee to imagine the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) presenting himself to their notice at the Bar of the House in a "nodding plume," with his casque down, with retainers bearing banners, helmets, and swords, and all of it paid for out of the public money! The whole thing belonged to the region of opera bouffe, and not to the civilization of the 19th century. He hoped the Committee would strike a blow at such ridiculous absurdity.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had referred to the late Secretary to the Treasury. That hon. Gentleman had had the advantage of defending these Votes when he occupied a seat upon the Treasury Bench; but now the Committee were able to look upon him in a different light from the seat he at present occupied below the Gangway. He certainly should like to know what were the present views entertained by the hon. Gentleman. They knew very well what his views were when he sat as a Minister above the Gangway, and they were very anxious now to watch his performances from the seat he occupied at present below the Gangway. He certainly hoped the Committee would receive some guidance from the hon. Gentleman, and that he would be able to assure the Committee, in continuing to support these Votes, that he had no sympathy with the opposition which was raised by the Radical Members. Personally, he (Mr. Healy) did not think that if they got good government it ought to be too cheap, and he would have no objection to pay £3,000 or £4,000 by way of extras in order to secure good government; but, at the same time, he thought it was desirable that they should thrash a matter of this kind out to its logical conclusion, and see what it was they were called upon to vote. While there was a Monarchy, it must be taken for better or worse. If it were necessary to have banners and helmets, he should vote for them; but he rather fancied these things were out of date.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 56: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 54.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, no doubt, the persons conveyed across the Channel in special packets, and for which service the sum of £360 was charged, were very distinguished persons; but the House had never been told on what ground those distinguished persons had special packets provided to convey them between Dover and Calais, and why, if they desired those special facilities, they should not pay for them themselves. He was aware that it had been said before now on the Treasury Bench, and would be said again that evening, no doubt, that Her Majesty had power to use the ships of the Royal Navy for this purpose, and that it was cheaper to hire a special packet for £40 rather than to have a man-of-war to carry Members of the Royal Family across the Channel. But he would point out that the practice of employing men-of-war would not exist very long, because everyone knew that there would be proposals for a reduction in the Navy if any of them were used for the purpose. There was in the Estimate a charge of £40 for conveying the Duchess of Mecklenburg from Calais to Dover, and a charge of £40 for bringing her back from Dover to Calais. With the highest respect, he did not see why the country should be called upon to pay £40 whenever this lady wished to visit this country. She was born, it was true, in this country, but he believed she had married a German Prince and that she was living in Germany; moreover, he believed that Parliament had voted her an income. The charge he was referring to, under the circumstances, rather hampered the pleasure felt at seeing the Duchess of Mecklenburg in this country. He hoped that the protests which were always raised on the part of Members of that House in regard to special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons might be listened to. As an hon. Member (Mr. Picton) speaking on the last Vote had said, it was these little things which made the people angry. It was because the sums were small that they thought
  1348
  the distinguished persons could pay the amount themselves. When the distinguished persons went to the Continent, they started generally from Charing Cross; it might be that they travelled by special train, but whether that was so or not, they paid for it. He did not see why these absurdities should continue year after year in the shape of calls upon the House for payment, and, therefore, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £360, the amount of charge for the special packets.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £360, for Special Packets for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—[Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he should like to know why the Royal Yachts were not used for this service? He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it was not a fact that the three Royal Yachts were at the present time under repairs as usual? He believed that in the Estimates of last year they were charged for the repair of each of the Royal Yachts. He should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman if the Royal Yachts were under repair when this expense was incurred, and, if not, why they were not employed for carrying these distinguished persons across the Channel?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUEE (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that when this Vote was discussed last year, it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that he promised to look into some of the questions connected with it, and particularly with regard to the point just raised. He had gone carefully into the question, in order to see whether it would be possible to substitute for the special packets employed one of the Royal Yachts, and he would state to the Committee plainly what was the result of his inquiry. He found that for a very long time it had been customary for Members of the Royal Family, going to or returning from the Continent, to be conveyed in vessels of the Royal Navy, and formerly two or three sailing ships were used expressly for that purpose. Hon. Members would remember that in the early days of the use of steam, there were no contract steamers, but small steam vessels of the

  1349
  Navy were used; and that subsequently it was arranged that contracts should be entered into with the Steamship Companies for the service. Accordingly, these small naval steamers, and subsequently contract chart steamers, were used as the old sailing ships had been. He might remind the Committee that there was at the present time a charge in the Estimates for the conveyance of the suite of Her Majesty and her horses and carriages. Now, the question had been asked by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Molloy) whether it would be more economical to make use of the Royal Yachts for this service. But he would point out that those Yachts drew too much water to admit of their being used between Dover and Calais, and between Folkestone and Boulogne. Were vessels specially built for the purpose, he was satisfied it would be less economical; and, therefore, having stated the ancient custom, and what he believed would be the result of the change suggested, he trusted the Vote would be allowed to pass.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 54: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 55.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that, no doubt, the fulness of the right hon. Gentleman's reply on the subject of conveyance of distinguished persons had been appreciated by the Committee; but there were several other items in this Vote which gave rise to some speculation, and as to which he would like to hear an explanation. The first item was a charge for Surgeon Wheeler for attendance upon Mr. Shaen Carter in November, 1883. He asked why it was necessary to pay for attendance on Mr. Shaen Carter, and if it were necessary, why one of the most eminent surgeons in Ireland had been engaged to attend him? He believed that he was the victim of an outrage; but many other outrages upon persons had been committed, and the Government had not thought fit to take the victims under their especial care. He and his hon. Friends desired to know what were the special facts which induced the Government to assume financial responsibilities with regard to the injuries of Mr. Carter? Why had the Government repeatedly
  1350
  refused to pay for injuries caused by the weapons of their agents in Ireland? Hon. Gentlemen on those Benches knew of men, women, and children who had been wounded by the bayonets of the Government police, and they knew of innocent persons who had been cast into prison and afterwards released; but the Government had never placed 5s. on the Estimates to compensate them. He thought they were entitled to claim that compensation should be given in cases where the Government were responsible for the injuries inflicted. Then there was a charge for a gratuity of £500 to the Commissioner of Valuation for services given to the Government, and he complained that there was nothing whatever in the Estimates to show what the services were. He should be glad to receive an explanation of this charge. He found also a charge for the collection of compensation and fines under the Act of 1882, with regard to which he said that the collectors had not very much to do, according to the testimony of the Judges. He thought this money might very well have been collected without any charge being placed on the country, and he would be glad to hear when the money had been collected, and under what circumstances the charge was made. He would also be glad to know what was the misconduct on the part of the Crown Solicitor for which Mrs. Eliza Colgan received a compassionate grant of £250. There was one other item in the Vote to which he took exception—namely, £1,000 to
  "The Right Honourable A. W. Peel, equipage money on election as Speaker of the House of Commons."
  In the Public Service of this country there appeared to be a great tendency to multiply the number of outfits; indeed, there was one noble Lord who received as many as three outfits in one year.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in referring to the item of £1,000 for Mr. Speaker's outfit. A division had been taken on the third item of the Vote, and the £1,000 to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the second item. As a division had been taken on the item for "Special Packets for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons," the hon. Gentleman was not in order in the remarks he was now making.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had not much to say upon the point. If he could not comment upon the item, he should move, without reference to any particular item, to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000. The Committee would understand his object in moving such a reduction.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £7,409, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray tie Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  MR. HEALYsaid, the ruling of the Chairman, as he understood it, was that the Committee could not divide against the item of £1,000 for the Speaker's outfit. The Question put from the Chair was that a sum of £8,409 be granted to Her Majesty to defray certain charges. Surely, therefore, there was nothing to prevent hon. Members from referring to a particular £1,000 in that amount. He did not want to deprive Mr. Peel of his equipage money—the right hon. Gentleman could have £500,000 for aught he (Mr. Healy) cared—but this was a Vote for £8,409 for Civil Contingencies; and were the Committee to be told that because an hon. Gentleman chose to challenge a succeeding Vote, they were to be debarred from debating, for instance, the item for—
  "Fees paid on the Installation of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales as Knight of the Garter?"
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, his ruling was quite plain. It would be quite competent for the hon. Member for Sligo to move to reduce the Vote, but not to reduce it with particular reference to the item of £1,000 for the Speaker's equipage money. Inasmuch as a succeeding item had been disposed of, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was in error in supposing the Committee could discuss the Vote for the installation fees of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales as Knight of the Garter, or the item for the Speaker's equipage money.
  MR. HEALYunderstood that the Question the Chairman put on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was that the item of £360 for "Special Packets for the conveyance of Distin-
  1352
  guished Persons" be omitted. Because it was decided that the item should stand part of the Vote, was he (Mr. Healy) excluded from going into other items?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot discuss an item preceding the one which has been disposed of. He is quite within his right to debate and take a division upon any subsequent item.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked if a division, taken upon the proposal to reduce the Vote by £1,000, would necessarily apply to Mr. Speaker's outfit?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have stated it could not apply to that item. That item cannot now be debated. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has proposed to reduce the whole Vote by £1,000, and that he is perfectly competent to do.
  MR. GRAYasked if a division taken on the Motion to reduce the whole sum by £1,000 would preclude discussion on any particular item?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The only items that are precluded from discussion up to the present moment are three, because a division has been taken on the third. They are the installation fees of His Royal Highness, the Speaker's equipage money, and the item for special packets.
  MR. GRAYfollowed the remarks of the Chairman; but what he wanted to know was, whether a division on the Motion to reduce the whole Vote by £1,000 would preclude discussion on any of the items?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No. None of the items subsequent to that of £360 for special packets will be precluded from discussion.
  MR. CALLAN: If the Motion to reduce the Vote by £1,000 is carried, to what item will that reduction be applied?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): That would be in the discretion of the Government, and we shall resist the Motion on that ground. Of course, it would be quite competent for the Committee to reduce the Vote.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he hoped that now they had got the ruling of the Chair they would conform to it strictly. The items upon which he proposed to make some observations were those with re-

  1353
  gard to Mr. Shaen Carter, the gratuity to the Commissioner of Valuation for services rendered to the Irish Government, and the compassionate grant to Mrs. Eliza Colgan. He quite agreed that it was necessary to put down the sum of £1,147 18 s. in respect of Surgeon Wheeler's attendance on Mr. Shaen Carter. Nobody knew that better than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). The actual facts of this case, however, were concealed from the Committee. There was a sum of £500 for law expenses which was not included in this Vote. He asked a Question on this subject on the 11th of February last year, and the Government now put down only the exact amount of the verdict given in favour of Mr. Wheeler. The Question he asked last year was—
  "By whose advice was Surgeon Wheeler's demand against the Government (for attendance on a wounded landlord) resisted; whether it was deposed in evidence that the Government were willing to pay him £700, while his claim was £1,147 18 s.; whether the Government employed the Attorney General, 'the Solicitor General, and Mr. Dodd (instructed by Mr. Lane Joynt), to resist his claim before a jury; if he can state what amount was marked on the briefs of the Government lawyers, and how much they obtained as 'refreshers;' whether it is the fact that the Government ultimately admitted in Court the full claim of Surgeon Wheeler, that the case was withdrawn from the jury, and that they had to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs of three opposing Queen's Counsel; and, if he can state what the taxed costs of the Plaintiff amounted to, and how much the suit has cost the Government altogether beyond the £1,147 18 s. originally claimed, which they subsequently admitted in Court was due to Surgeon Wheeler."—(3 Hansard, [284] 438–9.)
  The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland admitted to him that the taxed costs amounted to £208 14 s. 7d., and that the suit would cost the Government about £400, in addition to the £1,147 18 s.; that was to say, the taxpayers were now called upon to pay in respect of this wounded landlord the sum of £1,147 18s., and in addition to put into the pockets of the Irish lawyers about £400. Surgeon Wheeler earned the money, but who were the people who gave the order that he should earn it; and who was the economical gentleman who raised a false issue, and therefore put all this money into the pockets of the Irish lawyers? It was understood that the late Mr.
  1354
  Burke gave the order to Mr. Wheeler to put down attendances on Mr. Shaen Carter. Mr. Burke being dead, there was no possibility of ascertaining whether Mr. Shaen Carter's story was right or wrong. The whole matter then came before Mr. Hamilton, Under Secretary, who—with Scotch acumen, was in the habit of making reductions in the salaries of others in order to get advances in his own—thought it was a fine thing to resist Mr. Surgeon Wheeler's claim of £1,100 against the Irish Government. He advised the Irish Government to resist the claim in Court, and they did so, with the result that after two days' litigation they had to consent to a verdict being returned against them, and the country was put to the needless cost of £400 owing to Mr. Hamilton's—Sir Robert Hamilton's, he begged that gentleman's pardon—attempted economy. Now, this was the way government was carried on in Ireland. That distinguished physician Mr. Surgeon Wheeler was, through some means or other—he (Mr. Healy) did not know how—induced to take long journeys from Dublin to Mayo, and his charge for every attendance was 100 guineas, or some such enormous sum. Of course, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin City (Dr. Lyons) would understand that matter very much better than he (Mr. Healy) did. Well, Surgeon Wheeler charged the money—he was quite right, if he were invited to attend Mr. Shaen Carter, to charge Government prices. That being so, what was the duty of the Government? They knew that Mr. Surgeon Wheeler attended Mr. Shaen Carter; but Sir Robert Hamilton, with his new-found economy, came into Dublin Castle fresh as paint, and upon his advice they said—"Oh, we will dispute your bill." Having disputed the bill, and having come to the point of the bayonet—so to speak—and having got Mr. Surgeon Wheeler into Court, and compelled him to prove by experts what he had a right to charge, they knuckled down and said—"We shall have to pay." The present Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was the only person who could be congratulated on this Vote, because he was Counsel for Mr. Surgeon Wheeler and had the satisfaction of beating the Government. Now, however, he bad the satisfaction of defending the Government. The

  1355
  hon. and learned Gentleman's position was certainly one of extraordinary novelty. In Queen Street the hon. and learned Gentleman was found denouncing the conduct of the Government for refusing Mr. Surgeon Wheeler's paltry fee of £1,147 18 s.; but now the Committee would have the luxury of hearing the learned Solicitor General on the part of the Government say the thing was all right from first to last, and nobody deserved his money better than Mr. Surgeon Wheeler. The litigation must have been very satisfactory from the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view, for it unquestionably put a very large sum in his own pocket. The next item to which he (Mr. Healy) desired to direct the attention of the Committee was that of £250 paid as the compassionate grant to Mrs. Eliza Colgan, in consideration of the loss caused by the misconduct of an Irish Crown Solicitor. The only complaint he had to make about the item was that it was too small. This unfortunate woman was the widow of a man who was sentenced to penal servitude for life. The convict died, and the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Meara, collared all Mrs. Colgan's effects; and he passed on his office by some extraordinary jugglery, which was only known in Dublin Castle, to Mr. Gerrard, who at present held the position of Crown Solicitor. This woman had been trying to get justice against Mr. Meara for the last 11 years; she had been wearing out the flags of Dublin Castle trying to get some satisfaction from the Irish Government, and at last she got a Question put in this House respecting her case, and the next thing that was heard was that she was to get £250. He supposed that if she got her rights she would receive at least £1,250. This poor wretched woman, who had for years been making pilgrimages to that shrine of piety—Dublin Castle—could not get 1 d. until her case was taken up by a Member of the House of Commons, and then she was granted the paltry sum of £250. Either the woman was entitled to get her payment in full, or she was not entitled, to 1d. When he (Mr. Healy) put a Question to the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), the right hon. Gentleman said he had great sympathy with Mrs. Eliza Colgan, but he could do nothing for her. Now, however, the sym-
  1356
  pathy of the Government had led them to propose a grant to her of £250. Why had she only to receive £250? She was swindled by a Crown Solicitor who trafficked his office, and got a full money payment for it from Mr. Gerrard. Why should not Mr. Gerrard pay Mrs. Colgan's claim in full? He took the offer for better or for worse; he took the office with all its rights, wrongs, and responsibilities; and therefore he should be compelled to pay the sum that his predecessor, Mr. Meara, swindled Mrs. Colgan out of. Mrs. Colgan was a poor woman of 60 years of age. She had. no means under Heaven of going to law, and for 10 years she was endeavouring to obtain justice, but failed to do so until the Government were awoke up by a Question put in that House. And now they put her off with a paltry sum of £250. The item required some explanation. Perhaps the Government would tell the Committee why Mrs. Eliza Colgan was kept out of her money for 10 or 11 years—the interest on which by this time would have come to £250—and why they should not compel Mr. Gerrard to make up the defalcations of his predecessor? Now, in this Vote there was a sum of £500 set down as a gratuity to the Commissioner of Valuation for services rendered to the Irish Government. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that the information given in respect of these Votes was extremely scanty. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) would accept a piece of advice from him, it would be this—that the Government should give as much information as they could on paper, because if they did so much debate would be saved in the House. Would any set of hon. Members in the House object to the four or five lines of type, or the few pages more that would be necessary to add to the Votes if full information were given? Look at the time they would save. In his opinion they would save hours every night if a little précis of the reasons for the Vote were given. Under the present system the Committee had to rely upon the Secretary to the Treasury giving all necessary information. He (Mr. Healy) had been surprised at the manner in which Secretaries to the Treasury got up their work, especially the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard(Mr.

  1357
  Courtney). That hon. Gentleman was always ready at a moment's notice to give information, and he (Mr. Healy) thought he would he worthily followed in this respect by his distinguished Successor (Mr. Hibbert). Considerable time would have been saved by an explanation appearing upon the foot of the Vote itself as to the gratuity of £500 to the Commissioner of Valuation. He (Mr. Healy) supposed the gratuity was made for services rendered in connection with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill; but he should be glad to receive definite information on the subject. Then, again, £99 7s. 6d. was charged on the Vote for—
  "Payment on account of the collection of compensation under the provisions of the Crimes Act (Ireland), 1882."
  Was this in Dublin? [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Walker) nodded assent.] Very well. He would like to know why that £99 7s. 6d. should not come out of the amount paid to Mr. Field? He would like English Members, especially economical gentlemen like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), to remember that when they were voting for blood-money under the Prevention of Crime Act they did not think that such sums as £99 7s. 6d. would be charged on the general taxpayers of the United Kingdom. According to the theory of the Prevention of Crime Act the expenses of collecting the compensation given to Mr. Field should be borne by the citizens of Dublin. If the authorities asked him (Mr. Healy), as a citizen of Dublin, for any part of the money, they would certainly have to sell out his goods and chattels. Indeed, nothing would give him greater satisfaction than to see a sheriff come up to his door to collect 3s. 9d., which he presumed would be required from him personally. The attempt would certainly be worth the money. He invited the Government to endeavour to collect the tax from him. All he could say was that if the Dublin people would take the same course that he would do under the circumstances they would knock a great deal more fun out of the Prevention of Crime Act than they at present got out of it. Why was this £99 7s. 6d. to fall upon the general taxpayers of the country? Why should not the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), in the in-
  1358
  terests of his constituents, resist the attempt to put blood-money, which ought to fall on the iniquitous City of Dublin, on the taxpayers of the country who by their rule in Ireland simply brought about the crime they sought to repress? In his opinion, the £99 7s. 6d. ought to be deducted from the £3,000 which was paid to Mr. Field. He noticed that £452 3s. 6d. was set down for the "purchase of the reliquary of St. Lachtin, to be deposited in the Royal Irish Academy." He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) on having asked for that amount. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had acted throughout the matter handsomely, and the arrangement which had been made had been one which had given the utmost satisfaction throughout Ireland. He (Mr. Healy) hoped the practice which the right hon. Gentleman had to some extent inaugurated—namely, of collecting Art treasures in Dublin, would be continued in the future. These were the remarks he had to make upon this Vote. He would like to have some explanation as to why the Government did not set at the foot of the Vote the reason of the gratuity to the Commissioner of Valuation; and why the £99 7s. 6d. for the collection of compensation under the Prevention of Crime Act was not paid out of the money granted to Mr. Field?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IERLAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not resist the temptation to enter into a little explanation of the payment to Mr. Surgeon Wheeler. It appeared that Mr. Shaen Carter was in March, 1882, fired at and wounded severely. His life was in danger. He was then at Belmullett, some 40 miles from the nearest railway, and by his desire the Resident Magistrate in the district telegraphed to the late Mr. Burke, who was then Under Secretary, suggesting that Dr. Wheeler—one of the most eminent surgeons in Ireland—should be sent out to attend him. Accordingly, Surgeon Wheeler waited upon Mr. Burke. As they all knew, Mr. Burke was afterwards assassinated, and he was not alive to give his account of the transaction when the matter came to a conflict between Mr. Surgeon Wheeler and the Irish Government. But Mr. Burke left a memorandum behind him,

  1359
  which stated that Surgeon Wheeler was to be paid by the Government if Mr. Shaen Carter was not able to pay him. As a matter of fact, Mr. Shaen Carter's rents had been so cut down by the Land Commissions that he was now in comparative poverty. Mr. Surgeon Wheeler paid Mr. Shaen Carter several visits; and as he (the Solicitor General for Ireland') had already stated, Mr. Shaen Carter was 40 miles from the nearest railway, Surgeon Wheeler claimed his proper amount. ["How many visits did he pay?"] When Mr. Shaen Carter was removed to Dublin, Mr. Surgeon Wheeler paid him some visits in that City. He paid him in all seven visits at Belmullett; and therefore it could be easily calculated how the amount charged was arrived at—Mr. Surgeon Wheeler having sent in a claim for £1,147. The Government finding the memorandum Mr. Burke left behind, which they were perfectly justified in assuming showed the terms on which Mr. Surgeon Wheeler was engaged, offered that gentleman a reduced sum of between £700 or £800, which they considered sufficient compensation for his visits. When the case came to be tried, Mr. Surgeon Wheeler refused the offer of the Government, and said that from several conversations he had had with Mr. Burke he imagined he was to be paid by the Government, quite irrespective of Mr. Shaen Carter. Mr. Burke being dead, there was no means of disproving that, and accordingly the Government must either concede the demand, or take the alternative of repudiating the agency of their own employés. He felt bound to disabuse the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) on one point. The hon. and learned Gentleman had gone out of his way to make some observations about Sir Robert Hamilton. Now, Sir Robert Hamilton had nothing at all to do with the case. The person named Hamilton who was mentioned in the course of the proceedings was not Sir Robert Hamilton at all, but a gentleman named Thomas Hamilton, who was a Resident Magistrate, and who was acting as Secretary to Mr. Burke, and who, it appeared, was present at one or two of the visits which Mr. Surgeon Wheeler paid to Mr. Burke. Mr. Thomas Hamilton, when appealed to, was not in a
  1360
  position to contradict what Mr. Surgeon Wheeler alleged took place between himself and Mr. Burke, and therefore Mr. Hamilton could throw no light on the matter. In his (the Solicitor General for Ireland's) opinion, the Government, under such circumstances, very properly conceded the demand made by Surgeon Wheeler. With regard to the case of Mrs. Eliza Colgan, he did not understand that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had found any fault with the Government beyond the charge that the sum which had been paid to her was not large enough. The fact was, that a man named Matthew Colgan, as far back as 1853, was sentenced to death, but had the sentence commuted to penal servitude for life. The husband was possessed of certain property, which, by his conviction, became confiscated to the Crown, the wife having no right to it. The Authorities, however, agreed to settle it on the woman, and interest was paid to her on £500 until 1868. In that year she took a promissory note for the amount from Mr. Jeremiah Meara, the Crown Solicitor for Queen's County. This person subsequently became embarrassed, and left the country without settling with Mrs. Colgan. The circumstances were represented to the Irish Government, and as Meara had acted as their agent, it was decided to consider the case. The result of that consideration had been the payment to Mrs. Colgan of the sum named in the Estimate. He was acquainted with Mr. Gerrard, and could assure the Committee that he was a thoroughly trustworthy man. This gentleman had succeeded Mr. Meara as Crown Solicitor for Queen's County. [An hon. MEMBER: How?] He could not saw how. The Conservatives were then in power, and they were responsible for the appointment. But it could not be contended that Crown Solicitors were responsible for the acts of their predecessors. If such were the case, it would be very unfair to the incoming officials, and it might be found difficult to get gentlemen to take upon themselves the responsibility.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Solicitor General for Ireland had explained all the items except that in regard to which Mr. Ball Greene had been mentioned. He wished to explain to the hon. and learned Mem-

  1361
  ber for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and the other hon. Gentlemen who had referred to the matter, that that had nothing whatever to do with the Boundary Commission. The item had reference to services performed in 1884, long before the Boundary Commission was ever thought of. The services were connected with several important Bills, Mr. Ball Greene having given important information and assistance to the Government. The first measure in regard to which this assistance had been rendered was the Arrears Act of 1883; then assistance was given in connection with the Land Act and the Franchise Act. Those were the principal measures in respect of which the £500 was paid. He did not understand that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) who had brought the subject forward objected to the payment. He presumed the hon. Member only wished for an explanation as to how it was that such a sum was paid to the recipient of so large a salary. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) said the Government should give more information in the Estimates, and he (Mr. Hibbert) quite agreed that it would save a great amount of trouble if that course were adopted. On the other hand, they must remember that if the Government gave too much information, it might lead to a vast amount of discussion and a great waste of time. On the whole he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member that it was the best course to take Parliament into their confidence as much as possible.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he did not object to a payment being made to Mr. Ball Greene for additional services rendered; but he held that £500 was an exorbitant sum for the services rendered.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he rose for the purpose of expressing his regret at having, a short time ago, mentioned the name of Sir Robert Hamilton by mistake. The name had misled him, and he would suggest that something should be done to enable hon. Members to distinguish with ease amongst individuals of the same name. He did not agree with the explanations which had been given. Evidently someone of the name of Hamilton was to blame, and the statements made on behalf of the Government did not carry conviction to his (Mr. Healy's) mind. The fact was admitted
  1362
  that this item for law costs had been incurred by contesting a claim which was now allowed to be fair and just. All the facts in connection with the case of Mr. Shaen Carter—all the facts concerning Dr. Wheeler's attendance upon him—ought to have been known to Mr. Hamilton. The Solicitor General for Ireland shook his head. Was he (Mr. Healy) to be told that Mr. Hamilton was not made acquainted beforehand with all the information that was put before the jury? Was he to be told that the case was put before a jury without Mr. Hamilton knowing its details? No doubt, every fact which was put before the jury had been put before the Irish Government; therefore he thought Mr. Hamilton ought to be made to pay the law expenses. Either Surgeon Wheeler told a story to the jury which he did not tell to Mr. Hamilton, or Mr. Hamilton was responsible for misleading the Government and causing them to lose this £500. As to the case of Mrs. Eliza Colgan, the Solicitor General for Ireland had not yet seen his (Mr. Healy's) point as to this woman. It was this. The woman's husband was convicted 32 years ago. The state of the law was such at that time that, owing to the attempt of the man to poison his unfortunate wife, they were able to turn her into the poorhouse, and then seize upon the property which belonged to the husband. They now said that it was simply as an act of grace that they did not confiscate the husband's property in this way. But they appointed a trustee—this man Meara—and he absconded with the money. How they had allowed this man to make an arrangement with his successor and then to run out of the country, was still unexplained. The Solicitor General for Ireland had touched very lightly upon this man Gerrard having trafficked with Meara for the appointment of Crown Solicitor in Queen's County; but, as a matter of fact, he had taken the appointment subject to any charges there might be on Mr Meara's estate. What were Meara's liabilities which could not be disputed or denied? Would the Government lay that information on the Table? If they did not promise to give it, he (Mr. Healy) would move for it, and then they might be able to ascertain whether or not the present Crown Solicitor for Queen's County was responsible or not. If there was not

  1363
  something shady in the business, why was not all this information forthcoming? It was a monstrous thing to say that as this unfortunate woman had been practically kept out of her money for 32 years, and had been swindled by Mr. Meara, an agent of the Government, the gentleman who succeeded Meara as the agent for the Government was not liable to make good the default of his predecessor in office. The woman had been deprived of her property for 17 years—since 1868. The woman's property was surely worth more than £500. What, then, had become of the balance? Where were the papers explaining the matter? Was it not a fact that Mr. Meara had never paid the woman anything? Was there not a question about a life assurance? Would the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant say whether or not Mr. Gerrard had ever touched any of the money Meara admitted himself indebted to the woman? Ought a Crown Solicitor to be allowed to leave the country without the Government being informed of it? Was it not as a trust that Meara had taken the money in hand, and, if it were so, was it not a trust that must descend to successive Crown Solicitors until properly discharged? The Solicitor General for Ireland had ridden very lightly over this subject, declaring that if one Crown Solicitor were to be held liable for the acts and deficiencies of his predecessor, there would be a pretty to do. Well, there might be in the case of such men as George Bolton; but that person, in his official capacity, had never had anything to do with a trust. He was responsible for defalcations as a swindler. But whose duty was it to induct Mr. Gerrard into Meara's office? Were they not bound to act in matters of this kind as auditors? Were they not bound to know that a trust involving a sum of £500 attached to Meara's office, and were they not bound to make Mr. Gerrard acquainted with the fact? How did Mr. Gerrard get the trust without having any assets? Were they to be told that Mr. Gerrard took over the office without having any accounts given to him? No doubt, Mr. Meara held the money as a trust, as it was not in his private name only, but in his name as Crown Solicitor, and the trust should, properly, attach to every Crown Solicitor who took office in Queen's County until it was discharged.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that perhaps he might be allowed to refer to one or two of the circumstances under discussion, as they had happened whilst he was Secretary to the Treasury, and, although he had not refreshed his memory with regard to them, he thought he was competent to deal with them. With regard to the case of Surgeon Wheeler, the facts were these. Surgeon Wheeler alleged that he had received authority from the Irish Government to go down and attend to this gentleman, Mr. Shaen Carter. It was not customary to put the brief of the plaintiff's evidence into the hands of the defendant before the trial, so that the Government were not cognizant of all the details of Surgeon Wheeler's contention. They had the evidence of Mr. Hamilton, who was a sort of Assistant Secretary to Mr. Burke, and who possessed a memorandum in Mr. Burke's handwriting to the effect that the Irish Government were not responsible; and on this ground, and also because the claim was excessive, it was resisted. The opposition to the claim came—he might incidentally say—from the Treasury in London, so that the blame should not be put upon Sir Robert Hamilton, who had been confused with Mr. Hamilton by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy). After the plaintiff had made his case, it became necessary to ascertain how Mr. Hamilton could meet the evidence of Surgeon Wheeler, and it appeared that he had no recollection of the circumstances narrated by that gentleman, but could not take upon himself to go into the box to deny them. There was then no other course for the Government to pursue but to give way. They resisted no longer, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff.
  MR. HEALY: What was done with Mr. Hamilton?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid he thought the Irish Government were not very well pleased with the result, but it was not easy to do anything. Mr. Hamilton was not in a position to deny the conversation which was spoken to by Surgeon Wheeler, although, at the same time, he could not remember it. It was an unfortunate matter altogether. Surgeon Wheeler had been called upon in great haste, Mr. Shaen Carter being on the point of death. Surgeon Wheeler had the carefulness to make a note of

  1365
  the transaction when it occurred, but Mr. Hamilton had not had that forethought. Mr. Hamilton's account of the conversation with Surgeon Wheeler was not recorded by the Government at the time; Mr. Hamilton's memory failed him, and the Government had to submit to an adverse verdict; but it would not have been right, under the circumstances, to have visited Mr. Hamilton with a severe censure for a mere act of failure of memory. As to the case of Mrs. Eliza Colgan, the woman's husband was convicted of attempted murder, and his property was necessarily forfeited to the Crown. The Crown waived the forfeiture however, and the property was put into the hands of the Crown Solicitor on behalf of Mrs. Colgan—not put into his hands officially, but handed over to him as to a trustee. The trustee kept it in his hands, and paid Mrs. Colgan interest on the money. He paid interest at the rate of 6 per cent, which was itself sufficient to show that he did not retain the money in his official capacity. Well, the Crown Solicitor absconded, and his affairs had to be wound up, and when this settlement was brought about Mrs. Colgan received her share of the assets as a creditor, and signed a deed entirely releasing the estate of the debtor from her claim. The position the woman took up towards Mr. Meara showed that she had trusted him in his private capacity. She was a foolish woman with no great aptitude for business, or she would never have done such a thing. The fact of her having received a note of hand was not brought to the notice of the Government until last year. Under all the circumstances of the case, the Government thought they would be acting fairly towards the woman by paying her over the amount stated in the Vote.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said that money was left in the hands of the Crown Solicitor by this foolish woman, and he also understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government gave the £500 to Mr. Meara in trust for her. Was that not so? [Mr. COURTNEY: It was left with him.] Then it was the Government that trusted this man, and not the woman. The money had been originally forfeited by Mrs. Colgan's husband; but the Crown considered the case to be one in which the poor woman should not be deprived of
  1366
  the money, therefore they put it into the hands of an agent, who embezzled it. The least the Government could have done, under the circumstances, would have been to have come forward and given the poor woman something like the sum of which she had been robbed. He should like to have some information upon this point. With regard to the case of Surgeon Wheeler, that gentleman was no doubt entitled to receive a sum of money. There could be no question about that; but he should like to ask the Government why it was that they sent down an eminent surgeon of this kind, at an expense of £1,147, to attend upon a landlord who happened to have been shot at, when if it had happened to have been a peasant who was injured in this way they would have left him to be attended to by the dispensary doctor? The fact of the wounded person being a landlord was no reason why he should receive advice of a more expensive and eminent character than a poor man would have received under similar circumstances.
  MR. HEALY: Mr. Shaen Carter's was blue blood.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, they were told that Mr. Shaen Carter was lying at the time somewhere in the neighbourhood of Belmullett; but there was a poorhouse there, with a medical man in charge of it—a man who for a salary of £100 a-year had to attend upon thousands of patients and to travel, perhaps, hundreds and hundreds of miles in the course of the year. Why was not that official appealed to? It appeared to him (Mr. Leamy) that this matter also required some explanation. He should like to know who was responsible? He did not suppose that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, unfortunately, the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was not in Office at the time. Let him suppose, however, that instead of Mr. Shaen Carter a poor herd of his or a bailiff had been shot at and wounded, would the Government have thought it right to send down Surgeon Wheeler to attend him? No, they would not have taken any such course; and it certainly appeared to him that in acting as they had done in the case of Mr. Shaen Carter, they had indulged in a most extraordinary waste of money. Hon. Members knew that under the Prevention of Crime Act a landlord's life was valued at a much higher figure than a bailiff's,

  1367
  and it appeared to him to be a great mistake to administer legislative enactments in this way. It had a tendency to induce ignorant men to believe that a landlord's life was more valuable than a peasant's; but in the sight of God and man the life of the poorest peasant was as valuable as that of Mr. Shaen Carter. To refer again to the case of Mrs. Colgan, the Government had agreed to grant her £250. It was no use for the Irish Members to ask that the grant should be increased, he knew, and it was not in their power to move an increase; but he would ask why had the Government allowed 16 or 17 years to elapse before they gave this money to the woman? Did they not think that the woman having been in poverty for so long deserved a larger sum? £500 had been handed over in trust for her to an agent of the Government, and the Government should be responsible for his default. They knew that their agent had betrayed the trust they had imposed upon him, and the least they might do, he thought, would be to make up the original amount. God knew, they spent money enough on wars, and in murdering people who never did them any wrong. They could easily spare a few pounds for this poor woman, whose money had been embezzled by their agent, and who had never wronged them in any way.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the woman had now been done out of her money for a considerable period, and he would like to make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. Here was a poor woman whose life had been attempted by her husband. She escaped the poison, and the Government spoke of their not forfeiting the husband's property as an act of grace. They allowed her the £500—her own property. He felt bound to appeal to the Government to consider the case of this poor old wretched woman now far advanced in years. Was it at all a fair thing, seeing the way in which she had lost her money, to keep her out of the small balance? He hoped it would be borne in mind that since the year 1868 she had been deprived of the interest she would have been entitled to upon it, and that, in itself, amounted to a considerable sum. He therefore appealed to the Government to wipe out the matter altogether, and hand over to this poor woman the
  1368
  remainder of the sum to which she was fairly entitled.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I know nothing whatever of this case; but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to send me over the full particulars, and I will see what will be proper to do in the matter.
  MR. O'BRIENthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the offer he had made, and would express a wish that the spirit manifested by the right hon. Gentleman might be extended, to the whole of the Treasury Bench. He was afraid that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had given avery inadequate excuse for sending a special Dublin surgeon, at avery high expense, to the extreme end of the County Mayo. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them that Mr. Shaen Carter was poor; but it would appear that he had obtained compensation under the Prevention of Crime Act for the injury he had sustained, and the least that could be expected from him was that he would give some contribution towards his doctor's bill. Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that it was quite possible to obtain medical assistance at Belmullett, and so far there had been no explanation given of any difficulty in Mr. Shaen Carter's case which required special surgical treatment, and which no local doctor could have dealt with. Why should it have been necessary to procure the assistance of a fashionable doctor from Dublin, with a fee of £100 a visit, and his travelling expenses for many miles? Unfortunately, many other persons were required to undergo serious surgical operations without any expense to Her Majesty's Government. As a matter of fact, the chance of Mr. Shaen Carter's recovery must have been somewhat diminished rather than increased by having to wait for surgical attendance until this gentleman could be brought down from Dublin to a place 40 miles from the nearest railway station. Even had it been necessary to obtain the services of a Dublin doctor, it must have been possible to have obtained one at a far less expense. He was afraid that the officials in Ireland were used to such liberal pickings themselves that they thought very little of a charge of £100 more or less, here or there, when it had to come

  1369
  out of the public money. It was perfectly evident that for at least £500 of the sum which had been wasted Mr. Hamilton was responsible, and he did not see why that gentleman should not be asked to relieve the country of the burden, and pay it out of his own salary, seeing that this huge bill of costs had arisen out of his bungling. He protested altogether against the principle of sending down doctors to the relief of wounded landlords. The Government had more than once lent their troops to enforce the demands of the landlords, and he thought that was sufficient partizanship to display. Mr. Shaen Carter had been exercising the very stringent rights of a landlord, and, judging from the statement of the Solicitor General for Ireland himself, he must have exercised them in a manner which, to a considerable extent, would account for the feeling entertained towards him in the county of Mayo. At all events, it was not because a man was a landlord, or because he was a bad landlord, that the Government was to pay his doctor's bill for him when he came to any harm. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had reminded the House that a poor girl in this very district of Belmullett had a bayonet driven through her breast by a policeman; but, in that case, did the Government send down a Dublin doctor to look after her? No provision whatever was made for her by the Ministry; and if this expenditure in the case of Mr. Shaen Carter was to be provided for by Parliament, every landlord in the country who was attacked by an exasperated people would have a right to the payment of his doctor's bill. There would be an appeal made to the Government by every bailiff and land grabber who happened to come to grief in the pursuit of his calling. From every aspect this payment was indefensible, and he appealed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to assign some sort of reason why Mr. Shaen Carter had been selected for this anomalous expenditure. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to announce that Mr. Hamilton himself was clearly responsible to the extent at least of £500 of this money, notwithstanding the fact that the only punishment which had been visited upon Mr. Hamilton for his delinquency had been to promote him to the position of a Resident Magis-
  1370
  trate in the North of Ireland. Certainly, he failed to see why this gentleman should not be made to pay at least £500 from the liberal profits he had made out of the disturbances in Ireland during the last few years.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that no one could know or be able to answer questions as to what the particular reasons were which induced the late Mr. Burke to send Surgeon Wheeler to attend Mr. Shaen Carter. It must, however, be borne in mind that the circumstance occurred at a time of considerable excitement, and, no doubt, Mr. Burke had reasons which were sufficient to justify him in the course he took. At the same time, it was an extreme course, and there was no likelihood that such a course would be taken again. The Government themselves, by the course they had taken, showed that, in their opinion, it was a very extravagant proceeding. Nevertheless, these liabilities had been incurred, and they had to be met. It was stated by the hon. Member who spoke last that Mr. Hamilton ought to pay the money. Now, Mr. Hamilton was Assistant Secretary to Mr. Burke, and he was present at some of the conversations which occurred between Dr. Wheeler and Mr. Burke. When the trial came on Dr. Wheeler brought forward certain facts in reference to what had taken place. Mr. Hamilton was asked—"How are you going to contradict those statements?" He said at once—"I have no recollection of them; but I am not in a position to go into the witness-box and say that they did not really occur." No doubt, most hon. Members might occasionally find themselves in the same position. They could speak to the best of their recollection, but they were not in a position to swear as to certain facts. That was the whole state of the case. It must be borne in mind that it was not Mr. Hamilton who sent out Dr. Wheeler, but that he was simply acting at that time as the quasi-Assistant Secretary of Mr. Burke. If Mr. Burke had lived, he would, no doubt, have been able to explain the whole of this unfortunate matter. The only thing the Government could do under the circumstances was to come to the House of Commons for payment of these expenses, and he did not see what other course was open to them. So far as the sending

  1371
  down of an eminent doctor to a distant part of the country was concerned, that could only be a matter for future consideration in the event of a similar case arising.
  MR. KENNYsaid, he understood that the circumstances under which the Government sent Surgeon Wheeler down were these—that in the event of Mr. Shaen Carter not being able to afford to pay the bill of Surgeon Wheeler, the Government would then be liable for the debt. He wished to know how it was that the Government ascertained the inability of Mr. Shaen Carter to discharge the debt? He had had his rents reduced, it was true; but he had received compensation, and one item ought to be set against the other. He (Mr. Kenny) must confess that the Government had acted very unwisely in rendering themselves liable for the expenses incurred in sending Surgeon Wheeler down, and he thought they had endeavoured to get out of the difficulty in which they were placed in a very clumsy manner. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to take into consideration the case of Mrs. Colgan. He (Mr. Kenny) understood that the man who had certainly swindled Mrs. Colgan was a man named Jeremiah Meara, who was the Crown Solicitor at the time. Now, he understood that the Crown Solicitor was still a man of the same name—Jeremiah Meara. It was not the same man, he believed, but the one was the son of the other. If that were really so, he should like to know how it was that a son of the swindler came to be appointed to the position which the father, who committed the swindle, originally occupied? If the present Crown Solicitor was the son of the person who swindled Mrs. Colgan, why not ask him to refund the money of which his father, beyond all doubt, had swindled Mrs. Colgan? He simply put this forward as a suggestion. The Law Officers knew that they had some sort of authority over the Crown Solicitor, and they might so use it as to secure from him the payment of the particular damage which his father had done.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in introducing the subject, had raised a point which had almost been lost sight of in the valuable discussion
  1372
  which had since occurred. A great deal of the objection of the Irish Members to the Vote of £1,147 for the medical attendance upon Mr. Shaen Carter was founded, not merely upon the large amount of the Vote itself, but upon the contrast the Vote afforded to the action of the Government in reference to other persons. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, with his usual courtesy, that he would look into the case of Eliza Colgan. He was perfectly sure that if many other cases were brought under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, justice would be done without hesitation. This was not a political matter; but the question was what the people would feel when they were told that £1,147 had been expended in medical costs upon a single landlord who was well able to pay for himself, while not 1d. was given to another unfortunate creature, or her family, who had been subjected to the deepest privations in consequence of her husband having been required to undergo the horrors of penal servitude for two years for a crime of which he was as innocent as any man in that House. That was the main ground of the complaint of the Irish Members against the Government for this excessive payment. He thought the action of the Government in sanctioning the payment of £1,147 for Mr. Shaen Carter, a landlord with a regular income, slightly reduced, no doubt, but still a regular income, and in the receipt of blood-money besides, was highly reprehensible. The idea that the Government should pay a doctor, under these circumstances, the large sum of £1,147, while the wife and children of an innocent convict were kept without 1d. of compensation for a crime he had never committed, was simply monstrous. He thought the contrast in the treatment of the two individuals was most instructive, but, at the same time, it was most scandalous. He found another item in the Votes of £4 11 s. 1d. for a gold medal presented to Dr. Dutrieux for services rendered during the cholera epidemic in Egypt. It reminded him of one of the instructive essays of Mr. Herbert Spencer, who pointed out the contrast between the splendid statues erected in prominent parts of the Metropolis to Sir Henry Havelock, and similar persons, for military services, and that which was given

  1373
  to a national and universal benefactor like Sir William Jenner in an unfrequented part of the Metropolis sacred to nurserymaids and their military admirers. The sum of £4 11 s. 1d. was presented in the shape of a medal to an eminent man who had rendered great services during the cholera epidemic in Egypt, while the same Vote contained an item of £1,174 for a Dublin doctor who had been called in to attend an Irish landlord with a few slugs in his leg. And this was not all. The same Vote contained an item for £548 for fees in connection with the exhibition of banners, helmets, and swords upon the installation of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales, and £1,000 for an equipage allowance to Mr. Speaker. What a contrast that afforded to the treatment of Brian Kilmartin, who had been kept for two years in penal servitude under the terrible imputation of attempted assassination. He sincerely hoped that some sort of explanation would be given of these anomalous circumstances.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he desired to call attention to an item included in the Vote of £71 12 s. 11 d. for repayment in respect of forfeited Post Office Savings Banks' deposits. Some years ago, he had called the attention of the then Postmaster General to the system of forfeiting Post Office deposits when they exceeded the legal amount. It had sometimes occurred that a man, under a mistaken notion that he could deposit his money more safely in the Post Office Savings Bank, opened an account in two offices. The maximum sum a man could deposit was, at that time, £200; but he thought it had now been increased to £250; and sometimes a man, without knowing that he was doing anything illegal or wrong—or even supposing he was doing wrong—without being acquainted with the penalty, opened two accounts in two separate Post Offices. In such a case, if the depositor died, and it was discovered that his accounts exceeded the maximum, every single deposit he had made was forfeited, and the family of the depositor were deprived of the savings of a lifetime. It appeared that in this particular case it was intended to refund to some person a sum of £71 12 s. 11 d. He wanted to know if that indicated an intention on the part of the Government not to appropriate
  1374
  the savings of these poor men again, or tod eprive their families of them? He should be glad to learn what the Vote meant, if it did not mean that.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, this was the case of man named Patrick Kelly, who opened two accounts on the same day, one in his own name, and one in the name of William Kelly. This fact was reported to the Solicitor of the Post Office, and after inquiring into it, he came to the conclusion that the two accounts were opened with a fraudulent intention. It was subsequently discovered that the man acted through ignorance in opening the two accounts, and that he was not aware that he was breaking the law in doing so. The Treasury, after considering the matter, decided upon requiring the forfeit of the smaller account of £12 16 s., and upon repaying the amount of £71 12 s. 11 d. which had been deposited in another office. He thought that a very fair consideration had been shown in allowing the larger amount to be refunded, and only forfeiting the smaller one.
  MR. GRAYasked, if he was to understand that, where a man in ignorance, and without intending to do wrong, opened an account in two offices, the Crown proposed to take advantage of the man's ignorance and to forfeit his deposit? Was that the statement which the hon. Gentleman made? They had now heard from the hon. Gentleman's own lips that the man had acted in ignorance, and yet they were going to forfeit the £12 he had deposited.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Gray) had misrepresented what he had stated. He had stated that, although the man had acted in ignorance, he had used the name of another person in order to open a second account. The Treasury had fully considered the circumstances, and they felt that, after the course which had been taken, they ought to inflict a certain amount of penalty; and, therefore, they had required the man to forfeit the smaller amount.
  MR. O'KELLYasked, by what right the Government undertook to appropriate this sum of £12, which did not belong to them?
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that, as a matter of fact, they had the right of forfeiting both sums.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, the hon. Gentleman admitted that the man acted in

  1375
  ignorance, and did not know there was any penalty. [Mr. HIBBERT: That was so.] The contention of the Government was that the man was entitled to the £71 odd; and he failed to understand on what ground they appropriated the remaining £12 if the man had acted in ignorance, and was not aware that he was doing wrong. If the Government really considered that the transaction ought to be practically wiped out, and that they were bound to return the man the larger sum of £71 odd, upon what ground could they appropriate the other £12? It was equally the man's money. It did not belong to the Government, and in appropriating it they were simply stealing it.
  MR. GRAYsaid, there still remained a question which he thought the hon. Gentleman would recognize as of some little importance. Oases of great hardship had come under his notice in which the Treasury had put this rule into operation after the death of the depositors, thereby punishing innocent persons. This was a case in which there was undoubtedly a hardship, and the hardship was shown by the facts he had elicited from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert). The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had that day, in replying to a Question addressed to him, said that he would be glad to consider any proposition by which he would be able to make up the probable deficit in the Budget of the year. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to make it up in this way. If this man had acted with a fraudulent intention, he could understand the Treasury declaring that they would take the entire amount; but when he found that they were ready to refund £71, it plainly showed that, in the belief of the Treasury, there was no fraudulent intention. As a general rule, persons who deposited money in the Post Office Savings Bank were not highly educated or intelligent; and seeing that in this case there was no fraudulent intention, he thought it was as highly culpable on the part of the Government to appropriate £12 of this money as it would have been to have appropriated the £71. The Government acknowledged that they had no moral right to do so, because they were going to refund it, although he granted that, technically, they had a legal right. But they had
  1376
  the same legal right to the £71 as they had to the £12, and the £12 was as much the man's property as the larger sum, and he had as much right to it. He did not think it was worthy of a great nation to avail themselves of a technical mistake of this kind, even if a man had attempted a little bit of sharp practice, and tried to get ½ per cent more than he would otherwise have been able to procure. He did not think it was worthy of a great nation to appropriate money in this fashion; and he hoped the Government would take the matter into consideration, and not act in this extremely harsh manner in confiscating the property of poor persons who might, through ignorance, or through an attempt to be a little too clever, commit a technical illegality.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he did not think that the inference drawn by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gray) followed from what his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) had stated. Here was a man who on the same day deposited money in two different names in two different Post Office Savings Banks. It was not disputed that he had done so, and that he was liable to have both sums forfeited. The circumstances having been inquired into, it was considered a sufficient punishment for the offence committed that the man should forfeit the smaller amount deposited.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he had heard the explanation given, and understood the question thoroughly. It was clear that if the Crown believed that this man had had a fraudulent intention, they would not have refunded any of the money, because, in that case, the money would have been very properly forfeited. It was perfectly plain, then, that the Crown knew there was no fraudulent intention, and that the man had acted with a perfectly innocent intention. He would have gained nothing by this double deposit.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the man admitted that he deposited the two amounts in order that he might get a pecuniary advantage to which he knew he was not legally entitled.
  MR. GRAYsaid that, even if he could have gained 1 per cent in this way more than he could have obtained from an ordinary bank, he thought it

  1377
  was an extremely harsh rule that the money should have been forfeited. It was unworthy of a great nation to aggrandize its finances by this rule under which the right hon. Gentleman considered himself justified in taking the money in question. He ventured to say that if this money had come into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in his private capacity, although he might have a legal right, he would feel that he had no moral right to it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it was not a matter of rule, but a matter of law. They had tried to administer the law, as it seemed to them, fairly in the present case.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the law in this case was like the bye-laws of the Railway Companies, who were constantly making them of their own mere notion, and who appeared to think that, having done so, they were entitled to deprive passengers of their property. If the law was as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, he thought that the sooner it was amended the better. Assuming the worst, the man could gain very little in this transaction; he could gain no more than ½ per cent on £12 or £14; and because he had endeavoured to do that he was by law to be deprived of the principal sum. He agreed with the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) that the justice and equity of the case would be met if the man were deprived of the percentage only.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that hon. Members who had drawn attention to this case had found fault with the Government for allowing the money to be repaid. The fact was that the Treasury, taking a compassionate view of the matter, allowed the smaller sum only to be forfeited. He pointed out that if they had chosen to do so, the Government might have left the case in the hands of the Post Office to settle, and not laid it before the House at all.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he did not at all find fault with the money being refunded. He had called attention to the matter in order to express his hope that this precedent would not be followed in other cases, and that cases which he might direct attention to in future would be treated by the Government in a different spirit. His objection was not that in the present case the £12 had been
  1378
  forfeited, but that there had been any forfeiture at all.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that in this matter the Government had the banking interest to consider. He would like to know what the hon. Baronet the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) would have said on this question had he been present? He thought that the banking intererst was too strong for the Government. There was a point he desired to raise, and which he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to consider. It appeared that the taxpayers had paid no less a sum than £1,500 on account of Mr. Shaen Carter's injuries; and he asked whether that sum could be made to repay the whole, or any portion, of the sum of £1,100 paid to Surgeon Wheeler by the Government for attendance upon Mr. Carter?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, it was clear that the £1,500 could in no way be resorted to for the purpose of recouping the Government. Mr. Shaen Carter would not be liable.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 55: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 56.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to,
  (4.) £3,533,650, Vote on Account, Civil s Services and Revenue Departments, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

  Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

  Great Britain: —

  £

  Royal Palaces

  6,000

  Marlborough House

  1,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds

  20,000

  Houses of Parliament

  10,000

  Public Buildings

  30,000

  New Admiralty and War Office

  3,000

  Furniture of Public Offices

  2,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  50,000

  County Court Buildings

  6,000

  Metropolitan Police Courts

  1,500

  Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

  2,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  50,000

  Science and Art Department Buildings

  3,000

  British Museum Buildings

  2,000

  Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

  2,500

  Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

  80,000

  Metropolitan Fire Brigrade

  2,500

  Disturnpiked and Main Roads (England and Wales)

  20,000

  Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland)

  5,000

  THE CONSTABULARY (IRELAND)— THE FREE FORCE.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the question he was about to address to the Treasury Bench was one which might more properly be put to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, yet the right hon. Gentleman, not having been in Office at the time to which he was about to refer, was not so well acquainted with the circumstances of the case as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and, as a matter of fact, was not responsible. Indeed, he (Mr. Parnell) might say that neither he nor the late Chief Secretary for Ireland were responsible for the subject of his inquiry, since the latter had practically left Office at the time—that was to say, his health having failed, he did not attend the House, and the duties of his Office consequently devolved on the hon. and learned Gentleman. The question he wished to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland was this. What had become
  1382
  of the Bill which he promised, last August, he would introduce at the commencement of the Session, for the purpose of enabling the Lord Lieutenant to distribute the Free Police Force every three years, instead of quinquennially? The hon. and learned Gentleman would recollect the circumstance now that he called it to his mind. He would remember that, in consequence of the discussion which took place in Committee upon the Vote for the Irish Constabulary, the Government, through the mouth of the hon. and learned Gentleman, were induced to promise, in the event of Lord Spencer assenting, that power should be taken to enable Lord Spencer to distribute the men of the Free Force up to the amount they were entitled to by Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Parnell) then pointed out that the strength of the Free Force was some 500 or 600 officers and men under the full amount, and that, in consequence of the Free Force not being up to its full strength, the extra police in Ireland were very much swollen in numbers. The arguments used by himself and his hon. Friends produced such an impression on the Irish Government that the hon. and learned Gentleman afterwards promised to introduce a non-contentious Bill, which should be passed through Parliament, for the purpose of enabling the Lord Lieutenant to redistribute every three years, instead of five years—that was to say, for the purpose of enabling him to distribute the Free Force at once. He had been expecting all through the Session to see a Notice given by the hon. and learned Gentleman to introduce this non-contentious Bill; but his patience had not been rewarded, for no such Notice had appeared. Therefore, he begged leave to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what had become of this Bill; why he did not give Notice of its introduction; whether he intended to give Notice of its introduction; and whether he could give any explanation of the delay which had taken place? He would be glad to hear the Solicitor General for Ireland on all these points, and he would remind him that he received value in advance for the consideration of this Bill. At a period of the Session when time was of great value to the Government, Irish Members gave up their right to continue the discussion, on the promise of the Prime

  1383
  Minister that it should be discussed on Report, and that the Report on the said Vote should not be brought on after half-past 11 at night. Of course, the Government yielded to the justice of their claim; but, at the same time, they received a valuable consideration from Irish Members. Having previously given up their right to discuss the Vote in Committee, they afterwards gave up their right to discuss it on Report, in order to allow the Prime Minister to make a statement in regard to foreign affairs. Now, he would just refer to the statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, made on the Report of Supply. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that—
  "When this Vote was under consideration an argument was brought forward by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in reference to the number of police for Ireland, as fixed by Act of Parliament; and the complaint was made that the free force was not fully distributed among the counties and cities of Ireland, and that, in consequence, a great grievance was imposed on the country. Now, the argument of the hon. Member had since that time been very carefully considered by him (Mr. Walker); and he confessed that it appeared to him that if it was a fact, as had been stated, that the free force of 10,000 men, over and above the ordinary vacancies taken at 5 per cent, was not really distributed, it was a case for favourable consideration; and, consequently, he was prepared to recommend that a communication should be made to the Lord Lieutenant to that effect. It it were found to be the fact that the free force was not fully distributed, the matter could only be remedied by legislation, because there was no means of remedying it, except at the quinquennial redistribution, which would not take place before 1887. If the grievance existed, legislation would be introduced for the purpose, and he would be prepared to introduce a provision, making the redistribution triennial instead of quinquennial, as at present. To give effect to the arrangement, a Supplementary Estimate would be brought forward by the Secretary to the Treasury."—(3 Hansard, [292] 232–3.)
  Upon that statement it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that the Vote was allowed to go through, Up to the present time nothing further had been heard about the matter. The understanding was that the Government would have introduced the Bill during the Winter Session of Parliament were it not that they had pledged themselves to the position only to convene the Session for the purpose of passing the Franchise Bill, and that no other Government legislation should be brought forward. Therefore, no steps were
  1384
  taken during the Winter Session; but since then the new Session had practically recommenced, and he had been waiting to see the hon. and learned Gentleman introduce the Bill, and redeem his promise for the purpose of putting a stop to imposts on the Irish people which they were unable to pay.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he remembered the promise he made. The Bill might have been introduced within the last week; but it had not been brought in owing to the backward state of other Business before the House. He would, however, be prepared to give Notice of it within the next few days, and lay it on the Table of the House.
  MR. PARNELL: Will it be confined to that point, or will other matter be introduced in it?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I will explain the provisions of the Bill fully when it is laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he should like to be informed upon the point now. He did not wish to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to enter into the details of the Bill; but when this matter was being discussed last August it was distinctly understood—it was expressed in fact—that the Bill should be a non-contentious Bill. If the Government were going to introduce matter other than the alteration of the redistribution of the police from a quinquennial to a triennial term, he maintained that the promise of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be kept. If other matter, repugnant and odious to him (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends, and which they should feel compelled to oppose, were introduced in the Bill, it would be impossible for the measure to be passed this Session, or, at all events, a very long delay would take place before it was passed; whereas if the Government fulfilled their pledge in its spirit and its letter, and introduced a non-contentious Bill, it would not be blocked on that side of the House, and he should imagine by nobody on the other side of the House, since hon. Gentlemen were under the control of the Leaders on the front Ministerial Bench. This was a matter, in his opinion, which was capable of a plain answer; would the Bill in question

  1385
  be confined to the single point connected with the alteration of the term from five years to three years; or was it the intention of the Irish Government to take advantage of the promise made to him, to try and force down their throats matters foreign to the particular subject under discussion when the promise was made, matters which were repugnant to them, and which would necessarily compel them to prevent—if it was in their power—the passing of the Bill?
  MR. HEALYsaid, it was to be regretted that the Government had not put at once a stop to this discussion. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated a matter which involved the public faith, not only of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), but of the Prime Minister. Surely such a matter was not to be tampered with lightly. It would be in the recollection of every Member of the Committee that when, at 6 o'clock on a Saturday Sitting last August, it was necessary for the Government to make a statement with regard to Egyptian Finance, the Committee were discussing the Irish Constabulary Vote, and the Irish Members agreed to allow Progress to be reported at that hour—because everybody in the House and in the country was anxious to know what was the result of the Conference of the European Powers which had just concluded its labours. He and his hon. Friends agreed to allow Progress to be reported on the distinct understanding that the Vote would be brought up on Report before 11 o'clock at night. An arrangement, however, was come to between the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork, who was always extremely anxious to prevent anything like discussion if matters could be arranged without it, and the Government, the latter agreeing that they would bring in a Bill to reduce the term from five years to three years. That was a square arrangement, and thoroughly understood by every Member of the House and by the Government. It was understood that the Bill should be brought in at the earliest possible moment, and that it should be confined to two points. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the
  1386
  Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), both of whom were anxious that the quinquennial term should be reduced to a triennial term, approved of the arrangement—indeed, it was approved on all sides. What was now found? The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork asked whether the promise was to be fulfilled, and he could not get an answer. He (Mr. Healy) really did think that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) ought to be able to give, on this point, the most straightforward answer. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister were in his place, he would not hesitate for a moment to give an answer. The noble Lord the Member for Flint (Lord Richard Grosvenor), who was now present, thoroughly understood what the arrangement was. Why did he not now get up and state what his impression was? He (Mr. Healy) grieved to have to say it, but his experience was that if he and his hon. Friends ever came to an understanding with a Member of the Irish Government, they were sure to find that the Gentleman they had been dealing with was overruled—in fact, he could do nothing, unless he had a Member of the English Government by his side. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) would bear him out when he said that last year an agreement was come to in order to enable a statement to be made with regard to the Egyptian Conference; that the Irish Members allowed Progress to be reported; that they afterwards allowed the Vote to be taken; and that, subsequently, an arrangement was come to that, if they forewent the discussion on the Report of Supply, the Bill would be introduced to reduce the term from a quinquennial to a triennial one. Now, they asked if the Bill was to be introduced in a non-contentious form, and they could not get a straightforward answer. Was that the way to treat hon. Members? Unquestionably, it was understood that the Bill was to be inoffensive, and that all sides would agree to it. He could not say what the Government wished to put in the Bill; but it did look very evident that an agreement honourably made was now about to be broken by the Government. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for

  1387
  Ireland to save the time of the House by getting up and saying whether the agreement come to with the Prime Minister was to be kept.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he was not personally aware what the agreement or understanding of last Session was; indeed, he did not know that an agreement had been arrived at. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends seemed to attach considerable importance to the understanding, especially to what they maintained was the fact, that the legislation was to be embodied, in a Bill by itself. ["A consent Bill!"] A consent Bill! There was no such thing as a consent Bill. They never could tell what part of the Bill might give rise to dissent. But he would undertake, at all events, to look into what occurred, and see if any such understanding was expressed. Now they were asked to state what the nature of the Bill was that they contemplated bringing in. It was a most unusual thing to be asked to do that, when the Bill was to be brought in within a day or two. Hon. Members had only to wait until the Bill was introduced; then they would become acquainted with all its provisions. They had been told that it was impossible to get a straightforward answer, and that no bargain could be made by a Member of the Irish Government, unless there was a Member of the English Government by his side. He assured hon. Gentlemen that that was not the case, and he could also assure them that there was no intention of breaking any agreement which had been arrived at. It would, however, be most unusual for the Government to state what the provisions of a Bill which had not been introduced were.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very sorry he could not accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) as a satisfactory one. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he did not know, not having been in Office at the time, what the nature of the promise of the Government was. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not know; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), who was sitting by the right hon. Gentle-
  1388
  man's side, did know. Would the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland get up, and state that he (Mr. Parnell) had or had not given a correct account of what took place? He (Mr. Parnell) had stated two things; first of all, that the Government agreed to take into consideration the fact as to whether there was this shortcoming regarding the number of the Free Force; and, secondly, if they found it was so, they would introduce not only a Bill, but a Supplementary Estimate, to remedy the grievance. Now, that was his first statement; and his second statement was that it was expressly stated at the time by the Solicitor General for Ireland that both the Bill and the Estimate were to be non-contentious. He did not ask—indeed, it would have been unfair to expect—the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to answer either of these questions, or to assent to these propositions; but it was not unfair to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland, who, at the time, was acting for the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), and who made the promise in question, who took part in the proceeding, and who, in fact, was the Irish Executive, to whom he (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends had to look—it was not unfair to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the two statements he (Mr. Parnell) had made formed a true representation of the facts of the case; and whether, if they did, would the Bill be introduced in accordance with those facts? Now, this was a question for plain dealing, and for plain statement. He submitted that without going into the merits of the Bill, of which Notice had not been given, without departing from any of the customs which were usual in discussing Estimates, the Solicitor General for Ireland was bound to answer the question now put to him. The hon. and learned Gentleman was in a position to say whether his (Mr. Parnell's) account of the affair was correct or not, and he was also in a position to say whether he would carry out the pledges he made—carry them out in their spirit, and in their letter. The hon. and learned Gentleman might not consider himself a free agent in this matter; but he (Mr. Parnell) asserted that nobody was free to break his word, and that, however subordinate the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman

  1389
  might be to a higher authority in Ireland, he ought not to allow himself to be placed in a position of refusing to carry out a distinct agreement—an agreement which he must know perfectly well was entered into. In dealing with Irish officials, he (Mr. Parnell) did not know on what they could depend, if they were to be treated in this way. He did not know what they were to depend upon, if they could not depend upon plain declarations, or upon plain assurances, made both in and out of the House, and in this case they had had both in abundance. There was no doubt whatever in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman at the time of the occurrence. Any doubt that had arisen since had arisen in consequence of the action of somebody else besides himself. He believed that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been left to himself, he would, as an honourable Irishman, have repeated the intention of fulfilling that which he promised. The engagement and the understanding was a perfectly distinct one, and there could be no doubt whatever as to the merits of the case. He (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. Friends were strongly supported from the Conservative Benches. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) supported them from the Front Opposition Bench; and that right hon. Gentleman was very much annoyed that, during his absence, they, in consequence of the promise given them by the Solicitor General for Ireland, allowed the Report of the Vote to be taken. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) also supported them, and thought they were fools to trust to the Punic promise of the Government. He (Mr. Parnell) submitted that they ought not to be put off with the evasion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. Either his (Mr. Parnell's) account of the transaction was a correct one, or it was incorrect. If it were incorrect, the hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to point out in what respect it was incorrect; and he could, if he would, say whether he intended to fulfil his pledge as to the introduction of the Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would certainly carry out to the full, not only what was stated in his promise,
  1390
  but what was implied. He had not, however, heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) read from Hansard anything relating to the promised Bill being a non-contentious Bill. [Mr. PARNELL: Oh, but you made other statements.] That matter never entered into his mind. He (Mr. Walker) did not say it might not have been the understanding of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork; but the matter certainly never entered his (Mr. Walker's) mind, one way or the other, except as he stated—and his words were very faithfully and carefully reported in Hansard. If what the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork had said was implied from his words, he (Mr. Walker) would certainly not withdraw from his words. He would read over the report of the debate in Hansard again; and if he saw that the agreement, as stated by the hon. Gentleman, was either expressed or implied, he should certainly abide by it.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he was present on the occasion to which his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) referred; and he could say that nothing was more clearly understood than that a Bill would be brought in by the Government applicable to the particular case of the distribution of the Constabulary Force. Whether it was expressed or not, it was certainly understood that the Bill would be brought in for that purpose alone. In his opinion, if the Bill were to be brought in uniting that purpose with another purpose, there would be a deliberate breach of the engagement.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that this conversation illustrated the extreme difficulty he and his hon. Friends found in securing attention to the most reasonable claims they made. If they asked why a claim for compensation was made in the Estimates, they were told that an official had run away; if they asked why the Government resisted the claim of a surgeon for attending upon a landlord, they were told that the official concerned in the matter was dead; if they claimed the performance of a promise made last year, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman) rose at the Table, and, beginning by a statement that he was not in Office, and therefore not responsible at the time the engagement was

  1391
  made, proceeded to endeavour a second time to put them off on this question by a perfectly hollow plea. That right hon. Gentleman told them to wait until the Bill was brought in, and then they would be able to ascertain its provisions. This was the second time these tactics had been adopted on this question. They were told last Session that if they would allow the Vote to be passed they would see this would happen—that a Bill would be brought in to meet their views. Hon. Gentlemen knew how eager the Government were at the fag-end of the Session to get through their Business, and how ready they were to make promises. What had happened in this case illustrated how easily the Government forgot any consideration they received at the hands of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had asked for plain dealing in this matter, and he certainly had made a very plain and unmistakable statement. The Government certainly undertook to bring in a Bill and a Supplementary Estimate for the distribution of the Police Free Force. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said there was no such thing as a consent Bill, and an abstract proposition of that kind had no real bearing on the case. But the matter was non-contentious. The question was debated by all Parties, and the proposition to settle it by the introduction of the Bill received unanimous assent. He considered the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) amounted to an evasion of the question. It was no use for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say he would carry out his pledge both implied and expressed. He (Mr. Sexton) maintained that the pledge had already been broken. The Session had proceeded some length of time, and the Government were bound to introduce it at the outset. They had not made any attempt to lay the Bill before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland could not persuade the Committee he was keeping his pledge if he brought in a Bill which was not limited to matter which was undeniably non-contentious. If he brought in a Bill not limited to the subject specified, he would be grossly violating the spirit of the engagement into which he entered. He (Mr. Sexton) felt
  1392
  bound to point the moral of this proceeding. It was quite evident that there would be great economy of public time if hon. Members could arrive at understandings such as that which his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork thought he arrived at; but he (Mr. Sexton) said—and he said it calmly, and with a desire to impress the reasonableness of what he said on hon. Members—if he and his hon. Friends found that undertakings and understandings solemnly and publicly concluded were broken, and that the violation was attempted to be justified by such flimsy pretexts as had just been expressed from the Table, no such undertakings would be concluded in future; and whenever debate was raised they would be obliged to pursue it until they got an immediate settlement of the subject. If promises made at the Table especially by Members of the Irish Government were broken, no such promises would have any effect on Members; and so, in consequence, the debates in the House would be undoubtedly prolonged far beyond what was really wished and desired.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who had spoken with great severity of the conduct of the Irish Government in this case, had made the charge that Members of that Government had entered into an engagement in which they expressly stipulated that they would introduce a Bill of a non-contentious character; and he added that that was an engagement not only implied but expressed. The hon. Gentleman referred to Hansard as to the expressions of that pledge and read a passage from the volume. Now, if the assertion of the hon. Gentleman be made good there was no need of further discussion; but he (Sir William Harcourt) listened with the greatest care to the passage which was read from Hansard, and he could not find anything in it to justify the assertion of the hon. Gentleman. Now, a promise to bring in a Bill was not a promise with reference to a particular matter; it was not a promise to make the Bill refer exclusively to a particular point and no other. He had often given undertakings in that House to legislate upon a particular matter; but he never had understood, unless there was some

  1393
  stipulation to that effect, that the Bill must necessarily refer to the one point, and to the one point only. If that was intended by either party, where was the trace of it? It was most unreasonable, in his opinion, to expect that if an undertaking were given to legislate upon a particular point, the Bill introduced should refer only to that point. Such an undertaking would not be a usual undertaking to give. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork would show where what he maintained was expressed, and how it was expressed, there would be no need for the debate. If it were expressed in terms there could not be any further room for discussion; but if it was not expressed in terms, then he (Sir William Harcourt) considered it was perfectly unreasonable to expect that the Bill should relate to the one subject. Such a proposition did not commend itself to common sense or to experience. Unless the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork showed more than he had shown already, there was no foundation whatever for the charge he had made—that the Government were departing, or desired to depart, from their pledge. He (Sir William Harcourt) was a complete stranger to the matter up to this evening; and, from what he had heard, he could not admit that the charge made against the Government had been proved.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, his statement was quite distinct—namely, that both in the House and outside the House it was understood and expressed that the Bill should be a non-contentious Bill, and that the Supplementary Estimate should be a non-contentious Estimate. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Where is it expressed?] He would tell the right hon. Gentleman where it was expressed. It was expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), in a conversation with him (Mr. Parnell), after the hon. and learned Gentleman had received Lord Spencer's consent to the introduction of the Bill for this specific purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman told him (Mr. Parnell), after he had received Lord Spencer's consent, that the Bill would be a non-contentious Bill; that it must be a non-contentious Bill both upon his (Mr. Parnell's) side and on the side of the Government.
  1394
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the Estimate must be non-contentious, because it would be utterly impossible to pass it under any other circumstances. Well, that was the distinct statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He (Mr. Parnell) was very sorry to be obliged to refer to a conversation which took place outside the House; but as the Home Secretary had asked him to say where it was expressed he felt obliged to answer him. Now, let him show also from the proceedings in the House how clearly must have been the understanding that the Bill was to be a non-contentious Bill. The Solicitor General for Ireland said—
  "If it were found to be the fact that the free force was not fully distributed the matter could only be remedied by legislation, because there was no means of remedying it except at the quinquennial redistribution, which would not take place before 1887. If the grievance existed legislation would be introduced for the purpose; and he would be prepared to introduce a provision making the redistribution triennial instead of quinquennial, as at present."—(3 Hansard, [292] 232–3.)
  Then he (Mr. Parnell) said—
  "He thought the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Walker) was very satisfactory, and he and his Colleagues felt very much indebted to him for his announcement. In the event of its being distinctly ascertained that the free force was not fully distributed at the last quinquennial period of redistribution, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to undertake to empower the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by legislation, to distribute the free force at the first opportunity, and also to make this redistribution retrospective."—(Ibid, 233.
  Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), who was at that time Secretary to the Treasury, said—
  "He did not understand his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) to make any statement with regard to the cost of the year."—(Ibid.)
  The whole of his (Mr. Parnell's) statement with regard, to the immediate introduction and passage of the Bill was accepted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He asked the Committee, as reasonable men, whether the introduction of the Bill involving not alone this point with regard to the alteration of the term of redistribution of the Free Force, but involving a number of other points which had cropped up since then, and

  1395
  which neither the Irish Executive nor the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had in their minds at the time, could be regarded as a satisfactory promise then made? The hon. Member for Liskeard knew something about the matter. The hon. Gentleman was aware that the point under consideration was limited, and that the promise which was made was a practical one; and he must see that the statement which had been made was not a satisfactory answer, and not a fulfilment of the pledge which had been given. It was not a fulfilment of the pledge to bring forward this other Bill, which had since entered into the mind of the Irish Executive, dealing with a vast number of other points, besides that which it had originally been intended to deal with. Such a Bill could not be passed immediately; but he had no doubt that a measure dealing simply with the redistribution of the police might easily be passed into law. It could have been passed any week, because it would not have been opposed by anyone; and they all knew that a measure involving other matters affecting the Constabulary in Ireland would be bitterly opposed by the majority of the Irish Members, and that it would not be possible for the Irish Executive to pass it. Probably no Bill would be passed this year. Was that a fulfilment of the pledge of the Government? The Irish taxpayers were, meanwhile, paying this amount of £30,000 a-year. Was that just? The hon. Gentleman lately Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had, when an appeal had been made to him during the time he was in Office, refused to make a reduction, and the injustice accordingly had to go on. Was that injustice to continue? It appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that the Bill which was to be proposed, and which was to contain other matters, would not pass for many months—perhaps not until the next Parliament; this unjust imposition, therefore, was to go on all this time. Again, he asked, was that the fulfilment of the pledge given to him by the Government—that they were to wait for the Bill, perhaps, until August, perhaps until January or February next, after the new Parliament had assembled? Perhaps the Government might make this measure a clause of the Crimes Act, and call that a fulfilment of their pledge.
  1396
  The hon. and learned Gentleman who had made the pledge knew perfectly well what he meant at the time. If some higher power than himself compelled the hon. and learned Gentleman to break his word, it was not his (Mr. Parnell's) fault, but the fault of the system. He should certainly do his best to prevent the Government getting this Vote, until he had some more satisfactory assurance as to their intention to redeem their pledge, and to deal—at any rate in a small degree—honourably with the Irish Members.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) had asked—which he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought he had no right to do—what was to be imported into this Bill—what other points beyond the redistribution of the police were to be dealt with. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not know by what right the hon. Member asked that. He did not suppose that anything of the sort was even contemplated. He had said that he would ascertain what the understanding was which was arrived at at the end of last Session, and would see that nothing was done in the Bill, in the way of introducing new matter, which would conflict with the understanding entered into. He did not know, personally, what the understanding was; but his hon. and learned Friend near him (Mr. Walker) had given his recollection of it. ["No, no!"] Yes, he had given his recollection in general terms. [Mr. SEXTON: Only from Hansard.] His hon. and learned Friend had said more than that. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not know what the recollection of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was upon the subject, as he had never spoken to him about it; but he was ready to abide by that hon. Gentleman's recollection. Whatever the understanding was, he could assure hon. Members opposite that nothing had been done which constituted any breach of the pledge which had been given last Session.
  THE SOLICITOR GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) stated that he was under the impression—indeed, he had gone so far as to say that he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had stated—that the Bill which would be introduced would be of a non-

  1397
  contentious character. Well, that was not at all his (Mr. Walker's) recollection of the understanding; such a thing had never occurred to his mind at all. It had never occurred to him that the pledge given was that a non-contentious, or a consent, Bill should be introduced. So anxious was he to be correct in the statement he made that, when he had addressed the House making the observations the hon. Member had referred to, he had written them out, in order that they might contain everything that he could promise, and the paragraph which was in Hansard's report was from the written statement he had prepared.
  MR. E. D. GRAYsaid, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Walker) reminded him very much of the case of Mr. Hamilton, which they were discussing a little time ago. He was not able to contradict what the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) declared to be the fact, and could only give his impression of what he believed to have been the statement he himself had made to that hon. Member.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I did not make any such statement myself.
  MR. PARNELL: You certainly did.
  MR. E. D. GRAYsaid, he would leave it to the experience of hon. Members to decide upon the value of a statement forced from a person in this way. The understanding was clear and distinct, and it was that the Bill should be acceptable to the Irish Members, and one which there would be no difficulty in passing; and to tell them that a Bill was to be introduced containing a variety of new matter beyond the principle which had been agreed upon, and which was to be of a non-contentious character, could not be called a fulfilment of the undertaking entered into by the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland knew very well that a Bill, such as was now indicated, containing other matter than the one non-contentious principle, would have very little chance of passing; and for him to stand up in that House—which was supposed to be the first Assembly of Gentlemen in Europe—and to declare that what was now proposed was keeping faith with the Irish Members, was one of the most extraordinary proceedings he (Mr. Gray) had ever witnessed in the House.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Committee would not have failed to notice, and would remember what Member of the Treasury Bench it was, who had imparted into the discussion its present tone. The Committee were going on with the discussion in a cool and collected style, until the Home Secretary threw his robustness into the argument. When the Irish Members gave the facts of the understanding entered into between them and the Government, and mentioned the pledge which had been given by the Government, that right hon. Gentleman asked—"Where are the traces of it?" Where are the traces?—the regular Old Bailey business. In future they would have to come down to that level. "Put it in a bond! Let's have it signed, sealed, and delivered!" That was the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, who, if his promise were questioned at all by the "Irish scum," would answer contemptuously—"My word is my bond." But now it was—"Where are the traces?" [Laughter.] In future, when the right hon. Gentleman made a promise, the Irish Members would ask him—"Where are the traces?" and perhaps the smile upon his face would not then be so pleasant as that which he was now endeavouring to assume. No traces!—there was no discussion. Why was there no discussion? Why, because the Prime Minister told them that if they gave up the matter, and allowed Progress to be reported, the Report of the Constabulary Vote would not be taken after half-past 11 at night. But that pledge was not kept. It was not kept, because the Irish Members had condoned it. Was that phrase sufficiently Old Bailey-like for the right hon. Gentleman? One would think, indeed, that that House was a Crimes Act Court, where they were putting prisoners under the torture, judging from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been conducting himself. Where are the traces? Why, judging from what he (Mr. Healy) knew to have taken place in Irish Courts of Justice within a comparatively recent period, he could confidently assert that on much less distinct evidence than that of the existence of the understanding referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Cork men had been hanged. "Is it expressed in terms?" It was expressed

  1399
  in terms; but British honour had come to this—that nothing could be expressed in terms unless it appeared in Hansard—unless it was set down in black and white. He (Mr. Healy) had noticed a most unusual act—a most unusual proceeding—take place on the Treasury Bench. After the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had spoken, another Member of the Government, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), had immediately followed him, a circumstance which, in connection with Irish matters in that House, did not happen once in six months; and it happened in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary having moved up to the Solicitor General for Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had declared that what appeared in Hansard were not the words he had uttered, but the words which he had subsequently written down for the official record.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I desire to say——
  MR. HEALY: Allow me; you can explain afterwards.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Let him go on!
  MR. HEALY: "Let him go on!" Perhaps he would a little longer than some people might care about before they got this thing through. As he had stated, they found a most unusual thing occur on the Treasury Bench. After the Chief Secretary for Ireland had sat down, the Home Secretary had moved up to the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the Solicitor General for Ireland had thereupon done what was most unusual in debate in that House, unless an incident had occurred upon which it was necessary to say something while one Member of the Government had been speaking—that was to say, the hon. and learned Gentleman had got up to supplement the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, evidently at the command of the Home Secretary. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland thereupon told them that what had appeared in Hansard was not what he had said, but what he had written, and put into it. ["No, no!"] Well, he (Mr. Healy) had understood the hon.
  1400
  and learned Gentleman to say so. He had understood him to say that he had written down the terms of the arrangement entered into with his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell. On two occasions the Irish Members had made a distinct concession to the Government, when these concessions were of extreme value. The concession made by the Irish Members on one occasion—namely, upon a Saturday, when they had allowed the Egyptian Agreement to be considered, in order that City gentlemen might know what was being done in Egyptian per Cents, was of very special value to the Government. Irish Members allowed the Vote under discussion at the time to be taken at 5 o'clock on the Saturday afternoon, much to the chagrin of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel), who said he wanted to discuss the matter. Why had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon found fault with them? Why, because the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had pointed out that, during the Conservative Administration, the cost of the police in Ireland had been many thousands lower than during the Liberal Administration; and the noble Lord's point had struck the right hon. Baronet so forcibly, that he had spoken upon the matter, and intended to return to the charge on the Report stage. When the Report stage came on, however, he found that the Irish Party had allowed the Vote in Supply to be taken at a late hour, in the face of a distinct promise which had been given. The consequence was that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon put a Question in the House. He (Mr. Healy) had asked some of his hon. Friends to look into Hansard to see whether there were "any traces" of that. So annoyed was the right hon. Baronet that he had put a Question to the Prime Minister on the subject. And this was all the Irish Members got for entering into an agreement with the Government in the matter. [Cries of "Shame!"] That Party opposite were a great Government, and the Irish Members were only a small Party. The English were 30,000,000 of men; the Irish only 5,000,000; but the Irish Representatives, however great the disparity of strength, would do their best to obtain in this matter

  1401
  what was admitted to be justice. The Government knew that if they put the provision they were discussing in the Crimes Act Bill, or that if any arrangements of an obnoxious character were made, the measure would be on the Table, and would be blocked by the Irish Members themselves, or by others. The Government admitted that the Irish people had a grievance in this matter of police, and had given the Irish Members a pledge with regard to it; but the Irish Members were now met by the question—"Where are the traces?" That was the spirit in which the Government treated the Irish Members. They admitted the injustice, but said that unless they could show that the promise was in black and white the injustice should not be properly remedied. So long as he (Mr. Healy) remained in the House he should never forget this. They were told to trust to the good faith and generous spirit of English Gentlemen. Fortunately, as a rule, the Irish Members did not act on that plan; but when, for once, they were soft enough to do so, they were met by the Old Bailey lawyerlike question, by gentlemen who were accustomed to treating with thieves in the dock—"Where are the traces?"
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had introduced an unfortunate method of dealing with these matters. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had made a statement with regard to the arrangement that had been entered into, and what had the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary done? The right hon. Gentleman had been long enough acquainted with the hon. Member for the City of Cork to know that that hon. Member did not use words lightly; and when, therefore, he had said that the Government had promised to bring in a non-contentious Bill, the right hon. Gentleman should have known that he was not speaking without book.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that all he stated was with regard to what the hon. Member for the City of Cork had said in the House. The hon. Member had never for a moment in his speech suggested that it was agreed that a non-contentious Bill was to be brought in, and he (Sir William Harcourt) believed the matter to be entirely new. He believed the hon. Member's
  1402
  meaning, in the speech he was referring to, did not embrace any reference to an understanding that a non-contentious Bill should be brought in.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman showed himself to have been a very inattentive listener to the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had heard the hon. Member say that the understanding was arrived at inside the House and outside the House. There was no one in that House, or in the country, acquainted with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who did not know that nobody was less desirous of violating, in the smallest or remotest degree, anything like an honourable understanding than he was. When the hon. Member had referred to an understanding outside the House, the right hon. Gentleman might have saved him the necessity of making any further references. But the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded to taunt his hon. Friend. Looking at the general unwillingness of the Government to have it believed that at any time they entered into understandings with the Irish Members, from the fact of the hon. Member for the City of Cork having mentioned "outside the House," it might have been assumed that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee generally would have allowed the matter to pass without going further. But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had absolutely taunted his hon. Friend into making explanations. The hon. Member for the City of Cork came forward with this explanation—that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had stated in the Library that a Bill of a non-contentious character should be brought in. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) put it to the Committee whether, as a matter of mere probability, apart from the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, the understanding must not have been for the introduction of a non-contentious Bill confined to a single question? The sum in dispute was something like £30,000 a-year, according to the contention of the Irish Members, a great part of which was admitted by Her Majesty's Government, the Irish people were paying £30,000 a-year more than they should pay for police. That was not questioned by the Treasury Bench. Surely, then, the effort

  1403
  of the Irish Members would be to get their constituents relieved from that burden at the earliest possible moment. It was clear that their course must have been to have prevented the Irish people from being charged with this £30,000 a-year one moment longer than it would take to legislate for the removal of the evil. So far did the Irish Members go that they asked for the measure which was to be brought in to be made retrospective; but it was refused. Surely their effort must have been to have got the burden removed on the 1st of January this year, or as near that date as possible. Was it not as clear as day that that must have been the object the Irish Members had in view? Well, if they wished to get it removed on the first opportunity, it must have been by a Bill brought in as soon as possible; and the only Bill they could have got passed into law with rapidity must have been one of a non-contentious character. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had given a crushing answer to the statement of the Home Secretary, who had asked—"Where are the traces?" What the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been alluding to had been the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and what the Home Secretary had forgotten was exactly what he should have remembered—namely, all the surrounding circumstances. The "traces" were, as had been pointed out, that the Irish Members, who had been giving a most obstinate and most prolonged opposition to the Constabulary Vote, at once ceased their opposition upon the Solicitor General for Ireland making his statement. The Constabulary Vote was one which Irish Members always contested severely and protractedly in that House; and would they have abstained from further opposition to the Vote if they had not thought that they had obtained a valuable consideration from the Government? The attitude of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) had been mentioned. That right hon. Baronet had joined the Irish Members in their opposition to the Constabulary Vote. The opposition to the Vote was growing in the House. It was not confined to the Irish Members. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had
  1404
  also joined in the denunciation of the swollen Estimates for the police. As he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had said, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon had joined them also; so that, having obtained this support on the first occasion the Vote came before them, the Irish Members had every reason to believe that if on the second occasion—that was to say, on the Report stage—they had again attacked it, they would have been able to do so in much greater strength. The Irish Members, however, believing that they had obtained a valuable consideration from the Government, had, so to speak, abandoned their allies. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon, on the next day, August 8, said in the House—
  "It will be in the recollection of the House that, when the Constabulary Vote was taken, the Prime Minister gave a distinct pledge that the Report of it would not be taken after a certain hour—half-past 11. Now, my noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) and myself stayed here until half-past 12 o'clock last night, intending, as English Members, to take part in this Irish debate, and, understanding that it would not be taken, we went away. My noble Friend and myself were deprived of an opportunity of discussing the matter, because, as I am informed, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland told the Committee that he had made some arrangements with the Irish Members, and so the Report on the Vote came on. But, as I say, my noble Friend and myself, after the distinct utterance of the Prime Minister that it would not be taken after half-past 11—
  "Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!
  "Sir ROBERT PEEL: The Prime Minister distinctly stated so.
  "Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!
  "Sir ROBERT PEEL: Well, I am in the recollection of the House, and I say the Prime Minister distinctly stated that the Report of the Vote would not be taken after half-past 11 o'clock; but I see this morning that it was taken."—(3 Hansard, [292] 276–7.)
  The right hon. Baronet, having come down to the House to support the Irish Members, no doubt considered himself left in the lurch by them. Did anyone in his senses imagine that the arrangement entered into between the Irish Members and the Government was an arrangement to be interpreted in the light of events that occurred subsequent to that arrangement? So far as the Irish Members could understand, partly from what was said by occupants of the Treasury Bench, and partly from their silence, what the Government meant now to do

  1405
  was to mix a number of things together in the Bill they were going to introduce, owing to circumstances some of them subsequent to the arrangement for which the Government had got a valuable consideration. It was monstrous that the whole thing should have to be fought over again after the Government had given a pledge.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) had proved from Hansard that the arrangement was that the Government should, as soon as possible, legislate on the matter. That they all admitted, and they had no desire to recede from their promise, and he could not understand why this discussion should be now continued. A short time ago, in addressing the Committee, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) said that if the understanding was as stated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, there would be no desire on the part of the Government to introduce controversial matter into the measure. Was not that enough? Hon. Members opposite, undoubtedly, on that occasion made a concession to the Government; and they seemed to be under the impression that Government promised that this question should be dealt with in a non-contentious way. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was under a different impression. Still, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would go this length—as hon. Members had a strong conviction that the Government made the promise he would act on that supposition, although it was not the supposition he and his hon. and learned Friend had been proceeding upon.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that there was one sentence in the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel) which the hon. Member for Galway had not quoted. It was the passage in which the right hon. Baronet said—
  "If the Home Secretary were here, I would ask him what was the meaning of this, as he would call it, 'dirty trick?
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was perfectly willing to accept the statement of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as most conciliatory; but not more than they were entitled to have.

  CIVIL SERVICE EXCESSES.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £8,045 5s. 1d. be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services, for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1884, viz:—

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  107

  17

  6

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

  Privy Council

  81

  10

  5

  Registrar General's Office, Scotland

  3

  4

  3

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

  Constabulary, Ireland

  7,780

  8

  5

  CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.

  Superannuations

  72

  5

  0

  Total

  £8,045

  5

  7"

  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, these excesses included a charge for persons picketed in Ireland; and he should like to ask the Government where the Treasury got the right to distribute public money without the assent of Parliament? There were really two sums in excess of those voted in Committee of Supply. These services were not contemplated or provided for by the Committee of Supply. The items were not mentioned in the Paper; but if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would refer to the Constabulary Vote he would find that £80 had been so distributed. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £80.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £7,065 5s. 1d. be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses for certain Grants for Civil Services, for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1884,"—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor,)
  —put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock in the morning.