Commons Sitting of 26 March 1886

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Withdrawn—Metropolitan Street Improvements Act, 1877 (Amendment).*
QUESTIONS.

  ARMY APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS— CHELSEA IN-PENSIONERS.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General, at page 194 of the Army Appropriation Account recently distributed, as to the age of Chelsea In-Pensioners; and, whether he will consider if the Secretary of State cannot make use of his powers under the Yeomanry Act of 1884, to so interpret the Chelsea Warrant as to allow the autho-

  13
  rities of the Hospital to continue the practice of admitting a few men who are able to work and perform duty for the help of their weaker comrades?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE): Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to the objections of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and steps are being taken to remove technical difficulties, and to continue a practice which is necessary for the service of the Hospital.

  MARRIAGE LAW—CIVIL MARRIAGE.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that a marriage between George Mummery, widower, and Jane Johnston, widow, was duly solemnized, on the 11th May 1885, before W. T. Ward, Registrar of St. Olave, Southwark, and was duly registered; whether, after, and with the knowledge of such marriage, the Rev. W. J. Batchelor, Rector of St. John, Horsleydown, incited the said George Mummery and Jane Johnston to be re-married before him, by licence, in the parish church, on the 1st July 1885; whether such second marriage was also registered, in contravention of the 19th and 20th Vic. c. 119, s. 12; whether he is aware that the parties to the marriage were respectively beadle and pew-opener in the said parish; whether, under the incitement, and with the knowledge of the said Rev. W. J. Batchelor, the marriage before the Registrar was disregarded, and treated as if it had not happened, and the parties were still described in the declaration for the licence, and in the parish church register, as widower and widow, as though the marriage before the Registrar had not taken place; and, whether he will direct the Public Prosecutor to take any action in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL), in reply, said, he had communicated with the rev. gentleman, who had written and also called upon him. It was true, the rector said, that alter the marriage before the Registrar he advised Mummery to obtain a licence, with a view to his marriage being celebrated according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church; and the marriage was subsequently solemnized and registered, as stated in the Question. He was not then aware of the provisions of the Act of Parliament, or
  14
  should not have so acted. He had no intention of contravening the law, but simply to superadd the sanction of the Church to the secular ceremony. Mummery was the beadle and his wife had been pew-opener, but was not now so employed. Mummery stated that his reason for going before the Registrar rather than to the church was his desire to avoid any public or general notice; and seeing that he was about to marry his fourth wife, and that his intended wife was about to marry her third husband, perhaps their modesty was not unnatural. He did not think that on the whole it was desirable to take any further notice of the matter.

  FRANCE—CONDITION OF THE AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL CLASSES —REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.
  MR. F. S. POWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether a further Report has been published by members of the Commission appointed by the French Chamber of Deputies to inquire into the situation of the agricultural and industrial classes in France; and, whether, if such further Report relates to the agricultural classes, he will lay upon the Table of the House extracts from such Report, in continuation of Return [C. 4667], relating to certain industrial classes, which was recently presented to the House?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA,): No Report of the French Commission has yet been received relating to agriculture. When it comes to hand it shall be dealt with in the same manner as the Industrial Report and submitted to Parliament.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—ARREST OF MR. MORTIMER DOYLE.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a man, named Mortimer Doyle, was arrested in Dalkey, county of Dublin, on the 23rd of November last, as he was leaving a Nationalist election meeting, for having, on the morning of the same day, in assertion of title, thrown down a wall the height of which the Board of Works had, against his previous protest, raised; whether Doyle was detained in the company of common criminals in the police cells till the following day, although solvent bail was offered on his

  15
  behalf; whether on the trial of the case Doyle was discharged, the magistrate observing that he had done nothing but what he was justified in doing; whether the same magistrate, at the first hearing of the case, at once declared his opinion that it was a case for a civil action rather than for a criminal prosecution; whether he will state the name of the official responsible for the arrest; and, whether the Government will compensate Doyle for the wrong to which he has been subjected?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLET), in reply, said that it was a fact that Mortimer Doyle was arrested in Dalkey on the 23rd of November last for having thrown down a portion of a wall between his premises and the police station. The police had been previously informed that the wall was regarded as the property of the Chief Commissioner, and they made the arrest on their own responsibility. Doyle was not placed in the cell, but allowed to remain at the fire in the reserve room. No offer was made to bail him. He was discharged by the magistrate, who considered that, so far as pulling down the wall was concerned, Doyle acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that he had a right to do what he did. He added, however, that if Doyle suffered anything in consequence he had only himself to blame, as he had used threats, and the case was not considered one in which compensation should be given.
  MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated the name of the official responsible for the arrest.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Unfortunately I do not know the name.
  MR. CLANCY: Will you inquire.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I will.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF "M'MEEKAN v. THOMSON."
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Coffey, Taxing Officer, Four Courts, Dublin, was recently frequently applied to by the defendant and his solicitor, in the case of M'Meekan v. Thomson, for copies of an affidavit made by the plaintiff, which said Mr. Coffey had characterised as "wilful and deliberate perjury;" whether Mr. Coffey declined to give the copies applied for; whether it is now
  16
  alleged that the documents cannot be found; and, whether it is the practice for Mr. Coffey to reecive, in the discharge of the duties of his office, affidavits which have not been regularly filed; and, if so, whether he will bring the fact under the notice of the Attorney General for Ireland, with a view to a change of practice in Mr. Coffey's office, so as to make persons responsible for what they state on oath?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, the affidavit was made in the course of the taxation of a bill of costs, and as to the payments alleged to have been made to a witness. Master Coffey, in the discharge of his duty, considered it necessary to comment on the nature of the explanation. It was not the practice, as he was informed by the Attorney General, to file affidavits made for the purpose of vouching items in a bill of costs. The original affidavits were interchanged between the parties, and afterwards handed to the solicitor for the party who produced them. That course, he was informed, was found convenient and economical, and was followed in this case; consequently Mr. Coffey was unable to comply with the application. He was advised that the Attorney General could not interfere in the case.

  IRISH LIGHTS—BOAT SERVICE TO THE FASTNET ROCK LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is a fact that Mr. Isaac Notter, of Crookhaven, has a monopoly of the boat attendance to the Fastnet Rock Lighthouse; if other inhabitants of Crook-haven have repeatedly offered to supply a better boat and crew on cheaper terms; and, whether, in future, the boat attendance will be thrown open to public competition?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): The Commissioners of Irish Lights inform me that Mr. Isaac Notter, of Crookhaven, has had the carrying out of the boat attendance on Fastnet for over 20 years. Applications have, from time to time, been received for this contract; but the Commissioners have strong objections to intrusting this particular contract to inexperienced persons, owing to the danger of the service; and as the Fastnet is exceptionally difficult of access for reliev-

  17
  ing the light keepers and supplying them with provisions, the Commissioners are not at present inclined to disturb Mr. Notter in his contract.

  MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) ACT —REFUSAL OF MEDICAL RELIEF— CASE OF GEORGE MARTON, CASHEL UNION.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government is aware that, quite recently, George Marton, in charge on an evicted farm near Clerihan, in the Rose Green Dispensary District of the Cashel Union, in the county of Tipperary, was, while very ill, refused a ticket for medical relief by Mr. E. Heffernan, of Mocklers-town, on the grounds of his being an Emergency man, and was told he might get a doctor for himself, the consequence being that Marton, although seriously ill for ten days, was unable to procure medical relief, through there being no one within two miles who could issue medical relief tickets; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take such steps as may prove necessary to prevent the issue of medical relief tickets being influenced by personal motives?
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the Chief Secretary whether Emergency men are entitled to outdoor relief out of the poors' rate, having regard to the fact that their wages are generally 1s. 6d. a-day?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed that Marton was refused a dispensary ticket by Mr. Heffernan on the ground that he was in receipt of wages of £1 a-week, paid every Saturday. If the man was seriously ill and unable to pay a doctor, it seems strange that he should have omitted to communicate with the relieving officer, who is a responsible person, and who would not have refused relief without due cause.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— BLOWING UP OF HOUSE OF ROBERT MARSHALL AT LONDONDERRY.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the recent trial and conviction of George M'Garrigle on the charge of setting
  18
  fire, by means of a dynamite explosion, to the house of one Robert Marshall in Derry, on St. Patrick's Day 1885; whether he is aware that it was alleged at the time of the occurrence that this outrage was perpetrated by the Nationalists of Derry, in consequence of Robert Marshall being obnoxious to them; whether Marshall actually brought a claim for malicious injury before the Derry Grand Jury; whether a Crimes Act inquiry into all the circumstances of the case was several times demanded, and was refused by the authorities; whether, as a consequence, Marshall evaded all suspicion, and M'Garrigle, being released on bail, fled the Country, and was only brought to justice several months after; whether he is aware that upon the recent trial it was conclusively proved that M'Garrigle was the tool of Marshall, who bribed him to commit the outrage; whether he is aware that M'Garrigle was recommended to mercy by the jury, on the ground that "he was a tool of Marshall's," the learned judge who presided saying "there was no doubt about that;" whether Marshall has successfully evaded justice; and, whether the Government can give any information as to the number of cases recently in which outrages to property in Ireland, attributed to the people, have subsequently been proved, as in this case and the case of Mrs. Lucas in Cork, to have been perpetrated by the owners of the property themselves?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, that the first eight paragraphs in the Question were correct statements of the facts. It was always believed by the authorities that Marshall had employed M'Garrigle to blow up the house with gunpowder, not dynamite. An inquiry under the Crimes Act was suggested at the time; but it was ultimately determined that no benefit could accrue from it. The Inspector General informed him that he was not aware of any recent cases, except this and the case of Mrs. Lucas mentioned in the House the other night, in which outrages to property were proved to be perpetrated by the owners of the property themselves.
  MR. SEXTON: Does not his Excellency know of the case of the Orange member of the Corporation of Derry, who was sentenced to five years' penal servitude for burning his own house?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The hon. Gentleman misapprehended what I said. I said the Inspector General was not aware——
  MR. SEXTON: He ought to be aware.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—BEAM TRAWLING IN IN-SHORE WATERS.
  MR. PRESTON BRUCEasked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether he has yet confirmed the bye-law recently passed by the Fishery Board for Scotland, with reference to beam-trawling in the Firth of Forth and certain other territorial waters; and, whether this bye-law will come into force upon the 5th of April next, as its terms show was intended by the Fishery Board?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN)&c): Before confirming the bye-law recently passed by the Fishery Board for Scotland for closing certain in-shore waters against beam trawling, I have arranged to receive deputations from the General Steam Fishing Company, and representatives of the various Bodies who have memorialized the Fishery Board on the subject, together with the members of the Fishery Board itself, in order to give the opportunity of a full hearing of the arguments of all parties concerned. The bye-law will not come into force on the 5th of April unless it shall have been confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland.

  IRELAND—THE MAGISTRACY— MESSRS. TRUELL, BARTON, AND ACTON—CASE OF MR. STOREY.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What decision the Lord Chancellor has come to in reference to the conduct of Messieurs Truell, Barton, and Acton as Justices of the Peace, in sentencing Mr. Storey to six months' imprisonment, without the option of fine, for a nominal assault; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant has acceded to the application made to him on behalf of Mr. Storey, and remitted the penalty of five ponnds imposed by the County Court Judge in reversing the decision of the Magistrates?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The Lord Chancellor has received the ex-
  20
  planation of the magistrates. They state that it was proved before them that the peace of the district was seriously endangered, and, therefore, that they thought it necessary to impose a severe sentence. The Lord Chancellor sees no reason to doubt that they arrived at the conclusion in good faith; but he concurs with the County Court Judge in thinking that the original sentence was, under the circumstances, one of undue severity, and he has so informed the magistrates, with an intimation that he hopes in future they will exercise a more careful discretion in fixing the amount of punishment. His Excellency has declined to remit the fine which was attached to the reversal of the decision of these magistrates.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— BOGUS OUTRAGE AT CASTLECAULFIELD, CO. TYRONE—CASE OF ROBERT CUDDY.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Was it reported to the police, that, on the night of 21st December last, a man disguised and with his face blackened visited the houses of John Armstrong, Jonathan Colbert, Thomas Armstrong, Samuel Somerville, John Macwhinny, and William M'Kenna, near Castlecaulfield, county Tyrone; is it the fact that the man had a book with him, from which he pretended to read, and in which he seemed to make entries; that he asked who lived in each house, and for whom he had voted at the late election; said he was from Dublin and had other boys with him; that he told them to pay no rent, or, if they did, they would not have long to live; whether, when he came to the house of M'Kenna, he said, "All right, you are a Nationalist," and, pointing to a school-house, which had been an Orange Lodge, said, "That must be removed;" was he hunted down and captured by two men named Bunnes and Armstrong, and did it transpire that he was an Orangeman named Robert Cuddy, junior; is it true that Cuddy and his lather were brought by the police before a local justice, Colonel Burgess, and discharged without a prosecution; and, was the case reported to the resident magistrate, and have any steps been taken to punish the author of this outrage; and, if not, who is responsible?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, a Report was being prepared with reference to the circumstances, and was under consideration. He would ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question, so as to give him an opportunity of fully inquiring into it.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— OUTRAGE IN PORTADOWN.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that, on Saturday night last, a stone was flung into the shop of Miss Fearon, newsagent, Portadown, and two panes of plate glass broken; has Miss Fearon's house been repeatedly attacked and her life threatened unless she ceased to exhibit the cartoons of the Nationalist papers in her shop window; was a stone or bullet fired through the window on the night of the 22nd February last; was another stone flung into the shop on the evening of 18th February, and a Mr. M'Intyre, who was standing by the counter, struck; have the police failed to bring the authors of any of these repeated attacks to justice; and, whether adequate police protection will be afforded to Miss Fearon in the exercise of her lawful calling, against the intimidation practised against her?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, that the police were aware that two stones and a marble were thrown into the shop of Miss Fearon, in whose shop Nationalist newspapers were sold, and that notices were posted cautioning her against exhibiting the cartoons. The police had not heard of the incident of the 18th February mentioned in the Question, and therefore they assumed it had not occurred. The police had instructions to keep watch on the house in their order to detect the guilty parties; but efforts had hitherto been without success.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I would draw the attention of the Chief Secretary and the Government to the singular supineness of the authorities in dealing with Orange rowdies, and will ask a Question on that subject.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE SHERIFF OF GALWAY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  22
  of Ireland, With reference to statements in the press to the effect that a force of constabulary has been engaged in aiding the sheriff to carry out evictions on the estate of the Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, whether the only ground for the statement is that the sheriff of Galway, last month, executed a writ of habere upon a holding of which the Archbishop is trustee on behalf of a charitable institution; whether the holding formed an undivided moiety of a certain parcel of land, the tenant being the owner in fee of the other moiety; whether, before the execution of the writ, the Archbishop's solicitor and agent informed the sheriff that there was no occasion for the employment of the constabulary, that it would involve entirely unnecessary expense, and that the ejectment of the tenant was not required, the object of the writ being, as was known to the sheriff and all the parties concerned, to procure a legal partition of the moieties of the land; whether, notwithstanding, the sheriff brought a large force of constabulary to the spot; whether he and his bailiff insisted on putting out the tenant, against the expressed desire of the agent; how the cost of the force of constabulary will be defrayed; and, what course the Government will take in regard to the conduct of the sheriff?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, that there was only one eviction in this case, and it was simply of a formal nature to enable possession to be assumed of an undivided moiety, the tenant being the owner in fee of the other undivided moiety. It was carried out without the slightest difficulty or inconvenience to the tenant. The Archbishop did intimate, through his solicitor, to the sheriff that no difficulty whatever was expected, and that the police might be dispensed with. The sheriff, however, from considerations of a general character, and without reference to the particular circumstances of the case, concluded that he would not be justified in going into the locality without protection, and he was accompanied by eight men. The cost only amounted to one guinea, which would be paid out of the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall move to take that guinea out of the Constabulary Vote.

  AFRICA (EAST COAST)—FOREIGN ANNEXATION.
  MR. JAMES HUTTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can, without detriment to the Public Service, inform the House of the precise terms of the understanding with the Governments of France, Germany, and Zanzibar, to which reference was made by him on the 11th instant, to the effect that no annexation of territory will be made while the Zanzibar Delimitation Commission is sitting; and, when it is expected that the Commission will complete its work?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): No reference was made in my answer on the 11th instant to any understanding with the Governments of France or Zanzibar. The understanding with Germany is informal; but Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that it will be observed. It is at present impossible to form an estimate as to the date when the work of the Commission will be completed.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE SALE OF INTOXICATING DRINKS IN THE TRANSKEI.
  MR. VALENTINEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Proclamation made by the Government of Cape Colony, allowing the sale of intoxicating drinks in the Transkei is still in force, or if it has been withdrawn; and, if the latter, what was the date of the withdrawal?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): By a Proclamation dated October 8, 1885, of the Government of the Cape Colony, and amended by a Proclamation dated December 31, 1885, the sale of spirituous liquors to any Native, unless he should produce a permit signed by a magistrate, a Justice of the Peace, or field cornet, was prohibited in the Transkeian territory. These Proclamations are still in force. There is no prohibition against the sale of other liquors to Natives, although the importation of wine, beer, and other intoxicating liquors into the territory, except under certain conditions, is strictly forbidden. Papers relating to the subject
  24
  were laid by me yesterday on the Table, and will be circulated in a few days.

  ARMY—THE MARTINI-ENFIELD RIFLE.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will make arrangements for the issue to the public of a limited number of the new Martini-Enfield ·400 rifles, with ammunition, on payment of four pounds for each rifle and ten shillings for each hundred rounds of ammunition, in order to subject the new arm to independent criticism?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): The pattern of the new rifle which has been approved by the Military Authorities was elaborated, after numerous experiments, by a committee of officers thoroughly conversant with the requirements of the Service. As an additional precaution, a tentative issue of 1,000 rifles will be made to the troops in order to see if they may require alteration in any minor points. Under these circumstances, I do not consider that it will be necessary to resort to the plan suggested by the hon. Member.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) — MURDER OF PATRICK FINLAY AT WOODFORD.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following facts relative to the estates of Sir Henry Burke and Mrs. Lewis, in the vicinity of Woodford, are correct:—That on the estate of Sir Henry Burke, comprising one hundred and thirty holdings, there has not been a single rise of rent in the memory of the oldest tenant; that not a single tenant entered the Land Court to obtain a reduction of rent; that, in November last, Sir Henry Burke voluntarily offered a reduction of fifteen per cent; that, on the estate of Mrs. Lewis, almost all the tenants have had judicial rents fixed; whether the tenants, at the usual time for paying their rents, marched in, in a body, headed by four priests, and demanded a reduction of fifty per cent; whether these reverend gentlemen were members of the National League, and if the murdered man, Finlay, was refused Christian burial by any of them; whether it was on account of this demand, and the threats and intimida-

  25
  tion accompanying it, that legal proceedings were instituted; and, whether the Irish Executive still decline to afford assistance to Sir Henry Burke and Mrs. Lewis to enable thorn to assert their legitimate rights?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the statements contained in this Question, except that, with regard to the burial of Finlay, I am informed that he was buried with the rites of his Church, and that one of the clergymen referred to in a preceding paragraph of the Question officiated. As to the last paragraph, I have only to observe that there is no pretence whatever for the assumption that either in these or in any other cases the Government have declined to afford assistance in the assertion of legitimate rights.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MEMORIAL FOR REMISSION OF SENTENCES-CASE OF THE O'BRIENS'.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a memorial has been presented to the Irish Executive for the remission of sentences of twelve months' imprisonment passed on two men named O'Brien, at the Winter Wicklow Assizes, for having waylaid and badly beaten a carman named James Dunne, who was boycotted for driving the police; whether, after the trial at Wicklow, a hay-rick, the property of James Dunne, was maliciously burnt; and, whether it is the intention of the Executive to accede to the prayer of the memorial?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, the memorial was under the consideration of the Government. It was a fact that a hayrick, the property of Dunne, had been burned, and Dunne had announced his intention to seek compensation; but he attributed the act to no one in particular.

  LAW AND POLICE—ACTION OF THE POLICE AT LEEDS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following account of the conduct of the
  26
  Police in Leeds on Friday 19th instant:—
  "Yesterday afternoon a scene of an unusual and not very creditable character took place in Briggate, the principal street of Leeds. The management of the Grand Theatre had issued placards 'to the unemployed,' offering work to two hundred men. The men were to apply at the stage door of the theatre at half-past twelve, and some hundreds congregated in Harrison Street. Some of the theatre officials, it is understood, became alarmed at the language used by some of the men who were rejected, and word was sent to the Police Station that a riot was in progress. A few minutes later, while the crowd was peaceable and orderly, half a dozen policemen, mounted on horses from the Fire Brigade Station, dashed along Briggate, and, turning into Harrison Street, rode down upon the closely-packed mass outside the theatre door. A scene of great confusion and terror ensued, the people flying in all directions to escape the horses' hoofs, while those who attained places of safety hooted at the Police. The latter, turning, rode out again into Briggate, which was now full of excited spectators, and these latter, to their dismay, were then charged by the horsemen, who dashed along the pavements, driving the unfortunate bystanders and pedestrians into shops, &c. and pursuing them up the side streets they sought refuge in. Returning to the main street, now crowded, they dashed repeatedly along the pavements and road, one man even kicking at the crowd as he dashed by them. An order was given for the men to confine themselves to the road, and to behave with more moderation, and after some time the excitement abated, and in an hour or so the crowd dispersed:"
  and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had asked for a Report from the Leeds authorities into the conduct of the police of that borough on the 19th instant, and had been promised a Report of the facts of the case when the Watch Committee had ascertained the full particulars. When the Report reached him he would consider what was necessary to be done. He reminded the hon. Member that he had no authority over the borough police, and that none had authority but the elected Town Council.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHANCERY DIVISION)—TAXING MASTERS.
  MR. BARTLEYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, having regard to the additional powers and responsibility conferred on and vested in the eight Chancery Taxing-Masters, by Order 65 of "The Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883," and the Rules of December 1885, and to the fact that the fees earned

  27
  by them amount on an average to £32,215 per annum, showing an annual profit, after payment of their salaries and the salaries of their clerks, of between £9,000 and £10,000 per annum, the Government will take under their consideration the propriety of appointing an additional Taxing-Master, making the ninth, thus completing the number contemplated and provided for by section 5 of the 5th and 6th Vic. c. 103?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL), in reply, said, he would take care that this point was submitted to the Lord Chancellor?

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—THE SILVER CURRENCY.
  MR. JAMES MACLEANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the statement of the Indian Finance Minister, Sir A. Colvin, in his Budget Speech, that—
  "The earnest attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the subject of the silver difficulty by the Indian Government, who have pressed on him the necessity of seeking, in concert with the Great Powers and the United States, a solution of the question,"
  What steps have been taken, and with what result, by the Secretary of State to give effect to this recommendation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): On January 26 last a letter on this subject was sent by order of the noble Lord the late Secretary of State in Council to the Treasury. This was followed by a further letter, inclosing, by the direction of the present Secretary of State in Council, a despatch from the Government of India. The questions involved are now under the consideration of the Treasury, and no reply has yet been received.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE FIRST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ENGINEERS' CORPS.
  MR. AGG-GARDNERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as a large number of Volunteers are desirous of joining the 1st Gloucestershire (Western Counties) Engineers' Corps, but are prevented by reason of the Regiment having attained its regulation strength, he will sanction the formation of two additional com-
  28
  panies, or the enrolment of supernumeraries?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (&c.): The corps in question has already 10 companies, and the addition of a submarine company at Cardiff has been sanctioned. This is considered by the Military Authorities to be as large for administrative purposes as any Volunteer corps should be. The enrolment of supernumeraries is contrary to regulation.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—HOUSE OF COMMONS—THE LOBBY.
  MR. BRUNNERasked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, Whether he will, for the convenience of Members of this House, permit two or more men of the Corps of Commissionaires to attend in the Lobby?
  THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. LEVESON GOWER)said, he would take care that the suggestion of the hon. Member should be brought under the notice of the proper authorities.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. FRANK BROOK, BROOKBOROUGH, CO. FERMANAGH.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the Report of a speech delivered by Mr. Frank Brook, at Brookborough, county Fermanagh, and reported in The Fermanagh Times of the 18th instant—
  "But, brother Orangemen, if England spurns us from her then, and, if by the vote of the men who are tied hand and foot to Gladstone's chariot wheels, and who would follow him to perdition sooner than vote against him—if, I say, by these votes Home Rule is granted to the Parnellite rebels, then, I say, England scorns us; and we must let her know, with no uncertain sound, that we, the loyal minority, will never, no, never, allow the rebels to place their yoke around our necks, at least not without a struggle; and, before accepting their law as the law of the land, we will rise as one man and fight for our liberties, our homes, and our glorious religion;"
  and, whether this speech will be brought by the Government under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, in view of the fact that Mr. Brook holds the Commission of the Peace, and is a Deputy Lieutenant

  29
  for Fermanagh? The hon. Member added that his Question had been altered. In the original form the word "hell" occurred, and not "perdition."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): This Question appears without Notice, and I have not been able to ascertain whether this quotation is correctly given. If I find, however, that there is reason to believe that Mr. Brook used the language imputed to him, I may consider it my duty to bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

  POST OFFICE—REGISTERED TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES—MESSRS. J. & W. JUDGE, KENNTNGTON.
  MR. GENT-DAVISasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Telegraph Department have refused to continue the registered telegraphic address "Cotton-bag," adopted by Messrs. J. and W. Judge, of Kennington, some years ago, and selected by the Post Office at the time as being a suitable one for them, and if the refusal is solely on the ground that it is a double word, and "might" cause difficulties in transmission; whether the Department has given this firm two months summary notice to discontinue the address, putting them to considerable inconvenience and expense, advising correspondents, renewing stationery, &c.; and, if there is any instance where this anticipated difficulty has occurred with the address in question, and is it a fact that a large number of commercial houses in London are at the present time using double words?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in reply, said, the address referred to was registered before addresses of telegrams were charged for, and now there were frequent disputes as to whether it was one word or two. Consequently, the Postmaster General had given notice that the word must be changed, but was willing to allow a sufficient interval to elapse to prevent inconvenience.

  DYNAMITE OUTRAGES, 1884 (METROPOLIS)—THE REWARD.
  VISCOUNT NEWARKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the reward of two thousand pounds, offered in 1885
  30
  for information which would lead to the conviction of Cunningham and Burton, the dynamitards, has yet been awarded; whether Mr. and Mrs. Herrod, who were fellow passengers with Cunningham on board the Shannon, were subpoenaed by the Solicitor to the Treasury to attend the Sessions at the Old Bailey in May last, and there gave important evidence identifying the prisoners; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant Mr. and Mrs. Herrod any of the promised reward?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; so much of the reward as it has been deemed advisable to distribute has been already apportioned by the Police Authorities in accordance with the instructions of the Treasury Solicitor. The noble Lord may not be aware that this reward referred only to the four explosions which took place at London railway stations in February, 1884, and that Cunningham and Burton were proved to have been connected with only one of these. It is true that Mr. and Mrs. Herrod gave useful evidence; but they have not been rewarded, as they did not come within the terms of the reward bill. They were ordinary witnesses, brought forward as the result of police inquiry, and did not give information such as that for which the reward was offered.

  REGULATION OF THEATRES— LEGISLATION.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, with the view of enabling the local authorities to more effectually control places of public entertainment, he would bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of the Act 25 Geo. 2, c. 36, s. 2, at present only applicable to the Metropolis, to the whole of the United Kingdom?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): Except in a letter from the hon. and gallant Member himself, I have had no information laid before me showing that the Local Authorities have not, under the present law, sufficient power to control places of public entertainment. Under these circumstances, I cannot pledge myself to recommend legislation in the direction proposed—that is to say, by extending the operation of Section 2 of the Act

  31
  quoted, by which any house, garden, or other place kept for public entertainment without a licence shall be deemed a disorderly house or place. This now only applies to the cities of London and Westminster, and to places within 20 miles of them.

  INLAND REVENUE—SURVEYORS OF TAXES.
  SIR HENRY MEYSEY THOMPSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Surveyors of Taxes are paid poundage on the amount of Income Tax collected in their districts?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): No; surveyors of taxes are salaried officers, and are not paid poundage on the amount of Income Tax collected.

  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT— CUSTOMS CLERKS.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Is it true that, in 1877, when the Inland Revenue Department, Somerset House, was reorganised under the Playfair Scheme, an actuary was employed by the authorities to calculate the exact amount of compensation due to each clerk whose prospects had been interfered with by the re-organization; and, whether such compensation was forthcoming, in the shape of an immediate increase of salary; if so, is the Treasury prepared to similarly deal with the case of the ex-redundant Customs' clerks who were distinctly promised speedy promotion, to induce them to join the Outdoor Branch, but whose prospects have since been almost destroyed by the abolition of a large number of surveyorships?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): No actuary was employed by the Inland Revenue Department to calculate the exact amount of compensation due to clerks whose prospects had been interfered with by the re-organization under what is called the Play fair Scheme. Calculations were made by the Inland Revenue Department as to the loss of prospects by certain existing clerks owing to the abolition of the class system and the consequent loss of "jumps," or increase
  32
  of salary on promotion from class to class, and in making their calculations the Board of Inland Revenue conferred with Mr. Vaughan, the actuarial clerk of the Board of Trade. The Treasury compensated the clerks for the loss of "jumps" by an immediate addition to their salaries, restricting, however, their maximum pay to £380, the maximum of the old seniority class. No promise of speedy promotion was ever made to induce the redundant Customs clerks to join the outdoor branch, nor was there any understanding that the number of surveyorships would not be reduced if found too large for the requirements of the Service. In fact, many of the redundant clerks only joined the outdoor service when the alternative was placed before them of doing so or being placed on the pension list.

  THE DUCHY OF CORNWALL— COMPENSATIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury minute of 15th February 1839 (directing that, from the 5th April 1841, the sum of £630 14 s. 2d. should be deducted from the annual amount of £16,216 15 s. 1½d. paid to the Duchy of Cornwall), was not laid before both Houses of Parliament on the 19th April 1839, pursuant to 1 and 2 Vic. c. 120, ss. 6 and 7; whether by s. 6 of the said statute the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury were directed to grant such compensation as seemed to them just and proper, and by s. 7 to lay before Parliament a return showing the amount of the compensation so granted by them; whether the Treasury minute of 15th February 1839 was ever formally revised and at what date; whether such revision was ever communicated to Parliament on that occasion; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the objections taken on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall to such annual deduction of £630 14s. 2d. and a copy of the Treasury minute on such deductions?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASTURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The Treasury Minute of the 15th of February, 1839, was laid before both Houses of Parliament on the 19th of April, 1839, under the Act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 120, s. 7. The compensation referred to in Section 6 of the Act is

  33
  compensation to officers whose emoluments were affected by the operation of the Act, but does not affect the payment to be made to the Duchy of Cornwall. The Minute was never formally revised; but, as I stated last night, the Treasury acquiesced in the view taken by the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall, and have acted accordingly during the last 45 years.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—THE LOSS OF THE "OREGON" CUNARD MAIL STEAMER.
  MR. FORWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is the fact that the Oregon, in common with all steamers conveying passengers between this Country and the United States, had to obtain not only passenger certificates from the Board of Trade, but had also to undergo a periodical examination in the United States by inspectors appointed by the Government of that Country, and that no such vessel can obtain a clearance unless provided with a certificate from their inspectors that she complies with the American law as to efficiency of hull and engines, and as regards the sufficiency of her boat accommodation, life saving, and fire appliances, and that the same requirements in these respects are imposed on British ships by the United States Law as apply to vessels under their own flag; and, whether he can state if it would be possible to require such a vessel as the Oregon to carry a larger number of boats than she had, with a due regard to the safe navigation of the vessel, to the rapid lowering of the boats when required, and to their safe carriage in bad weather?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): As I came down to the House to-day I received a telegram from Messrs. Ismay, Imrie, and Co., of Liverpool, who, I believe, are the owners of the Oregon. [Mr. FORWOOD: No!] Well, they are large owners of steamers running between this country and America. The telegram says—
  "Our attention having been directed to Mr. Forwood's Question in The Times of to-day, we beg to state that the facts he assumes are quite correct, and in strict accordance with our actual experience."
  I am informed that all passenger steamers visiting the United States are
  34
  subject to the law of that country as regards inspection and certificates. I may, however, state that as regards ships' boats, the United States have adopted a rule that requires no increase to the boat accommodation carried by British passenger ships. I am advised that it is not possible for a steamer like the Oregon to carry a larger number of boats than she had with due regard to the safe navigation of the vessel, the rapid and efficient lowering of the boats in sudden emergency, and their safe carriage in bad weather. By our rule for measuring, the Oregon's boats could only accommodate 365 persons; but, according to the American statutory measurement, the same boats could accommodate 1,216 persons, or 338 more than the actual number of passengers who were on board the Oregon. But, as I stated yesterday, I have appointed a Departmental Committee of practical men to inquire into the whole question, and as to how far boats may be supplemented by rafts and other contrivances, and to report to the Board of Trade and to the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea.

  SCOTLAND-TRAMWAYS FOR CROFTER DISTRICTS.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government will consent to the facilities for the formation and working of Tramways given by the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883, being extended to those parts of Scotland included in the Crofters Bill of the Government now before Parliament?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)asked the hon. Gentleman to postpone the Question, so as to give time for its consideration.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CONSPIRACY AND DIVORCE.
  MR. H. J. WILSONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in a recent case in the Divorce Court, it was decided that evidence upon which a respondent was found guilty of adultery was not receivable as against the co-respondent; whether, in cases of conspiracy, it has been decided that evidence receivable against one prisoner is receivable also against another prisoner

  35
  who is jointly charged with that offence; whether it has also been decided that, where two persons are jointly charged with conspiracy, both must be found guilty or both acquitted; and, whether he is prepared to take steps with a view to making the Law of Evidence in cases of adultery similar to the Law of Evidence in cases of conspiracy?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The rule as to the non-admissibility of evidence mentioned in the first part of the Question is one which has been recognized in every Court of Law in the Kingdom, and is well established. A statement made, as in the case put, is evidence against the person making it, but not against any other person, if that person was not present when it was made. This rule does not affect the law relating to conspiracy, which is as stated in the Question. I see no reason, as at present advised, for such an alteration in the rules of evidence as the hon. Member proposes.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: With your permission, Sir, I wish to throw myself upon the indulgence of the House while I say a few words with reference to the Question which has just been asked. It is apparently an abstract Question; but it cannot but be taken as referring to the case in which I was recently concerned. I wish to ask the leave of the House to appeal to the hon. Member who put the Question that if he thinks right that the matter should be mentioned here, he should raise it in a form which would enable me, in some way, to meet it in the House.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—THE ULSTER LIBERAL CONVENTION.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at the "Ulster Liberal Convention" on Friday last; and, if not, whether he is aware that the resolution stated that the Liberal party in Ireland would offer a most determined opposition to the establishment of a separate Irish Parliament, as it would be certain to produce a disastrous collision between sections of the people holding conflicting views on social, economic, and religious subjects, and would produce a feeling of
  36
  insecurity which would jeopardise all industrial and commercial pursuits, and that the maintenance of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland was the best safeguard for the peace, prosperity, and liberty of all classes in Ireland; and, whether he would endeavour to produce a copy and lay it upon the Table of this House, the declaration of the opinions from those who were the adherents of the Liberal party in Ireland?
  MR. SEXTON: In reference to this Question, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the resolution referred to was adopted at a preliminary meeting only by a majority of one; if at the Convention itself an amendment declaring confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's Irish policy was made the subject of a division; that the chairman refused to ascertain in a conclusive way the result of the division; and that the mover of the amendment and those who supported him maintained that the amendment was in reality supported by a large majority of the Convention?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I have been made cognizant of the resolution to which the Question refers, and I have also heard some statements with regard to the proceedings at the meeting at which the resolution appears to have been adopted. I do not think it my duty to enter into an examination of those proceedings, and all that I have to say is already covered by what I stated on a former occasion—namely, that I shall endeavour to see whether, from the papers expressive of the views of important bodies in Ireland, a selection may be made which would be instructive.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am anxious to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question with reference to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman on the 8th of April to make a statement with respect to his Irish policy. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell the House in what form that statement will

  37
  be made; whether in such a form as to admit of the subject being fully discussed, and, if necessary, of an issue being taken upon it? I shall be happy to ask the Question on Monday if the right hon. Gentleman requires Notice.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): Most certainly, Sir, I have no difficulty in answering, in particular, the last part of the Question. The statement will be made in such a form as will admit of debate, or of any course which hon. Members may think fit to take. It will place the subject completely under the command of the House. The purport of it will be to procure the opportunity for the introduction of a Bill for the future government of Ireland. I will consider the particular form of the Motion, and lay its terms upon the Table either on Monday or Tuesday.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON MINES —THE REPORT.
  In answer to Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS (Lancashire, S.W., Newton),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the Report of the Commission on Mines had been laid on the Table, and there would be no delay in circulating it. He fully expected to be able to introduce a Bill founded on that Report and upon certain other things immediately after Easter.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE ANTRIM ARTILLERY MILITIA.
  MR. ALEXANDER BLAINEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the Antrim Artillery is to be trained at Plymouth this summer; and, whether the necessary guns and appliances to enable the men to obtain sufficient knowledge of their drill are still at Carrick-fergus Castle, and whether there is an excellent sea range for practice; if so, would he state what is the object in sending the regiment to England, at considerable expense?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (&c.): It is the usual practice to train two brigades of Artillery Militia yearly at the large fortresses in the South of England. This year the choice falls upon the Antrim Artillery. It is only at large fortresses of this class that there are
  38
  sufficient modern appliances as regards guns, mountings, &c, for the effective training of Militia Artillery in the use of recent armaments.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS — THE ESTIMATES.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. JOHN WILSON, in rising to move,—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Estimates, in conjunction with the Official Heads of Departments, before they are submitted to the House,"
    said, that the Prime Minister, in one of his addresses to his constituents in Mid Lothian, gave expression to these words:—
    "If you return a Parliament of the right kind, finance is one of the first subjects which must receive careful and close attention."
    Now, he (Mr. J. Wilson) thought they had here a Parliament of the right kind—one specially able to deal with the question of finance, for during the Election Campaign most hon. Members, in addressing their constituents, dealt very minutely with this question of finance; and nearly all of them promised, if elected, to give it their special and careful consideration. It was only 14 or 15 years ago since the Expenditure of the country was something under £70,000,000. A few years later it rose to £80,000,000; and he well remembered what a sensation the mention of that sum created throughout the country. There were Financial Reform Associations formed in nearly every town; and these Associations and the newspapers discussed the question of the growing gravity of our financial Expenditure. Now they had left £80,000,000 behind, and had reached £90,000,000. He was quite prepared to admit that it was extremely difficult to deal with this subject. It was a large, far-reaching, and intricate question; but it must be faced. There was a growing impression throughout the country that, by one means or other, some limit—and that speedily—must be put on the increase-

    39
    ing financial Expenditure of the nation. This was not a Party question. He was aware that on the hustings it was sometimes made a Party question; but he did not think either Party was identified exclusively with economy in the financial Departments. He was bound to say that, in looking into the history of the administration of the country for some years past, he was satisfied that the Gentlemen who were now represented by hon. Members opposite had on many occasions evinced as much desire for financial reform and administrative economy as Gentlemen who were represented by hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House. He was also bound to to say that perhaps both Parties at times had made financial blunders; but neither of them was entitled to the exclusive privilege or prerogative of being more peculiarly economical in their administration than the other. He had said that this question must be faced; and to-night he desired to raise a discussion on the best method of dealing with their growing Expenditure. Hon. Members of the House would be aware, from Returns recently placed in their hands from the Accountant General, how close and minute was the surveillance of the outgoings of the Expenditure of the country. They had also the Public Accounts Committee—the Standing Committee of the House dealing with the details of the Expenditure; and on looking back into the Report of that Committee for last year he was impressed with the singular minuteness with which the accounts of the country were examined. In the Comptroller General's Report lately issued there was again the same minuteness. In the list of outstanding debts given he noticed an item of 3s. as being due to the country by the Belgian Government. It was not in mere small details of the Estimates that a reduction of the Expenditure of the country could be effected. It was rather in the initiation or inception of Expenditure. Hon. Members had recently had a volume of Estimates put into their hands, comprising Votes varying from £1,000 to over £3,000,000; and he put it to hon. Members, were they satisfied when they came to vote the money that they were able to discharge this great public duty in the satisfactory manner in which they thought it ought to be done? Personally, he did not feel com-
    40
    petent to analyze the large items of Expenditure which came before them in the off-hand way that was at present expected from a Member of Parliament; and as this must be the feeling of many, he thought some change in the mode of handling the Estimates was absolutely necessary. There were various suggestions as to how this should be done. He had noticed in the newspapers that certain suggestions had been made by the Government to the Procedure Committee, with the view of a portion of the Estimates being remitted to a Special Finance Committee to be afterwards appointed. Therefore, the principle of remitting the Estimates in whole or in part to a Committee for examination had been practically acknowledged.
    MR. RAIKES: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is in Order in referring to what he supposes to have taken place in a Committee upstairs?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in referring to what has taken place in a Committee until the Committee has reported.
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid, he might put the matter in another way. Instead of adopting his method of dealing with the question, it might be suggested that the Estimates ought to be brought, in the first place, before the House, and then sent to a Committee; but he thought the mode he proposed was preferable to that. The Committee he proposed for the consideration of the Estimates could call the officials and heads of Departments before it, and examine them to see whether the Estimates were properly and economically framed. Hon. Members who by their training could bring the special knowledge of details to bear would be able to subject the officials to a much more thorough examination than the mere head of a Department could possibly do. On the Navy Estimates, the other evening, for instance, the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Jacks) pointed out several matters of detail which only a practical shipbuilder could have done. In the same way, if his suggestion were adopted, other hon. Members could bring minute knowledge of details to bear upon the investigation of the Estimates before they were submitted to the House. During the discussion on the Naval Estimates, the House was told it was not so much a question of expense

    41
    as efficiency that was desired; and yet three eminent naval authorities variously estimated the additional sum necessary to put the Navy into a satisfactory condition at £2,000,000, £5,500,000, and £11,000,000. How could hon. Members decide the question of efficiency when naval authorities differed so widely? During the past five years the country had spent £60,000,000 on the Navy; and yet we were told we had not a line-of-battle ship which could face a foe, and we had not a single gunboat which could be relied upon. Had that £60,000,000 been spent under the supervision of such a Committee as he had suggested he was satisfied such complaints would not have been made. Another reason in favour of his Motion was that the House would have the assurance that the Estimates would come before it under the examination of a large number of hon. Members. Members did not attend the discussion on the Estimates, not from want of interest, but through incompetency to deal with the large sums involved in the wholesale way in which the Estimates now came before the House. It was that feeling of inability which deterred so many hon. Members from taking part in the discussions on the Estimates. The Government, of course, were responsible for the Estimates; but he did not think that if his plan were adopted there would be any infringement of Government responsibility. They could still draft the Estimates. They would have the suggestions of this Committee, which they could adopt or not as they pleased; and by-and-bye they would come before the House with the Report of the Finance Committee, and the House would then deal with the Estimates in the usual way, so that neither would the responsibility of the Government be lessened, nor the independence of the House forestalled. As to the composition of the proposed Committee, he would make it large and representative. It would, of course, require to be large, because it would be necessary, no doubt, to appoint sub-Committees. The majority would require to be in sympathy with the Government of the day; but at the same time there would be a large proportion of hon. Gentlemen from the Opposition. He had brought his Motion forward with the simple desire to draw the attention of the House to
    42
    the matter of our Expenditure. He thought the time was most opportune. They had the Estimates before the House, and this question was also before the Committee on Procedure; and he thought a discussion on the best method of dealing with the Estimates would be instructive, not only to the House, but to the country at large.
    MR. MASON, in rising to second the Motion, said, every economist in the country who had watched the alarming increase of the Expenditure during the last 10 years felt that the time had come when a stand must be made to put a check upon the extravagance of the Public Services. The method proposed by this Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. John Wilson), he believed, commended itself to those hon. Members having a practical knowledge of commercial undertakings on a large scale, and, indeed, of daily business life. It had long appeared to him, and to many gentlemen outside the House of Commons, that it was almost a hopeless task for any individual Member to succeed in cutting down an Estimate after it had been adopted by the Government of the day; and he feared that Ministers, who were responsible to the Government for the Estimates, were very much guided, if not controlled, by I the official heads of the various Departments, whose sole object would appear to be to swell the Estimates year by year. Governments came and Governments passed away; but the official heads went on for ever, and proved to be too strong for the transitory Ministers. This year's Estimates were, in the opinion of many hon. Members, disgracefully too high, more particularly those for the Army. £18,250,000 sterling for the Army in a period of peace, when the country was suffering acutely from trade depression, was calculated to arouse a just and bitter feeling of hostility against the governing classes. By comparing the Estimates of the present year with those of 10 years ago they found a very striking contrast indeed. In 1875 the Civil Service, the Army, and the Navy Estimates were £40,000,000 sterling. The amount asked for in the Estimates lately issued I to the House were, in the aggregate, the enormous sum of £50,000,000 sterling. Now, what was there to justify this great increase over the Estimates of

    43
    1875? He (Mr. Mason) knew they would be told that the Education Vote was so much more; and no one, he believed, grudged that. Then it was said our weapons of war are so much superior now, and that scientific discoveries travel so rapidly we are constantly requiring to renew them. There were also many other stock arguments made to do duty which he need not allude to. But all these did not explain the real cause. Sheer waste, gross mismanagement, and extravagance would be much nearer the actual truth. Of course, many of the new hon. Members, of which he was one, composing a majority of the House, had not yet been initiated into all the mysteries of knowing "how not to do it;" but they were at a loss to understand why a Lieutenant in the Army must retire at 40 years of age, and a Captain at the same age, a Major at 48, and a Lieutenant-Colonel at 55, all on half-pay. Others must take their places on full pay. The country had by this stupid system to pay one and a-half times for its officers in the Army, and these gentlemen who were forced to retire were burdened with a miserable life of idleness and half-starved into the bargain, and the country was burdened by finding the money to keep them in a state of misery. But what struck him and others as business men was this—why there should be an enormous increase when, in the ordinary course and natural order of things, there should have been a large decrease? Everyone was fully aware of the great fall in the value of all commodities except gold which has taken place during the last decade. Prices of all the supplies which Her Majesty's Government required must have fallen not less than from 30 to 50 per cent. As an illustration, ships could now be built on the Clyde 30 to 40 per cent less than they could have been built for 10 years ago. Whether such was the case in Her Majesty's Dockyards he could not say. But if not, why not? Probably some Member of the Government would be able to explain. These Estimates are most unsatisfactory, and very disappointing to many hon. Members who were hopefully looking for reduced Estimates. But they were told the Government—that is the present Government—were not to blame for these bloated Estimates; they were the work of their
    44
    Predecessors in Office. The country would learn, then, the penalty it had had to pay for a few months of Tory rule. What might it not have been if years had elapsed instead of months? But if they must submit to pay for their folly for this year, he very much misapprehended the temper of this new Parliament and the feeling of the country if it did not demand that at least £10,000,000 should be struck off the Estimates next year, which he believed could be done without endangering the defence of the country or interfering with the proper efficiency of the Services. Many hon. Members had come there pledged to economy, and they meant to act up to their pledges, because they believed it to be a just and a wise policy, and that this Finance Committee would help the Government of the day to carry it into effect. The new Members were amazed with the minute details given in the Estimates of several of the items, especially when they compared these with the manner of passing the Supplementary Estimates in connection with Sir Drummond Wolff's Mission to Egypt. There were £12,500 for expenses, and a like sum for telegrams, which, added together, gave £25,000. He (Mr. Mason) believed it was considered on his side of the House that the Mission was not worth 25 pence. But no explanation was given of the large lump sum for telegrams; and what amazed him and others was that in the Civil Service Estimates he found an item of £10 for a rat-catcher at Windsor Castle. Surely if they got details in the one case there ought to be more in the other. They listened to a very interesting debate the other night on the Army Estimates; and shortly after midnight the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) announced to a thin House—in fact a handful of hon. Members—that he wanted £18,250,000 sterling—a stupendous sum—£4,000,000 or £5,000,000 being voted there and then. Now, it was an easy matter to pass trippingly over the tongue these vast sums, or even to vote them. But it was not such an easy matter to get the money from the industrial classes in these trying times. Trade was bad, manufacturers' profits had reached the vanishing point, depressed agriculture, the labourers and

    45
    artizans of the United Kingdom—those who really produced the wealth of the country—had a difficulty in securing employment; the Revenue no longer went forward with leaps and bounds; but rather it showed unmistakable signs of going back. Was this, therefore, a time to go on increasing our Expenditure? A few weeks hence the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to provide the Ways and Means. Either he must continue to suspend the Sinking Fund for the redemption of the Debt or impose fresh taxation. If the latter course were adopted, where was the money to come from? Was it to be an increase of the Income Tax, or what? That, then, was the practical outcome of these swollen Estimates, by no means a pleasant one for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but far more unpleasant to the poor unfortunate taxpayers. The foreign policy of this country had been greatly changed for the better during the last 40 years; imperceptibly, gradually, but yet surely, caused by the commercial policy inaugurated by the late lamented Mr. Cobden and the pure and noble-minded Sir Robert Peel, and carried forward by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and last, though not least, the present Prime Minister. These great statesmen had set in motion principles which were silently revolutionizing the world. They had altered and diverted the old aggressive policy of this country, which was promoted by the art of war into one not less aggressive, but much more beneficial, by the arts of peace. Why, then again, he asked, in the face of such a condition of things, should we be called upon to vote Estimates which had no parallel since the Crimean War? Instead of preparing constantly for war, wasting our national resources, our first duty should be to prepare for work. Unquestionably our industrial power was now the chief pillar of our strength. Let that by any means be partially struck with paralysis, and the foremost place we now occupy amongst the nations would be gone. Foreign competition of the fiercest kind was already running us hard in the neutral markets of the world; and not only so—the home market was being evaded by the foreigner. Every manufacturer felt it keenly. But he was not so foolish as
    46
    to believe that Fair Trade nostrums would give either one or any fellow-manufacturers relief. He looked for the remedy in quite another direction, and that direction was economy. It followed that whatever helped to lighten the springs of industry should earnestly engage our attention; and, therefore, the future taxation of the country must not only be reduced, but made to fall more heavily on realized wealth. This proposed Finance Committee might consider the sources of the National Income, and help by suggestions to guide the Government of the day as to the sources of income, and the best method of raising the Revenue. It would not, as some people supposed, relieve the Government of any responsibility; neither would it hamper the action of the House. Doubtless, if the Government went against the finding of the Committee the House would know the reason why; but individual Members would then be ably assisted, cutting down the Estimates if the Committee so decided, and the Government would in that case have to fight the Committee in the House. On the other hand, if the Government and the Committee were agreed a vast deal of time wasted now in fruitless discussion would be saved. There were three things essentially necessary to enable this country to maintain its position as a first-class agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing nation in Europe; and these were—economical government, just taxation, and perfect freedom of trade. The last we had, in a large measure, already obtained; the second only to a very partial extent indeed. The first, he feared, was in the dim and distant future. But if the House established this Committee it might help them to realize it, although only to a limited extent, during the present generation.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Estimates, in conjunction with the Official Heads of Departments, before they are submitted to the House,"—(Mr. John Wilson (Edinburgh,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT):

    47
    Sir, I can assure my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution that they will always find, at least in the individual who happens to fill the Office which I have the honour to hold, a strong sympathy with the objects which, they have at heart. There was never a time, I think, when it was more essential that this country should consider, and consider most carefully, the extent of its Expenditure. It has grown to a point which it has hardly ever reached before. I am speaking now of the normal Expenditure, not of the extraordinary Expenditure upon particular occasions. But I am not going to enter upon that great question now at any length—it will be my duty to bring that before the House at a later period; still less am I going to follow my hon. Friend who seconded this Motion—the discussion on taxation and the incidence of taxation. That, again, will belong to another occasion. But I agree myself very much in the opinion of the Mover and the Seconder that this House does not, and under existing circumstances cannot, give that examination to the Estimates proposed by the Government in anything like the measure which the House ought to give. So far I entirely agree with the Mover of this Motion. It would be out of Order, as the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raikes) has pointed out, that I should refer to any particulars of what is going on in the Committee of Procedure upstairs; but I think it would not be out of Order for me to say that the question of how the Estimates should be dealt with is one of the subjects which is under the consideration of that Committee, and I hope my hon. Friend will be content, at least, to wait until that Committee—which is a very competent Committee, with great experience both in financial affairs and also in the Business of this House—will have an opportunity of fully discussing and sifting this question, and reporting to the House on it. If I were to make any criticism on this Motion—which I hope it may not be necessary for me at present to do at any length—I would say that I cannot concur in the form, though I do in the substance, of the Motion. As I understand the proposal, it is that the Estimates shall not be examined by the House, but that they shall be examined beforehand by a Committee of the House. Well, that
    48
    would make the Committee of the House partners in the responsibility of the Government, which, I think, would be a most dangerous and mischievous thing, and I am not at all sure that the result would be economy. I think it is just as likely, by relaxing the responsibility of the Government, to lead to extravagant expenditure. How can you be sure that all the Members of that Committee would be economists? I do not find that economy is recommended on one side of the House much more than on the other, because I have heard demands of all kinds from both sides of the House—demands which I have had to resist upon one side as well as on the other, though they may be all for admirable objects. I have been perfectly appalled at the demands made in discussion of such a Bill, for instance, as the Crofters Bill and upon other subjects. Then you may have a Committee which would propose expenditure. [Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA: Hear, hear!] I do not know if the hon. Baronet desires that such should be the case. [Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA: No.] You may depend upon it that you had much better keep the Government well in hand, well under control of the House, and to hold them responsible for the Estimates. If the Government does not act as the House desires, the House can deal with them. And I am sorry to say that I believe that the increased Expenditure has been quite as much the doing of this House in recent years as of the Government; and you may depend upon it that, as soon as ever Governments discover that the House of Commons desires economy, you will have economical Governments But as long as you have demands made—it may be one day for increased pay for the Civil Service, one day for one thing and another day for another—all for most admirable objects, but which, all combined, lead to the growth of immense expenditure—so long will you have expenditure growing. I do not think, therefore, it could possibly be of any advantage to make this examination beforehand; because what would be the Estimates then when presented to this House? The Government could not be held to be responsible for them. You could not call the Government to account, or censure them on account of the Estimates. The Government would say—"It is your Committee's fault; they are partners with us." It

    49
    would be a sort of Adam and Eve transaction between the Government and the Committee with reference to any transgression in the Estimates. Therefore I do not think that particular form of proceeding advocated by my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution would conduce to the object they have at heart. There is another objection. The objection which I have spoken of is a Constitutional revolution. It is a sin against the fundamental principle laid down by the Prime Minister the other night, because it amounts to the overthrow of the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility in recommending expenditure. There is another objection of a minor character. The proposal of my hon. Friends would require a complete alteration in the whole framework of the Business of the House, because the Estimates, by our Standing Orders, must be laid on the Table 10 days after the opening of the Committee of Supply, and an investigation of this character must last over many weeks; and, therefore, the House itself would not get the Estimates till a later period in the Session. It would alter the whole character of our proceedings; and I, therefore, do not think that this antecedent examination is one which we could accept. As to the subsequent examination of the Estimates by a body set apart for the purpose, I very much myself concur in that idea. I do think there ought to be a much more careful examination than we are able to give now to the Estimates. They should be examined both in the whole and in detail. The examination in the whole—that is, the principle of our Expenditure—ought to take place in this House; but the examination as to details might with advantage be dealt with in Committee. I do not think you can part with the jurisdiction of the House in determining the great Votes for the Services; but, as to the particulars and details of the Estimates, I should be very glad to see a more effective machinery for their examination. I hope my hon. Friends will be satisfied with this assurance, and will allow the matter to be worked out by the Committee upstairs. I am sure, from the interest which the House takes in this question, the discussion which has taken place upon it will be of a solid advantage.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: I wish to explain that I gave Notice of this Motion
    50
    four weeks ago, before there was any intimation of what the Government proposed——
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Motion?
    MR. JOHN WILSON: Under the assurance given I wish to withdraw the Motion. ["No, no!"]
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUNDS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    CAPTAIN PRICE, in rising to call attention to the distribution of Greenwich Hospital Funds, said that, if the Forms of the House would have allowed him, he should have been glad to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice, which was—
    "That, in order to keep faith with the Seamen and Marines who entered or re-engaged in. Her Majesty's Service under the Regulations as to Greenwich Pensions laid down by the Order in Council of the 9th day of September 1865, the provisions of the said Order in Council should be carried out."
    At the last General Election this question excited a good deal of interest at the naval ports. When he formerly brought the question before the House I it had not one-tenth of the importance it had now. The number of seamen and Marines affected by the Regulations as to the Greenwich Hospital pension was now much larger than a few years ago; so that the funds of the Hospital, which were some years ago fully adequate to meet all the claims upon them, were now insufficient, and there was not enough to give pensions to all persons eligible. It might be said that, after all, it was only a small matter, as, at the most, the Hospital pension only amounted to 9d. per day. He could assure hon. Members, however, that it was by no means a small matter to the persons affected. They were men advanced in years, very frequently unable to do any sort of labour, and often this pension was the only thing a man had to look forward to. He knew cases in which the small pittance was the only means of support. Many men, in reliance upon the receipt of the pension at the age of 55, had not made provision for old age in benefit societies. Others, through not receiving the pension, found

    51
    themselves unable to continue their subscriptions to such societies. There were now about 3,000 men who were eligible under the existing rules to pensions, who had been looking forward to them all their lives, and who now could not get them; and as years went on that number would be increased. When the Greenwich Hospital was disestablished in 1865 a bargain was entered into with the men. They were told that, for many reasons, it was desirable to disestablish the Hospital, but that their rights to it were to be respected, and in lieu of having this place to go to in their old age they might remain outside the Hospital and be granted a pension. Certain Parliamentary Papers were presented the other day, one of which was a copy of the Admiralty Circular of September, 1865. He was surprised, however to find that the Circular on which the men founded their claim to a pension—the Order in Council of 1865—had not been presented to the House. He found that the Paper which had been presented to Parliament was the copy of the Admiralty Circular of September, 1865, addressed to the in-pensioners; and he was anxious to see whether the Representatives of the Admiralty were going to rest their case on the statements contained in that Paper. It was desirable, however, to remember that that Paper also referred to out-pensioners. It is stated on the part of the Admiralty that any in-pensioner who was discharged from the Hospital would receive the same amount of out-pension as he received when he came into the Hospital. It also stated that the Act of 1865 authorized the Lords of the Admiralty to provide that if a pensioner was 55 years of age and had been a pensioner within or out of the Hospital for a period of five years he would obtain 5d. a-day and an additional 4d. at the age of 70. It was under those conditions that men claimed a title to pensions. They looked upon the disestablishment of the Hospital and the promise of pensions as a bargain that their rights in the Hospital were to be respected by the granting of pensions. Now, there could in his mind be no doubt that the Order in Council ought to be carried out; but, as he had said, there had been a Circular issued by the Admiralty which was headed to "in-pensioners," but which he contended from the body of it referred clearly to
    52
    "out-pensioners;" and this contention he considered was proved by the fact that it was issued side by side with the Order in Council, which made no reference to "in-pensioners" at all; and, further, there were at the time only about 1,400 "in-pensioners." The Committee who had examined the question, and upon whose recommendations the scheme was based, expressly stated that the number of pensioners who might be interested in the scheme would probably be about 5,000; so that it was practically clear, and proved to demonstration, that the Admiralty Circular could not apply to in-pensioners only. In 1870, he might add, the Admiralty, in a reply to a Memorial, stated over again the conditions and amounts of pensions, and added that there was no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to depart from the promises which had been made to all pensioners, irrespective of any other pension which they might be enjoying. It was clear, therefore, that the Government had made the promise, and that it referred to the pensioners of the Hospital generally. But how was it that the funds of the Hospital had not been sufficient to give pensions to all the men who had a claim upon them? He thought the reason was to be found in the fact that at the time of the disestablishment of the Hospital and the institution of the pensions which were to be a quid pro quo correct calculations were not made by the Admiralty. Experience had shown that the money had run out, and that there was not sufficient now to give to those pensioners who were eligible under the rules. The next thing which was done with the Greenwich funds was this. The right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) formed what was called a Pensioners' Reserve. He found that the funds of Greenwich Hospital were in a flourishing condition; and he thought that it would be an excellent thing to increase the Reserve Forces of the Crown, not at the expense of Imperial funds, but at the expense of what was really a charitable endowment, or, as the Admiralty themselves invariably designated it, "a charity;" and that had been done to the extent of some £3,000 or £4,000 a-year. In 1869, four years after the disestablishment of the Hospital, the right hon. Gentleman es-

    53
    tablished this Pensioners' Reserve, whose remuneration was to be obtained from the funds of Greenwich Hospital. He arranged that those pensioners who chose to join this Reserve and come up for certain drills every year should receive a pension from the funds of Greenwich Hospital at the age of 50; whereas, if they had not joined that Reserve, they would have had to wait until the age of 55. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had believed the number of pensioners joining this Reserve would ultimately reach 5,000 men, entailing a cost on the Greenwich funds of £19,000 a-year. He (Captain Price) was glad to say that the Reserve had been, to some extent, a failure, and that it had only drawn on those funds to the extent, as he had said, of between £3,000 and £4,000 a-year. That was a considerable drain on the funds of Greenwich; and he did not see why payment should be made to the Naval Reserve out of an endowment like the Greenwich Hospital, instead of from the Imperial funds. He thought he should say a word on another point. It had been thought by some of the pensioners that a great number of officers were put into Greenwich Hospital who had no right to be there; and he had often been asked—was it a fact that officers were pensioned out of the fund? Well, the matter had been thoroughly thrashed out a great many years ago, and it was found that although the names of officers were not mentioned in the Charter of the Hospital, yet from the very first they were made inmates of the Hospital, some being among the first 100 admitted: and, therefore, it was clear that they were considered as equally entitled as the men to the benefits of the institution. Well, while he made that admission, he should like to say this—that if the pensions of the men were to be restricted, the same restriction should be made pro rata in the case of the officers; and on this subject he had himself founded a Motion some years ago. Then he came to the responsibility of Parliament in this matter. The Admiralty were Trustees of the Hospital; and if the Admiralty were Trustees, they being under the control of Parliament, it was tantamount to saying that Parliament were the Trustees. The men held that they had a right to these pensions; but, on the other hand, the
    54
    representatives of the Admiralty maintained they had no right, and that these pensions were given at the discretion of the Admiralty. But the same might be said of all pay and pensions paid in connection with the Navy; and what he wanted to know was—How was the discretion exercised with regard to Greenwich Hospital pensioners? Neither he nor the men concerned meant to contend that they had a legal right to the pensions; but custom, to a great extent, made the law, and was, indeed, the foundation of the Common Law of England; and such pensions had, at all events, always been paid as a matter of certainty from 1865 up to the year 1878. In what respect were these Greenwich Hospital pensions more under the discretion of the Admiralty than any other pensions and pay? The seamen pensioners had never been told that their pensions were at the discretion of the Admiralty. It would naturally be asked, What would it cost to satisfy the claims of those men eligible for the Greenwich Hospital pensions, but who did not get them, and where was the money to come from? He was informed that about £20,000 would be sufficient, and that amount would have to be paid until all the claims of those men were satisfied who entered the Service prior to the year 1878. How was the money to be found? The funds of Greenwich Hospital had been very carefully nursed, especially in recent years; but he thought there should be a re-investment. There was the large sum of £1,500,000 of Greenwich Hospital property still invested in Consols; and it would be wise to re-invest £1,000,000 of that in some securities, which would give a better interest than Consols. He believed there was no money invested in Australian, Cape of Good Hope, or Canadian securities. Well, by re-investing the sum he had referred to in those securities it would give something like £7,000 or £8,000 a-year of the required sum. Then, by the Government giving up the remuneration which they now gave to the Pensioners' Reserve, and by placing it as a charge on the Navy Estimates, they might realize £3,000 a-year for the purpose. There was another source from which funds might be got. At Greenwich there was a school in which provision was made for the support of 1,000

    55
    boys. The Government had a right to enter these boys in the Navy; and, as a matter of fact, something over 100 boys entered the Naval Service from that school. He would ask, why should not the Government pay Greenwich Hospital for these boys, as they did in other cases? The Government paid £25 for each boy they got from the training ships in the Thames or other places; but there was not even a Government grant given to this school. If the Government would pay for these boys, it would give £2,500 towards the £20,000; which he maintained was necessary. Finally, if the age for second instalments was changed from 65 years of age to 70, that would release another £4,000 a-year, making in all nearly about the entire amount. It might be said that the pensioners themselves would not like this; but he had taken the opinion of the pensioners to the best of his ability, and he knew that the men themselves were willing that it should be done. A Petition had been sent to the Admiralty from Devonport and Plymouth, in which that had been one of the suggestions. If the sum could not be provided from the funds of the Hospital, Parliament had a deep responsibility with regard to the whole of the question; and, sooner than break faith with the seamen, it should ask for money from the Consolidated Fund if it could not be found in the manner in which he had suggested. He was quite sure that Parliament would do wisely in looking into this matter, with a view to keeping faith with the pensioners.
    MR. VANDERBYLsaid, he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion which had been proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Price). The fact that the Mover and the Seconder sat on different sides of the House showed that this was no mere Party question. In his own constituency there were at least 2,000 naval pensioners interested; and he knew that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction and soreness prevailing in regard to it. They were under the impression that the funds of Greenwich Hospital were created in their interest, and that the terms on which they entered the Navy, according to the Order in Council of 1865, entitled them to pensions; and they felt that the promises then made should be carried out.
    56
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, in stating the case of the naval pensioners, said that he was not a lawyer; but he (Mr. Vanderbyl) thought he was justified in saying that, if there was not an express contract, there was an implied contract; and, that being so, he did not think that the Admiralty would be justified in ignoring an arrangement considered equitable and fair when it was entered into. He might remind the House that before the Committee, over which the Duke of Edinburgh had presided on the subject, Captain Holland had said that it was most desirable that the soreness of the naval pensioners on this question should be overcome; and Captain Chanwick, of the American Navy, had expressed himself to the effect that a large body of naval pensioners, going back to the places where they came, acted as a leaven through their discipline, resources, energy, and honesty among other classes. It was essential that a just grievance of that kind should be remedied. There was just one other point with which he would trouble the House. On going into Hospital reductions had been made from the pensions of the men disproportionate to the reductions made from the pensions of the officers; and he ventured to submit that if it was necessary that those reductions should be made it was only right and fair that the reductions should be made in the same proportion all round. If the special pensions were done away with there would be more money for the regular seamen, who were so well entitled to their pensions. With those few remarks, he begged to second the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that it was the duty of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, as Trustees of this charitable fund, to endeavour to make the most profitable investment of these funds, to protect the property from any misappropriation; and, in the third place, so to regulate their management that they did not hold out any expectations to the seamen which they were not able to perform. If some private person were Trustee of that property, and had to administer it for the benefit of the pensioners, he would probably sell the buildings and site, and invest the proceeds for the benefit of the persons in-

    57
    terested. But, the Trustees being the Board of Admiralty, it was proposed to let the buildings at the absurdly inadequate rent of £100 a-year. The amount of money which was by that means diverted from its proper and legitimate object was no less than £3,000 per annum, and he asked the Secretary to the Admiralty to put a stop to that. He had in vain repeatedly asked for an explanation of this singular course of action. It was nothing less than a misapplication of the funds to let the buildings for the purpose to which they were applied at this nominal rent. The Seamen and Seamen Pensioners' Reserve Force had been proved before H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee to be practically a failure. There were only 6,750 men in the force, and it was certainly a misappropriation to apply the fund in any way for the benefit of the active service. Then they ought to pay for the boys who were trained for the Navy just as they paid any other training ship or school. He would ask that the steps taken should be retraced, and that the fund should henceforth only be applied to its proper purposes. Then an obvious breach of faith had been committed against the Greenwich pensioners. The terms of the pensions had been settled in 1870, and it was expressly provided that the pensions to be provided out of the fund should be in addition to any others to which the pensioners had been entitled. But now all were to be reduced to a dead level, and the promises made in 1870 had not been fulfilled. He hoped they would hear nothing about legal obligations of the Admiralty. It was not a question of legal obligation, but of honour. It was the duty of the Board of Admiralty, who had this large property under their charge, to administer it for the benefit of the pensioners. If they let the property at all, it was obvious that it should be let at its full value, and the proceeds devoted to the objects of the fund. He earnestly hoped that the Board would consider the matter in a generous spirit, and if they did so they would see that the complaints which had been made were not ill-founded.
    SIR JOHN COMMERELLsaid, that this question was a burning one among a very large number of seamen, and would in the future have a great deal to do with the entry
    58
    of men into the Service, because there was a widespread feeling that the Admiralty had not kept faith with the seamen, and had by a legal quibble attempted to deprive them of their just rights. He objected altogether to the Government proposal that the pensions hitherto enjoyed by seamen when they attained 55 or 70 years of age should be converted into special pensions, which would inevitably be conferred by favour upon those who had friends in that House or in the Service, instead of upon poor and friendless men. He entirely denied that the fund was now better administered than it had been before; and he thought that it was a mistake, in these days of Board Schools, to deprive the old men of their pensions in order to increase the grant to the schools from £22,000 to £29,000. If the magnificent property at Greenwich were to be kept intact it should be at the expense of the nation, and not of these poor old sailors. If the funds were carefully administered and allocated alone to the purposes for which they were intended in 1865 there would be no necessity to ask for a contribution from the Consolidated Fund, and there would be ample means of giving the poor men that which they honestly and truly believed was their right.
    SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANsaid, he thought that the difference between £152,000, the income of the Hospital, and £145,000, the amount of the expenditure—namely, £7,000, together with other sums referred to in the Report of this Duke of Edinburgh's Committee, would be sufficient to provide for these pensions. If the funds did not admit of the whole amount being paid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not refuse to grant the very small sum that would be required to complete the amount from the Consolidated Fund.
    SIR EDWARD BATESsaid, that they had had the opinion of a Naval Officer, and also a legal opinion from the late Solicitor General. He would now give the House a mercantile opinion. If the statements made by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) were correct, which he verily believed them to be, he would only say, speaking as a mercantile man, that neither he nor any other mercantile man of standing would deny that there had been a gross and wilful misapplication of the

    59
    funds applicable to these pensions. The idea of letting Greenwich Hospital for £100 a-year was simply folly. The Government had better have taken the place for nothing than have committed an act of that kind. Instead of investing these funds in the Three per Cents the Admiralty should have invested £1,000,000 of them in the Guaranteed Four per Cents which had been lately issued. They would 1hen have more than enough to give these men their right and their due. He had given them now what he considered a mercantile opinion, and he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff) would state that after what he had heard that night he gave the matter a full and favourable consideration.
    ADMIRALFIELDsaid, he protested against the fact that in the question of the legal right to these pensions the Admiralty had acted as judges in their own cause. A good deal had been said about finding ways and means to meet the extra charge involved; but he had to point out that there was a fund which actually belonged to the seamen of the Fleet, and that was the savings on the provisions of the Fleet. These savings, he believed, amounted to something like £34,000 annually, which would meet the extra charge and leave a balance of £14,000 besides. That fund, belonging not to the nation, but to the seamen, ought to be applied for the benefit of the seamen. This was a question of contract, and any departure from the spirit of the Circular of 1865 was a breach of faith utterly unworthy of any Department.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that when urging seamen to remain in the Navy on account of the good pensions which had been promised them, he had frequently been met with the rejoinder that the promises might be altered any day by an Order in Council. The men said they were never sure of getting what had been promised them. In his own experience he had had to wait no less than 16 years before he received some small prize money to which he was entitled. That was a usual occurrence, and he wished to impress on the House that these things rankled in the breasts of the seamen. Even in a financial point of view, there was no more expensive way of engaging men
    60
    for any employment than to do so under circumstances in which the men had not confidence that faith would be kept with them. He hoped the Government would look at the matter not from a strictly legal, but from a point of view in every sense of the word liberal.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. W. DUFF)said, that the subject raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir William Crossman) was one of very great interest to the Naval Profession, and especially to the men. He should like, in the first place, to notice the point referred to by almost every speaker, and that was the assumed breach of faith on the part of the Admiralty with regard to the Circular of 1865. Now, when Greenwich Hospital was abolished there were two sets of provisions. In the first place, there was a Circular issued to the in-pensioners, which said that any in-pensioner would receive a specified amount per day "whether he is in or out of the Hospital." But the naval pensioners who had formed the subject of the present debate had been dealt with in an entirely different manner. They were dealt with by an Order in Council, which was the outcome of the Act 28 & 29 Vict., and issued in 1865. The Circular was very distinct in its terms—
    "An extra pension of 5d. per day may, at the discretion of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, be granted to seamen and Marines now in receipt of pensions who are over 55 years of age."
    The two classes of pensions were quite distinct. Now, with regard to the original Circular. When Greenwich Hospital was abolished the intention was to have a limit of 5,000. It was true that was not stated in any Circular; but there was no doubt about the intentions of the Admiralty.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present: House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. R. W. DUFF, resuming, said, that things went on so until 1869, when the maximum of 5,000 was exceeded. In 1878 Sir Massey Lopes held the Office which he (Mr. Duff) had now the honour to hold. He spoke with the greatest possible respect of Sir Massey Lopes, whose personal friendship he had the honour to claim, and who had left behind him the character of a strong

    61
    Civil Lord of the Admiralty. But Sir Massey Lopes took too sanguine a view of the resources of Greenwich Hospital. The original intention might have been carried out, he believed, but for the alterations made in 1878. In the first place, the age was reduced to 65 from 70. That involved an increased charge upon Greenwich Hospital of between £10,000 and £12,000 a-year. Then 200 boys were added to the school, which made another increase in charge to the amount of £5,000, so that about £15,000 a-year more would have fallen on the funds. The hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Southampton (Sir John Commerell) was anxious to put a pensioner's coat on every seaman's back; but you must cut your coat according to the cloth. The hon. and gallant Admiral was on the Board in 1879, and he (Mr. Duff) did not find that any step was taken by the Colleagues of the hon. and gallant Admiral in the direction now advocated.
    SIR JOHN COMMERELLsaid, that he was not on the Board until the latter part of 1879.
    MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that they had now reached the limits. They were already spending £98,000 a-year, and the scheme proposed would involve an additional £15,500, which would bring up the entire sum spent on pensions to £113,500. He did not think they would be justified, having regard to the other charges, to spend £113,500 in that way. The appropriation of Greenwich Hospital was as follows:—Superannuations and maintenance of painted hall, &c, 2 per cent; pensions to officers and education allowance to children, 5½ per cent; pensions to seamen and Marines, and maintenance in hospitals, 64¼ per cent; education of children of seamen, &c, 21 per cent; pensions to widows, &c, and gratuities to relatives, 1¼ per cent; cost of administration, 2 per cent; surplus, 4 per cent; total, 100 per cent. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) dwelt upon the question of granting £3,000 a-year towards the pensions of Reserves. That was a matter open to discussion. It had been before the Admiralty, and all he could say was that it had been submitted to the Treasury, and was now under consideration. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Sir John Gorst) found fault with
    62
    the way in which the Admiralty dealt with Greenwich Hospital buildings, and thought that they ought to be sold. Under the Greenwich Hospital Act of 1869 power was conferred upon the Admiralty to permit the buildings to be occupied temporarily for the purposes of the Naval Service. When the Hospital was closed in 1869 these vast buildings had to be maintained at the charge of Greenwich funds. The buildings were historical and of great architectural merit, and it was not practicable to relieve Greenwich funds by selling the buildings or letting them for commercial purposes. The cost of maintenance was about £3,400 a-year. In 1873 the Admiralty decided to utilize the buildings for the purposes of a Naval College, and from that date all charges in connection with the buildings so appropriated had been transferred to naval funds. A nominal rent of £100 a-year was paid, and it was a condition that the buildings were to be kept in thorough repair, and might be re-occupied for the purposes of a hospital if required. With regard to the Greenwich Hospital landed estates the charge for management was no doubt very large. It came to 47 per cent. He might say that the Admiralty were considering the matter, with the view of seeing whether the charge could not be reduced.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present: House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjoured at Eight o'clock till Monday next.