Commons Sitting of 21 March 1887

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES, Vote 2; CIVIL. SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; CLASS II—SALARIES AND EXPENSES or CIVIL DEPARTMENTS; CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS: REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (Vote on Account) £3,624 [100].
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£1,231,070; £12,078,800, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Army (Annual)(* [202]: Isle of Man'(Customs) * [199]: Small Debts (Scotland) * [42]: Pauper Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) (Superannuation)* [62].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites)* [197].
Third Reading—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment * [168], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED ILLEGAL ARRESTS—CHARGE AGAINST SERGEANT WHARTON.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the

  817
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on 9th January, Sergeant Wharton, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, entered the house of a Mr. John M'Nulty, near Loughglynn, and arrested J. M'Nultyand eight other persons whom he found in the house; whether Sergeant Wharton searched J. M'Nulty and took money from his person; whether, on M'Nulty objecting to this treatment, Constable Anderson, who accompanied Sergeant Wharton, drew a revolver and threatened to use it against M'Nulty and the others; whether J. M'Nulty and the others were taken by Sergeant Wharton and his force before the Honourable Charles Ffrench, a brother of Lord do Freyne, whose tenants they were and whose rents they were accused of withholding; whether the entry into the house of Mr. M'Nulty by the band of armed constables, the arrest?, the searching of Mr. M'Nulty, and the seizure of his money were each and all made without any warrant; whether proceedings against Mr. M'Nulty have recently been dropped by the Government; and, whether the Government propose in any way to recompense M'Nulty and the others for the treatment they have received?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: John M'Nulty and nine other persons were arrested, as stated in the first paragraph of the Question, without a warrant, on a charge of criminal conspiracy, when actually engaged in collecting money under the Plan of Campaign, which was seized by the sergeant. They were at once brought before Mr. Ffrench, as described in the Question, the nearest, and indeed only, available magistrate. He confined himself, after having taken an information, to ordering the discharge of nine of the accused, and sending M'Nulty's case for investigation to Petty Sessions, offering to accept bail for his appearance thereat. A rescue having been threatened Sergeant Wharton drew his revolver, and cautioned the persons interfering to stand aside; but he used no threats to M'Nulty. M'Nulty and five others were returned for trial from Petty Sessions; and, as I have already stated, in answer to a Question, in the exorcise of the discretion I possess I have directed that the proceedings should not be continued by the Crown, but that no recompense will be paid to the accused.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there was any warrant?
  MR. HOLMES: I have already said there was not.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state who was the magistrate before whom the men were brought?
  MR. HOLMES: I have stated it was the Mr. Ffrench described in the Question.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the second paragraph of the Question—whether Sergeant Wharton searched M'Nulty and took money from his person?
  MR. HOLMES: Oh, I omitted to state that the sergeant took money which had been collected by M'Nulty.
  MR. CHANCE: And the sergeant was not entitled to do so?
  MR. HOLMES: I hold he was perfectly entitled to do so.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—ACCELERATION OF MAILS NORTH OF PERTH.
  MR. FINLAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the great dissatisfaction in Inverness and the North of Scotland generally, with the slow rate at which the London Day Mail is carried from Perth to Wick and Strome Ferry, and of the fact that it now takes about 10 hours more than the London Night Mail to traverse the distance between London and Wick, he is willing to re-consider the possibility of accelerating the London Day Mail north of Perth, in accordance with the Memorials sent in to him from the Northern towns and counties on the subject?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am aware that the London Day Mail is carried from Perth to Wick and Strome Ferry by a slower train than that employed for the London Night Mail. But the postal revenue of the district would be altogether inadequate to justify the maintenance of two Mail Trains a-day throughout, running at the speed and under the conditions of the Night Mail Train The payments made for the conveyance of Mails north of Perth are already so considerable that it may become a serious question on the next revision of the contract whether, if more

  819
  moderate payments cannot be accepted by the Highland Railway Company, the liberal and effective postal service in the districts traversed by that lino may not have to be reduced. I am sorry that I can hold out no expectation of a compliance with the prayer of the Memorials referred to.

  CRIME (ENGLAND AND WALES)— RETURN OF MURDERS BY ARMED BURGLARS, &c.
  SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return stating the number of murders committed by Burglars in the United Kingdom during the past 10 years; how many such murderers have been convicted; how many Persons have been wounded by the use of fire-arms by burglars; how many burglars in the Metropolitan Police District have avoided arrest by the use of fire-arms; and, whether he contemplates proposing any change in the law to deter burglars and others from the felonious use of fire-arms and other dangerous weapons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): A Return such as my hon. Friend asks for, including the whole of the United Kingdom, could only be obtained by Circular from the Local Police Authorities, and would entail much labour and expense, and I regret that I do not feel able to comply with the request. If, however, my hon. Friend will be satisfied with a Return including only the Metropolitan Police District, I will ask the Chief Commissioner if he is able to give the information asked for; and, if so, I shall be happy to lay such a Return on the Table. It is not my intention to propose any change in the law with regard to the use of fire-arms and other dangerous weapons by burglars.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT—INSPECTORS IN IRELAND.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the limited number of Inspectors in Ireland under the Factory and Workshops Acts, and their consequent inadequate administration, he will appoint an additional number of practical men as Factory and Workshop Inspectors?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have consulted the Chief Inspector on this matter, and he informs me that he is not of opinion that the number of Inspectors in Ireland is too limited, or that the Acts are inadequately administered. There are, unfortunately, few industries requiring inspection in the South and West of Ireland, and complaints as to evasion of the Acts in those districts are very rare. The Inspectors resident in Ireland will receive occasional assistance from England; but I have no intention to add to the existing number of Factory Inspectors.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—TOWN COMMISSIONERS OF BOYLE, CO. ROSCOMMON—SUB-INSPECTOR BABBAGE.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether complaints have been made to the Inspector General of Constabulary by the Town Commissioners of Boyle, County Roscommon, of the conduct of Sub-Inspector Babbage, commanding the police in Boyle, in disobeying their Orders, and neglecting to aid them in maintaining good order in that town; and, whether, under the provisions of the 70th section of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 103, the police are bound to obey all proper and legal Orders issued by the Town Commissioners for the government and good order of the town?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he would answer the Question on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. He had heard from the Inspector General of Constabulary that a complaint was made to him in regard to the disobeying by the Constabulary of a particular order of the Boyle Town Commissioners; but though the Constabulary had directions to obey all proper and legal orders issued by the Town Commissioners, with regard to this particular order which they had not carried out there was a doubt as to its legality.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CECIL ROCHE, R.M., BOYLE, CO. ROSCOMMON.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  821
  Lieutenant of Ireland. Whether it is true that Mr. Cecil Roche, E.M., was sent specially to Boyle to try a summons for non-payment of rates, issued by the Town Commissioners against Colonel King-Harman, M. P., and Mr. Webb, J.P.; whether Mr. Roche accepted Mr. Webb's hospitality, and put up at Mr. Webb's house during his stay in Boyle; whether Mr. Roche dismissed the summons against the de-fondants on the ground that a question of the lawfulness of the prosecutors' title to act as Town Commissioners had been raised; whether Mr. James Candon, the present Chairman of the Town Commissioners, has been appointed a Justice of the Peace by virtue of his title as Town Commissioner, under Section 29 of 17 & 18 Vict., c. 103, and has held a Town Court fortnightly since his appointment; and, whether Mr. Roche sat and acted in the Town Court on the 9th ultimo with Mr. Candon, though he now questions the validity of Mr. Candon's claim to act as Town Commissioner?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: Mr. Cecil Roche was one of two Resident Magistrates sent at the request of the Town Commissioners to hear the case referred to. It is not a fact that he accepted Mr. Webb's hospitality, or put up at his house. The magistrates, of whom Mr. Roche was one, decided that, owing to the question of the Town Commissioners' title pending in a higher Court, they could not dispose of the question as to the rates. Mr. Candon having been appointed a magistrate, as described, by the late Lord Chancellor, Mr. Roche has naturally not felt it within his jurisdiction to question the appointment.

  MARRIAGE LAW (ENGLAND AND AVALES)—MARRIAGES IN DISSENTING CHAPELS—RE-MARRIAGE.
  MR. T. BLAKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has been able to obtain more detailed information as to the re-marriage of William Frederick Jaine with his wife, Fanny Jaine, at the parish church of Kimbolton on 16th February, after they had already been married at the Primitive Methodist Chapel in Leominster; whether such re-marriage was performed by the Rev.
  822
  Augustus Garthwaite, Curate of Kimbolton, and with full knowledge that the parties were already married; whether, with such knowledge, he proceeded to enter the ceremony as a marriage in the Parish Register, and in the entry (No. 211) described the parties as being "bachelor" and "spinster," married after banns; whether the wilful insertion of such an entry is made a felony by the Statute 24 & 25 Vict., c. 98, s. 36; whether this re-marriage was actually celebrated without either banns or licence, in contravention both of Ecclesiastical Law and of the Statute 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 21; and, if any banns were proclaimed, on what Sundays, and at whoso request, they were proclaimed, and what written record exists of the proclamation; and, whether he will direct the Public Prosecutor to take any action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a further letter from the Vicar of Kimbolton Parish, and have also heard from Mr. Squires, the Primitive Methodist minister at Leominster, as to the re-marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Jaine. The Vicar repeats that his curate was not aware until the following day that a religious ceremony had been performed; but believed that the parties had been married before the Registrar only. The ceremony was entered as a marriage in the Parish Register, the parties being described as stated in the Question. The Act of 24 & 25 Vict., c. 98, which makes it a felony to knowingly and unlawfully insert in any Register any false entry of any matter relating to any marriage, appears rather to be aimed at a different state of facts from that which I have mentioned. The marriage was solemnized without publication of banns, properly so-called; but there had been notice of the marriage throe times given through the Registrar's Office as provided by statute, in lieu of banns. I am led to think from the correspondence that the curate believed that he was entitled to solemnize the marriage in church without banns under 19 & 20 Vict., c. 119, s. 12, although no doubt he ought not in such a case to have entered the marriage in the Parish Register. Under all the circumstances of the case, the curate scorns to me to have acted without full knowledge of the facts, and rather per incuriam than with

  823
  any fraudulent intent; and, accordingly, I am not prepared to advise the Public Prosecutor to interfere.
  MR. T. BLAKEinquired, whether a marriage could be solemnized in a church without any other notice than that given at a Registrar's Office?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would like Notice of the Question; but, so far as he was aware, the production of the Registrar's certificate was sufficient to entitle parties to be so married.
  MR. T. BLAKEstated that the Secretary to the Registrar General informed him to the contrary.

  ARMY—SUPPLY OF HORSES FOR ARMY PURPOSES.
  SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government will agree to a Select Committee of this House being appointed to consider and report upon the supply of horses for Army purposes; and also to report whether, in their opinion, the supply could be in any way improved by the action of the Legislature?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): We have carefully considered this matter, and have come to the conclusion that there would be no adequate advantage in holding an inquiry by a Committee of this House at the present time into the supply of horses. The question of horse supply for the Army is of an urgent character; and I do not wish to be precluded by the appointment of such a Committee from taking any immediate steps that may be necessary.

  CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES— THE FISHERIES DISPUTE.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can now inform the House of the nature of the Despatch received from the Dominion Government suggesting a "modus vivendi" for a settlement of the Anglo-American Fisheries dispute, and when he anticipates that further Correspondence will be in the hands of Members; and, whether the prohibition of the sale of bait to United States fishermen in Newfoundland whilst permitted to French fishermen is in harmony with "the most favoured Nation" Clause of Foreign Treaties?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government will be desirous of informing the House of the course of negotiations with the Government of the United States upon the Fisheries dispute as soon as possible. I hope to lay on the Table the Despatch now being addressed to the United States Government before the Easter Recess. I hope the House will excuse me from entering upon the questions affecting the Newfoundland Fisheries in a fragmentary manner. Her Majesty's Government will be careful to observe their International obligations, while having duo regard to the interests of Her Majesty's subjects.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—CONVICT PRISON AT GALWAY.
  MR. PINKERTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What amount has been expended of the £10,000 voted last year for the erection of a Prison at Galway for convicts to be employed upon Harbour works?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Serious difficulties occurred in the way of the carrying out of the proposed works; and I am informed that the only part of the money spent is the sum of £63 paid to an engineer.
  MR. PINKERTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be advisable, considering the increased strain likely to be put upon prison accommodation in Ireland, to proceed with this work as expeditiously as possible?

  INDIA—INFANT MARRIAGE AND ENFORCED WIDOWHOOD.
  MR. E. R. RUSSELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government have sanctioned, or have raised any objection to, the following passage in the Resolution of the Governor General in Council, on Infant Marriage and Enforced Widowhood, passed in October last—
  "When caste or custom lays down a rule which is of its nature enforceable in the Civil Courts, but is clearly opposed to morality or public policy, the State will decline to enforce it? "
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST):

  825
  Her Majesty's Government have neither sanctioned nor Lave they raised any objection to the passage quoted.

  INLAND REVENUE—DEED STAMPS, SCOTLAND.
  MR. E. R. RUSSELLasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware of the present practice by which, when solicitors in Glasgow have to get deeds adjudicated upon by the stamp authorities, in order to fix the duties to be paid thereon, it is necessary to employ an Edinburgh agent to present such deeds at the Stamp Office in that city, expense being thereby incurred; and, whether the Government will take stops to arrange that in such cases deeds may be handed in at the Glasgow Stamp Office and transmitted by the Glasgow authorities to Edinburgh?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in reply, said, the facts were as stated in the hon. Member's Question; but whenever the inconvenience complained of was pointed out to the Board of Inland Revenue, they proceeded to have it remedied, and arranged with their solicitor in Edinburgh that he should receive direct from solicitors in Glasgow, by post, all deeds for adjudication, without employing any agents in Edinburgh.

  EVICTIONS, &c. (IRELAND)—RELATION OF LANDLORDS AND TENANTS— ALLEGED CIRCULAR TO THE POLICE.
  MR. O'DOHERTYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at Lifford, County Donegal, in the case of Hannah O'Donnell, charged with having taken forcible possession in Gweedore; whether there is now in existence a Circular to the police, such as was deposed to in that case by Sergeant Mahony, directing the police to interrogate tenants as to their relations with landlords, and to demand possession, or otherwise act as bailiffs for the owners of property; and, if he will lay a copy of it upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think the hon. Member must have seen some incorrect report of the proceedings. I am
  826
  informed that Sergeant Mahony gave no such evidence. There is no such Circular as is suggested in the Question.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police so acted, as the informations in the case show? I can give the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the informations.
  [No reply.]

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—EXTRA DUTY IN TRAVELLING POST OFFICES AT CHRISTMAS.
  MR. LANEasked the Postmaster General, Why payment for extra duty, performed during the Christmas pressure in the travelling post offices in Ireland, has not yet been made; if he can state why payments for extra duty done in this branch of the Service are not made as punctually as in other departments of the Dublin Post Office; and, when these payments will be made?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Considerable delay in making these payments has been caused by certain officers of the travelling post themselves, who omitted to submit their claims with sufficient promptitude. The amounts have now been passed and instructions issued for payment.

  BURIALS—THE BURIAL GROUND AT LLANFROTHEN, MERIONETHSHIRE.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the old burial ground of the parish of Llanfrothen, Merionethshire, has, for some years, been too full to allow of any more interments in it; whether, 20 years ago, a lady presented to the parish a piece of ground adjoining the old burial ground; and, whether the present incumbent of the parish refuses to Nonconformist parishioners the right of availing themselves of the provisions of "The Burials Act, 1880," in burials in the additional portion of the parish burial ground; and, if so, whether he can take steps to prevent this defeat of the law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I received a letter this morning from the Rector of Llanfrothen, who informs me that the burial ground of the parish is not full, that many burials take place

  827
  there annually, the last having taken place on the 17th instant. It is a fact that a piece of land was presented to the parish by a lady for burial purposes, but on the condition that the service should be conducted according to the rites of the Church of England. This piece of land was conveyed to trustees under 36 and 37 Vict., c. 50. Presuming that the condition attached to the devise was inserted in the conveyance, the provisions of the Act of 1880 do not seem to me to have been evaded; for Clause 9 of that Statute enacts that the Act shall not authorise the burial of any person without the performance of any express condition, on which any right of interment in any burial ground vested in trustees, not being the burial ground of the parish, may have been granted.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS—COMPARATIVE RETURN, 1881 TO 1886.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether his attention has been called to the "Return of the value of live stock and crops, showing the numbers, at various ages, of cattle and sheep, and the estimated produce of the crops, with the average prices of each year and of each kind from 1881 to 1886," prepared for the Royal Commission on "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," and mentioned at page 0 of the Report of the said Commission; and, whether he would consent to a similar Return being prepared for England and Wales, so as to assist landowners and tenant farmers in effecting equitable readjustments of rents?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)(who replied) said: The Agricultural Department will consider the Return referred to, which has now been printed, and will decide whether it is possible to prepare a similar Return for England and Wales.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT—REPORT FOR 1886.
  MR. O'DOHERTYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, When the Report of the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council for the year 1886 will be presented?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)(who replied) said: The whole of the Report is in the hands of the printer, and it will be presented before the end of the month.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—IMPORTATION OF CATTLE AFFECTED WITH PLEURO-PNEUMONIA FROM IRELAND.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he can inform the House what stops the Irish Executive propose taking to prevent the shipment from Dublin of cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia; whether the Veterinary Department consider the proposed new arrangements satisfactory; and, if not, whether he can state what course the Department proposes to adopt; and, if he will lay the Correspondence relating to the subject upon the Table of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)(who replied) said: The Irish Government have passed Orders prohibiting the movement of cattle out of the infected districts in Dublin and the neighbourhood without the special sanction of the Lord Lieutenant; and further measures suggested by the Privy Council in this country are under the consideration of the Irish Government. The Correspondence is not complete, and cannot, therefore, be laid on the Table at present.

  METROPOLIS—GUY'S HOSPITAL.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, on the afternoon of 14th March, a man named Stack, suffering from a fractured leg, applied for surgical aid at Guy's Hospital, and his case was not attended to till 1 a.m. on the following morning; whether, on the same morning, after the leg was set, he was ordered to leave the place, as there was no room for him, a relative having to pawn her wedding ring to pay for a pair of crutches supplied by the Hospital; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Medical Superintendent of Guy's Hospital that the facts of Stack's case are as follows:—Stack was

  829
  brought to the Hospital at 7 p.m. on Monday, and was found to be suffering from a simple fracture of the small bone of his leg. He was taken into the accident ward for the night and received immediate attendance; and, as is usual in the case of similar injuries, the limb was temporarily placed in sandbags, and in the course of a few hours, between 11 and 12, the limb was put up permanently in plaster of Paris bandages. Stack was discharged on the following day with a pair of crutches supplied at the expense of the Hospital, and without any charge to Stack or his relatives. He was discharged in the ordinary course, and not for want of room. When Stack came to the Hospital every bed in the ward was occupied; but one of the occupants, who was leaving the next morning, was placed on a stretcher, and thus made room for Stack. The Hospital Authorities seem to me to have done all that was proper on this occasion.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—FURTHER EXPENDITURE REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF ARKLOW HARBOUR—STATEMENT OF THE TOWN COMMISSIONERS OF ARKLOW.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Lords of the Treasury have considered the statement of the Town Commissioners of Arklow, in which they protest against the proposal of the Board of Works to raise an additional loan, on the guarantee of the rates, of £4,325 to complete the harbour; whether it is alleged that the original sum of £20,000, for which a baronial guarantee was given, in addition to the Treasury Grant, was ample to do the work, but for the large sum expended in repairing damages, owing to the collapse of the breakwater during its construction; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Treasury will increase the grant by a sum sufficient to put the harbour in working order?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): the statement referred to by the hon. Member has been considered. It is alleged that the original sum was ample. Additional expenditure was, however, necessary in consequence of damage done by storms during the progress of the work, and of delay caused by discussion. In June last year a joint deputation of the Town Commissioners
  830
  of Arklow and the local Harbour Committee unanimously approved the completion of the south pier on the Board of Works' plan. Unless the Town Commissioners are prepared to guarantee in the terms of the Act the additional capital required, I fear that the proposed north groyne cannot be proceeded with; but experience may show that it is not necessary. Two eminent engineers who were called in are of opinion that experience might show that the works already done would be sufficient for the purposes of a harbour.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— MEDAL TO THE SUAKIN REGIMENTS, 1885.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can hold out a hope that the Egyptian medal will soon be given to the officers and men, including the Indian Native Regiments, who served around Suakin in 1885?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Egyptian medal has already been issued to all British and Indian troops who served at Suakin during any part of the period from the 26th of March, 1884, to the 14th of May, 1885, which has been held to be the limit of the period of warlike operations for which the medal is granted. I am afraid I can hold out no hope that the question can be re-opened.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—VENTILATION OF THIS HOUSE—COOKSON'S WHARF, MILLBANK.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, as stated in the Report of Mr. Fletcher, the Inspector under the Alkali Acts, before the Select Committee on the Ventilation of the House, there exists, a few yards south of the Houses of Parliament, at Cookson's Wharf, Millbank, a refuse heap, upon which castaway bedding, rags, bones, hair, animal and vegetable re-fuse out of Westminster is burnt periodically at night, as occasion requires; and, whether, if correct, he proposes to do anything to mitigate this nuisance?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Mr. Fletcher, in his Report, expressed the opinion that the unpleasant smell, re-

  831
  sembling that of burning animal matter, experienced on the west side of the Houses of Parliament, early in the morning of July 9, 1884, arose from the burning of some refuse material at Cookson's Wharf, Millbank. I am informed by Mr. Fletcher that subsequent inquiry has shown that this burning of refuse was an isolated act, in violation of orders, which has not been repeated.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the establishment referred to, not being carried on for the purpose of manufacture, was not exempt from the operation of the Factory Acts?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that was an entirely new point. The Question put to him was as to the nuisance, and as to that he had replied that it was an isolated act, and had not been repeated.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the recent changes which have taken place in the Government of the Niger, sufficient steps were taken to secure the assent of the natives to the now arrangements; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House evidence to show that the natives were parties to the establishment of the authority of the Royal Niger Company; and, whether he has any information to show whether the late disturbances were due in any way to the natives resenting the imposition by the Company of heavy taxes, to which they were not accustomed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Charter to the Royal Niger Company was granted after most mature consideration. There is abundant evidence as to the general assent of the Natives, over 230 Treaties having been concluded with the Company. It is not proposed to lay upon the Table these Treaties, which, indeed, would be misleading, as they contained clauses giving exclusive rights which have become inoperative under the Charter. Reports show that the recent disturbances arose from robberies by a Native Chief, and not from the imposition of taxes.

  EDUCATION CODE, 1887—CLASS SUBJECTS—WELSH.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether Welsh will be included among the class subjects under Article 15 of the Education Code now lying upon the Table of the House?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The hon. Member is aware that Welsh is now a "specific subject"—that is, it is taught to individual scholars, and grants are made in respect of each child who passes; but I am not prepared to make Welsh a "class subject," and, therefore, to refuse all giants unless the language is taught throughout the school.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE, 1887—PUPIL TEACHERS AS QUEEN'S SCHOLARS.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he will consider the desirability of so altering Article 124 of the Education Code so as to allow pupil teachers in Wales to be presented for examination as Queen's Scholars who have been under instruction for the prescribed time at one of the three University Colleges of Cardiff, Aberystwith, and Bangor, without residence at the Training College?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It would be difficult to accept on the part of pupil teachers in Wales instruction at the three University Colleges of Cardiff, Aberystwith, and Bangor as equivalent to residence in a Training College, for the syllabus of subjects, the study of which it is thought necessary to enforce on candidates for certificates, is not adopted at those Colleges, and students would, therefore, be placed at a disadvantage in the examination, and would be less eligible as teachers afterwards.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE, 1887—WELSH-SPEAKIXG DISTRICTS.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Vice President of the Com-

  833
  mittee of Council on Education, Whether, in the "Class Subjects" of Article 15 of the Education Code, the Education Department will sanction an alternative scheme of English adapted to schools in Welsh-speaking districts; whether, in the "Elementary Subjects," Li-lingual reading books, of the ordinary size, may be used in Welsh schools; whether Her Majesty's Inspectors in Wales are in a position to suggest such a scheme of bi-lingual teaching, and, if approved, whether it will be inserted in Schedules I. and II. of the Code; and, whether such a scheme will be made equally applicable to evening schools in Wales?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The hon. Member is aware that in Welsh-speaking districts it is already provided that the intelligence) of the children examined in any elementary or class subject may be tested by requiring them to explain in Welsh the meaning of passages read, and I know of no reason to object to the use of bi-lingual reading books. The forthcoming-General Report on Wales, which will be published separately, will show the attitude of Her Majesty's Inspectors on the subject, and will, I hope, satisfy the hon. Member that the Department is not insensible to its importance.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE, 1887—THE WELSH AND GAELIC LANGUAGES—PUPIL TEACHERS.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, for many years up to 1862, a grant was made by the Government to the pupil teachers who successfully passed in Welsh or Gaelic, and who taught in schools in Welsh or Gaelic-speaking districts; whether the Scotch Education Code of 1887 allows pupil teachers to obtain marks in Gaelic grammar, translation, and composition, in their admission examination to the Training Colleges, and directs a grant to be made to pupil teachers employed in giving bilingual instruction to Gaelic-speaking children; and, whether the Education Department will add Welsh to the four languages in Schedule V., Section 10, of the Education Code, and direct a grant to be made to pupil teachers employed
  834
  in giving bi-lingual instruction to Welsh children?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): A grant was formerly made to certificated teachers under the circumstances de-scribed in the Question; and by the Scotch Code of the present year the customary grant is made in respect of pupil teachers employed for the special purpose of giving bi-lingual instruction, but not required to make up the minimum staff. I am not, however, as at present advised, prepared to make the changes suggested in the last part of the Question.

  ADMIRALTY—DRAWINGS SUPPLIED TO FOREIGN POWERS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether there are any Rules in force, and what is the practice, in regard to the supply of drawings or information to Foreign Powers, or individuals, of vessels, &c., constructed in the Royal Dockyards, or by firms or Companies outside of the Dockyards; whether such drawings or information are sometimes supplied under the authority of the Admiralty; whether any moneys have been received by the Admiralty for their supply; and, whether any further steps will be taken in regard to designs which may be considered to be of a more confidential character?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is contrary, both to Rules and existing practice, for Government employés to supply drawings of ships constructed in the Royal Dockyards either to Foreign Powers or to individuals. Certain exceptions to these Rules have at times been made with the approval of the Admiralty; and in these cases the expenses incurred by the employment of extra draftsmen have been refunded by the persons for whom the drawings were made. Private firms tendering for the construction of ships and engines are, of necessity, supplied with specifications and drawings. New Regulations are about to be issued in reference to the publication of confidential designs.

  INDIA—THE PISHIN FRONTIER.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the statement is correct that the In-

  835
  dian Government are about to post a force of observation on the Pishin Frontier; if the Government propose entering Afghan territory; and, whether they intend affording and material or subsidiary support to the Ameer of Afghanistan in case of a Russian advance?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State has no information which corroborates the statement referred to, nor has he any reason to suppose that Russia is contemplating an advance against Afghanistan; but he has not authorized me to express any opinion as to the course he would take should such be the case.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—IRREGULAR DETENTION AT NEW ROSS POLICE STATION.
  MR. SEXTON(for Mr. J. E. REDMOND)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether John Malone and Richard Magee, who were arrested and lodged in New Ross Police Station on the 21st February last, on a charge of insubordination, and who were on the following day brought before a magistrate, in a room of the police station, and by him sentenced to three months' imprisonment, were before sentence asked to give bail for their appearance at the then next Petty Sessions for the district; whether he will state the amount of bail required by the magistrate in each case; and, whether the prisoners declared that they were unable to give such bail?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Holmes), in reply, said, the prisoners had been inmates of the Now Ross Workhouse, and had raised no objection to their being tried by the magistrate. The charge against them was not insubordination. They were convicted under the Vagrancy Act for being found loitering for an illegal purpose; and the fact that the magistrate did not ask them could they give bail did not affect the legality of the decision.
  MR. SEXTONasked, was not the magistrate bound, under the 22nd section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, to call upon the prisoners to find bail; and, whether the failure to do so did not render the decision illegal?
  MR. HOLMESsaid, the magistrate was not required to do so in the case in question.

  DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESOURCES OF IRELAND—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Royal Commission on the Development of the Resources of Ireland have concluded their inquiries regarding arterial drainage; and, if so, whether they will report upon that subject prior to their entering upon the consideration of the other questions referred to them?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I understand from the Royal Commissioners that they have practically completed their inquiry upon the subject of arterial drainage; and, in accordance with the promise conveyed by my Predecessor in Office to a deputation of which the hon. Member was one, they intend making a separate Report upon this part of the Reference to them. They are now engaged on the preparation of that Report.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT YOUGHAL—LETTER OF CAPTAIN PLUNKETT.
  MR. COBBasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police officer, to whom Captain Plunkett telegraphed not to hesitate to shoot the people of Youghal if it should be necessary, was County Inspector Brownrigg; whether County Inspector Brownrigg was recently summoned before the Youghal Bench for an assault upon a local merchant, and fined; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Chief Secretary to entrust this officer in future with such discretionary power as is named in the telegram?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The telegram sent by Captain Plunkett was addressed to County Inspector Brownrigg. With regard to the circumstances of the case mentioned in the second paragraph of the Question, I have to say what was stated by my Predecessor on a previous occasion—that County Inspector Brownrigg was summoned for an alleged assault while in the discharge

  837
  of his police duties, and was fined a farthing, without costs—the presiding magistrate, in announcing the decision of the Bench, stating that the case ought not to have been brought into Court.

  WANDSWORTH COMMON—VICTORIA PATRIOTIC ASYLUM FOR GIRLS.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, prior to granting a lease of land attached to the Victoria Patriotic Asylum for Girls on Wandsworth Common, held in charitable trust, the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund sought and obtained the consent of the Charity Commissioners?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I am advised that the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund would not be required by law to obtain the assent of the Charity Commissioners to the grant by them of a lease of laud for 21 years.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE OFFICE OF CROWN AGENT—MR. AULDJO JAMIESON.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether Mr. Auldjo Jamieson, Crown Agent for Scotland, is a member of the firm of Todds, Murray, and Jamieson, who act as estate agents; whether the said firm are agents for the Ardencaple Estate, Argyllshire, where a deforcement took place in connection with the eviction of a farmer named M'Dougal, and for which Samuel M'Dougal has been tried and imprisoned; and, whether the Government will require that so important and responsible an official as the Crown Agent shall act as the servant of the Crown alone, and not as an estate agent in cases that may come before him in his public capacity?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I answer the two first paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question in the affirmative As regards the third paragraph, I have to say that the Crown Agent, in matters of prosecution for crime, is solely an administrative official, and cases in no way come before him in that capacity. They are dealt with by the Lord Advocate and his deputies, without consultation with the Crown Agent of any kind; and
  838
  it would be quite out of his province for him to interfere in any way with the proceedings, and he never does so. It is not intended to make any alteration on the existing practice.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— PUPIL TEACHERS.
  MR. TUITEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether teachers of national schools in Ireland, seeking promotion from the third to the second class, are required to present at the annual results examinations a certain proportion of their pupils in the higher classes; whether by this rule several teachers are debarred from all hope of promotion, in consequence of the districts in which their schools are situate being so thinly populated, and so poor, the people in many instances being unable to provide clothes for their children, that it is impossible for the teacher to secure the required minimum attendance of 100 days of the requisite number of pupils to qualify for presentation at the results examinations, while in such schools the number of passes in many cases on the whole average 87 per cent; and, whether, under the circumstances, he is prepared to recommend a modification of this rule in certain cases where the diligence and efficiency of the teachers are undisputed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that every national school teacher seeking improved status and remuneration is expected by the Commissioners to have such a fair proportion of pupils in the higher classes as the circumstances of his school—whether in a thinly-populated district or not—warrant, and to have both junior and senior pupils carefully instructed. While there is no absolute rule fixing any precise number of pupils for the higher classes, the existence of such classes in other than infant schools is always an important element in determining the admission of teachers to examination with a view to promotion.

  POST OFFICE—COMMISSION ON POSTAL ORDERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that a scheme has

  839
  been submitted to him which will insure a proportionate commission on all postal orders; and. whether the Department intends to adopt that or some system founded on similar lines?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have received, a few days ago, from my noble Friend the Member for the St. Alban's Division of Hertfordshire (Viscount Grimston) a scheme such as that referred to, and it is now undergoing a careful examination.

  POST OFFICE—CHARGES AT SHANGHAI.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that British merchants in Shanghai can send their letters through the French Post Office there for conveyance to Europe by the English steamers of the Peninsular and Oriental Company at the rate of 2.½d. per half ounce, while the same letters, if sent through the British Post Office at Shanghai, also for Europe, would be charged 5d; and, whether he is disposed to take steps to remedy this apparent anomaly?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Yes; I am aware of the circumstance to which the hon. Member has called attention. The explanation is that the French Post Office does not avail itself of the option given by the Postal Union Convention of collecting additional postage to meet the expenses of conveyance to distant places, while the British Post Office does avail itself of that option. In the case referred to, the French Office does not incur a loss in feuding the letters by British packets for 2½d.; but even at the 5d. rate a considerable loss is incurred by the British Office, because it has to pay heavily, not only for the sea service, but also for a special train service across Italy and France. Obviously, any reduction of the British postage would involve additional loss; and I am not prepared at present to recommend the Treasury to incur that loss.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—PLANTATIONS OF CINCHONA.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Under Secretary of
  840
  State for India, Whether the Government of Madras planted cinchona for the purpose of obtaining a febrifuge for the Native classes; whether it is the fact that sales of Government bark are advertised in London papers; that the bark comes to Europe for the manufacture of quinine; and which drug being retailed at an average of some 300 per cent above the wholesale price (which to-day is 2s. 8d. per ounce for the best) puts it wholly and totally beyond the means of the classes the Madras Government intended to benefit; and, whether the present method of selling its bark in the open market in Madras is contrary to the understanding arrived at when the Government ceased to export bark on its own account?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): One of the objects, but not the only one, of planting cinchona, was that stated. Government bark is advertised for sale in London, and comes to England for the manufacture of quinine. Government gets quinine for its Medical Departments at wholesale prices, and makes the "Red Bark" into an effective febrifuge cheap enough to be within the reach of all classes. I do not understand what is the "understanding arrived at" mentioned in the last paragraph.

  ADMIRALTY—SHANK PALLISER SCREW BOLTS.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, How many reduced shank Palliser screw bolts for armour plates (approximately) have been used in Her Majesty's Navy; whether they are generally used in ships now afloat; and, whether they are still being used to fasten armour plates on ships now under construction?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): From 25,000 to 30,000 Palliser armour bolts with reduced shanks have been used in Her Majesty's Navy. They are generally in use in ships now afloat, and are still used for ships under construction.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked whether Captain Palliser had received any pecuniary benefit from his discovery?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he would like to have Notice of the Question.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—OUTBREAK OF ANTHRAX.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether any information can be given respecting the numerous outbreaks of anthrax that have taken place in various parts of Great Britain during the past six months, and whether they have been traced to the use of railway trucks for the conveyance of foreign hides, the same trucks being subsequently used with cattle?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)(who replied) said: An inquiry in reference to the recent outbreaks of anthrax is now being conducted by the officers of the Agricultural Department. There is no reason, however, to believe that the disease has been more prevalent during the last six months than previously. The Anthrax Order of September last imposes on the owners of animals the obligation to give notice of the disease, and on the Inspectors the duty of making Returns weekly; hence public attention has been called to outbreaks which otherwise would have escaped notice. None of the outbreaks have been traced to railway trucks in which foreign hides had been previously carried.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked, what steps the Government were prepared to take to stamp out anthrax in Cheshire?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was not himself able to give an answer to that Question without Notice.

  ADMIRALTY—THE QUEEN'S JUBILEE CELEBRATION—THE NAVAL REVIEW —ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE AND ROYAL NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSON (Portsmouth) (for Mr. BADEN-POWELL.)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether arrangements will be made in order to enable contingents of officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers to take part in the Jubilee Naval Review; and, if so, whether it can be arranged that these contingents shall be representative of the
  842
  different districts of the United Kingdom?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Jubilee is to be celebrated by a Naval Review to be held at Portsmouth on July 23, at which Her Majesty has signified her intention to be present. This Review will embrace a large number of battle ships, coast defence vessels, fast cruisers, torpedo boats, and gunboats; and. unlike previous Reviews, will not be merely a pageant, but the prelude to a series of operations at sea to test the efficiency both of men and ships. These operations will comprise the defence of our principal military and commercial ports and the protection of our coasts from the Downs to the north of Donegal Bay, and also the protection of our commerce near the entrance of the Channel; and in carrying them out all precautions will be taken which would be observed in time of war. We shall be glad to associate with these manœuvres a limited number of Naval Reserve men who may wish to volunteer for service on this occasion, to be selected from each district; also a certain number of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers could be embarked in the coast defence vessels to be employed for the protection of the commercial ports. There will, I imagine, be some difficulty in the men forming these Reserves leaving their regular employment for the time required for the Review and subsequent operations, and there will also be a certain expense in conveying the men from their respective localities; but I hope these are not insurmountable difficulties.
  MR. ADDISONinquired whether Members of the House of Commons would receive an invitation to the Review; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government would consider what arrangements would be made for taking them to Portsmouth, and for their accommodation when there?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: We are still a good way away from the 23rd of July; but if my hon. Friend will put the Question to me a little nearer that time, I have no doubt I shall be able to give him a satisfactory answer.

  INDIA—RAILWAYS—THE PISHIN VALLEY LINE.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for

  843
  India, Whether it is a fact that "Railway material for 100 miles of line is being collected in the Pishin Valley;" what is the distance from the existing terminus of the railway to Candahar; is this material collected with a view to an extension of the line to Candahar; and, will the Secretary of State promise that information shall be given to Parliament before railway surveys or works are undertaken beyond the British frontier?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Yes; 100 miles. So soon as any designs for extending the railway are adopted, the Secretary of State will be happy to communicate the same to Parliament, should it be consistent with the interests of the Public Service to do so.

  WAR OFFICE—HORSE ARTILLERY BATTERIES.
  GENERAL FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War, in the event of it becoming necessary, in sudden emergency, to raise the Horse Artillery Batteries of the First Army Corps to war establishment, From what source he proposes to obtain the necessary horses and men; and, if from the Second Army Corps Batteries, in what condition these latter batteries would be left as regards numbers of horses and men?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): No batteries of the Second Army Corps would be drawn upon for the First Army Corps; and in the event of mobilization any deficiency in men would be made good from the Reserve. With regard to horses, it is the fact that economy prevents our maintaining a full establishment either for the Cavalry or the Artillery. The question of the best mode of supplying the necessary number of horses is engaging my earnest attention; but, in my opinion, it would not be solved by maintaining another battery of Horse Artillery on Second Army Corps strength.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MR. JAMES A. IRWIN, NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHER.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Board of Commissioners of National
  844
  Education (Ireland) have yet concluded their investigation into the alleged connection of Mr. James A. Irwin, teacher of the Carrickawilkin (County Armagh) National School, with the Orange Society; and, what is the result of the inquiry?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they were satisfied, on inquiry, that the teacher named had broken their Rules in the manner alleged, and they have removed him from their service.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Return ordered of the Number of Meetings and Attendances of the Board of Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I understand that the Return will be laid on the Table within a day or two.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE ESTATE OF MR. S. E. SHIRLEY, CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received any intimation that Mr. S. E. Shirley intends evicting 36 families on his Farney Estate, in the County Monaghan, on the 22nd instant; whether it is a fact that the tenants on this estate have served Mr. Shirley with the necessary originating notices, preparatory to going into the Land Court to have fair rents fixed; and, whether a police force has yet been applied for to carry out these threatened evictions on Tuesday next; and, if so, whether, pending the decisions of the Land Court in their cases, he will withhold his sanction to the Forces of the Crown being used for the purpose of carrying out the eviction of the tenantry of this estate, which numbers 2,000, and represents about 12,000 persons?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I require further Notice of this Question.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask him is he aware the evictions take place to-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Question only appeared on the Paper on Saturday, and I have not had time to obtain the necessary information.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give Notice that I shall recommend the tenants on Mr. Shirley's estate to protect themselves by adopting the Plan of Campaign.

  LAND ACT (IRELAND), 1870—TENANT PURCHASERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is intended to include in the provisions of any Land Bill the cases of the tenant purchasers under the Land Act of 1870?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Government propose, on an early day, to give their general views on the land legislation for Ireland.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACTS—MR. JOHN ROE, DONAGHMORE UNION.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. John Roe, solicitor to the lately dissolved Board of Guardians of Donaghmore Union, in the Queen's County, has received a sum of £800 out of the rates for fees under the Labourers' Acts; whether anything has really been done within the area of the said late Union in the way of housing the labourers; and, what work was performed by Mr. Roe in consideration for the sum mentioned?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It appears, from the minutes of proceedings of the Guardians, that when the affairs of the Union were being arranged prior to its amalgamation with neighbouring Unions, the solicitor of the Board sent in his bill of costs, which had been allowed to run on since 1869, and amounted to £363. The Guardians agreed to allow him £300, which included whatever may have been due to him under the Labourers' Acts. The
  846
  amount is not distinguished; but, of course, it could only have formed a very recent part of the debt, which had been accumulating for 17 years. The schemes under that Act fell through, as, owing to delay on the part of the Guardians in the presentation of their petition, the dissolution of the Union took effect before anything could be done.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND—" STORMY EVICTIONS IN MAYO."
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a paragraph on page 8 of The Pall Mall Gazette of Wednesday, 16th March, headed Stormy Evictions in Mayo, or if he has other know-lodge of the facts referred to therein—namely, that the Resident Magistrate present at the eviction stated—
  "If the people offered resistance the police. must shoot them down. … A bailiff, named Gallagher, abused by an old woman when he was removing her furniture, drew a revolver and threatened to shoot her. … A dying lad was carried from one of the cabins, and last night he received the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church;"
  and, if he is aware that the rents, for inability to pay which those evictions were carried out, varied from 46 per cent above the valuation to twice, and even in one case four times, the valuation?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The statements referred to are either unfounded or misleading. The evictions were not stormy; there were only a few people present. No magistrate used any such words as are stated, nor did any bailiff act in the manner described. In one of the houses there was a sick child in its mother's arms; and the Sheriff's attention being drawn to it, he, out of consideration for this case, merely took formal possession, allowing the inmates of the House to re-enter it at once as caretakers, and disturbing none of the effects.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph in the Question, as to the rents varying from 46 per cent above the valuation to twice and oven, in one case, four times the valuation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about that.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—EXPORT OF CATTLE FROM IRELAND—PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a letter was sent from the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council to the Local Authority of the North Dublin Union, to the effect that it is of the highest importance, in the interest of the Irish cattle export trade with Great Britain, that every possible step should be taken to prevent the spread of pleuro-pneumonia, and, under the circumstances, inviting the Local Authority to take into consideration the compulsory slaughter of 42 head of cattle that at present remain in five pleuro-pneumonia infected places in that Union; whether he is aware that the Local Authority have resolved not to cause their slaughter; and, seeing that the interest of the Irish cattle export trade with Great Britain is seriously affected by the frequent outbreaks of that fatal disease amongst Irish cattle in Great Britain, whether the Privy Council will forthwith enforce the provisions of Clause 6 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Amendment Act of 1886 in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The facts are substantially as stated. It appears from the minutes of the last meeting of the Local Authority that they proposed to take the matter into further consideration on the 6th of April; but they will be asked to do so at an earlier date. The question as to how far the provisions of Clause 6 of the Act of 1886 can be enforced with the least inconvenience and expense is at present engaging the attention of the Privy Council Veterinary Department.

  VETERINARY DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL (IRELAND)—CATTLE FROM AMERICA AND IRELAND.
  MR. O'DOHERTYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council in Ireland has been called to the statement that American cattle arrive in Liverpool and Glasgow in better condition than Irish cattle; whether this arises from defective
  848
  arrangements in the cross-channel steamers, and overcrowding, or otherwise; whether it is the fault of the Board of Trade Regulations, or of those of the Privy Councils of Great Britain and Ireland, that nothing is done to remedy the state of things complained of; and, whether, in view of the attitude of certain Local Authorities in Great Britain, the Government will take energetic steps in this matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It is true that such a statement as is referred to has been brought under the notice of the Veterinary Department in Ireland; but if the complaint against the condition of Irish cattle be well founded it cannot be traced to defective arrangements in the cross-channel steamers, either by overcrowding or otherwise. The Regulations on the subject are as carefully devised as possible. They are identical in England and Ireland, and are the same for cross-channel steamers as for those carrying cattle to Great Britain from other countries. The shipment of animals is superintended by officers of the Veterinary Department, who do all in their power to prevent any cruelty or infringement of the Regulations; and I am afraid that no further action on the part of the Department seems practicable.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)—ELECTION IN MOUNTMELLICK UNION.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following 10 ratepayers in the townland of Derrygrule, in Mountmellick Union, have for years voted in all the elections in the electoral division of Mountmellick until 1885—namely, John Quigley, Mary Meehan, James Brien, James Quigley, Edward Jones, William Tanner, John Conroy, Richard Dickinson, Bridget Bergin, and John Walsh; whether the newly-appointed clerk, acting as Returning Officer, has disallowed the votes of the ratepayers mentioned, although they have paid the rates assessed on their holdings; and, whether the Local Government Board will take steps to protect the rights of the persons in question at the present election?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): This Question only appeared on Saturday,

  849
  and was at once referred to the Local Government Board; but there has not been time fur the receipt of their Report, as they had to refer to the country for the required information.

  SOUTH AFRICA—PONDOLAND.
  SIR LEWIS PELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government recognize Pondoland as belonging to Great Britain or to any other Power, either absolutely or as a Protected State; whether any negotiations are pending between Her Majesty's Government and any other Power concerning Pondoland; and, whether Government are in a position to give assurances that Pondoland will not be occupied, either directly or indirectly, by any Foreign Power?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to the Question. Her Majesty's Government exercise a Protectorate over the whole Coast of Pondoland, and consider the country as being under their influence, and do not recognize a right on the part of any other Power to interfere in its concerns. I stated, in my answer of the 15th instant, that in August, 1885, in reply to a proposal for placing Pondoland under the protection of the German Empire, the German Government had stated that they were not in a position to entertain the Petition; and the hon. Member has probably seen in to-day's newspapers the statement from the semi-official North German Gazette, which confirms this view. No negotiations are pending between Her Majesty's Government and any other Power respecting Pondoland. Her Majesty's Government consider that no Foreign Power could occupy Pondoland without their consent.

  IRELAND—CONSTABULARY FORCE FOR THE NORTH RIDING OF TIPPERARY.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the regular Constabulary' force for the North Hiding of the County of Tipperary stands at 309 men; whether, out of that number, there are at present only 26G men in active service in the district; whether the sum of £1,000 is
  850
  annually paid out of the Riding for what is termed extra police; whether, including the so-called extra police, the regular force is at present short of the number of 19; and. if so, whether he will fill up the regular Parliamentary quota, and relieve the ratepayers from this tax for extra police; whether he will inform the House, or give a Return, as to the number of persons at present under police protection, and the number of men employed in discharge of protection duty in North Tipperary; whether at the recent Spring Assizes at Nenagh, where the presentment for this Extra Police Tax was opposed, the presiding Judge, Baron Dowse, replying to the traverser, made use of these words—
  "It is imperative on me to puss this presentment, otherwise I would be most happy to concede to the just application. You must look for redress elsewhere;"
  and, whether he will explain, while there is a comparative absence of crime in the county, as stated by Baron Dowse, why the ratepayers are burdened with this tax for extra police?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The full force of the North Riding of Tipperary is 309 men—namely, 266 free force and 43 extra men. The number actually serving is 290, leaving 19 vacancies, which, according to statute, are proportionately divided between the free and extra men. It is impossible that the full force should always be present in any county, as allowance must be made for occasional absence, and for recruits training at the depôt. I have already explained, with regard to extra police generally, that the chief reason why they are required is for the protection of individuals. In the North Riding of Tipperary there are six persons under constant protection, and 22 under protection by patrols—the number of police employed on this duty being six and 27 respectively, or a total of 33.
  MR. T. P. GILL: The right hon. Gentleman says there are 33 of the police engaged in protection duty. Will he say what the rest of the extra police are doing?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said there are 43 extra men, and I have accounted for 33, the greater part.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is a fact that the Judge said

  851
  it was the most peaceable county in the Circuit?
  [No reply.]

  ADMIRALTY—NAVAL OFFICERS— LIEUTENANTS AND SUB-LIEUTENANTS.
  MR. DE LISLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can inform the House what are the exceptional measures that will have to be taken in time of war to provide the requisite number of Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants to serve as watch-keepers, and to take command of torpedo and picket boats, and how many hours watching out of every 24 their Lordships consider to be within the range of non-injurious duty for the average Naval Officer?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The exceptional measures alluded to would be, speaking generally, to call out all officers over whom the Admiralty had control, and who may be required—whether in the Reserves, retired, or specially employed. It has been generally held in the Services that three watches, or eight hours out of the 24, are the range of non-injurious watch-keeping duty which an officer can be called upon to perform continuously.

  AFRICA (EAST COAST)—THE KING OF JOHANNA.
  MR. A. E. PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the following telegram that has appeared in the newspapers:—
  "Zanzibar, March 18.—The King of Johanna, the second largest of the Islands of the Comoro Group, having refused to receive a French Resident, the French Commandant at Mayotte promised that, if he assented, the French Government would endeavour to obtain an amendment of the Slavery Abolition Treaty with England. The King persisting, nevertheless, in his refusal, the French offered the Throne to the King's brother, who, however, declined to accept it. The French corvette Nielly was subsequently ordered to Johanna to bombard the place; "
  and, whether he can confirm the truth of this report; and, if so, whether the Government will make representations to the French Government, with a view of preventing any further interference, on the part of the French, with the King
  852
  of Johanna, and take such steps as may be necessary to support the King in his adherence to the existing Slavery Abolition Treaty with England?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government, although they were aware that differences existed between the Sultan of Johanna and the French Authorities at Mayotte, have no information confirming the intelligence conveyed in the telegram from Zanzibar. Mr. Holmwood, Her Majesty's Acting Consul General at Zanzibar, has, however, received instructions to report on the matter.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DETECTIVE CONSTABLE PETER MONAHAN.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many previous convictions for drunkenness, &c, were recorded against Detective Constable Peter Monahan; whether the young man Shea, whom he assaulted in Killarney, has lost the sight of the eye which was injured; and, whether it is in accordance with the Constabulary Rules and Regulations to continue as detective or policeman in plain clothes a man who has been convicted of assault and drunkenness?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.), in reply, said, he was informed that there were no previous convictions for drunkenness recorded against the constable. As had been already stated, he was not convicted of assault. It was not a fact that Shea had lost the sight of an eye. The constable had not been continued as a detective.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SERGEANTS JOHNSTON AND BRADY.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a constable named Johnston was stationed in Tuam from the commencement of his service until the year 1885; whether he was then promoted to the rank of acting sergeant, and changed from Tuam to Cummer; whether he has been subsequently promoted to the rank of sergeant, and is now stationed again in Tuam, from whence he was first promoted, and whether this is contrary to

  853
  the Constabulary Rules; if it is true that another sergeant named Brady, who had been stationed in Tuam only for four months, was ordered to another station to make room for Johnston; and, what are the reasons stated for the alleged exceptional method of procedure?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed by the Inspector General that there was nothing exceptional or contrary to the Regulations of the Constabulary Force in the transfers and promotions made in the cases of these men. The exchange of stations effected between the two sergeants was for the purpose of placing Sergeant Johnston in a barrack where there was accommodation for his family, a requirement which does not exist in the case of the other sergeant.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. JEREMIAH HEGARTY.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty, late of the Macroom Workhouse, now of Milistreet, has been appointed to the Commission of the Peace in the County of Cork; whether Mr. Hegarty is owner of a public-house in the town of Millstreet, and is also bailiff to the Landlord Defence League in Cork; whether he has been for some time past, and still continues, under police protection; if it is true that his police guard have objected to the treatment they have received at his hands; what reasons have been given for granting police protection to Mr. Hegarty; on how many occasions this year has a supplementary police patrol been sent to survey the route by which Mr. Hegarty was travelling; whether such police were supplied on Mr. Hegarty's application; whether the only people who frequent his public-house are policemen and emergency men; whether, in view of these facts, it is his intention to bring the appointment under the notice of the Lord Chancellor; and, by whom was Mr. Hegarty recommended for the said magisterial position? The hon. Member desired to supplement the Question, and to ask whether it was a fact that quite recently Mr. Hegarty compounded with his creditors?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.), in reply, said, he knew nothing about the supplementary matter. Mr. Hegarty was a Roman Catholic gentleman of independent position. He was appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the County and other local gentlemen. It was not a fact that he held a publican's licence, the business formerly conducted by him having been transferred to his son. It was not true that he was the bailiff of the Landlord Defence League Neither was it a fact that he was under special police protection, or that the police had complained of the treatment they had received at his hands. The police gave him and his property such protection as they thought he required; but he could not say how often they had patrolled the roads in consequence.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he thinks it right to appoint as a magistrate a late pauper of the Macroom Workhouse, and now a holder of a publican's licence; and, whether he thinks such an appointment will tend to the preservation of law and order in Cork?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has nothing to do with the appointment of magistrates.
  DR. TANNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the license was transferred from Hegarty to his son; whether it was not done immediately before Hegarty was appointed a magistrate; and whether, therefore, Hegarty was not practically a publican at the time of his appointment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The year before last, Sir.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT YOUGHAL—COMMITTAL OF CONSTABLE BULMER.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Bulmer, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was committed to gaol by Mr. Coroner Rice on Wednesday last, for refusing to answer questions tending to discover the person who bayonetted Patrick Hanlon, of Youghal; whether District Inspector Smith, to whom the Coroner handed the warrant for execu-

  855
  tion, has executed, or made any attempt to execute, the same; and, what stops the Government intend to take to insure the execution of the Coroner's warrant?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)(who replied) said: I am informed that a warrant was issued by the Coroner for the committal of Constable Bulmer for refusing to answer a question which the constable, by the advice of his solicitor, declined to answer, on the ground that it might tend to criminate himself—he and his comrades having been previously charged by counsel for next-of-kin with wilful murder. As the warrant was considered by the District Inspector to be illegal in point of form, and as he would in such case have no protection if he executed it, he had held it over until he was advised as to its legality; but he undertook to produce Constable Bulmer if, and when, required in the meantime.
  MR. CHANCE: What is the doubt about the warrant?
  MR. HOLMES: I have given the reply I have received.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the second part of the Question—namely, whether District Inspector Smith, to whom the Coroner handed the warrant for execution, has executed, or made any attempt to execute, the same?
  MR. HOLMES: I have already answered that part of the Question. I have stated the District Inspector was in doubt as to the legality of the warrant.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether it is competent for an Inspector of Police to decide for himself as to the legality or illegality of a warrant issued by the Coroner?
  MR. HOLMES: I have already stated that it is not competent; but, inasmuch as a Coroner's or a Magistrate's warrant is no protection to the person directed to execute it, the District Inspector has a right to be advised upon it.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell what steps have been taken to see whether the warrant was illegal or not?
  MR. HOLMES: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the only answer I can give is the information I have received from those in the locality; but,
  856
  of course, if the District Inspector's advice is that the warrant is legal, the warrant will be executed in the ordinary way.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with reference to the question of the execution of the warrant of the Coroner at Youghal, when the warrant of the Coroner was issued? I am informed that it was issued last Wednesday. he can tell us, probably, whether that is correct; and how long the suspension of the execution of the warrant will be allowed to continue before the question is decided?
  MR. HOLMESsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was probably aware that he, in his capacity as Attorney General, had nothing whatever to do with this matter, and he had no information as regarded the date. The answer he had given was simply to the effect that the execution was suspended for a reasonable time, an undertaking being given that the man would be produced in the meantime, if required.

  WAR OFFICE—GOVERNMENT WORKSHOPS AND ARSENALS—INSPECTION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF FOREIGN POWERS.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it has been the practice, whenever the Representatives of friendly Powers have made formal applications to inspect Government workshops and arsenals, or to obtain copies of drawings and plans of warships, machinery, or armaments, to grant the facilities sought by such persons; and, whether it is the case that Naval designs have been furnished to the American, Russian, and other Governments?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The War Department allow Representatives of friendly Powers, whose applications are forwarded by the Foreign Office, to inspect such workshops as do not contain secrets exclusively held, or supposed to be held, by Her Majesty's Government; and the same rules apply to the grant of drawings and plans. The Admiralty allow Foreign Naval Attaches free access to inspect the Government Naval Establishments. It is not the practice to allow them to obtain copies of drawings and plans of warships, machinery, or arma-

  857
  merits. In exceptional cases drawings of designs have Loon given.

  ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES—THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. SEXTONasked, Whether the First Lord of the Treasury intended to proceed to-night with his Motion for a Select Committee to examine into the Army and Navy Estimates, and to report their observations thereon to the House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he had certainly hoped that the House would have accepted this Motion without debate. In the circumstances, it would not be in his power to proceed with it to-night. It was his intention to have made the Motion, in fulfilment of an engagement he made to the House; but it was not expected that a debate would arise upon it, seeing that full powers would be possessed by the Committee under the terms of the Motion.

  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  In reply to Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, the Bill was in print, and would, he hoped, be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow; but the question of when he would proceed with the second reading would depend on the course of the other Business of the House.

NOTICE OF MOTION.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I beg to give Notice that I shall to-morrow ask leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of crime in Ireland, and for other purposes.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I wish, Sir, to say that, under the special circumstances of the Notice just given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I shall to-morrow, at half-past 1, move that the introduction and several stages of the Criminal Law and Procedure
  858
  (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, including the Rules of Procedure, whenever it shall be sot down by the Government as the first Business of the day. And, Sir, with reference to the inquiry addressed to me on Thursday night last by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), I beg to say that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with this Motion to-morrow, and, I hope, with the consequent Motion of which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has given Notice. In the event of the Bill being brought in to-morrow, or Wednesday, it will be printed at once, and the second reading will be taken on Monday next. We hope to proceed with the Rules of Procedure on Thursday and Friday.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Sir, I beg to give Notice that tomorrow, when the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) makes the Motion that he has just announced, I shall move the following Amendment:—
  "That this House declines to set aside the Business of the Nation in favour of a measure for increasing the stringency of the Criminal Law in Ireland, while no effectual security has been taken against the abuse of the law by the exaction of excessive rents."

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDER OF THE DAY FOR COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—EXCLUSION OF MOTIONS
  MR. T. P. GILL: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to put a Question to you upon a point of Order. I see that there are two Notices standing upon the Order Book in the names of the hon. Members for North and South Antrim (Mr. C. E. Lewis and Mr. Macartney) for Tuesday, the 5th of April, a date when the House will probably be in recess for the Easter holidays. One of them is for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the alleged system of jury-packing in Ireland, while the other expresses approval of the action of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the telegram of instructions to the police sent by Captain Plunkett to the District Inspector at Youghal. I wish, Sir, to have your ruling, as a matter of Order, upon both of those Notices, having re-

  859
  gard to your ruling in the case of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who desired to raise a debate upon jury-packing when the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech was under discussion. You then ruled that it was not competent for my hon. Friend to allude to the question of jury-packing so long as there was a Notice standing on the Paper in reference to the subject. Now, Sir, one of those Notices refers to the question of jury-packing, and the other to the instructions of Captain Plunkett to the police of Youghal to fire upon the people if necessary. What I wish to know is, whether your ruling extends to the preclusion of Amendments to the Motion, "That you do leave the Chair," for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply upon the Civil Service Estimates; and whether your ruling will extend further to the preclusion of any debate upon the subjects to which these Notices apply in Committee of Supply?
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot presume to settle cases before they arise. I must see and hear what is said in debate before I can give an opinion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I also wish to ask a Question, Sir, on a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has just announced that he will take the second reading of a particular Bill on Monday next. But that Bill has not yet been printed, seeing that permission has not been given by the House to read it a first time. Therefore, I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is not contravening the Order of the House which prevents a subsequent stage from being put down before the previous stage has been taken?
  MR. SPEAKER: I presume that before the Motion is put down for the second reading the Bill itself will have been printed.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not know whether I have put the Question quite clearly. At present the House has not given permission for the introduction and first reading of the Bill, nor has it been printed. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has announced that he will put down the Order of the Day for the second reading next Monday. What I wish to know is, whether, in doing so, the right hon. Gentleman
  860
  is not directly contravening a Standing Order of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Of course, I presume that, in the event of the Bill being read a first time, it will be printed in the interval between that stage and the second reading on Monday.
  MR. CONYBEARE: In reference to your ruling, Sir, as to the Question put by the hon. Member for South Louth (Mr. T. P. Gill) relating to two Motions standing in the Order Book in the names of the two hon. Members for Antrim, relating to jury-packing and the telegram of Captain Plunkett, I wish to know whether, supposing it is necessary to discuss the question of jury-packing—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I gave no ruling on the Question raised. I declined to give any ruling.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I was only going to ask your ruling,. Sir, in connection with a Bill of which Notice has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, whether we shall be precluded from discussing the Question relating to jury packing in connection with that Bill, owing to the Notice of Motion which is already standing upon the Notice Paper?
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot see that any objection arises as a point of Order.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government can give any intimation as to the probable date on which they will introduce their Irish Land Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make a statement on this subject almost immediately.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.

  SUPPLY-NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. COURTNEY in the Chair. [5.15 P.M.]
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £992,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense

  861
  of Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March, 1833."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The discussion which took place on Thursday night in respect of the Navy was almost entirely confined to the special subjects of which Notice had been given by Amendment on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Votes; and it was not possible, therefore, to outer into a general discussion upon naval questions and the policy indicated in the Memorandum of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton). I think, therefore, that the noble Lord has done well in giving an opportunity on this occasion for raising a further discussion upon the general questions connected with the Navy on the Victualling Vote. In opening that discussion, I am prepared fully to subscribe to all that was said by other hon. Members on Thursday night in regard to the Statement or Memorandum submitted to the House by the noble Lord, both as to its ability and completeness; and I hope that the example which has now been sot will be followed in succeeding years, and that hereafter a printed Statement will be submitted to the House in substitution of the personal explanation which has hitherto been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty. At the same time, it appears to me that an annual Statement of this kind will have much more permanent interest than a mere formal speech in introducing the Navy Estimates; and, therefore, it is most desirable that such Statements should be perfectly impartial, and not of a partizan character. I regret to say that much evil has been done in past times in consequence of mixing up partizan statements in regard to the Navy and questions of policy in the discussions upon the Navy Estimates. Such a practice is, in my opinion, much to be deprecated; and I should have hoped that in a Statement of this kind it would have been most carefully avoided. I have to complain, however, that the Statement made by the noble Lord in some respects appears strongly to partake of a partizan character, and to be specially directed against the shipbuilding policy of his Predecessors, and especially of Lord North-brook, who was First Lord of the Ad-
  862
  miralty for four or five years. The parts of the Statement which I take objection to in this Memorandum are twofold. In the first place, the Memorandum, so far as it deals with a retrospective history of the Navy, contains this assertion. The noble Lord says that—
  "During the years from 1881 to 1885, while every other Naval Power in Europe was increasing its Naval Expenditure, England alone stood still."
  The noble Lord further goes on to say that during that time England has been the only Power not to recognize the necessity of important changes in naval construction being brought to bear, with a view of obtaining thicker armour for ships and greater speed. It appears, he says, that other Powers have been largely engaged in producing vessels of greater power and speed; and that we alone have stood still, England having been the last Naval Power to recognize the new condition of affairs. The other statement to which I desire to call attention is contained in pages 14 and 15 of the Memorandum, which gives a valuation of the vessels comprising the Fleet, and also an estimate of the amount required to replace vessels which have become obsolete from old ago or wastage. The noble Lord arrives at an estimate that £1,800,000 is required annually for replacing the Fleet, and he ends by saying that the expenditure for the years immediately preceding 1885 was very much less than that amount. Now, I think I shall be able to show that both of the Statements to which I have referred are untrue, and have no foundation in fact; and, further, that they are exactly the opposite of the real state of affairs. I do not mean to say that the noble Lord has made a wilful misstatement, but he has assorted a fact, probably on the authority of others, without sufficient consideration. If the noble Lord had gone a little further back in his historical retrospect and had included the three years before 1881, he would have then found himself in conflict with some of his own Colleagues, and especially the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), and who at that time was First Lord of the Admiralty, in regard to whoso administration some of the allegations made by the noble Lord may with great truth be said. I have no desire, however, to

  863
  enter into a recriminatory discussion with the First Lord of the Treasury. I have not mentioned the matter for the purpose of bringing charges against the right hon. Gentleman, hut simply to show what was the condition in which Lord North-brook found the Navy, and the changes during his administration which were made in it. I find that the expenditure for now ships during the three years which preceded 1881 amounted to £1,430.000 a-year, which is very considerably below the point the noble Lord estimates as the proper average expenditure on new ships, and very considerably below what it was in past times and what it has been since. The Gunnery Vote had been reduced to less than £400,000. That, again, was the period in which special exertions were made by the French for reconstructing their Navy. Their increased expenditure commenced in 1876, and it reached its maximum in 1879; and for the throe-years he had alluded to it amounted to exactly the same sum as that expended in England—namely, £1,430,000 a-year. When my noble Friend Lord North-brook came into Office in 1886, he recognized the fact that the Shipbuilding Vote had been brought down to a dangerously low point, as compared with France. I was a Colleague of the noble Lord in the Admiralty at the time, and I well recollect pointing out to him what I had frequently urged in this House during the naval administration of the First Lord of the Treasury—that, having regard to what was being done in France, the expenditure of the past few years in regard to the Shipbuilding Vote for the English Dockyards and by contract, especially that for iron-clads, had been brought to a very low point. I further expressed an opinion that unless a considerable addition was made to the Shipbuilding Vote there was likely to be great alarm in the country on the subject, and probably a scare would arise which, in the end, would involve a much larger expenditure. I always recognized, for my part, that there were special reasons for the great increase which took place in the expenditure in the French Dockyards. Their vessels were built of wood, armour-plated, instead of being completely constructed of iron. They were perishing away, and would not stand the wear and tear to which they were subjected.
  864
  It was, therefore, found necessary to make great exertions to bring up the French Fleet to a proper condition; but yet the fact remained that in these three years the expenditure in the French Dockyards upon shipbuilding was exactly the same as the expenditure in the English Dockyards and by contract. My noble Friend fully admitted the necessity of doing considerably more in the direction of building now ships, and during each of the next four years he added largely every year to the Shipbuilding Vote, and the consequence was that the average expenditure for the next four years during Lord Northbrook's administration amounted to £1,900,000, or £500,000 above the average of the previous three years, and £100,000 a-year above the amount which the noble Lord opposite, in the Statement presented to the House, asserts to be necessary for the annual replacement of old vessels. Lord North-brook brought up the annual expenditure upon new ships from the point at which he found it—£1,400,000—to the sum of £2,210,000 in the year 1884–5, and the average for the whole period was £1,900,000, showing an increase of 10 per cent on the average of the previous three years. This increase was almost wholly devoted to iron-clads and the larger class of cruisers. The expenditure on iron-clads has been brought up from £700,000 to £1,300,000, or 90 per cent. Therefore I say it is not true that during the years from 1881 to 1885 the naval administration in this country stood still. The fact is that during the same time the French Government made no further increase in their Navy Vote, and the expenditure in their Dockyards during four years averaged precisely the same amount at which it stood in the previous three years. Therefore, it is exactly the opposite of the truth to say that the shipbuilding in the English Dockyards stood still while there was a rapid increase in the French Dockyards. Precisely the reverse was the case—namely, that this country increased its expenditure by 10 per cent during the four years and by 90 per cent upon ironclads, while the expenditure of the French Dockyards upon the same class of vessels remained stationary. During that period Lord Northbrook commenced eight iron-clads against four laid down by the French. Six of these vessels can run 17 knots an hour, whereas the

  865
  average speed of the four vessels laid down in the French Dockyards is only 15 knots, showing an advantage in the case of the English vessels of no loss than two knots per hour per vessel. Then, again, five of the English vessels are constructed to carry guns of 67 tons, whereas the French vessels only carry guns of 50 tons; and as to the coal-carrying capacity, I find that six of our vessels have been constructed to carry 1,200 tons of coal each, whereas the French vessels can only carry 600 tons,—thus showing that the English vessels are provided with double the amount of coal-carrying capacity which the French vessels possess. Lord Northbrook also laid down, during the same period, several very large and fast cruisers of the Mersey type, faster and bettor vessels than the French. All these vessels were either completed, or will be completed, within the present year, while none of the French vessels are within two years of completion. I think I have shown that the statements contained in the noble Lord's Memorandum are not in respect of the years 1881–4 justified by the facts of the case; and I with great confidence appeal to the noble Lord to alter his Statement, because I am quite sure he does not desire that a Memorandum of this kind, which gives a retrospect of the history of the Navy, should contain inaccurate assertions, especially when this Memorandum will hereafter in all probability be looked upon as an authentic record. I trust the noble Lord will realize the fact that his Statements are not correct, and that he will rectify them so as to bring thorn in accordance with the true facts of the case. In 1885 unquestionably Lord North brook agreed, under the pressure of public opinion, to propose to the House a special Programme, involving a further expenditure, which was to be spread over five years, of £3,100,000. This alarm was, I think, occasioned by public opinion not fully understanding, as I believe, the enormous accession of strength which is gradually being attained. The alarm had its origin, I believe, in the fear as to our relations with France arising out of that damnosa hereditas—Egypt. Lord Northbrook had always said, that while he believed that the rate of expenditure on now ships which he had attained would, if continued for a few years
  866
  longer, have been quite sufficient, yet he was not unwilling to avail himself of public opinion to hasten the building of ships by a special Programme; and he therefore applied to Parliament for the special Vote I have mentioned of £3,100,000 to be spread over five years. The expenditure was subsequently increased to £3,500.000, and was spread over three years only instead of five; with this additional money two additional ironclads and five belted cruisers—which are, in fact, second-class ironclads—are being built. The result was that a very large addition was made to the Navy, and whatever credit is due for that is entirely due to Lord North-brook, and not to the Board over which the noble Lord opposite now presides. Lot me point out that none of the ships provided under the special Programme of 1885 are yet completed; and, therefore, if it is really the case, at this moment that the provision of the ships in the first reserve of the British Navy is more full and ample than it had ever been before. The noble Lord has claimed credit for the Navy of England being stronger than the Navy of any three other Powers.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON):No; if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him, what I said had reference to the number of ships on commission.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Then the noble Lord said that the number of English ships on commission were equal to the strength of the three most powerful Navies.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No; I said nothing about the strength of the Navy; but I said that the number of ships on commission of the iron-clad class was larger than those on commission of any three other naval Powers.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: At all events, we had three times the number commissioned; and I think if the noble Lord compares the strength of the vessels he will make a similar admission in regard to that point. I think he will also be prepared to make this further admission that at this moment, in regard to the vessels which are now in the first reserve, and are coming into it in the course of the present year, the Navy of England will present a comparison with

  867
  other navies infinitely bettor than it has done with the navies of Foreign Powers for many years past. If that be so, it seems that the vessels being built under the special Programme of Lord North-brook are not yet completed; is it not clear that this satisfactory provision has been made out of the normal Votes for the Navy from 1881 to 1885? The noble Lord has attempted to throw discredit upon the special Programme of Lord Northbrook in two ways. First, he said that the adoption of it tended to throw the Dockyards into confusion; and, secondly, that it by a sudden increase led to waste. I think he ought to have remembered that all the vessels which came under the Vote of Credit were ordered to be built by contract, and not one of them in the Dockyards. Therefore it cannot be the case that any of the vessels building in the Dockyards were interfered with by the special Programme, or that the work of the Dockyards was (hereby placed in confusion. The noble Lord says it would have been far better if some of these ships had been built at an earlier period. Now, if the seven big vessels contracted for in 1885 had been contracted for three years earlier, we might have got some of them earlier; but, on the other hand they would have been inferior in many respects as to speed and other qualities. We have certainly got much more powerful vessels and vessels of much greater speed. In fact, the improvements in naval construction have been so rapid that three or four years make a great difference, and there can be no doubt that the vessels bought under that Programme are much better and more powerful than if they had been ordered three or four years earlier. Then as to the cost, it is no doubt certain that in consequence of the depression in the trade, the vessels have been bought at a far more reasonable cost than they could have been if contracted for sooner. I do not, however, wish to make much of that point, and I only put it against the attempt of the noble Lord to discredit the special Programme, and to assert that it would have been far better if the vessels had been constructed earlier. I have now done with this part of the case, and there is only one other point I wish to mention. It has reference to the contract for the engines of the Renown and the Sans-
  868
  pareil. Lord Northbrook is in Italy at this moment, and unable to make a personal explanation. I have, however, received a letter from him, in which he says that he assumes full and entire personal responsibility for what has been done in connection with these vessels. In the course of his letter he expresses surprise in regard to two points. One is, that the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Pearce) should have been included in the reference with respect to a case in which he himself had been one of the tenderers. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty has very hastily assumed that because the engines of the Nile and Trafalgar contracted for by the same firm a year later were at a somewhat lower price, therefore there must necessarily have been a mistake. That shows very little knowledge of business. The engines, though for larger ships, were of the same size, horse-power and pattern, and that very fact alone, undoubtedly, enabled the contractors—Messrs. Humphrys—to offer a lower price. The other point is, that Lord Northbrook should never have been informed that a special inquiry was taking place by a Committee of which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) was a member, and that he should have been afforded no opportunity of making an explanation on the subject. I think that many hon. Members will agree with the surprise expressed by Lord Northbrook upon these two points. I have felt it my duty to make this statement in regard to Lord Northbrook—I will not say in his do-fence, but in regard to the conduct of himself personally, and his policy and that of all of his Colleagues. I believe, myself, that the naval administration of Lord Northbrook during the period I have adverted to will bear full investigation, and will stand against any of the somewhat carping criticisms which have been made upon it by the First Lord. Lord Northbrook's fame has been mainly achieved as an administrator; and I believe that the present Government showed their appreciation of it by offering him a seat in their Cabinet. I should like to know what form the statement the First Lord would have assumed if Lord Northbrook had been one of his Colleagues at this moment? I

  869
  cannot think that any reference to Lord Northbrook would have appeared in this document in so damaging and derogatory a form with regard to Lord North- brook during the time he was First Lord of the Admiralty. Turning from these matters to the Estimates now before the Committee, I find that the Estimates for the coming year show a reduction of £793,000 as compared with last year. I confess that when I saw that amount I was somewhat surprised, especially when I recollected that the noble Lord the Member for Smith Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had left the Government, because, as he told us, he could not induce his Colleagues at the Admiralty and the War Office to assent to a reduction of even £500,000. It will be recollected that the noble Lord, in the explanation which he made at the beginning of this year, told the House that he had had a discussion with his two Colleagues at the War Office and the Admiralty with reference to a reduction of their Estimates. He said he would have been quite prepared to remain in Office if he could have induced them to make a reduction of £1,000,000. He said, further, that £100,000 or £200,000 less than that would have satisfied him, and that he was not prepared to say he would not have remained in Office if a reduction of £500,000 only could have been promised. He did not, however, find that either of his Colleagues was prepared to meet him in that respect; and therefore he was bound to send in his resignation. Certainly, in the face of that statement, I was surprised to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty claimed credit for a reduction of £700,000 in the Estimates of the year as compared with last year. I shall, however, be prepared to show that this reduction is, in fact, of an illusory character, and will not bear examination. There is an increase in the Gunnery Vote for naval purposes of £292,000. The effect of the Statement of the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) is that there has been that increase in the Vote as compared with last year. However, the comparison of the noble Lord, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point of view, should be made with the Estimates of last year, only including the addition of the Supplementary Estimates.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: That is always done.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No, it is not—at all events, not for financial purposes. The noble Lord knows well that there will be further Supplementary Estimates in the coming year, as there have been in the past; and, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may deal with the matter financially, he should make a comparison with the Original Estimates and not with the Estimates including the addition of Supplementary Estimates. Now, the Supplementary Estimates were £272,000; therefore, deducting these two items, the real diminution, as compared with the Original Estimate last year, from the point at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look at the matter, is only some £240,000 lower; and I am not sure that that sum is not also illusory, because the Supplementary Estimates have been caused by hastening on the contract work, and enabling More money to be spent in the current year. If that work had not been hastened, it is quite clear that all the money paid under the Supplementary Estimates to the contractors would fall upon the coming year; and I should like to know from the noble Lord if that has been done which was so much complained of by the Auditor and Comptroller General, and whether the money was advanced to contractors for work in hand, or whether the work has not been hastened. At all events, I am right in saying that if this contract work had not been hurried so as to bring it within the present year what is due to the coming year would have been included in the Estimates of this year, and the result would have been exactly the same. There has been a benefit to the coming year at the expense of the next year to the extent of £240,000. Taking the two Estimates together—the Army and the Navy Estimates—there is a saving only, I think, of £260,000. I cannot understand why the Government, for the purpose of saving a Colleague so valuable to them as the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, might not have advanced a little further and made a further reduction of the sum of £240,000. That would have been very easy to do, especially as the noble Lord pointed out that the liabilities at the end of the coming

  871
  year would be very much reduced from what they were at the beginning of the year. Therefore, I think the Government might easily, by postponing the contract work for three or four months, have arranged that the payments should be made to come into the financial year, and then the further reduction the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington asked for would have been effected, and in that way the Government would have saved a valuable Colleague I can only surmise that there was some other motive on the part of the Colleagues of the noble Lord for getting rid of him than the difference that existed between them of £240,000. The programme of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to now work is of a very moderate character. It provides for five protected cruisers of 2,500 tons each and a few smaller vessels. Looking at the very large increase which has been made during the last few years, I am not prepared to say that the noble Lord was bound to go further, but at all events it appears to me to be somewhat out of harmony with the noble Lord's demands last year when he supported the views of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), that an expenditure of £5,000,000 to be provided by terminable annuities ought to be spent upon cruisers. The demand made by the noble Lord last year, was that it would be necessary to construct immediately no less than 20 large cruisers, and some 20 smaller ones at a cost of £5, 000,000. I congratulate the Government at the conclusion at which they have now arrived. I think they are right in making a more moderate demand; and I congratulate the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty in having succeeded in restraining his noble Colleague, and in having brought the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone so much within his demand of last year. One of the most interesting parts of the statement of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty has reference to the future There is one statement to which I have already adverted shortly—namely, the valuation which the noble Lord has already made in regard to the effective ships in the Navy, and also the annual sum required for supplying the waste in the Navy. But I would observe that the statement contained in the Memorandam is a very
  872
  different statement indeed to that which was made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty in the course of the Recess at a meeting in Lancashire. In the course of that speech, the Secretary to the Admiralty estimated the effective ships of the Fleet to be of the value of £50,000,000; and he gave them an average life of only 15 years, bringing out the fact that an annual sum of £3,000,000 was required in order to replace the Fleet—in other words, he considered that £3,000,000 should be expended every year on new ships in order to keep up the Navy to its normal amount of value—namely, £50,000,000. He wound up in the manner usual with the present be and by making a fierce attack upon his Predecessors. He said that whereas £3,000,000 were annually required, Lord Northbrook had only provided £1,800,000, and hence the neglect of the Navy. When I read that statement I looked upon it as a very exaggerated one, and I thought there were some extraordinary fallacies connected with it. I had in past times made calculations of this kind, and I had brought out far different results. I, therefore, proceeded at once to make a valuation for myself from the information I had before me. My calculations brought out that the fair value of the existing vessels belonging to the Fleet was £35,000,000. I thought that 15 years was a very short life to give to our iron-clads. I find that out of the 56 iron-clads we now have of an effective character, no loss than 20 have had a longer life than 15 years, including the Hercules and the Sultan, and there are 22 others—such, for instance, as the Monarch and the Audacious—all excellent vessels which have had a good deal more than 20 years' life. They are still valuable vessels with many years before them. We have not yet had sufficient experience of the cruisers of a larger type to allow us to form any data with regard to them, because it is only within the last few years that iron-clads have be on substituted for wooden vessels; but the Active and Volage, built 18 years ago, are still very valuable vessels. In regard to our troop-ships, I may mention three of those vessels. The Himalaya was purchased 33 years ago, and is as good as she was on the first day she was constructed. The other two—the Tamar and the Orontes—were

  873
  both of them built more than 32 years ago. Therefore, I think it is a mistake to assign so short an average of life as 15 years for our iron-clads; and, under these circumstances, I found that the sum required annually for the replacement of effective ships amounts only to £1,800,000, instead of the £3,000,000 put down by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. For-wood). I was very nearly writing to the Press to complain of the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty on this subject, and to give my version of the value of the Fleet, and the annual cost of replacement; but I refrained from doing so believing that the hon. Gentleman would renew his attack in this House. I was rather surprised, therefore, when I looked at the Memorandum of the noble Lord to find that he had completely thrown over the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty; that he had abandoned altogether the hon. Gentleman's valuation, and had brought out a result almost identical with that which I, as an amateur, had arrived. Instead of taking the value of the vessels at £50,000,000, he brought them down to the point of £39,000,000 only, including the shipbuilding, and he conceives that 15 years is too short a limit to assign as the average life of our vessels. The result he brings out is precisely similar to that which I had done—namely, £1,800,000 compared with the £3,000,000 his Colleague the Secretary to the Admiralty proposed in the Recess. I think we are entitled to some explanation from the Secretary to the Admiralty upon this point, and to ask whether he concurs with the valuation now made by the noble Lord. If so, I think we ought to have some apology from the hon. Gentleman for the attack which he made upon his Predecessors, and which he founded on this misstatement. It is clear, then, that if the noble Lord is right, and he believes himself his Estimate is a very fair one, and is, if at all, in excess, we may look forward to a considerable reduction in our expenditure on new ships in coming years, when the special programme of 1881 is completed. We are expending this year £2,800,000 on new ships, or £1,000,000 in excess of the noble Lord's Estimate. This excess involves a corresponding increase on the Vote for guns and gun mountings. I
  874
  feel little doubt, therefore, that we may look forward to a reduced expenditure of £2,000,000 in the total Votes, including the Gunnery Vote. Turning to another point, I have observed with pleasure, on reading the Memorandum of the noble Lord, that the Admiralty are making efforts for the reform of the Admiralty organization, both in the Admiralty itself and in the Dockyards. I can assure the noble Lord that on this side of the House we heartily sympathize with him, and are prepared to do our very best to assist him in carrying out any reforms he may make. I say this because I can recollect the time when it was very much otherwise. The last attempt to reform the Dockyard administration was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers)in 1870, and at that time a most tremendous political opposition was raised against the proposed reform, which did not confine itself to this House, but was experienced in the Dockyards themselves, and within the walls of the Admiralty also. The result was that every kind of obstruction was interposed in every way to the reform of the Dockyard administration, and I am sorry to say that in the end things went very much to the bad, especially under the régime of Mr. Ward Hunt. I attribute much of what has taken place since in regard to the Dockyards, to the unfortunate way in which this attempt to reform the Dockyard administration was received. I can assure the noble Lord that none of his reforms will be treated by us in that spirit, but we shall endeavour to assist him to the best of our ability in carrying them out. I am certainly afraid that he is attempting too much at once. Dockyard reforms can only be carried out slowly and with the greatest care, and the noble Lord will find that it is not so much the system that is at fault as the men. It is difficult to find good men to place in responsible positions in order to see that the reforms you propose to introduce are properly carried out. The present system of Dockyard responsibility is such as to prevent the growth of Dockyard reforms. There is one change which the noble Lord has made which I think is in the right direction, although I cannot say that I think it goes nearly far enough. The change I refer to is in the respect of the

  875
  appointment of civil assistants to the Naval Superintendents of Dockyards. I say that those appointments are in the right direction, but they are only a very small step in the right direction. Let me point out to the noble Lord and the House what has really been done. The Admiralty have appointed a highly-paid officer in each of the Dockyards as a civil assistant to the Naval Superintendent. This officer has a salary of £1,000 a-year, which is more than is attached to the post of Chief Constructor in the Dockyards. At the same time, the civil assistant has no direct responsibility of any kind. He is not able to give a simple command or order to anyone single man in the Dockyard; he is merely the assistant of the Naval Superintendent, to advise the Naval Superintendent, and to act the part of an aide-de-camp or a kind of a spy going about the Dockyard seeing if there is anything that ought to be done, and then advising the Naval Superintendent upon the matter. Perhaps even the discharge of this duty may do good, and I believe it has done good in finding out evils of various kinds, and bringing them under the attention of the Naval Superintendent. But the reform is one which I maintain does not go far enough, and I think it is absolutely necessary to impose responsibility upon these men, and to give them some definite function to perform with full command over others. I look with great alarm at divided responsibility. Let me suppose a case. There might happen to be a difference of opinion between the Chief Constructor of the Dockyard and the civil adviser of the Naval Superintendent—say in regard to some important point of naval construction. Divided responsibility in such a respect would be a most serious matter, and might lead to a naval disaster. Therefore, I cannot but think that the noble Lord will have at a very short date to go much further, and to give these important officers some real and direct responsibility in the Dockyards. That ought to be the true end and aim of any real Dockyard reform, and I do not believe that any satisfactory reform can be carried out in the Dockyards unless you are able to build up a complete system of management and control under one supreme civil Head under the Naval Superintendents. When
  876
  you have done that, the Naval Superintendents in the smaller yards, such as Pembroke and Sheerness, will be found redundant and may be dispensed with. With respect to all that the noble Lord has said about stores, I fully concur. I recollect well that when those doctrines were upheld by the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh and Mr. Baxter, they were denounced as tending to reduce the strength of the Navy by depleting the storehouses. In regard to reforms in the Admiralty itself, I listened with some interest to the remarks made by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) upon that subject, especially in reference to the duties of the Naval Lords, in regard to which he said that great changes are taking place. He said that all of them in future would be consulted, and that they will all have to write minutes in regard to their own Department, and that nothing will be done without their approval. I listened to the noble Lord attentively, but I could detect no real change as having taken place. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to point out distinctly what change has been effected. The Order in Council distinctly lays down the responsibility of each Naval Lord; and in my time the Naval Lords signed the "Estimates." The noble Lord was obliged to admit in his speech that the Navy Estimates were flung at his head without his having been allowed to see them before they were presented, and that he was asked to put his signature to this important document-without having been consulted in the matter. I should like to know if that is the result of these new Rules? Is it the outcome of the new Rules that the Naval Lord is required to sign his name to the Estimates without ever having seen them? If so, it appears to me to be a very singular arrangement; but I would venture to say that the refusal of the Naval Lord to sign the Estimates is an unprecedented occurrence, full of danger in regard to the future. The noble Lord cannot absolve himself from the general tenor of these Estimates even by refusing his signature to them, because every Naval Lord is practically responsible for the Estimates as a whole, and if he does not care to be responsible for them his proper course is to give up his post. Although, therefore, the noble Lord did not sign the Esti-

  877
  mates he is responsible to the House and the country for them, and if he fails to do that he ought not to be there. His only alternative is to resign. There is one other point to which I desire to allude. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty gave an explanation of what is to occur in the future when new ships are under construction. I understood him to say that each Naval Lord is to be asked what he wants in a new ship—each Naval Lord is to lay down his requirements—and then the Admiralty are to call upon the Constructors to build a ship in accordance with their demands. If that is to be the new plan of the Admiralty in regard to now ships I do not know where it may lead us. Certainly not to the construction of a good vessel, I hold that one of the most important and responsible duties of the Admiralty is that of determining the designs of the larger vessels. It has been my lot to have been at the Board of Admiralty on several occasions when vessels of an important type have been agreed upon, and I know of no more responsible and difficult duty than that of arriving at such a conclusion. On all occasions the Naval Lords have been fully consulted; but so also was the Scientific Department of the Admiralty, represented by the Chief Constructors. There has often been a divergence of opinion between those two branches of the Navy; but I have never known a case where agreement was not finally arrived at between the scientific element and the naval element of the Admiralty. I think I may say that the great changes which have taken place in the designs of vessels during the last 20 years have not been due to naval officers, but that they have been forced on the Naval Service, in a great measure, by the Scientific Departments of the Admiralty, and by the Scientific Departments of other countries—especially of France. If naval officers' advice alone had been taken we should have made very little advance indeed. Eventually an agreement has been come to between the scientific department and the leading naval officers representing the Admiralty. As a general rule, the object of the naval profession is a very conservative one on these subjects, and perhaps rightly; but I do not believe that the most eminent naval men would stand by that conservative feeling unless they were egged on
  878
  by the scientific branches of the Admiralty. The consequence has been that the designs of our vessels have been the result of a combination between the best scientific and the best naval opinion. A big ship must be in the nature of a compromise in which various elements of strength are combined, as to which there is room for great difference of opinion. As a general rule, it has been possible to bring the Naval and Scientific authorities into harmony by some concessions on either side. The importance of this has already been brought under the notice of the House in the case of the Nile and Trafalgar. The facts of that case have not been disputed by the noble Lord. Their importance consists in this, that for the first time the scientific constructors wore not consulted, but were directed what to design upon the sole advice of the First Naval Lord. An order was given by the Board of Admiralty to construct these two vessels on certain conditions laid down by the advice of naval officers. The constructors objected, and reported that the vessels were not what they ought to be for the enormous expenditure devoted to them, and that they were very deficient in certain qualities, especially in speed. The constructors entered their protest, and asked that a Royal Commission would be appointed similar to that presided over by Lord Dufferin. I am not going into the whole subject of the designs of these two vessels; but I confess that the result of the debate on Thursday last was to impress me with the highest importance of the demand which has been made for a Royal Commission. That step, I believe, would result in reassuring public opinion as to the vessels already constructed after the attacks which have been made upon them by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed), which seem to me to be exaggerated, and most unfair to Sir Nathaniel Baruaby and Mr. White. I am afraid that the noble Lord, in the course which he has pursued, has promoted distrust in regard to some of the vessels which have been built, and that he has not stood up for the officials of the Admiralty as he ought to have done. I cannot help bearing in mind i what the noble Lord stated last year as to the construction of the Agamemon and the Ajax, and I think that having regard to the whole tenor of the dis-

  879
  cussion on Thursday it would be wise, at the present moment, to appoint a Commission of design, not with a view of altering any of the vessels now under construction, because that could not be done, but to reassure the public mind as to the character of the vessels now being constructed, and also with a view of laying down the conditions which are in future to be followed when now vessels are to be built. It is quite certain that before very long there will be a new departure in the case of vessels of large tonnage. I believe that the French Government are not commencing any now vessels of large tonnage, nor are they engaged, at the present moment, in laying down any large iron-clad at all. It is, therefore, evident that we are approaching some other line, and in view of that I think it would be well that a Committee of Design, similar to that presided over by Lord Dufferin, should be appointed again for the purpose of considering the designs on which the future construction of vessels should be based. I make this remark in no carping spirit. I think the programme of the noble Lord, for the coming year, is a wise and moderate one, and that it will afford an opportunity of considering what should be the character of our vessels in the future. It is quite evident that the days of iron-clads of the type of the Colossus and others are numbered, and it is right that the Government should be fully advised before taking a new departure. With regard to another point, I entirely agree with what has been stated as to the education of naval officers, and the results of the inquiry of the Ravensworth Commission. I regret what the noble Lord said about it; but I do not propose to refer to that matter now, although I shall certainly take the opportunity of expressing my views upon it at greater length on some other Vote. There is only one other point I desire to allude to. I read with pleasure the statement made by the noble Lord with regard to the personnel of the Fleet, He said that the waste of men is far less than formerly, and that the service has become more popular. I rejoice at that, for after all the personnel of the Fleet is by far the most important part of it. We can improvise in time of war to a great extent the matériel of the Fleet, but we cannot improvise officers and men of the highest
  880
  quality. That must always be a work of time with respect to the malériel of the Fleet. No one can foretell what would be the requirements of the nest naval war. My own opinion is that something very much more simple than the cumbrous and costly constructions of the last few years will he the platform on which our men will have to fight, and that science will discover something appropriate to the time, which will be improvised quicker than the iron-clads. What it may be we cannot foretell, but whatever it may be it will require hearts of steel to man our vessels. But having the greatest confidence in the personnel of the Fleet; knowing that our officers and seamen will be men of great courage and of the highest intellect, I fool that they will be adequate to any duty that may be imposed upon them, and that they will maintain the interests of the Service, and of the Empire wherever they may be called upon to act.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) stated that he is not quite sure the next Secretary to the Admiralty will know the form of vessel in which the seamen of our Fleet will have to fight. He, perhaps, thus explains his own position when Secretary to the Admiralty himself. At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact, as being generally recognized, that questions relating to the Navy were not Party questions. Yet the gist of the whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that of a Party politician. Now I am afraid that it is this Party spirit which has injured the efficiency of the Navy in the past, and that if the efficiency of the Navy is really to be restored on a firm basis, it will be as well to discard any partizan feeling when discussing matters in which the Admiralty are concerned, and by hon. Members dropping their politics for the time. The right hon. Gentleman, in praising the policy of Lord Northbrook, quite forgot to tell us which policy of that noble Lord he was praising. Was it the policy of March, 1884, when this House brought a considerable amount of pressure to bear on the Representatives of the Government, when it was demanded that an inquiry should be instituted into the condition of the Navy, when it was asserted that the House and

  881
  country were dissatisfied with the existing state of things, and when the proposal was resisted by the Representatives of the Admiralty in this House, and especially by Mr. Brassoy—now Lord Brassey—on behalf of the Government? He said, in March, 1884, that the Admiralty were satisfied that
  "the addition they were making for the Fleet was sufficient to maintain our naval supremacy, and that it would be impolitic to propose the sensational Estimates which the critics of the Government policy demanded."
  The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) maintained that it was
  "impossible for the Government to allow an inquiry to be instituted into the state of the Fleet on the supposition that its condition was unsatisfactory."
  That was what Lord Northbrook's Administration stated in March, 1884; but in the month of November in. the same year they came down to this House and asked for an additional expenditure of over £3,000,000, because they were then altogether dissatisfied with the condition of the Fleet. Which of these two policies of Lord Northbrook is it to which the right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has been referring? I think he ought to have specified whether it was the policy of Lord Northbrook in March, 1884, or the totally opposite policy which he advocated seven months later. I trust that the Committee will hear from the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty a somewhat clear statement as to the responsibility which attaches to naval individuals in the Admiralty. I confess that, after the debate which occurred the other night, I have been more confused upon that point than I was before. I have never, since 1869, been able to understand the responsibility which attaches to Naval Lords. It was stated the other night that the Impérieuse and the Warspite are frightful examples of the bad system prevailing at the Admiralty. It was then pointed out that the case of the Benbow was an example of blunders owing to the goodness of the system, but badly applied. In one of these cases it was alleged that the system was bad, but in the other that it was good. The hon. and gallant Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex (Admiral Field) said that under the Order of Council in 1869 the whole position of the Naval Members
  882
  of the Admiralty has become most un-satisfactory. That was contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), who issued that Order in Council. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was perfectly satisfactory, because it throws individual responsibility on Naval Lords of the Admiralty, and he emphasized that fact by saying that he made each Lord of the Admiralty sign the Estimates, in order to show that he was directly responsible for his own Department. The next thing which happened was that my noble and gallant Friend the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), who is so distinguished an ornament of the Admiralty and the Naval Profession, stated that he had refused to sign the Estimates because he knew nothing about them, and had not had time to study thorn. Now, I do not think it is right that the House and the country should not be able to attach some responsibility to particular men for particular failures; and I cannot see how that provision is to be made while the civil element—what I may call the clerical element—controls. I cannot conceive how it is possible to say, in regard to the defence of this great Empire, involving as it does many critical questions, which only experts can deal with, that you should spend so much larger a sum every year in the clerical department of the Admiralty than on the expert staff. I cannot conceive anything more adverse to the establishment of a better state of things in regard to the naval administration. So long as naval officers are few at the Admiralty, and until you organize your Admiralty into departments under responsible naval men, with adequate naval staff, kept there long enough to know their business, I cannot see how you can get that business efficiently done. we must also have the guarantee which is provided by the American system—that not only shall the Admiralty and the naval administration be divided into departments, but that there shall be a Naval Lord at the head of each department. Unless that is done, you will never have that proper consideration devoted to the wider questions of policy which is necessary in order to secure the due administration of the Navy. I want to know from the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty, if the Naval Lords are responsible

  883
  for the Estimates, how it is that they did not sign the Memorandum; how is it that it comes as a Memorandum of the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty alone, while the Naval Estimates, which are necessary in order to carry out his policy, are signed by a majority of the Naval Lords? If the noble Lord, and the other Lords, are responsible for the Naval Estimates, they should be responsible for the policy that is involved in them; and, therefore, they should have been called upon to sign this Memorandum. I trust I may be allowed to express a hope that the next Memorandum will be a Report from each Naval Lord at the head of each department, stating that he is satisfied that the Estimates are sufficient and necessary for the department with which he is connected, and then let the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty sign generally for himself that the Estimates are correct. That is a question of some importance, because if, under the Order of 1869, each Lord is responsible for his department, I cannot understand why the Memorandum appears as if it were the solo production of the First Lord. There is not one single word, from beginning to end, in that Memorandum as to the requirements of our coaling stations. I know the noble Lord will tell me that that is not in his Department; but I think it is a monstrous thing that the safety of the coals for the Navy in a time of war should not be vested in the Board of Admiralty, instead of resting with the War Department. It can easily be understood that the Navy will be helpless and powerless unless adequate stores of coal are secured, and yet there is not one word about the coaling stations in this Memorandum. If the noble Lord cannot guarantee an adequate provision for the coaling stations, I maintain that there is little use in spending money on ships. There is another point in connection with this Memorandum which has surprised me still more. Hon. Members will have read a very interesting paragraph about the personnel of the Fleet; but I think it is somewhat astounding that in these days the noble Lord should have omitted to mention the 10,500 Marine Infantry and 2,500 Marine Artillery under his control. It is astonishing to me that so large an Infantry and Artillery Force should be regarded as so minor a detail in
  884
  the defence of the country as not to be worthy of mention in this Memorandum. Who is responsible for this omission? Still less can I make out why, in these circumstances, we should have the House of Commons dissatisfied, and the country agitated, because the Secretary of State for War proposes to break up five batteries of Horse Artillery in order to provide garrisons for the purpose of protecting the coals required by the Navy in different parts of the world. I cannot conceive why it should be considered at all necessary to break up five batteries of Horse Artillery in order to meet naval requirements, and to provide Artillery for garrisoning naval stations. But it will be found that the Board of Admiralty, or, at all events, the Naval Departments, have 2,500 Marine Artillery placed absolutely at their disposal. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has not even considered it necessary to mention them in this Memorandum. As an officer who has spent 15 or 10 years of his life in that Force, I think I ought to know something about its value. Yet my opinion is that, although the country is spending a great sum of money in order to secure an efficient body of Artillery, the Admiralty are misusing and misapplying it. I challenge contradiction to that assertion. I find that there is a mention of the Marine Service in the Memorandum; but it is only this—that a certain number of Marines are about to be turned into butchers and bakers. I admit that that may be right; but I do not know why we should break up a number of batteries of Horse Artillery, while it is proposed to turn the Marino Artillery into butchers and bakers. I think our naval defences in a time of war is too serious a matter to be trifled with in that manner. I should like to know whether there has been any communication whatever between the War Office and the Board of Admiralty as to the application of the Marines and the Marino Artillery to the defence of the coaling stations? There is not one word about that matter in the Memorandum, nor any allusion whatever to the employment of the Marines, except as butchers and bakers. What I want to know is, whether the question of de-feuding the coaling stations under the Admiralty with a Marine Force has ever been put by the Admiralty to the War

  885
  Office? If that had been done, the whole matter could have been fairly inquired into, and the defence of these coaling stations would have been carried out at a cost infinitely loss and in a far more efficient and satisfactory manner. The noble Lord must admit that when the Horse Artillery is broken up, the War Office will come to the Admiralty and call upon them to provide transport for the Artillery and their stores to coal depots all over the world, backwards and forwards, and the country will have to pay for it. Marino Artillery would go out as supernumeraries in warships, and transport expense would thus be saved. There is another interesting point touched upon in this Memorandum. I am sure that the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone is the last person to give credit to any Department which does not deserve it. One of the most interesting portions of the Memorandum is the statement with regard to the Naval Intelligence Department. I most cordially approve, and I warmly thank the present Board of Admiralty for, the stop they have taken. It has been too long deferred already, and I think that the promotion and extension of that Intelligence Department is the wisest step the Admiralty have ever taken in its history in modern times. But I am sorry to say that I cannot give the Board any credit for the idea of this Naval Intelligence Department. The facts are these. The Naval Intelligence Department appears first in the Estimates of 1881 for the sum of £500. Lord Northbrook does not deserve credit for that, nor does Lord Northbrook's Administration. It was a totally inadequate Estimate, and merely a sop towards satisfying public opinion. The present Board of Admiralty are taking a further step in this direction, and I believe they are pursuing a wise policy—one of the wisest, indeed, which has distinguished the Admiralty for many years. More than 20 years ago I pointed to the necessity of establishing a Naval Intelligence Department; and I remember having had a bad time of it, on one occasion, at the hands of a Naval Lord of the Admiralty, because I dared to advocate certain views. At length the United Service Institution asked me to put all my arguments together and deliver a lecture upon the subject. I remember talking to a distinguished friend of mine
  886
  —who has since left the Admiralty—upon the matter, and he implored me not to deliver the lecture, because the Admiralty did not want such a Department. My lecture, however, was given in 1881, and Lord Northbrook came down afterwards and said that it was very interesting, and that something should be done in the matter. Nevertheless, it was not until 1884 that Lord Northbrook produced the Vote for £500; and he might just as well have asked for 500 pence for all the good a sum like that was calculated to do. My estimate was, and still is, that the Naval Intelligence Department should cost at least £20,000 a-year. It has leaked out how this question of the Naval Intelligence Department has been dealt with in an Admiralty Minute; but it is somewhat like the performance of the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out. There is not a single word in the Admiralty Minute which requires the Naval Intelligence Department to make itself acquainted with the vast and complicated operations of sea commerce. It is supposed that our commerce is. to a certain extent, always the same on the ocean, and there is not a single word said about the naval arrangements for the protection of that commerce, to the variations and tendencies of which these arrangements must conform. The natural laws which influence commerce are the keys to our ocean defence, and therefore I feel emboldened to ask the noble Lord what is to be the policy of the Admiralty in the event of war? Are we ready to maintain a blockade, and, if so, is the Admiralty prepared to keep up a force sufficient for blockading all the war ports of probable enemies, so as to prevent their iron-clads from getting out? In addition, to watch the great commercial ports of the enemy, are they in a position to guard the 13 great junctions of our commerce on the ocean? Are we prepared to maintain a sufficient naval force to hold those 13 junctions?—because, if we are not, we might just as well try to keep possession of the line of railway from the Victoria Station to Dover, and allow the enemy to take possession of Clapham Junction. Have we an adequate force for this purpose? Have we an adequate force to watch neutral ports so as to deny the enemy coal? The whole question of naval warfare is the

  887
  coaling of our own cruisers, find the position we may be in to deny coal to the enemy. I am satisfied, and I challenge contradiction, that the Admiralty are not prepared and have not a sufficient force at command to do these things; and I want to know what is to become of the commerce of this country in the case of war, if you are not? I hope the noble Lord will understand that in speaking strongly on this matter I am not saying that he is to blame, or that the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone is to blame, or even Lord Northbrook. I blame no individual; but I say that the system is to blame, and I contend that you are imperilling the whole of your commerce by continuing to pursue this absurd course. Just one word more. It is important for this House and the country to have some standard by which it is to measure its naval requirements. It is of no use to say that we are equal in ships to three Foreign Powers, and, therefore, we need spend no more. That would be just as reasonable as to say that Sir Charles Warren has got more police than burglars, and therefore the Estimates for the Metropolitan Police ought to be cut down. In this Metropolis do you measure the strength of your police by the number of criminals? Do you not increase your police in proportion to the growth of wealth and the area over which it is spread? We are told that the growth of the Metropolis necessitates the increase of the Police Force by 150 police constables annually. So also in the Navy—it is not a question of money primarily, but of the necessities of the case. There ought to be some standard by which the requirements of the case can be measured. Abstract comparisons with the Naval Force of other countries are worthless. Our Naval Force must be measured by our requirements, and it certainly seems to me that the strength of our Navy has not been developed in the same ratio as our responsibilities. It may be quite true that the number of Her Majesty's ships in commission may exceed those in commission of any three other Naval Powers. That, however, means nothing. I trust that in connection with the next Naval Memorandum we shall have a map issued showing by ocean districts the amount of British commerce compared with that of France, Russia,
  888
  Germany, and other Foreign Powers; also the number of ships and guns which England has on each ocean, and the number of ships and guns which foreign nations have. That would probably educate Parliament and the country as to the extent of our responsibilities, and the task which is imposed upon the Navy of this country. Abstract comparisons do nothing but blind people. The question of coal is all-important in these days, and it is regrettable to hear that Singapore is not adequately defended. I can say that the same statement applies to the Cape, notwithstanding the fact that the Cape is to us of the very utmost importance as a coaling station. Foreign fleets can coal at Madeira and at St. Vincent; and the moment a war breaks out, unless you have a sufficient squadron off these places to stop vessels from going in there to got supplies of coal, you would find it impossible to maintain the ocean routes for your commerce to the other side of the world, and your commerce would be absolutely paralyzed. Thus the neglect of the War Office as regards coaling stations increases Admiralty responsibilities. If that happens, who are you to hang? The noble Lord says—"I will not be hanged; I have nothing to do with the coals; they are not in my Department." I trust that in next year's Memorandum the noble Lord will not almost apologize for the expense, and hold out hopes of a reduction. I myself hope to see a greater increase of efficiency, and also a still larger expenditure. I cannot help thinking that it is nothing but moonshine to see your commerce grow and grow, and to expect to cut down your expenditure. At Singapore, for instance, where you import annually 300,000 tons of coal, the station is inadequately defended; and unless it is properly defended and maintained in time of war it would mean the stoppage of nearly the whole of your Mercantile Marine. Surely it is most unsatisfactory that a station like that should be left without proper defence, especially when we know that in that very Port of Singapore a greater average amount of tonnage is cleared and entered annually than in the whole of the Ports of the United Kingdom during the year Her Majesty commenced her Reign. We are told to cut down our Expenditure; but perhaps the Committee will allow me to mention

  889
  the fact that when Her Majesty began her Reign the total sea commerce of the Empire was only one-fifth of what it is now. The tonnage entering and clearing British Ports is now ten times as great, whereas our Naval Estimates are not throe times as great as at that time. Take the tonnage of the National Mercantile Marino entering and clearing the national ports, and compare the Naval Expenditure of this country with that of the other great Naval Powers. It will be found that Germany spends 7s. upon her Navy per ton of national tonnage entering and clearing national ports; Italy pays 15 s. per ton for Italian ships entering and clearing Italian ports; Russia £2 10 s. per ton for ships entering and clearing Russian ports; and Franco £1 1s. for her ships entering and clearing French ports. Thus you have Germany paying 7s., Italy 15 s., Russia £2 10 s., and Franco £1 1s., while the British Empire pays 2½d.
  MR. PULESTON: I have not risen for the purpose of making any comments upon the able speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down (Captain Colomb), but rather to answer some of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), especially where he referred to the policy of Lord Northbrook while at the Board of Admiralty. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that what the right hon. Gentlemen said as to the pressure brought to bear upon the Admiralty was quite true. It must not, however, be forgotten that before that pressure of public opinion was placed upon Lord Northbrook, the noble Lord had stated that if the £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 which was then asked for was granted by Parliament, he would not know how to use it, or what to do with it. I think I am very nearly quoting the actual words of Lord Northbrook at the time. The noble Lord found it necessary, subsequently, to give in to the public opinion of the nation at large, and that public opinion was not certainly always in accord with that of the right hon. Member for Central Bradford. Both the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman came round to it, however, very quickly at last, and they passed Votes for the purpose of putting the Navy in a proper state of efficiency. Lord
  890
  Northbrook, in the speech which he made on that occasion, declared his readiness to reverse his previous decision, and said that the money might be used with great advantage to the Navy and to the country. Therefore, I think that to quote what was said and done under the administration of Lord Northbrook is not saying very much, when we take these inconsistencies into consideration. I am sorry that any reference at all has been made to Lord Northbrook's administration, because I believe that the question ought to be discussed on its own merits, and in a manner befitting the importance and efficiency of the Navy, as well as the great interests of the country. The right hon. Gentleman devoted a largo portion of his speech to the political side of the question, and to some views expressed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord the Member for Paddington. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford should have devoted so largo a portion of his speech to a political retrospect instead of discussing the real merits of the question. I do not desire to give any credit to one Party more than another for the steps which have been taken to reorganize the naval administration of the country; and the Memorandum of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) ascribes no credit either to a Conservative or a Liberal Government, but decidedly and emphatically refers to the desirability of the policy of continuity. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the re-grot expressed by Lord Northbrook that the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Pearce) was placed on the recent Committee over which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. For-wood) presided, on account of the fact that the firm with which he is connected had tendered for the construction of the ship3 which were to form the subject of inquiry. I have nothing to say about that; but the country either requires technical knowledge to be brought to boar upon an inquiry into these subjects, or it does not. For my own part, I think it was of the highest consequence to have such knowledge as my hon. Friend possesses, just as it was to have the knowledge which my hon. Friend

  891
  opposite (Mr. Sutherland) possesses as the head of one of the largest Steamship Companies of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan has great experience in the building of large ships; and what we want and must have is the experience which he and gentlemen like himself can bring to bear upon these technical questions. Such experience, however, it would be impossible to obtain if we are to rule out every person who has an interest in the actual work. We must either adopt the one principle or the other; and if we say that we require the knowledge in these matters which a shipbuilder alone possesses, then the argument of Lord Northbrook which the right hon. Gentleman quoted falls entirely to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman has referred, in connection with the improvement and the reorganization of the Dockyards, to the difficulty of finding good men. I do not think that that is a difficulty which really exists, or that the present Board of Admiralty has found to exist. I question whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, discovered that it was difficult to find good men. I think it is always possible to find good men in the Dockyards, and if necessary to find good men who will be willing to go there when they are wanted. I was surprised, therefore, that such a statement should have been made by the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that he has himself had considerable experience at the Board of Admiralty, and that he has always taken a deep interest in these matters. Nor can I agree with the further statement which the right hon. Gentleman made, that we should practically disestablish all the naval control in the Dockyards, and establish in its place a civil control.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I did not say that. I said that the business should be under Naval Superintendents, with a complete civil control.
  MR. PULESTON: That is just the same thing, and we have gone as far as that in the arrangements made by the present Board of Admiralty. I quite concur that £1,000 a-year is a large salary to give to a civil assistant, and I have said that I could not concur in having an officer so largely salaried for doing the work which is now performed by the Naval Superintendent's
  892
  civil assistant in the Dockyards. But I think it would he carrying the principle to a grievous excess indeed in the wrong direction, if we were to give greater power to this gentleman, and piano him practically over both the Admiral Superintendent and the Chief Constructor. I admit that the position he now occupies is a very anomalous one, because he has, in reality, no power whatever; and, worse than that, he takes away a considerable amount of responsibility from the Chief Constructor, the Admiral Superintendent, and others upon whom the real responsibility ought to rest. Now, I think that is a serious consequence arising from the appointment of civil assistants. I trust that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, when he rises to take part in the debate, will reply to some of the remarks which I felt it my duty to make on a previous evening. In addition, I hope to get some information from the hon. Gentleman about the Naval Barracks. I think it is necessary to understand what is the use they are to be put to. Some £70,000 or £80,000 has been spent upon them, and I understand that only about £3,000 or £4,000 is necessary to complete thorn. It would appear that their non-completion is due to a desire to put off the matter, because only about £1,000 is appropriated for those barracks this year. It has been stated that the Marines are to occupy them when complete, and that the Marino Barracks at Stonehouse are to be sold to the Railway Company; but I believe there is no foundation for that assertion. It is a very valuable property, and I think it will be of some interest to know what the real facts of the case are. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord, or the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, will give the Committee such information in reference to those matters as happens to be in their possession at the present moment. There is one item to which I now desire to call the attention of the Committee—namely, the sum of £12,000 for armour-piercing projectiles paid by the Admiralty this last year. That seems to me to be a mixing up in these Estimates of what ought to be paid by the War Office. I do not understand why this item. should be in the Naval Estimates of last year, and I think that such an arrangement will lead, or rather has

  893
  led, to confusion in the accounts. I hope the day is not far distant when the Admiralty will have full control over its own expenditure; because I believe that is a matter of importance, so far as the efficiency of the Navy is concerned; and because I believe that much of the delay and difficulty which have taken place would have been avoided if the Navy Departments had the control of their own armaments. With reference to the reorganization of the Admiralty in respect to Dockyards, to which reference has been made, I cannot help referring incidentally, before I sit down, to the fact that every reorganization in the arrangements of the Dockyards, and in the Department of the Admiralty, necessarily entails great expenditure. It is, no doubt, quite necessary that a number of clerks and others should be pensioned off, and that the pay of men who take their place should have increased the charge by £8,000 for the coming year; but I want to impress on the Admiralty that, while we are making economies in the Dockyards, and cutting down the wages of men and discharging men too, we must not forget that a keen interest is taken by these people, by their friends, and the country generally, in the figures which show an. increase in the higher Departments, and that economies, if they are to produce contentment, should provide for reduction at the top as well as at the bottom.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I think it is desirable that I should dispose of the questions which have been raised by hon. Members who have already spoken, and I trust my hon. Friends who wish to speak on the Estimates will pardon me for intervening at this stage of the discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) has pointed out that there is a certain charge for armour-piercing projectiles, and he asked why that item is included in the Navy Estimates. The simple explanation is that the Vote for which the War Office is responsible was already so high that it was thought impossible to include this sum; and, for that reason, and rather than leave out a provision for these projectiles, we have included the charge in the Navy Estimates. In the same way, with regard to the armaments on which these projectiles are to be tried, al-
  894
  though, under the present system, the War Office must provide the great bulk of the money necessary for the armament of the Navy, yet I hold, undoubtedly, that it is the right of the Navy, if they cannot get sufficient Supplies from the War Department, to get it under their own Vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport also spoke of the Dockyard reorganization, and scorned to doubt the necessity of discharging a certain number of men from those establishments. We found last year that it was necessary to make a change which placed upon us the unpleasant task of having to discharge, at different times, a certain number of men; but a review of all the considerations brought home to the minds of the Board the absolute necessity for this. It was said at the time that it was our duty to find work for these men; but that doctrine is one to which I cannot assent, because it must be borne in mind that the Dockyards exist for the Navy of the country, and not for the men who are employed in them; and it is the duty of the Admiralty, therefore, to administer the Naval Department as efficiently and economically as possible, even though it may happen, and as, I fear in certain cases, it has entailed more or less hardship on individuals and distress upon localities. It is the desire of the Admiralty to put the Dockyards in a firm and impregnable position, so far as their work is concerned; but when, under the various alterations and reforms which are being pressed forward, the Dockyards become more efficient, and as soon as they are able to hold their own with private yards, there will be no opposition to asking that the great bulk of the work required by the Navy shall be done in them. With regard to the relations of the Admiralty Superintendent and the civil assistant, the principle on which we have endeavoured to proceed with regard to the Dockyards and the different Departments, is to make one man responsible for all that goes on there. If he wants more assistance we are willing that he should have it; but I am convinced that many of the undoubted blunders which have occurred in the past were owing to the system under which no one man was held thoroughly responsible for what occurred in a Department. The right hon. Gentleman

  895
  the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) says that he approves of this appointment of civil assistant; but, if so, I think it is unfortunate that he should have spoken of his work as that of a spy. The right hon. Gentleman has made use of a most unfortunate epithet; it is one which I think is not calculated to assist that officer in the difficult work which he has to do in the Dockyards. How is it possible that any man can discharge the duty of supervising labour at the Dockyards if a distinguished Liberal, one of the Members of this House, characterizes his work as that of a spy? The very word illustrates the way in which the right hon. Gentleman approaches the discussion of naval questions. He looks on the question from a Party point of view, and anything which is not associated with himself, or his Party, he feels bound to disparage and depreciate. He commenced his speech by saying that I have made a statement which is not true, and which is unfair to Lord Northbrook, and to the Board of which Lord Northbrook was the head. I have great respect for Lord Northbrook, and I should be very sorry to say anything that was unfair of him, or of the Board over which he presided. What are the statements which the right hon. Gentleman characterized as untrue, but which he did not prove to be so? I stated in my Report that "in the period between 1881 and 1880 every Naval Power in Europe save Englargely increased its naval expenditure." Well, that is true. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that it was true. But he says—" You ought not to have made that statement, because in the period antecedent to 1881 the Conservatives were in power." What on earth has that do with my statement? I submit that what must to a great extent influence the expenditure of this country is the expenditure of foreign nations. We cannot help noticing what foreign nations do in this respect, and it is apparent that during the period I have named, Franco and Germany had enormously increased their naval expenditure.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I stated that between 1881 and 1885, France had not. increased her naval expenditure, and I called attention to the statement of the noble Lord as to the position of England during that time.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I showed the other day that while the expenditure of France had increased 30 or 40 per cent. our expenditure had only increased 16 per cent for the period 1876–1886; and it is the fact that between 1881 and 1885 the total expenditure of France largely increased, and I wont on to say that "England was the last Naval Power to recognize these new conditions." That is true; and it was because of that the large Vote was brought forward by Lord Northbrook, All I asserted was that if that expenditure had been spread over a larger number of years, greater care would have been taken in disbursing it, and the nation would have derived greater benefit from the outlay. The Statement which I drew up and which is laid before the country, presents an accurate view of the naval affairs of the nation. If it happens to reflect on any particular Administration, what does that matter to the country—if it is true? I do not believe the House of Commons to be a hard master, in the matter of expenditure) on the Navy, provided the Government take the House into its confidence, and make a full and frank statement. Every Government is liable to make blunders, and it is the duty of those who succeed them to seek to benefit by past experience, in order to remedy those blunders. If the Board with which I have the honour to be associated should commit blunders, is it to be supposed that a succeeding Government is to be deterred from commenting upon the faults of our Administration? What was the Administration up to 1885, which the right hon. Gentleman champions? Was it a satisfactory Administration? Does the Report in any way strain the facts? Why, one hon. Gentleman, who is perhaps the greatest authority on shipbuilding in the House, the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) fell foul of me the other night, because he said I made far too favourable defence of what he calls the blunders of that Administration. What are the facts? In the Memorandum to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, he will find the following passage:—
  "With the important exception of being more deeply immersed than was anticipated, the Impérieuse, in her trials, fully realized the expectation of her designer, and notwithstanding her deep draft, she is now, taking the

  897
  essentials of speed, armament, and armour into consideration, if not actually the most powerful, one of the most powerful iron-clad cruisers afloat of her tonnage."
  And that is what the right hon. Gentleman calls undue depreciation of the vessel. The right hon. Gentleman was Secretary to the Board of Admiralty which occupied itself in laying down vessels of the Impérieuse, Warspite, Admiral, and belted cruiser class. There is a great dispute as to whether or not those belts were deep enough. Into that dispute I will not now enter; but the Committee will understand that where there is a narrow belt of armour over the vital part, so to speak, of the ship, it is essential that the draught of the vessel should be what was anticipated when she was laid down. Every one of those ships was more deeply immersed than she ought to have been. Why was that? Because, at the time they were laid down, proper co-operation did not exist between the different Departments relative to their complement and armour-plates. What happened with reference to the Benbow? She is a vessel which was to carry two 67-ton guns; but the armament was suddenly changed to two 110-ton guns; and the consequence was, that she had to carry additional weight on that account, and also on account of shot and ammunition. The Rodney was designed to carry 43-ton guns, and, after she was laid down, that was altered to 63-ton guns. In the case of the belted cruisers, the complement of men was put down at 350; but it was found that the crew necessary to work the guns was 421 men. Every one of these mistakes could have been prevented. I allude to this matter, not for the purpose of finding fault with the late Board of Admiralty, but in order to show to the country that the present Board have made an alteration which we believe will be beneficial. It consists in this—that when a design of a ship is approved by the Board of Admiralty, each single officer—the First Lord, the Comptroller, and Chief Engineer—should, in consultation with the designer, fix the weight of the engines, the number of the complement, and the exact nature of the armament, that they should estimate the exact weight necessary to supply that complement and armament; and then that they should attach their signatures to
  898
  the contract, after which no alteration shall be made. I have alluded to the fact that these ships were more deeply immersed than they ought to have been, because that is a very great blunder, and because every one of them will have a belt of much less utility than it was intended to be. [An hon. MEMBER: Are any of the belts under the water?] That depends much on the quantity of coal on board. The second mistake in the action of the late Board is to be found in the fact that, for the purpose of obtaining high speed, the designer was in the habit of associating the trial of vessels with what are called legend weights. The statements made in this House with reference to trials were thoroughly misleading. They were misleading because, if the vessel has her full supply of coal on board, it is evident that she cannot attain such a high rate of speed as when she has not her full quantity on board. Having detected this, it was my duty to show, as clearly as I could, what the Board of Admiralty unanimously decided upon to prevent its recurrence. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that I wrote this Memorandum for the purpose of causing pain to those who held Office before us. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to that Statement, let him read the evidence laid before several Committees, and the Reports made by the Select Committee as to the state of things existing at the Admiralty in 1885. Lot him read the evidence of General Graham on the Dockyards, and he will see that the language used is far stronger than anything I have said in this Memorandum, for I knew how much Party fooling entered into the discussion on the Navy Estimates in this House, and I was anxious to start with no such embarrassment. The right hon. Gentleman wont on to say that the programme of work proposed to be laid down is of a very moderate character. What is the position in which we find ourselves? There is provision made for additions to the Navy which have never before been made in one year. We found that we were able to produce this result by placing all the power we could on the vessels that were building; and we felt, until that was done, it was not advisable to launch into a more extensive programme. But there was another consideration. If we had laid down a

  899
  large number of sloops and gunboats, we should have been compelled largely to increase the Dockyard Establishments; but next year, when we have finished the iron-clads now building, there will be a considerable reduction in the Establishments. When we came into Office, there were in, the Dockyards 80,000 to 100,000 tons in iron-clads perfectly useless to the country. They were all near completion; and the lesson we have learned is this—if you want to turn those vessels out of the Dockyards rapidly, you must lay them down at such intervals that you can afford full and continuous employment for each branch at the Dockyards. The policy which we have pursued is to complete all the vessels in hand as soon as possible; and then, when the}' are finished, to fill up the gaps by laying down fresh vessels. The right hon. Gentleman says there has been no alteration in the law which constituted the Board of Admiralty. But there has been an alteration in the system. Under the present law, and under the Order in Council, the First Lord of the Admiralty is primarily responsible to Parliament and the country for the Navy and the expenditure connected with it. The other night I stated that the two Orders in Council of 1869 and 1872 illustrated the different manner in which the Admiralty has been worked. Under the Order in Council of 1869, the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) speaks of the Lords of the Admiralty as his "assistants;" his object being, as he practically admitted, to reduce the Board of Admiralty to the same condition as the Board of Trade, which has very little to do. Then the second Order was passed which rescinded the Order in Council of 1869. Then the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into Office, and he passed a second Order in Council, which rescinded that of 1869, striking out that objectionable word "assistants," and putting the Naval Lords in their proper position—that of Colleagues of the First Lord. Since I, myself, have been at the Admiralty I have endeavoured—and Lord Ripon worked on the same lines—I have endeavoured to give as much authority as possible to the Naval Lords, each in his own Department. The first object of our desire, therefore, is to give the Naval Lords, as far as
  900
  their own Departments are concerned, as much power as possible; and the second object is to ensure, so far as the general question of policy goes, that there should be full and adequate discussion at the Board. The question is raised in another sense by the omission of my noble and gallant Friend's (Lord Charles Beresford) name from the Estimates. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bow (Captain Colomb) seems to think it would be better if in future the names of all the Lords of the Admiralty were attached to the Memorandum laid before the House. I do not think that is possible. If you have a largo number of people to draw up a Report, the probability is that the Report will not be very satisfactory. It is a curious fact that, previous to 1869, when the powers of the Junior Lords were greater than they are now—and when nearly all the business of the Admiralty was transacted before a full Board—it was not the practice of all the Lords, although they were responsible for the Estimates, to sign them. It was then insisted that all the Lords should sign the Estimates, and I find that the signatures came to be given as a matter of course. I thought that a somewhat objectionable practice; and, therefore, before these Estimates were presented, I asked my Colleagues whether they had any objection to sign them, and my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Charles Beresford) said that, inasmuch as he was not cognizant of ail the Estimates and their details, he thought it was better he should not attach his name to them, although he fully agreed with the policy embodied in them. It is a matter for consideration whether anyone should attach his name to any document of this kind unless he has had an opportunity of going through the whole it. It is perfectly evident to the House, as business men, that the mass of complicated figures such as this, comprising 100 pages, cannot well go before each individual Member of the Board in that manner. What can be done was done in the present instance. the policy which is embodied in the Estimates was fully discussed, the shipbuilding programme was agreed to, and then it was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Forwood) and myself to go through the Estimates and, in connection with the Naval Lords, who are

  901
  responsible for each individual Department, put the figures into shape. I think, however, it is a proper matter for consideration whether, in subsequent years, it would not be better to go back to the old practice, and for all the Members of the Board to sign the whole document, or whether each of them should only attach his name, so that each Lord may sign those Estimates for which he is personally responsible. Now, with regard to the subject of the Intelligence Department, which has been referred to in the discussion, I am glad to say we have secured the services of about 10 of the ablest young officers in the Navy, and I believe they will be able satisfactorily to perform their duties not at a cost of £20,000, as an hon. Member has suggested, but at a cost of something like £4,000 or £5,000 a-year. It will be seen at once that, as the officers I have mentioned are on The Navy List, their employment in the Intelligence Department does not involve any additional charge, so far as pensions are concerned. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) approved of the proposal to estimate the value of the Navy by giving a capital sum, as representing the value of the Navy, and appropriating an annual sum for the purpose of meeting depreciation and waste. I believe that the figures which are contained in my Memorandum will stand the test of time; but when the right hon. Gentleman draws a comparison between the figures in my Memorandum and the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty in Lancashire some time back, it is only right I should say that this idea and the figures are those of my hon. Friend; and I am sure both the Board of Admiralty and the House are much indebted to him for the ability and energy with which he has worked out the idea. I believe he puts before the House, in a plain and intelligible way, what is the sum which ought to be spent annually to keep our Navy up to the requisite strength. My experience is that it is no use placing before the Committee an enormous mass of figures; what, I presume, hon. Members would like to have is a simple account which, at one glance, will tell them what we are doing, what we propose to do, and what
  902
  ought to be done. There are many business men in the House, and I believe this idea of annually voting a sum neither more or less than that which we consider to be requisite to make good the waste and depreciation of our Fleet is one which will commend itself to their minds. There is a considerable difference between the total of the capital account in this Memorandum and that which my hon. Friend gave in Lancashire; but his estimate in Lancashire included a number of things which are excluded in the Memorandum. My hon. Friend's estimate included all the gun-mountings and armaments; and if we take into consideration the total cost of the armaments and gun-mountings, which amounts to something over £10,000,000, there is practically only a slight difference between my hon. Friend's estimate and the estimate in my Memorandum of about £200,000. The estimate my hon. Friend gave in Lancashire was not an estimate worked out by actuaries as that contained in the Memorandum is, but it was a rough estimate made from the materials which he had during the time at his command.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I drew attention to the fact that the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) arrived at the estimate of £3,000,000. and that then he stated that the late Board had only provided £1,800,000. The latter figure certainly did not include either armaments or gun-mountings.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am not myself cognizant of all the details of my hon. Friend's (Mr. Forwood's) speech; he is quite able to take care of himself, and I have no doubt that, later on, he will satisfactorily explain any statement that he made. Then, allusion was made to the speech I delivered at the Mansion House on Lord Mayor's Day. Now, Sir, what distresses me very greatly is that it is the habit of certain writers in the Press to constantly depreciate everything connected with the Navy, and the result is that a wholly false estimate of the naval strength of this country is convoyed to the minds of people. I believe there are persons in this country who believe we have got the worst Navy in the world; and I believe it to be a great advantage to this country that there are here competent naval attachés, representing various foreign Governments, who are able to

  903
  represent to their Governments what our real naval strength is. Therefore, on the occasion in question, I was anxious to lay before the country and the world a clear statement of the condition of things. I pointed out that we had as many ships in commission as any three naval Powers; but I never implied that we wished to fight, or considered ourselves a match for any three naval Powers that were in a thoroughly satisfactory condition. On the contrary, the views I then laid down were in full accordance with those expressed in this Memorandum before the Committee. We have made great progress with our iron-clads; we have now coming on a large number of efficient cruisers; but all naval officers will agree with me when I say that a great portion of our sloops and gunboats are obsolete and quite unsuited to the requirements of modern naval warfare. There is one remark I must make with reference to these gunboats and sloops. I find that a considerable portion of these gunboats and sloops are in their first commission, but that they are quite obsolete in respect to speed. I do hope that, whoever may be at the Admiralty, they will take care that, when small vessels are laid down, they are of the requisite speed and have sufficient power in them. Every year speed is becoming a more essential fact in naval warfare, and it is possible for a vessel of comparatively limited displacement to attain a high speed. I am sorry I have detained the Committee at so considerable a length. I have, I think, shown that this Memorandum of mine was drawn up in no partizan spirit, but with an anxious desire to secure efficiency without undue expenditure. When the present Board of Admiralty accepted Office, all of us were determined to do our best to attain that object. We were conscious we might have difficulties to contend with. We knew we might come in contact with some of the old usages of the Service, and have to confront local prejudices and class prejudices; but we felt that the duty imposed upon us was one from which we ought not to shrink. I am confident that if Boards of Admiralty will frankly lay their case before the House of Commons without exaggeration—if they point out what has been done, the manner in which it has been done, and what
  904
  is required to be done—I believe this House will always give a most patient and attentive consideration to any such appeal. I believe, moreover, that no difficulty will be experienced in obtaining the money required to put the Navy in efficient condition, provided that there are guarantees that the money will not be wasted.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the Statement of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) is of a very melancholy character, because what does it mean? It means that the British Admiralty is only now—in the year 1887—learning a very elementary portion of its duty in the administration of the Navy. We, who are connected with the Mercantile Marine of this country, have been brought up to do exactly what the Admiralty now propose to do. In building ships for the Mercantile Navy it has been our custom to study every point—to consider what work particular ships have to do, what speed they are to go, and what weights they have to carry—but it seems to me that the building of ships for the British Navy has been very much a matter of chance. Why has that been so? Because of the system hitherto prevailing that ships have been laid down, and instead of being built as speedily as possible, the time of construction has varied, and in some cases has been as long as seven or eight years. I believe I am correct in saying that, at present, the capabilities of the country are such that the very largest iron-clad could be built within two years, and oven in two years there are certain alterations which could not be avoided, on account of the strides now made in mechanical science. But these alterations ought to be allowed for in the Estimates. Instead of that, everything is drawn down to the very finest point, and there is no margin loft for any contingency. What is the consequence? Even, according to the statement of the noble Lord, very few of our recently constructed vessels of war are up to the requirements for which they wore intended. During the late war scare large sums of public money were expended, but still the old reckless system prevails. Now-a-days ships are ordered by the half-dozen; but when they are completed, it is found there are great deficiencies in them. If one vessel were to

  905
  be built at a time as speedily as possible, we should be able to find out exactly what that vessel could do, and what improvements could be made. It must be borne in mind that we have, in this country, great private shipbuilding yards, owned by gentlemen who are very competent to be of great service to the State in giving advice in the designing and the construction of vessels for the Navy. Although we are, after all, greatly indebted to the professional gentlemen connected with the Navy, we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that their profession prompts them to take a somewhat shortsighted view, compels them to run in too narrow a groove. Now, if the Admiralty, when they have once made up their minds as to the class of vessel they think suited for certain services, would consult with the different private builders, I feel sure great improvements could be made in the designs of Her Majesty's ships of war. Having sat in this House for a great many years, I have noticed the repetitions of the same old stories. We have had hon. Members rising, gone-rally from the Conservative Benches, and telling us that a great deal of money has to be spent. Their excuse is that the expenditure is necessary for the defence of the Mercantile Navy of the country. The Mercantile Navy wants defending, but the taxpayers of the country want defending also. The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bow (Captain Colomb) made me wonder whether the world was so big that there were so many British interests to defend. According to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view, it is not £12,000,000 of money that is required to protect our interests in the different parts of the world, but I should imagine it must be something like £100,000,000 of the money of the British taxpayers. ["No!"] I think I am correct in saying that, if all the requirements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were complied with, that not much short of an expenditure of £100,000,000 would be requisite annually. But I rose more especially to call attention to the peculiar agreement which has been made by the Admiralty, sanctioned by the Treasury, for what is called the subvention of merchant steamers for State purposes. Looking through the noble Lord's Memorandum,
  906
  I find that the excuse for that subvention is, that £500,000 of the British taxpayers' money was wasted during the late war scare in hiring fast merchant vessels. I have not the slightest doubt that every penny of that £600,000 was wasted. I have not the slightest doubt that every penny that is going to be spent on this subvention of merchant steamers for State purposes will be also wasted. Although I do not like to bring, what may appear, mere Party politics before the Committee, there have been some whisperings that, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) stood as a candidate for the representation of one of the Divisions of Liverpool, a feeling prevailed in Liverpool that the people there had been badly treated by the present Government in the taking of the mails away from Liverpool and giving them to the North German Lloyd steamers sailing from Southampton. That may or may not have been the fact; but, any way, we do know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not returned for Liverpool. Well, now, shortly afterwards we find that this agreement has been made with the White Star Company and the Cunard Company, by which a certain price has been fixed for the hire of certain of their vessels. Knowing what I do of merchant steamers, I am prepared to say that the price fixed for the White Star steamers—which are not modern steamers, which have an old class of engines, and which, in other ways, are not suited for the purpose intended—is utterly unreasonable and extravagant. The price fixed for the Britannic, for instance, is £130,000. If the vessel were put in the market it is very likely it would be impossible to get half that sum for it. A new vessel of the same class with modern machinery, could be built for a considerably less sum than the price named for the Britannic. But in addition to the price of £130,000 fixed, if the vessel is taken by the Government, 10 per cent is to be added to that price, which makes another£13,000; so you give £143,000 for a merchant steamer which is supposed to be of some service to the country as a fast cruiser, but which, I fear, will not be found to be the case. Now, let us consider what is the arrangement with the Cunard Company. The vessels of this Company to be taken are those—

  907
  the Umbria. the Etruria, and the Aurania. The price of the Etruria. is fixed at £310,000. I am not prepare to make the statement as a fact, but I am under the impression, having made some engines, that a new vessel of the Etruria class, also with modern engines, could be built for, from £220,000 to £250,000. But in the case of the Etruria you also add 10 per cent, which makes £30,000, or a total of £340,000. In addition to that, you are going to give to the White Star and Cunard boats what a barrister would call a retaining fee of 15 s. a-ton, making £5,100 a-year for each ship. What does that mean? It means that to a Company that is running in competition with other Companies, you are giving out of the taxpayers' money a subsidy which places them at an advantage over others who are competing with them in the same trade. Then you fix the hire of these vessels at 20 s. a-ton per month. Any shipowner in the country would only be too glad to get 20 s. per ton per month for his vessels. The fleet of the Peninsular and Oriental Company is about 200,000 tons; so a retaining fee of 15 s. per ton per annum would sum up to £150,000 per annum. During the late scare, when transport vessels were wanted, and when so much money was wasted by the late Government, the hire of merchant steamers was down as low as 10 s. and 11 s. per ton per month. And when you have got these vessels, when you have spent this money on them, my own opinion is they will be utterly useless as armed cruisers, and that this agreement will result in a gross waste of public money. Another point in this subvention, but to which, perhaps, my remarks do not apply as strongly, is, that when now vessels are built which come up to the Admiralty requirements, they are to come under the terms of the subvention, and they are also to have a retaining fee. I am very doubtful, indeed, as to the wisdom of this arrangement; but, anyhow, the last provision of the subvention I have mentioned is very much better than that by which you take old unsuitable vessels, fix an enormous price upon them, give them a retaining fee, and also fix what is a very largo and profitable price upon them for their hire. Those of us who are connected with steam shipping know that, every now and then, the country gets
  908
  into a state of alarm, merchant steamers are taken up in a somewhat reckless manner, large hire is paid, and in some cases it has been a godsend to Companies to have their vessels taken; in. more than one case it has saved the Company from premature bankruptcy. I do not apply tin's remark to this agreement; but what has happened ought to be a warning to this Government, and to any Government, not to make such a foolish agreement as this—a totally unnecessary agreement—and not to waste money in the way suggested. If the Government of this country think they have £50,000 a-year to spare—although I am now perhaps entering upon a different subject—let them grant that as an annual subsidy to the distress in the Metropolis, and we may excuse them; but as things stand, I unhesitatingly say that this is an agreement that ought not to be ratified by the House of Commons, and if there is an opportunity when the Vote comes forward of pronouncing against it, I shall certainly do so, either in Committee or in the House.
  COLONEL, HUGHES-HALLETT: I should not have intervened in this discussion to-night had it not been for two Questions asked in the House this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Henry Tyler) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Finsbury (Mr. J. Rowlands). These Questions induce me to ask the Committee to allow me to say a few words upon the subject referred to in them. It will be fresh in the recollection of the Committee that a short time ago some rather painful discoveries were made as to the sale of designs of ships of war at Chatham Dockyard; and I am reminded by what has occurred to-day of a Question I put during the last Session of Parliament to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I asked whether it was true, as stated in the American Press, that the United States Government had managed to obtain confidential plans and specifications of some of our ships of war. The noble Lord seemed to think that the Question imputed rather a breach of trust to some of our officials. Well, I happen to have with me the extract from the American Press upon which I based my question—having provided myself with it to-day on seeing in the Paper the Notices of the Questions to which I have alluded.

  909
  The Army and Navy Register, of Washington—a journal occupying in America a position similar to our Army and Navy Gazette, says—
  "Secretary Whitney"—that is the official at the head of the American Navy—"has determined to include in the list of new cruisers for which proposals are to be invited, the large unarmoured cruiser authorized by the Bill passed two weeks ago to increase the naval establishment, and has directed that for this vessel the plans prepared by Chief Constructor White, of England, for the ship known as No. 27, be used. These plans contemplate a vessel of greater power and speed than any cruiser now afloat—in fact, the very highest-powered vessel of the kind in the world at the time of completion."
  Then follow the details and dimensions of the ship, with which I will not trouble the Committee. I think hon. Gentlemen will agree with me that I had some reason for asking the First Lord of the Admiralty the Question I did—they will agree that I was justified in asking whether the statement contained in this extract was true or false. Since then—only a few days ago—a statement was made in the papers to the effect that these very designs to which that Question referred were parted with by Chief Constructor White, when he was not in the employ of the Admiralty. Mr. White, therefore, is absolved from blame in this matter; but the Committee will remark that in the paragraph I have read, upon which I founded my Question, there was no indication of that kind. I am reminded of the observations of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) the other night, who mentioned what struck me as a strange piece of information—namely, that Mr. White, whilst Chief Constructor at the Admiralty, was allowed to do work—of course including the execution of designs—for the firm of Armstrong and Company, of Elswick.
  LOUD GEORGE HAMILTON: As I have several times before stated, Mr. White was in the Admiralty, and he left-it when he became head of the shipbuilding yard of Messrs. Armstrong and Company. When the Chief Constructor of the Admiralty, Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, retired, I offered the appointment to Mr. White; but the greatest difficulty in the matter was the desire of Messrs. Armstrong and Company to retain him in their service. The only condition Messrs. Armstrong and Company made on parting with him, was that they might be allowed
  910
  to consult him in certain contingencies with regard to uncompleted contracts.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETT: I simply mention what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff said, and I hope the Committee will understand that, not for one moment, do I impute blame to Mr. White. Passing that matter by, I should like to direct the attention of hon. Members to a curious publication which appeared in America not long ago, issued for private circulation by the Naval Constructor of the United States Navy. It appears from that publication that two years ago the United States Naval Constructor was requested and required by the Secretary to the United States Navy to go over to England with the view of learning all he could as to our "improvements in naval architecture, and especially with regard to the steel ships of war." In the preface to this book are set forth the communications made by the then Secretary of the United States Navy to this Naval Constructor, Mr. Philip Hitchborn. This gentleman was informed that the Bureau of Construction would defray all his expenses; that he was to keep vouchers of those expenses; but that when vouchers were not given, he was to keep the best record he could. Mr. Hitchborn came over to England, and visited Pembroke Dockyard first, where he met with some success. While there he obtained, in some way or other, detailed information from specifications of the size and form of the composite barbette ships Anson and Howe, and a photograph of the double bottom of the Howe. He was also supplied somehow with extracts of specifications of the Forth and the Thames, which were being constructed there at the same time. That was all the information he could obtain at Pembroke. At Devonport Dockyard his efforts were crowned with greater success; for he obtained geographical and descriptive estate plans of that Dockyard, and of the Keyham Steam-Yard or machine factor}'. These plans were much fuller than could have been obtained from the Ordnance Survey or any published plan. They are strictly Admiralty confidential information, and the question is how could, Mr. Hitchborn have obtained them? He could not have obtained a staff of surveyors and naval architects to measure up and plot off these extensive establishments, because the proceeding would

  911
  have had to be done in the open, and it would have been detected and stopped at once. He could not have obtained his information by a bird's-eye view, as the plans are geographically and mathematically exact in their details. Somehow or other he got hold of detailed information. He also procured information from specifications of the Mariner, Racer, and Icarus, sloops of 970 tons displacement; particulars of the Royalist and Amphion, sister ships; and some particulars of the Tamar, troopship, which had put in at that time for repairs. At Portsmouth Dockyard, Mr. Hitchborn obtained specifications and particulars of the following ships:—Collingwood, Colossus, Camperdown, Impérieuse, Hecla, and Polyphemus; a sot of detailed working drawings of the Calliope; the detailed construction of the 'midship section of the Mersey, and a plan of the fighting-deck of the Mersey, with its general arrangement of machine-guns, etc. Then he went on to Chatham, where he obtained specifications, etc., of the fast cruisers Severn, Arethusa, Leander, Phœton, etc.; worded particulars of structural details of the Rodney and Hero; copies of the confidential detailed plans of the 'midship section of the Rodney; and particulars of the composite construction of the Caroline. I have now in my possession facsimiles of the drawings Mr. Hitchborn obtained, and I should be glad to show them to any hon. Member who may desire to see them. The question is, were these plans and specifications confidential, or were they not? If they were, how did this gentleman manage to get hold of them; and if they were not, there is no need to make any fuss about the disclosure of naval secrets, and no need to talk about the desirability of meting out punishment to anyone? I say, if these plans and specifications were confidential how did Mr. Hitchborn get possessed of them? The Dockyard officials would never have given them to him, nor would the Admiralty officials—it seems to me preposterous to imagine such a thing for a moment. The only inference we can draw is that these plans and designs and specifications were obtained from Pembroke, Devonport, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Chatham in the same way that they were obtained from Chatham the other day. I asked the Government a few days ago whether the man Terry
  912
  who had been detected selling these designs at Chatham had ever been employed as naval draughtsman in any other Dockyard except that of Chatham; for if he had been at Pembroke, Devon-port, Plymouth and Portsmouth, Mr. Hitchborn's possession of these plans and specifications might have been accounted for; but it seems that before his employment in Chatham Dockyard he was nothing but assistant overseer at some works in Sheffield. The conclusion we must come to, therefore, is that there were some other Young Terrys lying around at the other Dockyards, ready for some miserable gain to sell the secrets of their country. What Powers have been supplied with these plans? What other country, besides America, is in possession of this detailed information concerning the characteristics of our ships and the formation of our Dockyards. It is possible that some other Powers may have them. It is true that at the present moment we are at peace; but we never know now-a-days when we may have to expect war—we never know how soon or how far friendly relations existing between us and other nations may be broken. I hope hon. Members will bear this in mind, that though we may not suffer in time of peace through a foreign Power possessing the plans and designs of our ships, in time of war these very designs will be used against us to our detriment. It seems to me that it is nothing short of high treason, in time either of war or peace, for anyone to sell to a foreign Government any description of Her Majesty's ships. I do not know how hon. Members take it; but it does seem to me that designs and specifications relating to our vessels of war should be kept in the strictest manner confidential, all knowledge of them being confined to this country, seeing the enormous amount our taxpayers have to pay in respect of them. No considerations of courtesy or etiquette should permit any English official to make known to the Representative of any foreign Power such information as this; and I do hope and trust that if these designs are hold by the Admiralty to be confidential—and I assume they are so hold as we are told—although we are told that foreign attachés are allowed to look at thorn and examine them, but not to take them away—the noble Lord the First Lord of

  913
  the Admiralty will not content himself with issuing the new rules to which he has referred, and with putting up proclamations in the Dockyards—on the principle, I am very much afraid, of locking the stable door after the horse is stolen—but that if the existing law is not strong enough to punish these offences I have referred to, he will use his influence to get it amended speedily, so that it will be possible to visit with the very severest penalties, such as imprisonment with hard labour, those who recklessly and wilfully sell the designs of Her Majesty's Navy to foreign Powers, thereby imperilling the safety of the country.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUE: I desire to give credit to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty for the improvements which he has effected in the form in which the Navy Estimates have been laid before the House. I had an idea that the Army Estimates were better arranged than those for the Navy; but I see that a I great improvement has taken place in regard to the Appendices of the latter, and I trust that any defect which still may be found to exist with regard to them will be remedied by the noble Lord. In regard to the naval guns, about which I spoke last week, I had not seen the details set forth in the Appendix, but I think there are still some defects in the information which should be remedied. When we had nothing but wooden ships, we had an accurate list not only of the number of the vessels, but of the armaments of these vessels. We had an establishment of four fleets each of 30 line-of-battle ships, making 120 line-of-battle ships, armed with 17,500 guns. Since, however, the old establishment was broken up, we have always been at a loss as to what the exact armament of the new Navy should be. Until we have an accurate system established, it will be impossible to found any conclusion upon the cost and the number of guns. At one time the establishment of guns seem to be 3,000 breech-loaders; but at another time we are led to understand that it is 3,000, and in the present Memorandum and Appendix there is not a single word of information on the point of the guns forming the armament of the Fleet now maintained. In connection with the list of ships which go to make up the £39,000,000 of
  914
  capital that is expended on the present Navy, there is no mention of any kind of armament put in the ships. In regard, however, to the vessels now building in the Government Dockyards, and building by contract, there is a careful statement made as to the cost of armament, but no statement as to the calibre of the guns that are required. When I mention that the amount in the Army Estimates to be taken for the guns, &c, of the ships building is £1,062,200, it will be seen that the amount for guns is not alone sufficient, but also we need the calibres and numbers.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FOKWOOD): The armaments are set out in the Appendix. Under the name of each ship the armaments are carefully given.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: the armaments specified of which I have a Memorandum are armaments for the general fitting out of the ships for | service this year. But I will not fail to study the Table more carefully. As I understand the correction of the Secretary, the armaments given in the Appendix are for ships now building in Her Majesty's Dockyards and by contract. I fail, however, to see that the number and calibre of the guns composing the armament of Her Majesty's existing Navy are given. In connection with the one set of vessels fitting out, we have it set out that there are 308 guns, which is a very small number, indeed, compared with the total armament of the Navy. These are intended for the 15 vessels fitting out for actual service this year. It would be as well if we could have two complete lists prepared, showing the number and calibre of guns for the ships completed, and the number of guns for those building and fitting out and in service. I understand that in the case of these 308 guns, which are intended as the armament for the 15 vessels fitting out, there are no less than 15 different calibres. That is a great evil. Stores and projectiles are multiplied, and expense incurred for such varieties of guns. Great confusion also arises in consequence of describing some guns by the weight of the shot they throw, and calling others 10-inch guns and 18-ton guns, and 12-inch and 55-ton guns. These distinctions are confusing; and I feel convinced

  915
  that if something is not done to rectify that evil, Her Majesty's Government will find some day that a great mistake: will occur, which will be attended with, disastrous consequences, in giving out guns, projectiles, and stores to the different ships. The matter is one of great importance, and I feel sure that hon. Members connected with the Naval Service will appreciate what I say. There is another point connected with the Admiralty to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the question of taking stores from the War Department. I cannot protest too strongly against this system of allowing the Navy to be supplied in these matters by the War Office; and I think the Secretary to the Admiralty would effect a great good by taking over stores from the manufacturers at first hand. It is not necessary to have those stores in the War Office magazines. Each vessel afloat or in the Reserve has its own complement of guns, stores, and ammunition, and might as well be at once handed over to the Admiralty. So also the 308 guns that I have referred to might be at once provided for in the Navy Estimates, and handed over to the Naval Authorities. Nothing but confusion will take place unless this is done. I further reiterate my advice that the Admiralty have in their gunners, boatswains, carpenters, and other ranks, men well fitted to act as storekeepers.
  MR. JENNINGS: The naval experts who have taken part in this debate have expressed the opinion that we do not spend sufficient money on the Navy, and that a great deal more-money ought to be devoted to this purpose every year. But I, on the other hand, think that the outside public are convinced that quite enough money is spent on the Navy, if it were wisely spent; and, in arriving at that conclusion, I have been very much influenced by the tone and tender of the remarks of those who are best acquainted with the real condition of the Navy—especially the remarks of such Gentlemen as the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed). Now, Sir, in the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty which has been laid before the Committee, the expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1888, is estimated at about £12,500,000, and we are bidden to expect a reduction of £793,000 on the Estimates of the present year. It
  916
  must be quite evident that this is a case of reckoning our chickens before they are hatched. No doubt, the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty expects to see his Estimates come out as they appear now on paper; but no Estimates ever come out at the end of the financial year as they have been originally placed before the country. What usually happens is that, towards the end of the financial year, it is found necessary to introduce Supplementary Estimates. This year, as the Committee is aware, they amounted for the Navy to £277,000; and the Estimates, about which such a great flourish was made 12 months ago, turn out to have been based on the fiscal principle of Mr. Member. I have very little doubt that the Estimates of the present year are destined to meet with a similar fate, and that we, none of us, shall know, until the end of March next, what the expenditure has been. In all probability, there will be a bundle of more or less important accounts tacked on to the Estimates before us this time next year. Last year, the late Secretary to the Admiralty explained to us that from 1871 to 1880, under a Conservative Administration, the expenditure upon the Navy averaged £11,133,000, and that from 1880 to 1886, under a Liberal Administration, the annual expenditure was £11,500,000. This amount has now been brought up to close upon £12,500,000; and I think the general tone of the Naval Members of the House is that £12,500,000 is not nearly sufficient to keep up an efficient Navy. I am myself satisfied, however, that the great body of the taxpayers think that it is a great deal too much to pay for such a Navy as we have, especially in times of depressed trade. When we consider that this amount is £4,500,000 more than the cost of both Army and Navy during the time of the Crimean War, I think that the conclusion at which the outside public have arrived is fully justified. It is, of course, easy to understand that there should be a considerable increase in the cost of the Army and Navy since the time of the Crimean War; but is it not a fact that it is chiefly the wastefulness which has increased? If it is not so, how is it that we have hoard from the hon. Member for Cardiff that; £1,500,000 has been as much wasted as if it had been thrown into the sea? And how is it, again, that we have heard from

  917
  the First Lord of the Admiralty himself, of vessels the armour of which is below the water line? If this sort of mismanagement were stopped, and if the money were spent in a legitimate manner, and not upon fat contracts which do not benefit the nation—which benefit nobody but i the favoured contractors—there could be no sort of question that the burdens which now press so severely' upon taxpayers might be materially lightened, and we should have a far more efficient Fleet. We have been told, and, no doubt, with truth, that it is the practice—not a mere accidental occurrence—to build vessels on the Clyde, and to send them to Devonport to be pulled to pieces again, before they have done any work, or seen any service at all. The last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General abounds in statements which show that the money of the taxpayers is not devoted to its legitimate use. Will any naval export in the House explain to the Committee, and to the country, how it is that while the prices of labour have decreased considerably in every private shipbuilding yard, they have increased—indeed, more than doubled—in Her Majesty's Dockyards? The Admiralty itself pays far less for some of its materials than it did—as, for instance, iron plates which, in 1874, cost £19 per ton, in 1883 were £18 per ton. Lead and copper, in the same way, have decreased materially in price; but has there been any proportionate decrease in expenditure? Nothing of the kind. The expenditure continually advances, and the result is a continual disappointment to those who are expecting real and practical reforms to be set on foot at the Admiralty. I defy anyone to sit here as a mere outsider, knowing nothing whatever about naval matters, and listening to the statements that are made by those who do know about them, and not feel satisfied that the money wrung from the public by all sorts of objectionable taxes, such as the Income Tax, is neither rightly nor usefully spent. If they want to get some idea where the money goes, I would earnestly advise the Members who have not yet read them, and people out-of-doors, to get hold of the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not say that these documents are as interesting as the last new novel; but they are full of information which will show the taxpayers of the
  918
  country that their money is being wickedly and wantonly thrown away. the Comptroller and Auditor General tells us, for instance, that advances are continually being made to contractors to which they are not entitled; and he says that the view entertained throughout the Dockyards is that because money has been voted by Parliament, therefore it must be spent, if possible, within the financial year. Well, with such an opinion as that prevailing in the Dockyards, of course, there would be no difficulty in spending twice or three times the amount of money voted. Therefore, it is no wonder that naval experts should come down here and tell us that our armoured ships are generally armoured below the water line, and that most of our ironclads are only tit to be the coffins of those who man them. The Committee appointed to inquire into the matter of contracts said that there is no business-like co-operation between the heads of Departments, and that £15,000 has been paid to a contractor for work which he actually offered to do for £8,080. Then we are told that the contracts are not scanned closely. A witness, Mr. White, when asked why the contracts are not scanned closely, replies that it is, unfortunately, against the Admiralty traditions—that is to say, that it is against the Admiralty traditions that proper caution should be taken even in the purchase of materials and stores for the use of the Navy and the Service generally. All sorts of idiotic follies are committed daily in the management of the Navy. According to the Report on Contracts, sugar and Jamaica rum are sent out to vessels on the West India stations. Flour is actually sent from Deptford Dockyard to Hong Kong, and rice to India; and the only thing requisite to complete the operation is that vessels on foreign stations should occasionally send back coals to Newcastle. This last suggestion would not involve a more absurd and wicked waste of the public stores or of the public money than to send rice from Deptford to India, and rum to Jamaica. Then, of course, when a Vote of Credit is granted, there is a sort of Saturnalia of extravagance. Ships are taken up, and never used afterwards; cables are purchased, and never taken out of the manufacturers' yards; bills are sent in to the Admiralty for all sorts of useless articles. The Report just

  919
  issued by the Committee appointed to inquire into the Dockyards reveals endless scandals. It is shown therein that there is no proper examination of goods delivered; consequently, we may safely assume that inferior articles are shot into the Dockyards at Bond Street prices, because contractor.?, as a rule, do not spare people who do not examine the consignments of goods they receive from them, and do not look into their proceedings. I will read a short passage from this Report. It says—
  "We were impressed by the fact that large quantities of tools issued from the Tools Store proved to have been of inferior quality; and although their failure had been frequent, it was left to an Admiralty Officer to bring the matter to notice, merely as the result of a casual visit to the Dockyard."
  Then there are innumerable pensions to all sorts of persons, and extravagant salaries, and a system of occasional reorganization, the result of which is to saddle the country with still more pensions, and to encourage a system under which all sorts of hangers-on, and relations of hangers-on, and men who have been useful to those in Office, or who are likely to be useful to them at election time, receive payment out of the public funds. When complaint is made of this wild and wicked expenditure, the country is told that there is no possibility of saving anything in the Navy. And, when we humble Representatives of the taxpayers desire to express our opinion upon these matters—and I submit that, although we are not experts, we have no difficulty in possessing as much information upon the subjects I have dealt with as those who are exports—we are told that we are not competent to criticize such subjects, and that we ought to sit silent and vote, and so perform our duty to our constituents. "Well, I believe that the public have had about enough of that system, and, whether under a Liberal or a Conservative Government, it will not last much longer. I am very sure that in these days, when the industrial classes are finding it more and more difficult to obtain employment, and when trade is depressed at home, and this country is being invaded from all quarters, while our trade is not allowed opportunities of extending itself into foreign countries in the same proportion; you will find that there is an increasing impatience of the heavy load of taxation which Administration after
  920
  Administration places on the backs of the people. I believe that the Conservative Party has now got the best opportunity it has over had, or in all probability is over likely to have, of putting an end to this monstrous evil. One of the Leaders of that Party has publicly identified himself with the cause of Retrenchment, and has made sacrifices for it which have never been equaled, either in this age or in any other. I believe the public will look to this Party for the realization of the hopes of Retrenchment, of practical reform, and of a mitigation of taxation which have been held out not only by that Leader of whom I spoke, but by many of us in our addresses to our constituents—hopes of reform and of mitigation of that taxation which now weighs upon all classes with a severity which cannot much longer be endured.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I wish to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) one or two questions with reference to his Statement; and, first of all, with regard to the value of the ships in reserve. The Ajax is said to be worth £552,000, and we are told by Lord Brassey in his manual that the difficulty with regard to her is that she will not steer; but if she is such a valuable vessel, it would be well worth while making her efficient. But no mention is made of repairing or doing anything to her to enable her to go to sea, and if she is not fit for sea, she ought not to stand on this list at the value of £552,000. On page 240 it will be seen that she was laid down at the original cost of £548,000, and that there is an additional sum of £3,157 for completion to the 31st of March. The First Lord also mentioned in his Report and in his speech the question of speed, which we all know is one of the greatest necessities at the present day; but he does not account for the building of the vessels mentioned in his Report which are only to go 13½ knots. I refer to the Rattier and Wasp, Class 6 and 7 in number. If this calculation is made on the old system of trial, which the noble Lord himself has properly denounced, it would mean something like 10 knots in actual sea work. The trials of these vessels are spoken of as having been very satisfactory; but at the same time we are told that the protected cruisers

  921
  and torpedo boats would give nearly double the speed, and consequently they could not escape from our own vessels by any possibility. Of course, it may be said that to obtain greater power the vessels must be larger. I should think I that the cost of increased size would be well repaid by the increased speed that would be gained. I should like also to ask if it is the fact that upwards of £30,000 are to be expended in putting the Garnet in order? The original cost of the vessel was £102,288 in 1878–9, and I see that the cost for completion to the 31st of March, 1886, is nearly £19,000. I understand that upwards of £30,000 more is about to be expended for the purpose of putting her to rights. The Garnet belongs to a class of vessels of the Gem type—vessels which never steamed above eight knots in their best days, and which probably will never go at a greater speed than six or seven; knots. She is therefore 10 years old, and obsolete, and yet it is proposed to spend upon her now nearly one-third of her original cost. The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour) appealed to me with reference to the guns of different calibre supplied to Her Majesty's ships. I do not know why the hon. and gallant Member refers to me; but of course I, in common with all practical men, support the view which he takes, that the fewer types of guns—and consequently the fewer different sizes of shot and shell, a vessel has on board—the better. I should think he would know that it is impossible for the Admiralty to take over the supply of guns to the Navy in a very short time, because they have to create a Department for the purpose before they can take the responsibility upon themselves, and they must have time to get their house in order for it. If it is done in too great a hurry it will be done badly. The First Lord has made a remark which strikes me as being very peculiar, and it is, that the £36,000, which the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) spoke of as £12,000, for armour-piercing projectiles, was brought into the Navy Estimates because the War Office would not supply the money. Surely it is an extraordinary thing that the First Lord of the Admiralty should say he wanted certain guns or ammunition for a
  922
  particular purpose, and that the War Office should be in a position to reply—"You shall not have them," be cause it practically comes to that—it is a question of cutting down a particular Vote to the smallest amount. I should like to know what the country cares whether this £36,000 comes out of the Admiralty or out of the War Office Estimate! Certainly, it ought to come out of the grant of whichever of the two Offices is responsible for supplying the ammunition. It is right that the First Lord should have included this money in the Naval Estimate, because it was the only way in which he could do that which he believed to be necessary; but it was perfectly wrong that such a necessity should have been laid upon him at all. The First Lord spoke of civil assistants at the Dockyard being conducive to economy and efficiency; and I ask whether it would not be more economical and better for the discipline of the Dockyards that a Superintendent should be appointed for a fixed term of years? Superintendents are now appointed for a year, 18 months, or two years, depending upon their promotion and other contingencies, and by the time they have got to learn what is the work of the Dockyard and become thoroughly acquainted with their duties, they are relieved by another officer, who has again to learn the duties of his position. Then let me mention the sending of ships from one yard to another in an uncompleted state to be completed. I am aware that it may be said that this refers particularly to vessels being sent from the yard in the district which I represent to be completed at another; but my argument will be equally good in the case of a vessel sent from another yard to Pembroke, Portsmouth, or Devonport. It is utterly impossible that a ship can be finished in any other yard as cheaply as she can be where she was laid down. In the first place, the people in the yard to which she is sent have not the same interest in her; on the contrary, their interest would be to run up the expenditure on her to the highest figure. They would take care when they got hold of a vessel like the Nile, for instance, at Portsmouth, that she shall cost as much as the Trafalgar, which was built there, and of necessity much work must be done. Any prac-

  923
  tical man will admit it is quite impossible that a vessel can be completed as cheap another set of people as by those by whom she was originally built. There have been several questions asked with regard to obtaining designs from the Dockyards. I do not know that the noble Lord has informed us yet where the gentleman is who divulged the designs at Chatham, and whether there is any means of preventing him from now divulging all the secret knowledge he possesses to anyone who will buy it? As far as I understand, he is at liberty to do so at any moment he thinks fit. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stock-port (Mr. Jennings), who just spoken, I think he made a great mistake in drawing an analogy between times of depression and the state of the Navy, and that, if we were to be guided by his suggestion, the very difficulty which he wishes to remove would be augmented. If the money to be spent on the Navy were dependent on whether the country is suffering from depression or otherwise, we should get what the First Lord has said he is most anxious to prevent—namely, fitful, and consequently larger, expenditure. What can the efficiency of the Navy have to do with the question as to whether there is a greater or less amount of depression in the country? The noble Lord has said that we must proceed on some settled plan, and not on the plan of fits and starts such as has been adopted before. The question of the Navy has but one reference to the state of the country, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bow (Captain Colomb) has given us to-night a comparative statement, which shows that the amount expended in this country for the protection of its commercial tonnage is ridiculously small to that of every other country. I think the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Devonport was quite right in his statement as to the necessity which exists for having professional men and experts upon Committees such as that which was appointed to consider the system of purchase and contract in the Navy; and I do not think it was worthy of the hon. Member who accused one of those who sat on that Committee of being bassied because a firm with which he was connected had tendered in respect of one of the vessels. The right
  924
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has received such a severe handling from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. K. Stanhope) that I do not think it necessary further to refer to his speech than to say that the vessels—the building of which he wished to stop last year—the Nile and the Trafalgar, and the designs of which he now considers should have been the subject of inquiry by a Royal Commission, are those which the had. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Rood) and others qualified to judge have spoken of as the very best that we have yet laid down.
  SIR WILLIAM CROSSMAN: With regard to the defence of our coaling stations, I have a few remarks to make. We have the Royal Marines and Royal Marine Artillery some of the finest men in Her Majesty's Service, and those men are not employed altogether so advantageously as they might be. I have always been of opinion that the defence of the coaling stations ought to be intrusted to those men. This arrangement would leave at the disposal of the Secretary of State for War a number of men of the Regular Army! who are now distributed all over the | world. The defence of such stations as Hong Kong. Singapore, and Bermuda ought to be in the hands of the Royal Marines and Royal Marine Artillery; and in that way you would save the expense of transporting to those places the land forces who are now discharging the duty there. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite has said very truly that the coaling stations deserve every attention at the hands of the Government. These places are of the utmost importance for the operations of the Navy; and unless they are fortified properly our Fleet will not, in time of war, be able to keep the seas, and therefore I think their garrisons ought to be under the orders of the Admiralty, and not under these of the War Office. There is another matter on which I should like to make a few remarks, and that is the question of submarine mining. I have long been of opinion—and I have had some experience in this matter—that all the work in connection with submarine mining should be done by the Navy, and not by the Army. we require: sailors for the guard-boats employed in the Service, but the urines themselves

  925
  are in the hands of the Engineers. It is said that the Admiralty requires all the men they can lay their hands upon for the sea-going Fleet. I do not demur to that at all; but there are the Royal Naval Volunteers, who might be so organized that the Navy might take charge of this Department. The guns which are required to defend the submarine mines might also be in the hands of the Royal Marine Artillery. There is another point to which I desire to refer. The Staff sergeants of the Royal Marino Artillery are paid less in pensions than the men of corresponding rank in the Army to the extent of 3rf. a-day. The armoure sergeants also get less than the men in the Line. The alterations I suggest are of a trifling character, and as they are the cause of discontent among a fine body of men, I hope the noble Lord will take the matter into consideration.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY): I rise to answer some of the questions which, in the course of this discussion, have been pointedly addressed to me. I may remark, in the first place, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), having began his observations with the expression of a hope that no Party sentiment would be introduced into the discussion, immediately entered upon subjects of a Party character. I think, however, that in the conversation which he had with my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty he had rather the worst of it. My noble Friend did not intend to say anything of a Party character; his only object was to make to the Committee a clear statement of facts. The right hon. Gentleman first referred to the changes alluded to in that Statement. There are two principal changes connected with the Department. The first of those is the establishment of a regular Intelligence Department, whore the Naval Lords meet together, at specified times, to discuss questions relating to the fighting capabilities of the Navy. That has never been the case before, and the reason why the change has been made is this—if you take 20 of the ablest seamen in the Fleet, and separately ask their opinion on this subject, they would all give a different opinion; but if you bring them together you will get a Suite
  926
  opinion from them. That is what has now been done. The other change relates to the building of ships. My noble Friend has explained that we wish to build our ships in a business-like way. The men who fight the ships will be able to give their opinion as to what is required in action, and this will be submitted to the constructors and experts whose business it is to produce the machine which is required for fighting. A ship under the new system will not take six or seven years to build; and there will be no alteration unless with the consent of the whole Board, who will have to sign the Order. There will be none of those alterations after a ship is laid down, in respect to engines and armament which will cause her to draw more water, and, in short, turn out something entirely different from the original design. I cannot understand why my right he. Friend opposite has so strongly attacked the Nile and the Trafalgar; and I ask him whether the man who has to fight a ship has not a just right to have an opinion about her? There may be different opinions as to some parts of these ships, but as to their good qualities I do not believe that any seamen differ as to their excellence as fighting ships. I believer them to be good ships and loss likely than others to be damaged in action, and therefore, as I have said, I cannot conceive why my right hon. Friend has taken such a violent dislike to them. My noble Friend has explained that the Impérieuse and Warspite are not what they were intended to be as to draught; but they are valuable ships, and can steam faster than any other of their class in the world. Moreover, they are belted, and are therefore ships of a very formidable type. I deny the argument that has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Rood) with regard to the capsizing of unarmoured ships if a hole is knocked through the unarmoured ends. There has been an experiment made in the case of the Hero, which with 700 tons of water in her fore compartment steamed 18 knots without the slightest awkwardness. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bow (Captain Colomb) made some interesting remarks, and with much of what he said I entirely agree. But I cannot quite see the object of his first proposal. He rather found fault with the Marines being

  927
  made butchers and bakers on board ship. I have always endeavoured to have every man on board made useful. The number of non-combatants carried has always been a great danger in our Fleet. For instance, in ships of the Invincible class, we have as many as 65 per cent of non-combatants; while in the French Navy the number of non-combatants is only 5 per cent. I should like to see Marines more largely employed on board ship, because there is no better man than a Marine, and if you can make him a double-handed man, so to speak, you have the best possible man in him on board ship. Therefore, I do not quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend on that point. Then we come to the defence of the coaling stations. I have always had a certain idea on that point; but I do not see that it is quite practical at present. I have always held that the Marine Corps should be doubled or treble; and that it should be largely employed at all the outlying stations—at Malta, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, and Singapore, for instance. We should always have in that case fighting men there, accustomed to go in ships, accustomed, in fact, to do anything, and by their employment the expense to the taxpayer would be materially lessened. I do not know that this is exactly the opinion of my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) upon the point; however, he does not object to my saying what I think on those matters. Reference has been made to the Intelligence Department. Now, the duty of the Intelligence Department is to find out everything that is necessary for the use of the Fleet in time of war; to examine the plan of campaign. [Laughter.] Oh! a different plan of campaign to the one of which we have heard so much lately; it is a more decided plan, but still a plan of campaign. The Committee of the Intelligence Department has to see to the plan of campaign, and to see that all the trade routes in the world are guarded. In other words, it has to acquire all the information that is necessary that our Fleet in time of war should be possessed of. My noble Friend has recognized the necessity of this, and we have, at this moment, an Intelligence Department working diligently, and acquiring an enormous mass of information that has not been obtained hitherto. I do not blame anybody for that; up to
  928
  this the Intelligence Department has not been developed on account of—well, I really do not know why the matter has not been taken up before this. We are asked what the present Board of Admiralty have done. Now, I think that our work is very clearly set out in the non-Party Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. We acknowledge that things are very bad, and we hope to make them better, and we point out what we have done in this direction. There was a great and wasteful expenditure in the ships in commission going into the Dockyards with large repairs. The present Board have stopped that; they say that ships are supplied with artificers, and they must do their own repairs. That is a very important matter. Then there is the immense question of Dockyard reorganization. My noble Friend has already referred to that, and my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) will, no doubt, on go upon it in duo course, he having had a great deal to do with the reform. Then there is the shipbuilding circular, which will save the country an enormous sum of money. Then there is the Intelligence Department; there is no use in having ships and men unless you have somebody to tell them what to do when war is declared. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for one of the Divisions of Hull (Mr. Wilson) made some remarks about what are called armed cruisers. I think the name is rather confusing; the name should be armed auxiliaries, or, better still, runners. England will suffer most in the first three weeks after war is declared; in other words, she will suffer in her food supply, and in a tax upon her enormous floating wealth. Our merchantmen will be attacked, and some of them destroyed, and then up will go the rate of insurance Not only so, but merchants who have ships in port will not send them out; that is another difficulty which has to be thought out by the Intelligence Department. The principal use of these runners will be to go out as soon as war is declared, or directly you think war is inevitable, to one or other focus of our trade in different parts of the world.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: How many days' coal will they carry?
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: At what speed?
  MR. C. H. WILSON: At 18 knot?, which is considered necessary.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: That is a curious question. It depends where the ship is sent to, and the hon. Member will fully realize that fact. Take the Etruria, for instance, she will go much more quickly than the enemy; and she may go to India or to China.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: She cannot go to China—she only carries 10 days' coals.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: It depends upon the speed she goes. I believe that at full speed the Etruria carries 10 days' coals; but at a low rate of speed she is able to carry 25 days' coals. I think that explains matters. What we have got to fear is that some intelligent and energetic foreigner will take a small ship, and, getting on a focus of our trade, say, 21 hours before we get there, will possibly sink 20 or more of our ships. These runners are to prevent any accident of this kind occurring to our great commercial interests and floating wealth, when war is first declared. Then they would have to attend the Fleet; they would be like cavalry to an army; they would let the Admiral know what he was to expect, and where the enemy was, and they would be used for a thousand other things that our ordinary men-of-war would not be useful for. They are merely armed to protect themselves against vessels that they would meet of their own class, who would prey on our commerce for the first throe weeks after war was declared. I am quite sure this great commercial country will recognize that the employment of these fast vessels is a first step in the right direction. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) made a very sad speech. According to him, everything is wrong. Where there is a great deal said of a thing it must be more or loss true; but, after all, is it a right thing to sit down and cry because things are wrong? We are all doing our best to put them right. The hon. Member said that the only effect of the re-organization scheme had been to give pensions, and thus to increase the call upon the taxpayers. Now, the statement of my noble Friend is, in my opinion, an honest one. What the present Board of Admiralty wish to do is to put the Navy in the best state they can, and the only fault
  930
  found in the noble Lord's Statement is that there is an inclination to show that we do not want quite as much money as before. I hope the hon. Member for Stockport will not this time next year be in a position to take any or quite so sad, gloomy, and funereal glance at affairs. The hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Pembroke (Admiral Mayne) spoke of the Ajax and Agamemnon. It has never been considered that they are handy ships; but the run of these ships has now been filled in, and they may be taken as fairly good vessels; we must take things as they are, and not as they ought to be, and do the best we can with what we have got, always being careful to profit by experience. Reference has been made to the Rattler class of ships. A great many of my friends have said to me—"You had better resign, because the Admiralty are going to build those 'snails' as they are called." Now we have had much discussion in regard to this matter. The hon. and gallant Admiral is quite right when he says their speed is not great; but the conclusion we came to, after thoroughly threshing out the subject, was that if these vessels were required to carry their present tonnage and armament, it was impossible to get more speed out of them; besides it must be remembered that these vessels are peculiarly fitted for the stations to which they are sent. Upon the China, West African, and Pacific Stations, steel-bottomed ships are of no use, you must have copper-bottomed ships there, and as far as the fighting capabilities of those ships goes—they are only 660 tons—there is no doubt they are better than any other gun-vessel or small ship that they are likely to meet. we came unanimously to the conclusion that it was impossible to have heavy vessels of this description that would go fast. It must also be remembered that we are not building many of them. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) wanted to know why I had not put my name to the Estimates. Well, it is a very natural inquiry for anybody to make, but I think the Committee will agree with me that it is a great mistake for anyone to put his name to a public document that he has not looked at. What is this document? It is a document which relates to the spending of £13,000,000 sterling of the taxpayers' money. My

  931
  noble Friend quite agrees with me that I had not had time to look through the Estimates.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: What I asked was, how it was, under the new Regulation, the Estimates were submitted to the noble Lord at the last moment, when he had not time to look into them?
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: The Estimates were submitted to me at the last moment; but I do not blame anyone for that. The real question raised by the right hon. Gentleman is, whether I agree with the policy contained in the Estimates. I agree entirely with that Estimate; if I did not with it do you suppose I would remain at the Admiralty ten minutes longer; but that is a different thing to putting my name to the Estimates. "What I represented to my noble Friend was that I would put my name to those Estimates I was responsible for. It has hitherto been the custom for all the Members of the Board of Admiralty to put their name to the Estimates; but I do not approve of that system. And I have no doubt my noble Friend will see his way to alter the system. When a taxpayer and the House take up the Estimates, and they see the name of every Lord of the Admiralty at the bottom of it, they naturally conclude that the whole of the Lords of the Admiralty are responsible for the whole lot of the Estimates. Now, I object to he responsible for any Estimates for which I am not responsible; I have no objection to put my name to the Votes under my own charge; but I object to the system which requires me to put my name to the whole of the Estimates, when I have not had an opportunity of examining them.
  SRI JOHN COMMERELL: There is one point which has been omitted by the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) in his able speech, and that is the state of the lieutenants' list. We have now hundreds of lieutenants, the larger proportion of whom have little or no chance of promotion. But, bad as this is for the lieutenants, it will he worse for the Navy in time of war. We have now 662 lieutenants on service in various ships, 38 in the Coastguard, and 81 unemployed. Out of this 38 and 81, I have no hesitation in saying that half of them could hardly be expected
  932
  in time of war to go on active service. If war broke out to-morrow, and we had to commission all the various ships that we have ready, we should be hardly pressed for lieutenants; and I wish the First Lord of the Admiralty would intimate how, in the case of war, he intends to deal with the lieutenants' list. Then there is another hardship under which the lieutenants of the Navy suffer, and which I desire to bring before the Committee. A boy may now be entered in the Navy by his parents or guardians at the age of 13, and has no possibility of leaving the Service until he is 40. That is an anomaly and inconsistency. We are every day compelling military men who are in the primo of life, and who have learnt their duty, to retire into private life; while in the Navy we keep men from 13 to 10 without allowing them to retire. I should like to mention a particular case to the Committee which will illustrate the hardship which this system inflicts on naval officers. A very eminent officer, who had risen by his ability, put his son into the Navy when 13 years of age. The young man now finds himself, after 17 years' service, fourth lieutenant in one of Her Majesty's ships. At the same age I was a post captain. The young man, however, has no chance of promotion. In fact, his only chance is that of retiring after 10 years' more service on £240 a-year. Well, finding himself almost a pauper, with a wife and children dependent on him, and an income of only £180 a-year, he had an offer of an appointment on shore of £400 a-year, with a prospect of increase to £600 a-year. He asked to be allowed to retire. That request the Admiralty refused. Then he asked to be permitted to resign his commission. That also was refused. Then the young man, unfortunately, did a most unwarrantable thing. he left his ship on foreign service, thus committing an act of insubordination in which I, as an old officer, cannot support him or lend any sanction to. Still. The case is a very hard one, and one that I trust will yet receive the favourable consideration of the Admiralty. But what I complain of specially is that our lieutenants' list is in such a state that men, having been refused retirement, are tempted to commit acts such as this which I have described. I now desire to say something about the

  933
  Dockyards and the work done in them. My hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Devonport (Captain Price) and Pembroke (Admiral Mayne), being Dockyard Members, of course raised the old cry "There is nothing like leather." But although the work done in the Dockyards is most excellent, and I should be sorry to sec the Dockyards decreased for one moment, still I maintain that there is in these days an actual necessity for vessels to be built by contract in other yards: and as to vessels being built cheaper in Her Majesty's Dockyards than they can be built by contract in the yards of private shipbuilders, I do not believe a word of it. What I particularly wish to urge upon the Admiralty is that private contractors should be employed in time of peace, so that they might have knowledge and experience of our requirements in war time and in a time of emergency. If that is not done, then the contractors will not be able to do what will inevitably be required of them by-and-bye. There are one or two other points to which I should like to make a brief allusion. the Committee knows very well that one of the heaviest items which it has to meet is the cost for repairs. If the details of these charges are examined, the cost, it will be found, is enormous. A vessel which has cost over £40,000 to build has a sum of £40,472 spent upon her for repairs. That expenditure was caused by the removal of the vessel's boilers, and the putting in of new ones. I do not think that in these matters the Admiralty are sufficiently careful. There is nothing so detrimental to a boiler as repairing and patching it here and there. It would be very much better to build a. new vessel rather than renew boilers on obsolete vessels. There is another matter in connection with a vessel's boilers to which I think attention should be called, and that is the extreme steam pressure resorted to when a vessel is about to make her trial on the measured mile, or for a longer testing period. Everyone knows that the pressure put upon the boilers on these trials starts the rivets, strains the plates, and weakens their power of resistance, and it has been shown that while these vessels are to be worked up to 10,000 horsepower, a premium is given to raise the power to 12,500. That is not a safe thing to do, and these risks should not
  934
  be undertaken for the sake of providing a premium for the contractor and a fictitious speed. After these experiments, the vessel in question cannot be worth much, and the Committee may depend upon it that the system of over-testing both guns and boilers is the greatest mistake in the world.
  MR. T. SUTHERLAND: I hardly think the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) defended himself very successfully against the complaint made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) with regard to a blot—a small one, no doubt, but still a real one—which seems to exist in his otherwise excellent Statement as to the condition of the Navy. I refer to the comparison which he instituted between the shipbuilding policy of the present Board of Admiralty and the shipbuilding policy of the Board of Admiralty which preceded it. I must say that the comparison he drew was rather unfortunate, because anyone conversant with Admiralty affairs is aware of the fact that if that comparison had been carried some little distance further back it would have been found that the policy of the Conservative Government was of a still more unsatisfactory character. Unquestionably, between 1874 and 1880 the polity of the Conservative Administration was anything but a policy of shipbuilding. It was essentially a repairing policy. Had it not been for the measures taken at the moment when some alarm was felt owing to the danger of a war with Russia, and certain vessels under construction for Foreign Governments were purchased, the shipbuilding transactions of that Administration would have been very small indeed. But, on the other hand, I am not able to give to the Admiralty' under Lord Northbrook the credit which has been claimed for it by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) of having had a continuous and constant policy on the question of shipbuilding, because I must say that I believe, with the hon. and gallant Member for Bow (Captain Colomb), that when the First Lord of the Admiralty or his deputy in this House comes down in the month of March and announces one policy, and then in the following November announces a total reversal of that; policy, such an Administration is hardly deserving of that confidence which we

  935
  desire at all times to give to these who are responsible for the Admiralty. And, Sir, if proof were wanted—and it hardly seems to be wanted, for the fact appears to be almost universally admitted—that our Naval Force at that time was by no means what it ought to have been, and that our shipbuilding operations were not by any means what they ought to have been, it will be found in this fact, and in this fact alone—that when the Liberal Government came here in 1884 and asked for a Vote of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 sterling to supplement the Navy, we had scarcely a fast cruiser in our whole Fleet. Seeing that the greatness, the wealth, and the power of this country depend upon the security of its Commercial Marine, it is hardly necessary to say what straits we were in at that period. But the great question which we have to consider at the present moment is not the precise character of the Statement laid before us by the First Lord of the Admiralty, but it is whether the Naval Force which we now possess, and which we shall possess when those ships at present in construction are completed, is adequate and sufficient. Now, I must say that the Statement put before us by the Admiralty does not afford me much consolation upon that point, and I will say why. I think that the Admiralty, in their anxiety to afford us information, have been running too much into figures and getting away from ideas. They have laid too much stress upon the details of the system which they propose for meeting the waste of the Navy by means of a system of depreciation. There is not, and there cannot be, a "depreciation fund;" but they have told us about the appropriation of a certain amount, which, if it were to be applied according to commercial principles, would represent a fund, year by year, drawn from profits accruing from Admiralty sources. I think, myself, it is much to be regretted that calculations of this kind should be laid before us, because I doubt very much the soundness and reality of such arrangements. In commercial affairs it is undoubtedly the case, in connection with Shipping Companies, that they put aside out of their profits a certain amount for the renewal of their Fleet. That is a sound principle in connection with the Mercantile Marine; but it must
  936
  be remembered, in the first place, that they make these profits, which is not the case at the Admiralty. Practically, then, the question which the Admiralty has to consider is not whether they can get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to vote £1,500,000 or£ 1,800,000 in one year for the purposes of the Navy, but they have to consider what is the condition of the Navy at the be-ginning of the year, and what is its condition at the end of the year. How far are our ships up to the level of the present time, and how far are they able to face the power, in the event of war, of foreign nations? Such a question as that is not a matter of a depreciation of 1 per cent or 5 per cent, but it is a radical question as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the Naval Forces of the country. Therefore, I say it is a mistake to place before us any financial calculations of that kind, which, however interesting they may be to right hon. Gentlemen to examine in their own rooms, are by no means to be depended upon as a guide for the future policy of this country in dealing with questions affecting the Navy. Now, to refer to another point, I may say that I highly approve the earnestness which the present holders of Office at the Admiralty have shown in reforming the procedure existing in that Department. There can be no doubt that there has been great need for reform in several directions, and I am bound to say that the present Conservative Administration and the late Administration have been fortunate in having at the head of the Department not only an able First Lord, but two most able Financial Secretaries, who, from their commercial experience in connection with shipping, have been in a position to lend material assistance to the Government. In reading the Reports which have been laid before us by the First Lord of the Admiralty of the reforming work, it is quite obvious that the reforms there indicated have not been begun a single day too soon. I hold it to be nothing less than a scandal that at this period of the 19th century, and with the knowledge we have of what the construction of war ships should be, that this House should have such revelations made to it with regard to the errors which seem to have been committed with respect to the Navy, and more especially with

  937
  regard to those belted cruisers—their draught of water, their power of carrying coal, and their power to do that which is the first duty of a cruiser—namely, to cruise. One reads the astounding statement in the Report of the First Lord of the Admiralty that cruisers of 5,000 tons and upwards wore only constructed to carry 440 tons of coal. With that quantity of coal on board, these vessels would only he able to have above water 11 inches of their armour-plating of five feet wide; and a still more remarkable statement is that with 900 tons of coal on board, that being the bunker capacity, the whole armour-plating would be six inches below the water mark. When one reads these statements, we are bound to say that it is almost incredible that such occurrences could have taken place under any Admiralty administration whatever. It is obvious that these vessels must be comparative, if not absolute, failures in the very essential duty which they were constructed to perform, which was to remain at sea a sufficient length of time, having in themselves adequate means of protection against an enemy, and being able to carry sufficient coal to enable them to cruise, for the purpose of protecting other vessels. With regard to another matter, I mean the contracts for ships and machinery, I do most sincerely hope that the measures which the Admiralty have adopted, and which they intend to carry into practice, will be successful in providing against such blunders as those to which I have referred and which one reads of in these Reports; but I must say that I think what is required at the Admiralty is not merely what the noble Lord mentioned, and what is referred to in his Memorandum—namely, that papers should be signed by this officer or that, and that they should guarantee by their signature their approval of this measure and that matter. What is required at the Admiralty is that there should be more of the spirit and less of the letter, and that there shall be more efficient means devised by which all these Heads of Departments, Lords of the Admiralty, and Directors of Departments, shall be made to cooperate together, not on paper, but in reality. Now, in regard to the reforms to which I have referred, I must say I am very much interested—I might almost
  938
  say amazed—in reading the Report of that Committee over which my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Forwood) presided in reference to the purchase of stores for the Navy. I refer more particularly to the contract for machinery for the Renown and Sanspareil, which occupied so much of the attention of the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford has said that Lord Northbrook had taken upon himself the whole responsibility in connection with that contract, and I was glad to hear that that was the case; because, while the Report of the Committee appeared to lay the blame upon this system and upon that individual, and notably upon the constructors and engineers connected with the Admiralty, I considered the whole blame rested immediately, if it rested anywhere, with the Lords of the Admiralty themselves. Therefore, I was glad to hear that Lord Northbrook was willing to take the whole responsibility in connection with that transaction upon himself. Now, in what light did that transaction strike me, as a man who has a good deal to do with matters of a some what similar kind? Well, I may say the first light in which it struck me was this—namely, that the firm of engineers who obtained that contract (Messrs. Humphreys and Tennant) knew exactly the length of the Admiralty's foot, and knew exactly how to pitch an offer which would meet with approval at the hands of those who had influence to cause its acceptance to be made. Putting aside this peculiar feature of the case, I am not prepared to say that Lord Northbrook was wrong in accepting that particular proposal, because it is perfectly clear that if one contractor offers to give machinery to effect a speed of something like half a knot more in an iron-clad vessel than was sought for or expected, or if one contractor could give half a knot more than another, I should say the First Lord of the Admiralty might make a great mistake if he did not accept that offer—unless he were justified in refusing it by those who understood affairs of that kind, who gave him advice and showed him that great injustice would, in all probability, be done to other tenderers who were tendering in a more liberal and bonâ fide manner. I must say that I think that in this particular case very

  939
  great injustices was done to the firm of which the hon. Member for Jarrow (Sir diaries Palmer) is the head, inasmuch as their tender was some £17,000 or £18,000 lower than that of Messrs. Humphreys and Tennant; and he was not, as he might have been, asked whether he could not, by some alteration of the pitch of screw, or by other means, develop the same power as the other engineers professed to be able to do. But, Sir, with regard to these reforms, I am not altogether able to adopt the idea which appears to be entertained by the Committee over which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty presided, that the way to prevent mistakes of this kind occurring in future is to entrust the duty of dealing with matters of this kind to one Department of the Admiralty rather than to another. For my own part, I think that the Director of Contracts has quite sufficient to do to attend to everything relating to the Department under his charge, and I am by no means able to endorse the idea that the mere transference of the shipbuilding and engineering contracts to that Department will be any remedy whatever, or any advantage, in Admiralty business. What is required is this—that these different Departments, Naval and Civil—the contractors department and the military department within the Admiralty—should be controlled, I care not by whom, but shall be so controlled, and so made to work together, that errors like those we have heard of to-night cannot possibly occur. I must say, in reference to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Bow (Captain Colomb), that I shall probably shock him, and some other hon. and gallant Gentlemen, by stating that what I think the Admiralty is most deficient in is continuous civil administration. I do not, in saving that, wish for one moment to deny the necessity of having military and naval men at the head of all proper Departments at the Admiralty. Give them higher rank if you like—[Admiral FIELD: We do not want that.]—call them something better than Lords of the Admiralty if you like—give them higher pay, if you choose—but what you want in order to promote a healthy and efficient state of affairs at the Admiralty is continuous civil administration, which you have not at present. I said I was sure I should
  940
  shock the feelings of some of my hon. and gallant Friends, and no doubt I have done so; but, at any rate, such is my opinion. These Gentlemen who sit on the Government Bench are, no doubt, able business men, but they have many other duties to discharge besides the duties with which they are entrusted within their Office. They change Office, perhaps, on an average, once in six months. I am not sure whether it, will be a full six months before we have a change of Government again. At any rate, these changes recur with remarkable frequency, and yet it is to the fleeting influence of these Gentlemen that we look for a sound financial state of affairs and a sound financial state of affairs is what we look to as the basis of all efficiency in the Navy or anywhere else. I say that the Admiralty is in that respect singularly and unfortunately deficient. And, after all what is the Admiralty? It is a great fighting machine. It is impossible to have a better Representative than the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) connected with it as a fighting machine; but it is also a great manufacturing and administrative machine. Do you mean me to tell me that if you had acquired a great administrative machine, such as, for example, the London and North-Western Railway, you would get the management you required for its success without entrusting it to permanent civil financial control? I am aware of the difficulties that there are in connection with this matter, and which probably there always will be in connection with it; but that is the conviction which has pressed upon me, and I say that, until you insure a permanent Civil administration of the Navy, in concert with practical and naval administrations, which is even more important, you will never have that adequate management which is necessary to prevent great mistakes, such as those we have had to deplore. There are only two other things that I will mention in connection with the Statement of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty. The first is one which I am exceedingly glad to see—namely, an observation he made with regard to encouraging officers of the Naval Re-serve to join Her Majesty's ships when cruising. I am glad to see that, in order to succeed in that, he has been

  941
  good enough to arrange that officers of the Naval Reserve, who merely rank as sub-lieutenants, should mess with lieutenants on board ship; and if he had only added to that that he would be prepared to pay these officers, to some extent, for what they may lose by joining Her Majesty's Service for a year or so, I am quite certain—speaking not only for myself, but for many others—that the large Mail Steam Companies with which we are connected would only be too happy to co-operate with the Navy in strengthening and enlarging the body of men to he at the command of the Admiralty in the event of war. The next matter I should like to say a word upon is of a somewhat personal character, and I mention it because I should, perhaps, be misunderstood if I were to pass it over. I refer to one part of the noble Lord's Statement which he speaks of the Cunard steamer Oregon. That vessel is mentioned as the only ship that was armed as a cruiser during the late Russian scare. I beg to say that two steamers belonging to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company were armed, not in Liverpool and not in London, but one was armed at Sydney, and one was armed at China—a very much more important feat than arming a vessel in Liverpool. I beg to say that these ships were practising their officers and men and guns off Hong Kong and Sydney at the time the Oregon was taking on board its armament; and I also beg to say that the crews and officers of these ships—every one of them—volunteered for Her Majesty's Service. In justice to the service that is under the flag of that Company, I think I was entitled to mention these circumstances in correction of, or in amplification of, the remarks in the noble Lord's Statement. Sir, I have only to add that, while I endorse heartily the views which have been expressed so abundantly on this side of the House—views of sympathy and respect for the Statement made by the noble Lord—I do hope and trust that we shall not, in dealing with the Navy in future, rely upon any paper figures or paper depreciation, but that the Admiralty, whether it be Liberal or Conservative, or Liberal Unionist, will take stock of its affairs in quite a different fashion to what it has sometimes done in the past, and will
  942
  maintain the Navy as the Navy of this country ought to be maintained.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I would ask the permission of the House to interpose for one moment to express a hope, which I think the Committee will not feel to be an unreasonable one, that the observations which may yet have to be made on this Tote will be condensed as much as possible by hon. Gentlemen who may wish to speak. We are now arriving at the time when it is only reasonable that the Vote on Account for Civil Services should be taken in order to enable those hon. Members who wish to express opinions upon the subject of that Vote to make their remarks. The Vote on Account must be taken to-night; therefore, it would only be reasonable to allow some time for its discussion.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I do not intend to occupy much of the time of the Committee, not more than five minutes; but, as I represent a Dockyard constituency, I should like to be allowed to say just half-a-dozen words. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. T. Sutherland), who has just sat down, commenced his speech with some comparisons between the naval policies of different Administrations. He did not carry that argument to excess, and I do not intend to find any fault with him about it; but he stated that the Naval policy of the Conservative Government of 1874 was a policy of repairing. I just wish to remind the Committee that the reason of their policy being one of repairing was, as was stated at that time, that there wore only 14 iron-clads which wore fit for the sea service of the country. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to the statement, or rather the reproach which the hon. Gentleman seemed to cast upon the Conservative Government of having followed a repairing policy during those years. My hon. and gallant Friend who sits in the Gangway below me made some remarks about us Dockyard Members wishing to have more ships built in the Royal Dockyards. Well, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman rather has us at a disadvantage. If we speak from interested motives, I would remind him, at all events, of this, that those hon. Members who represent Dockyard consti-

  943
  tuencies may be counted, if not on the fingers on one hand, at all events on those of two hands. Those who take the opposite view, or what I may term the contract view, are very numerous indeed in this House. There are a large number of shipbuilders in this House, and a larger body of hon. Members who represent constituencies whore these "fat contracts," as they have been termed, are given out. And that is not all—when the Government appointed the Committee to inquire into the question, so that the House of Commons might form an opinion as to which is really the most effectual and most economical way of building ships—whether in private yards or in public yards—what was the sort of Committee appointed? We had one appointed in 1882, and on that Committee every Member, with one exception, was the Representative of a constituency in which private shipbuilders had yards, or was himself a shipbuilder. There never was such a Committee appointed. If the Admiralty wanted to get at the rights of these cases, and were to appoint a Committee composed of the Representatives of the Dockyard constituencies, the House would say that it was eminently unfair and absurd. But the late Government went to the other extreme, and appointed a Committee almost, if not entirely, composed of private Dockyard Representatives. The Secretary to the Admiralty himself is closely allied with the shipbuilding interest, and it is impossible that we can arrive at a fair comparison of the cost of ships built in the Royal Dockyards and private yards under the circumstances. I remind the Committee that we are at the present moment building ships costing millions of money at seaport towns which are utterly unprotected, and which in the event of a naval war might be destroyed by the enemy's gunboats in 24 hours. I wish to renew the appeal which I made the other night in favour of granting commissions to our seamen. I rose at a very unfortunate time on that occasion; it was half-past 1, the House was then very thin, and I believe my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was unprepared with an answer on the subject, because the only answer he made was that there was some difficulty with regard to half-pay. Now there is no
  944
  such difficulty at all, and I am sure that my noble Friend, if he looked into this matter, must have seen that he had made a mistake. If a warrant officer is given a commission, and he reverts to half-pay, what is that half-pay? Why, there is no fixed figure at all; there is no reason whatever why the same chance which is given to the warrant officer should not be given sometimes to the chief boatswains and chief gunners. I hope the noble Lord will show a little more interest in this subject, and I hope hon. Members will back me up in what I say. First of all the chief gunners and boatswains ask that, when they retire from the Service, they shall be given retiring rank as lieutenants. That will not cost one penny to the taxpayer, and there is no difficulty with regard to it, either social, technical, or professional. They also ask that a certain number of commissions should be given on the active list to warrant officers. There is nothing new in that; they are already entitled to it by the Order in Council, passed in 1856, whereby it was laid down that these commissions should be given from time to time to deserving men. That Order, however, has been made a dead letter from the time it was issued to the present day, and no warrant officer has since then received a commission. Before that time, when I entered the Service, which was in 1855, there were officers in high positions who had risen from before the mast; but there is nothing like that now in the Navy. In the Army there are many officers who have risen from the ranks, but in the Navy it is utterly impossible, owing to the policy of the Admiralty, that any seaman should rise from the ranks to be a commissioned officer. I apologize for having made these few remarks in addition to what I said the other night, and I trust that my noble Friend will be able to give me a more satisfactory answer than he did on that occasion.
  MR. R. W. DUFF: I have only a few remarks to make with regard to the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member for Devonport (Captain Price). As pointed out by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, there are very considerable difficulties in the way of giving commissions to warrant officers. I believe that the Admiralty have been very

  945
  anxious to do something in this direction; but, as was stated by the First Lord the other night, the chief difficulty in the way is with regard to the warrant officers' education. I do not suppose my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price) would say that a warrant officer should receive the rank of lieutenant unless, to a certain extent, he was qualified in this respect and able to navigate a ship. If the warrant officers were able to pass an examination, then, I believe, the main difficulty in the way of this would be removed. I may mention that, from what I saw at the Admiralty, I believe a stop has been taken in the right direction. When I went down to the school at Greenwich, I found that they did not teach navigation; I pointed that out, and I believe steps were taken, and it was arranged that navigation should, in the future, be taught to the boys attending the school. My opinion is that if these men passed an examination, the Admiralty would be glad to apply to them the same system which obtains in the Army. The noble Lord, in his remarks to-night, referred to something which fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) with regard to Admiralty administration. I do not think it is quite fair to my right hon. Friend to say that he wanted to place the Board of Admiralty on the same footing as the Treasury, and I do not think that this was the intention of my right hon. Friend. Although I do not approve of all that was done, I feel bound to say that the general organization of the Board of Admiralty was very much improved by my right hon. Friend. I think the old system of sitting for five or six hours over any small question that came before them was a very absurd one; but my experience was that the work was very competently done. We had Minutes, and knew everything that was going on in the Department. I do not think it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to usurp the position of First Lord and take out of his hands the work which properly belonged to him. I am sorry to return to the statement which I made the other day—that the First Lord has introduced some things of a Party character into his Statement. My noble Friend the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) said the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty
  946
  had rather reversed the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lafevre); but I think that a reference to the figures will show that that is not the case. We have been told that the Navy was let down very much between 1881 and 1885, and the hon. Member who made this statement describes the policy of Lord Northbrook as one of dawdle. If that is so, then the policy which preceded it was one of stagnation. The hon. Gentleman gives us credit for spending £1,800,000 on shipbuilding; but if I take the figures for the last three years of the Beaconsfield Government which preceded Lord Northbrook's, I find only £1,500,000, £1,388,000, and £1,426,000 expended under the Shipbuilding Vote. If the whole Vote 6 and 10 and gun mountings are taken, it will be found that the average expenditure of Lord Northbrook's Board from 1881 to 1884 was £448,000 in excess of that of the previous Government. Therefore, I think that when the First Lord began his period of comparison with 1881, it is difficult to believe that the noble Lord is not giving a Party complexion to this matter. Reference has been made to the calculation as to depreciation which has been arrived at by the First Lord, and also by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty. They do not quite coincide; I do not, however, want to lay great stress upon that point. But I myself made a calculation on a somewhat different basis from that of the noble Lord and the Secretary to the Admiralty. I take the calculation on the number of vessels condemned between this time and last year; what the cost was originally; and what was the cost of repairs. I remember that the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone requested us to get rid of and blow up a great number of ships. I find that the cost to the country through depreciation during the year of the vessels actually condemned was £1,863,000. But if we take the vessels which my noble Friend wanted to got rid of the depreciation would amount to £2,100,000.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: What I wanted was to get rid of the vessels which came home from abroad—that is to say, that they should not be repaired when they came home. There are at this moment 32 ships at ports on

  947
  foreign stations which are unfit for repair.
  MR. R. W. DUFF: I give the noble Lord credit for that; but I am going to speak of eight composite vessels included in the list of the noble Lord. It is certainly very unsatisfactory that vessels which were only built in 1880 and 1881, and which have been only throe years at sea, should now be condemned; and if these Navy Estimates are referred to a Committee of this House, I trust there will be a searching investigation into the character of these vessels, and how it comes that vessels only eight years old, and only throe years at sea, are now condemned. There is one point which I do not think has been referred to, but which the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty refers to in his Statement. It is with regard to our vessels on foreign stations. I gather from his Memorandum that we are going to adopt a new policy—that we are not going to have such a large squadron on foreign stations. I suppose this decision was arrived at after consultation with the Colonial and Foreign Offices, because there was a Committee representing the Foreign and Colonial Offices, and they came to the conclusion that we wanted 83 vessels and 15 gunboats on foreign stations, and last year we had 99. I have no doubt many of these vessels were of very little use indeed; anyone who has spent any time on a foreign station, as I have done, knows that to foreign stations we send the most disgraceful old tubs that over carried a flag; and even third-rate Powers, such as South American Re-publics, have more powerful men-of-war than we possess in those waters. I am glad to think this system is to be stopped; it is better to have fewer ships, and have them efficient, than to have many inefficient ones. The policy which puts an end to the present system I shall be very glad to support. Some remarks were made by the hon. Member for West Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson) in regard to the employment of auxiliary vessels; I quite approve of the general policy of the Admiralty in taking up those Cunard and other vessels. My noble Friend the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) explained very properly the use of these vessels, and, therefore, I shall not detain the Committee longer on this
  948
  point. I do not profess to have sufficient knowledge to express any opinion as to whether the Admiralty have made a good or a bad bargain on the terms in which these vessels are engaged; that is a point upon which the hon. Member for West Hull and the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. T. Sutherland) are better able to give an opinion than I am; but the policy of securing the fastest vessels we can get, and having such vessels ready at a moment's notice, is, I believe, an economical one, and a sound one so far as the country is concerned. Now, my noble Friend the Member for East Marylebone referred to the Intelligence Department. I think that the present Board of Admiralty are quite right in increasing that Department, and I give my noble Friend every credit for having developed the Department. But in that celebrated Memorandum which found its way into The Pall Mall Gazette I think the noble Lord went a little too far when he said that we really had no pro vision for war at the Admiralty, or words to that effect. That is rather strong language to use, and I am sure he will not endeavour to maintain it when he considers that it really amounts to a reflection upon the noble Lord sitting beside him (Lord George Hamilton), who has, previously to the present, occupied the position of First Lord of the Admiralty. There are at the Admiralty certain private and confidential documents which, if one could refer to them, would clearly show that provision is made for time of war. I cannot give the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone credit altogether for having created the Intelligence Department, be-cause to do that would be to east a grave reflection not only upon the First Lords, but upon the Naval Lords. When I was at the Admiralty my Colleague (Lord John Flay) took a great deal of trouble to work up the Intelligence Department; and, therefore, that Department is not altogether a new institution. Now, my noble Friend the Member for Marylebone said there was no dock in the Pacific. I see that £55,000 is taken for such a dock at Esquimalt in this year's Estimate, and I believe the dock is complete. The other night I ventured to trouble the House—I am afraid at great length—with the question of education of naval officers. I am not going to refer to that now, ex-

  949
  cept to say that when the First Lord of the Admiralty replied the other night he had to deal with a multiplicity of subjects, and was unable to give as much time as he would have liked to this subject. It is a subject which does occupy a good deal of thought in the Navy. There are a variety of opinions entertained upon it; some take the view I do, and I know many who do not. It is a matter in which the Navy are very much interested; and I had hoped that if the First Lord of the Admiralty did not give his view upon it, his Colleague and my Successor, the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), might possibly have given his view upon this question. I hope that on some future occasion the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett)—naval education coming, as I believe, in his Department—will be able to enlighten the House upon the subject. I do not think there is any other matter on which I need detain the Committee, and I can only say that I am sorry that the duty of making these few criticisms should have fallen upon me, as the only Representative of the late Board of Admiralty. The criticisms I have addressed to the Committee have been made in no unfriendly spirit, and I shall be very happy to give the Admiralty my cordial support in carrying out this programme.
  MR. DE LISLE: In the last paragraph of his Memorandum, the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) describes the stops he proposes to take for the utilization of the auxiliary resources of the country. With the policy which is involved in the noble Lord's proposal I heartily concur. Upon the question of our defences, perhaps the Committee will allow me to refer to the defence of our coaling stations. Now, in the Memorandum which the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) circulated in relation to the Army Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman remarks that more than one Colony has fulfilled its engagements with regard to defences, and that we are bound in honour to find the necessary funds to enable us to fulfil our part of the engagement. Now what I want to point out is, that it is hopeless to expect our Colonies to enter into engagements with this country, as proposed in the last
  950
  paragraph of the noble Lord's (Lord George Hamilton) Memorandum, if we are not prepared to fulfil our solemn obligations. The present is a most opportune time to make a few remarks upon this question, because, in the noble Lord's Memorandum, there is no reference made to our coaling stations under the heading of "Utilization of Auxiliary Resources." The most important auxiliary resources which the Navy ought to be able to look to in case of war are the resources which our coaling stations afford. Our coaling stations make good harbours of refuge, but unless they are put in an adequate condition of defence they will be a source of danger to us instead of support. Under the heading "Coaling Stations," the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in his Memorandum, says—
  "It is well known to everyone who has looked into the subject that more than one station of primary importance still remains un-defended."
  This, surely, is a most unhappy condition of affairs. We have involved our Colonies in serious expenditure on the strength of our word, and we are in honour bound to fulfil our part of the contract. I ask what encouragement is there for Australia or any other Colony to fit out a squadron, when they know that, owing to changes of Government and other causes, the word of Parliament is not worth anything? I should like to get from the Government a definite pledge that our obligations towards the Colonies shall be fulfilled. I think I can see a way in which this can be easily done—at least, so far as Singapore is concerned. In page 22 of the noble Lord's Memorandum, it is admitted that our commerce is not protected as adequately as that of other nations, but that by utilizing our merchant vessels we can, in case of war, quickly recruit our strength. Now I have a Question on the Paper to-night as to whether the Government can see their way to give an adequate and localized naval force for the defence of Singapore, as they have no guns to send there? What I want to know is, whether the Government will, in order to fulfil its definite pledge to the Colony of Singapore, obtain at once from one of our Ship-building Companies an armed vessel for the defence of Singapore? It

  951
  is unnecessary for me to dilate upon the necessity of defending Singapore, especially when we consider the importance of Singapore as a place of defence for our enormous trade. The total value of trade at that port during the year exceeds £200,000,000 sterling; and during the American Civil War, within three days of its being known that the Alabama had rounded the Cape, 17,000 tons of shipping, all American, were seeking refuge in this harbour of refuge. I do, therefore, most earnestly ask the Committee to give these matters their most urgent consideration.
  MR. MASON: I shall not detain the Committee more than a few minutes; but I have an appeal, as a Representative of the taxpayers of the country, to make to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty. I feel it necessary to make a few remarks upon the important Statement submitted to us by the Admiralty on the present occasion. I congratulate the Government upon having supplied the House with such a valuable Statement to take the place of the Statement previously made in the House upon the Navy Estimates. It is a very important matter that we should have such a Statement put before us, enabling us to thoroughly understand the Estimates before we come to vote the money. This Statement contains a capital account, showing what we really possess in the way of value of ships. It is very right and proper that this Capital account should be opened; but it is also very important for us to know upon what principle this Capital account is opened. I am rather disposed to think that this Statement is open to criticism, so far as figures are concerned, and I shall point out one or two things upon which we ought to receive additional information. To begin with—the First Lord of the Admiralty takes credit for reducing the Estimates by £793,300, compared with the expenditure of the preceding year, and he says—
  "A reduction of expenditure generally implies a decrease of the effective strength of the service with which it is connected. We are fortunate enough to be able to reverse this rule in the present instance."
  And he adds—
  "These satisfactory results have been attained partly by policy, partly by improved methods of administration; but a careful review of the expenditure of the past six years is necessary in order that the significance of our present posi-
  952
  tion, and the causes at work in establishing it, may be understood by Parliament and the country."
  What is that policy, and what are these improved methods of administration? There is not a very full statement made as to what these are; but, on page 5, the statement is volunteered that—
  "In 1885, under popular pressure, the Government of that day admitted the insufficiency of its previous arrangements, and, with the assent of all Parties in the State, Lord North-brook, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, proposed to expend, in addition to the ordinary shipbuilding programme, the sum of £3,100,000 in the building of ships by contract in private yards. An additional sum of £1,600,000 for guns was also proposed to be added to the Ordnance Votes of the Navy, which are included in the annual Estimates of expenditure of the War Office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that this outlay would be spread over five years, ending March 31,1890, and form a portion of the expenditure of the country for that period. The work has been executed with such rapidity, that nearly the whole of this expenditure has fallen upon three, instead of five, years."
  That seems to explain pretty much the cause of the decrease of the Estimates this year. It has been provided for by a former Government, and yet the present Government take credit for the reduction of £793,000. It must be remembered, however, that by mixing up Army and Navy Estimates we have the one nearly balancing the other, or, in other words, we have pretty much the same sums to be voted this year that we voted for the Army and Navy last year. I do not think this is a satisfactory state of things to the taxpayer. It is monstrous that we should be called upon to vote these enormous Estimates for the Army and Navy. So much for the Admiralty taking credit for a condition of things which they tell us they have improved. I do not think they have effected the improvement they de-sire to show. We are told what they are going to do in the way of laying down new ships, and I should like to know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty intends to build these new ships by contract or in the Royal Dockyards? I believe that work can be done by contract cheaper and better than it is done in the Royal Dockyards. [Cries of ''No, no!"] I say yes. I am perfectly satisfied that if the First Lord of the Admiralty were to state the result of his experience candidly to-night, he would say that the value which the country has

  953
  got from contract work has been infinitely better than their work in the Royal Dockyards. I am sure it would be satisfactory to the country to know that we are going to build some of these 13 ships by contract rather than in the Royal Dockyards. It seems to me that this Statement is not at all satisfactory with regard to what it tolls us in regard to the value of the Fleet we have. An Estimate is given us here of the value of the Fleet, and of the estimated annual expenditure necessary for replacement. I confess I have looked into this Estimate; but I am totally at a loss to understand how the depreciation has been calculated. I should be obliged if the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, or some other Member of the Government, will explain the figures which are given on page 14. The First Lord of the Admiralty makes out an Estimate for the depreciation and replacement of the Navy. For the first class of ships, or for armour-protected and partially-protected iron or steel vessels, he takes 22 years from date of completion, and 4 per cent. It seems to me that 22 years at 4 per cent give only 88 per cent. Then second, or of corvettes, sloops, torpedo-cruisers, gun vessels, gunboats, troopships, and other vessels, he takes 15 years, at 6 per cent, which is 90 per cent. Then, for torpedo-boats, steam launches, &c, he estimates 11 years at 9 per cent—namely, 99 per cent. For the fourth class—small vessels, tugs, and yard-craft—he estimates 18 years and 5 per cent. which gives 90 per cent; and, for the fifth class of vessels, he takes 22 years at 4 per cent—namely, 88 per cent in the whole. I shall be glad if the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty will explain these figures a little more closely, and show how vessels will be replaced at such a depreciation as that now given. Then, with regard to Dockyard administration, which I cannot help thinking is in a most unsatisfactory condition, I take the Statement simply as it stands. He says—
  "In the meantime, I have given directions that no vacancies in the Admiralty and Dockyard clerical staffs are to be filled, us there is reason to believe both are redundant."
  Why, everyone has been saying that such has been the case for years, and now here we have got a confession of it. I trust a practical effect will be given by
  954
  the reduction of the redundant members of these staffs, and that the taxpayers of the country will not be called upon to pay for a staff that is not necessary. The taxpayers of the country are at present very heavily taxed. The income of the country is not what it was, and there are a great many hard-working men in this country who find it difficult enough to maintain themselves and families. Now, Sir, there is just one other point I wish to direct attention to, and that is the transference of the supply of naval armaments from the Army to the Navy itself. I do not think that that is a matter which should be so difficult as is indicated in this Memorandum. The noble Lord says—"To place one Government Department towards another in the relation of purchaser and manufacturer is no easy matter." I can see no difficulty in the matter at all. It is a matter of ordinary common-sense business, and I cannot understand why it should not be arranged without the slightest difficulty. At present we have these monstrous Estimates of £31,000.000 sterling for the Army and Navy mixed up in a way that no intelligent man can ascertain how the money is spent. Now, I quite endorse the view of right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench in regard to the utilization of the auxiliary resources of the country. I think that is one of the best things this Government has brought before us. The swift steamers which are being built for the Merchant Service of the country will prove a valuable auxiliary, and I do not sympathize with the criticisms passed from this side of the House against the proposal of the Government in this respect. After the experience of the Alabama in connection with the American War, the utilization of the auxiliary resources of the country is a wise step in the right direction; and I believe it will prove a most economical step. Only one other remark in conclusion. I congratulate the Government upon their proposal to appoint a Committee for the examination of the Army and Navy Estimates. I ventured to raise this question of sending the Army and Navy Estimates to a Committee for investigation three days after I entered Parliament, rather more than a year ago. I did not expect that the question would have borne fruit so soon; but I am glad to think that the Government have taken up the idea,

  955
  and that we are to have such a Committee as I suggested. I believe we shall have some light thrown upon the expenditure by the Committee upon the Army and Navy, and that we shall be able to examine the Estimates with some idea of how the enormous sums of money are really spent, and that we shall be able, by-and-bye, to cut down the Estimates, and really to get value for our money, which I do not believe we at present got. I trust the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to see his way to give us the explanations I have asked at his hands.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Committee will remember that on the last occasion we discussed these Estimates an understanding was arrived at that, on this Vote, a general discussion should be taken. There is a Vote on Account to be taken to-night, and as we have spent now some six hours in this discussion I think the Committee will allow the Vote to be taken. I understand there are a certain number of Gentlemen who wish to raise a discussion on the Vote on Account; and, therefore, it is quite clear that the longer the discussion on this Vote occupies, the longer the consideration of the Vote on Account will be delayed.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty will remember that on the last occasion he acceded to my request that I should have some opportunity of bringing certain matters relating to the Navy before the Committee. We have been promised an evening to discuss general matters upon this Vote. Up to this the remarks have been entirely general, and it seems extremely hard that several of us—who have got matters of importance to bring before the Committee—should now be asked to give up the right which we have been accorded by the Government. If I and others waive the right to bring matters relating to the Navy forward this evening, will the noble Lord undertake that we shall have an opportunity of doing so on some future and near occasion?
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I would make the same appeal to the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton). I have a good deal to say on various matters; but, after what has
  956
  fallen from the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Lord of the Admiralty, I am too loyal a supporter of the Government to obtrude my views on them to-night. But I claim the right to speak on the matters I feel a great interest in on some future occasion. It is a monstrous thing that we should be muzzled—that these important naval matters, which only come under consideration once a year, should be before us without naval men having an opportunity of stating here, on the floor of this House, what our views are. Whilst listening to observations on one side and the other, I have been seriously provoked by some things that have been said, and I wish to have an opportunity to reply.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I should like to know why it is absolutely necessary for us to give a Vote on Account to-night? Right hon. Gentlemen say it is absolutely necessary. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but why is it absolutely necessary? I can understand that it may be absolutely necessary to obtain the Vote by the 31st March; but this is the 21st. No doubt it is necessary that the first Votes in the Army and Navy Estimates—the Votes for men and money—should be given before the 31st March, so that they may be included in the Appropriation Bill that will be brought in and passed by the end of the financial year; but I ask for information as to whether it is really necessary, and, if so, why, that the Vote on Account for 1887–8 should be included in that Bill? Why it cannot be included in another Bill, brought in at some later period of the Session, I cannot understand; and I therefore hope someone in authority will rise and endeavour to remove our doubts upon this matter.
  MR. JOICEY: I desire to add any pressure it may be in my power to exercise on the Government to that of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this side of the House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon a short time ago, stated that the whole of this discussion had taken place between naval Gentlemen and Gentlemen interested in shipbuilding. As I represent a constituency which does not participate in any shipbuilding interest, and as I am not a naval man, I think I have a right to say a word or two on the subject of these Estimates, and have a right to ask that

  957
  an opportunity shall be afforded me to do so.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: the noble Lord tells us that the Committee is anxious to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates. ["No, no!"] Well, that is what I am told. It is said that that is the reason why we are to vote this money for the Navy without adequate discussion. There are a great many Members of the Committee who are anxious to discuss the Navy Estimates. I, myself, ventured a few evenings ago, when the Speaker was in the Chair, to make some observations as to the Navy Estimates; but I am afraid I was not able to impress the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) with that sense of the importance of the matter which weighed on my mind. At any rate, he did not take notice of my observations. Well, I am anxious to know whether the Committee attach any importance to them? I endorse what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H, Fowler), as to the complete and radical difference that there is between this Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates, and the Supplementary Estimates for the Army and Navy Services, which must, of course, be included in the Appropriation Account that deals with the present financial year. But the Estimates we are asked to proceed to do not relate to this financial year at all, but to the financial year upon which we have not yet entered. They may be included in a subsequent Appropriation Bill, and in that way all the requirements of the law may be completely met. Those representations of the noble Lord as to the absolute necessity of taking a Vote on Account for the Civil Service Estimates is altogether without real foundation. It is a monstrous thing that having submitted to curtailment of debate on going into Committee on the Navy Estimates, on the complete understanding that we should have an exhaustive discussion of the whole Estimates, on the first Vote taken this night the Government should attempt again to curtail debate in order to proceed to another branch of financial business.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to the necessity of taking this Vote on Account to-night. I assure him that it
  958
  is absolutely necessary, in order to comply with the law, that the Vote on Account of Civil Services Estimates should be taken to-night. ["No, no!"] It must be taken before the commencement of the coming year. It has always been taken with those Votes which are practically Votes on Account for the Army and Navy. The hon. Gentleman is aware that not a single farthing can be issued for the service of the country, unless the money has been provided under a Ways and Moans Bill. That Bill will be introduced the moment the Vote is taken, and we have obtained money in Ways and Means for the Army and Navy. No Civil Servants will be able to receive their salaries on 1st April unless they are provided in a Bill, set up as a Ways and Means Bill. I will tell the Committee how this Vote on Account has been taken for the last 7 years. In 1881 it was taken on the 16th March, in 1882 it was taken on the 24th March—[Mr. H. H. FOWLER: The 24th? This is only the 21st.] There was some specific reason for the Vote being taken on the 24th March in 1882. I cannot tell precisely what it was. In 1883 the Vote was taken on the 15th March, in 1884 on the 20th March, in 1885 on the 16th, and in 1880 on the 18th. Curiously enough for the last four years—namely, in 1883–4–5 and 6, this Vote has been taken on the same night as the Army Vote. Hon. Gentlemen may receive my assurance that the Vote must be taken and included in a Ways and Means Bill. The days on which the Vote may be taken vary in different years, owing to the manner in which Saturdays and Sundays may intervene and follow after; but I assure the Committee that this is the last day on which we can take the Vote on Account, so as to comply with the law.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I am sorry to dispute the statement of so high an authority on financial business as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; but I cannot accept his statement in the face of the exception to the rule he has laid down which he has himself quoted, and which shows that this Vote has been taken on the 24th March. It is impossible to introduce a Bill, pass it through all its stages, and obtain the Royal Assent for it between the 24th and the 31st of March; therefore, there must have been an occasion when the Vote on Account

  959
  for the Civil Service was not granted before the introduction of the Appropriation Bill passed at the end of the financial year. It is a common thing to take Votes on Account in May. The final appropriation of money for the purposes of the State is made in the Appropriation Act at the end of the Session. I agree that this Vote should be taken before the end of March and of the financial year, and I think it is necessary that there should be a Vote in Ways and Means before the 31st; but I am respectfully doubting that it is unnecessary to do what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, and include this Vote in the Appropriation Bill which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury must bring in at once.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry to be obliged to differ from the hon. Gentleman who has held the Office of Secretary to the Treasury later than myself; but I am sure he will find, if he inquires into the matter, that no money can be paid for Civil Services, or for the Army or Navy, unless it is included in an Act of Parliament that has received the Royal Assent before the 31st March. In regard to the case of 1882, which I mentioned, and to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, I am strongly of opinion that the Vote was put in in Committee, which is an irregular transaction, and one which ought not to be recognized in this House. To be regular, the Committee should take the Votes as a whole; and I am satisfied, from my experience of Treasury arrangements, that it is necessary that this Vote should now be taken.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to point out that if it is as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury says, the difficulty which has arisen is solely owing to his own act. His contention is, that one Vote must be taken for the Army, one for the Navy, and one for the Civil Services, in time to pass the Appropriation. Bill. Well, he had his Votes for the Army and Navy some time ago, and what was there, I should like to know, to prevent him from patting down the Civil Service Estimates at the beginning of the evening? It was not necessary to take the third Navy Vote to-day; at any rate, if we have been led into any difficulty, it is the fault of the First Lord of the Treasury, or the Secretary to the Trea-
  960
  sury, for not having put down the Vote on Account for Civil Services before the Navy Estimates. Having put down the Votes wrong, they now come to us, at half-past 11 o'clock at night, and seek to prevent us from discussing these Estimates. We, on these Benches, should like to discuss the Civil Service Vote proposed for our consideration, for at least five or six hours; but we are told that it must be taken at 12 or 1 o'clock in the morning. I think the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, having acted as he has done, is bound to tell us, going over the period from now to the 31st March, day by day, how it is impossible for him to allow us an opportunity to discuss these Estimates. He ought to tell us how many days are required for the passing of the Appropriation Bill. I think it is eight—and the subject is one with which most of us are pretty familiar, seeing that the question of the days required for the passing of the Bill is very much mixed up with the question of our holidays. If it takes eight days, we still have two days more for these discussions; but, probably, it does not take as much as eight days, so that there may be even more than two days for the consideration of the Estimates. Under any circumstances, it is always possible for us to suspend the Standing Orders and get a Bill through in a day. In the House of Lords they very frequently do that, and why should not we follow that course? I certainly think we should not give up the discussion of these Estimates. There are two burning questions I wish to raise on the Navy Estimates; but in addition to that I desire to talk on the Civil Service Estimates, in regard to which there are a whole crowd of Notices put down. I think we ought to have a statement from the Government showing that it is impossible to put down Supply for tomorrow. I believe he would find it easy to do that. The House would, no doubt, allow him to withdraw the Notice he has given for to-morrow, so as to enable him to take Supply. He would even then have five or six days before him for the Appropriation Bill. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had such a simple course open to him as to have put the Civil Service Vote down first on the Paper to-day, but has not availed himself of it, I think the Committee would be entitled to refuse to yield to

  961
  him. He seems to be wrong all round, and not to be sufficiently alive to the fact that there are half-a-dozen ways out of the difficulty.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I quite agree with the "First Lord of the Treasury that this Civil Service Vote should be included in the Ways and Means Act before the end of the financial year, otherwise the Civil servants cannot be paid; but, on the other hand, I am not inclined to accept his statement that the Vote cannot be obtained in Committee on the Bill. It has been done—I am told that it has been frequently done, and that there is nothing irregular about it. It may not be customary; but that has nothing to do with the question of regularity. It was done in 1882, as the right hon. Gentleman himself states, and that being the case, why should not it be done now?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In reference to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Nolan), I would remind him and the Committee that I stated distinctly when in Committee last Thursday, that it was proposed to take a Navy Vote and a vote on account for the Civil Service to-night. I said that, in order to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen who appealed to me for an opportunity for discussion on the general question of the Navy Estimates. There was no breach of understanding, therefore——
  COLONEL NOLAN: I never said there was a breach of understanding.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) says that this Vote on Account has been put in in Committee on the Ways and Means Bill, and no doubt that is true; but it is an irregular transaction. It is an irregular course, and one which I, for one, do not recommend the Committee to take. The custom is that the Vote shall appear in the Bill in the form in which it has gone through its several stages, and the Rule of this House is not to suspend the Standing Orders in respect of the passage of Money Bills. I never, during my 19 years' experience, remember two stages of a Money Bill being taken on the same night in this House, and I certainly should not be the one to depart from that Rule, which I consider a sound one in financial matters. I hope the Committee will allow the Vote imme-
  962
  diately before us to be withdrawn, and put off to a future day; or to be disposed of at once, so as to allow the Vote of Credit to be discussed.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid that we are introducing a new form of clôture. Surely it is not contended that in voting practically the main principles of this huge sum for the naval services of the country, a single night's debate ought to satisfy the Representatives of the people. I cannot imagine that the First Lord of the Treasury can be serious in putting forward any such contention. What has happened to-night? The Committee has been engaged in listening to experts upon the Navy, the discussion having been varied by mutual complimentary bandying between the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench and the Treasury Bench. But hardly any serious discussion and inquiry as to whether this huge sum is necessary for the defence of the Empire has been entered upon by any single Member, nor has the Government ever attempted to show its necessity. Surely, it is not wrong to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that certain professions were made in their name by the noble Lord who is now absent (Lord Randolph Churchill), and who, whether present or absent, counts for a great deal. [Cries of "Divide!"] If we are not allowed to proceed with this conversation, all I can say is that I never witnessed such an exhibition in the House of Commons before, as that upon a general question of policy in regard to these great spending Departments, it is not allowed a single Member to occupy five minutes of the time of the Committee. With regard to the subject before us, I would not undertake to say that the right hon. Gentleman would be likely to get his Vote for the Civil Services, even supposing the debate on the Navy Estimates were to be adjourned, at this time of night. One of the first duties of Members of Parliament is to deliberate on these finances, and to suggest to the Government the possibility of effecting the reductions in certain directions, and I see no reason why the independent Representatives of the taxpayers of the country should yield to the demand of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman cut the ground from under his feet by the list he read. He told us that the Vote on Account

  963
  was taken on one occasion on the 24th March; and in order to have imported any value at all to the case he was attempting to make out, he should have assured us that as much time has been given to the discussion of the Votes in Supply this Session as is usually given in other years up to this date.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: More time.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: All I can say is, that I have sat in this House and listened night after night to discussion on various branches of the Estimates; but there has been no opportunity afforded us of discussing these matters. But whether that is so or not, both Parties have been charged by the country to secure economy in these great spending Departments. Now, I want to ask has there been economy in the Army and Navy? We have an undertaking given to us that next year some economy will be brought about. It is said that there can be no economy effected this year, or at any rate no substantial economy. But as to that, it might be remarked that right hon. Gentlemen opposite probably do not feel any great responsibility in regard to next year's Estimates. Therefore the postponement of any plan of economy is all in their favour. If the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) continues to possess influence in the Government, we are not likely to have much economy in connection with naval matters for years to come. I have not forgotten the impression he made from this side of the House, when he condemned half the Navy as either obsolete or rotten, and wanted £5,000,000 spent on it one year, and £6,000,000 the year following, with another sum in reserve as large as the first two put together. All I can say is, that hon. Members will be deluded if they reckon upon economy being initiated by the Government now in Office, or by any Government that is likely to succeed them. If economy is brought about it will be through the exertions of independent Members sitting on both sides of the House. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh; but I venture to say that the denunciations of the extravagance of the late Government, which came from private Members in this House, was not all idle talk. I should be glad if the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Admiral Field) suc-
  964
  ceeds in obtaining the opportunity he desires. If he does, I have no doubt he will pour a very powerful broadside into his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. I consider that this Committee is bound to make a stand, and to refuse to allow this hustling and shuffling of the Estimates through the House. I, for one, see no reason why we should forego the opportunity of discussing the Estimates, seeing that the Government have taken nearly the whole of the time this Session for other Business. As I have suggested, one of the first duties which belong to us is to criticize, with all necessary minuteness, the items of the Votes and the general policy that the Government have embarked upon. A question has been asked as to what is the general policy of the Government in regard to the magnitude of our Navy, and the work it has to do. Well, I want an answer to that question. I think it a very crucial one. It is impossible for us to say whether the amount asked for is excessive, or not, unless we have some explanatory statement as to policy beyond that given in the Statement issued by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty. Therefore I hope I shall receive some support in insisting that this question shall remain open in order that we may discuss general policy. It was an undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that we should discuss general policy upon this Vote. It must be clear to the Committee that such discussion has not taken place, and that the clôturo which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to apply, will be in the highest degree unsatisfactory.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Do I understand that hon. Members opposite desire this Naval Vote to be withdrawn?
  An hon. MEMBER: On one condition.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: What condition? If it is the wish of the Committee to discuss this Vote further on another occasion, I should be perfectly willing to withdraw it. It seems to me to be the wish of the Committee to have some further discussion, [Hon. MEMBERS: We do wish it.] Then I would ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Vote.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I rise to ask a question. I wish

  965
  to know distinctly, before this Vote is withdrawn, at what date it is proposed that we should renew the discussion upon it? What date will be fixed for it? Shall we have a fair opportunity of resuming the debate? I also want to know whether, in the event of our taking the Vote on Account for the Civil Service to-night, we shall have an opportunity of making Motions on going into Committee; or what will be the course pursued?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; there will be an opportunity for making Motions.
  MR. CONYBEARE: There are several Resolutions of different kinds to be discussed, involving an enormous amount of detail in connection with the Civil Service Vote; and I should like to know what time to-morrow morning the Government expect that we should be able to dispose of the matter? It would be impossible for us to permit the Vote to pass without discussion. I, for one, am not at all disposed to allow such a Vote to be rushed through in the manner contemplated by the Government. I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury with any breach of understanding in having put down this Civil Service Vote on Account. Certainly not; but what I do charge him with is this—that after promising us an adequate opportunity of discussing those Navy Estimates, he practically deprives us of that opportunity by endeavouring to treat us as he is proposing to do.
  MR. DILLON: I did not understand my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) to charge the First Lord of the Treasury with a deliberate broach of understanding. What my hon. and gallant Friend complains of is this—that the right hon. Gentleman has put down an important Civil Service Vote behind another Vote, which must be discussed in order to choke off discussion upon that Civil Service Vote. That is what we object to. We, who take an interest in the Civil Service Vote, have sat hero all night in order to have an opportunity of discussing it. If the noble Lord had withdrawn the Naval Vote at 7, 8, or 9 o'clock this evening, we should have been willing to go on with the discussion of the Civil Service Vote. But what if it we are asked to do? Why, here is a Vote on Account for the Civil Service of £3,624,100; and I must say that during
  966
  my short experience in this House I never recollect a single instance on which a discussion of a Vote of this kind did not consume at least one whole night. We are asked now to vote this enormous sum of over £3,500,000 for the Civil Services, covering a vast number of subjects of vital interest. By doing so we shall be placing the Government in a position above criticism—we shall be removing them from criticism for a period of, perhaps, three months—that is to say, until the end of May or the beginning of June. Personally, I am altogether opposed to an important Civil Service Vote being brought on at this time of night (12 o'clock). If the First Lord of the Treasury considered it absolutely necessary to take this Vote to-night, he should have put it down on the Paper first. He could have taken to-morrow night, or any night during the week, for the discussion of the Vote. What I would suggest is this—that if the Government are not disposed to postpone the Resolutions of which they have given Notice for to-morrow, in order to take those Votes, they should postpone the Votes until the 24th March—Thursday next—when we shall all be prepared to discuss them.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has given Notice of the course he intends to pursue, and when he did so there was no protest from any quarter of the House. [Cries of "When?"] On Friday last. No hon. Member will lose his right by the course now proposed. An hon. Member has said that he never remembered such a course having been taken before; but the fact is that last year the Vote on Account was taken on the same evening as the first Navy Vote; in 1885 it was taken after the first Navy Vote; and the same thing was done in 1881 and in 1883. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government are strictly following the course pursued by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they had the occupancy of the Treasury Bench. I hope that the Committee will now consent to the withdrawal of this Vote and reserve it for future discussion.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As far as my recollection serves, it was not specifically stated on behalf of the Government that it was absolutely neces-

  967
  sary to sit on the 1st of April; and I doubt very much whether on any of the occasions referred to, the Government tried to take the Vote after half-past 12 o'clock. It does, therefore, seem hard on hon. Members who have an interest in Civil Service questions, that they should be called on to discuss them at this hour of the morning.
  COLONEL NOLAN: It is my impression, as the result of a somewhat long experience, that no Appropriation Bill has taken more than eight days, and the Government ought, before they press the Business upon the Committee in this way, to be able to show the opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is so anxious about the Money Bills that he will not forego the slightest matter of form; but the difficulty would be got over if he would give us Tuesday, "Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday for the discussion of the Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I certainly think that two stages of a Money Bill ought not to be taken on the same day. What I would suggest to the Committee is that we should either allow the Government to withdraw this Vote and proceed to the Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates, or that they should agree to take the Civil Service Estimates Vote on Thursday next. I think it would be best to allow the Vote to be withdrawn. The question is whether we should go on and take this Navy Vote. I certainly understood that the Civil Service Vote was to be taken this evening. [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Members say "No;" but I am stating facts. An arrangement was made that this course should be adopted; and I myself certainly understood that the whole of this evening would be given up to the Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates.
  DR. CLARK: I am in the recollection of those who were present at the time when I state that after 2 o'clock last Friday morning the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) wanted to take the Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates; but he stated that he would postpone it if we would give him the two Navy Votes he then wanted without further discussion. The result was that he got those Votes; and now
  968
  the Government are asking us to give them the Civil Service Vote practically without discussion. I think that the best thing we could do would be to go on with the present Vote, and ask the Government to take another night for the Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates, because there are some questions connected with the Civil Service Estimates which the Scotch Members are very anxious to discuss, but which they are unable to go into, because the Lords of the Treasury are blocking their Bills; and as they cannot have the questions to which those measures relate brought fairly before the House, they are obliged to take the best means they can of raising their grievances.
  MR. R. W. DUFF: I understood it to be said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) that private Members would not suffer inconvenience by the course proposed with regard to the taking of the Civil Service Estimates; but I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If we do not take up the Civil Service Estimates before Easter, it is quite certain they will be put down immediately after the Easter holidays, probably on the first day, and the Government having taken up the whole of the time of the House up to the present moment—such a course would be very hard on hon. Members who have important questions to raise on the Estimates, and have had no other opportunity of bringing them forward. I think that the least the House can ask is some assurance from the Government that we shall not have the Civil Service Estimates taken the first day after Easter.
  DR. CAMERON: Nothing but absolute necessity could justify the Government taking such a scandalous step as asking the House to take up a Vote of £3,500,000 at a quarter past 12 o'clock. But I would point out that there is another course open to the Government, which would be fraught with very little inconvenience, and that is to give us a Saturday Sitting. The meeting would be a merely formal one, and the only inconvenience it would involve would be to a more quorum of the Houses. Under these circumstances, when the Government is in a position to take this course in order to obtain the object it has in view, without any irregularity, there can

  969
  be no possible excuse for their going on with the Vote they propose to take at this hour in the morning.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I must say that I object to a Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates being taken without discussion, because there will not be another opportunity for discussing the Education Code before it will have lain on the Table during the 40 days necessary to give it validity.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Government are able to give the assurance that the Civil Service Estimates shall not be put down for the first night after Easter. Supposing there were an open day for discussing the Vote on Account, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than to use it for discussing different Votes, the debating of which is properly taken in Committee upon the ordinary Estimates. Already more subjects have been named than could be discussed on the Vote on Account; and it is evident that if a debate were to be opened on one of them the others would have little chance of being reached the same night. I trust that after this explanation the Vote on Account may be allowed to be taken without discussion.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The Government speak of the necessity of passing this Vote to-night, although I confess I do not see the necessity myself. They put down a Vote for the Navy which is not necessary, and they allow a most irregular discussion to take place which they must be aware cannot be brought to any practical issue. And this is precisely what the Government has been doing all along the line. They are particularly tenacious about points of precedent when that suits their purpose; but when it suits them to go the other way they are equally ready to dispense with anything like regularity. It is all very well to talk about the Appropriation Bill requiring eight days; but we know how the Bill may be expedited in "another place," whore they have not the same regard for rule that we have. For all that is necessary, it would be just as well if the Vote they are asking for were to be taken on Thursday.
  MR. SEXTON: No answer has been given to the statement that the 24th of March has been held to be early enough in former years for taking the Vote on Account. Two
  970
  methods have been pointed out by which the Vote on Account can be taken without being taken to-night, and it is impossible for the Irish Members to assent to the Civil Service Votes being taken at this hour. We are not responsible for the prolongation of the debate; and although the Government may think the time to which they wish to limit us sufficient for the discussion of the Vote on Account, we should very much prefer to begin the discussion at half-past 5 in the evening rather than it should be brought forward in the way proposed and not discussed at all. We must judge every occasion by itself and every Government by itself, and I may say that I have never known any Government like the present. True, our Governments are not easy to understand and are impossible to define; but I have never known the relations between the Government of this country and the people of Ireland to be such as they are at this moment. We are told that we are not prevented from raising questions on the regular Services of the year; but when will they come on? There are questions of great magnitude in connection with the administration of Ireland which we desire to discuss, and in saying this I am arguing against this Vote being taken in the middle of the night. There are Irish questions of great urgency which will not brook delay, and it is impossible for us in the performance of our public duty to assent to their indefinite postponement. I, for one, should prefer to see the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury rise in order to give us his interpretation of his own remarks, rather than have the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as his interpreter. It was at a quarter to 11 that the First Lord of the Treasury said that would be a reasonable time to bring on the Vote on Account, and he appealed to his Friends to assist him in obtaining it; and it is now nearly half-past 12. The debate on the Navy Estimates was kept up by the irrepressible Admirals on the other side of the House, and was not prolonged by us. The sailors in this House do not evidence the taciturnity they display elsewhere, and if, but for them, it was reasonable to bring on the Vote on Account at half-past 11, it is not reasonable to bring it on at half-past 12. It is, in fact, an

  971
  insult to our common sense to ask us to agree to the withdrawal of the Navy Vote at half-past 12, in order that another Vote of an important character requiring much discussion may be pushed down our throats. It will certainly be my duty, if the Vote on Account is pressed forward to-night, to raise an important question relating to social order in Belfast. The Government have had the Report on the Belfast riots before them for two months, and during those two months repeated inquiries have failed to secure a scintilla of information as to the policy they moan to pursue with regard to it. I represent a division of that town in which my constituents have bad their houses broken into, their property destroyed, and their lives taken; and although this has been the case the Government have so dawdled during the last two months over the questions affecting that place that disturbances have broken out four times, while the Report lay in some pigeon-hole in Dublin Castle; and I beg to inform the Committee, in the discharge of my public duty, that if we go to the Vote on Account at this hour, I shall be bound to raise the Belfast question on the Report of the Royal Commission with a fullness that will in all probability keep the Committee till daylight.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure the Motion be withdrawn?
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Objection being made—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I put the Question, and heard no answer; but if hon. Members say so, of course I accept the Statement.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the Government now tell us what they propose to do with the Sitting?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We are desirous of withdrawing the Vote; but if the Committee refuses to allow us to do that, we must take a Division upon it.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I really have something to say on this Vote, and my mission is to make myself heard in the House. I did not intend to make a speech now, because I do not think I could do so with advantage to the constituency that sends me here; nor do I think the Committee would profit by it; nor do I think the Government will gain anything by an attempt to muzzle discussion. It
  972
  strikes me there are many important matters in connection with this Naval Vote we have before us. You, Mr. Courtney, will have it within your recollection that I am within the circumscribed limits of Order. I do not want to make any Motion. I do not want to attempt, for a moment, to put myself into any obstructive position. I do not wish to go anything beyond my legitimate privilege. What I want to say is this. It appeared to me that, on Vote 2 of the Naval Estimates—if hon. Gentlemen opposite will permit, I would put my intention as briefly as may be——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the Vote.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: What I intended to do on this Vote 2—which is reached, but not yet passed—what I intended I will now only indicate by saying that the question I was going to raise was the use of gunboats at evictions. Late as the hour is, we are not at all "funking" a debate on this question; we do not shirk the opportunity of raising it now. We will raise it with great deliberation; but I want to know what is to be done—whether we must go into it now, or whether the Government will allow us another opportunity of raising the question of the presence of gunboats at evictions? It is hard to put one's views before the Committee, when all around there are so many—it would be an expression Tin-Parliamentary to say "larking" atone—while so many Members have something to say at the same time. What I want to say is this. If I am only to have this opportunity of raising the question, I am fully prepared; if the Government think it inconvenient to proceed with it to-night, I am equally prepared to accept that decision.
  MR. LANE: For something like eight hours I have been waiting to discuss a matter of great importance to my constituents. I desisted from doing so on a former occasion in deference to the wish of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), when the first Vote was taken, on the distinct understanding that I should have an opportunity upon the second Vote. The hon. Member for South - East Cork (Mr. Hooper) and myself did not bring forward the Haulbowline Dockyard ques-

  973
  tion while hon. and gallant Gentlemen connected with the Navy were engaged in a consecutive discussion, as we did not feel warranted in interrupting for the purpose of bringing on a peculiarly Irish question. This was the case on Thursday; and we thought that hon. and gallant Gentlemen, having occupied some eight hours that evening with their discussion, it would have finished tonight, in reasonable time, enabling us to bring on the subject in which we are interested. Since I agreed to postpone the subject, the face of affairs has been changed. The Government have given a Notice to take up the whole time of the House with matters they consider urgent, and so we have to regard matters in a different light to that in which they appeared in the last hour of Thursday's Sitting, and it becomes a matter of urgency with us to try to press upon the noble Lord and his Colleagues in the Admiralty the question which we formerly deferred at their request. It has become more incumbent upon me individually to bring it forward to-night than upon anyone else, because, though the Island of Haulbowline on which the Dockyard is situated, is geographically within the district represented by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cork, it is practically within mine, though it may seem a paradox to say so, because nearly all those who work in that Dockyard live in my constituency at Queenstown. I have since Thursday had forwarded to me a Resolution of the Queenstown Town Commissioners asking me to bring this question under the notice of the House at the earliest opportunity, and I have also had a Memorial from those unfortunate men who are under notice of dismissal from the works at Haulbowline. Though the deputation which waited upon the noble Lord and his Colleagues when they visited Queenstown last November appealed for a continuation of the works on the ground that it would be an act of charity, we do not make any such appeal from our places here. It is only right that we should acknowledge the courtesy with which the noble Lord received the deputation, and I will go so far as to say he almost came up to the expectations of those who approached him from that particular point of view, that he would not carry out the sentence of
  974
  dismissal upon the 400 labourers at Haulbowline Dockyard. the noble Lord very kindly gave an undertaking that they should not then be discharged, but should be kept on until the early summer. On the part of these men I thank the noble Lord for his consideration. But I wish now to place the matter before the heads of the Admiralty in a different light. On Thursday, when the noble Lord had it brought under his notice, he said these works were completed, or nearly so, therefore there was no hardship about to be inflicted on the artizans and labourers about to be discharged. It is my duty to-night to traverse that statement of the noble Lord. I am not at all surprised that he should be so mistaken, because the origin of these Docks is now so far removed into the remote antiquity of officialism that it is absolutely impossible that the noble Lord should have any conception of the original plans or ideas that prompted the Admiralty first to undertake these works. The idea at that time was not to establish relief works in Cork Harbour for the employment of superfluous labourers—that seems to be the idea which has got into the minds of members of the Admiralty Board in recent years—and it is on that assumption they have based all their replies on this question when Irish Members have had their annual opportunity of bringing it forward. They have said as the noble Lord said on Thursday, that the Government have done all they could to provide employment up to a certain point, and that point reached they could do no more. When the noble Lord states that the plans as originally contemplated in connection with the Dockyard are completed he seems altogether to ignore the fact that in the original plans—of which I have a copy here which I shall be happy to place at his service—there is specified a second dry dock of much larger dimensions than that now constructed, and until this second dock is constructed the work cannot be said to be carried out. If all the money that has been spent up to the present time, an enormous sum—£500,000or £600,000, I do not know the exact figures—if all this is not to be wasted, sunk in Haulbowline Island, it is absolutely necessary for naval purposes that the original plans should be carried out and this second

  975
  dock constructed. I say this because the undertaking was commenced with a view to establishing an efficient, thoroughly serviceable Dockyard where the largest ships of Her Majesty's Fleet could not only be repaired but even constructed. The present dock is useless, not from any fault of the engineers who made the original plans, but because orders had to be given to have the dock shortened by 70 or 80 feet from the original plan. Since the original plans and specifications were drawn up, as I need not say to so many hon. and gallant Gentlemen, who have served in the Navy, the length of Her Majesty's ships has very much increased. Even had the dock been constructed upon the original plan it would now be too short for the bulk of the ships in the Navy. If we unfortunately drifted into war, and if three or four ships became disabled off the Irish Coast, not one of them could dock for repairs at Haulbowline. Even if one vessel could go into dock, all the other ships would have to lie in Queenstown Harbour for refuge, and would be practically blockaded until they could be towed to Devonport or some other Dockyard; their services being meanwhile lost to the country, which services would largely consist in the protection of our commerce. If you had your docks completed, with ample accommodation, machinery and appliances, vessels slightly damaged in their complicated machinery by accidents of warfare could be quickly repaired. In time of war, a largo part of the duty of our Fleet would be the protection of our commerce on the ocean, and it is no wild supposition to indicate Haulbowline as the only possible and safe place for repairs for those ships. In that Statement upon which the noble Lord has been so much complimented it is stated that Her Majesty has 260 ships in commission. A very largo proportion of those would be engaged in duty for the protection of the transatlantic commerce, and where could more convenient accommodation be found for such than in Cork Harbour? The noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) said on Thursday that naval warfare would in future be conducted on a system of electricity, an expression indicating, I presume, the celerity of the operations. All the more important then was it
  976
  to have accommodation for repairs to ships ready to hand. I, as representing this particular constituency, and my colleagues representing neighbouring constituencies, stand up here to say we do not think the question of Haulbowline Dock should any longer be discussed on the very narrow basis of giving employment to a few hundred labourers. It should be approached in a broader spirit, and the Admiralty should make up their minds to cany out the original intention and establish in Cork Harbour a thoroughly efficient Dockyard for the purpose of repairing, if not of constructing, Her Majesty's ships of war. The original Estimate for the work was £550,000, and to that was subsequently added £18,000. I believe the whole amount of the original estimate has been exhausted during the 22 years the works have been going on—exhausted, to a very large extent, by a system of bungling and muddling. I do not say the present Board of Admiralty are responsible for the bungling and muddling of the past. I think the noble Lord has been deservedly complimented on the economies he purposes to effect in several Departments. The bungling, however, has taken place in connection with these Dockyard works; the money has been spent, and the plans are not half executed; and, that money being gone, we are told we ought to rest satisfied with the incomplete establishment which is the result, and that it is absolutely impossible for the Admiralty to ask for any further sum for these works. But we do not hear any statement of that kind in connection with an English Dockyard. If it is necessary to extend them, or, if the works turn out more costly than was anticipated, the Government come forward with further votes, and they are granted without hesitation. The noble Lord spoke a short time ago of a saving on the Navy Estimates of £800,000. Now, I do not think it unreasonable to ask that a small proportion of this saving might fall to our share. We have been getting something like £30,000 a-year on account of these works, and that is reduced this year to £3,000, and £7.000 for machinery. Only £10,000, out of an expenditure of £12,470,000, while Ireland, at the lowest computation, contributes £1,000,000 annually. I do not for a moment say, that because we in Ireland

  977
  contribute £ 1,000,000 a-year as our quota of £12,000,000 for the Navy, are, therefore, entitled to ask that a considerable portion of that amount should be spent in Ireland; we simply ask that the necessary sum should be expended on this solitary site in Ireland which is specially suitable for, and actually necessary as an Imperial Dockyard. A very small sum will suffice to carry out the original plan. Of course, I do not presume to speak with professional knowledge; but, so far as I have been able to gather, £70,000 or £80,000 would make the establishment thoroughly effective, and a valuable addition to our naval strength. The noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone on a previous evening told us, in connection with the Navy Department, that one of the most important considerations to be attended to was that of being well prepared beforehand; and, that, in consequence of this foresight, a very largo saving in the expenditure required in the Navy Department would be accomplished. I, therefore, respectfully submit to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasonableness of the expenditure which we ask for this Navy Dockyard in Haulbowline. For many reasons, we think that an immediate alteration should be made in the programme of the First Lord of the Admiralty—on the score of economy, utility, and the fact of the proportionate contribution of Ireland to the Imperial Navy Estimates. I see by the Estimates which have been placed before us that, in the Dockyards at home—meaning by that the English Dockyards—there is a total number of 19,522 artizans and labourers employed, at a cost of £1,483,291; and in Her Majesty's Dockyards abroad—which I presume are merely a provision for the contingencies of accidents and breakings-down—there are employed 2,587 salaried officials and members of the artizan and labouring classes, who are to be paid in this year £278,737. Altogether, in the home and foreign Dockyards, the total number employed is 22,109 individuals, at a cost of £1,662,028. How many artizanis or mechanics have we got in Ireland receiving anything whatsoever from Her Majesty's Government in the way of naval employment? In this Haulbowline Dockyard, in connection with the technical repairs, some
  978
  12 or 13 artizans are employed; and, in addition, about 300 or 400 ordinary labourers, working for about 12s. or 14s. a-week. It is now proposed by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, from the 1st of June in this year, to dismiss these 400 hands who are receiving these miserable wages as unskilled labourers at Haulbowline Yard; and this in face of the fact that the labour is paid for out of Imperial Votes, to which Ireland contributes her proportionate share. I ask, are we to be told by any Supporter of the Government, or any Minister of the Crown, this is dealing out even-handed justice to Ireland? I say that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so constantly twitting us that we in Ireland are unjustifiably discontented, and charging us with being-disloyal, should recognize that, in this very Navy Vote, we have sufficient ground for being discontented, and I would almost say for being disloyal. At this moment we are asked to Vote this large sum of money to the Government for the employment of over 22,000 hands in connection with the Naval Service; and, side by side with this request, we are informed that from Juno 1st forward there is to be no other consideration shown to Ireland by the Lords of the Admiralty, except the consideration implied by the monthly dismissal of 80 of these labourers at Haulbowline. I appeal to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, if the policy of his Party is, that people living in different parts of this kingdom should all be treated alike and none of them receive exceptional favours, as compared with others, that in this matter of Naval Expenditure he should give the Irish people their just share. I do not think that we are seeking any preference: on the contrary, we find our £1,000,000 absorbed for the purpose of being expended in English naval Dockyards, and we get none of it, notwithstanding the fact that we have been paying our Imperial levy for 86 years. The Party to which I belong think it their duty to their constituencies to urge on the Government to take a wider view of this question of the Haulbowline Dockyard than would seem to be manifest in the policy of merely carrying on the works for a few weeks and more then dismissing the men. The Government should take the original plan upon which this

  979
  work was undertaken, and inquire into the case carefully, and not in a manner which sanctions the spending of £500,000, which just might as well have been thrown into the sea. the establishment of a Dockyard in Ireland—a Dockyard which would not be too short for Her Majesty's ships—would be recognizing the proportionate share of Ireland in the expenditure for Navy Estimates, and at the same time furnishing our shipwrights and ship-carpenters, who are now literally starving, with some amount of employment. If this wore done, Her Majesty's Navy, I believe, would be increased very largely in efficiency, and in time of war immense assistance and immeasurable advantage would be rendered to disabled ships of war which, in the hour of danger, could find a port of refuge and facilities for repair at the very threshold of the ocean.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise, Sir, to move that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I understand that the Government are anxious to bring forward a Vote on Account. It is perfectly preposterous that a Vote of such magnitude, involving large matter of discussion, can be brought forward at this time of night. I strongly object to this system of Vote on Account, and I think it is not fair to the House of Commons or the country that we should be called upon to pass a Vote of £3,000,000 when the discussion on it commences at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. If the Government were not so very anxious to get this money, why did they bring the Vote on at this hour? They say—let the Navy Estimates be discussed; we will withdraw on the condition that this Vote on Account be taken. It is surely an old principle that no contentious Votes in the Estimates are taken after half-past 12 o'clock, and I certainly never hoard of a Vote of this amount being brought forward so late as this and the discussion begun. Because I believe that it is impossible to do work adequately in this style—we get so impatient and sleepy—that I hope the Government will agree that progress be reported, and in case they do that, I think they will find no opposition to the Navy Vote being taken on the understanding that the Vote on Account will be taken on a future day.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Labouchere.) [1.20 A.M.]
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 196: Majority 12.5.—(Div. List, No. 70.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I am very sorry that it should be necessary to go into this Question of voting the Estimates at such an hour. the night has been spent by the speeches of experts on subjects mostly, I admit, of great importance in regard to the Dockyard system, and I strongly object to the discussion being taken at a time when the public will be unable to see by the Press what is passing. As I understand this Memorandum of explanation, it is matter to be referred to a Select Committee, and if then any economy can be scored for the figures presented by the officials of the Departments, the Report of that Committee will show whether these Estimates have been prepared with any regard to economy whatever. I should like to ask of the Government upon what principle did they go in determining what should be the strength of the Navy. In the Memorandum given by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) we are told that it was upon the review of the last six years' expenditure, and it seemed that when there was a fit of economy on the part of the British Government there had been in all other European countries a desire to increase their naval armament, which embodied consequent expenditure. we are told, Mr. Courtney, because other Powers have increased their naval strength, it was necessary for us also to increase our expenditure on the British Navy, and the result has been that in the last two years, as compared with the preceding five years, we have spent nearly £8,250,000 above the average expenditure of the preceding five years. Now, Sir, I understand that has been done to make our fighting power equal to the combined fighting power of throe States of Europe. Mr. Courtney, what I have to say is this—that in all probability we shall continue this same policy. We may, from time to time, introduce small cheeseparing economies; but, on

  981
  the other hand, accordingly as the Powers in Europe see our expenditure rising, they will say to themselves, it is necessary to increase our armaments, and then again, because they have increased their armaments; we shall be told it will be necessary for us to strengthen our Navy in proportion. We have been doing all we could of late years to strengthen our ships, and to make heavy ordnance. The other nations in Europe have been compelled to follow our example, and the consequence has been a rivalry between the different States in Europe in regard both to their Naval and Military armaments, and I want to know when is this to cease? Is there no capacity in British statesmanship—is there no prospect that it will be able to put an end to this increasing rivalry between foreign Powers and ourselves? Are we prepared to go on increasing our armaments accordingly as the Continental Powers increase theirs? If we are, I can only say the result will be that it will become an intolerable burden to this nation. I for one moment should very much like to imagine that there would be such statesmanship on the part of the Conservative Administration as would enable them to put an end to this rivalry; and I say also that no Government in Europe is in so easy a position for making overtures to foreign nations having this object in view. We are able to say that we have a fighting capacity equal to any three Naval Powers on the Continent combined, and we can say that we are willing to rest upon our oars. We could make rational appeals to the other Powers in Europe to cease their rivalry before it is too late, because, I insist, that this rivalry cannot go on without doing an enormous amount of evil. Let an appeal be made to check this expenditure. We have been reminded by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to-night, that next year's Estimates have been prepared with such care and moderation as to show a decrease of nearly £800,000. That may prove to be so or not; but I would remind the House that there is such a thing—as we have found to our cost—as a Supplementary Vote, and it may be possible that in the spring of next year we may see something of such a Vote. I, therefore, do not regard
  982
  promises of this kind as of very much value until the year's expenditure has been got through, and we find ourselves not burdened with Supplementary Votes. When an appeal was made in the year 1885–6 for a very largo amount of money, it was based on the ground that the British Navy had fallen below its proper strength; and that an extraordinary expenditure would be necessary for a year or two, in order to make it efficient, and equal to the requirements of the nation. We are assured now by the First Lord of the Admiralty that we are really in a strong position, and able to grapple with any three Powers of Europe. I, therefore, appeal to the Government to know why they do not now cut down their Estimates to the normal expenditure of 1884. If we are in such a strong position, why not immediately drop back to the ordinary Estimates which satisfied both sides of the House before 1885? It appears to me that the decrease of £800,000 is totally inadequate to what we have a right to expect; and I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen)—from whom no doubt we shall have a flattering Budget in due course—that if he exercised the influence in his power, he could put a stop to this continually increasing expenditure on our Navy to Army; and he could compel the spending Departments of the State to use much greater economy than they have done in the past. It should be remembered that we are now at peace with all the world, with perhaps the exception of Burmah, whore, however, we are told, affairs are rapidly becoming quiet. What then, I would venture to ask, is the use of keeping up the armaments of this country at their present extravagant level? I shall never cease, Sir, as long as I have the honour of sitting in this House to protest against this waste of the people's wealth. This country to my mind has not put itself in any more secure position now than it was in the past, although we have spent so much more money. We are told that there is a most necessary expenditure to be incurred in regard to our coaling stations, but that has not yet been provided for; and I have no doubt that in duo course the First Lord of the Admiralty will find that he has pressure brought to bear upon him to

  983
  induce him to indulge in that outlay. We also have it intimated to us by the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), that the Government are building a number of small vessels; and in view of this I must offer my earnest protest against the expenditure which is being incurred, and which the Government are attempting to justify on the ground that in no other way can we place ourselves in a position to escape from our difficulties.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I had hoped, Mr. Courtney, that we should have been relieved at this late hour from the necessity of discussing those Estimates. I must say that I am alarmed at the ever-increasing expenditure of this country; and I am prepared to say that I think the greatest damage to the Empire is to be found in her extravagant naval expenditure. I think, Sir, that the state of trade and of industry should prevent the Government from placing their names to the very extravagant items indicated in this Vote; and I must add my belief that if we listened to the advice of the Admirals, and of the General Officers, who happen to be Members of this House, in reference to the supposed necessary expenditure of this country upon the two Services, we should find that we had landed this country very quickly into an exceedingly serious position. I noticed, in connection with this discussion, three points which are worthy of attention; but, before I deal with them, I should like to say that I think, after the enormous amounts we have already spent upon the Navy and Army, it is insulting, on the part of the Admirals and Generals, to come here and tell us that all our money has been thrown away, and that we must go in for fresh expenditure. Why, Sir, my reply to them would be that, if the money has been thrown away in the past, it has been so expended on the advice of hon. Members of their class, and there would be every reason for the belief that again to follow their advice would result in another useless outlay. I desire to express the earnest protest of my constituents against the ever-growing expenditure, and the continual increase of the Votes; and I did hope that the lesson taught us by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill)
  984
  would not have been lost upon the Government. I had hoped that he had sufficient influence with the Government to induce them to listen to something in the shape of economical proposals; and if that had not acted as an inducement to them, I had hoped that their professions before the country a few months since would have led them to put before us Estimates of a very modest and economical character. But, Sir, I am afraid that official life is fatal to economy; for the moment a man is appointed a Member of the Government, he seems to lend himself to the greatest amount of expenditure possible. I venture to give just one note of warning. If this increasing expenditure is allowed to go on, you may depend upon it that in future the burden will fall, not upon labour, but upon property; and Members in this House who may be said to represent the propertied classes would do well not to lose sight of this fact. I had hoped that the professions of the Tory Party would have induced them to try and rival hon. Members on this side of the House in economy. I am afraid we are doomed to disappointment. There is only one other argument that I wanted to use; and in relation to that I may say that my own impression is that the great battle of the future will be fought between this country and America, and that the object of that battle will be to secure supremacy in the commerce of the world. Now, Sir, I would remind you that America is fast paying off her National Debt. She is paying, at least, £30,000,000 a-year; and when the day of competition comes, this country will enter upon the contest handicapped to such an extent by her National Debt that I am afraid she will be over-weighted; and I, therefore, warn the Government and this House against entering upon a line of extravagance which must have such disastrous results in the future. I am certain of one thing, and that is that the ratepayers and the taxpayers, the men who form the industrial part of this great nation, have a right to a voice in this matter. They feel the burden and the pressure of this taxation, and their voice, at any rate, is, and ought to be, lifted up in protest against the extravagant Estimates.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: In looking through the Estimates, I

  985
  notice, in regard to the item for victualling, that the amount is, at least, 25 per cent more per man than it was in 1878–9, although, since that time, provisions have fallen in price to the extent of, at least, 30 per cent. This, I think, is one of the matters which ought to be discussed in connection with these Estimates. To my mind, it is of far more importance than the proposed expenditure on our coaling stations. I would urge upon the Admiralty the desirability of sending the Fleet more often to Ireland. There we have splendid anchorage for vessels, with admirable facilities for naval manœuvres, and, at the same time, provisions can be purchased, at least, 25 to 30 per cent cheaper than in any other part of the world; and, therefore, while the shins would be in a healthy climate, the opportunities for practice and naval evolutions would be unusually good, and, at the same time, economy would be promoted in the expenditure in victualling the Fleet. At one time the Fleet was more often seen off the coast of Ireland. It only wanted some of the old Conservative Irish Members to make representations at the Admiralty to induce them to send the vessels there. Of late years, however, they have not been sent there; and I would especially call the attention of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty—who has not a little connection with a part of Ireland—to the desirability of making use of the excellent harbours to be found there for naval purposes.
  MR. FLYNN: On a recent occasion my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Cork was very anxious, with his Colleagues, to bring under the notice of this House the question of the Haulbowline Dockyard; but before he could bring it on, many hours were spent, and perhaps properly so, by hon. and gallant Gentlemen in discussing the general question of the efficiency of the Navy, and it was consequently impossible to bring the matter before the House at a period at which it could be adequately discussed. We desired to raise the question relating to this dockyard as a matter of economy, because if the intentions of the Government were carried out as announced last Thursday by the First Lord of the Admiralty, the entire sum which had been spent upon the place would be utterly lost to the country, and Haulbowline Dock-
  986
  yard would remain a muddy monument to the gross incompetency of Her Majesty's Naval Administration. Twenty-two years ago this subject was brought before this House. It was intended to spend a sum amounting to something over £500,000 in the erection of a suitable dockyard at Queenstown, where the largest ships of the Navy could, if necessary, be repaired; but now, when much of the work has been done, the plan has been altered, the Dockyard has been shortened by something like 70 feet, and, if completed as proposed, it will be utterly useless for the purpose for which it was originally intended. I regret, Sir, that the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty is not in his place to give us some more explicit declarations of the intentions of the Government in regard to this matter. A deputation from the district waited upon him 12 months ago, and in compliance with their urgent request he consented to retain upon the works a number of unskilled workmen who were at that time threatened with dismissal. We claim now not merely their exemption from dismissal, but we claim also for them work, on the ground that Ireland is entitled to a legitimate share of the Imperial expenditure of this country on the Navy; and I do think that the people of Ireland have a legitimate grievance, especially those residing in the immediate locality of this Dockyard, in the fact that a largo amount of money has been spent up to a certain point; and that money is to be allowed to remain unproductive and useless for all purposes except as constituting a monument of gross blundering on the part of the Naval Administration. The case as it at present stands is this—that £500,000 has been spent for making a Dockyard; but, if the work be discontinued now, there will be a dock too short and quite unfitted for the purpose originally do-signed. On the first occasion when that matter was brought before Parliament, it was pointed out by Mr. J. F. Maguire, who was then Member for the City of Cork, that the Harbour of Queenstown was peculiarly well-suited for the establishment of a Dockyard, and that for many reasons. So strong wore his arguments, and so powerfully did they appeal to the Naval Authorities of the day, that his recommendations were adopted. A Report was issued

  987
  stating that, in the opinion of the Naval Authorities, Queenstown was admirably situated as a harbour of refuge for Her Majesty's Fleet, and that in this harbour it was eminently desirable that a Dockyard should be created, in which vessels of war could be properly repaired. Yet, at the present moment, if storm or any disaster overtook a vessel of the Fleet off the, coast, she could not be repaired at Queenstown. We had a recent instance. The Belleisle, upon which it was found necessary to expend £30,000 or £40,000, instead of being towed to Queenstown, as she would have been had this Dockyard expenditure been properly directed in the past, she was taken to Chatham, or Devonport, or some other Yard. We contend that these are matters well worth the consideration of the Committee. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Cork was a little too easy and somewhat lavish in the praise he awarded the noble Lord on this Dockyard question. I maintain we are fairly and fully entitled to a reasonable and proportionate amount of expenditure for Dockyard purposes; and it is impossible that we can have this in future, unless Her Majesty's Government reconsider the determination which apparently they have come to. Well acquainted as I am with the harbour, knowing how far the work has progressed, and what a serious disappointment it is to many who take the deepest interest in the subject, and who expected by this time that substantial progress would be made—I shall take every opportunity that is offered in the House of bringing this question forward. My Colleagues who represent neighbouring constituencies are actuated by similar motives; but I hope it will not be necessary for us to use pressure upon the Naval Authorities with regard to this most important matter, and which affords a flagrant example of that blundering which has come to be regarded as inseparably connected with the great spending Departments.
  DR. CAMERON: The Motion to report Progress was moved in order to afford the Government the opportunity of saying what they intended to do. It must be pretty evident to anyone who has listened to the debate for the lost two hours, discursive though it has been, that it has ranged
  988
  over a considerable number of new topics, and that it has not been altogether unconnected with the possibility of another Vote being taken subsequently. Now, I must certainly say the my hon. Friends who have felt it necessary to object to going on with the Vote on Account of Civil Service Estimates, seem to have reasons on their side which are every moment increasing. I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury admitted that it was not absolutely necessary to go on with the Civil Service Vote on Account. Various methods were pointed out whereby all that is legalty necessary may be complied with. Naturally, the Government desire to get their Vote to-night; but there has been much time lost in the attempt; and, surely, they will not, after 2 o'clock, ask us to vote away £3,500,000, and on a Vote that embraces a number of topics upon which discussion is certain to be raised. I shall now propose, Sir, that you leave the Chair. Of course, if the Civil Service Vote is to be gone on with, we must stay and attend to matters in which we are interested; but, surely, the Government will not ask us to take this enormous Vote at such an hour. Therefore, to give the Government the opportunity of making an explanation, I now move that you leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I should like to point out to the hon. Member that it is not the fault of the Government if we do not get on with Business. I believe, as far as I am able to judge, that it is the opinion of the Committee that the time has arrived when we should take the Vote which has been under discussion so long. I want also to point out to the hon. Member, in reference to what he appears to believe is an unreasonable hour to take the Vote, that it must be taken to-night; because, although it has been mentioned that on one occasion it was taken on the 24th March, it was then, as has been explained, inserted at a later stage of the Ways and Means Bill; and unless the Vote is taken to-night, it cannot be taken on the 24th (Thursday). We

  989
  could not take it until Friday; and, therefore, it is absolutely necessary it should be taken to-night. I am sure hon. Members are not aware, or they would not have expressed so much surprise, that in 1882, this Vote on Account was commenced at 1.45; in 1883 it was commenced at 1 o'clock; in 1881 it was commenced at 2 o'clock; in 1885 the Vote on Account was commenced at 4 o'clock; and last year it was commenced at 1.30, and finished at 2 o'clock. I think, therefore, there is nothing unusual so far as precedent is concerned. There is nothing unreasonable in the Government asking that the Vote should be taken under the circumstances, and no single Member of the Committee will lose the opportunity of criticizing any single Vote in the ordinary course of Supply, nor will any Member lose the opportunity of raising a discussion on an Amendment to the Motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair.
  MR. DILLON: The hon. Gentleman has used an argument of some force; but he loaves out of view altogether the fact that there are circumstances at the present time that render it absolutely essential that there must be a prolonged discussion on this Vote. Of course, the Government are masters of the arrangement of Business; and if they do not choose to afford a more reasonable opportunity, we must discuss it at this time of night. It is all very well to tell us that no Member parts with any privilege by allowing this Vote to pass. It may be perfectly true that in the past year, or the year before, it was not necessary to challenge and persist in a discussion of a Vote of this kind; but that is no argument that it is not necessary this year. Whatever the circumstances were in the years alluded to, they are now such that it is entirely out of the question that the Vote should pass without considerable discussion. English or Scotch Members may not be in a position to discuss the Civil Service Estimates. I leave them to judge of that; so far as we are concerned, we avail ourselves of a privilege with which we have not the slightest intention to part. If we allowed this Vote to go without discussion, we shall not have another opportunity until May of raising questions that are convulsing Ireland at the present moment—questions that can and will be raised on this Vote, no matter
  990
  what is said by the Government, no matter how inconvenient it may be for the Committee. Measures of vast importance may be passed; while, by the patent plan brought to perfection by Members of the Tory Party within the last few weeks, every discussion on questions of importance to us can be blocked by bogus Notices on the Notice Paper never intended to be brought to discussion. I allude to this practice, so unworthy of Members of the House, as an additional reason why we shall insist on a fair discussion of this Vote on Account. I ask this question—if these Votes are to be passed; if it is considered necessary, or essential, to pass these Votes without discussion—why is it not the Rule of the House? Why are the Government and the Committee obliged to admit discussion? Is it not because, as we all know, that the principle is that circumstances may arise that will challenge discussion, perhaps a prolonged discussion, and in relation to matters that ought to have a prolonged discussion? Circumstances in the country, or circumstances connected with the Service, may arise that cause the Vote to be challenged at length. This has happened in the present case. Circumstances are going on in Ireland in connection with a Service for which we are asked to provide a large sum of money, and it would be absurd to suppose we should allow this Vote to pass. No matter, if there are half-a-dozen Votes on Account, we challenge each one so long as things are conducted in Ireland as they are now. I say this in support of the Motion for adjournment. If the Government considered this Vote was absolutely necessary to-night, they ought to have put it down before the Navy Vote, and then we could have debated it; and, early or late, the debate might have been closed. You have gained nothing by your conduct in regard to this Vote, though you may think it a gain to have choked off a certain number of gallant Gentlemen who desired to discuss naval matters. As I have said already, it is entirely out of the question that this Vote can be taken without considerable discussion; you must expect this when you ask us to provide money for the Bankruptcy Court and the Irish Constabulary and you might have taken the discussion at a more reasonable hour.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The Secretary for the Treasury always tells us that money must be taken by a certain day. Sir, I am curious to know what would happen if the money were not taken. My own impression is, that the world would wag on very much as it did before. What terrible circumstances would take place if this money were not taken to-day? As the hon. Member for East Mayo has pointed out, this trouble has arisen entirely from the Government arrangement of business. [Cries of "No, no!"] I say it has arisen entirely from the action of the Government, and if an hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise, let him put his thought into speech. Why, when there were only two Votes to take, was the Navy Vote put first? It was not necessary, because the Government offered to withdraw it. If you had commenced discussion with the Vote on Account, you could have said to the gallant Admiral, "We will have your discussion at another time." Very valuable suggestions wore no doubt made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; and then when your own followers, naval Gentlemen, have been discussing naval matters up to a late hour, you complain that we on this side are anxious to bring forward certain economical matters connected with the Navy, and you want to burke discussion on the part of Irish Members by bringing forward this Vote on Account at half-past 2. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury appeals to precedents of the last few years, and that only proves to me our sacred duty to hold fast to our privileges, and not to add one more to these evil precedents. No one can deny for a moment that this Vote on Account is worthy of discussion at a reasonable hour. Very frequently there are complaints of our discussions being carried to a great length; but nothing of the kind can be said of this Vote on Account, for discussion has not commenced. If the committee like to go on I am prepared. I have the Estimates here, and I judge from them that I shall have to speak some 30 times, and I estimate that I shall have to move about 20 Amendments; but I am perfectly ready to remain here.
  MR. GOSCHEN: After the speech we have just heard, everyone must see that it is the bounden duty of the Government to proceed with the Estimates.
  992
  What would be the use of postponing them, in order to give an opportunity for an Irish discussion, when we hear from the hon. Member for Northampton that it is his intention to make 30 speeches, and move 20 Amendments. The hon. Member is indifferent whether the money is voted or not, and he wishes to know what would happen if the money were not voted. The effect would be that the financial arrangements of the country would be seriously embarrassed, and we have no resource but to proceed. I can quite understand the views of hon. Members, who say there are important matters in connection with Ireland to be discussed; but how do we know that any particular Irish Question will come on when we are to have 30 speeches from the hon. Member? We should probably come to the Vote on Account, if proceedings were to be conducted in the manner indicated in the course of weeks, not days. Therefore, though it must be most inconvenient to any Member of the Committee, there is nothing for it but to proceed and listen with patience to such matters of importance as may be brought before us. I only hope that hon. Members opposite will, when we come to discuss the Vote on Account, go at once to the more important matters they desire to bring forward, not wasting time upon minor details.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman says even if we did get a day for the discussion of our questions, what guarantee would my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo have that he would obtain time for the adequate discussion of the important subjects to which he has referred. Well, of course, it would be difficult to obtain that guarantee in favour of the matters he thinks it due to his countrymen to bring forward. But the language of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury shows that he feels the inconsistency of the position of the Government. He tells us that some years ago when a Vote on Account was taken, it was proposed at half-past 1 and passed at 2. That is perfectly true; but it only shows how differently things were situated then.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) speaks of the 20 Amendments as

  993
  if they were 20 crimes; but my hon. Friend would only be doing what he is in the habit of doing. Let hon. Members recollect that last year my hon. Friend moved the reduction of a Vote and carried his Amendment. It was a friendly Government then in Office, and it had not to go out; but it may be expected the present Government would go out if they were defeated. However, we are in no hurry to got through the discussion; there are items we would prefer to have debated to morrow morning when Representatives of the Press will be present. We are standing upon Constitutional grounds; you are not when you attempt to shout us down or vote us down in silence in the early hours of the morning. The Secretary to the Treasury says that for years this Vote has been passed at a late hour; but what happened? Did not the Estimates go up; did not these very Civil Service Estimates increase, because we did not discuss them? Well, we are not doing that now. What is the use of sacrificing a Chancellor of the Exchequer on the altar of economy if we are to vote the Civil Service Estimates when there is no Press to record the names of Members who are in sympathy with us? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is like the beggar in Gil Blas on a large scale. I do not think we ought to yield, but should proceed calmly to debate the Naval Estimates until the Press return, and we shall be well reported at 7 in the morning. If the people of this country know that we wanted so unconstitutionally to pass the Estimates at this late hour, when Members are too tired to discuss and criticize the items efficiently, they would make themselves heard in such a way that we should soon have to do something in order to keep down this dreadful extravagance.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I desire, Sir, to support the Motion to report Progress, and I do so as one who has a few small grievances to bring forward during the discussion on the Navy Estimates. I protest against the way in which Business is being rushed through at this hour. The grievances of which I have to complain being of comparatively and apparently small importance, I have abstained from bringing them forward hitherto; but I do not see that I should lose any opportunity
  994
  of making them known. Whilst hon. and gallant Gentlemen below the Gangway were discussing matters of naval interest I refrained from interfering with my complaints, because I knew they wished to give the Committee the benefit of their experience and special knowledge, and to bring under notice items of technical importance; but I did not expect that facilities for discussing grievances would have been curtailed or cut off. I repeat that, though the particular grievances against which I take exception are small, I protest against being compelled at this hour of the morning to proceed with them. For it is of the highest importance to our constituencies that the grievances which specifically affect them should be adequately inquired into and made gene-rally known. Yet, owing to the lateness of the hour, we must fail to get publicity in the Press, and accordingly the views of our constituencies cannot get ventilated. I consider that the manœuvre of the Government this evening was very unworthy of them. They have treated these Estimates in such a manner as to force and compel all reasonable Members of the Committee to accede, if possible, to their request that the Vote should be taken; and considering the public duty that hon. Members have to perform, considering the necessity that we feel exists for the adequate discussion of these Estimates, we find ourselves, in fact, reluctantly obliged to refuse the Government that which they desire. Sir, I also believe that the language and tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) towards my hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was also a very unworthy proceeding, and I do not think that my words are at all too strong in saying that, for if we are to take our cue from the words and manner of the right hon. Gentleman, it would seem quite an unbecoming thing for an hon. Member of this House to bring forward an Amendment, or to make a Motion during the discussion of the Estimates. In the most emphatic manner possible I protest against such language, and against such a tone towards hon. Members when they find it necessary to prolong a discussion, in order to complain against the treatment of those who have substantial grievances to bring forward.
  MR. JACKSON: I want to remove, so far as I can, the impressions formed from criticisms which proceed on an incorrect assumption. Let me say that nobody is responsible for unworthy conduct in connection with the placing of that Business on the Paper except myself. I entirely accept and take the whole responsibility, and there is no attempt to do otherwise. I placed the Business of the House on the Paper in the manner in which it stands, in discharge of a promise made by the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), and made at the request of hon. Members on the other side of the House; and. so far as I am able to judge, it was on the distinct understanding that the Vote on Account, which is so necessary to be taken tonight, was to be taken subsequently; and this was made last Friday morning, and renewed again at half-past 4 o'clock. I should very much like hon. Members to remember that if there is anyone to blame I am entirely to blame in this matter.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I confess I am in some difficulty in understanding the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). He rather gave the Committee to understand that there was a change of policy on the part or Her Majesty's Government as to the procedure on the Vote on Account, in consequence of the speech of my hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). As I understand, from about 11 o'clock to-night, the Government had the intention to force through both these Votes; and I feel perfectly convinced that the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had nothing whatever to do with the Government's determination. I admit that I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) should take such a ground. I asked the Question of the Government whether they did not intend, and whether they did not avow that intention, to take both these Votes. I did not understand in the least that any remarks of my hon. Friend had anything to do with the arrangements of the Government; and I think they ought to tell the House whether it was or was not the intention of the Government to force through, without discussion, both these Votes. There is another point to which I should like to call attention, and that is the circumstance
  996
  which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has impressed upon us—namely, that there is some actual necessity for the Vote on Account to be taken to-night. We had the same point urged by the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith); but, though precedent completely cuts the ground from under his feet, I wish to state that, as this matter appears from this side of the House, it would seem that the Government is of opinion that there is an urgent necessity that this Vote should be pushed through to-night, discussed or unconsidered, on the score of time. Now, I submit that if this House is driven into a corner like this, it is the Government who have done the damage, and it is the duty of that Government to make such necessary changes and arrangements as will enable the Vote to conform with the law. It is not justifiable on the part of the Government to assume that in the case of the Votes being brought forward late they should be allowed to pass them through without discussion. It is surely the duty of the Government to bring in the Votes at such a time that the Committee of the House may not be deprived of a reasonable opportunity of examining and discussing them. It is a strange doctrine to promulgate that on account of the way in which the Government has arranged Public Business we are bound to forego discussion of important matters, in order to suit their convenience. Let us clearly understand that hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom regard this to be an altogether abnormal Session. The House has been almost entirely in the hands of the Government. Much time has been spent in discussing unnecessary changes in the Procedure of the House. This having been done, the Government have hinted to us that they intend to fully monopolize and absorb the time of the private Members, on the plea that that time is required for special Business. It seems to me that hon. Members of this House, though they may have other questions to consider, would be very remiss in their duty if they did not seize the only opportunity that is given for discussing questions of so much importance as these. I would venture to suggest to the House that a very fair and reasonable course to pursue at this time of night would be that if there is a

  997
  disposition shown to let this Vote pass at a convenient time, the Vote on Account should be postponed until Thursday next, in order that hon. Members may have a chance of discussing matters; of the highest importance. The main way in which the constituencies can be informed of what Business is passing in the House is through the Provincial Press; and if discussion on this matter is prolonged, a great deal which would; have been interesting to the country and to the Irish constituencies will never reach them. I submit that it is utterly unreasonable that these important discussions should go on between the hours of 3 and 8 o'clock in the morning—unreasonable, to Members who wish to take part in the debates, and unreasonable to the constituencies which desire to see that theirs and the country's interests have been attended to. The great security which Members have in this House is not the weight of the speaking in the House, but the weight of public opinion throughout the country. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side, for instance, are the Representatives of the overwhelming majority of public opinion in Ireland. I ask and appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show to his Colleagues how desirable it is that this Vote on Account should be left until Thursday for discussion. I grant that if the matter were taken up again on Thursday the Government would be in a position to request to allow the Vote to pass without delay, and I am of opinion that such a request would be heeded. I fool satisfied that this appeal is deserving of the consideration of the Government, and I hope that right hon. Gentlemen opposite will see their way to take advantage of it. If it were necessary to my case, I could refer to the fact that, owing to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), it so happened that these Supplementary Votes wore not further postponed; but I think, on the whole, the Government should give their serious consideration to the suggestion, and they will find that they could follow, in the circumstances, no better course.
  DR. CLARK: Might I point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) that it was on Friday morning, between the hours of 2 and 3
  998
  o'clock, that the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) mentioned about having these Votes discussed? A long discussion has taken place on a Vote which was not required, and after that the Government asks the House to begin a discussion at this time of the morning on most important subjects, and tolls hon. Members that unless they do so it will be necessary to resort to an All-night Sitting. Now, that is a course which I think will meet with very little approval, and it seems to me that very little regard is being devoted to the interests of the constituencies, and more especially of the more remote portions of the United Kingdom. I might be allowed to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there has been a strong growth of national life in Scotland and Ireland, and also in Wales. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh; but I am only telling what is a very patent fact, and one which they would do well to recognize, for, in consequence of that expanse of nationality, the feelings of the people have been affected regarding the ancient Celtic.
  THE CHAIRMAN: the hon. Gentleman might remember that the Motion before the House is that I "do now leave the Chair."
  DR. CLARK: I wished, Sir, to point out that the reason why we desire that you should leave the Chair is that other matters should be discussed—matters brought forward by Scotch and Welsh Members, and of the greatest importance to the Scotch and Welsh people. My hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I feel sure, will, if we appeal to him, in order that very important matters may come before the House, withdraw his Motion regarding the Royal Palaces, Parks, and the like, for the purpose of giving Scotland and Wales half a chance of making known their public opinion on subjects chiefly concerning themselves.
  MR. HUNTER: I consider, Sir, that no class of Members in this House have more reason to complain of the conduct of the Government, when matters concerning and interesting to that class are for discussion, than the Scotch Members. There are a number of Votes of a contentious character which we consider that it is our duty to call attention to and discuss. Thus there is

  999
  the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland. The Government recently have made arrangements in regard to that Office of the most unsatisfactory character, and of such a character as demands a full discussion in this House. There are, again, matters concerning the Fishery Board of Scotland which also require careful consideration; and I could go on pointing out one Vote after another upon which it is the duty of the Scotch Members to express the inconvenience to which the people of Scotland have been subjected by the action and conduct of the Government. My experience of the present Government is this—that when there is an opportunity seriously to discuss questions affecting Scotland we ought not to forego that opportunity, because we may expect no consideration, no mercy, from the Government; for if it is possible for the Government to adopt and pursue arrangements which leave no facilities for the consideration of Scotch affairs, no other means will be provided in order to enable Scotch Members to express their opinions on matters most immediately affecting their constituencies. I wish to say that if, when we come to questions of the greatest importance to the people of Scotland, we are asked to discuss these questions at 3 o'clock in the morning, that is a proceeding so unsatisfactory to the people of Scotland that it will open their eyes to the utter hopelessness of carrying on the Business of Scotland in this House.
  DR. TANNER: I must say that I fool distressed when I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) rising in his place, with his face denoting the words of the old song, "Home, Sweet Home!"—and this indicates what is exactly in the right hon. Gentleman's heart; but, unfortunately, owing to the representations and remonstrances made by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on his own side of the House, he seems to be yielding to the policy which is implied in the words of the comic song, "We won't go Home till Morning."
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I should like to ask you, Sir, what comic songs have to, do with the Business of the House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I trust the hon. Gentleman will be more respectful to the Committee.
  DR. TANNER: I will refer, Sir, to no more comic songs. But really, I think, when we take into consideration all the various remonstrances which have been addressed to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) and to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), that certainly some reasonableness should be shown, and the request made for opportunity of discussing important matters should be granted. The Vote under consideration this evening is one which I hope to say a few words about in connection mainly with the Medical Service in the Navy. In that Department there is a highly unsatisfactory condition of things; and I desire to bring attention to bear in debate upon matters of great grievance in regard to the various schools where medicine is a subject of instruction. I suppose the Government is acquainted with the fact that remonstrance is being made by the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin; and I hope to be able to give them some information on this matter. Another point to which I want to call attention is about Haulbowline Dockyard. Now, these are two very important points; and I think, when the Government considers them carefully, they will find that it is not very right to ask the House to go on at this hour of the morning, in- stead of giving an opportunity for de- liberate discussions of matters of grievance. And I maintain that we have a right to expect fair treatment, because I presume that hon. Members are sent to this House to represent constituencies which expect that they will see how the money which the taxpayers contribute is spent. That being so, I should certainly have thought that there would have been a tone of moderation, at any rate, assumed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), in accordance with the usual method of behaviour which has been the usage and custom with right hon. Gentlemen who are at the head of affairs; and that the right hon. Gentleman would have respected the assurances which he received from this side of the House—that if the Supplementary Vote were taken upon Thursday the debate on it would be curtailed, so far as hon. Members on this side of the House were concerned, within due and proper limits.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: When the House has to decide whether it should proceed to discuss reductions of the Estimates or Coercion Bills, I think that it does better in choosing to discuss reductions in the Estimates. Therefore I do not see why, when a series of reductions of the Estimates are proposed, hon. Gentlemen ought to give way simply in order to give the Government greater time for their coming Coercion Act. As a matter of fact, the Government should recognize that the Irish Members are anxious to bring forward matters in reference to Ireland, and that they are bound to give fair hearing to the due Representatives of that country. In order to lighten the difficulties of the Government, I would make the proposition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), that if the Government will really not try to force this Vote through to-night, and offer to the Irish Members an opportunity to discuss their most devoted grievances, I will safely promise that, during the whole of the discussion, I will hold my tongue. I will further point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a way to get out of the difficulty that would arise, if the Government did not get the money. the amount of the Vote on Account is calculated at two months. I do not see why the House should not be asked to give the Government sufficient money for four or five days, and then we would be simply in the same position with regard to the discussion as before, and the items could be carefully considered. I am very anxious about the question whether, when the Government has put off the Estimates to the last moment, they have a right to keep forcing them simply for the purpose of getting more time for the Coercion Bill. We actually meet the Government more than halfway when we offer them sufficient money to carry on their Business, and ask in return only that, at a later day, an opportunity for criticism and consideration will be afforded to the House, and that the Government should not force this Vote down the throats of the Committee in order to gain more time for coercive legislation.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am in this difficulty—that I want to call minute attention to many matters in this Vote; and if we go on now I shall not have any opportunity of doing so with proper
  1002
  efficiency. Thus, there are the Votes for the Royal Palaces and Marlborough House. Now, I object to both of these in toto, and I desire to take a Division on the Vote; for I think that we ought not to pay £6,000 for the one and £500 for the other. I believe it is impossible for me to do my duty by my constituents, who are reasonable men, and object to these Votes, if the Government prevents me from taking an opportunity of doing it, for I cannot possibly place the views of my constituency before the Committee under present circumstances and conditions. There are a number of other items in this Vote which I am exceedingly desirous of having debated, for I have a very strong objection to have public money spent in many ways that it is spent. It would be utterly impossible, even if we proceeded at this time of the morning, to adequately discuss and consider matters of such large importance to the people of this country.
  MR. DEASY: The Government have told us that it is absolutely necessary that they should get this Vote to-night, and that they should get a grant of more than enough money to carry them over the next fortnight. But, Sir, it is a monstrous thing that for the next two months we should, practically speaking, be precluded raising questions regarding Ireland. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Akers-Douglas) has drawn attention to what he says took place in the early hours of Friday morning; but my distinct recollection of the compact is that the Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates was postponed in order to afford us an opportunity of discussing the whole Irish policy of the Government. It will be in the recollection of this House that my hon. Friend the Member for youth-East Cork (Mr. Hooper) sat on these Benches eight or 10 hours a few nights ago in order to secure an opportunity of raising a debate on a subject of great interest to his constituents, and of vital consequence to the people of Queenstown. Not wishing to interrupt the debate which was proceeding that evening, it was 1 o'clock before an opportunity was afforded him to speak on the question of the Haul-bowline Docks. he then put a series of questions to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty; and although he did not then press for specific expla-

  1003
  nations, he surely has a right to demand an answer to his many queries. He was placed in a disadvantageous position, because he did not like to interrupt the gallant Admirals who were addressing the House on naval questions. Tonight we are placed in a like position, and for very similar reasons. Again the Admirals have occupied eight or 10 hours; and I do contend now that it is not fair and reasonable that we should now be called upon to discuss important questions. There are a number of topics which we might have discussed on the Navy Estimates, but we refrained from doing so. For instance, gunboats have been used in Ireland for the purpose of carrying troops, policemen, and bailiffs to the West and South Coasts. In regard to the Civil Service Estimates, there are a lot of questions on which we desire to have the verdict of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has given Notice of a discussion he intends to initiate; and it is preposterous to say that at this hour a reasonable or useful debate could take place on it. In connection with these Civil Service Estimates, we shall be able to point out that illegal grants of money have been made by Government after Government, year after year; and one of these topics alone would be sufficient to occupy the time of the House for several hours. Again, we desire to have a debate on the riots at Belfast; and I repeat it is not fair at this time of the morning to ask us to commence it. If it is a question of sitting all night, I tell hon. Members opposite that we are as much accustomed to that as they are, and perhaps at the close of an All-night Sitting they would find that we did not come off second best. So far as I can learn, there is no reason in the world why the Government should not postpone this Vote until Thursday; and I would suggest that, if necessary, there might be a Saturday Sitting to take the Report stage. If they will adopt our suggestion, they will find that we are not unreasonable.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Mr. Courtney, I am very anxious that we should divide. I believe, after the remarks that have been made, we shall do so. And it will moan also nothing more than that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will outvote us by a very largo majority. But
  1004
  my point is this. We are hero to represent the people who have elected us. I do not intend to keep the House very long; but I must say this—that it is physically impossible for people to apply themselves as they could wish to the performance of their duties if important debates are to be taken at such an unreasonable hour. I am putting my opposition to the Vote on the lowest ground possible—that of physical capability; but, as hon. Members are forcing me to do so, I will add a few words further as to my reasons for my present conduct. I consider that I have a serious and solemn duty to perform towards my constituents, and towards the country generally. I can only say that if this Vote is pressed we shall certainly persevere in discussing it; and I must add, Mr. Courtney, that up to the present it certainly cannot be stated that the obstructive talk in this House has come from these Benches. The time of the House has been occupied by hon. and gallant Admirals and hon. and gallant Generals and Captains. Does the Committee understand what it is doing? Does it understand what the right hon. Gentlemen the Leaders of the House want it to do? They have taken up the Vote, and they carry it on until they have practically exhausted the whole time of the House for discussion, and then they run a rod herring across the Vote, and want to pass the Civil Service Estimates in the scent of that red herring, and under the cover of the Naval Votes.
  MR. LANE: The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), when he last addressed the House, stated that at the request of the Irish Members the Naval Vote was put before the Civil Service Estimates for discussion. Now, Mr. Courtney, I submit that that is not so. The hon. Gentleman, I freely admit, is a most straightforward man; and I do not think he would wilfully make a misstatement. But, Sir, I myself was deeply interested in the final seene of the night to which the hon. Gentleman referred; and my recollection is that no request was made from the Irish Benches for the Naval Estimates to be put before the Civil Service Estimates.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I did not say that the request was made by the Irish Members. What I said

  1005
  was that they were put on in that order in discharge of a promise, made by the right hon. Gentleman the Loader of the House, that an opportunity should be afforded for further discussion of the Navy Votes on the item for clothing.
  MR. LANE: I readily accept the explanation of the hon. Gentleman. What I wish the House to understand is that we are not responsible for the Civil Service Estimates being reached at so late an hour. The Government, with the best intentions possible, no doubt, have made a serious mistake; but I do not see why we should be asked to place ourselves in a ridiculously false position simply because the Government have done so. The truth is that when we are supposed by the Government and their supporters to he fagged out, they commence the discussion of an important Vote, in the hope that it will be quickly passed. I say it is simply ridiculous to ask the Irish Members to discuss the Civil Service Votes at this hour in the morning. We are not responsible for their coming on so late as half-past 3, and therefore I think we are quite justified in asking that they be adjourned.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 199: Majority 138.—(Div. List, No. 71.) [3.25 A.M.]
  Original Question again proposed.
  COLONEL NOLAN: This question of the Naval Vote is not altogether exhausted, and is one on which there ought to be some further discussion. For my own part, I strongly object to sitting up until this totally unreasonable hour, and to discussing the Navy Estimates at such a time. Still, if we are to have a discussion, I suppose I may as well put some questions to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton). I had intended to put them earlier in the evening, and they are certainly important questions. It may be some relief to the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Lord Charles Beresford), if he has to sit up, to be able to turn to the subject of the Navy Estimates. The first question I wish to ask is one which I put to the Government last year. There are a great many ways of attacking in naval warfare. We
  1006
  all are acquainted with the gun and the torpedo; but there is another system of warfare which, it seems to me, the Government are very much neglecting, and that is the system of submarine warfare. I allude, not to submarine mines, but to submarine boats. I think I saw in the papers some time ago that the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone went down in one of those boats. Whether this be so or not, I am of a very strong opinion that this is a very dangerous system of warfare, and one which we are totally neglecting. I would ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has done anything in the direction of trying the Nordenfeldt boats? I have not seen any of those boats, but I have carefully read a lecture respecting them, and I think that Mr. Nordenfeldt's system is a perfectly feasible one. I am quite aware that it is not a system of warfare which is yet entirely developed, and that it is one which is disliked by naval men. I know of one gallant officer, a Member of this House, who says that he would give no quarter to people who attacked under the water. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks it is quite fair to fight on the surface of the water, but that it is very wicked to do so under the surface. There is, therefore, a certain amount of prejudice against this method of warfare. I think, however, that, by the expenditure of a small amount of money—say £10,000 or £15,000—the Government might obtain some very important experiments regarding it. The last time I drew attention to this subject in the House, I was asked by a naval officer—the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price)—whether I was aware that one of the Nordenfeldt boats had gone to the bottom? The hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, afterwards admitted to me that he did not know himself that the fact was as he suggested, but that he put the question because he thought it might be so. I have recently read of some experiments at Constantinople with Nordenfeldt boats, and I think they were tolerably successful. I may say, Sir, that I would much rather have drawn attention to this subject at a reasonable hour; but I think that if we are to continue sitting here we may as well talk sense. The second question I have to

  1007
  put to the Government is as to what the Admiralty are going to do with respect to the manufacture of artillery. Last year the question of naval guns came before the House, and it was stated that the Naval Authorities had arrived at the conclusion that for the future they would be responsible for their own guns. Now, I should like to obtain some information on that point. What are the Naval Authorities going to do? Are they going to set up a large arsenal of their own, or are they entering into largo contracts with Elswick, and with other large firms? I may be told that I was one of those who objected to the Admiralty manufacturing their own guns. Well, what I objected to was a system under which we should have two sets of people making guns, as I thought it would load to double expense in the matter of superintendence, as well as to divergences in the types adopted, which might be very awkward in time of war. At the same time, I should like to know whether the proposal I have referred to is to be carried into effect, or whether matters are to go on much as they did before? My own idea on the subject is that if the Admiralty do not think that they are sufficiently considered by the Ordnance Board they ought to have one Committee, and not two, to deal with the subject. You will see, Sir, that I have only spoken on scientific questions, and I have done so because there are present a good many scientific men from whom we may get information.
  MR. MOLLOY: Mr. Courtney, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the action of the Admiralty in the Corea.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member will not be in Order in doing that.
  MR. MOLLOY: What I intend to do, Sir, is to go through the Correspondence which has been issued by the Admiralty, and placed in the hands of Members within the last few days, in regard to the action of our Fleet at Port Hamilton, in the Corea.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That course would not be in Order.
  MR. MOLLOY: I will not dispute your ruling, Sir; but I may point out that the cost of victualling these ships is in the Vote. The action I refer to was taken by the Admiralty, and we are discussing the Admiralty Vote.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether what occurred at Port Hamilton would come under this Vote?
  MR. MOLLOY: I may say that Port Hamilton is referred to as a coaling station.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The items in the Vote refer to the coming year, and transactions which have taken place at Port Hamilton last year cannot be discussed under them.
  MR. MOLLOY: The Estimates include a sum of money which was spent there.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD): The hon. Member is referring to the Supplementary Estimates, which have already been passed.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: There is a considerable increase in one item of this Vote—namely, that relating to the victuals and clothing of seamen and Marines; but, before drawing attention to the manner in which the contracts for these victuals are issued, I desire to say a few words on the matters introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane). I do so because I see the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) in his place, and I desire to draw his attention particularly to the situation of Haulbowline Docks. I protest against those Docks being left in their present disgraceful state. It is a crying shame and a scandal that the Haulbowline Docks, after so much money has been spent on them, should he allowed to re-main in such a condition. I do not regret that the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) has left his place, because I think that when he visits Cork Harbour he seems to have an eye only for the beauties of the view. The view is a very beautiful one; but, when tie looks at it, he keeps carefully closed that particular eye which would embrace Haulbowline Docks. The bare and naked state of those Docks realty spoils the beauty of the scene. I would appeal to the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone to say whether it would not be well that the Docks should be put into such a condition as would enable himself or any other naval commander to go there for repairs if unhappily his

  1009
  vessel should be disabled at any time. I may say that Cork Harbour is one of the strongest harbours in the world. Naturally, it is a strong harbour. Long before the forts which protect the entrance were built, a great Commander, of whose courage there could be no doubt, was obliged to take refuge in Cork Harbour, and we still point with pride to a small river which falls into the harbour, and which is called Drake's Pool. It was there that Admiral Drake took refuge, and when the Spaniards came in after him they failed to find him.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must warn the hon. Member that he is excessively irrelevant.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I should indeed be sorry, Mr. Courtney, if you should find it necessary to accuse me of irrelevancy. What I want to point out to the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone is that Cork Harbour has been fortified in such a way as to make it impossible for any enemy to reach the Haulbowline Docks whilst the forts are armed with their present big guns. The erection of the forts has had such an effect upon the Docks as to make thorn perfectly safe for the building or repairing of vessels. It would, therefore, be for the interest of the Public Service if the Department to which the noble and gallant Lord belongs would ask for such additional supplies as would enable it to put the Docks in such a condition that they would be available in time of war for the repair of disabled vessels. I think it is perfectly disgraceful to the Public Service that those Docks should have been in course of erection for as many as 22 years. Only a small sum of money is asked for this year in respect of the Docks. Last year money was granted for the purpose of building an engine-shed and obtaining machinery; but the shed has not yet been built and the machinery has not yet arrived at the Docks. Indeed, nothing has been done by the Department which proves the least desire on the part of the Naval Authorities to make the Docks what they should be—a credit to the Department and an advantage to the State. I believe that there is some difficulty in the way. The noble and gallant Lord thinks, perhaps, that Haulbowline can scarcely be available as a naval station.
  1010
  It seems contrary to common sense, however, that any man of experience can think so. Surely a harbour that has in the past played such an important part in the protection of the Navy of these countries can still be used for that purpose. It seems only reasonable to suppose that the further use of that harbour would be for the advantage of the Public Service. I should be glad if the noble and gallant Lord is able to give me such an answer as will relieve my mind from the distress I always feel when I look at these unfinished Docks. It has been pointed out already that my country contributes largely to the Imperial Exchequer for the construction and maintenance of the Navy, and that only a very small portion of the funds so provided are devoted to naval construction and to naval matters in Ireland. I leave it to the noble and gallant Lord to justify the lamentable negligence of the Admiralty Department in regard to the Haulbowline Docks. I am particularly anxious that the Docks should be completed at an early date, for I believe that we Irishmen shall soon have a greater interest in the construction and maintenance of the Navy than we have cared to evince in the past, and nothing would give us greater pleasure than to have these Docks completed and contributing to the defence of the common Empire in which we all hope to take such an increased interest after certain events have transpired. And now I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter of comparatively minor importance. I find in the Estimates that there is an increase of £27,600, caused principally, I understand, by the additional prices for victualling, for stores, and so forth. Now, I believe it is a wrong principle to go outside the country for the food supplies of the Navy. If in time of war your foreign food supplies are cut off, you will find that you have allowed those sources of supply to perish that would have afforded you an ample supply. It should be the policy of the Naval Authorities to encourage the home trade as much as possible. The experience of the Crimean Campaign would illustrate my meaning when I 6eek to impress on the Government the necessity of having in a flourishing, capable condition those institutions and firms in the country capable of supplying the needs of the

  1011
  Navy. It is the custom of the Navy to send to Denmark for their mess pork. We do not know what political combinations may be brought about; but we may imagine a war between this country and a State with which Denmark is allied, and then we should be deprived of this source of supply, and we should be compelled to rely on home supply, which would be found as unsatisfactory as it was in the Crimean War. The manner in which the meat was made up and its quality was a source of reproach then, and has continued so since. It was found, too, that the trades not having been encouraged by Government orders, they had not the necessary machinery and appliances, and broke down under the unaccustomed strain; they could not execute the orders they received from the Army and Navy. Only a short time since a large quantity of pork in casks was found among the stores at Haulbowline, and it had evidently lain there ever since the time of the Crimean War—a disgraceful thing reflecting anything but credit on the management of a great Department, which at the same time neglected institutions that could serve them well in time of war, sending money out of the country, while the trade at home languished. Because of a small advance in price I hold that such a policy is a false economy. There are tradesmen anxious to contract for this class of supplies. Only recently I was speaking to the manager of a large firm in the South of Ireland, and he told me that he could not think of tendering for Navy contracts, because of the vexatious conditions in the form of contract that contractors were obliged to sign—conditions that restrict the meat supply to one class of animal. But foreign contractors were free from those conditions, and made up their meat supply in such a manner as to deceive the experts. Now, regulations of this kind should be swept away or stringently enforced. If the examination of supplies were strictly performed, it would be found that a considerable quantity of contraband meat is imported, made up by foreign tradesmen whose deftness almost equalled their dishonesty. For mess pork there is no need to go beyond Ireland; Irish pork having a world-wide fame. Ireland might be said to be the home of the pig; it is indigenous to the soil. The animal is the
  1012
  friend of the family; he pays the rent, the taxes too, and I have no doubt his resources, if called upon, would be equal to supplying the British Fleet. There is no need to go beyond Ireland for these contracts, and I cannot believe that when the matter comes before the Admiralty Board this grievance will be disregarded. There is a peculiar knack among Admiralty officials of clinging tenaciously to old practices, bad though they may be, and this though, year after year, attention might be drawn in the House to these malpractices. I hope the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty will take some notice of these matters, which I have brought forward without any desire to waste the time of the Committee. Honestly, I have never spoken a word in Committee, and I have always manifested a desire to fortify myself with the Votes. There is no reason why Queenstown should not become an important naval station, after works have proceeded for the past 22 years. The day may arrive when the Admiralty will regret this neglect, and the noble Lord should take the matter into his serious consideration and signalize his entry into Office by a work of which he might well be proud.
  MR. CONYBEARE: When I see stretched before me the recumbent forms of so many sleeping Ministers, I doubt the advisability of bringing any more matters before the attention of the Committee; but we are bound not to waste the time of the Committee, and as I have not been permitted at an earlier hour of mentioning one or two questions I will take the opportunity of making the reference now. The hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Puleston) alluded to the cheapness of Dockyard as distinguished from contract building; and if I refer to that for a moment, it is with a view of calling the attention of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty—who has everything connected with the Admiralty at his linger ends—to another matter in which it might be advantageous to give to the Dockyards work now undertaken by contractors. I allude to the breaking up of old vessels. The noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) prides himself on being the most destructive Lord of the Admiralty the country has ever seen; for he asks for the

  1013
  destruction of I do not know how many different vessels of the Fleet at present scattered over the face of the seas. Now, I should like to know whether the noble Lord judges it would be cheaper that these vessels should be sold to contractors to be broken up, or whether it would be cheaper to break them up in the Dockyards? I refer to specific instances to illustrate what I mean. Recently, in the Hamoaze I saw a number of old unarmoured vessels which I was given to understand had been sold to contractors to be broken up. Now, at the same time when these vessels were being thus disposed of, men were being discharged from the Dockyard by the present Government because there was not work for them to do. I put it, therefore, to the noble Lord—if the contractors find they can make a profit by buying and breaking up old vessels, could not the Government make the same or more profit by having such vessels broken up in the Dockyards, selling or using the old materials? It seems to me that the profit in the business might as well be in the pockets of the nation as in those of contractors, and especially when the want of employment has led to the discharge of Dockyard workmen, and a consequent addition to the distress for want of employment. There is, too, another point in connection with the matter I have referred to. We are very much exercised now as to what is to be done to relieve the excessively congested districts in some parts of Ireland; and though it may seem an extraordinary non sequitur to connect this with the old ships of the Navy, I venture to suggest would it not be possible to send some of these old vessels, no longer fit for sea service, to the fiords and estuaries of Great Britain and Ireland, to afford some means of exciting the interest of the unfortunate youth in congested agricultural districts, and perhaps encouraging some of them to seek a sphere of employment beyond the land that will not support them, taking them from the small holdings for which by farming industry they cannot pay rent? It seems to me here is some assistance towards the solution of a difficulty which Her Majesty's Government—when they have got coercion out of their mind—might well take into consideration. These vessels would be useful to the people, as teaching them something about the Naval Service, and
  1014
  you might form small naval establishments thereon with results beneficial to the nation and the unfortunate inhabitants of congested districts. Another question I should like to ask has reference to a couple of small vessels which, during last autumn, I saw building in a private yard at Falmouth. I should like to know what has become of them? When I saw them I had some conversation with the superintendent of the yard, and I learned that the lines upon which the vessels were laid down had been altered several times, and it was considered probable that more orders and countermands would be received. The vessels were ordered by the penultimate Board of Admiralty in the previous year—I do not know whether it was necessary to produce a favourable impression in Falmouth in view of a General Election—and I understand these vessels are not yet completed, after having gone through such a variety of changes that the builders scarcely know what to make of them. I have nothing to say for or against the necessity of building these vessels, or of the propriety of ordering them at this particular yard; but it is very desirable that when a vessel is ordered we should endeavour to make a good job of the business, which appears to me an impossibility when the plans are changed almost every other week. Having put these observations before the Committee on matters I should have liked to have touched upon earlier, I should now like to bring before the Committee another matter. We are well aware that a Commission is at present inquiring into the question of those scandals that have arisen in connection with the supply of stores—it is called, I believe, the Ordnance Inquiry Commission. At the head of that Commission is a distinguished Judge—Sir James Fitzjames Stephen—and what has happened in this inquiry should, I think, have the notice of the Committee and the Government. There is a gallant officer—Major Arnott—who has been chiefly instrumental in procuring inquiry into various allegations. He has been treated with anything but fairness by the Head of that Commission, Sir James Stephen—almost with a want of courtesy. I do not dwell on that; I only want the Committee to understand how this inquiry, which is of vital importance to officials at the head of Departments

  1015
  and all who desire that the Service should be supplied with cartridges that do not jam, and bayonets that do not buckle up, and to keep contractors from preying on the innocence of Government Inspectors, is conducted. It is most essential that an inquiry of this kind should be conducted with every desire and every effort to reach the guilty parties, and where there are such to put a stop to abuses. Major Arnott says, in a letter he has published, that Sir James Stephen——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member it is rather an abuse of the proceedings of the Committee to question the conduct of a Commission still sitting.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not wish to do anything that is unfair; my real object is to draw attention to the published letter of this gentleman. I thought I should not have been out of Order, because Sir James Stephen is acting not as a Judge, but as Head of a Commission. I will only ask the noble Lord, and those who take an interest in the subject, to see for themselves what are the allegations made by Major Arnott, and to consider whether, from the point of view I have taken, and having in view the stress laid upon this matter by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, if anything has been going wrong every effort should be made to track out the offenders, and no endeavour should be permitted by anyone, however elevated, to prevent that being done. These are the more important matters among those I wished to bring forward at the earliest opportunity that presented itself. Some other questions I may touch upon later, but they concern a humbler class of individuals—the unfortunate hard-working men in the lower ranks of the Navy who have no opportunity of speaking for themselves, and have few friends to speak for them; but it would be better to follow the example of others, and wait for the return of representatives of the Press to the Gallery.
  DR. TANNER: I should certainly have spoken in detail before if I thought that the Business would be going on. But now, as Business appears to be proceeding, I should be wanting in my duty as a Member of this House if I did not—and I should
  1016
  very much like to do so—call attention to at least three different sets of facts which are all important in connection with the Vote at present before us. The first point which I shall bring under the notice of hon. Members is in regard to the Naval Medical Service clustering around which there are a number of abuses which give such strong ground of grievances that they merit the careful consideration of the House. In going into the history of that Service——.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Naval Medical Service is not in this Vote at all.
  DR. TANNER: I was not, Sir, going to specifically apply my remarks to the Naval Medical Service; but I was merely going to explain in a general way the causes of the discontent of the medical officers in that Service, and—["Order!" "Question!"] Then, Sir, I shall simply proceed now to the Haulbowline affair, about which I shall adduce some important facts or series of facts. I cannot help wondering, Sir, at the immense amount of ignorance which is displayed by officials who are placed in important positions; and in particular relation to this subject I think that no one can fail to be struck in regard to these docks or prospective docks at Haulbowline with the large amount of ignorance on necessary matters on the part of the Admiralty officials of the present Government. I took the trouble when I was last in Cork to visit these docks, and I found very great difficulty indeed in getting round to see them, because the officials there appear to be conserving the secrets of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton). You have in this Dockyard a large floating dock, an outer dock, and one dry dock, which is simply but the last monument of naval incapacity in dealing with practical matters. This naval dock has been dug out at the right-hand side of the floating clock. It was originally intended that a second dock should have been constructed; but this was the manner in which that was done. Practically, the workmen were directed to excavate the wrong dock first. One of the sites at their disposal could easily be excavated, because it was muddy; but the other site was a portion of an island known as "Rat Island," and they actually wont and blasted out the rock, and loft the interspaces on these rocks, which made the leaks of which so much

  1017
  was heard about in the course of the last Session of Parliament. But, in order to show further the lamentable ignorance and incapacity of the authorities in choosing this right-hand site for a dock, I may mention that they ran it close to the deep water, and, of course, the running water in the deep channel filtered through into the dock, and caused most of the trouble complained of. Now, the authorities are trying to mend their hand with the same damaging incompetency. As yet they have not finished the stone fastening of the floating dock, which is left very incomplete, and the reason given for this neglect was because that it was intended to go on with the construction of a second dock. And, again, now we hear that there is a new development, and that this is not their purpose at all; but that they are going to discharge from employment all the hands whom they have hitherto utilized in connection with the construction of these Docks. The authorities, I insist, are acting in ignorance, and in a wilful way which I do not think they will find the country able to endorse. They are discharging their hands without haying completed the channel, and they have directed that a great deal of the work——
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I rise to Order, Sir. I beg to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 207; Noes 54: Majority 153. [5.40. A.M.]

  AYES.

  Addison, J. E. W.

  Bentinck, Lord H. C.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

  Ainslie, W. G.

  Ambrose, W.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Bond, G. H.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Baden-Powell, G. S.

  Boord, T. W.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Borthwick, Sir A.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Balfour, G. W.

  Barry, A. H. Smith.

  Brookfield, Col. A. M.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Brooks, Sir W. C.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Burghley, Lord

  Beckett, W.

  Caldwell, J.

  Bective, Earl of

  Campbell, Sir A.

  1018

  Chamberlain, R.

  Heath, A. R.

  Chaplin, right hon. H.

  Heaton, J. H.

  Charrington, S.

  Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Coddington, W.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Hoare, S.

  Colomb, Capt, J. C. R.

  Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

  Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

  Holloway, G.

  Corbett, A. C.

  Holmes, rt. hon. H.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Howorth, H. H.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hubbard, E.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Curzon, hon. G. N.

  Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  De Cobain, E. S. W.

  Jackson, W. L.

  De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  De Worms. Baron H.

  Johnston, W.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Kerans, F. H.

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Kimber, H.

  Duncombe, A.

  Knowles, L,

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Lafone, A.

  Laurie, Colonel R. P.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Elcho, Lord

  Ellis, Sir J. W.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Elton, C. I.

  Long, W. H.

  Evelyn, W. J.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Fisher, W. H.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J. M.

  Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.

  Malcolm, Col. J. W.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Marriott, rt, hn. W. T.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Matthews, rt. hon. H.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Gardner, R. Richardson.

  Mayne, Adml. R. C.

  Mills, hon. C. W.

  Gedge, S.

  Morrison, W.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Mount, W. G.

  Gibson, J. G.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Giles, A.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Muncaster, Lord

  Godson, A. F.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Goldsworthy, Major General W. T.

  Noble, W.

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Norton, R.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  Gray, C. W.

  Paget, Sir R. H.

  Green. Sir E.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Pelly, Sir L.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Hall, C.

  Plowden, Sir W. C.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Plunkett, hon. J. W.

  Hamilton, Lord E.

  Pomfret, W. P.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Powell, F. S.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Puleston, J. H.

  1019

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Thorburn, W.

  Rankin, J.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Reed, H. B.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Townsend, F.

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Trotter, H. J.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

  Ross, A. H.

  Waring, Colonel T.

  Round, J.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Royden, T. B.

  Webster, R. G.

  Russell, Sir G.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Russell, T. W.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Saunderson, Col. E. J.

  White, J. B.

  Seton-Karr, H.

  Whitley, E.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Wood, N.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Wright, H. S.

  Stewart, M. J.

  Young, C. E. B.

  Sykes, C.

  Talbot, J. G.

  TELLERS.

  Tapling, T. K.

  Douglas, A. Akers.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  NOES.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  M'Donald, P.

  Blane, A.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Cameron, C.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Campbell, H.

  Nolan, J.

  Carew, J. L.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Chance, P. A.

  O'Brien, P.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Cobb, H. P.

  O'Connor, A.

  Connolly, L.

  O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

  Conway, M.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  Cossham, H.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Craig, J.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Dillon, J.

  Provand, A. D.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Quinn, T.

  Fenwick, C.

  Russell, E. R.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Sexton, T.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Stack, J.

  Gill, T. P.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Harrington, E.

  Stuart, J.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Swinburne, Sir J.

  Hayne, C. Seale.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Hooper, J.

  Tuite, J.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Wallace, R.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Labouchere, H.

  Lane, W. J.

  TELLERS.

  MacNeill, J. G. S.

  Deasy, J.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Sheil, E.

  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 210; Noes 52: Majority 158.—(Div. List. No. 73.)

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,621,100, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1S83, viz.:—

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

  Great Britain:

  £

  Royal Palaces

  6,000

  Marlborough House

  500

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds

  17,000

  Houses of Parliament

  9,000

  Gordon Monument

  Public Buildings

  30,000

  Furniture of Public Offices

  3,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  36,000

  County Court Buildings

  6,000

  Metropolitan Police Courts

  1,500

  Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

  2,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  45,000

  Science and Art Department Buildings

  3,000

  British Museum Buildings

  2,000

  Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

  3,500

  Peterhead Harbour

  5,000

  Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

  80,000

  Metropolitan Fire Brigade

  2,500

  Disturnpiked and Main Roads (England and Wales)

  10,000

  Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland)

  5,000

  Ireland:—

  Public Buildings

  35,000

  Science and Art Buildings, Dublin

  5,000

  Abroad:—

  Lighthouses Abroad

  1,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  6,000

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

  England:—

  House of Lords, Offices

  6,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  6,000

  Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel

  10,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Foreign Office

  10,000

  Colonial Office

  6,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  7,000

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  20,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  100

  Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

  6,000

  Civil Service Commission

  8,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  9,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  1,500

  Land Commission for England

  4,000

  Local Government Board

  40,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  20,000

  National Debt Office

  2,500

  Patent Office

  9,000

  Paymaster General's Office

  4,500

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,500

  Record Office

  4,000

  Registrar General's Office

  8,000

  Stationery Office and Printing

  90,000

  Woods, Forests, &c. Office of

  4,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  8,000

  Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

  15,000

  Secret Service

  10,000

  MR. LABOUCHERE: The time has now come to make a serious appeal to Her Majesty's Government, and hon. Gentlemen opposite will, not be surprised to hear that my argument will be in the form of the Motion that you, Sir, report Progress. We have had a very interesting discussion on the Navy Estimates; we have prolonged that discussion until the early hours in the morning; yet we are now asked to vote a sum of £3,624,100 on account of the Civil Service Estimates. It must occur even to hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is not an hour at which such a Vote should be moved, and such a discussion as must follow upon it should take place. Under these circumstances, I do hope that the Government themselves will see that in common fairness to the House—not only to Members on this side, but also to those sitting behind Ministers—they should not press it. I am always anxious to pour oil on troubled waters, and I would therefore make a practical suggestion to Her Majesty's Government. They tell us that they must have some money tonight in any case. I would suggest that, instead of asking for a Supply sufficient for two months, they should take a sum to carry them over 10 days or a fortnight. During the fortnight surely the Government will be able to find some day to bring on the Estimates, and give an opportunity for their adequate discussion. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland have so far been unable to discuss questions of moment to their countrymen, because some hon. Gentlemen opposite have pursued the somewhat remarkable course of putting on the Paper Motions which probably they never had the slightest intention to make. Therefore, this is the only opportunity left to my hon. Friends behind me to discuss these matters—at any rate for some months to come; and I think that, under these circumstances, the Government will accede to the request I have to make.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am surprised at the proposition of the hon. Gentleman
  1024
  opposite, who says it is his occupation to pour oil on troubled waters. He can hardly have made his request, that we should take enough money for a fortnight only, seriously. Why, that period would arrive in the middle of what I hope will prove to us a period of some holiday and some rest, and it would only defer fur a short time the inconvenience we now wish to avoid. I am sorry to say that we must ask the Committee at this Sitting to give us the Vote which we ask.
  MR. DILLON: I think there is another course open to the right hon. Gentleman, and though I cannot pledge English, Scotch, and Welsh Members definitely, I am in a position to speak for my Colleagues. There are in these Totes certain sums of money for services rendered in Ireland which are of great interest to my countrymen. The Irish Members are being unfairly and unjustly treated. An effort is being made, by means of a trick, to get through the House—to smuggle through the House—Votes which the Government must know we regard as highly contentious. I was silenced here one night while endeavouring to direct attention to the action of the Bankruptcy Court in Ireland, and I undoubtedly looked forward to this opportunity to bring under the notice of this House practices on the part of that Court the like of which has not existed for the last 25 years. Do the Government for one moment suppose that 60 or 70 Irish Members are going to be silent while money is voted away for the purposes of that Court? If they do, they have made a mistake. I am laying before this Committee reasons which compel us to criticize and oppose to the best of our ability some of these Votes. Certain questions are convulsing Ireland at this moment, and if money is to be voted to enable operations against which we wish to protest to be carried on we shall do our best to oppose the Vote. I can mention other Votes which are contentious if necessary. I think it is hardly decent on the part of the Government to endeavour to smuggle this Vote through at such an hour. They were ready enough to withdraw the Navy Vote, but that offer was made at an hour which did not appear to me to me fair, and therefore with my Colleagues I opposed it. The Government told us they would

  1025
  withdraw it in order to bring on the Civil Service Votes, but how could we hope to discuss them adequately at that time of night? One of the items is for the Irish Chief Secretary's Office. A man has recently gone to that country to govern it without knowing anything about it. His action threatens us day by day with bloodshed. Can the Government be serious in asking that this Committee, without discussing what he did in Dublin, should vote money to enable him to carry on his Office without criticism for several months? As long as we have power in this Committee, and so long as the Government denies us the right to discuss at such length as is reasonable and fair, Votes which are of the most vital, and it may be of the most deadly import to our constituencies—Votes which, if allowed to pass to-night, will deprive us of the power of criticizing the action of the Department for months to come—we will oppose them by every means in our power. Why, in these months events may occur which none of us can forecast, and we should be false to our duty if we, by our action, justified the action of the Government in imagining that they could get these Votes through without adequate discussion otherwise than by brute force. For myself, I am perfectly prepared now to enter on the discussion, and if, by exercising the Rule they passed only yesterday, they thrust down our throats Votes the discussion of which should occupy eight or ten hours, I am convinced that the public of this country will not approve of their action.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I desire to point out in very few words that this is a matter which concerns not merely Ireland, but the people of England and their Representatives in this House. It must be understood that this money comes from the pockets of the British taxpayer, who therefore has a right to carefully criticize how it is to be spent. I, for one, am not in the least disposed to forego my right and my privilege in this respect as the Representative of the people to criticize any detail which may suggest itself to me. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House expressed surprise that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) should have proposed
  1026
  this Motion, and he seemed to treat the whole thing as a joke. I can assure him that if he chooses to play practical jokes we do not, and we are perfectly serious in making this Motion. Indeed, we shall be equally serious in making as many more as we consider necessary. He seems also to consider it an outrageous proposal, and he rests his objection to it on the ground that they must have money for the next two months. We have told them we are willing to give enough for a fortnight or three weeks. What I want to point out to the Government is this—if they are content to accept our compromise and take a Vote on Account—say, for a fortnight—it only requires that they should give up one day to us. They have every day at their disposal between this and the holidays. It is but a small thing to ask them to set apart one day for us to discuss the Vote, as all they have as an alternative is the introduction of a fresh Coercion Bill. For all I know we may sit here all day. I know hon. Members opposite have been burning for this for weeks; but we are bound to consider, if not our own, at least the health of other people—of the servants of this House. There are the attendants, the Clerks at the Table, and the policemen on duty outside; they cannot, like many hon. Members, make up for this long Sitting by taking extra sleep later on. Supposing this Sitting is to continue all day, will these men be relieved from their posts? If hon. Members are callous to their own suffering, I say it is monstrous and scandalous that we should tax the energies and sacrifice the health of our servants.
  MR. SEXTON: I am not surprised, Mr. Courtney, at the prospect held out in the brief speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. He has, I think, made an unprecedented proposal. I am old at this kind of thing, and I call it unprecedented to ask the Committee at half-past 5 in the morning to vote £3,500,000 for the purpose of carrying on the Public Service. We are surprised; but we are not disheartened at the action of the Government. I speak with some confidence, and after an experience of seven years, and I say the Irish Members hero, and some English Members too, both below and above the Gangway, are as ready, as willing, and as able as any

  1027
  hon. Members opposite to proceed to continue this Sitting until the time arrives for Mr. Speaker to take the Chair on the Sitting of Tuesday, the 22nd March. Now, Sir, the First Lord of the Treasury, in the exercise of what I suppose I am obliged to call his discretion, has thought fit to refuse his assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton. Well, I very respectfully and humbly, as befits imposition, venture to express a doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has acted wisely. I think he must have already perceived that the grossness of the mismanagement of the Business of this House in the present Sitting has not been equalled for many years. There were three courses open to the Government at the present Sitting for the furtherance of Public Business, and they took the least convenient. If they had placed the Vote on Account first on the Paper they might have obtained a Division upon it at the usual time for the closing of ordinary Sittings of this House. If, on the other hand, they had been content to take a Division on the Navy Vote at half-past 12 they could have had £1,250,000. But nothing satisfied them except to cram both Votes into one Sitting of the House, and I venture to hope they will find it impossible to do so.
  MR. NOBLE: Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. I wish to ask you whether the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) is in Order in saying that hon. Members on this side of the House are drunk?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I did not hoar the words used, even as repeated by the hon. Gentleman.
  CAPTAIN COTTON: I beg to say, Sir, that I heard the hon. Member for Mid Cork use those words.
  THE CHAIRMAN: the words have not reached this end of the House in any form.
  CAPTAIN COTTON: I heard the hon. Member for Mid Cork say, Sir, that one Member on this side of the House was drunk.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Such an observation, if made by the hon. Member for Mid Cork, is most offensive and improper.
  DR. TANNER: But, Mr. Courtney, I must ask you—[Ministerial cries of "Withdraw!"] I am not
  1028
  going to withdraw, Sir. [Renewed cries of "Withdraw!"] If the hon. Member opposite will point out any person to whom I said it, I will withdraw.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is most offensive and disorderly to say it of any Member of the House. I must now call on the hon. Member to withdraw the observation as he does not disavow it.
  DR. TANNER: Mr. Courtney, I shall certainly, out of respect for you, withdraw anything you tell me to withdraw.
  MR. SEXTON: I was saying, Mr. Courtney, when I was interrupted, that the Government ought to have granted us an opportunity for properly discussing the Vote on Account. They have pursued a course which is unfair and inconsiderate to the Members of this House, and which will be regarded as unfair by men of all political Parties. They put first on the Paper a Vote for the Navy, and they place second the Vote of over £3,000,000—a Vote involving the whole Public Service of Ireland. This course has been pursued by the Government in the hope that when we reached the Vote on Account at a late hour at night they might gag the Irish Members with regard to questions of vital importance and of manifest urgency. I turn now for a moment to the question of physical endurance. [Ministerial cries of "Question!"] Well, if there is anything more relevant to the present situation of the Committee than the question of physical endurance I should be glad to hoar what it is. We have been hero for 13 or 14 hours. Eleven hours hence, that is to say at about 5 o'clock to-day, we shall be called upon to discuss a question which the Government themselves regard as of such unequalled urgency that they intend to ask for the whole of the time of the House for the purpose of discussing it. Now, Sir, I ask is it fair, is it seemly, under such circumstances, to proceed with this Vote now? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] The hon. Gentleman opposite showed such extremely bad judgment, as well as bad taste, in a recent episode, that I do not think it necessary to reply to his interruption. I ask whether it is reasonable to go on, when Members have been here so many hours, and when we know that there is only time enough loft for us to get to our homes, obtain the necessary natural rest, and come back to

  1029
  the House before the Speaker takes the Chan for this evening's Sitting? Is it fair to ask us to approach the consideration of the question of precedence for the Irish Coercion Bill, which, I am told, contains novel and startling provisions—to approach the consideration of that question with our minds worn out, and with our bodies jaded? The Government want to go on with the Vote on Account. The Vote on Account includes a sum of money for the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Where is the Chief Secretary fur Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour)? Where is the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes)? I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is wandering gloomily somewhere about the premises; but I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is at a distance from the House. The Attorney General for Ireland may be competent to deal with some legal questions, although some doubt has arisen on that point since the right hon. and learned Gentleman formulated his opinion respecting the Plan of Campaign; but, assuming that he is, is he to be allowed to be the mouthpiece of the Irish Executive on any large question of policy which may be raised? We intend to raise the question of the death, or, as some consider it, the murder, of the boy O'Hanlon, of Youghal, the question of Proclamations by the Lord Lieutenant, and the question of social order in Belfast, Will the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. U. Smith) contend that it is seemly or tolerable that we should be asked at this hour of the morning to bring forward questions of such urgency and gravity when the Minister of the Crown responsible for the affairs of Ireland is not hero to answer us? I think I am perfectly justified in pleading that we should not be called upon to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is else-whore taking his natural rest, or is preparing his mind for that masterly and memorable statement of policy which is expected from him this evening. Is it fair to allow the right hon. Gentleman that rest, and to reduce us, by continued attendance in the House, to such a condition of mind and body that when the evening comes we shall be unable to answer him? I wish to ask another
  1030
  question, Sir. Have the Government considered what will be the probable length of this Sitting? I think we ought to have some information on the subject before we proceed any further. Do the Government contemplate sitting all day? Do they mean to allow the Sitting of the 21st of March to merge in the Sitting of the 22nd? Hon. Gentlemen may find that the result may be confusing, because, if the two Sittings are merged, what will become of the Order of Business set down for the 22nd? The plan of the Government was that this evening the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, should move for precedence for the stages of the Bill it is intended to bring in to apply coercion to Ireland. If we continue sitting, I apprehend that the Business on the Paper for this overling will lapse, and that the only Business to be done to-day will be the Business of the Vote on Account. I ask Gentleman opposite who have a taste for mathematics to tot up the balance of advantages, and to see whether they are really gainingany time by the course they are now taking. I heard somewhere recently that Irishmen, compared with Englishmen, are taller men, stronger men, and men of greater endurance. The majority opposite are anxious for a compromise, and are crying out for conciliation. [Mr. DE LISLE. (Leicestershire, Mid): Oh, oh!] I am too well acquainted with the heroic nature of the hon. Member to think that he would ever do so. At all events, Gentlemen opposite may be anxious for a compromise at 4 o'clock this afternoon, when, perhaps, we shall be no longer in a melting mood. It may interest the House to know that a large batch of eloquent, and some of them, perhaps, prolix Members, are arriving from Ireland by a train which reaches Euston at half-past 6, having occupied Pullman cars on the journey. We have taken the precaution, Sir, to despatch a messenger to Euston to bring them to the House of Commons. On the whole, Sir, I think that, considering the amount of this Vote and the questions involved in it, there is no prospect of an early termination of this Sitting, and that the Sittings of the 21st and 22nd of March will be merged in one another,

  1031
  to the no small confusion of the Public Business. I can confidently say to the Committee that not only will the numerous questions in this Vote relating to Ireland be raised as long, Sir, as you consider that the rights of the minority entitle them to raise them; but they will none of them he discussed with any less fulness than if we were conducting a debate at half-past 5 in the evening. Now, I desire that fair progress should be made with the Public Business, and I would suggest to Members of the Government that the most sensible thing they can do, seeing that the Procedure Rules have been given Notice of for Thursday, and that the only urgent Rule of Procedure has been passed, is to alter the arrangements so far as to put down Procedure for another day, and to take this Vote on Account on Thursday. I think my Colleagues will bear me out when I say that we would undertake, notwithstanding the urgent and important character of the questions involved in this Vote, that the Division upon it should be taken at a reasonable time. Now, Sir, I think I have made the largest and most reasonable offer that could be made, and, if it is refused by the Government, there is nothing for it but to fight the question out. Of one thing I am sure, and that is, that when this battle is over, it is not the Irishmen in this House who will feel discomfited and defeated.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Mr. Courtney, I did not vote against the majority in the last Division because I thought that there was some ground on which the Government might urge that full debate had taken place on the Navy Estimates. But I think the situation is altogether changed now. In my opinion, we are entitled to say that the Government are turning the Business of this House topsy-turvy. They are turning our days into nights, and they are driving us into a situation which I do not hesitate to say, Mr. Courtney, is becoming intolerable. No one, not even the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), if he were here, or even the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), could deny that hon. Members are within their rights, upon the Motion which, you, Sir, have put from the Chair, in discussing
  1032
  any item in the Civil Service Estimates. I will go further, and say that not only are Gentlemen within their rights in taking that course, but that it is their bounden duty, under the special circumstances into which we are thrown by the action of the Government, to raise any question in which they are interested, and to discuss it at length. The prospect before us is altogether uncertain. The Government are at this moment seeking to get Votes on Account, whereby they will be able to postpone any Vote in the Estimates for the period of a couple of months. The Government have been taking all the time of private Members, and if even there was an occasion when such Members were entitled to take the first opportunity of discussing matters in which they are interested, I think that time has arrived. No answer has been given from the Front Bench opposite to the appeal which has just been made that this Vote on Account might be taken up on Thursday, and discussed at a reasonable hour and in a fair way. On the Vote which we have just passed there was an absolute silence on the part of the Government, and I would, therefore, ask this question. Suppose we enter upon the discussion of this Vote on Account, is it the intention of the Government to deal with it in the same spirit as they dealt with the Vote for the Navy, and to observe an obstinate silence upon the important questions which are to be raised? The rig-lit hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is not in his place, and I say that there is no one else who is able to speak for the Government on the points which will be discussed. I cannot imagine that it is intended by the Government to make it a sham discussion, because, if it be, I venture to say that there will be a complete breach of faith on the part of the Government. We have had an assurance that if that discussion is started, the infinite variety of subjects over which it will range will receive the consideration they deserve at the hands of the Government. I have not one particle of misgiving as to the duty that rests on me, and upon hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, to offer the strongest opposition to the course taken by the Government in seeking to dragoon the Committee into passing so large a Vote.
  [Mr. RAIKES (Postmaster General took the Chair.] [5.45.]
  COLONEL NOLAN: Mr. Raikes, your appearance in the Chair reminds me of several All-night Sittings which were held a great many years ago, and I would just ask the "old Parliamentary hands" on the other side of the House to point out to their Friends and Colleagues that it was very seldom that any good came of them. We all got tired and weary and excited, and the excitement spread to people out-of-doors, and a great deal of harm was done by the attempts made by the Government of the day to force Business on in those All-night Sittings. I think, Sir, that in regard to some of those Sittings, over which you, Mr. Raikes, presided—and as far as your presidency went, Sir, no complaint could be made—things would have been much better if they had never taken place. I would now suggest to the Government that they should assent to the Motion for reporting Progress, and I would urge on them several reasons for doing so. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that we ought not to plead for a little rest. I always feel fatigued at those Sittings. I have been present during all the All-night Sittings in this House, except for four or five hours of one of them. But I have always felt fatigued. I do so now, and I know that other Members cannot boar the fatigue any more than I can. I must, perhaps, make an exception in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire) (Mr. Chaplin), who came down, I think, as late as about 5 o'clock in the morning, and who looks very fresh. Well, we are now supposed to enter upon serious Business, expecting a Vote on Account amounting to £3,600,000. I should like to ask you, Mr. Raikes, whether you would like, in the conduct of the Business of the Post Office, to have to consider a question involving an expenditure of £3,600,000 after having been sitting in this House all night? I do not think, Sir, that you would be in a proper condition to do so. At all events, I would rather have your opinion upon any subject when you have not been sitting up all night than when you have. I should like to put it to you, Sir, whe-
  1034
  ther it is prudent for a Committee of the House of Commons to take a course which would not be considered wise in an individual. I quite acknowledge that if it was absolutely necessary that this Business should be done at once, we should have to do it. But no such necessity exists. It is a mere question of obstinacy on the part of the Government. The Government may, of course, say that they are merely firm, and that it is we who are obstinate, but I contend that the reverse is the case. Would it not be better that we should adjourn and consider this question at a reasonable hour? This sum of £3,624,100 is really not wanted by the Government. I would put this question to Ministers. Does an Appropriation Bill take more than eight days to pass? If it does not, it is not necessary to force this Vote through the Committee now, and I would ask the Government whether they really intend to cause such a scandal as would be involved in making us vote this largo sum, when they know that the immense majority of Members must be so tired and fagged that, not only are they unfit to deal with the money of the country, but they are unfit to take part in an ordinary game at whist. The taxpayers, I have always found, are very jealous about the action of their Representatives in regard to voting money, and rightly so. But can we, at this time, give reasonable attention to voting Supply? What is the Government programme? Do they want us to surrender all right of discussion and simply pass this Vote? We want to come hero after a few hours' interval to discuss this matter properly. Will they give us a fair opportunity of doing so? We are not in a position to do it now, and soon we shall have excited London pouring into the House, not much helping towards a calm dispassionate discussion of some of those Irish subjects that are called burning questions. There is another reason for not plunging into this discussion at once, and why the Government might make some temporary arrangement, even if they allow an adjournment for a couple of hours only. Besides the personal advantages of a rest for that time, we should, on resuming, have representatives of the Press here in proper force, if not in numbers above the usual average. It is a matter of consequence that the pith of the re-

  1035
  marks in reference to this large sum, one of the most important Votes of the year, should he made public. The Civil Service Estimates open up the whole field of Civil administration. The late Mr. Isaac Butt, a great authority on matters of Parliamentary Procedure, declared it most un-Constitutional to habitually take these largo sums on account. You take a Vote for two months, then for another two months, and then, at the end of the Session, when we are all heated, tired, and jaded, and want to get away, these Votes are brought on with a rush. First and last, these Estimates do not get properly considered, and evil consequences result. The Departments will not pare off abuses in expenditure if this expenditure is voted without protest; it is only pressure from this House that will induce them to do so. Then the constituents, too, seeing that the Estimates are not properly discussed, are apt to think the expenditure is more extravagant than it really is; and thus we are susceptible to sudden bursts of frugality that may be detrimental to the true interests of the Public Service. Passing a Vote on Account like this without proper discussion loads to these evils, and it is mere idleness to say there can be a proper discussion at the end of the year; there will be no more than a discussion of a few foremost items. I am unwilling to take up time in elaborating my argument; but I urge the Government to take into account our anxiety to discuss the Vote, not item by item, but by five or six Irish questions and eight or nine English subjects; and my hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) has given a pledge that, so far as Irish Members are concerned, these discussions shall terminate on Thursday. This extraordinary attitude of the Government was quite unexpected, or a largo number of Members would have been here to increase our minority; and, oven as it is, we have English Liberal Members hero to aid us in our protest against the action of the Government—Members whom you do not often find taking part in an All-night Sitting. They have done so on this occasion, for they feel that in this contest on this question of Supply they have their constituents with them.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: The proceedings of to-night will have an effect in the country. I am
  1036
  quite sure that nothing will more endanger the position of the Government, bringing it into collision with the feelings of the taxpayers, than the attempt to force on a large Vote at this hour. I may urge this view on Members of the Government—that the effect, when these things become known outside, will be disastrous to them, loading the people to believe, what I am afraid they will have considerable ground for believing, that we vote away money without due consideration. For their own interest, I would advise the Government to take the Vote at a time more opportune for discussion.
  MR. WALLACE: Throughout this discussion it appears to me to have been forgotten that there is another part of the United Kingdom besides Ireland having grievances felt acutely, which desires to have those grievances discussed, and has sent 72 Members for that purpose. May I call attention to the fact that, of those 72 Representatives, only three are present—or, say four, though we do not usually count the Lord Advocate as a Scotch Member. Sixty-eight Scotch Members are certainly absent. I have waited hero all night for the purpose of performing my duty as a Scotch Member, knowing that there are different grievances which our constituents expect us to discuss at the very earliest moment. I have waited for the simple reason that, of all the Nationalities re-presented here, the Scotch nation has the most difficulty in obtaining a hearing. We are constantly on the watch to get in a word upon Scotch affairs, because our difficulty is that, while the Irish are hated, we are despised, and contempt is far more difficult to overcome. Hatred stimulates resistance from the hated, contempt crushes and paralyzes the organ of combativeness. We are, on this very account, the more eager to discuss our grievances at those moments permitted by the spirit of the Constitution. It is a new doctrine to me—and, though not an old Member, I have been a student of the subject—that grievances are to be postponed for Supply; I always thought they preceded it. It is astonishing to me that a professed Conservative Government should resist by physical force one of the oldest traditions of the Constitution of the country. I might remind the Government of some of the

  1037
  Scotch questions that naturally arise in consideration of the Vote. There are items that have connection with the proceedings that have taken place in Skye——
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. RAIKES): I must remind the hon. Member it would not be in Order to discuss the items of the Vote on a Motion to report Progress.
  MR. WALLACE: I had no intention of doing so. I was merely about to point out, as reasons for having Progress reported now, that there were items of a certain character that would require to be discussed, when discussion of these particulars became orderly. These, I was about to say, were so complicated, so numerous, and so important, that they must needs give rise to consider-able debate; and, therefore, in view of the amount of work before the Committee, it would be well to report Progress, and resume under more favourable circumstances. One of the items we, as Scotch Members, would be called upon to discuss would be the Crofter Question, never sufficiently ventilated in this House. When occasion seemed to offer itself, I had myself prepared an elaborate speech on the subject; but, if I might use a colloquialism, that speech was burked by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would be a serious undertaking to bring out all the arguments, facts, and illustrations I had prepared—a serious undertaking for me, and possibly for the House too. There would be many questions, abstract and particular, arising in connection with the Vote for Law and Justice in Scotland, the Crofter prosecutions in particular. Again, there is the Education item to be considered. Members not now present have an engrossing interest in educational matters, and have various grievances to ventilate. Not only so; but there is the Fisheries Question, which presents many points of absorbing interest. If I were to mention the herring brand, for instance, it would, if it did not exactly produce excitement, excite most diversified interest in the minds of Scotch Members——
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. RAIKES): Order, order! I have already pointed out it would be entirely out of Order to attempt to discuss items of the proposed Vote on a Motion to report Progress. I must request the hon. Mem-
  1038
  ber to confine his observations to that Motion.
  MR. WALLACE: I shall avoid that subject, Sir. Not that I was intending to disregard your ruling in any way, or to depart from Order by discussing the item; I was about to point out the difficulties of attempting discussion at this unusual hour. There will be Scotch Members desirous of considering the question of the appointment of the Secretary of State for Scotland; but, passing away from the special aspect of the Vote as affecting the grievances of Scotland, I think, as an individual, I have a right to appeal to Her Majesty's Government on the question of the physical resources of hon. Members present. I think they are mistaken if they enter into this contest regarding it as a question that must be settled by plurality of numbers; it is rather a case of Thermopylæ than a battle on Salisbury Plain—a few only are necessary to stop a pass against a host incalculably more numerous than the defenders. We shall be able to keep up a sufficient supply of strong, fresh Members, able to do what is necessary to oppose the arguments, or the mere official presence of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I feel myself, I will not say brighter, that would be arrogating too much to myself, but not more dull than I was 12 hours ago, and I do not think it is possible for me to be more dull 12 hours hence. Still, I would appeal to Her Majesty's Government to accept the reasonable compromise that has been held out to them more than once. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) offered a reasonable compromise when he suggested the Government should take a Vote on Account sufficient for a fortnight; but I think the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) offered a still more reasonable compromise, when he consented, on behalf of those for whom he was entitled to speak, if the Vote were sot down for Thursday that it should be considered fairly, with no attempt to resist it beyond that day. But it is a very difficult thing to restore peace when war is raised by challenge and attack from the other side. There is much that might be said in regard to the mind of the country not being sufficiently informed in regard to the Vote owing to the absence of the Press.

  1039
  Naturally, the country takes an interest in the expenditure of the money raised by its taxation: and if we discuss an important Vote like this behind the backs of those who are to pay it, I am perfectly sure a feeling of resentment will be provoked. I might add many other reasons; but I desire only to participate in the debate to a reasonable extent, and I think I have said enough to make good the position I occupy in support of the Motion before us.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The speech of the hon. Member makes us recognize the cleverness of the nation to which he belongs. He tells us the Scotch Representatives have all gone to bed; and I am quite sure he will be glad to follow their example. There is nothing in what we are asking the Committee to do to prevent him. We ask, in order that the law may be complied with, for a Vote on Account of the Civil Service. We are asking a thing that has been asked every Session for years past, and such a Vote has been passed Session after Session with little or no discussion. When the hon. Member talks about the necessity for discussing item after item, he will forgive me for saying he hardly understands the nature of a Vote on Account. It is not possible for the affairs of the country to be carried on if there is to be such a discussion of items. The Committee will have ample opportunity of considering every item, and of attacking any to which objection is taken when in ordinary course the Votes come on. We are told it is an easy matter to adjourn the Committee to Thursday and finish the Vote then, but we should not be able to comply with the law if we did anything of the kind. Hon. Members must credit us with having paid some attention to the Rules of Order, and this matter, in which we are specially interested, we have carefully considered. Hence the statement that we cannot comply with the law unless we obtain the Vote we now ask for, and which has been granted in several Sessions. The sooner we get it, the sooner shall we got to bed.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: The right hon. Gentleman speaks the usual clap-trap of officialism. We have heard that speech from the Treasury
  1040
  Bench times out of mind. The right hon. Gentleman says it is absolutely necessary to carry on the work of the nation, that the Vote should be taken, but we have equally good authority that it is not absolutely necessary. If the Government want money to comply with the requirements of the law, they should come here in time and propose their Votes—at such a time as will enable us to discuss grievances without being met with this stale Tory cry, the exigencies of time, the usual plea from that Bench. We have a right to claim that at the beginning of the Session—at the earliest possible moment, to insure the passing of the Appropriation Bill within the required period—the Government should submit their Estimates for consideration. Otherwise we stand in the position that we are entitled to refuse the money, seeing that we have not the opportunity of bringing forward our grievances in accordance with the time-honoured Constitutional doctrine that grievances precede Supply. So far as I can see, Sir, the practice in Parliament diverges altogether from the procedure laid down in books. The practice of Parliament seems to be that the Ministers of the Crown come down to the House at the end of every six weeks with a Vote of Supply, and expect to get the money, and the discussion on the details comes on after the Ministers have got the money. Then the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) comes here and says that the money has already been voted, uttering the usual clap-trap of officialism. It is a very strange sort of procedure which allows the money to be voted, and then when Motions for reducing the Votes are made, hon. Members find that they are of no use, because they are barred by the very effective argument that the money is already voted. I always thought that the Constitutional doctrine was that grievances came before Supply; but the practice of this House is very different. There is another fact which illustrates the odd character of the practice of Parliament. To-night we have had a precedent created of the application of the closure, which no doubt will be in time fully felt in practice by hon. Gentlemen opposite Members on this side of the House had no indication that the Government were going

  1041
  to pursue the policy which they have entered upon, or that they intended to persevere or apply the closure on a question of Supply. This is a precedent which before long will be used with great effect upon hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, and very reasonably because when their Leaders set an example they should be prepared to understand that such bad examples are likely to be followed, which one would think ought to make them very chary in setting them. The Government may carry forward these Totes to-night by the repeated application of the closure with a mechanical majority at their back. But if they should do that they will be countenancing an un-Constitutional thing, for since it is in their power to apply the closure on the discussion of each Vote which comes up for consideration, they will, if they do this, be making at-tempts at silencing Members in a legitimate debate on a question of a Vote on Account. It certainly does appear to me that the Government are proceeding very unwisely. Votes in Supply have been free from the operations of the closure in the past, but now that there is a precedent it is hard to say how far the power will extend in the future. There is no guarantee that the power will not be used in Committee of Supply, and consequently the whole principle of Representative Government is reduced to an absurdity.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I just want, Sir, to point out a contrast between the statement on a certain point of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), and a statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope). The Financial Secretary admitted earlier in the evening that the law could be complied with if this Tote were taken on Thursday. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has declared that the reason why the Government requested that the Vote should be taken was, that the law demanded that it should be passed tonight, at the present Sitting. Now, I am anxious to know if the Government are willing that their case should stand or fall by the assertion of their Secretary of State for War. The case of the Government is that one of its Members
  1042
  makes a statement absolutely contradictory to the assertion of another of its Members in a previous part of the same evening. I am glad the Secretary of State for War has put his contention that the law positively requires that this Tote should be passed to-night; but I have to say that the law does not require this, and that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was quite correct when he stated that the Totes could be taken on Thursday and yet the law would be completely complied with. ["No!"] Well, in other words, he did not deny that the law would be complied with if the Vote wore taken on Thursday, and I suppose he can if he chooses. And this diametrical opposition is the cause of the trouble and a scandal of this All-night Sitting. It was agreed that if the Tote was put down for Thursday the debate would be extended to Friday, and the law could not in that way be complied with; but hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have answered that by saying that the Vote would be allowed to pass on Thursday; and thus the whole objection falls to the ground at once, and no danger of a breach of law is incurred. I only hope that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will reach the Press, that the public may be able to judge of the intelligence and ability of some Members of the Government. Sir, I am informed on high authority that if this Vote was carried on Thursday, the 24th of March, it could be reported on Friday, the 25th of March, and this would be three days before the time upon which it was reported in a previous year. It is simply monstrous to consent to the passing of over £3,000,000 of the public money without any discussion. We are desired to pass the Estimates referring to the Home Department in the absence of the Home Secretary; those of the Public Works Department in the absence of the Chief Commissioner of Public Works; those for the Law Department in the absence of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General; and, finally, the most important, solemn, and contentious Votes of all those of the Irish Department in the absence of the Chief Secretary. We are quite willing that the way in which the taxes are spent should go forth for the judgment of the country, and I again repeat that

  1043
  it is mainly owing to the gross, palpable, and immense contradiction between two Members of the Government that we have the scandal and trouble of this All-night Sitting. I say again, Sir, that if the Votes are put down for Thursday, hon. Members on this side of the House will undertake that the discussion will close on that day, and probably hon. Members above the Gangway would assent to this arrangement or accept the suggestion as a reasonable promise.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) asks whether, if this Vote were put down for Thursday, it would be in accordance with the law? I pointed out, I think, that it required eight days for the Appriation Bill, and Thursday is the 24th of March. Hence the hon. Member will see that Thursday would be too late a day for passing the Vote if the law was to be fully complied with. The Supplementary Votes are to meet expenditure for the current year, and they re-quire to go through exactly the same processes as the Vote on Account to make them available for the Services of the country. Hon. Members must see that in order to make the money service-able within the current financial year—that is to say, shortly before the 31st of March—it is absolutely necessary that we should have this Vote now passed. I am quite sure that the hon. Members of this House do not want to put the Government into the unpleasant position of being driven, at the last moment, to the inability of carrying out the Services of the country. The Government are quite willing to meet the suggestions of hon. Members; but I have to say distinctly that Thursday would be too late, and that it is necessary to get this Vote in order to make matters regular.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I wish to ask, Sir, whether, seeing that Thursday is too late, it would be possible to regularize—if I may use the word—the situation by holding a Sitting on Saturday. Mr. Raikes, I have sat in the House, and often heard that grievance comes before Supply; but I find in practice that there is far too much of a feeling in the House now that the principal and first object of the House is to legislate, whilst high authorities on the House
  1044
  impress on us that the ventilation of grievances is a most important point to observe and follow. We, on this side of the House, have no desire indefinitely to prolong the debate on these Estimates; but we certainly do feel that it was a very mistaken proceeding to so arrange matters that the Civil Service Estimates should be discussed at the late hour which the Government thought proper to provide. It will be remembered that at an early period of this Session I suggested myself that we should require to discuss the Estimates on a side Vote, because I foresaw and feared this awkward situation. I may venture to say that the cause of many of us remaining in this House during the discussion of these Estimates was in order to secure to hon. Members below the Gangway an opportunity of ventilating certain grievances connected with the Government of Ireland—grievances which there were no other means or facilities of making known. I would point out to the Committee that the position of affairs in this matter in the present year are peculiar, and therefore it is not right to compare past years with the present year, because during the present year hon. Members have been deprived—and prospectively are to be deprived—of almost every opportunity which private Members are supposed to possess, in order to bring forward the grievances which naturally would have been brought forward had there been a chance of doing so. Besides, not only is the time of private Members taken, and to be taken by the Government for a lengthened period, but that new method of procedure whereby we find subjects really pass out of discussion because of bogus Motions several days or weeks in advance, has come into existence; and private Members have to seize every available opportunity in order to endeavour to secure a chance of discussing matters of grievance. Therefore, on those Estimates hon. Members on this side of the House have really got the desire to get such an opportunity of informing the House and calling the attention of the country to abuses which require reform. I hope that right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench will take into consideration whether they can see their way by some less violent tactics and method than passing a Vote without discrimination or discussion of its important

  1045
  contents—especially the Irish items—to regularize the situation. Hon. Members have been in attendance for about 15 hours; and I would again suggest, in the absence of other alternative, to the Government that Saturday could be introduced for a Sitting for the purpose of accomplishing the passing and consideration of this Vote, and especially that the House may discuss questions of great interest and importance concerning the safety and security of Ireland. No better course could be followed; and it is surely preferable to this Sitting in excitement, and under circumstances which prevent the utterances of hon. Gentlemen being properly recorded in the public Press.
  MR. MOLLOY: I think the whole fault, Sir, of this scandalous Sitting is to be blamed upon the Government. We have heard from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) and the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) that it was absolutely necessary that these Estimates should be passed to-night. And the Government knew that fact before to-night—that they wanted over £3,000,000, and with that knowledge in their minds they come down to the House and bring on the Estimates just before midnight. I ask the Government, are they not ashamed to acknowledge that they knew it was necessary to pass this enormous sum of money to-night, and yet they did not introduce the Estimate for consideration until midnight? It was not the custom to discuss the items upon this Vote, it was said. I took the trouble to look what happened last year, and what do I find? That a Member of the present Government itself discussed these Votes. If hon. Members will look at the Estimates, they will find that we are now called upon to discuss, as a part of this Vote, the grant of some £100,000 for the Post Office; and I would call attention to the fact that the Government have put the Chief of the Department the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) in the Chair while the matter is under discussion. I venture to say that never in the history of this Parliament has there been a single precedent of the discussion of an Estimate in Committee with the Minister who is responsible for that Estimate occupying the Chair. I can hardly realize myself that what I have stated is the case. Now, what would be the procedure when we come to the
  1046
  Post Office Vote? It would be that you, Mr. Chairman, would leave the Chair, and the Government would select another Chairman from the Treasury Bench, or that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes), in charge of a Department, would find himself in the Chair whilst the Estimates of his Colleagues were being passed, and not knowing what Vote may come next—it might be the Estimates of his own Department—he would stand up and ask the acceptance of his own. Vote with the Committee discussing Estimates of a right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. I desire to repeat that this is what the Government has reduced us to this evening. I am able to speak deliberately and with some knowledge. The position we are in is this. The Government declare in this House that they are bound to get the money represented by this Vote to-night. They knew that, and that by law they must get the money. And yet they bring in a Vote for this money at midnight. Then, when the proper Chairman leaves the Chair, the Government put the Chief of one of their own Departments whose Estimates are under discussion, in the Chair. I challenge the Chairman (Mr. Raikes) and the Clerks at the Table to show the Committee a solitary instance of a similar character, and I call attention to the fact that the permission of this is pre-judicial to our Parliamentary usage.
  MR. SEXTON: When hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are as still as statues, we cannot expect them to accept the invitation of my hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy); and, besides, not oven the ingenuous mind of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) can find an answer. I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Raikes, that the point which my hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy) has made, is one so cogent, that either you, Sir, as Postmaster General, should be out of the Chair, or the Sitting should come to a termination. The challenge of my hon. Friend has not been answered; and I say, for my part, that during my seven years in Parliament I have never known such a case to arise as that to which our attention has been called. In regard to the observation made by my hon. Friend, that it would be necessary for you, Mr. Raikes, to leave the Chair when the Vote for your Department comes on, it seems to me that from the moment

  1047
  that you put the Question of the Vote on Account from your Chair—from that moment you will be in the position of presiding over the deliberations of the Committee upon the Estimates of your own Department. I think the House will agree with me that it is impossible, under these circumstances, for the debate to proceed. We are told that it is necessary for the public interests that this Vote should be taken at the present Sitting; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton has told us it is not necessary. When doctors disagree, how shall we decide?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): Since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton made the statement that once the Vote was taken on March 24, I have discovered that it was interposed in Committee, but that it was actually taken on March 19.
  MR. SEXTON: I have not had the advantage of looking at Hansard. Are we to understand that the proposal for a Saturday Sitting is rejected?
  MR. JACKSON: A Saturday Sitting will not help us. It is a question of beginning. We must take the early stage.
  MR. SEXTON: Will Thursday do? I have another suggestion to make. The Government have proposed this day to ask for precedence for the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill. It is obviously inconvenient, to say the least, that we should proceed to the discussion of that. Will the Government consider the expediency of winding up this Sitting, and putting down this Vote for the first Order this evening? If they are disposed to do that, I think my hon. Friends will agree with me that, having taken a substantial and full discussion of two or three questions of gravity, the debate on the question of precedence for the Criminal Law Amendment Bill might be taken after the dinner hour. What more can you expect than that? Suppose we go on sitting till noon to-day, and the Vote is got by the application of the closure, so as to secure precedence being taken at half-past 5 this evening——
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. RAIKES): The hon. Member is now travelling beyond the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. SEXTON: Am I not at liberty to make suggestions on a Motion to re-
  1048
  port Progress? Instead of proceeding with this Sitting now, let the Government adjourn this debate, on our undertaking to close it to-night in time to give the Leader of the House an opportunity to move the Resolution of which he has given Notice, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) an opportunity to reply. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here. I do not doubt his ability at any time to appreciate promptly and accurately the importance of any point that may be suggested. Let this Vote precede the precedence Resolution to-night; the latter will go on all night under any circumstances. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that this suggestion is prompted by a serious desire for the harmony of the House, and to avoid ill-temper arising from extreme courses.
  DR. TANNER: I regret exceedingly the Government do not avail themselves of those chances. I, for my part, cannot help feeling that the Government have an object in view. [Laughter.] I, too, have an object in view, and I should recommend hon. Members opposite not to laugh at it, if humanity form any portion of their composition. I firmly believe—and whether I am right or wrong will be for my countrymen to judge—that Her Majesty's Government are trying this on at the present moment in order to excite the people of Ireland to bloodshed. Mr. Raikes, they simply want to promote murder and assassination in Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. RAIKES): The hon. Gentleman must be aware that it is entirely contrary to the Rules of this House to impute motives to hon. Members, and especially motives such as murder and assassination. he must withdraw the statement.
  DR. TANNER: I dare say, Sir. But what I said, Sir, was I feared the policy of the Government—the policy which the Government were promoting at this Sitting—was one which would lead to assassination and murder.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. RAIKES): The hon. Member stated, in the hearing of the Committee, that he believed the Government had an object in view, and that was to promote assassination and murder. I call upon the hon. Member explicitly to withdraw that statement.
  DR. TANNER: I will certainly withdraw that, Sir; but I say again I believe that this policy will load to assassination and murder. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] Of course I withdraw what the right hon. Gentleman told me. He is a Member of the Government, and I withdraw. It is all very fine; but I maintain that my hon. Friend is justified in calling attention to these very important matters. Why, Sir, at the present time we are called upon to discuss the Post Office system, when we know that the papers are teeming with accounts of the extraordinary dealings with the Post Office by officials, of whom the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman is at the head. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in his place; he is practically the prop and the crutch of the Government, and I should hope that he would deal with this matter properly and decently. And, accordingly, I charge the Government with doing what I believe will load to murder and assassination in Ireland. Lot them answer that if they can.
  MR. LANE: I have only to say that even if we agreed, the Committee now in passing these Votes would be doing an illegal act.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am only going to say one or two words to the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson). We have received no answer to the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). I wish to add to that appeal that, as far as I am concerned, if the Government will accept the compromise, I shall be willing to waive my right to speak on these Estimates. If they do not, I shall certainly raise a question, and go to a Division.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: It has been asked, more than once, whether it is the intention of the Government that if a discussion is raised on any of these items it will receive the attention it deserves. Is it desired to vote money wholesale, without any discussion? Not long since the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War pointed out that if discussions were raised on these occasions it would be impossible for the Business of the House to go on. But that is not an answer to the question. Whenever money is demanded, every individual Member of
  1050
  this House is entitled to raise any grievance in his mind, or that may be felt by his constituents; and if, as a result, Votes on Account should be abandoned, it would not be a matter for regret. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to enter upon the Vote and fully explain all points raised on this side of the House. Are we to have a reply to any questions we may raise?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I can assure the hon. Member that even if the discussion on the Estimates had been taken hours ago, he would have found Members of the Government perfectly prepared to give such explanations as are necessary, and all questions will be answered.
  MR. SEXTON: The responsible Ministers are not here? Where is the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am answering the question, I trust, in good humour; but I wish to point out to the hon. Member for West Belfast, in regard to the com-promise he has suggested, that I have hoard the Scotch Members and others declare that they wish to discuss certain points connected with these Estimates; and, therefore, he is not in a position to make the compromise bind them. I would suggest to the hon. Member to do now what he might have done hours ago—to discuss the points which he wishes to have discussed. He may expect a courteous answer from any Members of the Government to whom he may appeal. With regard to Post Office questions, if it is wished to discuss any particular Vote affecting the Post Office, another hon. Member can relieve the Postmaster General in the duty of Chairman. I hope the Motion will be withdrawn, and that we may now begin to make some progress. Will the hon. Member state the points on which he wishes information?
  MR. SEXTON: At no time while this discussion has been going on has the Chief Secretary for Ireland been in his place; I believe he left the House before midnight.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland are here.
  An hon. MEMBER: What do they know?
  MR. GOSCHEN: If the hon. Member wishes it, we will send for the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: I am thankful to know that he will be sent for. It will be necessary for him to hear our complaints. We cannot accept the replies of the Law Officers. We are not at liberty to receive from them replies on grave questions arising outside their Office. Why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept my offer? Is it merely to gratify the ill-temper which seems to prevail among hon. Members below the Gangway opposite? I think you are making a great mistake in refusing it. Hon. Members on this side of the House are unanimous in support of my proposition, and I believe none of our Friends now absent will interfere with the arrangement.
  MR. WALLACE: I think Her Majesty's Government would be well advised to accept the compromise offered by the hon. Member for West Belfast. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pleased to say that if grievances were stated by hon. Members, the Government were perfectly prepared to answer them. He knows, however, perfectly well that hon. Members who have grievances to state, never expected to be called on to state them at such an hour. It is all very well to say that the Government are prepared to answer at a time when he knows perfectly well hon. Members are not present to make their statements. As the only Scotch Member now present, I will state that, as far as I am concerned, I am in harmony with the offer made by the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  MR. PICTON: When the hon. Member for West Belfast made his offer, I heard hon. Members opposite cry out, "No compromise!" Sir, I understand the spirit of those words; but I scarcely understand the meaning. What do they mean? Do they mean that the minority have no rights at all that are worth consideration? The time may come—and it may not be very far hence—when they will be in a minority themselves, and they then will not like to hear "No compromise" called out under similar circumstances. We are asked to vote £3,500,000 on a Resolution brought in after midnight, and I think it is in the highest degree un-
  1052
  gracious to reproach us with anything improper. The Government have the matter in their own hands; they can, whenever a discussion is allowed to take place, apply the clôture. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) has told us Votes on Account have been repeatedly taken before with little discussion. It is true; but then it was not at a time when a feeling of uneasiness pervaded the country. There is now a profound feeling of uneasiness as to what use is to be made of the money the Government are asking us to vote. Therefore it is only fair that the minority should be allowed to bring forward their grievances. The arguments used by the other side might have been proper in the time of Charles L, when they used to say—"Give us the money and trust us to do the best we can with it. Leave yourselves in our hands." But that is not the case to-day, and I trust that the temper of the House of Commons will not tolerate treatment of that kind. I hope the reasonable arrangement proposed will be agreed to.
  Mr. LABOUCHERE: We are perfectly ready to go on with the discussion. We have no right to waive the privilege to discuss the Estimates. We will be able to show, after a discussion of a few hours between the Irish Members and the Government, from their different standpoints, that the position of Ireland is somewhat critical. Really it scorns to be reasonable, therefore, that some arrangement should be made by which the Irish Members may be enabled to discuss for a few hours the points they wish to raise. It is really absurd for us to sit all night. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen say "Hear, hear!" Do they mean to say that the Irish Members have not a right to discuss these Estimates? All the Irish Members ask for is that they should be given a few hours in which to do so. The Government must admit that it is a concession on the part of the Scotch and the English Members to say that, as far as they are concerned, they will waive any sort of Amendment or discussion which they might legitimately move or raise upon it. They do that in order to facilitate the action of the Government in making a concession to the Irish Members. Of course, the Government would not think of asking for the clôture

  1053
  on the Vote, because, if we were to begin discussing it now, no one could say we were exceeding our legitimate rights if we were to divide on every single item. Supposing we were to discuss each English and Scotch item of the Vote for half-an-hour. That would take a very long time, and then we should have to deal with the Irish portion of the Vote. It could hardly he said that the Irish Members were exceeding their rights if they discussed the points in which they are interested for three, or four, or five hours. I ask hon. Gentlemen whether a fair and reasonable proposal has not been made? Do you mean that the discussion shall go on now? [Ministerial cries of"Yes!"] Then for how long? [An hon. MEMBER: Days.] An hon. Gentleman says it ought to last for days. Well, we do not take such exaggerated views of these things. We speak of hours, and not of days. The Government declare that they have a heavy task before them in reference to their Coercion Bill this evening. If the Government will say that they will allow this Vote on Account to come on at half-past 4 this evening, the discussion of their demand of the time of the House for coercion can be taken later. Or, perhaps, the Government will suggest some other plan by which these Estimates can be discussed.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In reference to the compromise which has been proposed, I wish to point out that the Government could not carry it out, because they have only obtained precedence for Procedure, and if the Procedure Rules are not taken, private Members will resume their rights. For my own part, I am quite willing to go on with the right; but I would suggest another compromise which may meet the views of the Committee. I would propose that Government Business should be taken at 5 o'clock to-day; but that the debate should be stopped at 10, or half-past 10, and that this Vote should then be taken and discussed until the close of the sitting. I do not throw out this suggestion with any idea of urging the Government to surrender their right to have this Vote. It has struck me all through that what hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House are contending for is that they shall be allowed to have a dis-
  1054
  cussion relevant to the items of the Estimates; but not relevant to the first Vote on Account. I think, however, that if my suggestion were carried out, we might close this discussion, which is not creditable to Parliament.
  MR. SEXTON: I would point out to the Committee that the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) curiously lost sight, at the end of his speech, of the point which he raised at the beginning of it. The same argument would apply at half-past 10, as at 5 o'clock; and, if the hon. Gentleman is right on his point of Order, it would be just as impossible for us to take the discussion on the Vote on Account at half-past 10 as it would at the earlier hour. I would further point out that the point of Order is altogether wrong. What is to prevent the Government, if they put down the Order of "Supply (Vote on Account)" to-day from making and carrying a Motion after Question time, that the Orders of the Day be postponed until after that Order had been disposed of? Therefore, the hon. Member's point of Order is absurd.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 141: Majority 84.—(Div. List, No. 74.) [7.40 A.M.]
  Sir JOHN GORST (Under Secretary of State for India) took the Chair. [7.45 A.M.]
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The rapid changes of Chairmen show how wrong it is, Sir John Gorst, to keep us hero. But it must not be supposed that we are not perfectly fresh. We have now reached an hour (10 minutes to 8) at which reasonable persons can discuss Business. It is somewhat an early one; but I believe that in former days the House was in the habit of meeting at 8 o'clock. We shall now go through the Estimates in precisely the same way, if not more severely than as if we had not been sitting up all night. I find that the first portion of the Vote relates to the Royal Palaces, which last year cost £31,000. This year the Estimate amounts to £35,000, or about £4,000 more. We are asked, on this Vote on Account, to contribute £6,000. Now, I think the Committee will hardly

  1055
  assent to that, and I shall conclude with a Motion to reduce the Vote in respect of that item by the sum of £5,000. I have several reasons to urge in favour of the reduction. In the first place, Sir. I object entirely to these heavy Votes on Account. I have already several times suggested that we should give the Government enough money to tide them over a fortnight, as they seem to have got into a mass by not bringing forward the Estimates at a reasonable time. I estimate that the £1,000 I am willing to let them have in respect of the Royal Palaces would last them for rather more than two weeks, as they ask for £0,000 to carry them over two months. I may point out that if the Government persist in the course they are taking, we shall not have any time except at the end of the Session to discuss this question; and, as the Government cannot accept our terms, we must go into the various items thoroughly and exhaustively. This Vote includes an item of £1,200 for the maintenance and repair of the royal mows at Pimlico, and one of £500 for new works and alterations. These sums are excessive. The whole palace, apparently, costs £2,281 for maintenance, repairs and alterations, and the stables cost £1,865. I am not aware of the number of horses kept in these stables; but I should think that generally there are very few. Her Majesty is not often in London, and these stables are kept up for the benefit of those parasites who always exist about a Court. Then we come to palaces partly in the occupation of Her Majesty. These include St. James's Palace, of which the cost amounts to a great deal. I will allow that, however, to pass. Then we got to palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty. There are a considerable number of houses tenanted by persons to whom Her Majesty has lent them. You will find, Sir, that these persons insist upon the houses so lent being kept up at the public expense for their benefit. Now, I say that the pensioners who are put into these houses ought to be called upon to pay for their maintenance. I find here items for Pembroke Lodge, Thatched House, and East Sheen Cottage, Richmond Park. Of course, I know who lives in Pembroke Lodge; but I do not know who occupies the other two, or where they are. I should like the right hon. Gentleman the First
  1056
  Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) to tell us who lives in them, and also what the occupants have done in any way beneficial to the country as a reason for their having houses rent free. Then we have "Bushey House, gardens and stables," and another house, which, I believe, has been lent to one of the Orleans Princes. Now, these Orleans Princes are rich, "beyond the dreams of avarice," and yet they come sponging upon the British taxpayer, and asking him to house them. We have, therefore, to pay money every year for the maintenance of the house of an Orleans Prince. Why, I should like to ask, are we to pay for housing a Prince who has been turned out of his own country for the misdeeds of former members of his family? There are several places in Bushey Park which are mentioned in the Vote, and I should like to know who lives in each of thorn and why he is allowed to do so. There is another item to which I have frequently called attention in this House. It is the Hampton Court Stud-house. I believe it is tenanted by some person; but all I know about it is that, although I have asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury again and again what becomes of our foals which are bred there, I never see any deduction made in the Vote for the price which those foals fetch. The foals must go to someone; but there is no item in respect of them. Someone gets hold of our foals, and yet we have to pay every charge in connection with them. Well, Sir, I think I have made out a case in favour of the reduction I propose. I have shown that in this Vote there are items which need explanation, and of which no legitimate explanation can be given. This is not the first time I have asked for an explanation; but I have never been able to get one. I beg to move that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £5,000 in respect of the first item.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £6,000, for Royal Palaces, be reduced by the sum of £5,000."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): The criticisms from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lubouchere) are substantially the same as those he has made regularly each year

  1057
  for the last two or three years, and therefore the answer I have to give will he substantially that which has been given before and accepted by the House. But I may say, as regards these particular Estimates for which I am responsible, that there is a reduction on the total sum of about £90,000, or 9 per cent on the whole. What we are non-asking the Committee to do to-day is to provide a small portion of the required sum, such an amount as will unable us to carry on the necessary repairs and maintenance in connection with the various items specified in the Vote. If it would be any satisfaction to hon. Members, I might say that I would undertake not to spend any of the larger sums which are included in the Vote until the Estimates are taken in their entirety, and the completion of the sums submitted. The main part of the expenditure is for the ordinary and regular keeping up of the different Palaces, parks, and public buildings enumerated. There would have been on this Vote for Royal Palaces a considerable reduction this year, were it not for the items in connection with Hampton Court, rendered necessary by the fire that unfortunately occurred there recently, and which, as the Committee will be aware, caused considerable damage. Were it not for this item which the Committee will agree it is impossible to forego, there would have been a considerable reduction under the head of Royal Palaces. As to the particular criticisms made just now, some of the buildings are kept up for the occupation of Her Majesty, some are in partial occupation, as, for instance, St. James's, others again are not in occupation, but all this forms part of the arrangements entered into with the Crown at the beginning of the reign when the Civil List was settled. The money we are asking for is to keep up these Palaces according to the bargain made at that time, and as to who in habits these Palaces by the gracious favour of the Sovereign it is not my business to know or to inquire; my duty is confined to asking the House for the money that maintains these Palaces, fulfilling the obligation we have incurred.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am not at all satisfied with this Vote; but I do not want to complicate matters by opening another Amendment. I only wish my hon.
  1058
  Friend had taken my suggestion to move the omission of the Vote altogether. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that some of these items are unnecessary, though he commenced this long Sitting many hours ago with the statement that it was necessary to take the Vote now. It is now said that the whole are not necessary, and by a process of exhaustion—such as has been going on all night—we may arrive at the conclusion that none of the Vote is absolutely necessary to be taken now. First, I may say, in reference to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, that most of us were not in existence 50 years ago when this absurd bargain was made, and I am inclined to think that the taxpayers will think it is quite time that a revised version of this bargain should be issued. This Jubilee year offers an admirable occasion for Her Majesty to do something for her loyal subjects, though I have not heard there is any intention of the kind. May I offer one or two suggestions? I should like to know if many of these Royal, noble, or great personages inhabiting these buildings are German paupers? [Cries of"Order!"] I am surprised to find hon. Gentlemen ignorant of the fundamental principle of our law, that people who live at other people's expense are paupers. Now I should like to know if these people pay any rent at all for their lodgings? We do not live rent free in our houses or chambers; and I cannot see—even if it is part of the Royal Prerogative to fill these Royal Palaces with these aristocratic paupers—why they should not be asked to pay a moderate rent, drawing, as many of them do, substantial salaries or allowances from the pockets of the taxpayers. It would be reasonable that they should pay sufficient to meet the cost of repairs, and to that extent relieve the suffering people who have to pay taxes to support these aristocratic paupers. I would suggest that Her Majesty's Advisers should put this in a plain common-sense way before Her Majesty. We all know that Her Majesty is an exceedingly kind-hearted woman, with great common sense and great respect for the Constitution, and I am sure she would be delighted to assist her suffering subjects to the extent of the value of the rent of these lodgings she not lets, but gives away, to foreigners and

  1059
  others who dwell in them. We are this year celebrating the Jubilee of Her Majesty's accession to the Throne, and during the past half-century we have been paying annually to Her Majesty £385,000, or something more—last year we voted £410,000. When the proper time comes we shall ask why it is we should pay so much more than we consented to pay? Some £800,000 a-year is the cost of the Royal Family. During these 50 years the Royal Family have absorbed from the taxation of the country something like £23,210,000, or probably a great deal more by this time. Have we not, then, substantial grounds for asking that some relief should be given where it is so much needed to the overburdened taxpayers at the expense of those we consider are overpaid? So I make my request that the Government will place these matters in a common-sense light before Her Majesty, that she should make her lodgers in their Royal Palaces pay rent, seeing that we have been paying the rent for these people in the long past; that we are now overtaxed, many of us starving; and that it would be a graceful act to afford her suffering people this relief. Next I would ask to whom do these places really belong—to us, or to Her Majesty? When we come to Maryborough. House a similar question will arise. I have studied all the Acts of Parliament bearing upon the subject, and I can find nothing about these Royal Palaces; in fact, the Acts of Parliament relating to Her Majesty and her belongings are so wrapped up as to evade the closest scrutiny. What is the logical position? If we are the owners, we are responsible for the repairs; or do the Royal Family hold these Palaces on repairing leases? We have a right to know the position. It is all very well for the Commissioners of Works to put us off, as the House has been put off in past years. The nation is of opinion that the Royal Family costs the country a great deal too much, and when they reflect upon the comparison with the cost in the United States——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not confining himself to the Question.
  MR. CONYBEARE: It was merely a casual illustration. I will confine myself to the point. We have a right to demand the excision of these unnecessary
  1060
  items of expenditure—first, on the ground that we are sent here to do so by our constituents, who look very closely at these items; secondly, on the ground that the people are overtaxed for the purpose of maintaining pauperized aristocrats, who are living in these Palaces; and, chiefly and lastly, that this being the Jubilee year, it is reasonable to ask for some relief to the taxpayer, and this is a reasonable way of granting it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 121: Majority 68.—(Div. List. No. 75.) [8.15 A.M.]
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SEXTON: At this stage it might be convenient if some Member of the Government would inform us when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is likely to be in his place?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W.H. SMITH)said, a message had been sent to his right hon. Friend.
  MR. CONYBEARE: AS we must not waste time while the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is being found, the next item upon which we have to ask for a reduction of a trifling amount is £500 for Marlborough House. I find among the items £150 for the construction of a drying closet; and then I find a charge for the substitution of embossed for plain glass. These are matters of luxury for which I do not think we should be called upon to pay. I think His Royal Highness might undertake that. Then we have £300 for drains, £205 for other alterations, water rate £10, and ordinary maintenance £1,455. What I wish to remark is this—that if, as I intimated just now, we are the landlords of this Palace, we may fairly be called upon to pay for repairs and so forth; but then I have a right to ask whether His Royal Highness pays any rent, or on what terms he occupies the Palace? I would suggest that if we give him this Palace to live in, we should ask him to pay the rent of it, and also to pay the water rate. Those Royal personages like us to pay for all these things; but I object to it, and do so in the interests of the Royal Family itself, whose popularity is rapidly waning—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must speak respectfully of the Royal Family in debate. The Royal Family have nothing to do with the present Vote; it is a Vote for Marlborough House.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I was saying, Sir, I advocated this curtailment of expense on behalf of the Royal Family, for whom I entertain, of course, the greatest respect. I was trying to make my meaning clear, that the taxpayers feel very strongly on the question of this expenditure. I did not wish to convey anything disrespectful to the Royal Family—far from it——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to respect my ruling; he is repeating the very words I said were not in Order.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I was repeating them in order to withdraw them——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not allowed to repeat observations I have ruled out of Order.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I will not repeat them; I only desire to make it clear that the people of this country watch this expenditure with the closest scrutiny. It is, to my mind, strictly in the interest of Monarchical institutions that we should take every means to reduce this expenditure. At any rate, what I want to know in respect to Marlborough House is exactly what is our relation to it—does it belong to the nation, or to the Royal Family? If to the nation, under what terms is it occupied by His Royal Highness? I would not trouble the right hon. Gentleman with this question, except that I have made the most assiduous efforts to find out an answer for myself; but I cannot find, in any Act of Parliament, anything bearing on the question. It is in order that people outside may be enlightened, that I bring this before the Committee on a Motion to reduce the item on account of Marl-borough House by £500.
  Motion made and Question put, "That the Item of £5 00, for Marl borough House, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 115: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 76.) [8.30. A.M.]
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The next item I find is the Royal Parks
  1062
  and their grounds, and we are asked to contribute £17,000 for the purpose. I must do the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) the justice to congratulate him for the lower Estimate this year than last. There are some very serious things, I believe, in these Votes which require explanation, and I protest strongly against anything of the sort being concealed from the public view. I shall, therefore, move that this £17,000 be reduced by £14,000. Before I examine the detailed items, I would like to learn why the London Parks appear in this list, while the other Parks, like Victoria, Hyde Park, and Battersea, are not to be found? I think that the right hon. Gentleman is bound by the promise on this subject made by the right hon. Gentleman the then Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Guilders). Last year we obtained a majority, and it was agreed that the Vote should be taken upon Report without discussion, on condition that a Bill should at once be brought in, transferring and vesting in the Metropolitan Board of Works the possession of and the duty of looking after these London Parks. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) since then has announced the Bill, and it is to be hoped that it will be speedily passed in this House. I will give an instance, Sir, of some of the absurdities in this Vote. Many Gentlemen, especially country Gentlemen opposite, are fond of field sports, and have gamekeepers. Well, this is how some gamekeepers are paid out of this Vote—and I wonder is there any country Gentleman opposite who pays in the same generous way. The head gamekeeper of Bushey Park gets £100 per annum and £10 in addition; the keeper at Greenwich Park gets £100 per annum, and I do not know what game he keeps in that Park. The Hampton Court gamekeeper receives £150; but the man who gets the most is the fortunate gamekeeper of Richmond Park, who receives £358, and the under-keeper £150. I ask any hon. Gentleman who is acquainted with these matters, whether they can find any people to give these sums to their gamekeepers, or more than £60, £70, or £80 at the most a-year? There is, besides, a very great complaint in the neighbourhood of Richmond Park, which is kept up for the benefit of the Ranger, the Duke of Cambridge. The complaint is that the property of neigh-

  1063
  bouring persons gets destroyed, and really, a part altogether from this damage, I see no reason, if a man wants partridges and pheasants and such like in a park so near London, he should not pay for that himself. Then, there is no game in Greenwich Park, and the gamekeeper has no game to keep. It is preposterous, Sir, that these charges should be year after year in the Estimates, and that there should be protests every year from Radicals, who are the sound political economists, and yet all the Chief Commissioner of Works will do is to produce a book, an official book—and he is nowhere without it—which comes to him from his Predecessors, whoso excuses he repeats without imagination, but slavishly reads his lesson from the book. I cannot understand how it is those men, who have nothing to do—who are gamekeepers without game—are paid these large salaries every year. We want to make it clear to every Government that if they hope to get through the Estimates easily they will do well not to bring in Votes on Account. It is on account of my objection to these, among other things, that I move these reductions, and in this case from £17,000 to £14,000, which will still leave a margin to enable the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to get on for a fortnight.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £17,000, for Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds, be reduced by the sum of £14,000."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish, Sir, to draw attention to one fact. We are asked to pay salaries for Rangers and Deputy Rangers to Richmond, Hyde, and other Parks. The Ranger, I think, is somebody called George. I do not know him. However, Rangers and Superintendents are, it appears, military officers in the receipt of high pay from Army funds. we have to complain against these persons being put into these sinecures. If they are paid as Hangers they should not be paid as officers. The two offices are totally inconsistent with each other. It is supposed that their military duties, for which they are paid, take up their time; but if they choose to become Rangers they should got nothing in addition to their salaries as officers. Apparently those positions are simply a sort of jobbing, often established by the wisdom
  1064
  of our ancestors, or in fulfilment of musty contracts. And there is no need for them. In the face of the depression of trade and condition of the people, a rearrangement of these matters should be introduced, and these sinecures done away with. It is quite clear that if military officers are appointed as Rangers they should give up their highly paid offices in the Army. Besides, I cannot see why those people of substantial wealth should receive so many thousands from the pockets of the taxpayer, and they should be made to pay for their own lodgings when they are installed in these berths. Questions like these greatly affect the welfare of the people, and the Government should re-cognize the necessity there is for them to make some determined effort to got rid of these anomalies.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): If, Sir, the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) insists on going through all the items in this Vote I cannot hope quite to follow; but those of his questions which were distinctly asked I shall endeavour to answer. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman has asked me about the fact that last year an arrangement was arrived at for the purpose of transferring certain Parks to the Representatives of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, whilst certain of the Royal Parks were still to be retained on the Estimates. As a matter of fact, a Bill for this purpose has already been introduced and read a first time, and is on the Paper for second reading; but, unfortunately, owing to the circumstance that it has been blocked by an hon. Member opposite, I have not yet been able to bring it on any further. How-ever, I am prepared to say, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton will undertake to got that block removed, I, for my part, will promise to proceed with the Bill on the first possible occasion; and if the Bill be passed this Session it will be in operation in six months. In regard to the objection that the neighbourhood of the Parks where the game is preserved is dangerous, so far as my memory serves me, I do not know of any incident which has occurred that has manifested those dangers. There was a point in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the expense of maintaining the Royal Parks and the

  1065
  gamekeepers. But there were no gamekeepers to preserve the game for the use of any person in these Parks. The keepers there are paid for by the Rangers; but the keepers who appear in this Vote are those who look alter the Parks and the ornamental deer only.
  MR. JAMES STUART: The circumstances under which this Vote is now brought forward are very disadvantageous for a proper discussion, especially considering that it is 9 o'clock in the morning, when the body is wearied and the mind jaded. On the last occasion that this Vote was discussed the House was fairly full, and we obtained the publication of the proceedings and some reduction of the items. But now, as the condition of the House is, the likelihood of getting any reduction of the items is not much, and anything we do can only be of the nature of protest. It is very necessary for those who object to this Vote to keep hammering away from year to year at these abuses. It is only by keeping these matters prominently before the notice of the public that attention is attracted to the multiplicity of small items upon which public money is wasted or badly spent for the benefit, to a large extent, of a certain number of select individuals. It is better to move the reduction of a Vote by some definite sum, pointing out that that sum is definitely applicable to some definite purpose; and I am sorry that we are obliged to postpone the moving of the reduction of this Vote by a definite sum; but I hope, when the time comes to discuss the Estimates as a whole, we shall be able to move some definite reduction. When we call the attention of Parliament to these salaries the absurdity of the expenditure of many of these Votes appears. They furnish a great many pickings to persons who are well enough off without them. A great many people are better contented when the items of these Votes are better looked into, and for these reasons I support the reduction.
  MR. MOLLOY: I wish to call attention to the fact in regard to Richmond Park that the carriage way of a certain private road is always closed, although the passenger gate is open. Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) undertake to see if it is possible to get the drive open?
  MR. PLUNKET: I will do my best.
  DR. TANNER: It was my intention sometime ago to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, when this Vote came before the Committee, to a point in connection with Kew Gardens. There is a portion of the grounds at the further end not properly laid down as horticultural ground, and from time to time many requests have appeared in the public Press, that citizens who go there should be allowed to partake of any light refreshment they had with them. Hitherto there has been an express prohibition placed on anybody entering the grounds against their doing so, and they have been obliged to leave their sandwiches and oranges at the gate, Kew is a source of pleasure and delight to anyone who goes there, and not merely to those who are interested in botanical studies. It is placed there for public instruction and observation; there can be had exercise and pleasure combined with pure air and instruction. I frequently go there, and there is one thing I have noticed; there is an obvious tendency in connection with the higher class plants to have too many of the same class; and nothing seems to be done to multiply varieties, as I think ought to be attempted. Further, I wish to say our public Parks and Gardens are not so open to the public on Sundays as one would imagine or wish, and, indeed, as on other days, there are too many rules and restrictions, interfering with the enjoyment of the public. But, returning to Kew, I wish to point out how convenient it would be to allow the public to take with them, into the portion I have referred to, something in the shape of light refreshment. I intend to stand up for the poor people of England as well as of Ireland; and I believe it would be a gracious act on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to do away with these restrictions.
  MR. WALLACE: As a Scotch Member who has taken some part in what I will venture to call this carnival of obstinacy and folly on the part of the Government, I intend to support what is put to the First Commissioner of Works in this matter. It may be said that Kew Gardens are of little interest to Scotland. My reply is that there is a very large Scotch population in London—probably more Scotchmen are to be found here than either in

  1067
  Edinburgh or Glasgow; and they have a deep interest in the freedom of the people to enjoy these Gardens. Many of the restrictions imposed are not necessary for the exigencies of science, while they are inconvenient to the people. I admit that great credit is due to the Government in many respects for the arrangements they have made for the convenience of the public. But the official mind is naturally and constitutionally opposed to public freedom; and I think the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works might do a great deal more for the public if he were to resist the tendency to officialdom in these Gardens. I do trust that, as a result of the representations made, something will be done in this matter.
  MR. PLUNKET: As to what the hon. Member has said relative to the proceedings of the past night, I must state that as far as my experience goes, and as far as the information given me by competent authorities goes, this examination in detail of a Vote on Account is unparalleled in the House of Commons; and it would be quite impossible to find any precedent for it. But so long as the House chooses to tolerate these proceedings, it is my duty to answer any questions put; and, therefore, I will reply to the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). I can only say that since I have been First Commissioner I have tried to make the public Parks and Gardens as free as is possible, consistently with their proper care and treatment. I have not seen the newspaper criticisms to which he has referred; but if he will send them to me I will consider the matter raised.
  DR. TANNER: My request is that more freedom should be allowed in the portion of the Gardens not devoted to horticultural specimens.
  MR. PLUNKET: I will go into it as soon as I have the matter before me. As regards the other matter, I will do my best; but I see great difficulty before me.
  MR. JAMES STUART: The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works has said it is unprecedented that these matters should be discussed now in detail. I will remind him that the conditions under which the discussion is taking place are remarkable and peculiar.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Sir JOHN GOEST): Order, order! I do not think the hon.
  1068
  Gentleman is in Order in discussing the question as to whether items may or may not be dismissed now.
  MR. SEXTON: We are obliged to the First Commissioner of Works for the answer he is always willing to give with so much courtesy. But I must tell him the responsibility for what he calls an unparalleled discussion rests with the Government for deliberately attempting to carry a Vote of £3,500,000 after midnight on the last day on which it can be legally taken.
  MR. CHANCE: When I come to look at the items comprised in this Vote I find a sum of £57 for munitions. Anyone versed in these matters knows that represents an expenditure of at least 4,000 cartridges, or 6,000 shots. Are all these shots used to kill a few deer? If they are, I do not envy the recipients of the carcasses of the animals. We are told there is little firing done, but I have known Richmond Park literally obscured by smoke caused by the butchery which is carried on four or five times every season. This is evidence that there is a considerable head of game, and I suppose we have to pay money for men to tend this game. A considerable portion of Richmond Park is railed off for the purpose of pro-serving game. I note, too, that a part of Kew Gardens is railed off. Is it for the same purpose? I did not know there was any game there. It is a bad policy to restrict the enjoyment of the people, especially as we are paying large sums yearly for the maintenance of the Gardens. I see one gentleman has £300 a-year as Ranger in one Park. I would suggest to the Committee that it would be reasonable to dispense with his services, and instead to employ five or six men, at a salary of £1 a-week, to pick up any litter visitors may leave behind.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: Complaint is made of our discussing the items in the Estimates. I can only hope that future Parliaments will emulate our example in this matter.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 144: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 77.) [9.20 A.M.]
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SEXTON: As it is important that we should be enabled to decide whether we should now proceed with the discussion of the Irish

  1069
  items in the Vote, it would be convenient if the Government would inform us whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has yet arrived at the House, and, if not, how soon we may expect him?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, I think I must ask for leave to report Progress, in order to get an answer to the question just put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). An hon. Member below the Gangway opposite says that no engagement was made. That hon. Gentleman, however, was not in the House at the time, and an engagement was made.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Sir John Gorst, as I was present when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) made the statement to which the hon. Member has referred, I may state that what my right hon. Friend said was simply this—that if there seemed to be a prospect of an important Irish debate coming on, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would be sent for. After the statement which the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has made, I will send for my right hon. Friend.
  MR. SEXTON: I am surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman says. My voice is worn out with continually stating that I am anxious to bring forward the Irish Question. At about C o'clock the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would send for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. We intimated that we were anxious to see the right hon. Gentleman, and we have been waiting for him ever since. If there is a prospect of the right hon. Gentleman turning up soon, we will ask the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) not to proceed further with his Amendments.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I may say that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not
  1070
  send for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary at C o'clock was, that there was continual obstruction, and no attempt was being made to got on with Business.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I strongly protest against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that there has been anything like obstruction in this matter. I hold, Sir, that there has been no speech made, no act done, no question addressed to the Government which could be styled obstructive
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is in Order for the hon. Member to discuss whether there has been obstruction or not.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Well, Sir, who initiated that discussion? I did not. I only wished to repudiate the charge. On the Motion to report Progress, I have to say that I fully understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was to be sent for in order that he might be in his place when the Irish debate came on, and an hon. Member left the House apparently with the object of fetching him.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: As I have obtained an answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Nobody can say we are obstructing now, Sir John Gorst, any more than it can truly be said that we have been obstructing hitherto. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) has been good enough to toll us that somebody has sent for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, and we must now go on, whether we wish it or not, until the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary turns up. I am, therefore, obliged to proceed with the discussion of these items. With regard to Vote 6, which relates to public buildings, I find that the number of houses taken by the various Members of the Government is perpetually on the increase I find hero an item relating to the "residence of the First Naval Lord," 34, Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster. I assume that the "First Naval Lord" means the noble Lord (Lord George

  1071
  Hamilton) on the Treasury Bench. [Cries of "No!"] No! Then it is all the worse. You have a First Naval Lord, who receives a salary of £1,200 per annum, which is regarded as the value of his services. I suppose there were one or two rooms at some time in the Admiralty in which he managed to establish himself. The Admiralty is to be altered, and so a Gentleman whose salary is £1.200 a-year has a house taken for him at a rent of £700 per annum. I ask whether anything can be more monstrous than that? As the house happens to be near where I live, I have had my eye on it, and have observed plate-glass windows being put in and ornamentation going on there. No doubt I shall find the cost of it all in the Estimates. Now, I ask whether we ought not to put a stop to a system under which we give to Gentlemen houses which cost the country more than half of their salary? At any rate, we ought to have some explanation on the subject.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): The First Naval Lord is not the same person as my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), and it is necessary that the First Naval Lord should by provided with a house.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, I will pass to Vote No. 10, which relates to Metropolitan Police Courts. We are now asked to Vote £1,500) in respect of the maintenance of these Courts. There is no town in the country, besides London, which has the cost of its Police Courts thrown on the general taxpayer. In all other instances the expense is borne by the ratepayers, and I really do not see why the taxpayers should be called upon to meet it in regard to London. Why in the world the inhabitants of Northampton, for instance, should be asked to pay not only for their own Police Court, but also for the Police Courts of the richest town on the face of the earth, I really cannot conceive. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £1,500, for the Metropolitan Police Courts, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Labourchere.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to know, Sir, how we are to understand the silence of the Government? There is no Member present who is responsible for this expenditure.
  Mr. COURTNEY here resumed the Chair. [9.35 A.M.]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Courtney, we are in this extraordinary position, that, as far as I understand, there is no one present to speak for the Government in reference to this Vote. I am told that the Vote comes within the Department of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket.). Of course, if that be so, I withdraw the observation.
  MR. PLUNKET: I must repeat, Mr. Courtney, what I said a short time ago—namely, that this process of discussing at length the items in the Estimates on a Vote on Account is most unusual and extremely inconvenient, and I believe that, with one single exception, there is no precedent for dealing with a Vote on Account in such a way. The Vote is only asked for to enable the Government to carry on the Business of the country until the Estimates can be brought forward in the ordinary way. Having made that protest, I must say again that, as long as the Committee chooses to allow that proceeding to continue, it is my duty to answer hon. Gentlemen. In reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) I can assure the Committee that the question he has referred to has been raised over and over again. The Metropolitan Police Courts continue to be provided by the taxpayers on the same principle as the County Courts are paid for by the taxpayers. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) reminds me that all the fees and fines gathered in the Police Courts are paid into the Treasury, and I have no doubt, therefore, that if an account were taken it would be found that, on the whole, the taxpayers lose nothing by the present system.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman's argument hardly holds good, because there are County Courts as well as Police Courts in the Metropolis. I have often wondered whore the receipts from the Police Court fines and fees go to. The right hon. Gentleman says they are paid into the Treasury,

  1073
  and that they exceed the cost of the Courts. If so, why do we not have it stated in the Votes that the Police Courts support themselves? The right hon. Gentleman complains that we are going through the Accounts item by item. I can only say that if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government did not wish us to do this, they have greatly wasted the public money in having the Estimates printed and circulated amongst Members. We have had these printed Estimates given to us for our guidance, and we are told that we are doing a monstrous thing if we venture to discuss any of the items. We protest against the action of the Government, and still more against the action of the Ministers who preceded them, in getting the House into the habit of voting large sums of money on Account. I think that the couse we have followed to-day will tend to induce Governments not to take away henceforward all the time of private Members up to the 21st of March, then to bring forward a Vote on Account, and to complain because the items in that Vote are discussed. The Government will find that we are now establishing a precedent, and I trust that on all future occasions when Votes on Account are asked for, Parliament will follow the excellent example we are setting.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 18G: Majority 135.—(Div. List. No. 78.) [9.40 A.M.]
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am sure we are all anxious to bring these proceedings to a close as speedily as we can, consistently with the proper discharge of our duty. I, therefore, propose to pass over a large number of items in Class II., and come to Class III., in order to come to the Vote for the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords and the salaries of Cabinet Ministers. Indeed, so anxious am I to simplify matters, that I will ask the Committee to consent to an Amendment for the reduction of two separate items by putting the two items together. So far as the officials of the House of Lords are concerned, I was anxious to do away with the whole expenditure; but I pro-
  1074
  pose to confine the Motion to a simple reduction. It is well known that the clerks of the House of Lords and other employés there are paid on a higher scale than similar officers in this House. The second item I move to reduce is that which provides the salaries of Ministers I have already placed on the Paper, an Amendment upon the main Estimate, to reduce the salaries of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those two Gentlemen are both very rich Gentlemen, so that they can scarcely conceive I have any personal intentions in the matter. But I do not think that, considering the number of Ministers we have who do their work well and efficiently for the sum of £2,000 a-year, we ought not to give more than £2,000 to any other Minister sitting on that Bench. It would be most regrettable that there should be a desire for Office for the mere sake of the emoluments of Office. I am afraid that there is a greater desire than there used to be to obtain Office on that account; but I doubt whether, if the salaries were considerably reduced, we should have Gentlemen so very anxious for the mere honour of the thing to sit on that Bench night after night and perform Administrative duties. It may be said that they work hard; but we work hard too, and right hon. Gentlemen are not paid for the work they do in this House, but for being Members of the Administration. I do not believe in the appointment of Ministers because they are men of genius. On the contrary, I believe that men who know something about business would make the best Ministers. Of course, there must be some head to direct the whole machine; but, as a rule, a few partners selected from flourishing concerns would make just as good Ministers as the ordinary article which we got, and I am perfectly convinced that there are very few clerks in any bank in the City who would not make as good officials as the small fry who sit on that Bench. I may add that in every other country in the civilized world, the salaries of Ministers are considerably less than they are hero, and certainly they are not more than you would pay if you reduce the present salaries to £2,000 per annum. I am strongly of opinion that it is most desirable to

  1075
  reduce these enormous salaries from £5,000 per annum to £2,000. It may be said that there are heavy expenses connected with the position of a Minister. Now, I have looked into that matter, and I have very grave doubts about it. Perhaps the Foreign Minister may have large expenses; but, certainly, not the First Lord of the Treasury, nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I take it that all they have to do is to give a few dinners to their private friends. If they were not in the Ministry, perhaps they might not give the official soirées and routs which are now-a-days given by a Cabinet Minister to "the classes," but what I object to is that "the classes" should be entertained at the expense of the taxpayers. If a Minister desires to entertain "the classes" and the aristocracy, let him entertain them out of his own pocket. I bog to move the reduction of £4,000 in the item for the salaries of officers of the House of Lords, and of £6,000 in that for salaries of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the total amounting to a sum of £10,000 in classes one and two.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be necessary in that case to move the reduction of £10,000 in the whole Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Would that prevent any subsequent reduction being moved?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Not subsequent to the Treasury Vote.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,614,100, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888."—(Mr. Labouchere).
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 204: Majority 155.—(Div. List, No. 79.) [10.10 A.M.]
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SEXTON: If necessary I shall conclude with a Motion; but I think it is desirable, at tills stage, that the Committee and also the country should understand the manner in which hon. Members, and especially the Irish Members, are being dealt with by Her Majesty's Government, and by the right hon. Gentleman who now holds the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. This Vote was first put from the
  1076
  Chair at 5 o'clock this morning. For several hours before that time—I think as early as 2 o'clock—upon several occasions the Irish Members intimated that they were prepared to raise upon the Vote certain questions of the very gravest importance to their country. Now, this Vote includes, among its numerous items, the salary of the Chief Secretary who has recently accepted that Office; but during the course of this prolonged Sitting the right hon. Gentleman has not honoured us with his presence. Four hours ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having been strongly informed of our desire to proceed with Irish Questions, said that a message would be sent requesting the attendance of the right hon. Gentleman. We hoped that that message would be speedily followed by his bodily presence. However, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer repented of his courtesy, or the messenger proved incompetent to discharge the duty entrusted to him, I am unable to say; but the promise has not yet had any substantial result. A second time we applied for the presence of the Chief Secretary, and a second time a Cabinet Minister, in this case the Secretary of State for War, informed us that a messenger would be sent to procure his attendance. Now, I am stating a fact which can be tested by the visual power of every hon. Member, when I say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not yet appeared in his place. Many questions of great magnitude require to be discussed on these Votes. There have already been mentioned the murder of the man Hanlon at Youghal, the repeated suppression of public meetings in Ireland without cause, and the protracted delay in dealing with the favourable recommendations of the Royal Commissioners in regard to the Catholic minority in the town of Belfast. What can be the meaning of asking us to go through the form of a debate in the absence of the Minister who, by the position he holds, is responsible, and who is required to give an answer to our complaints? We have remained here all night in the discharge of our duty to our constituents. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who enjoys a high dignity and great emolument, has all the time been quietly and comfortably

  1077
  in bed. If he should now arrive here, after a good night's sleep and a hearty breakfast, it would certainly be a very unequal debate between him and myself. I have been 19 hours in continuous attendance upon the Business of this House, and for 14 hours I have been without food. [A laugh.] Hon. Members may well laugh; they have taught us how to do without food in Ireland. The question I wish to ask is this—Is the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland coming down to this House at all? Have these repeated messengers who have gone forth from the ark brought back any answer? If he is coming down, how soon may we expect him? If he is not coming down, do the Government intend to press to a Division the Irish items of this Vote? If he is not coming down, I ask, in the name of common sense and in the name of humanity, that we, who have been 19 hours in constant attendance in the House engaged in the fatiguing exercise of debating those Votes, should be released?
  MR. BARTLEY: Mr. Courtney, I wish to know from you, Sir, whether it is in Order for an hon. Member opposite to say that if he catches me outside he will black my eyes?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Such an observation is clearly out of Order.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I rise to make a personal explanation. I did not use those words.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No name was mentioned. It is not, therefore, necessary to explain. Mr. Sexton.
  MR. SEXTON: I am in the unfortunate position of having been repeatedly interrupted by calls to Order for riot and imaginary offences. The question I have risen to call the attention of the Committee to is the inability of the Irish Members to discuss certain items of expenditure in the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is coming down at all this morning to perform his public duties? If he is coming, when will he be here, and are we expected to engage in debate with him after the exhausting Sitting we have already had?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Member appeals, I presume, to me. I must remind
  1078
  the Committee that at 11 o'clock last night we offered to withdraw the Navy Vote, in order that progress might be made with the debate which is now going on. That offer, however, was refused, and until 5 o'clock in the morning the debate on the Navy Vote was kept up, against the wish of the Government, who desired to withdraw the Vote in order to allow the present debate to be brought on. In the view of the Government, it is necessary, in the public interests, that this Vote should be taken at this Sitting. It is most unusual—in fact, I believe it is contrary to the practice of Parliament—to debate items in a Vote on Account. [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen who say "No!" may have their own views on the matter, but I am entitled to state mine with the full sense of the responsibility which belongs to any statement I may make. I repeat that it is contrary to the practice of Parliament to debate items in a Vote on Account; and it has been so held by the highest authorities, and especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). Let me remind hon. Gentlemen that if they are to claim on every item in a Vote on Account, the right and privilege of debate in Supply in the House of Commons must break down altogether, It is utterly impossible for this Committee to debate item after item in a Vote on Account, and to maintain the privileges of the House, and discharge their duty as guardians of the public purse. The right to debate an item arises only when that special item is put from the Chair. Each item must be put from the Chair before it is finally passed. The charge for a particular Service cannot be voted by Parliament in any other way; and, therefore, I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to permit the usual practice of Parliament to be observed on the present occasion—to allow Parliament to discharge its proper duties, and to allow this Vote to be taken according to the usage and practice of Parliament, and the best interests of the country we are here to serve. The hon. Member has made an appeal to me with regard to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I am informed that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an intimation that he would be sent for.

  1079
  [An hon. MEMBER: Then produce him.] Without further detaining the Committee, I must enter a protest against debating the items of a Vote on Account as opposed to the best interests of Parliament.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me respectfully to ask him one question? We do not desire to discuss items, but to raise upon this Vote on Account certain questions of policy. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that we are entitled to raise questions of policy, and that it has been the uniform practice of Parliament to raise questions of policy on Votes on Account. Although the right hon. Gentleman asserts that we have no Constitutional right to debate items; does he deny our right to raise questions of public policy, or does he say that we are not entitled to decline to proceed with the discussion of questions of policy relating to Ireland in the absence of the Chief Secretary?
  COLONEL NOLAN: I will not dispute with the First Lord of the Treasury the exact hour at which he made the offer to withdraw the Navy Vote, he may have been within an hour of the actual time But assuming the statement to be perfectly correct, I and other Irish Members were desirous of debating the Naval Vote. After he offered to withdraw it, at 11 o'clock, two hours of solid debate occurred on English Votes; and when 1 o'clock is readied, everybody knows that the Reporters' Gallery is clear, or very nearly so, and it would have been of very little use for us to debate very important Irish questions when the speeches of the Irish Members could not have been reported. If we had accepted the offer of the First Lord of the Treasury, we should have been launched into a very important debate at an altogether unusual hour, and a debate would have taken place which could not, by any possibility, have been reported at any length. Therefore, I think the Irish Members were perfectly justified in declining the offer of the First Lord of the Treasury. That was one point in the speech of the First Lord; and as he has given the view of the Treasury Bench, I think it is just as well that the country should know what the views of the Irish Members are in regard to what occurred last night. It was after half-past 11 when this offer on
  1080
  the part of the Government was made, and I have described what subsequently occurred. There is another point in the statement of the First Lord to which I must refer. He has declared, categorically and emphatically, that it is wrong—I do not think he went so far as to say that it was wicked—to debate the items of a Vote on Account. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is a Minister, and he looks at the question exclusively from an official stand-point; but I think there are high authorities who may be set against him. I recollect the late Mr. Butt declaring, in emphatic terms, that it was wrong to give Votes on Account at all. I must say that, high as the authority of the First Lord of the Treasury is on Parliamentary practice, Mr. Butt's authority as to Constitutional usage and practice was at least as high. I think he will find that the old practice was not to introduce Votes on Account at all, and that it is quite a novel practice. [Mr. W. H. SMITH dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but that was the opinion expressed by Mr. Butt; and Mr. Butt, who was always received as a high authority, was in this House before many hon. Members opposite were born. I consider that our conduct has not only been justified, but that we should have fallen far short of our duty if we had adopted any other course By holding on during the night, we have reached an hour when we can expect to be reported, and we can show the country that we have been here to defend the public purse, and to discuss these items properly. Where the Government were wrong was this—they should have agreed to take the Naval Vote at 1 o'clock in the morning, and then have postponed the consideration of the Vote on Account. Is it reasonable to suppose that a sum of £3,600,000 should be voted without any discussion at all? We offered to take Wednesday or Thursday for the debate; indeed, we made every offer we could to conciliate the Government. We were most anxious to avoid the scandal of this All-night Sitting, and the excitement which it has produced; but we were not prepared to give the Government a sum of £3,600,000 without debate. I think the country will be of opinion that we were right.
  MR. WALLACE: As one who has been present throughout the whole of the Sitting, I desire to

  1081
  speak upon a question of fact; because there has been an unconscious divergence of statement between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury. At 7 o'clock this morning the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was prepared to hear a statement of grievances upon every item contained in the Vote on Account. We offered him a compromise on the matter; but he would not accept it. But now, after four and a-half hours' further debate, a number of hon. Gentlemen have come in who have not heard a word of what passed, and they cheer and support the First Lord of the Treasury when he goes entirely against the statement that was made by the Representative of the Government at the time the right hon. Gentleman himself was probably asleep. Now, how is it possible to carry on a proper discussion on terms of that description? I claim, as one who was attending to my duty, while others were absent, the fulfilment of the promise which was made by the Representative of the Government between 6 and 7 this morning. I have always understood that a first contract should stand until a second contract has been accepted by both parties to the first. I therefore must distinctly claim that the discussion should be allowed to go on on the lines laid down to us, and definitely laid down to us, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opposition to our offers of compromise. I desire to add my humble voice to what has been stated by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), that we are now entitled by the offer made to us by the Government to debate the items contained in this Vote, and we are further entitled to ask that those Members of the Government who are responsible for the items should be present to answer any questions that may be raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would be sent for. That promise was made four hours ago. How long does it take to send for the right hon. Gentleman, and how long does it take to awake him? I am not prepared to say that there may not be reasons why he should not always be wide awake; but I think he might be made tolerably wide awake in the course of four hours. I think he ought to be
  1082
  here on the simple ground of the contract made between the Government and the Irish Members.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have not ventured to offer a single word upon this Vote on Account, and therefore I cannot be accused of any improper motive in rising to take part in the present discussion. No doubt I did take part in the previous debate. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has imputed to us, as a matter of blame, that when the Government wished to withdraw the Navy Tote, the proposition to withdraw it was opposed from these Benches. I maintain that it was rightfully resisted, and the resistance had this result that, instead of having the whole evening wasted, the Navy Vote was finally disposed of, and the Sitting was not, so far, lost. For the fact that it was not lost the House is not indebted to the Government, but to those who refused their consent to the withdrawal of the Vote. The Navy Vote involved a sum of nearly £1,000,000, and already on this Vote on Account we have agreed to items that make up a considerable amount—probably amounting to another £333,000. If we had passed the whole of the Vote on Account we should have been voting away the money of the country for several hours at the rate of £10,000 a-minute. I think that is scarcely the way in which the money of the country should be dealt with. We have passed Class I., and in the remaining items I contend there are matters which ought to receive the attention of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury says—and he told us he made the statement with all the responsibility which attaches to a statement from him in his place on the Treasury Bench—that it is altogether against the practice of Parliament to discuss the items of a Vote on Account. Now we have no desire to discuss all the items in this Vote on Account; but if we did want to discuss them, we are entitled to do so, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is altogether wrong. We have had these Votes on Account brought before us during the last five or six years, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that in each of those years the items contained in the Votes wore discussed. Among those who have been most ener-

  1083
  getic in their opposition to Votes on Account have been the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) and several of his associates of the Fourth Party who are now on the Government Bench. Now with regard to Class II.—that Class contains the Vote for the Board of Trade; and in reference to the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade there is a question connected with a certain surplus, which, in my opinion, ought to secure the attention of a Committee of this House at the earliest possible moment; because while we are voting money for the Board of Trade, the Board is practically plundering the creditors of bankrupt estates by exacting fees altogether disproportionate and unreasonable. The Board is making up a fund from those fees and placing it practically under the control of the Treasury. The Treasury itself is proposing to draw on the fund in a way which was not contemplated when the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 was passed; and in order to make up for the depreciation of that fund, all the creditors and others who have bankruptcy business to transact are being charged rates of fees that were never anticipated, and a great deal higher than wore contemplated in connection with bankruptcy proceedings. Then, again, with regard to the Mint coinage, it is within my own knowledge that an hon. Gentleman sitting above the Gangway has sat hero night after night, for many hours, for the purpose of bringing forward at the first opportunity a debate in connection with the depreciation of the coinage of this country. Then, again, year alter year money has been voted on account, and there has been no regular Estimate presented for the Patent Office. Not only has the money not been wanted for the purpose for which it has ostensibly been drawn, but year after year, systematically and deliberately, the money has been diverted from that purpose, and appropriated to a different purpose. One of the items in the present Estimates includes a sum of £900 for the salary of an individual who is actually an imaginary officer of the Patent Office. The last officer died, and his place has not been filled up for a period of nearly three years, and yet this Vote is presented without any statement to the effect that the sum drawn for the Super-
  1084
  intendent of Indexing is not required for that purpose. I think it ought to be recognized that the primary duty of those who are in charge of the Patent Office is to see that the arrears of work in connection with patents should be at once taken in hand, and pressed forward with the utmost possible despatch. The work, as a matter of fact, has been systematically neglected, and yet money has been obtained from the Committee of Supply under a deliberate false pretence. I contend that these are matters which ought to be discussed, even at this stage, upon Votes on Account. Will any reasonable man say that it is not a proper thing for a Member who is acquainted with the facts to bring them forward? I say that it is the clear duty of every Member, on every occasion when these items are open to discussion, to lay such facts before the Committee. Therefore, I protest altogether against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. If the time of the Committee has been wasted, it is not our fault, but his; and there would have been a greater waste of time if we had consented to the preposterous proposition that, after the Navy Vote had been discussed for sis or seven hours, it should then be withdrawn, and the whole of the discussion which had taken place upon it be rendered useless, and have to be renewed again.
  MR. SEXTON: As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has now, at 11 o'clock in the morning, returned to his place, I shall proceed at once to raise the question which I desired to raise when this Vote was first put from the Chair at 5 o'clock this morning, and which I was anxious to raise the moment the right hon. Gentleman was in his place. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is possible to ascertain from him what provision the Government have made or intend to make for the better security of social order in the City of Belfast? This is a question upon which I am personally charged with a heavy responsibility, and a question which I could not delay bringing before the Committee without transgressing my public duty. It may be my good or ill fortune, but at present I have the honour to represent in this House the Division of Belfast which is described in the Report

  1085
  of the Royal Commission as the main theatre of the recent riots. My Catholic constituents—the poor artizans and labourers of that Division of Belfast—are those who, as often as rioting occurs in that unfortunate town, have their district invaded, their houses broken into, their property plundered, and their lives put in danger and sometimes taken. That being the state of affairs, I think I am entitled and that I am bound to protest against any delay on the part of the Government in applying such measures as may be found necessary for the preventing any new disorder arising in Belfast. The Catholic Committee of Belfast—a body of gentlemen who are highly representative of the Catholic community of the town—have felt themselves obliged, by the scandalous inactivity of the Government, to hold a meeting, and to pass resolutions, in which they strongly and solemnly protest against the neglect of the Government to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Belfast Commissioners. Everywhere in Ireland except in Belfast the policy of the Government is thorough. It is expressed in brief apophthegms, such as "Deal summarily," "Do not hesitate;" but in Belfast they refuse to deal summarily; and although they do not hesitate elsewhere, but even kill, in regard to Belfast they agree to kill nothing but time. The Catholic Committee complain of the delay that has occurred. Lot me show the scandalous character of that delay. The riots occurred in the months of Juno, July, and August last year. They involved the taking of 30 lives at least, the wrecking of 60 houses, the looting of 30 others, and the destruction of property to the value of £90,000. A force of police and military, amounting to 6,000, was sent to Belfast in consequence of the riots which wore carried on intermittently for three months, and the whole of the town was placed in a state of the utmost confusion. What did the Government do? They appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the origin and circumstances of the riots; they nominated three of the Commissioners in August, and completed the nomination in September. The Commissioners were—Mr. Justice Day—an English Judge—Major General E. J. Bulwer, Mr. R. Adams, and Mr. Frederick Le Poer Trench,
  1086
  barristers, and Commander Wallace M. Hardy, R. N. They opened their inquiry at Belfast, in the Court House of the County of Antrim, on the 4th of October, and continued it uninterruptedly until the 25th of the same month. Nevertheless, it was not until January that they presented their Report, and even then it was only signed by four out of the five Commissioners. But although the Report was presented two months ago to the Government, up to this moment, although the Constitutional Representative and protector of these unfortunate people, my repeated applications to Her Majesty's Government have been utterly fruitless in obtaining from them what the conclusion is which they have drawn from the Report of the Commissioners, and what proposals they are prepared to make. And let the Committee consider what has happened in those two months which have elapsed since the Report was laid before the Government. Other desperate riots have broken out in Belfast. There is one sentence in the Report which ought to receive the serious attention of the Government unless they are altogether callous and careless of the consequences. It is that in which the Commissioners describe Belfast as a place where, as its history shows, riots of the most formidable kind may at any time break out. Yet the Government have remained criminally supine, although disorder has four times broken out in Belfast. What was the conduct of the Government on the 31st of January, when there was a dangerous riot, which, fortunately, however, proved to be of a transitory character, although the Government are not to be thanked for the fact, seeing that they had applied no remedial or suppressive measure. On the 31st of January a number of men were arrested for a violent attack upon the police. What happened when the men were brought up in Court? The District Inspector, who acted as prosecutor on the occasion, said that he had been directed, by desire of the Government, to ask for an adjournment, in order to await the presence of the Crown Solicitor. An adjournment accordingly took place. Now, nobody is entitled to instruct the Crown Solicitor except the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland; and hero was a statement made by an officer of

  1087
  the police with regard to a body of desperate rioters, that the case should be adjourned in order to procure the attendance of the Crown Solicitor. Two adjournments were procured on that plea, and in the end, when the case was adjudicated upon, what happened? There was no Crown Solicitor in attendance at all; but a minor agent of the Crown came forward and said that the Crown Solicitor had received no instructions from the Attorney General. The trials therefore proceeded, and the rioters were sot free on fines of 10 s. and 20 s. a-piece—fines which, so far from exercising any repressive effect on the elements of blackguard faction and brutal disorder in Belfast, distinctly held out a premium to the continuance of disorder. For the fourth time, only on Saturday last, disorder again broke out in Belfast since the presentation of the Commissioners' Report. It appears that a private of Dragoons was wandering through the streets and used language of a most offensive character to Catholics. He was cheered by a Protestant mob, and when the police arrested him the Protestant mob endeavoured to effect a rescue. The baton was resorted to. The baton is held to be a sufficiently effective weapon, in Belfast, for quelling disorder, although elsewhere than in the sacred region of Belfast a weapon somewhat more deadly than the baton is to be employed. I do not make an exaggerated statement when I complain that the Government have four times, in the course of two months, allowed rioting to take place in Belfast, which might at any moment in that magazine of gunpowder have produced an explosion that would have been fatal to life. They have allowed this length of time to elapse without having taken a single step to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners. I have already pointed out who the Commissioners were. They were gentlemen the solitary opinion of each of whom is entitled to respect, while the united opinion of the whole of them is entitled to every attention on the part of the Government. Only four of the Commissioners have signed the Report—Mr. Justice Day, an English Judge, General Bulwer, an English Major-General, and two Irish barristers, one of whom is certainly an Irish Conservative, while the other is not particularly attached to any
  1088
  Party except himself. These four gentlemen have signed the Report. The fifth Commissioner has not done so, nor has he sent in a separate Report of his own. Why has he not done so? The inquiry was closed five months ago, but Commander Wallace M'Hardy is still persistently silent. Why have not the Government either induced or compelled him to speak? At the time of the nomination of the Commission, I was strongly opposed to the appointment of this gentleman, because I knew him to be a bigot, and as having used his position as a Scotch police officer to prosecute Irish Catholics. But I did not think that oven Mr. Wallace M'Hardy would be guilty of the indecency of accepting an appointment upon the Commission on such a question as this, and then declining to perform the functions which the duties of his office imposed upon him. Why has he refused to sign the Report? I am inclined to think that a letter from the Home Secretary to Mr. Wallace M'Hardy, as Police Commissioner of the County of Lanark, would have a great effect in inducing him to sign it. If he was satisfied with the inquiry which took place in Belfast, and with the evidence taken before the Court, why has he, on two occasions, gone back to Belfast, like a thief in the night, and held secret and stealthy interviews with the people who are accused of having incited the people of Belfast to riot? I await an explanation of that act of indecency. I will now pass from the absence of Mr. Wallace M'Hardy's signature from the Report in order to consider the recommendations contained in the Report which bears the signatures of the other four Commissioners. The Commissioners were directed to—
  "Inquire into the origin and circumstances of the riots and disturbances, the cause of their continuance, the existing local arrangements for the preservation of the peace of the town of Belfast, the magisterial jurisdiction exercised within it, the amount and constitution and efficiency of the police force usually available there, the proceedings undertaken by the magistrates, stipendary and local, and other authorities, and the police force, on the occasion of the said riots and disturbances; whether these authorities and the existing police force are adequate to the future maintenance of order and tranquillity within the town; whether any and what steps ought to be taken; and whether any and what changes ought to be made in the local, magisterial, and police jurisdiction arrangements and establishment, with a view to the better preser-

  1089
  vation of the public peace, and the prevention or prompt suppression of riot and disorder."
  I beg the Committee to attend to one brief extract from the Report of the Commissioners which in a graphic picture lays bare, in a piercing light, the real nature of the provocative cause of these disturbances in Belfast. "What do the Commissioners say? They say—
  "The evidence leads us to believe that the riots, at a very early period, and certainly from and after the 8th June assumed, to a great extent, the aspect of a determined attack by the Protestant mobs upon the police, and upon the places of business of Catholics residing in Protestant quarters of the town. Of the cause of this we shall come to speak when we have to deal with other matters into which your Excellency's Warrant directs us to inquire. But in this instance of Hassan's public-house, and in several others to which we have drawn attention, the attack was undoubtedly made by Protestant mobs against the property of Catholic traders. Of course there were retaliation and faults on both sides, but so far as we can judge from the evidence twenty-eight public-houses owned by Catholics were assailed and looted during the course of the riots, and only one or two public-houses owned by Protestants."
  They might have added that 29 private houses were also wrecked. The Report proceeds—
  "This state of affairs may to a considerable extent be Recounted for by the fact that the vast majority of the public-houses in Belfast are owned by Catholics, and that when once rioting begins those engaged in the pursuit are but too prone to attack any house in which intoxicating drinks can be procured. But at the same time these incidents seemed to show, and we have arrived at the opinion, that for a considerable period, at all events, from the 8th of Juno to the 19th of September, the principal actors in the rioting were what is known as the Protestant mob. Mr. Cullen informed us that up to this date, the 19th September, the Catholic Party behaved remarkably well, and Mr. M'Clelland, a Protestant magistrate, stated to us that the endurance and patience of the Catholics during the riots was simply wonderful. We are of opinion that the comparative good conduct of the Catholics must be largely attributed to the zealous exertions of the Catholic Bishop and clergy, who, during the riots, laboured persistently in the cause of peace, and who exercised over their people a great and most beneficial influence."
  It is on behalf of that Catholic minority in Belfast, so certified to be patient and enduring, that I now appeal to the Chair and the Committee to support me in obtaining from the Government an immediate declaration of the policy they intend to pursue in order to secure the future preservation of order. The Commissioners say—
  1090
  "We attribute the extraordinary persistence of the riots largely to the intensity of feeling in Belfast during the period covered by them, a fact admitted upon all sides. The weakness of parleying with, and yielding to the mob did much harm. Had the police not been withdrawn on the 9th of June the tumult of the night would, in our opinion, have been suppressed with comparative case, and the heavy loss of life which caused so much exasperation, would have been avoided. Unquestionably, however, a main cause of the prolonged continuance of the disturbances was the wild and unreasoning hostility exhibited by a large section of the Protestants of Belfast against the police."
  The Commissioners state further—
  "We are sorry to add that certain persons having great influence in Belfast, thought proper, at various periods during the riots to indulge in language, written and spoken, well calculated to maintain excitement at a time when all men of influence should have tried to assuage it." "Another cause," say the Commissioners—" of the continuance of the riots was the unhappy sympathy with which, at certain stages, the well-to-do classes of Protestants regarded the proceedings of the rioters."
  Further on they say—
  "A most important cause of the continuance of the disturbances were certain serious defects in the magisterial and police arrangements of the town."
  They define this as follows—
  "The magistrates do not possess any special powers of any kind, and are therefore unable to deal summarily with such offences as riot, persons charged with which can only be sent for trial before a jury. During the riots the ordinary magistracy of Belfast was largely reinforced by resident magistrates drafted in from various parts of the country, and at one time at least twenty of these gentleman were in the town. Again, while on the one hand there was no evidence before us to prove that the borough magistrates acted with partiality, unquestionably, in the atmosphere of Belfast, they are regarded by the rival parties with suspicion, which enormously militates against the weight of any decisions they may give. Further, public inconvenience is caused by their fluctuating attendances on the bench; and during the riots this was most unfortunate, as the varying character of the tribunal rendered punishments unequal, at a time when it was most desirable that they should be, at once, equal and severe. Passing from the administration of justice in the courts to the action of the magistrates in the streets, we wish, in the first place, to say a word as to the resident magistrates. These gentlemen were brought up to Belfast in great numbers during the outbreak. They behaved, undoubtedly, very well, but hero also we notice the absence of headship which helped so much to prolong the riots. Each resident magistrate appears to enjoy an equal amount of authority with his fellows, and this tends to produce that absence of an intelligible, consistent, and determined plan of action which is to be observed in the course taken to suppress the disturbances.

  1091
  When to the fifteen or twenty resident magistrates we add the borough magistrates, all with equal authority, it will he seen that the police of Belfast had, during the riots, some hundred masters, and it is not strange that such an arrangement did not work well. At a time when action was all important it is to be feared that too much time was lost in discussion."
  I may say that one of the local magistrates, in the midst of the riot, released a prisoner at the dictation of the mob, and it was proved that another caused a disastrous withdrawal of the police from the barracks at Bowers' Hill, which had the result of producing in the mob a feeling that they were in the ascendancy. These having been the cause of the riots and the continuance of them, what do the Commissioners recommend? I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to tell us before this Vote is taken, what action the Government are prepared to take upon the recommendation of the Commissioners. They recommend, in the first place, that the Chief Officer of Police for the town of Belfast should be entirely independent of all Police Authority, save and except that of the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary. They say—
  "We recommend that such officer should have absolute control of the police force of the town, and the sole responsibility of maintaining the peace, free from any magisterial or other control, save that of the Executive Government and the Inspector General."
  They desire, in other words, that the Chief Officer of Police in Belfast should be set free from the control of that Local Authority which in the past has been proved to be paralyzing in its effect, so far as the preservation of order is concerned. Now, I consider that the appointment of this future Chief Officer of Police is a matter of great and vital importance, and upon the fitness of the individual selected for the office will very much, in my opinion, depend the prospect of preserving peace. I have heard it assorted that a certain Inspector—Mr. Cameron—a gentleman of some notoriety, is to be appointed; and I am prepared to toll the Government in advance, that if they select that gentleman to be the Chief Officer of the Belfast Police they will have struck a vital blow against the maintenance of the public peace. Why was this Commission appointed at all? Why are we debating the question now, except that the Cutho-
  1092
  lic minority in Belfast requires protection? Do you not conceive that the opinion of the Member who represents that Catholic minority and of the Catholic priests of Belfast should have any value? Do you think that in selecting the Chief Officer of the Belfast Police you ought not to select some officer who by the way in which he has discharged his duties hitherto would not be influenced by any partizan feeling? That is all I ask, and I agree with the Commissioners that—
  "Power should he vested in the Chief Officer of Police of Belfast to forbid processions, bands, and the erection of arches, when, in his opinion, they are calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. That the Chief Police Officer of Belfast shall have full power, from time to time, to transfer to the Head Quarters of the Royal Irish Constabulary all such officers and constables as may, in his judgment, prove unfitted for the discharge of urban duties as required in Belfast; that no officers or men should be otherwise removable, except with their consent; that the Chief Police Officer shall have sole control of promotion among the constables under his command; and that the promotion of the officers shall, as far as may be, be dependent upon his recommendation."
  The Commissioners further recommend that the number of the normal police force of the town shall be increased to such extent as the Executive Government shall determine—
  "So as to render the force as far as possible complete in itself, and competent to deal with rioting, without any assistance from outside police forces; and that the military garrison of Belfast should be maintained at such strength as will render recourse to police aid from outside Belfast unnecessary at any time."
  I ask the Government to accept that principle, and whether they intend to adopt it? I want to know if it is true, as it has been reported to me, that an alteration has already been made in the balance of creeds in the police force of Belfast since the mouth of October last? At that time Protestant constables were in a slight majority—280 to 250. It is far from me to suggest that a Protestant constable would not discharge his duty equally with a Catholic constable; but it must be remembered that the conflicts in Belfast have continually arose upon questions founded upon creed, and upon stringent proceedings arising out of imperfect understanding of the nature of some particular question. When disorder arises in such a case it is not only desirable but necessary that the minority, as well as the majority, should have

  1093
  confidence in the force that has to preserve the public peace, and the object: should be to give confidence to the Catholic minority. The proportion of the Catholic members of the police has certainly not been increased since October; but I am told that a steady process of intrigue has been going on, by which the number of Protestant constables has been steadily increased, while that of the Catholic Constabulary has been decreased. The fact that the Catholic Constabulary is being withdrawn from those districts, and the preservation of the peace left to the Protestant police, is certainly open to the suspicion that in a time of disorder they might be found fraternizing with citizens of the Protestant faith. I am told that in some of the barracks in Belfast the number of Catholic Constabulary are now so few that they are exposed, at the hands of their comrades, to disagreeable experiences. I do not propose to go into details now; but it may be my duty to expose this matter to the notice of the Committee and of the country hereafter. In the Report of the Commissioners some important recommendations are made with respect to the administration of justice. The four members of the Commission who have signed the Report—Mr. Justice Day, General Bulwer, Mr. F. Le Poer Trench, and Mr. Adams—have arrived at the conclusion that the borough magistrates should be withdrawn from all connection with the administration of justice in Belfast. The Catholic Committee have confided to me a resolution, in which they say that no stop will be of any avail in placing the peace of Belfast on a satisfactory footing unless the Government, without delay, deprive the borough magistrates of all criminal jurisdiction; that this is the only remedy for the evils under which Belfast is suffering; the only step that will engender a fear of the majesty of the law, and secure confidence and respect in its due administration. Have, then, the Government arrived at the conclusion to support the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners? I am afraid that not only have they not done so, but that they have removed two of the most experienced and able magistrates from the Bench. When I asked the question, I was told that this had been done in pursuance of the recommendation of the Commissioners. It has
  1094
  been done in pursuance of nothing of the kind. What the Commissioners recommended was that—
  "The Borough Magistrates should be relieved of the duty of attending the Petty Sessions Court of Belfast. The sole jurisdiction at the Putty Sessions should be conferred upon two paid Magistrates, who should either be Barristers of a certain standing, or selected for this duty from the general body of Resident Magistrates. If Resident Magistrates are appointed, their sole duties should be judicial, and they should not interfere actively against rioters in. the streets. Special jurisdiction should he given to the Belfast Petty Sessions to deal summarily with cases of riot, unlawful assembly, and affray; and in our opinion that jurisdiction should provide for the punishment of offenders convicted of such crimes, or any crime against order in the town, by substantial and serious punishment."
  The object of the Commissioners is evidently to withdraw the Resident Magistrates from any duty in the streets, so that magistrates engaged in arresting rioters to-day should not be engaged in trying them to-morrow. But the Government have inverted the recommendations of the Commissioners. While the Commissioners have enlarged on the importance of local knowledge to deal with the rioters of Belfast, the Government, after a visit from the Mayor or Town Clerk of Belfast at Dublin Castle—the two chief mouthpieces of the faction of disorder in that town—have taken the first step, not towards the establishment, but towards the uprooting of order by removing the two functionaries whose impartiality, whoso activity, and whose courage in the administration of their judicial duties was the only redeeming feature during those three dreadful months of rioting and partizanship. I allude to Colonel Forbes and Mr. Macarthy. I do not know their creed, and I do not care. I believe that Colonel Forbes is a Protestant, and I have heard that Mr. Macarthy is a Catholic. Colonel Forbes was obliged more than once in the course of these riots to threaten to retire from the Bench of Belfast in consequence of the expressed and earnest determination of the local Justices to stand by their fellow partizans in the dock. It was only by the exorcise of that threat that Colonel Forbes, who has now been removed from Belfast, was able to preserve in the Petty Sessional Court of the district any semblance of regard for the due administration of justice. It

  1095
  has been sworn before the Commissioners that an intrigue existed among the more corrupt Justices for the removal of that official. One gentleman came forward and said he heard one local magistrate say to another, "We shall never be easy until Forbes is driven out of Belfast." Colonel Forbes was the stumbling-block in the way. As a public official he had the inconceivable obstinacy to endeavour to discharge his duty. Accordingly he was to be driven out of Belfast, and now the Government have inverted the recommendation of the Commissioners, and have driven out the only two officials who had shown a distinct regard for the interests of public peace, and in replacing them they have struck a criminal blow against the interests of order and have conceded the demands of the faction of disorder. Who is to replace these gentlemen? Is it true that Mr. Rich, an Inspector of Constabulary, who was formerly quartered there, and Mr. Lister, a close connection of his, are to replace Colonel Forbes and Mr. Macarthy? If so, I am afraid that a more calamitous appointment could not be made. Mr. Lister is no lawyer. He is nominally a barrister, but he never had any practice. He is not a barrister of a certain standing, or of any standing, but he is a barrister of no standing whatever—merely a colourable barrister. The Commissioners recommended that the two paid magistrates who are to be appointed should have summary jurisdiction in cases of riot and unlawful assembly and affray. Now, I think that is an important recommendation, and one well worth the attention of the Government. I hold that the public peace will never be secured in Belfast so long as a long interval of time is allowed to elapse between the arrest of offenders and their punishment, Punishment would most certainly produce a more powerful effect if immediately applied. I may remind the Committee that since the murder of Private Hughes and Constable Gardner, in July last, the murderers have not yet been brought to justice. I think that; punishment should more speedily follow crime, and I hope that the Government will see their way to invest the local Bench with an enlarged jurisdiction in regard to offences in the nature of riot. I hope to receive an assurance that the Government will, in accordance with the
  1096
  united recommendation of four of the Royal Commissioners, withdraw the Borough Justices, who are condemned in this Report, from any share in the administration of justice; and that they will appoint men who are not merely lawyers in name, but barristers in spirit and fact, as paid magistrates. There is still another point in regard to the law as to property. The Town Council of Belfast have smuggled a clause into a Local Act by which the town of Belfast is at the present moment governed, which will probably startle hon. Members of this House who are lawyers. It is a clause which places Belfast in a different position in regard to the question of compensation for injury to the person and damage to property from all other parts of Ireland. In every part of Ireland, except in Belfast, a man is able to obtain compensation from the Grand Jury for personal injury; but in Belfast he cannot obtain a single penny of compensation. Is that state of the law about to be continued, or will the Government take away from Belfast this exceptional privilege and place that town in exactly the same position as the rest of Ireland? Then, again, as to damage to property. The people injured in this case were Catholics. It was the houses of Catholics which were wrecked and looted, and yet the victims are required to go before a Town Council composed of 40 members, on which there is not a single Catholic. If the Town Council award any compensation whatever; if, for a claim of £100, they award £1, or oven only 6d., there is no appeal. The Commissioners recommend that Belfast should be placed on a level with the rest of Ireland, both in regard to injury to the person and damage to property; and, further, that, in regard to those matters, the jurisdiction should be transferred from the Town Council of Belfast to an independent tribunal, such as a Government or some other arbitration, and that the applicant should have a right of appeal to the going Judge of Assize. They make one additional recommendation—namely—
  "That it would be advisable to give this tribunal, so suggested by us, power, if they thought it advisable, to applot the amount of compensation over a more limited area than the municipal boundary of Belfast."
  I presume the object of making that recommendation is to confine the amount

  1097
  of compensation to that part of the municipal district which may have supplied the riot. These are the recommendations of two Englishmen and two Irishmen—all of them of eminent judicial position—one an English Judge, another a distinguished military officer, and two others Irish barristers. I want to know whether these recommendations, which appear to me to have been honestly conceived and carefully thought out, will be adopted by the Government? There is one final recommendation in reference to the search for arms. The Commissioners say—
  "We are also of opinion that the law as at present existing enabling the police authorities to search for arms in the possession of persons unauthorized to possess them is wholly inadequate, and practically useless, and that the authorities should he armed with adequate powers for this purpose."
  They propose that this power should be repealed, and that some more stringent regulations should be substituted. All I know is that hitherto, when the Government have instituted a search for arms in Belfast, they have searched houses where everybody has been convinced no arms could possibly be found; while they have refrained from searching other places where there was a reasonable suspicion that they would be found. I have now gone over the three classes of recommendations made by the Commissioners—the recommendations in regard to the police officers, in regard to the administration of justice, and in regard to the amendment of the law for compensation for injury. I shall feel it my duty, unless the Government give some satisfactory and rational assurance, to press this question still further on the Report. I have mainly spoken to-day in the interest of the Catholic minority, which I chiefly represent in Belfast; but I think I may claim with some confidence that I also speak in favour of all who desire some rational provision for the preservation of social order in that afflicted town—afflicted by the unscrupulous conduct of the educated and by the passions of the uneducated. In calling attention to the subject, I have spoken not only for Catholics, but for persons of every class in Belfast—persons of every creed who desire the prosperity of that town, and who further desire to see that social peace and that settled good order with-
  1098
  out which material prosperity cannot possibly exist.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began his remarks by levelling a reproach at me for not having been in my place when the hon. Member wanted to bring this matter forward.
  MR. SEXTON: I did not at all reproach the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a matter of fact, I did not leave the House until a quarter to 4 o'clock this morning, and, as far as I was aware from what had gone on for the four hours preceding that time, the Committee was not engaged in a discussion of a valuable or instructive kind; and, moreover, the hon. Member had had an ample opportunity before then, if he desired, for bringing the whole Question before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman has complained, first, of the delay of the presentation of the Report of the Commission; but he must be aware that the Executive Government had no control whatever over the Commissioners as a body, or over any individual member of the Commission. It was not for the Executive Government to interfere with their arrangements. Therefore, whoever may be responsible for the delay in the production of the Report, it is neither I nor my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who preceded me in Office. The hon. Member says that after the Report was presented a further culpable delay took place; but I must remind him that even now we have not got the full Report of the Commissioners.
  MR. SEXTON: Why not?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have only received the Report of four members of the Commission, and the minority Report of Mr. M'Hardy will not be received in London for two or three days.
  MR. SEXTON: Why not? He has had five months to prepare it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report of Mr. M'Hardy will, I believe, be received on the 26th instant. The hon. Member seems to suppose that the delay on the part of Mr. M'Hardy is a very culpable neglect of duty. Now, I regret the delay, but I cannot blame Mr. M'Hardy, because that gentleman has had very grave responsibility thrown upon him outside Ireland. He is a very

  1099
  distinguished and a very hard-worked public officer, and the fact that other and imperative duties have been imposed upon him has interfered to delay the sending in of his final Report. Certainly the Government are not to blame, and, as far as I am acquainted with the facts of the case, Mr. M'Hardy is not to blame either. The delay, however, has occurred, whether we regret it or not; and can the Government be expected to arrived at a final and complete decision on this very difficult question until they have in their possession the Report, not only of the consenting majority of the Commission, but also the Report of the one member of the Commission who formed the dissentient minority? I think it would be a wholly improper course for the Government to make up their minds, finally, upon all the details of the matter before they are in full possession of Mr. M'Hardy's views. At the same time, I think I am able to say something—I will not say to satisfy the hon. Gentleman—but to meet his views. Some of the questions he has asked I can answer. He asks whether the relative number of the Catholic and Protestant members of the Belfast Police Force has not been altered in the course of the last two months.
  MR. SEXTON: No, since October.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no knowledge upon that subject, nor does it in any way fall within the purview of the duties of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It is a question which is entirely left to the chief of the Constabulary, with whom I certainly do not think it my duty to interfere. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what the facts of the matter are, I will make the necessary inquiries and give him an answer either in the House or in private on a future day. And so also with regard to other details upon which the hon. Gentleman desires to have further information. The hon. Gentleman has gone through the various recommendations of the majority of the Commission. Those recommendations may be divided into two parts—namely, those which are of an administrative character, and those which require legislative action to effect them. The hon. Member is aware that I have had but a short tenure of the Office of Secretary for Ireland, and during that short tenure questions of great difficulty and
  1100
  perplexity have come before me. I do not pretend that I have had time to consider specially and carefully the question of Belfast; but as far as I have made myself acquainted with the recommendations of the Commissioners, who deal with a variety of details of administration, speaking broadly, it appears to me that they may be regarded as effective, and as indicating the lines on which the Government should proceed.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman speak only of the recommendations which relate to administrative matters?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; and I may say that the Government intend to accept them. I refer to the recommendations in which the Commissioners say—
  "We are of opinion that the Royal Irish Constabulary should be maintained as the police force of Belfast; that the Chief Officer of Police for the town of Belfast should he entirely independent of all police authority—save and except the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary; we recommend that such officer should have absolute control of the police force of the town, and the sole responsibility of maintaining the peace free from any magisterial or other control, save that of the Executive Government and the Inspector General. We recommend that a special Code be instituted for the police force of Belfast, having for its object the impression upon such force of a civic and urban character; and we further recommend that the changes in that force should be as few as consistent with the exigencies of the service. Power should be vested in the Chief Officer of Police of Belfast to forbid processions, bands, and the erection of arches, when, in his opinion, they are calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. That the Chief Police Officer of Belfast shall have full power, from time to time, to transfer to the headquarters of the Royal Irish Constabulary all such officers and constables as may, in his judgment, prove unfitted for the discharge of urban duties as required in Belfast; that no officers or men shall be otherwise removable except with their consent; that the Chief Police Officer shall have sole control of promotion among the constables under his command; and that the promotion of the officers shall, as far as may be, be dependent upon his recommendation. The object we propose hereby is to secure for the police force to be employed in Belfast thorough fitness and continuity of material, and unity of control and direction, subject to the intervention of the Inspector General and the Executive Government. The number of the normal police force of the town should be increased to such extent as the Executive Government shall determine, so as to render the force as far as possible complete in itself, and competent to deal with rioting, without any assistance from outside police forces; and the military garrison of Belfast should be

  1101
  maintained at such strength as will render recourse to police aid outside Belfast unnecessary at any time."
  I am speaking under correction; but I apprehend that these recommendations could be carried into effect without any legislative action on the part of this House. The next recommendation, however, could not be carried out without legislation—namely, the recommendation that—
  "The borough magistrates should he relieved of the duty of attending the Petty Sessional Court of Belfast."
  I believe that it is the rule which now prevails in Dublin, and I should have no objection to see it carried into effect in Belfast, if it can be done; but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, it would require legislative action on the part of Parliament before it can be effected. The next recommendation is—
  "The sole jurisdiction at the Petty Sessions should be conferred upon two paid magistrates, who should either be barristers of a certain standing, or selected for this duty from the general body of Resident Magistrates. If Resident Magistrates are appointed, their solo duties should be judicial, and they should not interfere actively against rioters in the streets."
  Well, Sir, that recommendation cannot be fully carried out without legislation. One part of it can be carried out, and it has been carried out; and I was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman criticize the action of the Government in having done their best, apart from the delay, to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners. They have already arranged that magistrates who are not barristers shall be transferred to other districts, and that barristers shall be employed.
  MR. SEXTON: One selected is only nominally a barrister.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I understand that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in that matter; and I am informed that Mr. Lister was a barrister in practice for 10 years. The next recommendation is that—
  "Special jurisdiction should be given to the Belfast Petty Sessions to deal summarily with cases of riot, unlawful assembly, and affray; and, in our opinion, that jurisdiction should provide for the punishment of offenders convicted of such crimes, or any crime against order in the town, by substantial and serious punishment."
  That is a provision which ought to be introduced into any Bill that may deal with the question of law and order in
  1102
  Ireland; and I hope, shortly, to lay a proposition before the House upon that matter. The next recommendation of the Commissioners is a long and a very elaborate one with regard to those who may be injured in Belfast in the event of a riot. My view of that recommendation, also, is that it cannot be carried into effect without legislation, and legislation of an elaborate kind. But, at the same time, I do not think that the town of Belfast should be in a different position from the rest of Ireland; and it will be the object of the Government to place the whole of Ireland under one law in regard to injuries sustained through rioting. The next recommendation is that the law, as it at present exists in regard to damage to property, should also be altered.
  MR. SEXTON: The Commissioners recommend that there should be an independent tribunal to deal with questions of injury to property, instead of the Town Council, with the right of appeal to the Judge of Assize.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but the hon. Gentleman will perceive that that is part of a general scheme for dealing with the question of malicious injury, and the Government are perfectly prepared to consider the whole matter. The only remaining recommendation of the Commissioners deals with the question of the power of the Police Authorities to search for arms. That comes under the same category as the other recommendations in regard to special summary jurisdiction in the case of riot, and it is one with which we also propose to deal at an early date. I think I have now placed before the hon. Gentleman, as far as I am able, the general view of the Government as far as they have made up their minds on the subject. I hope that I have done something to satisfy him. At all events, I have done all that I can to satisfy him. I will assure him that the subject will receive the most careful consideration. The Report of the remaining Commissioner will be in my hands in the course of a few days. As well as the other Report, it will be carefully studied by me, and I trust to be able this Session to lay before the House such part of the recommendations of the Commissioners as we think ought to be carried into effect. In conclusion, let me congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the House

  1103
  on the earnest desire he has expressed that law and order shall be maintained in Ireland. I listened with great satisfaction to that part of his speech, and I hope that in every effort made by Her Majesty's Government to restore law and order in any and every part of the country, we shall have the earnest and zealous support of the hon. Gentleman and his friends.
  MR. SEXTON: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have only raised the question at this moment from a sense of duty. I think he has shown a reasonable desire to meet the objections I have raised; and, bearing in mind his brief tenure of Office, I will consider his reply in a fair spirit, and will, at a later stage, again raise the question of the Belfast riots.
  MR. DILLON: It is quite evident, Mr. Courtney, that, owing to the inconvenience of the course adopted by the Government in pressing forward this Vote, the physical condition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is not such as to enable him to carry on the discussion in a satisfactory manner. I think that, now we have all somewhat cooled down, nobody can doubt, after listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), that he has made out an unanswerable and overwhelming case for his justification in raising, not a question of detail, as he pointed out at an early hour last night, on this Vote on Account, but a question of public policy—a question of public policy which brooked of no delay; one of the most vital and imminent importance, and one there would have been no opportunity of discussing properly for some months to come if this opportunity had been allowed to slip. The First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), just before the Chief Secretary came into the House, complained bitterly of the course we have pursued during this Sitting, and he accused us of wishing to adopt the unusual course of discussing items on this Vote on Account. It is perfectly manifest that, by the course the Government have adopted, they desire to prevent us discussing, not only items on this Vote, but discussing at any reasonable length any question whatever on this Vote; and we cannot too strongly emphasize the fact that all the trouble
  1104
  of last night, this first All-night Sitting that has occurred for two Parliaments, has arisen from an attempt on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury to pass through Committee a Vote without any discussion—a Vote raising questions of the most vital importance to Ireland, and upon which we are bound to take every opportunity of raising a discussion. There is another point in our favour. I availed myself of an opportunity the other night of raising a discussion on a question of immense importance to Ireland at the present moment; and it will be within the recollection of Members of this Committee, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary may have learned from the facts that have since occurred a lesson of wisdom—it may be in the recollection of hon. Members what treatment I received from the responsible Governor of Ireland. I never received such scant courtesy in my life before. The right hon. Gentleman treated me with the most absolute and supreme contempt; and he did not deign to take notice, not to say answer, a single one of the questions I put to him; or to meet a single one of the charges I made against the Government. If we are accused of coming forward at inconvenient times and taking out-of-the-way opportunities—though I do not admit that this is an inconvenient opportunity of raising this question—I think we are entitled to show that we are driven to expedients of this kind by the reception we met from the responsible officers of the Government of Ireland. Because, when the right hon. Gentleman who has to govern a country in the condition of Ireland treats debates raised in this House with the supreme and studied contempt he treated us with the other night, he must be prepared for repeated attacks upon the same subject. Although I am aware the Chief Secretary is physically incapable of continuing this discussion—[Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no; perfectly capable] I am exceedingly glad to hear that, because I shall now raise, at length, several points which are of great importance. The first point I wish to raise on this Vote has reference to the Office of the Chief Secretary in Dublin. It is quite clear that we could not raise such a point until the Chief Secretary was in his place. We have just heard a statement from our new Governor; his experience in the

  1105
  troublesome and responsible Office of Chief Secretary has been somewhat brief; and his visit to the country, his opportunity of attaining an acquaintance with the country he has undertaken to govern, has been exceedingly brief. I am bound to say, from all the information I have been able to collect, from all information which has reached me, that although the right hon. Gentleman's visit to Ireland was brief, it was important and ominous. He made good use of his time. Now, what did he do? he held a meeting in Dublin Castle, as I am informed, of all the District Magistrates or Divisional Magistrates in Ireland. All these gentlemen were summoned to meet him, and he addressed to them instructions of the most extraordinary character. The proceedings at that meeting are reported in the country in such a way that we are entitled to bring the matter under the notice of this Committee. We are informed—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed as to the fact?
  MR. DILLON: As to your having met the Divisional Magistrates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman may not have met them——
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did meet them, and perhaps it would be convenient if I were briefly to state what happened. Among other gentlemen whom I desired to see were the Divisional Magistrates of Ireland. I asked them to come and see me. They came, and I discussed with each magistrate the condition of the district in which he had control.
  MR. DILLON: That explanation, Mr. Courtney, is worth all the sitting up we have had to-night. I can assure you, Sir, that the belief in Ireland, that the popular report in Ireland, founded upon private information which came from one of the magistrates concerned—though, I admit, it reached me in a roundabout way—the popular report in Ireland is that the words used were that—"At evictions for the future, if the least obstruction is offered, do not hesitate to fire upon the people." At Ballindyne, in Mayo, two days after the visit of the right hon. Gentleman, a Divisional Magistrate of the name of Burn, who resides in Athlone, is reported in the papers to have addressed some individual
  1106
  of local influence in these words—"For God's sake, keep the peace, because if there is any resistance, I must fire immediately." Now, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman will remove entirely the impression that any such instruction or advice was given, our discussion to-night will not have been a fruitless one. Notice how monstrous such an instruction would be. Within the last five or six years there have been evicted in, Ireland, I should think, no less than 25,000 families. ["Oh, oh!"] For the sake of argument, I will say 15,000 families—I am not particular as to numbers. [Laughter.] Well, the number is very great; but you will see that whether the number is 25,000 or 15,000 it does not affect my argument. At the majority of these evictions large crowds of people have assembled, and obstruction was offered in a great number of cases. What are the historical facts? Why, that during the whole course of these years not one single policeman was killed, maimed, or seriously injured. During these years, in which let us take it that 15,000 families have been evicted in Ireland; there was not as much damage done as was done recently in the streets of Belfast in one half-hour. In face of that fact, to issue instructions to the Irish police that, on the least obstruction being offered, they were not to hesitate to fire upon the people, would be one of the most terrible responsibilities any Official ever undertook. At these evictions it must be remembered that no civil magistrate is ever present, and the Riot Act is not read, and the precautions are not taken which are taken in England when any disturbance is apprehended. It appears from the information we have received that the police officers have been deprived of discretion; for the words reported to have been used at Ballindyne are—"For God's sake keep the peace, or I must fire immediately." Now, Sir, I have mentioned what happened at Ballindyne during the evictions to justify us in giving credence to the rumours which have been set afloat in Ireland. We all know now of the truth of the telegram which was sent to Youghal. That telegram was treated by the newspapers of this country as a bogus message; but when a Question was asked in this House concerning it, the Chief Secretary accepted full responsibility for it. What

  1107
  was the interpretation put upon that telegram by the police authorities at Youghal? It was that they were to use deadly weapons, whether they be bullets or bayonets, and that if necessary they wore to act without the presence of a civil magistrate. Not only did they act on the occasion of the recent disturbances without the presence of the civil magistrate, but they took the most elaborate precautions to secure that no civil magistrate should be present. We have had a most deplorable instance of the temper of police officers, who have the lives of a great number of people in Ireland at their mercy. We know that a police magistrate went into the police barracks at Youghal to protest against the conduct of the police, and to remonstrate with Mr. Somerville for his treatment of him as a magistrate, and for not asking him to be present when the extra police entered the town. Mr. Somerville, instead of expressing the slightest regret at the death of the poor man Hanlon, made use of the following words, which will never die out of the memory of the Irish people:—" I am sorry I did not fire on them." It is useless for the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) to tell us that we can raise these points hereafter, when the Civil Service Estimates are in Committee of Supply. Things have moved very fast in Ireland indeed, and we know very little of what may occur in that country during the next three months. It would therefore be preposterous for us to postpone or to neglect any opportunity of bringing forward these facts. Now, Sir, I am bound to take this opportunity of calling attention to a third point raised by this Estimate, and that is in regard to the Irish Constabulary Vote, which I regret to find is steadily assuming greater proportions. It is many years since I first called attention in this House to the monstrous character of the Irish Constabulary Vote. Members of the then Government admitted to the fullest extent the justification of my charge; but in spite of all that can be said, and in spite of the confession of the Government, the Irish Constabulary Vote has mounted year by year until its proportions has become a public scandal, because the larger the Vote grows, the worse the condition of the country becomes. I have prepared some figures of the most extraordinary character in relation to
  1108
  the Irish Constabulary Vote. The Estimate for that Vote for next year has reached the figure of £1,412,000. The expenditure last year was £1,397,000; therefore we are threatened now with an increase of something like £15,000; but that increase is only part of an arithmetical progression which has never ceased. It has gone on steadily, sometimes by great jumps and sometimes by slow progress. In the year 1871–2 the Vote for the Irish Constabulary was £918,000; in the year 1877–8 it was £1,000,000; in the year 1885 it was £1,380,000; in the year 1886 it was £1,397,000; and in the next year it is estimated to be £1,412,000. And, Sir, when we consider that, pari passu with this steady increase in the Vote for the Irish police, the population of Ireland has dwindled away, we have a condition of things the like of which I challenge anyone to point to in the whole civilized world. In Ireland, in 1871 it cost £918,000 to police 5,500,000 people. This year, it is to cost almost exactly 50 percent more to police 4,750,000 people. At the same rate of progress, and after you have brought in more of your Bills for Ireland, and brought down the population to 2,000,000, I suppose the cost of the police will amount to something like £3,000,000. What is the result of all this expenditure on the police? Why, we are told that while you have almost doubled in 15 years the Vote for the Irish police, government in Ireland is paralyzed. I sometimes wonder how it is that the Executive do not inquire whether it is paralyzed by having too many policemen in the country: the present condition of things has no parallel in the civilized world, and it is a positive disgrace to England. I have made a calculation that the increased expenditure from 1871 to 1887 on the Irish police—over and above what the expenditure would have been had it remained during these years at the same figure as it was in 1871—amounts to £2,500,000 sterling. Many an Irish problem would have been settled if that money had been spent on the people, instead of on the police, and in reducing the whole island to chaos. Finally, I will draw your attention to this fact—that in England and Wales you pay for your police 2s. 6d. per head of the population; while the police in Ireland cost this country 5s. 6d.

  1109
  per head of the population. Of course, it requires less, as a rule, to police country districts than town districts; but I have no hesitation in saying that, if we could work out this problem, it would be found that it costs to police the country parts of Ireland five times as much as it costs to police country districts of England. I have devoted a great deal of attention to this subject, and I cannot help being struck very forcibly by a fact recorded in the newspapers a few days ago—namely, that when Father Keller was arrested on Friday last, there was no disturbance. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary say that that was so; because, as it turns out, the police were on the occasion strictly confined to barracks and not allowed to go on the streets. That is a strange statement. It amounts to this, that when the police are on the streets, there is rioting; but when they are confined to barracks, there is no disturbance, no property is injured, no man is hurt. I really put it to you whether you are not wasting money in Ireland; whether you are not turning the country upside down by this enormous expenditure? What did Mr. Justice Lawson say at the Winter Assizes in the County Mayo? His words are characteristic of Irish history; he said—" Undoubtedly this county is remarkably free from crime." It is true that, with the exception of a drunken row or two, County Mayo, as regards crime, will compare favourably with any part of the civilized world. The Judge said—
  "But, although that is true, although the country is remarkably free from all kinds of crime, I cannot say its condition is satisfactory; for the law is paralyzed."
  Such a statement from a Judge ought to make us reflect; because, from this statement, it would appear that when the law is paralyzed, there is no crime, and that when it is in force, crime breaks out. It is really a question for Englishmen whether it is worth while spending this £1,400,000 a-year for the purpose of enforcing law in Ireland. Now, I do not want to comment at present at any great length on the subject—which undoubtedly we shall hear a great deal more of in this House—except to say that as often as there is a single shilling voted for the Irish Constabulary I shall speak at considerable length. There is one other Vote I feel it my bounden
  1110
  duty to refer to before this Vote on Account is agreed to. I own I am astonished that the First Lord of the Treasury supposed for a moment that the Vote for the Irish Bankruptcy Court could pass through this House without discussion. It would be a remarkable thing if, in the present condition of Ireland, and in view of events which are happening in that country, and which have convulsed society in that country to an extent which few Englishmen are capable of believing, that we could allow a Vote for the Irish Bankruptcy Court to pass without comment. I endeavoured the other night to show that the Irish Bankruptcy Court has been turned from being a Court of Justice into being a political engine. I endeavoured to show that Judge Boyd, one of the Judges of that Court, has consulted with the men who belong to one side of politics, or to one party or faction in Ireland.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in Order to impute to a Judge of a High Court that he has consulted with political partizans, and that his conduct, I apprehend, is influenced accordingly?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to say I did not hear, in the confusion of the Committee, all the words of the hon. Member. But it is undoubtedly out of Order to impugn the conduct of a Judge in Committee of Supply, when there is a definite and well-regulated mode of bringing the conduct of a Judge before the House.
  MR. DILLON: I presume I shall be in Order, when we are voting money for the Bankruptcy Court, to criticize proceedings which have taken place in that Court; at all events, I shall endeavour to do so. The contention I make is this—that at the present moment a gentleman has been summoned to the Court of Bankruptcy in such a way as to convey to the whole population of Ireland—and I speak now of both sides in politics—the impression that that summons was not the result of a bonâ fide attempt to investigate a case of bankruptcy, but a de-liberate effort to beat down a political movement. I think I am entitled to lay down the grounds which have induced the entire public of Ireland to look upon this act as an attempt to intimidate and beat down a political movement to which one side is intensely hostile, and the

  1111
  other is passionately devoted. The Court of Bankruptcy was invited to extract from a tenant on the estate of Mr. Ponsonby certain moneys he owed to his landlord, and to have judgment entered against him. So far I have no complaint to make; but when a considerable period had elapsed, a summons was issued and served upon the parish priest of this tenant, and the priest of another parish. It is not alleged that these gentlemen were in the possession of funds collected with the estates. It is notorious in Ireland that they are not in possession of funds in connection with the estate; but, Sir, the very line of examination which was commenced in the Bankruptcy Court showed plainly what facts were sought to be ascertained from these priests; they were summoned to give information of a mooting held in a private room to which the police were not admitted. It is all very line to talk about the jurisdiction of a Court; but at the meeting there were 70 or 80 tenants on the Ponsonby estate. There wore many well-known Members of Parliament, and hundreds of laymen. Why select two priests? They could have taken any one of the laymen to give evidence, and to tell everything that the priests knew, unless it be the confidences reposed in the priests as Catholic clergymen? I do not know whether they expected to extract from Father Keller anything of a particularly private or confidential character; but what they were evidently aiming at was, that they should get him in the face of his congregation to turn informer on his own people, to reveal what had transpired at the mooting in question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: As far as the hon. Gentleman has opened his case, he makes no case attaching to the Vote for the Court of Bankruptcy. He is impugning the conduct of some persons, who, he asserts, rightly or wrongly, have perverted the Court of Bankruptcy. If the persons who obtained the summons from the Court are provided for in the Estimates, he is in Order in discussing this subject; but he is not in Order in attempting to discuss what has happened under shelter of the Vote for the Court of Bankruptcy.
  MR. DILLON: Your ruling, Sir, shows clearly that I am in Order, because the men whose conduct I am im-
  1112
  pugning are officers of the Court of Bankruptcy.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Their duty is purely ministerial.
  MR. DILLON: I think that if you will bear with me for a few moments, Mr. Courtney, I shall be able to show you that, under your own ruling, I am strictly in Order. When it came to the summoning of Father Keller, the landlord and the solicitors who set the Court of Bankruptcy in motion, withdrew from the case, and when they were asked on Saturday last whether the proceedings were taken with their authority, they replied that they wore not taken with their authority. When the case came into Court the solicitor for Father Keller brought under the notice of the Judge the fact that the landlord of the estate and his representative wore no parties to the proceedings. But what did the Judge say? Why, that "the matter" is now taken out of the power of the creditor, and is in the hands of the official assignees, and they will proceed in the matter in due course. Now, I am not sufficiently a lawyer, and I do not know whether you, Mr. Courtney, have sufficient technical knowledge, to know what the discretion of the official assignees is; but I want to point out that this extraordinary circumstance arose, that the creditor, having realized the fatal character of the step he was taking for his own future, wished to withdraw, and he is now in a vice and compelled to go on in a course which will inevitably wreck his estate and leave him a pauper. I think this contention, Sir, brings me completely in Order. I want to know what was the mysterious influence at work which led this man into a struggle which, if he continues in it, will leave him a beggar; and which, when he had realized the character of the step he was taking in getting a priest arrested, prevented him using his own discretion, and extracting the Government of Ireland from a most unpleasant position. If the official assignees are exercising their discretion, I venture to say that a more injurious act of discretion was never made in any country. In the long run, they will deprive this man of the money he would have got if he had acted reasonably; and they are landing the Irish Government in the most unpleasant

  1113
  position in which the Irish Government has ever been landed. I maintain that no regard ought to be had, in a case which comes before a Court, to the politics of the people concerned. Cases of this character have all been brought in the Junior Court, except one, in which it was attempted to adopt the same course, but in which Justice Miller promptly said—"I will hear nothing about the Plan of Campaign; I sit hero to administer law." The consequence of which dictum was that no "Plan of Campaign" cases wore ever brought in Justice Miller's Court again. I venture to say that, although he is a Conservative in politics——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is proceeding in direct violation of my ruling.
  MR. DILLON: I was trying to bring before the notice of the Committee the large expenditure which has been incurred in Ireland in recent years. I will content myself with moving to omit the sum of £1,500, being the amount asked for the Irish Bankruptcy Court.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is out of Order to move the omission of this item.
  MR. DILLON: Then I beg to move the reduction of the whole Vote by the sum of £1,500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That the sum of £3,622,606 be granted to Her Majesty, for the said Services."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Chairman, I repudiate absolutely the attack which has been made upon Judge Boyd by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon). I consider it most intolerable that any Gentleman in this House should bring against a Judge the accusation that he has been influenced in his action by political motives. With this repudiation, I will leave this part of the hon. Gentleman's case, and proceed to refer to some other remarks of his. The hon. Gentleman begun his speech by saying that in consequence of the treatment he received on Friday night, he was compelled to bring this question before the Committee to-day. Let me say, at the onset, I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, or to any other Member of the House. On Friday night the hon. Gentleman deliberately accused me of promoting murders in order to get a Coercion Bill passed through the House;
  1114
  but even such provocation as that would not have justified discourtesy, and no discourtesy was intended. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Motion he made on Friday night did not touch at all the question of the attitude assumed by the coroner at Youghal. I dealt with the whole extent of the Motion the hon. Gentleman made, and if I omitted to deal with one fragmentary part of his speech, not knowing the relevancy of it, he must forgive mo. The hon. Gentleman has, to-day, accused me of having gone to Dublin, called together the Divisional Magistrates, and given them instructions to shoot down the Irish people, whenever any obstruction was offered to any process of eviction. That is entirely baseless fiction, conjured up by the hon. Member himself. I went to Ireland, not for the purpose of giving specific directions to the Divisional Magistrates, but to hear what they had to say about the state of the country. If the hon. Gentleman asks me what views the Government hold on this question, I shall say I stated them adequately in answering a Question put to me with regard to the telegram sent by Captain Plunkett. To the terms of that answer I absolutely adhere. The hon. Gentleman has dealt at great length with a question which I think he has already brought before the House—namely, the growth of the Constabulary and of the Constabulary Vote. I admit it is greatly to be regretted that the Constabulary Vote is growing. I do not wish to introduce controversial matters in this debate; but I will ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that others besides the Government are responsible for the growth of the Vote. I may remind the hon. Gentleman of an answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who preceded me in Office, in a debate on this subject. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the increase in the Constabulary Vote is partly due to the riots in Belfast, partly to the enormous amount of personal protection which has to be given to people who are in danger of their lives and property; and partly due to the fact that from motives of humanity, if from no other motives, it is absolutely necessary to have at any point, where disturbance is apprehended, a large and, if possible, an overwhelming force. These are the

  1115
  reasons, I admit the melancholy reasons, which have made it necessary to increase the Vote for the Constabulary. The hon. Gentleman says that in spite of the gigantic Constabulary Vote, Government is paralyzed.
  MR. DILLON: I said that you stated Government was paralyzed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, Government is paralyzed. But does the hon. Gentleman confound the Police Force with the whole machinery of Government? Does he not know that there are other parts of that machinery not less necessary to the healthy working of any Constitution? The Government of Ireland is paralyzed because the Courts of Law are paralyzed; and no one is more ready than I to admit that increase the Police Force as you may, pile up this Vote as you will, it will all be in vain if the Courts of Law, whom the police have to obey, are paralyzed in the fulfilment of their functions. I hope I have now dealt with the chief question which the hon. Gentleman has raised. Let me conclude by again assuring him that neither in my reply the other day, nor in the few words I have uttered now, nor in any reply I shall ever make in this House, do I intend any discourtesy either to the hon. Gentleman opposite or to any Gentleman in any part of the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is, from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen on these Benches, a very unsatisfactory reply to the unanswerable indictment brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). The right hon. Gentleman stated that he did not hold such language with the Divisional Magistrates assembled in Dublin, as that my hon. friend attributed to him; but he left entirely unexplained, or unsatisfied, the action of the police in obedience to whatever commands or instructions he gave them in Dublin Castle. He did not deny that the police had been ordered to shoot down the people on the smallest provocation. The other day, I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he disputed the telegram of Captain Plunkett, ordering the police to shoot down the people without delay or hesitation. He objected to the interpretation I put upon the telegram of Captain Plunkett, but I
  1116
  maintain the words of the telegram bear the construction I put upon them, and are, in fact, incapable of bearing any other. The right hon. Gentleman says the Government are bound in the interests of humanity to send large forces of Constabulary to points where disturbance is apprehended. But to Youghal, they sent the small force of 24 men. The unhappy consequences which followed were the result of neglect to carry out what the right hon. Gentleman has just stated to be necessary. "Where do these disturbances take place? They take place at evictions carried on by the landlords with the assistance of the police. What are these evictions for? They are for the non-payment of unjust and impossible rents. [Colonel KING-HARMAN: No.] Did I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say "No?" [Colonel KING-HARMAN: Yes.] I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on his courage, for he must know by this time that in stating that the rents of Ireland are possible, he stands alone almost amongst civilized men. He certainly stands in opposition to Lord Cowper, to Sir James Caird, to Mr. Knipe, I think to a large extent to Judge Flanagan, and to a large extent to Lord Milltown. I will not go into personal matters with reference to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman); but I am afraid his experience has rather prejudiced his judgment. If I were to go into the details of his own estate, I think I could show there is a large discrepancy between what is his opinion, of what is a fair and possible rent and the opinion of some of the Courts of Law; but I will return to the point-that the resistance to eviction is, in nearly every case, the resistance of men and women, and sometimes of children, to eviction for unjust and impossible rent, and I ask every Member of the Committee, as humane and Christian men, what are they to think of a system of Government which orders police officers to shoot down, without hesitation, men who are defending their homes against unjust and impossible rents. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary never made one allusion to that portion of the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon). The right hon. Gentleman denied the statement of my hon. Friend—that he gave orders to the Dis-

  1117
  trict Inspectors to shoot the people down without hesitation; but he did not offer any defence or explanation of the telegram of Captain Plunkett. Compare the action of the authorities in this country with the action of the authorities in Ireland. Will anyone tell me that a Minister in this country who had given the order to English magistrates to shoot down English crowds without hesitation could survive for 24 hours? A Minister who had dared to give so savage and barbarous an order would be immediately swept from his seat in a cyclone of popular wrath and hate. What do you do here when there is a riot in a town? The Mayor is called in—the Civil Authority has all the initiative, and the Civil Authority, before he gives the order to the police, oven to use batons, much less rifles, uses all the resources of persuasion. The law is carried out in England and Ireland in an exactly converse manner. In England you have a superabundant hesitation before shooting down any rioters. In Ireland the police have orders to shoot the people down without hesitation. Now, objection seemed to be taken to my hon. Friend's (Mr. Dillon's) statement that in the last five or six years 15,000 Irish families have been evicted from their homes. Why, in two years alone there were 7,000 evictions.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many were re-admitted as caretakers?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I anticipated the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and, if it will be any satisfaction to him, I will read the figures from the Blue Book. What I wanted to point out was, that my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) was talking of the number of people evicted. Whether the people were re-admitted as caretakers has really nothing to do with the question.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman fulfil his promise, and read the figures?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will read the figures if you like; but I am afraid it would be a waste of the time of the Committee. [A laugh.] If hon. Gentlemen are careless with regard to the time of the Committee I do not share their feeling. Mr. Courtney, the point my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) raised was this—that although there have been
  1118
  15,000 evictions in Ireland in the course of the last five or six years, no policeman has been killed or seriously injured at any one of them.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I only want the hon. Gentleman to fulfil his promise.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I said I would read the figures from the Blue Book, if the Committee desire that I should do so. I will place the figures at the hon. and gallant Gentleman's disposal.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I rely upon the hon. Gentleman to fulfil his promise.
  [Dr. TANNER walked across the floor of the House and offered the Blue Book to Colonel King-Harman.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Gentlemen to conduct this debate in a seemly manner.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think I was right, Mr. Courtney, in resisting the attempt of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) to get me to deal with entirely irrelevant matter. I have pointed out that in two years there were 7,000 evictions, and therefore I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) was quite justified in saying that in the last five or six years there have been 15,000 Irish families evicted from their homes. In spite of this terrible number of evictions in Ireland, there has not been one case of serious injury to a policeman; yet we have this extraordinary increase of police on one side, and this barbarous and savage order to the police on the other side. It seems that evictions can be carried out without any serious danger to life or limb, and yet we have directions given to the police to shoot down the people without hesitation. There is only one excuse for shooting down people without hesitation, and that is the imminence of great danger to human life. We are driven to this conclusion—that the reason of the recent order to the Irish police was not to save the lives of the police, but to strike terror into the hearts of the people. There was a time when massacre was the avowed policy of the English governors of Ireland; and I saw, not later than a week ago, that a newspaper with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was once intimately associated, declared that the weak point in the policy of Mountjoy and

  1119
  Cromwell, and the general laws, was that they wore not carried out with sufficient force and continuance. We have now Gentlemen who wish to carry out a policy which differs very little from that of Mountjoy and Cromwell. When the English people understand that this is so they will raise a storm which no one can withstand. My hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) is quite justified in endeavouring to impress the English public with the full meaning of the extraordinary growth of the Irish Constabulary Vote—for what does it mean? It moans that the people of this country have not only the responsibility and the shame and the guilt of the misdeeds of the Irish police, but they have to pay for the misdeeds out of their own pockets. I shall be surprised if the result of bringing these facts before the people of England is not a crushing verdict against the Government.
  MR. SEXTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to address a few words to the Committee with the view of expediting the issue which the Government, no doubt, desire. Thirteen hours ago we were willing that the Navy Vote should be taken, on condition that the Vote on Account was subjected to a debate of moderate length at a future Sitting of the House. The Government refused that offer, and I think it is apparent their then refusal has not resulted in an economy of public time. At an early hour this morning, I suggested to the Government, that if they would put the Vote on Account down as the first Business to-day, we would consent to a Division being taken at 10 o'clock to-night—that is, after a debate of about four hours—after which the Government might proceed with the other Business on the Paper. Since that offer was made eight hours have elapsed. We have, however, succeeded in obtaining the discussion which we claimed and sought. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who, when he speaks, speaks with the assent and confidence of all the Members of the Irish Nationalist Party, has been enabled to place before the Committee and the country his case and ours upon the questions of the increase of the Constabulary Vote, the misuse of the Bankruptcy Court, and the sinister instructions given to the police. He has extorted a reply from the Government. I
  1120
  do not say it has been a satisfactory or an adequate reply; but, at any rate, it has been such a reply as the miserable pass to which the foolish policy of the Government has got enables them to make. I have had an opportunity of raising the question of social order in Belfast. I think if there was anything to justify the stand we have made it would be this—that the principles I stated in debate in this House last year, which have now been ratified by a Royal Commission, have been practically adopted by the Government, and that wo, by what I beg, without undue egotism, to call patriotic persistency, have placed social order in Belfast upon a basis more permanent and more safe than that upon which it has hitherto rested. We have held the field, and we have won. Our persistency has been vindicated by the result. The masterly statement of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), the miserably weak reply of the Government, the valuable declaration which I myself have obtained with respect to social order in Belfast, are vindications of the course we have taken. There is not a man in the House who will now got up and, judging us by the declarations of the Government themselves, say that we do not stand justified before the House and before the country in what we have done. We do not wish to argue further with the majority of the House, but with the justice of the people—not of Ireland only, but of England and of Scotland—we leave the moral merit of this conflict between the Government and ourselves. Now, Sir, so far as we are concerned, the Vote on Account may be taken.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for East Mayo withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. DILLON: No, Sir; I intend to vote upon it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 255: Majority 175. [1.0 P.M.]

  AYES.

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Byrne, G. M.

  Campbell, H.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  Carew, J. L.

  Blake, J. A.

  Chance, P. A.

  Blake, T.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Blanc, A.

  Cobb, H. P.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Connolly, L.

  Brown, A. L.

  Conway, M.

  1121

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Morley, A.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Cossham, H.

  Nolan, J.

  Cremer, W. R.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Deasy, J.

  O'Brien, P.

  Dillon, J.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

  Dodds, J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Ellis, J. E.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  Ellis, T. E.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Esslemont, P.

  Pease, A. E.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Fenwick, C.

  Playfair, right hon. Sir L.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Fuller, G. P.

  Quinn, T.

  Gill, T. P.

  Rowlands, J.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Rowntree, J.

  Harrington, E.

  Russell, E. R.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Sexton, T.

  Hayne, C. Seale.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Hooper, J.

  Stack, J.

  Howell, G.

  Stuart, J.

  Illingworth, A.

  Swinburne, Sir J.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Lalor, R.

  Tuite, J.

  Lane, W. J.

  Wallace, R.

  Leahy, J.

  Watt, H.

  Leake, R.

  Wayman, T.

  MacNeill, J. G. S.

  Will, J. S.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Williams, A.

  M'Carthy, J. H.

  Wilson, H. J.

  M'Donald, P.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  TELLERS.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Labouchere, H.

  Morgan, O. V.

  Shell, E.

  NOES.

  Addison, J. E. W.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Ainslie, W. G.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Ambrose, W.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Brookfield, Col. A. M.

  Brooks, Sir W. C.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

  Baden-Powell, G. S.

  Baggallay, E.

  Burghley, Lord

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Caine, W. S.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Caldwell, J.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Campbell, Sir A.

  Balfour, G. W.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Barry, A. H. Smith.

  Chaplin, right hon. H.

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Charrington, S.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Collings, J.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

  Bective, Earl of

  Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

  Bentinck, Lord H. C.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Corbett, A. C.

  Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bickford-Smith, W.

  Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

  Biddulph, M.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Bigwood, J.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Curzon, hon. G. N.

  Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Bond, G. H.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Boord, T. W.

  Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P.

  1122

  De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

  Howard, J. M.

  Howorth, H. H.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Hubbard, rt. hn. J. G.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Hubbard, E.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Hughes, Colonel E.

  Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Hunter, Sir W. G.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Ellis, Sir J. W.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Elton, C. I.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Ewart, W.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  Johnston, W.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Feilden, Lieut.-Gen. R. J.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Kerans, F. H.

  Forgusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Kimber, H.

  King, H. S.

  Field, Admiral E.

  King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

  Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

  Knowles, L.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Lafone, A.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Fry, L.

  Lethbridge, Sir R.

  Fulton, J. F.

  Lowisham, right hon. Viscount

  Gardner, R. Richardson.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Gedge, S.

  Long, W. H.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Low, M.

  Gibson, J. G.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Goldsworthy, Major General W. T.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Gray, C. W.

  MacInnes, M.

  Green, Sir E.

  Maclean, F. W.

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Grove, Sir T. F.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Hall, C.

  Malcolm, Col. J. W.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Mallock, R.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J. J. R.

  Hamilton, Lord E.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Heath, A. R.

  Matthews, rt. hon. H.

  Heaton, J. H.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Mayne, Admiral R. C.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Mills, hon. C. W.

  More, R. J.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Mount, W. G.

  Hill, A. S.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Hoare, S.

  Hobhouse, H.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

  Muncaster, Lord

  Muntz, P. A.

  Holloway, G.

  Noble, W.

  Holmes, right hon. H.

  Norris, E. S.

  Houldsworth, W. H.

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Howard, J.

  Norton, R.

  1123

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  Spencer, J. E.

  Pagot, Sir R. H.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Sykes, C.

  Parker, C. S.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Paulton. J. M.

  Tapling, T. K.

  Pearce, W.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Pelly, Sir L.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Pitt-Lewis, G.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Townsend, F.

  Trotter, H. J.

  Pomfret, W. P.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Powell, F. S.

  Vernon, hon. G. R.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Vincent, C. E. H.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

  Quilter, W. C.

  Waring, Colonel T.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Webster, R. G.

  Rankin, J.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Reed, H. B.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  White, J. B.

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Whitley, E.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Rosa, A. H.

  Wilson, Sir S.

  Round, J.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Royden, T. B.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Russell, Sir G.

  Wood, N.

  Russell, T. W.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart.

  Saunderson, Col. E. J.

  Wright, H. S.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Wroughton, P.

  Seton-Karr, H.

  Young, C. E. B.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  TELLERS.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Douglas, A. Akers.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Walrond, Col. W. K.

  Smith, A.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday, 19th April.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  Ordered, That all Committees have leave to sit during the sitting, and notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House.
BANKRUPTCY OFFICES (SITES) BILL.
(Mr. David Plunket, Mr. Jackson.)
BANKRUPTCY OFFICES (SITES) BILL.

  [BILL 197.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading road.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): In moving that the Bill be now read a second time, it is only necessary to explain that its object is to authorize the Office of Works to purchase land close to the Royal Courts of Justice, on which to erect buildings for the accommodation of the Bankruptcy Offices.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Plunket,)—put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented two clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committed; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  (Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

    [BILL 199.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    DR. TANNER: There is a little doubt as to the object of this Bill; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain what it is.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): The object of the Bill is simply to correct a difference which was created by the alteration of the duties on wine in the United Kingdom last year; it is to raise the strength on which the lower rate of duty is paid from 26 degrees, which is now the limit in the Isle of Man, to 30 degrees, which is the limit in this country.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: What is the nature of the power under which this House legislates for the Isle of Man?
    MR. JACKSON: The power of levying duties is regulated by Parliament. The Isle of Man authorities can make no alteration without the sanction of this Parliament.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    (Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Thorburn, Mr. Watt.)
    SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

      [BILL 42.] SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      MR. CALDWELL: I have to ask the House to road this Bill a second time. Its object is to enlarge the jurisdiction of the

      1125
      Scotch Courts in respect to small debts, to simplify the procedure, and to reduce the expense. Since the Bill has been printed, there have been several valuable suggestions made regarding it by both the present and late Law Officers of the Crown; and it is intended that if the House will assent to the second reading, affirming the principle of the Bill, the suggestions of the Law Officers will be given effect to by Amendments of the Bill in Committee, and the Bill, as so amended, will thereafter be reprinted. I hope that, as the Bill has received the assent of the Law Officers, it may now be road a second time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): This is a Bill relating to legal procedure; and the Government are quite prepared to allow it to be read a second time. In conference with my hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell), I have arranged that certain alterations should be made in Committee.
      Question put, and agreed to.

    PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    (Mr. Chance, Mr. William Corbet.)
    PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

      [BILL 62.] SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      MR. CHANCE: This is a Bill to assimilate the law in Ireland to that in England. It carries out the recommendations of a Select Committee of this House which sat in 1860; it also carries out the unanimous recommondations of the Lunacy Authorities, and I believe it has the assent of the Government. I hope it may now be read a second time. If so, I shall be quite prepared to postpone the Committee stage until a fairly distant day.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chance.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): The Government are prepared to assent to the second reading, without pledging itself to the details of the Bill, on the understanding that the hon. Gen-
      1126
      tleman will allow a reasonable time to elapse before he takes the Committee.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      WAYS AND MEANS.
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)

      1. Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, the sum of £1,251,076 he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

      2. Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, the sum of £12,078,800 he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
      Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.
      House adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock p.m.