Commons Sitting of 8 September 1887

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report — Kitchen and Refreshment Committee [No. 320].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES, Votes 11 to 17; AEMV ESTIMATES, Votes 16, 6 to 9, 11 to 15, 17, 18, 20 to 25.
Resolutions [September 7] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee— £34,242,209, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading — Superannuation Acts Amendment [354]; Vacant Grounds (Nuisances Prevention) [388].
Committee — Local Government Boundaries* [324]—R.P.; Copyhold Enfranchisement [359]—R.P.
Committee — Report — Technical Schools (Scotland)* [358].
Third Reading—Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous)* [348], and passed.
Withdrawn—Juvenile Offenders* [245]; Distressed Unions (Ireland) * [307]; Municipal Regulation (Constabulary, & c.) (Belfast) (recomm.) [291]; Temporary Dwellings (recomm.) * [370].

QUESTIONS.

  BOARD OF TRADE (RAILWAY DEPARTMENT)—LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Board of Trade has any authority over the Railway Companies in the matter of level crossings; and, if so, whether, in view of the large proportion of fatal accidents connected with railways occurring at level crossings, he will take such steps as are needful to secure the safety of railway servants and the public at these dangerous places?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS: Special powers are, in some cases, conferred upon the Board of Trade by the Private Acts of Parliament authorizing the construction of railways. Powers are also conferred on the Board of Trade by the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, Section 7, to direct a Company to carry the turnpike road or public carriage road either under or over the railway by means of a bridge or arch, instead of crossing the same on the level. This provision only affects level crossings authorized since 1863, and confers no powers with regard to foot-path crossings.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that a great proportion of railway accidents occurred on level crossings; and whether he did not think that the Board of Trade should apply for further powers in the matter?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I am aware that a great many accidents have happened lately at level crossings, and the attention of the Railway Companies has been directed by the Board of Trade to the danger that exists. Further than

  1641
  that, in the present state of the law, the power of the Board does not go.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— MR. QUINN, HEAD MASTER OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOLS, TANDRAGEE.
  SIR JAMES CORRY, asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the headmaster (Mr. Quinn) of the National School, Tandragee, is the correspondent of the Nationalist newspaper, the Morning News, of Belfast, and that he attends the Petty Sessions Court during school hours, to report its proceedings to that paper?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, he had to inform his hon. Friend that the Commissioners of National Education had fully investigated the charge against Mr. Quinn, and found there was no ground for it.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE "BLUE BOOKS." — LEASEHOLDERS' RENT FIXTURES.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Mr. T. M. HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Will the Land Commission Blue Books be arranged in future to show leaseholders' rent fixtures separately?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETAEY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Land Commissioners had informed him that the Blue Books issued by them would show the rents fixed in the cases of leaseholders separately from those fixed for yearly tenants' valuation lists in the Land Commission Court.

  LAND COMMISSION COURTS PRODUCTION OF CERTIFICATES OF VALUATION.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Mr. T. M. Healy)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as the Land Commission Courts require applicants to produce, at the hearing of their cases, certificates of the valuation of their holdings, to enable them to fix a fair rent, and, as the copies of the valuation lists furnished by the Commissioner of Valuation to clerks of unions do not show the value of land separate from
  1642
  buildings, it is the fact that the correct valuation of such buildings cannot be given in the certificates by clerks of unions; and, whether, therefore, as buildings, as a rule, are in Ireland erected by the tenants, arrangements can be made in the Valuation Office to show the valuation of buildings separately; and, if so, would the Land Commission object to alter their forms accordingly, as the valuation of buildings and of land are now lumped together therein?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners report that the practice which exists of requiring applicants to produce a certificate of valuation of their holding has been adopted for the very purpose of enabling the Court to ascertain how much of the gross Poor Law valuation is on the land and how much on the buildings. The Commissioners believe that the certificate of the Clerk of the Union is but a copy of the valuation furnished by the Valuation Office, Dubblin; and that the valuation books, as furnished to Clerks of Unions, do not distinguish the value of the land from that of the building. To alter the form of originating notice by specifying that the valuation should be that of the land alone would not be, in the opinion, of the Commissioners, an advantage; as in such cases, by reason of the trouble of getting the separate valuation in the first instance, the applicants would, in most instances, leave the originating notice incomplete. If the Valuation Office adopts the practice of supplying the information as to the separate valuation of land and buildings, in such case the Land Commissioners would be prepared to make an alteration in the form requiring each to be given, as the information would then be within the reach of applicants. The Commissioner of Valuation states, in another letter, that arrangements can be made at the Valuation Office to issue certificates to all applicants at a small fee, showing the area and valuation of land and the valuation of buildings separately.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE" QUEEN v. SUB-INSPECTOR SOMERVILLE AND CONSTABLE WARD."
  MR. BLANE: asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he

  1643
  has entered a nolle prosequi in the case of the "Queen v. Sub-Inspector Somerville and Constable Ward? "
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I have to say yes, Sir. It was done at the last Cork Assizes.

  BOARD OF WORKS —STOWMARKET COUNTY COURT.
  MR. BLANEasked the First Commissioner of Works, If Mr. Fitzgerald, from the Board of Works Office, who visited Stowmarket recently to inquire into the sitting accommodation of the County Court, has made his Report; if it be true that a deputation of tradesmen, consisting of the leading men of the town, waited upon Mr. Fitzgerald to protest against the inadequate provision made for suitors, and recommending that the local Institate Hall be hired; if a Report of the complaints made has been furnished to him, will the same be laid upon the Table of the House; and, if it has been decided to hold all future Courts at the Institute instead of the old Courthouse?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): Mr. Fitzgerald did recently visit Stowmarket officially, and while there he was waited upon by an informal deputation of merchants and others, who complained of the inadequate accommodation provided for the County Court in their town, and requested that the local Institute Hall should be hired for the purpose. Mr. Fitzgerald reported to me on the 30th of last mouth in favour of that suggestion; and I at once applied to the Registrar of the County Court for his opinion upon it. Unless the Registrar should raise any objection, which I do not at all anticipate, the desired change shall be made with as little delay as possible.

  MOROCCO—THE SLAVE TRADE.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the reports are correct that the Slave Trade is still active in Morocco and the other towns of that State, and that the slave dealers have quite recently hawked their human victims about the streets, chiefly children and young negresses, offering them for sale; and, whether the Government will use
  1644
  its influence with the Sultan of Morocco to check this practice?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government regret that the Slave Trade still exists in Morocco, and that an open market for the disposal of human beings is held twice each week in Morocco city. The presumption, therefore, is that the trade is also active in the Provinces. Her Majesty's Minister has standing instructions to do what he can in discouragement of the practice; but active interference with it is not possible.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— THE CHURCH OF ST. MARY-LE-STRAND.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, as representing the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Board propose to remove the church called St. Mary-le-Strand, which so much blocks the way in the Strand, and is understood to be in a dangerous condition? And also a further Question in regard to the payment of compensation.
  MR. TATTON EGERTON, in reply, said, that the only action that the Board had taken with regard to the church referred to had been to serve a danger notice on the rector and churchwardens based on the report of the district surveyor, to render the building safe. Some few years ago, several schemes were under the consideration of the Board for widening the Strand at this point, and forming a now communication with Holborn; but no particular plan had been decided upon, and, owing to financial considerations, no action had been taken on the proposals. The Board were not in possession of any facts with regard to the numbers of persons who used the church; and as to the Board making any compensation in the event of the church being done away with, that was rather a matter which would be dealt with in any proposal for widening the Strand.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, whether it had been considered that, if money was expended in repairing the church, it would be less likely that it would be acquired for widening the street.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, the question bad only been considered generally in the way he had stated in connection with, schemes for widening the Strand.

  BURIALS ACTS — PROPOSED CEMETERIES IN EAST HAM.
  MAJOR BANESasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he is aware that three cemeteries are being projected in East Ham, in defiance of the Local Authorities and the residents, although there are, in the immediate neighbourhood,—namely, West Ham, Manor Park, and Forest Gate, six cemeteries already; whether he will inquire if any necessity exists for these additional cemeteries, and as to the persons by whom they are projected; and, if the proposed cemeteries are found to be unnecessary, whether the Local Government Board has any powers by which the inhabitants of the districts can be protected from the nuisance and depreciation of property which must arise from the opening of new cemeteries in addition to those already existing there?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS;(who replied) said: I have received notice of the projected promotion of two cemeteries in East Ham. I have also received objections to their establishment from local bodies and residents. I understand that there are in the neighbourhood of East Ham numerous cemeteries which afford abundant accommodation for burials. As there is no closing order for East Ham, neither the Home Office nor the Local Government Board have any legal power to prevent the formation of the proposed cemeteries; and, therefore, it is not proposed to hold any Government inquiry into the matter.
  MAJOR BANESasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the circumstances in connection with the Local Government Bill, with a view to the Local Authority having a voice in such a question?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes; I think it is a question well worthy of consideration.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ANNEXATION OF ZULULAND.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked the Secretary of State
  1646
  for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that the Colonial Secretary for Natal is recently reported to have said, in the Legislative Council of that Colony, that
  "It had always been understood that the annexation of Zululand would give the Colony an opportunity of getting rid of a large number of Natives;"
  if, in that observation, which appears to have been made in reply to a Motion favourable to the policy of transferring Natives from Natal to Zululand, the Colonial Secretary was rightly interpreting the intentions of the Imperial Government; and if Her Majesty's Government will take care that no regular transference of Natives be allowed to take place, except with the complete and unquestioned assent of the Zulus inhabiting the part of the country to which it may be proposed to move them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): My attention has not been drawn to the report in question; but it has, undoubtedly, been for some time contemplated that a portion of the Native inhabitants of Natal, who came into the Colony from Zululand, during the troubles in that country and who are now overcrowded would seek to return, and might be accommodated in Zululand. The great necessity, however, of preserving peace and good order in Zululand, will render Her Majesty's Government specially careful not to sanction any scheme of transfer of Natal Natives to Zululand unless there is ample room for them. Any such scheme of transfer would have to be submitted to, and approved by, the Governor of Zululand before it could be carried into effect.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—ISSUE OF DEFECTIVE AMMUNITION POUCHES.
  GENERAL FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he is aware that the pouches issued to a Cavalry regiment, intended to carry 20 rounds of ball ammunition, were found, on a recent occasion, to be of such inferior workmanship as to give way in the stitching in many instances under the weight of only 10 rounds; whether, on the Report of the Commanding Officer upon these pouches (specimens of which were sent with the Report to Woolwich), the whole regiment was supplied with new pouches, which, on being examined

  1647
  and tested by the Commanding Officer, were found to be quite useless, and incapable of holding the ammunition they were intended for; and, whether, on a further Report being made to this effect, the Officer Commanding was ordered to retain these pouches?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: Not long since the ammunition pouches of a Cavalry regiment were found of an obsolete pattern, and were exchanged for new ones. The new ones were complained of as being too small to contain the required ammunition. On investigation, it was ascertained that this arose from the cartridges not having been put in the pouches in the manner laid down by regulation. As the same pouch is in general use in Cavalry regiments, and was found, on examination, to be quite serviceable, the regiment in question was directed to retain the supply.

  WAR OFFICE (AUXILIARY FORCES)— MILITIA VALISE EQUIPMENT.
  GENERAL FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Militia will be supplied with the valise equipment in place of the knapsack, the latter having been discarded by the Line 15 years ago?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: The exchange of the Militia knapsacks for the valise equipment involves considerable expense, and can only be made gradually. About 85,000 have been exchanged; and it is hoped that the condition of the store will allow of good progress being made during the present year.

  SCOTLAND—EMIGRATION FROM THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the Lord Advocate, What are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to emigration from the Highlands of Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Government have had under their serious consideration a scheme of crofter and cottar emigration for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland which has been drawn up by the Secretary for Scotland. Some
  1648
  points of difficulty have arisen in the course of the negotiations with regard to the security offered for the payment of the interest demanded on the capital proposed to be advanced by the Government so as to insure the Exchequer against loss. The Secretary for Scotland hopes to overcome this difficulty by obtaining, if possible, a guarantee from Local Authorities, or otherwise, for the additional security required; and if this very desirable object can be attained the Government will be ready to carry out the proposed scheme next Session, and, if necessary, to introduce legislation for the purpose.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if his attention had been called to the correspondence between the Foreign Office and the authorities of the United States with regard to the emigration of crofters to the United States of America, and also to a letter which appeared in the correspondence from Messrs, Henderson Brothers?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I am not able to answer the Question at all, except to say, in regard to the answer I have given, it does not relate to any emigration to the United States.

  WAR OFFICE—RIDINGMASTERS AND QUARTERMASTERS—PROMOTION FROM THE RANKS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Ridingmasters and Quartermasters promoted from the ranks, and with more than 25 years' commissioned service, have, though strongly recommended by their respective Commanding Officers for the rank of major, been recently passed over in favour of officers of seven, 10, and 14 years' service; and, whether there is any, and what, objection to the promotion to the rank of major of officers who have risen from the ranks?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): There is no objection whatever to the promotion of officers who have risen from "the ranks to the rank of major, and many cases have occurred in which such promotion has been given. But, as I have already fully explained to the House, it was decided upon the Report of a Committee which inquired into all the alleged grievances of quartermasters,

  1649
  that promotion to the rank of major should not be by seniority, but by selection, to fill some of the more important posts held by these officers.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—RELIEVING OFFICERS OF THE BELFAST POOR LAW UNION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the relieving officers of Districts Nos. 1 and 2 of the Belfast Poor Law Union are also acting as Assistant Registrars of Births, Marriages, and Deaths in their respective districts in contravention of the General Order of the Local Government Board of the 2nd of August, 1847; and, whether each relieving officer of this union resides within his own district, as directed by the Local Government Board Circular of the 16th of July, 1847?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The relieving officers of Nos. 1 and 2 Districts of Belfast Union act as Assistant Registars of Births, Deaths, and Marriages for Nos. 3 and 4 Registration Districts respectively. The Local Government Board Order of August 2, 1847, has been rescinded. The General Order of December 18, 1882, which is now in force, does not require these officers to devote their whole time to the duties of their office. The Clerk of the Union reports that all the relieving officers live in their respective districts, with one exception—the relieving officer of No. 1 District. The Local Government Board will communicate with the Guardians in reference to the case of this relieving officer.

  THE CURRENCY—THE NEW COINAGE.
  MR. DILLWYNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is true that the authorities at the Mint are issuing sots of the new coins complete, of which the current value is £9 5s. 3d., at the price of eleven guineas? Also, when the new 6d. coins were likely to be issued?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): A large number of applications were received by the Deputy Master of the Mint for "proof" sets of the coins of the new designs; and it has been usual hitherto, in cases
  1650
  of new coinage, to prepare such "proof" coins and sell them to the public. The Treasury accordingly authorized the Mint to prepare such "proof" sets in the present case. Much additional labour was involved in the preparation of these coins, which had to be struck with great care in the medal presses (not the presses used for the ordinary Jubilee coins); and a charge of about 25 per cent above the nominal value of the coins had to be made to cover the cost of the manufacture of these "proof" sets. The ordinary coins are, as the hon. Member is aware, obtainable through bankers at the nominal price. As to the new 6d. coins, they are not being issued any further, on account of the objection raised to them that they may be made to resemble half-sovereigns if they are gilded. But there is a large stock still of old dd. pieces, and also of new 6d. pieces available. As to the gold pieces, the last intimation I had from the Mint and from the Bank of England was that there was a considerable stock of all the coins available. I am most anxious that the public should have access to the coins. There is some difficulty in finding the necessary machinery for supplying them; but I will give every facility I can.

  EXCISE—THE TOBACCO DUTIES—EXCESS OF MOISTURE.
  MR. NOLANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that a firm of tobacco manufacturers in the North of Ireland have supplied some of their customers with tobacco containing over 35 per cent of moisture, contrary to the new Customs and Inland Revenue Act, and that influence is being brought to bear to prevent a prosecution; and, whether, if the law is not enforced in this case, other manufacturers will be similarly treated under similar circumstances?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am not aware that a firm of tobacco manufacturers in the North of Ireland have supplied some of their customers with tobacco containing over 35 pel1 cent of moisture. I may say, however, that 12 tobacco manufacturers in Ireland have been found to have such tobacco in their possession. All these cases have been treated alike, as have similar cases in England. The

  1651
  manufacturers in question have all received a warning; but it has not been thought necessary as yet to proceed to a prosecution in any case. When laws are passed enacting changes in manufacturing processes, a certain discretion is always exercised in the first month or two before severe measures are adopted. In no case has any influence been brought to bear to prevent prosecution.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these cases there are in England?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Question referred to Ireland; and, therefore, I made particular inquiries as regards Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know how many cases are in England, I will make the necessary inquiries?

  THE THAMES CONSERVANCY BOARD—REPRESENTATION IN THIS HOUSE.
  MR. GEDGE(for Mr. BAUMANN)asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he will take into consideration the desirability of nominating to the Thames Conservancy Board a Member of Parliament representing a river-side constituency, there being no representative of the Conservancy in the House of Commons?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): It would, no doubt, at times be of some advantage that the Board of Conservators of the Thames should be represented in the House; but, in view of the provisions of the Thames Conservancy Act, it would be practically impossible to lay down any hard-and-fast rule such as is indicated by the hon. Member.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY —REMOVAL OF A BANNER, CAPPAMORE, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. FINUCANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Cappamore constabulary recently pulled down by force a banneret from the house of Mr. Martin Ryan, Towerhill, County Limerick, on which were the words "Evictors, come on;" whether Mr. Ryan, on same day, expected to be evicted by the Sheriff; and, whether the words on the banneret constitute a
  1652
  breach of the law; and, if not, by whose authority the police acted?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Constabulary Authorities report that on the 25th of August Martin Ryan, who had adopted the Plan of Campaign, was to have been evicted. He had barricaded his house, and in the evening fastened on the outside of the house a piece of calico with the words, "Plan of Campaign;" "Evictors, come on;" "No surrender." The words did constitute a defiance of the law, and were calculated to lead to disorder, breach of the peace, and obstruction to the law. The police sergeant, in the discharge of his duty, properly removed it.

  ARMY—MILITARY COLLEGES AND ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—COMPARATIVE SALARIES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, by paragraph 489b of the Royal Warrant of the 10th June, 1884, the Head Masters of the Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea, and of the Royal Hibernian Military School, Dublin, are to receive £250 per annum on appointment, rising by quinquennial increments of £25 to £350, so that after 20 years' service they should reach the maximum; whether, by the same Warrant, the second and third masters of the Royal Hibernian Military School are to receive £150 on appointment, with biennial increments of £5 to 180, so that after 12 years' service the maximum should be reached; whether the paragraph mentioned was inserted at the instance of Lord Morley's Committee in 1872, to remedy the anomalies and grievances then existing; whether the Head Master of the Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea, has got the full benefit of the Warrant, while the Head Master of the Royal Hibernian Military School has got but one increment, after 41 years' service; whether the second master, Royal Hibernian Military School, has also been given but one increment, though having upwards of 16 years' service, thus receiving less than either the third or fourth masters there, or the second, third, or fourth masters at the Royal Military Asylum; whether all other officials of both establishments have got the

  1653
  benefit of their service; whether this grievance has been repeatedly laid before the War Office Authorities since 1873, endorsed by the Board of Governors of the Royal Hibernian Military School, and hitherto ignored; and, whether payment will be made of the arrears accruing since the 1st April, 1874, when the Warrant took effect, amounting respectively to £165 for the Head Master and £85 for the second master, up to the 1st April, 1887; and, if not, why is the Royal Warrant made effective in every other case, both as to military and civilian officials, and not with reference to these?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said: The masters of the Royal Hibernian Military School referred to in the Question had, according to their years of service, received the full benefit of the Warrant.
  MR. SEXTON: In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer of the hon. Gentleman, I shall call the attention of the House to the hardships endured by those officials when the proper Vote comes on.

  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT— ASSISTANTS OF EXCISE.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists amongst the junior officers of Inland Revenue, owing to slowness of promotion and consequent loss of salary; whether their complaints have become more urgent in consequence of the scheme of re-organization which took effect on the 1st September instant, and which entails the abolition of a large number of appointments in the higher grades of the Service, thereby injuriously affecting promotion; whether, with reference to a statement made in this House by a Member of the Government on 12th April, 1886, that assistants of Excise attained the rank of ride officer after about five years' service, there are at present many assistants of almost seven years' service, whilst others, at the ordinary rate of promotion, cannot expect to attain the rank of ride officer until after nine or 10 years' service; whether, in the recent re-arrangement of salaries, assistants of long service have received no practical acknow-
  1654
  ledgment of their claims; and, whether, with a view to allay the prevailing discontent, and maintain the efficiency of an important branch of the Revenue Service, the Government propose giving any compensation to those whoso prospects have been injured, and who are suffering the disadvantage of deferred promotion?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSOHBN): The statement made on the 12th of April, 1886, conveyed the facts as they then were. It was, however found, on a recent revision of the Excise Establishment, that, owing to a large diminution in the number of brewers, a less number of officers was required for the service of the Revenue than formerly. This led to the re-organization which took effect on the 1st instant, by which the number of stations to which assistants would be promoted was reduced. As a set-off against this unavoidable disadvantage, the Treasury sanctioned an increase of salary being given to the assistants after three years' service, and another after six years'. In the rearrangement of salaries a small advantage was given to assistants of long standing. The reduction in the staff was the result of altered circumstances; and the best compensation was given to officers for deferred promotion that those circumstances allowed, due regard being-had to economy of administration. In estimating the effect of the recent reorganization upon the prospects of assistants, it must be remembered that if the places to which they can be promoted are fewer under the new system, the salaries of those places are higher.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)—LADY VISITORS TO FEMALE PRISONERS.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Commissioners of Prisons are taking any measures for the systematic extension of the voluntary visitation of female prisoners by ladies under such arrangements as are admittedly working so satisfactory at Oxford, Worcester, and one or two other gaols?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes,

  1655
  Sir; the system is being extended by the Prison Commissioners as far as they are able. When an application is received for the appointment of lady visitor, the name is submitted for the approval of the Commissioners; and written instructions are then forwarded to her, in order that her benevolent functions, the value of which is fully recognized, may be carried into effect in the most systematic and useful manner, and with the co-operation of the Prison Authorities.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—FISHERMEN PILOTS.
  Sir SAVILE CROSSLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that the fishermen pilots on the cruisers detailed for the protection of the drift fishing boats on the North Sea, were last year insufficiently paid by the Government, and that the boat owners were obliged, at their own expense, to augment the pilots' pay considerably in order to obtain the services of efficient men; and whether the Government will supply fishermen pilots for these cruisers in the coming fishing season at their own expense?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Until the hon. Baronet put the Question on the Paper my attention had not been directed to this matter. As the Government are most desirous to co-operate with the fishermen in protecting them against the depredations to which they are now subject, I will make arrangements by which the remuneration given to fishermen pilots last year by the Admiralty shall be augmented.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—THE PROTECTION CRUISERS.
  SIR SAVILE CROSSLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Government will endeavour to replace such of the cruisers detailed for the protection of drifters in the North Sea as are obsolete by other cruisers, of an improved class like H.M.S. Hearty?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): As the cruisers become unfitted for the service on which they are engaged they will be replaced by efficient vessels; but I can-
  1656
  not undertake to say that they shall be of the same class as the Hearty, as the replacements must depend on the vessels at the disposal of the Admiralty at the time.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—DAMAGES BY BELGIAN TRAWLERS.
  Sir SAVILE CROSSLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether in view of the fact that no adequate compensation has been obtained in any case, by either private individuals or Trade Societies, from the owners of Belgian trawlers wilfully damaging British drift fishing, the Government will take up the first clear case arising, on behalf of the owner of the injured English boat, and will carry the case through, and see that justice is obtained?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (SIR JAMES FERGUSSON): In consequence of many allegations that the existing means of obtaining compensation for wilful damage to their property are not readily accessible in Belgium to British fishermen, Her Majesty's Government have instructed the Consul General in Belgium to take legal advice, and assist the aggrieved parties to bring a civil action in a test case in which criminality has been proved.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—THE OSTEND RIOTERS.
  SIR SAVILE CEOSSLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government has yet received the Report of Her Majesty's Consul General at Antwerp, who was sent to Ostend to report fully on the case of the Morning Star, the owner of which lost a considerable sum by not being able to land fish, or communicate with his agent, at Ostend on the 23rd August, and on other similar cases; and, whether he will take such stops as are necessary to secure compensation for British subjects who have suffered losses from Ostend rioters?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Mr. Grattan was sent to Ostend to report generally on the whole question of the fishery riots, and on the case of each individual British vessel which suffered in consequence of them. His general Report has not yet

  1657
  been received; but lie has reported the result of his inquiries into the case of the Morning Star. This vessel, it appears, entered Ostend Harbour on the morning of the 21th—not the 23rd. Her captain employed two boatmen to make his vessel fast to the dock wall. From them he learned what had happened, and they advised him to put to sea. He spoke to the Sluice Master, who alleges that he merely confirmed the statements of the men as to the general state of affairs. The Sluice Master was then asked by the captain as to procuring a tug, and he replied that at that early hour one was not procurable; but he asked the pilot of the English steamship Medley, which was about to leave, to tow the Morning Star out, which was done. The Sluice Master emphatically denied having advised or ordered the master of the Morning Star to quit the port. As regards compensation to British subjects who have suffered losses from the Ostend rioters, it appears that such claims should be addressed to the Municipality of Ostend. Her Majesty's Consular officers will be instructed to give such assistance as may be necessary to persons having cause to prefer them.

  INDIA (BOMBAY)—CHARGES AGAINST MR. G. H. D. WILSON, OF THE COVENANTED CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Mr. G. H. D. Wilson, of the Covenanted Civil Service of India, and late Political Agent of Cambay, was accused of having demanded the daughter of the Dewan of Cambay as a concubine; whether a Commission composed of two of the most experienced Members of the Indian Civil Service, Mr. J. G. Moore and the Hon. J. B. Naylor, was appointed by the Government of Bombay to make inquiry into this charge; whether, after a public investigation, both parties being represented by leading counsel of the Bombay Bar, the Commissioners found that the charge had been proved; whether their decision was upheld by the Government of Bombay; whether Viscount Cross has reversed this decision; and, if so, upon what grounds; whether Mr. Wilson is not to return to India; and, whether he is to be allowed to resign on a special pension; if so, what is
  1658
  the amount of this pension, under what Statute is it granted, and, will the people of India have to pay it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSION): I have to reply to this Question on behalf of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, who is still indisposed. The facts stated in the first three Questions are substantially correct. The Government of Bombay expressed concurrence in the finding of the Commissioners, but referred the matter to the Secretary of State, and postponed the issue of final orders until the proceedings had been considered by him. On the receipt of the Papers at the India Office the case was, in the first instance, referred by the Secretary of State to a Special Committee of his Council, which considered the evidence altogether insufficient to support the finding of the Commissioners in India. The Secretary of State, after careful consideration, came to the same conclusion; but recognizing the importance of the case, was anxious to obtain the independent opinion of high legal authority, and the whole of the Papers were accordingly laid before the Lord Chancellor. After attentive examination of them, he unhesitatingly gave his opinion that Mr. Wilson was entitled to an acquittal; and this view being in accordance with that of the Secretary of State and of the Indian Council, it was adopted. For reasons explained in the Secretary of State's despatch to the Government of Bombay, which will shortly be published in India, it was not thought desirable that Mr. Wilson should return to India. A retiring allowance will be granted to him; but its amount cannot now be stated, because before this could be determined a reference to the Government of Bombay was found necessary. The principle, however, on which it will be regulated is that it will fall short of the annuity to which he would have been entitled, on the completion of the ordinary term of service by an amount proportionate to the time by which his actual service is deficient.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, under what section of the Civil Servic Pensions Code pensions were granted?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he was unable to answer the Question; but he might say that the pensions were

  1659
  made up out of contributions; by members of the Civil Service from their pay, amounting to about two-thirds of the total amount; and Mr. "Wilson's pension would, therefore, be less in proportion to the time by which it would fall short of his full term of service.
  MR. PICKERSGILLwished to know whether there was any section of the Civil Service Pensions Code which was applicable to such a case as this?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONasked the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question, which was not one relating to his own Department.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) — ATTACK ON A TRAIN, KILLYLEA STATION, CO. ARMAGH.
  MR. BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, on Sunday 4th September, an Orange mob made an attack on the passengers in the train at Killylea Station, County Armagh, with bludgeons and volleys of stones, as well as revolver shots; whether the County Inspector was written to the previous evening, warning him as to the intentions of the Orange party to attack the train; and, what steps the Resident Magistrate and County Inspector took to preserve the passengers at Killylea?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Constabulary Authorities report that a party of Nationalists returning by train from a meeting at Middle-town, County Armagh, while passing Killylea Station, which is essentially an Orange district, made use of party cries. This gave offence to some persons on the platform at the time, and resulted in stone-throwing and the use of sticks by both parties. There was no firing, except one shot from the train while leaving the station. A letter had been sent by a Mr. Gardner to Mr. Dobbyn, County Inspector, who happened to be on leave of absence. But as there was nothing to show it was not a private letter it was forwarded to him unopened. No special steps were taken for the preservation of the peace, as there was no disturbance anticipated. The Nationalists appear to have been altogether responsible for what occurred. Several complaints have been made as to their discharging revolvers and otherwise
  1660
  creating disturbances when returning by rail and cars from the meeting. In one instance a bullet cut through a boy's boot, grazing the skin and lodging in the heel of the boot, but, fortunately, without doing him further injury.

  WAR OFFICE—UNCLAIMED EFFECTS OF DECEASED SOLDIERS.
  MR. HUNTERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, If he can explain the circumstances under which the delay of nine months has arisen in paying to his legal representatives the amount of the effects of the late John Collins (Fleming) of the 2nd Battalion, Somerset Regiment, who met his death in Burmah in December of last year; and, whether the largeness of the sums of unclaimed effects of soldiers is due in any measure to the avoidable delays which take place in the realisation and distribution of them?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY (Mr. BRODRICK): Great delay has arisen in making up the non-effective accounts of soldiers who have died in Burmah, and especially in the battalion referred to, in consequence of the very detached duties on which the troops were employed, coupled with the fact that their kits were left for the most part at Rangoon when the battalions moved up country. No instance is known of the relatives of a deceased soldier abandoning their claim upon his effects in consequence of delay in paying the money; and no case is added to the list of unclaimed effects until every effort has been made to discover the relatives entitled to the amount. I may add that the Secretary of State is always most desirous to distribute these estates with the least possible delay.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS—PROMOTION TO LOWER DIVISION CLERKSHIPS.
  SIR JOHN PULESTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is now in a position to communicate to the House the decision of the Treasury regarding the promotion of Civil Service writers to Lower Division, clerkships; and, if not, whether he will be able to do so before the Session closes?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): As I have stated, in answer

  1661
  to former Questions on this subject, the recommendations made by Departments are being considered by a Committee. The work is not yet complete, and I fear I may not be able before the close of the Session to make an announcement respecting the promotions to be made; but I shall make the promotions as soon as the work is complete.

  VENEZUELA—OUTRAGES ON BRITISH SUBJECTS AND SHIPPING — THE "HENRIETTA" AND "JOSEPHINE."
  MR. KIMBERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information of a further outrage, committed by Venezuelan authorities, upon British merchants residing in the adjoining Colony of Trinidad; whether a lighter, belonging to Mr. John Cumming, one of the principal British merchants at Port of Spain, Trinidad, despatched with monthly supplies only for his estate and hospital at Cedros, also in Trinidad, driven by squally weather into Venezuelan waters while beating up the coast, and, anchoring there, waiting for turn of tide to get back to the Trinidad shore, was seized by the Venezuelan Revenue boat, and taken, with the crew, as prisoners, to Giuria, where, although proof was given of the innocent nature and facts of the case, the Venezuelan authorities procured judgment to be given against the vessel, gave 48 hours only to appeal, and condemned the captain to three months' imprisonment; whether the former outrages committed by Venezuela by the seizure, ill-treatment, and false imprisonment of the passengers and crews of the Henrietta and Josephine, and their vessels, which outrages were also accompanied by a gross perversion of justice, under the name of a judgment, are still unredressed, and the claims and remonstrances made by Her Majesty's Government therefore are still unheeded; and, whether, in face of the contemptuous indifference shown to these claims and remonstrances, and the further outrages committed and threatened by Venezuela upon British subjects, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to enforce respect to its demands and to protect the Colonists and their property from similar outrages in future, or whether the Colonists must, in case of future assaults upon or seizure of their persons or pro-
  1662
  perty, defend themselves or secure other assistance?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Information has reached Her Majesty's Government of the seizure referred to in the Question, which will receive immediate attention; but there has not yet been time to examine the circumstances of the case. In the meanwhile, one of Her Majesty's ships has arrived at Trinidad, having been summoned by the Governor of the inland. No redress has yet been given by the Venezuelan Government in the cases of the Henrietta and Josephine; but Her Majesty's Government cannot allow matters to remain on that footing.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— BALLYCOTTON HARBOUR.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the portion of the old Pier at Ballycotton that projects into the new harbour has not been removed and the foundation made level with the bottom of the harbour on either side; whether he is aware that as much as four feet of this portion of the old pier still remains which is exposed at low water spring tide, and constitutes an obstruction dangerous to shipping; whether it is a fact that, while the new pier was in course of construction, tons of rubble—namely, stones, earth, and rubbish, were blown off the new pier into the harbour, forming a bank of rubble alongside the pier, which prevents fishing boats lying within a distance of 20 feet from the wall, whereas formerly fishing boats were able to reach and lie beside the old pier at half tide; and, whether the Board of Works will order the entire removal of the portion of the old pier referred to, and the dredging of the rubble, which is dangerous, and robs the new pier of half its value?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: I learn by telegram that this work is still in the hands of the contractor, who is bound to remove altogether the portion of the old pier which projects into the new harbour; and he will also be obliged to remove any rubble, stones, earth, or rubbish which may have been allowed to fall into the harbour.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY — CHARGE AGAINST A POLTCE SERGEANT, PIKE, BALLINGARRY, CO. TIPPERARY.
  DR. FOX(for Mr. P. J. O'BRIEN) (Tipperary, N.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any Report has been received with reference to the sergeant in charge of the police station at Pike, County of Tipperary, having been drunk on the evening of the 30th June last when absent on duty at Lorrha Petty Sessions; and, if not, will he cause inquiry to be made into the fact?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, this Question had been repeatedly asked, and he had inquiries instituted. He had received a Report from the District Inspector, from which it appeared that the sergeant, who was a most zealous and efficient officer, had earned the hostility of the local branch of the National League. The District Inspector was himself present at the Petty Sessions, and said there was no ground for the allegation contained in the Question.
  DR. FOX: The man is regularly drunk.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE GREEN WICH TIME GUN AT CORK.
  DR. TANNERasked the Postmaster General, Whether complaints have reached him of the irregularity in firing the Greenwich time gun on the Marina, in the City of Cork; and, whether some arrangement could be made to insure that the gun should be fired punctually at noon, as in other ports? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether this gun had not really become the laughing stock of the city, exhibiting what I may call wilful eccentricity in sometimes going off for weeks, and then not going off at all?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that no complaint has reached me of irregularity in the firing of the time gun on the Marina at Cork. No arrangement has been made with this Department for the supply of the Greenwich time signal at noon. At the request of
  1664
  the Harbour Commissioners the signal is supplied daily at 10 o'clock, and the Commissioners, I am informed, make their own arrangements for firing the gun at 1 o'clock. Therefore, the Post Office is not responsible for any irregularities that may occur at that hour. The signal cannot be supplied to any Provincial town at noon; but if it is the wish of the Commissioners that it should be supplied to Cork at I o'clock, as at some other places, I shall be glad to receive an application from them on the subject.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE DELIMITATION OF THE AFGHAN FRONTIER.
  DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs, If it is a fact that the frontier between Turcomania and Afghanistan has been so delimitated as to leave all the fords on the Pendjeh, Murgab, & c, used by the nomadic pastoral tribes, in the hands of the Russians?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES EEROUSSON): No, Sir, it is not a fact; and I may say that in the hon. Member's Question there are names which I do not recognize. There is no river called the Pendjeh on any map I have seen, nor is there any place called Turcomania. It may have some relation to Mervousness.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Turcoman-land is not placed on most maps as "Turcomania?"—the land of the Turcomans? He may not be aware of it; but—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  HOME OFFICE—INCORPORATION OF HASLINGDEN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Petition for the incorporation of Haslingden was presented; whether it was signed by a large majority of the inhabitant ratepayers, representing about two-thirds of the net rateable valuation; whether any cause operates against the grant of the Charter; whether an inquiry has been held; and, if so, whether a Copy of the Report of the Commissioners will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether, if no inquiry has been held, an inquiry will now be ordered?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): A Peti-

  1665
  tion for the incorporation of Haslingden was presented at the Privy Council Office on the 20th of November, 1886. It was signed by persons representing about a half of the net rateable valuation. The inhabitants of a portion of the district objected to the grant of a Charter, and expressed a wish to be joined to Accrington. An inquiry was held, by direction of the Lords of the Council, on the 15th of February last. The Reports of the Commissioners are confidential documents, and it has never been the practice to make them public.

  SOUTH AFEICA—THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will lay upon the Table the Papers regarding the compensations for loss of office in the Transvaal, showing the grounds on which they were awarded, and also the grounds on which subsequent offers of service were declined?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): Sir William Gurdon's Report, to which I referred for particulars of these cases last Tuesday night, was confidential, and I therefore only offered to show it to the hon. Member; but I will send him extracts from it which bear upon the question of these pensions, and I hope this will satisfy him. But if he should desire any further information, and will let me know, I will endeavour to give it to him.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)— RETIREMENT OF MR. W. AHERN, NORTHERN POSTAL DIVISION.
  MR. H. CAMPBELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether it has come to his knowledge that Mr. Walter Ahern, the Surveyor of the Northern Postal Division of Ireland, is about to seek retirement on pension; if so, upon what grounds, what is his present length of service, and what will be the probable amount of pension to which he will be entitled; whether it is a fact that he has only retained his present position as surveyor for about six years; whether there is any limit of age for candidates applying for vacant surveyor-ships; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of fixing the limit of age for applicants not to exceed 40 or 45 years, so as to insure that the appointment
  1666
  will fall to a man of sufficient energy, who will not seek it for the purpose of retiring a few years subsequent to its being conferred upon him on the increased pension which retirement from the position entails; and, whether he will consider the question of transferring the present headquarters of the Northern Division from Dublin, which is 45 miles beyond the southern limit of that district, to a more central point in the Division?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have no knowledge whatever of Mr. Ahern's intentions. He has about 38 years' service. The other question will receive consideration whenever the occasion arises.
  MR. SEXTONasked if it was the fact, as stated in the Question, that the headquarters of the Northern Division were in Dublin?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, there was no doubt that the present headquarters of the Northern Division were in Dublin. He would, as he had said, consider the question of their transference when the occasion arose.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIVER BARROW.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the sum of £5,000 voted by Parliament towards the drainage of the River Barrow, Whether the Government intend to bring forward legislation dealing with the subject of the drainage; whether that legislation will be introduced next Session; and, if so, at what period of the Session; and, whether the legislation will proceed on the lines suggested by the Royal Commission, and particularly whether effect will be given to the recommendation of the Commission that a free grant of £75,000 shall be made for the purpose of the proposed drainage?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Government did intend to introduce a Bill dealing with the Barrow drainage next Session. The Bill would be based generally on the lines suggested by the Royal Commission. The Government were not prepared to give any promise in regard to a free grant of any or a special sum. They would not

  1667
  be in a position to do so until they had before them the Reports of the Royal Commission on other questions besides arterial drainage which had been referred to them. The Bill would deal with the recommendations of the Commissioners as a whole.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES— CLASS III.— LAW AND JUSTICE—"CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, REPAYMENTS TO COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS."
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there is any Treasury Minute, or other Regulation, which limits the annual Vote for "Criminal Prosecutions, Repayments to Counties and Boroughs;" and, if so, what is the date, and what are the terms of such Minute?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The repayment of the costs of criminal prosecutions is now regulated —subject to the Resolution of this House in Committee of Supply and to the terms of the Appropriation Act—by Treasury Minute of January 29, 1875, which deals with the "costs of prosecutions at Assizes and Sessions and under the Summary Statutes," the latter being at that time the Criminal Justice and Juvenile Offenders Acts.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—DISTURBANCES AT BALLINASLOE.
  DR. FOX(for Mr. HARRIS)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the statements contained in the extract from The Daily News, as to recent occurrences in Ballinasloe, be substantially true; whether the following statements correctly describe what took place: —
  "At half-past 10 o'clock on Friday last the police arrested a man for drunkenness. A few people assembled and shouted, as the police treated the prisoner very roughly. On the road, opposite John Rigney's house, Louis Ward's two sons, Tom and Louis, were walking;. The police had gone to the barrack, and save a few shouts from the children, nothing was occurring, when Constable Nolan, by himself, walked up behind Louis Ward's back and struck him on the head with his baton a blow which was heard 40 yards away, and which felled him to the ground. The constable then ran away. Young Ward was taken home insensible, and attended by Dr. De La Hunt, who pronounced him Buffering from concussion. The crowd was so quiet, that when told to disperse they did so.
  1668
  Tom Ward charged Constable Nolan with the assault to Sergeant Charles M'Carthy, but he took no notice whatever of what occurred, and did not even go to see the injured man;"
  and, if so, what action, if any, has been taken by the Local Authorities as regards the conduct of Constable Nolan and Sergeant M'Carthy?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The County Inspector of Constabulary reports that on Saturday evening, September 3, a prisoner had been sent from Ballinasloe to Galway, and that a disorderly mob had collected on the platform cheering the prisoner and groaning at the Government. Afterwards, about 10.30 p.m., when the police were conveying a drunken man to the barrack, a mob of between 100 and 150 roughs collected round them hooting and groaning. One of the police, Constable Nolan, observed Ward stoop and take up from the ground what appeared to be a stone. He called on him to drop the stone; but instead of doing so he made a motion with his hand to throw it at him. The constable stooped his head to avoid the missile, and struck at Ward with his baton in self-defence. Ward's skull does not appear to have been fractured. The constable did not run away. He rejoined his party to render them assistance in conveying the prisoner. Mr. Gibson, Resident Magistrate, was present, and considers the police displayed great forbearance.
  DR. TANNER: Arising out of the answer, may I ask how it could be known that Ward had a missile—is it a supposition or a reality?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Considering it was 10.30 p.m., it would be rather difficult to see in the dark.
  DR. TANNER: If this young man was not in possession of a stone, and no stone was thrown, and yet his skull was fractured, was it not most unwarrantable and illegal?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: They say his skull was not fractured.
  DR. TANNER: But his head was broken.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—PROCEEDINGS ON THE SHIRLEY ESTATE, CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  1669
  Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the tenants on the estate of Mr. Shirley, in the neighbourhood of Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, who were evicted last March, and who retook possession of their houses pending the hearing of their applications to the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed, have been recently visited by the police, and by them threatened that unless they quitted their homes within two days they would be proceeded against under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether he can state upon whose authority, and under what Statute, the police so acted; whether it was open to Mr. Shirley to remove these people under the ordinary law; and, whether, in view of the fact that their applications to have a fair rent fixed are listed for hearing at the next sitting of the Land Court in County Monaghan, he will order the police to suspend their action?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Constabulary Authorities report that 14 tenants on the Shirley estate, evicted last September, December, and March, have been noticed by the police to leave the houses and farms whore possession had been unlawfully re-taken within the last few days; and in some cases, when found in the houses, were informed that if they did not leave they would be prosecuted under the Statute quoted. These instructions were carried out by order of the Divisional Magistrate. Mr. Shirley might have taken proceedings to recover the premises otherwise than by means of the recent Statute. None of these tenants have served notice to have a fair rent fixed; and in the case of seven of them the statutable period for doing so appears to have expired.

  TITHE — COMMUTATION AND REDEMPTION OF TITHE — A ROYAL COMMISSION — COLLECTION OF TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have given any consideration ss to the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission on the Commutation and Redemption of Tithe?
  MR. J. G. TALBOTalso asked the right hon. Gen-
  1670
  tleman, Whether, considering the urgent necessity of settling the questions which have arisen with respect to the collection of tithe rent-charge, as instanced by the recent Report of the Commissioner appointed to investigate the disturbances in Wales, he will consider the desirability of recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission, which may facilitate the early passing of a measure calculated to determine a matter of grave importance to the well-being of the community?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W.H. SMITH): In answer to the Questions of the two hon. Members, I beg to state that Her Majesty's Government have given further and careful consideration to the question of tithe; but they have come to the conclusion that, under present circumstances, it is not desirable that a Royal Commission to inquire into the question should be appointed.

  WAR OFFICE — PRESENTATION OF COLOURS TO THE 5TH BATTALION ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS — RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES.
  COLONEL SANDYShad the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that, on the 24th ultimo, at the Curragh Camp, on the occasion of the presentation of new colours to the 5th (Militia) Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers by the Marchioness of Londonderry, wife of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the regiment having been formed up into square on parade, the Service of Consecration of the Colours, taken from a Romanist book called The Pontificale Romanum, was performed by a Roman Catholic Priest named Father Dillon, assisted by the Senior Anglican Military Chaplain in Ireland; whether it is the case that, on the occasion of Consecration of Colours of one of Her Majesty's Regiments by a Roman Catholic Priest at Devonport last year, a severe reprimand to all concerned was administered by the then Secretary of State for War, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; whether the celebration of Romish ceremonies in public is in accordance with the provisions of 10 Geo. IV. c. 7 s. 26; and, what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
  MR. SEXTON: As Question 48 is exceedingly offensive to millions of Her Majesty's subjects, and as the hon. and gallant Gentleman in whose name it stands is not here to ask it, I beg to ask your leave to put it to the Secretary of State for War, in order that we may have an expression of opinion from the Government regarding the matter.
  THE SECRETAEY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I am quite ready to answer the Question. It is the fact that on the day named the Marchioness of Londonderry presented Colours to the 5th Battalion of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, being the regiment formerly known as the Dublin County Militia. The ceremony of consecrating the Colours took place, consisting in the reading of two collects in English by the Roman Catholic chaplain, followed by the prescribed prayers for the blessing of standards by the Church of England chaplain. The regiment is mainly composed of Roman Catholics; and it was considered desirable that the chaplains of both denominations should co-operate in the ceremony. The ceremony appears to have satisfied everyone on the spot, and was not in any way similar to the one which took place last year at Devonport.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order, or respectful to Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, to speak of and to use the expression "Romish ceremonies," which appears in the third paragraph of the Question?
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not take any exception to the expression when I first saw it, nor do I think that any exception can be taken to it now. I do not suppose that any insult to any Member of this ' House was for a moment intended.
  MR. SEXTON: We consider it extremely offensive.
  MR. SPEAKER: With that knowledge, I shall take care in future that Questions are so framed as not to offend the prejudices and feelings—very just feelings—of hon. Members.

  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS, SCOTLAND.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the First Lord of
  1672
  the Treasury, If he can give any hopes that the Local Taxation Returns of Scotland will no longer be kept hack by the Secretary- for Scotland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Local Taxation Returns of Scotland for the past year, as the hon. and gallant Member has already been informed, are being pushed forward as rapidly as the limited staff at the disposal of the Secretary for Scotland will permit.

  AFGHANISTAN—AYOUB KHAN.
  SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Ayoub Khan, having recently escaped from his detention in Persia, attempted to enter Afghan territory in the neighbourhood of Herat; whether he was repulsed in the attempt; whether he is now a fugitive on Persian territory; and, whether any steps will be taken to effect his recapture?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The information that Her Majesty's Government have received is in the sense of my hon. Friend's Question. I cannot at present add anything to it.

  THE TRUCK BILL—THE WAGE CLAUSES.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he received a telegram this morning from the Trades Union Congress at Swansea protesting against the action of the other House in striking out the Wage Clauses of the Truck Bill with regard to Scotland and Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Yes, Sir; I did receive such a telegram.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Government attach any importance to the communication, and whether they will consider the subject?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Undoubtedly, Sir; the Government will consider the subject.

  THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC—SAMOA.
  MR. A.M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for

  1673
  Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, whether any confirmation has been received of the telegraphic news published this morning that the Germans have occupied Samoa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): A telegram, which I am sorry I have not got with me, has been received stating that, in consequence of complaints which the German Government had against the so-called King Malietoa, a force had been landed and he had been deposed. The British and United States Consuls had protested. I should add that the rival Chief has been recognized by the Germans as King of Samoa.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not a fact that, practically speaking, owing to the German Colonists in Samoa having been attacked by one King, the Germans have set up a rival King, and that the English Consul has actually stated to the people of the Island that the English Government will resist this German aggression, and will re-instate the former King?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question; but I must not be understood to admit the truth of anything he has said.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What the Government intended to do with regard to the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, it was the intention of the Government to push that Bill through. As the hon. Baronet would see, the Bill had come down from the other House, and it was much more important that other measures which had not passed the House of Lords should be taken before it.

ORDERS OF THE BAY.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £553,300, New Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, and Repairs.
  (2.) £56,100, Medicines and Medical Stores.
  DR. TANNER: There are one or two points in connection with this Vote which ought to receive the attention of the Committee. In the first place, I think there is nothing which really deserves more consideration than the quality of the medicines and drugs which are supplied to the Navy. I find, comparing the medicines supplied to the Navy with those supplied to the hospitals and to private practitioners, that, as a rule, they are of far inferior quality both in the naval hospitals and on board Her Majesty's ships. I have seen several of the large naval hospitals, and have experienced much pleasure in going over them. As a rule, they are well managed and maintained in an extremely efficient manner, except in regard to contracts for medicine. It is very hard that I should feel called upon to inveigh against any system of Government contracts; but, as a private individual, having gone through these hospitals and visited several of Her Majesty's ships, I am prepared to say that the standard of the medicine and drugs supplied to the Navy is much inferior to that which is supplied to the large hospitals in London and in the Provinces. I am of opinion that if there was a little investigation into the system, both as to the character of the medicines supplied and the cost of the supply, it would be advantageous to the public. I am certain that much better articles might be obtained at a more reasonable cost. Perhaps I maybe allowed to accentuate what I say by pointing to the "German" quinine now kept in store, the price of which fluctuates in the market and varies very greatly. Of course, the supply is very limited. As everybody knows, it is grown in South America; and if there is a sudden epidemic and an increased demand the price at once goes up in the market. Some of the items of expenditure in connection with this Vote have, I believe, over and over again been brought before the House, and it has been complained that the buying of perishable drugs in large quantities has led to great waste; they become damaged, and in the end have to be sold at a very trifling price, although they have cost a good deal to obtain at first hand. In the case of quinine, it is a very expensive article, and I think it is altogether

  1675
  undesirable to lay in a largo stock of such substances, and thereby run the risk of the deterioration to which they must obviously be subjected. I would ask the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), in whose Department I believe this matter rests, to bear these points in mind. I only mention the fact because I want, in a straightforward manner, to stop the waste of public money which goes on in connection with these items. Having mentioned the question upon this Vote, there is no necessity why I should allude to it again in connection with the Army Vote, although, of course, the same principle is involved there. Instead of laying in a large stock of these perishable drugs, I think it would be a great deal better to come to some arrangement or agreement with some of the large firms to undertake to supply the Government in the event of an emergency. There is another matter to which I desire to call attention, and which, I believe, comes under this Vote. My lion. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson), who has usually called attention to the matter, is not at present in his place, and therefore I consider it my duty to mention it. At any rate, I think we are entitled to an explanation upon it, although I am not so well informed on the matter as my hon. Friend. I allude to the expense of carrying out the Contagious Diseases Act. That Act has now been abolished in this country, owing to the philanthropic efforts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld).
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that there is no item in connection with the Contagious Diseases Act in this year's Vote. There was last year, but there is not this.
  DR. TANNER: I thought the item applied to this year. I saw an entry in the Vote; but as there is no specific item this year, I will confine myself to the point I have already brought before the Committee. It is a strictly technical medical subject; but I have considered it my duty to bring it under the notice of lion. Gentlemen opposite.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY): The subject which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is, no doubt, a very
  1676
  important one; but I can assure him that the greatest possible care is taken to get drugs and medicines of the very best quality.
  DR. TANNER: May I point out to the noble and gallant Lord one point in connection with the matter? I think one fact is worth a thousand mere assertions. I have visited a great number of Her Majesty's ships of war, and among others, on one occasion, I went over a vessel commanded, I think, by the noble and gallant Lord—namely, the Devastation—[Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: No.] —I recollect finding on that ship, and also upon others upon several occasions, "German" quinine, which was of a very inferior quality. I happened to see it in the case of the Devastation upon one of the shelves. It was evidently in use, and I put some questions to one of the medical officers with regard to it. Of course, for obvious reasons, I have no desire to mention names. I complained of the inferior quality of the drugs, and I was told—" Oh, we cannot get anything better out of the Government."
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I am very sorry to hoar that; but, as far as we can, we take the greatest trouble to obtain the best medicines and drugs we can secure. The hon. Member spoke of cutting down the supply of drugs. I do not think that he would really wish to do that. I think it is most necessary that we should always have a full supply, and that we should always be able to obtain what we require. Formerly, I admit, in the system of issuing drugs and stores there was a certain amount of waste; but that was owing to a bad system of organization. Medical stores were bought more or less by wholesale, and they were not divided into separate stores for the different ships; that was a system which was attended by a great deal of waste. At the present moment, however, a different system prevails; and now, in regard to all medical stores, both at home and abroad, there are certain chests always ready packed in the event of an emergency. In that case, when stores are required, it is only necessary to hoist the chests into the ship, the chests themselves having already been packed in a time of peace. So far as the quinine is concerned, I believe that we get the very best. I will, however, make inquiries with reference to what

  1677
  has fallen from the hon. Gentleman. I may inform him that I never was on board the Devastation.
  DR. TANNER: I made a mistake; I meant the Thunderer.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I am very glad that the hon. Member has raised this question about quinine; but he has overlooked the supply from India. I think it would be extremely valuable if the Government would make some further inquiry in regard to all stores supplied by contract. It is now 16 years since I served on the Select Committee to inquire into the contracts and purchase of stores, and the time has come for renewing the inquiry.
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: I take it that although the immediate question of the Contagious Diseases Act mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Cork cannot be discussed upon this Vote, yet that the appropriation of a certain amount of money already voted in connection with that Act is involved in the present Vote. I see an item in reference to my own constituency—namely, the Royal Hospital at Devonport—and certainly an appropriation for that purpose is involved in this Vote. Therefore, I think I shall not be out of Order in asking my noble Friend to make some inquiry into the practical working of the system now adopted under this appropriation. My own belief is that the system is not working satisfactorily, and I would ask my noble Friend whether something cannot be done to make it work better?
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I am sorry I am unable to give my hon. Friend any information. I was not aware that any question with regard to the working of the Contagious Diseases Act was likely to be raised.
  DR. TANNER: There is one other matter which comes under this Vote— namely, the surgical instruments supplied to the medical officers of the Navy. I think the noble Lord would do a very great service to the medical officers if, on the arrival of a vessel after a voyage, these instruments were taken out of a ship, and transmitted to some instrument maker in order to have them thoroughly done up, in the same way in which the surgical instruments are done up, which are used in the hospitals on shore. That would not only be a very
  1678
  good thing for the medical officers themselves, but I think I am entitled to urge it on the plea of economy; because if these surgical instruments are kept in an efficient condition their deterioration is prevented, and they are prevented from rusting and going to the bad. Not only would the Government save expense, but I think they would be advancing, at any rate, the cause of humanity; because it now very frequently happens that the medical officers of the Navy are called upon to perform most delicate operations with inadequate instruments, or with instruments that are altogether out of order. Certainly, that is entirely opposed to the true instincts of humanity. I am satisfied that a small point of this nature might very easily be seen to; and although it might entail a small immediate expenditure it would be for the benefit of everybody concerned in the end.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I am afraid it would be very difficult to send out the surgical instruments after every voyage; but certainly, when a ship is paid off, the rule is to return the surgical instruments into store. They are then thoroughly done up according to a contract made by the Board of Admiralty, and returned to the ship when put into proper condition.
  DR. TANNER: I am afraid that I did not thoroughly explain what I mean. There are many surgical instruments made of steel used at sea, and they are more liable to rust than similar instruments which are kept on shore. It is for that reason that I would suggest the desirability of having them carefully attended to whenever an opportunity arises.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I am afraid that we could not do that until the vessel comes home, and is paid off. When a ship does come home its surgical instruments are sent to the hospital, and are re done up by contract.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £11,500, Martial Law, & c.
  (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £186,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888."
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I wish to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when iron-clads become unfit for sea service and it is proposed to break them up, the question is considered if, instead of destroying them, they might not be used for the protection of mercantile ports at home, and in the Colonies as floating batteries? The early floating batteries, such as the old Glatton, would have been very useful for such purposes.
  THE FIEST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): As a matter of fact, I do not believe that any of our iron-clads have as yet been broken up. We have made arrangements by which certain iron-clads which are not considered to be effective for sea-going purposes will be sent to foreign stations, where they will be used as a sort of reserve ships for the protection of the station in which they are placed.
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: I wish to call attention to a small item which appears in this Vote of £650, as a contribution in aid of the Lock Hospital, and the Lock Wards in the Devonport Hospital. I only draw attention to the item because it is quite evident that the question of the Contagious Diseases Act does come under this subsection of the Vote, the item, being a contribution on the part of the State in aid of the Lock Wards of the Devonport Hospital. I think that if the Government will make Borne inquiry into the matter they will be able to find a better mode of carrying out the intentions of the Act than has as yet been discovered. Passing from that subject, I wish to call attention to a small item of £650 for sailors' homes at the naval stations. When we consider the number of our sailors' homes, and the important work they have to do, and even the increasing importance of the work, I would venture to express my regret at the smallness of the sum appropriated for that purpose. I do not think that the public money could be expended in a manner that is calculated to do more good to the Naval Service. I am quite sure that if the Admiralty will look into the question they will arrive at the conclusion that a email additional amount may be employed in this direction.
  DR. TANNER: It is a pleasant thing to be able to corro-
  1680
  borate any statement that comes from the Benches opposite; but this is a case in which I am quite prepared to back up the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir John Puleston). I think we are entitled to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to direct his attention to this question. It is a subject which I myself mentioned last year, particularly in connection with the Cork Sailors' Home. Upon that occasion the hon. Member for the borough of Cambridge (Mr. Penrose-Fitzgerald) said that there was a project on foot in Cork to amalgamate the Queenstown and the Cork Sailors' Homes. I recollect that I put the state of the case before the noble Lord at that time at considerable length. I do not feel called upon to treat it at the same length this year; but I would ask his kind indulgence to the circumstances of the case. There is one home at Cork and another at Queenstown. Of course, the home at Queenstown is quite close to the ships, and the noble Lord the First Lord must be aware that when there is a sailors' home immediately opposite a guard ship, many men pass from the ship every day and enter their names on the books of the home. That, however, moans nothing whatever. They simply go in and out, perhaps wash their hands or have a cup of tea, but never make use of the home in a regular way. I was secretary to the Cork Sailors' Home for nearly three years, and at the present moment I happen to hold a sort of honorary position in connection with it. Therefore I speak with some kind of authority in regard to the Sailors' Home at Cork; and I trust that the noble Lord will perceive that I am simply endeavouring to direct his attention to the necessity which actually exists, if any regard is to be had to the benefit of the sailors themselves—not merely seamen in Her Majesty's Service, but of sea-faring men. I made an appeal last year to the noble Lord to look into this matter, and to consider that these sailors' homes are not merely for the benefit of Her Majesty's seamen, but also for the benefit of other sailors, many of whom come from foreign countries who happen to be turned adrift as waifs and strays upon any of our sea-port towns. In Ireland at the present time we have not a superfluity of wealth. Any man who will take the trouble to read the newspapers will see the rapid strides that pauperism is

  1681
  making in the country. It is, therefore, evident that unless some substantial support is given to institutions of this kind by the authorities that the institutions themselves cannot be continued. It is therefore desirable, in a period like the present, that we should make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government. As the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir John Puleston) pointed out, Her Majesty's Government ought to do something more for the support of these sailors' homes than they have done in the past. In the first instance, the Government granted to our home in Cork a sum of £25. They found that the home was managed so well that they increased the grant to £50, subsequently to £75, and then to £100. What have the Government done since? It is perfectly evident that in times of depression like this, if the Government took away their grant, the charity must suffer; and, nevertheless, the Government now propose to cut down their grant by one-half. Were it not for the fact that from time to time we have had very liberal endowments in the City of Cork from private individuals we should have been obliged to close the Sailors' Home. An effort has been made—as I stated last year—to amalgamate the Cork and Queenstown Sailors' Homes; but I think that it would be a great mistake. Queenstown is not a commercial port. The Board of Trade Office, where the sailors go in order to get their certificates, and to find a new ship, is not at Queenstown, but at Cork. The consequence is that Cork is the centre, and where you have a centre I think it is palpable you ought to have the home. The Sailors' Home at Cork has been successful in the past. We have continued to keep the doors open; but we are looking forward with a certain amount of alarm to a long period of depression. We are now steadily eating into our capital, and if that is to go on the home cannot be kept open much longer. Every year we have had a large number of men stopping there who do not come simply for the purpose of washing their hands, but who come for the purpose of occupying the home. Last Christmas we had about 400 men who came from Bantry, and who were connected with the Navy or the Coast Guard. Men of that kind have come in and filled our home on two or three occasions in the course of the year, and
  1682
  whenever we have the Channel Fleet in Bantry Bay we have a large number of them. I only draw the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that what he promised last year has not been carried out. Speaking on this 6ide of the House, I will only ask him to comply with the appeal which has been made to him by the hon. Gentleman on the opposite side —namely, to pay attention to these most deserving charities. I trust that he will, at any rate, allow some investigation to be made into the circumstances of the two homes I have mentioned.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The principle on which this Vote is distributed is this. The grants are made to sailors' homes in proportion to the use made of them by the sailors of the Navy and the facilities they afford. That is the only principle on which grants of this kind can be included in the Navy Votes. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that few institutions are more worthy of public support; but if sailors' homes are to receive public support on any other ground, money will have to be asked for, not by the Admiralty, but by the Board of Trade on behalf of the Mercantile Marine of the country. The hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) has called attention to the sums appropriated for sailors' homes last year, especially in reference to the homes in Cork and Queenstown. On that occasion I said that it was found that the sailors of the Fleet made greater use of the home at Queenstown than they did of that at Cork, and that accounted for the difference between the two grants. The hon. Gentleman on that occasion took exception to the manner in which the money was distributed. I subsequently looked into the matter, and I can assure the hon. Member that a very great use indeed is made of the Sailors' Home in Queenstown, much more than of that at Cork. We have, therefore, felt it necessary to adhere to the principle in which the grants were previously given.
  DR. TANNER: Will the noble Lord say whether the question of the amalgamation of the two homes is to be considered? I have made inquiries, and I cannot find that any steps have been taken in the matter.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I believe that it is probable that the two homes may be usefully amalga-

  1683
  mated; but that is a matter for the local managers, and is not a matter in which the Admiralty can possibly interfere.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have a Motion on the Paper in respect of Item 10 of this Vote, and before allowing the Vote to be taken I must certainly ask Her Majesty's Government to give me some specific information upon this matter. Even if they do so, it is highly probable that I shall press the matter to a Division. The item in question has reference to the conveyance by sea of the Royal Household, and the entertainment of Royal personages. There are a variety of other items under the same heading with which I do not desire to trouble the Committee. I refer to the fact because it has not been possible for me, in placing the Amendment upon the Paper, to ascertain and to discriminate greatly between the amount required for these two first purposes—the conveyance of the Royal Household, and the entertainment of Royal personages, and the amount for all other purposes under letter Z. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord in charge of the Vote to explain to the Committee, in the first instance, what is the exact amount required for the conveyance by sea of the Royal Household; and, secondly, for the entertainment of Royal personages? That is the first question I shall put to the Government. But following upon that I certainly take a very strong exception to our being called upon to vote money for this purpose at all. With respect to the first head, my objection to it is precisely similar to the objection I raised the other evening to the payment of £40 for a steam packet whenever a distinguished personage or some near relative of the Royal Family chooses to come or go across the English Channel. If we must have a Royal Household, assuredly we pay enough for the maintenance of the dignity and of the splendour of the Court when we pay the Royal Family a round sum amounting to nearly £1,000,000. [Cries of "No, no ! "] But it is a fact; and if Her Majesty cannot pay the travelling expenses of her household and servants out of a sum of £385,000 which is granted annually for her Civil List, I do not see why the country should be called upon to pay them. Last year we voted to the
  1684
  Sovereign alone a sum of £410,000, and surely that ought to be enough to enable the Sovereign to pay the travelling expenses of her household. I should like to know why it is not? If it is necessary to increase the Civil List for that purpose, then by all means let the Government move that the Civil List be increased; but I am inclined to think that the people of this country entertain a strong objection to increasing it. What I object to is these subsidiary payments being constantly asked for, for precisely the same reason which I gave the other evening, that a large proportion of the electorate of this country consider that we have already paid a great deal too much. What I would ask is whether this money is paid under the contract by which the country bound themselves when the Civil List was established in its present form at the commencement of Her Majesty's Reign? Being bound by that contract, of course I have no objection to make to the continuance of the payment; but what the people of this country have a reasonable right to complain of is that this sum—very much too large, as many of us think—should be year after year supplemented by payments none the less objectionable because they may, perhaps be small and comparatively insignificant. There are very strong complaints, and the most uncomplimentary language is used out-of-doors with respect to the Royal Family, because the people think that it is hard, considering the amount of the Civil List, that we should be constantly called upon to pay the travelling expenses of the Royal Household and the Royal Family. I can only repeat what I said the other evening—that if the Government of this country are desirous of maintaining the dignity of the Royal Family and of securing the respect of the people for Royal institutions, it is very desirable indeed that these demands upon the public purse by persons living in luxury and splendour should be put a stop to at once and for ever. As far as I am concerned, I have no reason to complain of the operation of these arrangements year after year, because, from my point of view, as a Republican, I have no objection to their being clearly known, seeing that they must be calculated, in the end, to diminish the popular view of loyalty to the Crown. But that is not

  1685
  the ground on which we, as political partizans, should consider a matter of this kind. We desire, at any rate, to save the pockets of the taxpayers in the first instance, and to spare them from those unnecessary and wholly undignified calls upon the public purse by persons who ought to be above making such calls. In the second place, we desire that institutions which are considered of great importance, and are looked upon with very different feelings by the vast proportion of the people of the country, should not be daily and improperly undermined by considerations arising from these petty matters. We have, therefore, a strong objection to being called upon to pay for the carriage by sea of the Royal Household. If we are called upon to do that, why should we not also be called upon to pay for the conveyance of the Royal Household by land? Perhaps we are; and I hope the Government will be able to explain under what Vote we are called upon to convey the Royal Household to and from Balmoral and other places. So far as the conveyance by sea of the Royal Household is concerned, seeing that Her Majesty has several grand yachts, for which we pay a large sum year by year, I think it is not too much to ask that the Royal Household should be conveyed in them. We are paying annually considerable sums for the redecoration of these Royal yachts, and it is probable that the vessels themselves are not used more than once a month. In my opinion, it is absurd that we should be called upon for extra payments for Royal yachts which are lying idle during a great portion of the year. Then, again, why are we called upon to pay for the entertainment of Royal personages? I wish to know specifically whether this entertainment had anything to do with the Jubilee year, or was it in connection with something that took place last year? Who are the Royal personages, and why should we be called upon to entertain them? Are they connected with our own Royal Family, or are they mere tinsel German Grand Dukes and Duchesses and the rest of them. Surely it is not too much to ask the Royal Family to entertain these Royal personages themselves. We are not supposed to entertain them. When they come over here we may give them a banquet at the Mansion
  1686
  House, or something of that kind; but that is not entertainment. If we convey them at the cost of the nation, why should we be called upon to entertain them? I am very anxious to know who these Royal personages are, under what circumstances they come here, and for what reason Her Majesty's Government asks us to pay even one farthing for their entertainment? I want to know what proportion of the Vote is devoted to the two purposes I have mentioned, and should also like to hear whether similar items are reproduced year after year? Are we called upon to entertain Royal personages every year, or is this the first time, or is the amount we are asked to pay greater this year, or less than in previous years? These are the reasons which have induced me to place an Amendment on the Paper, and I will only repeat my earnest protest against the country being called upon to pay these charges in future. Of course, the Government cannot eliminate these charges from the present Estimates; but I trust that they will consult the popular feeling out-of-doors, if not for their own sake, at any rate in the interests of others.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move?
  MR. CONYBEARE: Yes, I move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £3,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item Z—Miscellaneous Payments and Allowances—be reduced by the sum of £3,000."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The amount of this Vote is £8,355, and the hon. Member has stated that he is unable to ascertain what proportion of the Vote relates to conveyance by sea, and what for the entertainment of Royal personages. He has, therefore, moved to reduce it by the sum of £3,000. The hon. Gentleman has given expression to his opinions in strong language; but I think that when a Member does feel strongly on any subject he ought to endeavour to obtain all the information he can in regard to it. The hon. Gentleman might have found an explanation of the facts in the Estimates. It is stated that the expenditure incurred in 1885–6, under the head to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, was £1,488, while the hon. Gentleman might have found that out before putting an Amendment on

  1687
  the Paper which implies that the amount voted to these purposes is much larger.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is that the sum expended for the conveyance of the Royal Household?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No; it is the sum expended in reference to the Royal Household, and for the entertainment of the suites of Royal personages. The hon. Gentleman says that there are many people in this country who object to the expense attached to the Monarchy and to the Royal Family. Of course, there are a large number of persons among the electorate who are not very well informed upon these matters; and if they adopt the system of multiplication which their instructors adopt, it is not to be wondered at that they overestimate the cost of maintaining the Royal Family. The hon. Member has put down at the sum upwards of £1,000,000 a-year.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I put down that sum for the whole of the Royal Family. I did not say that it was for Her Majesty alone.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I do not think it amounts to one-half of that sum. Moreover, Her Majesty, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, gave up her right to the Crown Lands, to which she was as much entitled as any private individual to his own private property. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it has been established by experience that the most expensive Government is the Republican Government.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Is the noble Lord speaking to the Question?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I might have called "Order" when the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall was speaking; but I refrained from doing so. After the observations which have been made by the hon. Member I think I had fairly a right to say what I have said. As regards the actual sum itself, it is expended in conveying Her Majesty's servants, luggage, and carriages to and from Aberdeen, and from this country to the Continent, and the amount in the present Estimate for this purpose seems to me to be a reasonable one. The Sovereign of this country, from time immemorial, has a right to have these services performed by the Royal Navy. The hon. Member says—" Why not em-
  1688
  ploy the Royal yachts?" But I may point out to him that the consumption of coal by the Royal yachts would be far more expensive. We cannot, at the commencement of the year, exactly estimate what the cost would be. Therefore we take the expenditure of the preceding years, and that for 1885–6 was the amount which we calculate will be required for the present year—namely, a sum slightly under £1,500. That is the estimate of the amount we have put down as likely to be defrayed in the course of the present year. The hon. Gentleman, complains of another item for the entertainment of Royal personages. This is an item which, has escaped our attention. It would appear that some portion of the Vote goes for the purpose of entertaining Royal personages from abroad. That is not the case, although the hon. Gentleman has fallen into a natural error. The Royal yachts are frequently employed in conveying Royal personages to and from this country. These Royal personages are accompanied by considerable suites, and they have to be entertained on board the Royal yachts. It has been the practice, and I think properly, to make allowances for this, so as to enable the officers of the Royal and other yachts to defray the expenses to which they are put. The sum charged is a very trifling one, and I think the country may legitimately be called upon to pay it. I think I have now explained to the hon. Member what these items mean, and I have shown him that the employment of the Royal yachts would lead to a very considerable additional expenditure. I have also pointed out that the Sovereign has a right to claim the services which are rendered in this way by the Navy. Therefore I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall that, as this is Her Majesty's Jubilee Year, and as we have been gratified with the sight of a great many Royal personages, great and small, he should not feel it necessary to press the Amendment. There is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord—namely, whether I am to understand from him that ships of war are employed to take down the Royal Household and their luggage?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Certainly not. All I said was that from time immemorial the Sovereign had the right of making use of the Royal Navy for that purpose.
  MR. HOWELL: There was one sentence in the remarks of the noble Lord which I must take exception to. I altogether deny that the Crown Lands to which he referred are the private property of the Sovereign, in the sense in which land is the property of private individuals. I think the expression used by the noble Lord was wrongly used.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I must say one word in answer to the noble Lord. His explanation has rather intensified my objection than otherwise. He has not said a single word to justify this expenditure, or to remove the necessity for pressing the Amendment as strongly as possible. It now appears that the Royal personages are not Royal personages at all, but the hangers-on and camp followers of Royal personages who come over here in the Royal yachts. [A laugh.] The noble Lord laughs, as I think he well may, when he finds that the nation is called upon to bear all this expense. It is quite enough that the poor people of this country should be subjected to the unnecessary expense of entertaining Royal personages; but it is ten times more objectionable that they should have to pay for all these understrappers when they come over. If these Royal personages cannot entertain their own poor, and if they are too impoverished to give this entertainment in the mess-room of the Royal yachts, they ought to stay at home and not burden us with their presence at all. I feel so strongly that the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty has made the matter worse instead of better that I shall not hesitate to press the Motion to a Division. I challenge the noble Lord to show any Act of Parliament or distinct arrangement which justifies these subsidiary payments we are called upon to make in addition to the Civil List. The Civil List was settled at the commencement of the Reign, in order to cover all the expenses which could be imagined. The Civil List is taken, as everybody knows who has read the history of the matter, at the commencement of the Reign. The present Civil List was arranged and settled by a Select Committee, which sat at the end of the
  1690
  Reign of William IV., and everybody knows that the amounts allowed for the Civil List under each of the different heads into which the Civil List is subdivided are enormously in excess of what any reasonable person could ever have wanted. If that is so, and the Civil List is so much in excess of the requirements, we have even more strong reason to complain of these payments, which bring up the amount we have to pay to Her Majesty in the present year to £410,000. So far as the Crown Lands are concerned, I challenge the noble Lord to disprove my statement on the matter. This is what I commit myself to, and nothing more—that the amount, including payments, annuities, and marriage gifts to the Royal Family, very largely exceeds £500,000. If I am not entirely mistaken, we shall have to pay something like £800,000 this year, which is the minimum sum at which it can be put for the Royal Family, including not merely Her Majesty alone, but the whole of the Members of the Royal Family. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) as to the fallacy of I talking of the Crown Lands as belonging I to Her Majesty. There were formerly charged upon hereditary revenue, which, we are told, was given up in exchange for the Civil List, large sums in connection with the Government of the country. For instance, the Judges and the Diplomatic Service, and other things, were paid for out of the hereditary revenues, and they are absolutely in excess of the sums now paid. I do not suggest, as an alternative to our being called upon to pay these charges, what the noble Lord says would be a more expensive charge. It seems to me that the Royal yachts might be more usefully employed, considering the amount of money we have to pay for them. At the same time, I do not think we ought to be called upon to pay a single farthing under this head. I maintain that Her Majesty ought to pay for her Royal yachts herself, and that we ought not to be called upon to pay one farthing for the conveyance by sea of the Royal Household, or for the entertainment of Royal personages. We are fairly entitled to object that any item of that kind should appear in the Estimates. I am very glad of the admission the noble Lord made that there was a little mistake in the matter which had

  1691
  escaped the attention even of the Board of Admiralty. I think it throws a side light upon the question that may enable us to fix the attention of the country upon these Royal abuses. I trust that we may detect a few more of these little errors; I have no doubt that we shall if this sort of expenditure is to be continued.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I only rise for the purpose of saying one word. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall has again referred to figures which are seriously inaccurate, and he has not attempted to support them by any specific statement. I wish to enter my protest against the practice of making assertions of a haphazard kind in this House which cannot be supported by facts.
  MR. CONYBEARErose to continue the discussion, when—
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be quite irregular at this moment to enter into statistical details.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: May I point out that discussions of this kind might be avoided if an explanatory Memorandum were attached to the Votes showing the total charge under all headings? By that means any inaccuracy of statement would be prevented. I have taken out all the items with very great care; and I should be inclined—if this were the proper time and place, which it is certainly not—to make a statement, strongly sustaining the amount objected to by the First Lord of the Treasury. In future this sort of discussion can be easily avoided by giving a Memorandum stating what the items are.
  SIR EDWARD REED: Many hon. Members of this House are anxious to cut down some of the extraneous charges which find their way into the Admiralty accounts; but I think it would be unfair to the Committee generally to force them into a Division on this point. What is the question before the Committee? It is that the Admiralty should be recouped in a sum of £1,400 for services performed by the Navy. It would be quite unworthy of this country when naval services have ben performed to send in a bill to Her Majesty or anybody else after these Royal personages have been put ashore.
  1692
  I quite sympathize, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, and I shall be willing to vote with him on a future occasion if he will move reductions in such Votes in some other direction. I think it is discreditable that a great many charges for persons, not much connected with Royalty, and not having any great claims on the nation, should be made; and therefore I shall be glad to vote with my hon. Friend on another occasion for the reduction of some of these charges. I think it would be well if the Government themselves could see their way to reduce some of these charges. This, however, is not a case of the kind. This is a case of minor services performed by Tier Majesty's ships in a small way, and it would be quite a mistake to divide the Committee upon the subject. There is no principle involved in the Amendment, and the Committee could not be forced to divide upon it without the suspicion arising of its being done from "sheer nastiness." It is said that part of this charge is on account of foreign visitors. I hope it will never be said of this country in its corporate capacity that it does not show hospitality. If Great Britain were to become a Republic to-morrow, it would be the duty of the country to show hospitality to the Sovereigns of other countries. I myself, in my humble capacity, have enjoyed hospitality on board the ships of foreign nations, and have spent many very agreeable days. I think it would be hard to throw upon the officers of these ships the cost of the slight entertainment which I received. There are many charges which might legitimately be dispensed with; but in doing so we must not run the risk of holding ourselves up to foreign nations as an inhospitable and unpleasant people, because I maintain that under any form of government, whether it is a Republic or a Monarchy, it is the duty of a nation to extend hospitality to other nations.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am perfectly ready, after the very frank and decided speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, to withdraw the Motion, or, at any rate, not to press it to a Division. In doing so, I wish to say that I take that course owing to the arguments which have been laid before the Committee, and because I see that the object

  1693
  I have in view may be much batter accomplished in another way. The best course, undoubtedly, will be to raise the whole question in a much more decided manner another Session, when we come to discuss the Civil List. I should prefer that some more experienced Member of the House would take up the running; but, if nobody else will do so, I shall be prepared to do the duty myself. I wish, however, to guard against a misconception, I thought I had satisfactorily explained in my previous remarks—that if these Royal personages were national guests I should have no objection to the cost of their entertainment. I quite endorse everything that has fallen from my hon. Friend; but I did not understand that these were national guests—on the contrary, I look upon them as mere private guests of the Royal Family, and on that ground I certainly object strongly to these charges.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (5.) £801,400, Half Pay, Reserved Half-Pay, and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines.
  COLONEL HAMILTON: I wish to call attention to one item in this Vote— namely, the salary of an officer which has been raised during the year from £500 to £1,000. The same officer also receives an extra sum of money to which he is entitled as half-pay. I think it is very unusual in any branch of the Service to make arrangements of this kind; and I wish to know whether the officer in question receives £1,000 for all his services, or £1,228?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is quite true that Captain Hull's salary was raised last year; but he has done valuable work for it—work in which the Board took very much interest, and he occupies now a highly responsible post as the head of the Naval Intelligence Department. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks if it is true that this officer draws half pay. It has been proposed that he should draw his half pay, and at the present moment there is a correspondence going on with the Treasury upon the subject, and I can give no information with regard to it until that correspondence is concluded.
  COLONEL HAMILTON: Is it proposed to allow half pay, not only to this officer, but to the other nine half-pay officers of the Department?
  CAPTAIN COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.): I shall have some remarks to make as to the form of these Estimates, either on the Report of Supply, or on the Appropriation Bill. I would ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to consider whether something may not be done to render the details of the Vote more intelligible. At present all sorts of officers are mixed up, and it is impossible, without a great deal of trouble, to find out what each different class of officers costs the country. I see that we are voting a sum of £8,000 for half-pay to the Clerical Staff of the Navy, and £5.080 for reserve and retired pay to the same class. Altogether I calculate there is a sum of something like £62,000 for the Clerical Department of the Fleet, the Clerical Staff of the Dockyards being excluded. The total for clerical duties in the Navy is nearly £500,000. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to consider the Civil branches of the Navy, and to have their ranks and pay set out in some separate form. As the Estimates are now prepared, it is extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible, to ascertain what the total charge of the Clerical Department or any other particular branch of the Navy is.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I hope next year to lay the Estimates before the House in a different and in an improved shape. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) has already given great attention to the subject; and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it would be better, if possible, to distinguish the Votes for the combatant from those for the non-combatant officers.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I am prepared to give the Admiralty full credit for their good intentions; but I wish to know whether, when a retired Marine officer or a retired naval officer is employed in the Civil Department of the Navy, or in any other branch of the Civil or Colonial Service, he is allowed full pay of the Civil Office and retired pay as well? That is a question which

  1695
  has often been raised in this House, but has never yet been satisfactorily settled. The same observation applies to the Army as to the Navy.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I also wish to say one or two words in reference to the same question. It is a very large question to raise now at this period of the Session; but from all I can learn the retirement which has been going on in the Royal Navy is most expensive and unjust to the taxpayers of this country. I know of one case in which a man of 36 has been allowed to retire on a pension of £200 a-year. With 18 or 20 years' service, young men in the prime of life are able to go off with a large retiring allowance. I object to the system altogether, as being unjust and unfair to the taxpayers. By the courtesy of the Treasury I have been allowed to see a draft of the Superannuation Bill, which is now upon the Order Book; but I find that it does not deal with this subject except to a very limited extent. I am glad, however, to find that the rules with regard to retirement allowances, both in the Army and Navy, are under the consideration of the Government. I do not at all grudge the payment of a retirement allowance when a public servant is compelled to leave the Service; but what I object to is that these young men, whose services might be rendered available in other ways, are allowed to retire for life with a large allowance. I think, myself, that the country ought to have some hold over their future services, and that it should be in a position to take advantage of those services in a case of emergency. I believe that there are a very large number of retired officers receiving this retired pay; and I want to know if rules exist, or are going to be made, by which the services of retired officers can be made available in future? I do not think that they ought to be allowed to commute their half-pay, and to retire from the country with the full value of their pensions.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman has raised two questions. First, the conditions under which officers are to retire, or to accept other employment. Now, the Treasury have considered and, I believe, have laid down very clear rules on that point which, speaking roughly, amount to this—that no officer who receives retiring pay, and performs
  1696
  other duties, shall receive as a total emolument more than the salary which attaches to the duties of the office he is called upon to perform. The hon. Gentleman has made some observations upon the large amount of retiring pay the country is called upon to expend; and he seemed to think that the country had made a very bad bargain with the persons who have retired. That, however, is not the view which is generally taken. I have been looking into the matter, and it does not appear to me that there is any injustice at all. On the contrary, I think that the individuals who are retired have a greater right to complain than the country. What regulates the retirement from the Navy is the Order in Council of 1870. The number of lieutenants whom it is necessary for the purposes of the Navy to keep on the establishments is such that their prospect of promotion is very bad indeed. Of every nine lieutenants who are on the Active List only two can be promoted. Every single one of the officers who retires only receives his retired pay on the understanding that he is liable for service; and recently the Admiralty has sent round to ascertain how many are ready to volunteer in case of emergency, and, with scarcely an exception, all these officers are available. Arrangements have been made by which officers ordered for service shall undergo a course of training, so as to make them thoroughly acquainted with modern requirements. In 1869–70 the amount voted for half-pay was £230,000; but last year it was only £81,000. But, although the amount voted for retired pay in 1869–70 was £253,000, last year it amounted to £665,000, so that, while there was a large reduction in half-pay, there has been a very large increase in retired pay.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: And a very large increase on the whole.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No; not a very large increase on the whole. No doubt, it is a question which the Admiralty will be bound to consider sooner or later. Of course, it is the object of the Government to reduce, as far as possible, the non-effective list.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The noble Lord tells us that this question will have to be considered sooner or later. I am sorry to say that he has given us to understand that the Admi-

  1697
  ralty will consider it later, whereas I, myself, should have preferred to see it considered sooner. The Government seem to lay too much stress on the question of promotion. They appear to think that the Army and Navy were made for the men, and not the men for the Services. Upon that ground I altogether disagree with the views of the noble Lord, and I certainly do not think it is necessary to retire these men in the prime of life, in order to keep up the flow of promotion. However, it is quite impossible, at this time of the Session, to discuss satisfactorily this very large and broad subject.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: Will the noble Lord be prepared to tell me, on the Report of Supply, what the total amount of reserve pay and of retired pay is, and what is the addition charged under those heads to persons who are in the receipt of salaries for the performance of other duties?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I think there will be no difficulty in getting at the consolidated pay.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £906,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Military Pensions and Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888."
  MR. SEXTON: Upon this Vote I wish to call the attention of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to the case of the widow and orphans of Patrick Cooper, who, while serving in the Navy, as an assistant engineer, in 1884, twice sustained injuries, dying five months after the last injuries were sustained. The medical certificate stated that his death was accelerated by the injuries he had received while in the service of the Queen. The Admiralty Regulations provide, I think, that if injuries are received which result in death while a man is in the Service his widow and orphans are entitled to consideration at the hands of the Department. Therefore I submit that this case fell within the Admiralty Regulations, and if not within the letter of them, certainly it fell within the spirit. No doubt, the man was obliged to retire from the Service in consequence of the injuries he
  1698
  received, and there can be no doubt that his untimely death resulted from those injuries. Patrick Cooper left a widow and seven children. When I was last in Belfast I made some inquiries into the case, and I ascertained that it is an extremely hard one. Five of the children are under seven years of age, and the mother has been left without any means of support. At the time of his death Cooper had a long-service medal and a good-conduct medal, for which, however, he had never received anything. During the three years which have elapsed since the death of Cooper his widow and children have not received a single penny, in the shape either of pension, gratuity, or compassionate allowance. Cooper was an Irishman. I do not know whether that accounts for the difficulty in securing any satisfactory consideration of his case; but I think it is most undesirable to treat in this spirit the widow and children of a man who has served his country well, and thus to implant in the minds of Irishmen the painful feeling which must be aroused by the facts of a case like this coming to their knowledge. I have spoken to numerous persons about the case, without reference to politics, and in every instance a feeling of disgust has been expressed at the conduct of the Government. I divided the Committee on this case last year, and I intend to take a Division upon it every year as long as I remain in the House—so long as justice is not done. Probably, some day or other, justice will be done in the matter. I certainly cannot agree with the Government that the widow and orphans of a man who has served the country so long should be left penniless. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £905,800, be granted for the said Services."— (Mr. Sexton.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The hon. Gentleman raised this question last year, and I then told him that I would look into it. I will now state what my position is with regard to the case. The principle upon which these pensions are given is that when a man dies after an

  1699
  accident the death must be clearly traced to the injuries which were received in the service of the country. When the hon. Gentleman raised the question last year I said I believed that the death was not owing directly to the accident. I did not know that the hon. Member intended to bring forward the case again, or I would have brought down the minutes which I made in regard to it, as well as the medical certificate. Unless the medical evidence is satisfactory, I have no more power to give a pension to the widow and orphans of this man than the hon. Gentleman has himself. The medical certificate which was placed in my hands, and which I read to the House at the time, must have satisfied everybody conclusively that the man died of typhoid fever, and not in consequence of any injuries he had received.
  MR. SEXTON: What was the substance of the certificate?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It was to the effect that the man had sustained injuries through an accident, and that he died, after having been in the hospital for some months, from typhoid fever, accelerated, probably, by the injuries he had received. But that, I maintain, is not sufficient to justify the Department in granting a pension. When the Admiralty came to deal with the matter they found that it was absolutely impossible to admit his title to a pension. I am sorry that the hon. Member should think that the widow and orphans of this man have been unjustly treated. I took the trouble to go carefully into the case last year; but I found that nothing could be done, and that it is altogether impossible to upset the Regulations of the Service. I do not think it can be said that this man was unjustly treated.
  MR. SEXTON: I did not say that the man had been unjustly treated. The man is dead.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Then, his family.
  MR. SEXTON: The man has gone beyond the sphere of the Admiralty Regulations. What I complain of is the treatment of the widow and children. Nothing has been said about the long-service medal, or the good-conduct medal, and I want to know whether the widow and children are entitled to receive anything in reference to those
  1700
  badges. If not, what is the good of granting them? It was always understood that some payment was to be attached to them. I think it would be a matter of surprise to a good many people to find that they are of no value and of no benefit at all. The noble Lord has quoted the medical certificate; but that certificate conclusively establishes a connection between the fatal result of the typhoid fever and the accident Cooper met with in 1884. It showed that the accident was of so serious a character that the man had to retire immediately afterwards, and the medical certificate proved that his constitution had become so weakened that he was unable to resist a slight attack of typhoid fever. If that is not a close connection between the accident met with by this man in the Queen's Service and the cause of death I do not know what such a connection means. The noble Lord says that he is debarred from giving a pension. But is there not such a thing as a gratuity or a compassionate allowance? The noble Lord told us last year that the technical restriction of the Regulations has sometimes been waived in order to permit of a compassionate allowance being granted. Surely this is a case of that kind, and the Admiralty might safely waive the Regulations. The noble Lord will certainly fail to persuade me that if he desired to come to the help of this widow, he has no power to do so. I am satisfied that the Department has some discretion in these cases.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have no discretion in this matter at all.
  MR. SEXTON: Cannot the noble Lord or the Department give the woman a compassionate allowance?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No.
  MR. SEXTON: Then what is the meaning of saying that the technical restriction of the Regulations has sometimes been waived?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The meaning of that is that sometimes a too technical interpretation has not been placed upon them.
  MR. SEXTON: In this case the doctor says that the typhoid fever was fatal because of the accident and the injuries the man had received, and the noble Lord refuses to allow a pension because the death was brought about by typhoid fever. Now, the doctor

  1701
  established a direct relationship between the accident and the death, and I would ask the noble Lord to explain whether the Department is absolutely debarred, in a case of this kind, from giving a compassionate allowance? Is it not possible to recognize the extreme hardship of this case by waiving a direct interpretation of the Regulations?
  SIR EDWAED REED: I should have thought that this was essentially a case which came under the designation of a compassionate allowance. It is not at all an uncommon case that when the cause of an accident may have been somewhat remote the death of a public servant has happened in consequence. Although I am quite aware that, according to the Rules of the Service, no pension could be granted, I certainly think that this is a case for a compassionate allowance.
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: I happen to know of a recent case in which the noble Lord the First Lord and his Colleagues at the Admiralty were governed by an appeal made to them under somewhat similar circumstances, and even a case touching closer to the Rules than one which has been represented by the hon. Member. It was the case of a man who met with an accident, and actually died from the effects of that accident while still in the Service. It so happened that he did not go into the hospital, and he failed to get a certificate from the naval surgeon. Nevertheless, the Regulations were so strict that he was prevented from getting what he otherwise would have been entitled to. Three different appeals were made to the noble Lord and his Colleagues; but they were without effect. I am bound to make this statement in justice to the noble Lord, because I believe that representations were made by him and the Admiralty to the Treasury. I certainly deprecate as strongly as I can the serious delay of the Treasury in answering these applications.
  MR. SEXTON: In the case mentioned by the hon. Member, what was it that was asked for? Was it a pension?
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: No; it was a gratuity, because a pension was debarred under the Rules of the Service.
  MR. SEXTON: Was it stated whether the noble Lord had power to grant a compassionate allowance?
  SIR JOHN PULESTON: It was stated that he had not.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: It strikes me that the whole of the Navy Regulations in regard to the non-effective Service require overhauling. At the same time, I am prepared to say that the non-effective allowances have now reached such a point that no private business in the country could stand anything like the calls which are made upon it. I believe that the country very much knows that fact.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to the specific point now before the Committee. An Amendment has been moved to disallow part of the Vote on behalf of a particular widow and her children.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I thought the Amendment related to the reduction of the Vote by £1,000 on general considerations.
  DR. TANNER: May I point out to the Committee that if it is the desire of the Government to promote recruiting in the branch of the Service to which this unfortunate man belonged they should pay attention to this crying shame—namely, the inhuman treatment these poor fellows get, and the state of absolute pennilessness in which their families are left if they meet with an accident. If you want to get soldiers and sailors you have to recruit them from the ranks of the people; and if cases like this are allowed to be made public here and there throughout the length and breadth of the land, do you seriously think you will promote the efficiency of the Service? Will it get you volunteers? You know perfectly well that it will not. This is a case which a responsible Ministry ought to have treated as a case of humanity. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh. It is very easy to laugh; but I maintain that this is a case of humanity, and it is a case which ought to be borne in mind if you really desire to promote the efficiency of the Service. This man died practically from injuries which he had sustained in the service of the country. As a medical man, I know that there are always two causes. There is the predisposing cause, and the determining cause; and I hope that hon. Members opposite will take notice of that fact, if they did not know it before. In this case the predisposing cause was

  1703
  the injury the man received, and the determining cause was the fever. The doctor who gave the medical certificate very properly set up both on the face of his certificate. My hon. Friend brought the question before the House last year. The noble Lord relies simply upon his memory; but he cannot dispute any of the facts that were stated last year. If the noble Lord has really at heart the interest of his Department, he will no longer gloss over this case, but will pay to it the attention which it demands. It is a case which every kind-hearted and sympathetic man will be of opinion deserves greater attention than it receives.
  MAJOR BANES: I do not think that this is a case in which we ought to allow personal feeling and compassion to predominate; and I am satisfied that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would be the first to impugn the motives of the Government if they were to do so. I myself brought to the notice of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty a case quite as hard as that which the hon. Member for West Belfast has mentioned. It was the case of a gunnery instructor of the Royal Navy, who had served for many years, and had been four or five years a gunnery instructor under the Duke of Edinburgh. He was not an Irishman; but he happened to be an Englishman. He came up to London on the day of the Jubilee. He was kicked in the chest by one of the cavalry horses, and was killed on the spot. He left a wife and family of young children. I applied to the noble Lord the First Lord for a compassionate allowance. The noble Lord took the case into consideration; but he found that, under the Rules of the Service, he could not grant a gratuity, and the result was that the widow and children had to suffer. So it has been in many other similar cases. I quite agree that these cases are very hard; but I do not see how the Admiralty can go beyond the Rules which have been laid down in such cases.
  MR. GILLIAT: The Committee will, perhaps, recollect that I called the attention of the Government to the case of a man named Grover, who had rendered very valuable services, but was invalided, and subsequently died. In that case the noble
  1704
  Lord held that it was impossible to grant a gratuity without contravening the Rules of the Service. In all these cases the First Lord of the Admiralty has to be guided by the Regulations which have been laid down; and I think it would be unwise for the Admiralty to allow feelings of compassion to prevail in oases of this kind.
  MR. SEXTON: I do not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gilliat) need be alarmed at the compassionate feelings that are entertained by the noble Lord. For my own part, I cannot believe that the Rules of the Admiralty are so strict as hon. Members seem to suppose, because I find that altogether £25,000 have been granted for compassionate allowances. In this particular case, I think it is a question not entirely of compassion, but of expediency; and I would ask the noble Lord whether he is willing to consider between now and the Report of Supply whether the Board of Admiralty have any discretion, and whether they will consent to grant a compassionate allowance? I am perfectly satisfied that, if the present policy is to be continued, the recruiting service in Ireland will be altogether banned.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am quite ready to look once more into the question, but I must tell the hon. Member that last year the matter was very fully considered, and I doubt very much whether it will be possible to make any grant.
  MR. SEXTON: I only ask for a compassionate allowance.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am afraid that the Treasury will adhere to the Regulations, but between now and to-morrow I will look into the case and see if anything can be done in regard to it.
  MR. SEXTON: Under these circumstances, I will not take up the time of the Committee by dividing; I will wait until I see what the result is.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I presume I shall be now in Order in calling attention to the non-effective charges, which amount to about one-sixth of this Vote. I do not think that any private business or trade could stand a charge of this kind, and I hope that something

  1705
  will be done to reduce the amount. I see that, out of a Vote of £2,000,000, nearly £600,000 are paid in the shape of pensions, and I am sorry to say that this is a growing charge. I do not propose to divide the Committee upon the subject, but I have simply felt it my duty to call attention to it.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (7.) £328,800, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
  (8.) £165,100, Extra Estimate for Services not Naval.—Freight, &c. on account of the Army Department.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: May I remind the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty that he kindly promised to give some information in regard to this item?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is a matter which is now under consideration with the object of dividing the cost of transport between the Navy and the Army. This is a case in which part of the service is performed for the Army and part for the Navy.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: I am afraid that the charge upon the Navy is by far the largest portion. We certainly did not get much information as to the way in which the charge is distributed.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am sorry to say that the services performed for the Army are not down in the Vote in detail.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: Surely the Admiralty would be able to say, for instance, what the cost of the transport to Hong Kong is.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: We have a certain number of transports of our own, and therefore it is difficult to say what the actual cost is.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: May I ask whether the proportion put down for the conveyance of troops from Egypt is supposed to pay half the expenses in connection with that transport, or whether there will be an excess? I see that the sum put down this year is £30,000, whereas last year it was £15,000. Certainly the charge which appears in this Vote is very large. Did the £15,000 expended last year pay all the expenses in Egypt, or is there any excess?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The sum of £15,000 is put down for this item this year as bearing the same proportion to the amount of troops as the sum of £30,000 last year bore to the amount of troops in Egypt at the time.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Has the reduction of the force added to the expense of the transports?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: We have estimated that £15,000 will be a fair charge, having regard to the cost of £30,000 incurred in the previous year.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR; There ought to be a distinct line drawn between the charges for the Army and those for the Navy. I am certainly of opinion that the conveyance of stores and troops might be more economically carried on if a distinction were drawn upon the charges of the two Services. As a matter of fact, the great difficulty is that one Department does sea-transport work for another without making that Department pay for it. I think that the Department which performs the work ought to make the charge against the other. In India, Departments pay for the stores they get from the Arsenals, and the result is that the stores are prevented from being wasted or made away with. In the same way the Admiralty ought to pay for all the stores provided by the War Office. I would strongly advise that that course should be pursued in future by both services.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD): I see from the Estimates that the conveyance of troop coastwise is set out separately.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Is it paid for by the War Office? If the War Office performs the work it should pay for it, and if the Navy does it then the Navy should pay for it.
  MR. WOODALL: Am I to understand that the noble Lord contends that the whole charge for the transfer of troops is borne by the Naval Vote?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Only in our own ships.
  MR. WOODALL: Then the noble Lord does not refer to hired transports?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No.
  DR. TANNER: These items are so dove-tailed into each other that it is impossible to discover

  1707
  which is the Alpha and which is the Omega. In this account we have an item for coals. I presume that the coals are furnished to Her Majesty's ships from the Government stores at Portsmouth, Devonport, or any other of the coaling stations. If that is so, it appears to me that this is an item of very great uncertainty, and it is very difficult to understand what the actual amount is that we are called upon to pay for stores. I see that we have coals supplied in various Departments. There appears to be a general split up of the Departments, in order to render the accounts as intricate as possible to any outsider, and to render it impossible to find out what is really being paid for. As a matter of fact, the vast number of accounts in which these items appear renders it bewildering for anybody who takes an interest in economical reform to make head or tail of it, owing to the way in which the same items are spread throughout different Departments. I hope that in future a different mode of keeping the accounts will be observed. Of course, such an opportunity cannot be afforded this year. In sub-head L, I see there are payments for the Indian Government in consequence of old stores being sold off. That appears to me to be a very ridiculous way in which to transact the Public Business. I think it is the duty of any Administration, whether Tory or Liberal, to take this matter in hand and endeavour to save expense to the country.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY): The item for coals on page 168 has been put there for this reason: you want to know the total expense of the transport, and therefore you must insert this item for coals.
  DR. TANNER: Do you not find out what the total expense of an iron-clad is in the same way?
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: No, that is not altogether the same thing. We want to know what each individual effort costs us, so that we may compare the cost of our own troopships with that of hired transports. We have, therefore, put down the actual sum spent for coals during the service. We have also put down the cost for coals for the hired transports which were hired from the Mercantile Marine. By that means we are able to find out
  1708
  exactly what the transport of troops to different parts of the world costs.
  DR. TANNER: It is always a pleasure to hear the noble and gallant Lord make an explanation, and I cannot forget the fact that he is an Irishman. We feel very proud of him, and we listen attentively to any explanation which comes from him, because we know that the noble and gallant Lord always means what he says. He has always preserved a high character for absolute consistency. I point out this to the noble and gallant Lord, because if you want to know how much goes to these vessels, you will have a system of check. You have the same system on board your iron-clads which burn coal, and I point out that there would be more economy and greater efficiency if there was more consolidation, and if the various items which come into the same papers were massed together, it would be greatly for the public benefit and also for the convenience of unfortunate amateurs who have to find their way through the columns of the Blue Books presented to the House.
  Vote agreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  (9.) £258,100, War Office.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Mr. Courtney, I have asked leave to interpose this Vote, No. 16, as the first, in order that I may fulfil the promise which I have made to the House that I would take this opportunity of explaining what are our intentions with regard to the change in the organization of the War Office, in consequence of the inquiries which have been recently made. I do not think that it is necessary for me to dwell at any length upon the necessity for reform. In spite of many misrepresentations and many statements which cannot really be supported, nevertheless it must be admitted that the result of recent investigation proves the necessity of a large measure of reform. The material we have before us in this matter consists, first of all, of the Report of the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores, presided over by Sir James Fiztjames Stephen. That Commission was specially constituted for the purpose of inquiring into certain charges of corrupt-

  1709
  tion brought against certain officials of the Ordnance Department, and I am happy to say it resulted in showing that, as regards the officials of that Department, there remains no ground for raising a shadow of suspicion against them. Then comes the Committee presided over by Lord Morley, which was specially charged with examining into the organization and administration of the manufacturing departments and was specially constituted for that purpose. It included, as the Committee will recollect, several members possessed of a very intimate knowledge of the mode of conducting large business establishments; and they have presented a most valuable Report, in which they suggest that the main object to be attained in the reform of the present system is first of all the promotion of more intimate union between the various competing departments, greater permanence in the appointments of the heads of the factories, the introduction of a larger civilian element, and the separation of inspection from manufacture. It will be seen, when I come to explain our proposals, that we attach great weight to these recommendations. Next, there is the evidence taken by the Committee of the House of Commons upon the Army and Navy Estimates. This mainly deals with the financial position of the manufacturing and other departments of the Army; but the Committee, feeling that the extremely technical character of the questions to be investigated necessitated the employment of professional assistance, accordingly obtained the power of having an independent examination of the accounts of the Department. I hope that valuable suggestions may result from this step, and the alterations we propose in the administration of the Department will enable full advantage to be taken of the suggestions made. And, lastly, there is the inquiry now going on into the clerical establishments of the War Office by Sir Matthew Ridley's Commission. Their Report is expected very shortly, and will be before us when we work out the details of our proposed changes. Having thus explained the material before us, I come back to the recommendations that have been made. Now, the Committee presided over by Lord Morley felt itself precluded by the terms of its
  1710
  instructions from going into any question outside the Ordnance Department. Anyone, however, who has looked carefully into the matter knows that it is impossible to consider the position of that Department by itself, and it becomes necessary to take into review to some extent all the Departments at present under the Surveyor General of Ordnance. And here I venture to ask for special indulgence in having to grapple, after a very short experience, with schemes of re-organization of the gravest character, which naturally provoke great difference of opinion. But the House will, I am sure, learn with satisfaction that the principles of our new scheme have been accepted not only by the Heads of the Civil Department at the War Office, but also by my military advisers, who are unanimous in desiring to see them carried out. The scheme, therefore, comes before the House with a great weight of authority. The Departments now placed under the Surveyor General of the Ordnance labour at present under grave disadvantages. The holder of the Office changes with every Ministry, while almost all his principal assistants are subject to the five years rule and vacate their appointments at the end of that period. And while he himself is charged by the Royal Warrant with absolute financial responsibility for all these Departments, he has no permanent financial adviser with whose assistance he could alone exercise adequate supervision. In addition to this the changes which have taken place in recent years in armaments and fortifications have been so great that at the present moment I may fairly say that the work has altogether outgrown the system established a few years ago. We are not satisfied with this state of things. We wish for a reconstruction of this Department, and I desire to point out shortly the principles on which we think the reconstruction of the Department may fairly be attempted. First, we propose to hand over to the Military Departments, subject to the control of the Commander-in-Chief, the administration of all the executive duties of the Army at headquarters. We hope to fix upon each military head of a Department full responsibility for that branch of the Service which he controls. Secondly, we desire to separate altogether inspection of manufactured

  1711
  articles from the actual manufacture. And, thirdly, we desire to extend the control of the Financial Department to all the branches of the War Office. The effect of this, of course, will be to take away all the present duties of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, and accordingly it is our intention to propose that his Office should be abolished as soon as these arrangements can take effect; and, in saying that, I hope I may be allowed in passing to express for myself the great regret with which I shall lose the invaluable assistance which I have always received from my hon. Friend the present holder of that Office (Mr. H. S. Northcote). He has rendered great service at all times, but he has in particular given close attention to the details of the proposals which I propose to make, and he has in the most loyal manner placed himself entirely at the disposal of the Government. But the position of the Surveyor General of Ordnance appears to us to be at present a false one, whether the Office is held by a military man or by a civilian, and tends to distribute a responsibility which it is one of the objects of our scheme to particularize. The effect of our proposals will be best understood by a short reference to all the Departments which are affected. The Director of Artillery and Stores has at present, subject to the Surveyor General of Ordnance, complete responsibility for supplying all stores, accoutrements, and munitions of war both to the Army and to the Navy, for their inspection and custody at home and abroad, and he is also charged with the control of all the manufacturing departments. This bare statement of his duties proves what is also abundantly clear from all the evidence recently taken on the subject—that the work for which he is at present responsible, and which has grown enormously in recent years, is absolutely beyond the power of any one man, however able and industrious, to cope with. The Office of Director of Artillery is, moreover, under the present system, frequently divorced from the observation of my military advisers and it might actually happen that even large changes might take place in the armaments of the country almost without their knowledge. We are not satisfied with this state of things, and accordingly we are
  1712
  prepared to sub-divide the duties of this Office, which we think can best be done by placing upon professional men the responsibility for ordering and passing into the Service all weapons and munitions of war, and by separating this duty altogether from that of manufacture. The control of the Manufacturing Departments will therefore be taken away from the Director of Artillery and will be placed under a single responsible head. This is a plan which has long been suggested, and it has now been very strongly recommended as likely to tend to the efficient, harmonious, and economical administration of these Departments. We believe that it will tend to promote all these objects. Every day that I look into the matter I am more satisfied that economies can be gained by bringing together the Departments under the control of one head, and not only that, but we are also alive to the advantage of making a single individual responsible to the House of Commons and the country for the management of all the Manufacturing Departments. We intend that these Manufacturing Departments shall be conducted so far as possible on strictly commercial principles, supplying the demands of the Army and Navy of India and the Colonies according to a programme to be settled at the beginning of each year; and I may note that this change will also take away altogether that temptation which has always existed to propose an undue extension of operations on the part of the Manufacturing Department. We are not, however, able to accept the recommendation of the Committee presided over by Lord Morley, that there should be a military head of this Department associated with a civil engineer of eminence. We think that that plan would be costly, and not only so, but that it would tend to the division of responsibility, and accordingly, following the view of the dissentient Members of the Committee, we propose that the Department shall be placed under a single head. Nor are we prepared to say that we agree altogether with the recommendation of the Committee that the Heads of Departments shall be civilians. There would no doubt be a very great advantage in the introduction of a larger civilian element; but as at present advised, I am of opinion that we should get the best man we can for this post,

  1713
  whether he be a military man or not. The Director of Artillery will himself be transferred to the military side, and accordingly he will be placed under the control of the Commander-in-Chief. He will retain all the duties connected with the approval of desings, and he will hold and be responsible for the inspection of all armaments and munitions of war, and in the case of those required for naval purposes he will be assisted by a representative of the Admiralty. It will be seen that if by these improvements we can accomplish this object all the warlike stores and munitions of war, after they have passed from the manufacturing establishment, will be independently inspected before they are passed into either Service. By these means we shall accomplish I hope another object in view, which has been much pressed upon me. At present, in many cases, manufacturers complain of the system of inspection to which their productions are subjected by a Department which is itself producing articles in competition with them. They ask that, so far as possible, the inspection shall be independent, and I hope that that very legitimate demand will be satisfied by the changes we are making. The Director of Artillery will, also in addition to inspection, retain the control of all warlike stores and munitions of war; but it is intended, so far at any rate as this country is concerned, to separate the stores for the Army and the Navy, the Admiralty paying the Army for the service rendered as store holders. The details of the general changes with regard to stores are not yet decided upon; but I may say that it is our intention, as far as possible, to make every military Head of Departments responsible for the stores of the particular Department over which he has control. We hope, also, in connection with this, to be able to accomplish another reform which has been very much talked about. For the future the whole charge of the Navy armaments will be; borne by the Naval Estimates; and, on the other hand, the whole charge for the transport of troops by the Navy will in future be borne by the Army Estimates. In this way the Estimates of each Department will show the true cost of the respective Services which has not been, and cannot be, possible under the
  1714
  existing system. The details of this arrangement, as I am sure the Committee will understand, are somewhat complicated, and not having yet been finally settled, are still under consideration. And now, Sir, I come to another Department, that of the Director of Supplies and Transport.
  MR. WOODALL: Is he to be responsible for inspection?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The Director of Artillery is to be responsible for the insepction of manufactured articles; but I think it would be better to be allowed to complete my statement before replying to questions. I need not trouble the Committee by going into the history of our Supply Department; it is, I think, sufficient to say that the purely civilian control in this Department has been in recent years in a gradual process of modification. The establishment of the Control Department in 1868, which included some military officers in its upper grades, failed to receive the confidence and support of the Army, and in 1876 it was abolished. Since that time the civilian Heads of this Department have been gradually displaced by military men, and even the civilians who remain have been given military status in the shape of honorary rank. At the present time, out of a total establishment of 321 officers and warrant officers in this Department, only 95 are civilians, and even these will very likely be largely reduced within the next few years. The time has therefore come when it is possible to transfer the charge of this very important Service altogether into military hands; and this is, in fact, the course recommended by a strong Committee which sat to consider this subject in a former year. At one time there existed a state of constant friction between the Army and the Civil Department of Supply which was attached to it. The officer of the Commissariat not being a soldier, and not being altogether in the confidence of the General Officer commanding, was frequently not consulted, and the result was sometimes a breakdown of the Commissariat such as has been spoken of in recent times. Now, the whole of the Supply and Transport Services will be placed under the Quartermaster General, who will in time of peace be able to train an efficient staff of officers thoroughly able to exercise these important

  1715
  functions in time of war. The office of Director of Supplies and Transport will be abolished, and the whole of the financial duties of seeing that the necessary funds are provided, advantageously administered, and properly accounted for, will be transferred to the Financial Department of the War Office; and here, Sir, I should like to say that this change is not proposed because of any complaint of the manner in which the duties of the office are at present discharged by the Director of Supplies and Transport — it is proposed in consequence of a very strong recommendation of the Committee, which, I think, is generally endorsed by officers of the Army. I can only express my opinion which I believe will be supported by my Predecessor in Office as to the admirable way in which these duties have been discharged in recent years by Sir Arthur Haliburton, the Director of Supplies and Transport. The only remaining office under the Surveyor General which need be specially mentioned is that of the Inspector General of Fortifications. This officer is technically responsible to the Surveyor General of the Ordnance in financial matters, but there is at present no adequate permanent financial control, and, accordingly, on the principle we have laid down, the Inspector General of Fortifications will be transferred to the military side under the control of the Commander-in-Chief, while the whole control of the financial arrangements of the Department will be placed under the Financial Department of the War Office. I am afraid that I have very imperfectly explained to the Committee the nature of the changes proposed, and I should be glad to be allowed to make a short recapitulation. On the military side of the War Office there willbe—first, the Adjutant General, the Deputy of the Commander-in-Chief, who will be responsible for the discipline and efficiency of the Army; and he will control all the Departments of the National Forces, including the Pay Department, which will be transferred to him and the Intelligence Department. The Quartermaster General will be charged with the whole of the supply and transport duties of the Army, and he will control and issue those stores which are necessary and peculiar to the Department over which he reigns. The functions of the Director of Artillery and of
  1716
  the Inspector General of Fortifications I think I have adequately described, except that the latter will also have control over the engineering and submarine mining stores peculiar to the Department. The Military Secretary will, as at present, control the promotions and appointments in the Army. These five grades will constitute the military side of the War Office, and will be made in every possible way responsible for the efficiency of the Departments under their control. The general effect of this plan will be that the primary responsibility will be placed on the heads of the Army for the whole of the land defences of the country. On the civil side of the War Office, the Financial Secretary and his principal financial assistant will have financial charge of all the Departments of the War Office, and they will also have the examination and audit of the accounts. They will have greater responsibility and greater powers, but I hope that by stopping lower down some of the details which now overweight them, they will have more time to give to larger questions of expenditure. Then there is the Director of Contracts, whose functions will be practically unchanged, except that we hope in this Department to make as much more open as we can the tenders for the Army. Then there are the Manufacturing Departments, which will be under a single head; and, lastly, the Clothing Department. The work of the latter Department is of a somewhat special character, and although there can be no doubt that in order to make our scheme complete we ought to make some change in the Clothing Department; yet as I am desirous not to overweight our proposals, I incline to the opinion that this Department should, at any rate, for the present, be left as it is. And, lastly, Sir, in order to secure joint action, and also to ensure adequate discussion of all important subjects, we propose that all the heads of the Civil and Military Departments should occasionally meet as a Council. The Secretary of State will preside, and I need scarcely say that it is not intended by the proposed establishment of a Council in any way to diminish the undivided responsibility which he has at present for all the Departments under him. I am sure that the Committee will understand that

  1717
  there are a great many details connected with this scheme which are not yet settled, and I hope that I may ask the Committee not to press for a further statement of them on this occasion. But the scheme which I have endeavoured to explain involves no increase of expenditure whatever; on the contrary we believe that when it is effectually carried out it will effect a reduction of charge for Establishments, and I am sure it will enable a tighter hold to be kept on the military expenditure of the country, while it places, as I believe it will, the whole administration of the War Office upon an intelligible and efficient basis. I have now to thank the Committee for allowing me to make this statement, and will conclude by expressing a hope that it will not be thought necessary to discuss at any length the Vote for the War Office, with regard to the Civil Department of which, as I have said, we are expecting shortly the Report of the Committee. There will, no doubt, be very important suggestions in the Report, and we shall have an opportunity, between this and next Session, of considering how far the recommendations of the Committee can be carried out.
  COLONEL DUNCAN: I am sure the Committee has listened with pleasure to the exceedingly clear statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who, I trust, will not on this occasion be subjected to too severe a questioning as to details. But there are one or two questions which as a member of Lord Morley's Committee, I must press upon his notice. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman does not approve the recommendation of that Committee that a military man should be at the head of the Manufacturing Departments.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Perhaps the lion, and gallant Gentleman will allow me to say that it was suggested that there should be two heads of the Department—a military man and a civilian.
  COLONEL DUNCAN: Exactly. It stands now that a civilian is to be at the head of the Manufacturing Department.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I did not say that. I objected to the double control, and said that in this case, as in every Department, I should
  1718
  endeavour to get the best man I possibly could, whether military or civil.
  COLONEL DUNCAN: I am glad to hear that my view of the right hon. Gentleman's meaning was not correct. But with regard to the head of the Department, I invite the right hon. Gentlemen to inform me whether he thinks it would be possible for a man who did not live on the spot to give the necessary close attention to the work of the Department. I would also urge upon the right hon. Gentleman very strongly that in making his arrangement he should bear in mind that soldiers are continually undergoing instruction, and that it would, in my opinion, be far better to select a military man who could deal with difficult questions when they arise, even although a scientific man might have somewhat more technical knowledge. I think it would also be well to increase the number of military men in the War Office Department, by which means you would get a class of men well acquainted with the requirements of the Service, and at less cost. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to afford us some information on these points before the Vote is taken.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I cannot allow the great changes of a revolutionary nature which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War proposes to make in the administration of the War Office, to pass without urging upon the Committee their grave nature. Among the various changes in the Army system during the last 33 years, those now proposed are far greater in extent and nature. I would remind the Committee that up to and during part of the Crimean War the Army system of the country was carried on in five or six separate and independent Offices. The Militia of the Kingdom was under the direct control of Parliament. The Commissariat in its finance and executive duties was under the direct control of the Treasury. The personnel of the Artillery and Engineers was commanded by the Master General of the Ordnance; whilst the Master General, with the Ordnance Board, controlled and directed the stores of the Army and Navy, the buildings and fortifications of the country. The Infantry and Cavalry of the Army were, in respect to their discipline and duties, under the Commander-in-Chief;

  1719
  and their finance efficiently and economically carried on by the Secretary at War; and, finally, in time of need, the Secretary of State for the Colonies performed the duties of Secretary of State for War. The Crimean War led to the appointment of a Secretary of State for War separate from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whom the Commissariat, the finance, and personnel were transferred by the Treasury. The Secretary at War, with the Cavalry and Infantry, fell under the Secretary of State, as well as the Artillery and Engineers. At a later date, Lord Panmure broke up the Board of Ordnance, carrying on the detail duties in the War Office under his own immediate control; at a still later date the control of Parliament over Militia was transferred to the War Secretary. The great object of these changes was, to concentrate under the Secretary of State the whole military system of the country, with the complete and sole responsibility for the efficient and economical administration of the details of the Service; whereas the proposed organization virtually provides for the individual management of Departments, and for responsibility being fixed on separate heads. After an experience of 13 years from the Crimean War, Sir John Pakington, in 1868, found the duties and responsibilities over the entire Military Service so onerous, that on the advice of Sir Bartle Frere, Sir Henry Storks, and myself, he decided on forming an internal control over the separate branches of the War Office, so as to aid him in his supreme control. To this end Sir Henry Storks was appointed Chief Controller, and I was his Assistant. This division lasted with good financial effect until Mr. Cardwell decided, under an Act of Parliament, to divide the duties under three responsible Heads—Commander-in-Chief, Surveyor General of the Ordnance, and Financial Secretary — and this formation is the one which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State proposes to re-organize, and to still further individualize the duties and responsibilities of the War Office. With the experience we have now had of War Office administration, it cannot but be regretted that the economical and efficient administration by the Board of Ordnance and Secretary for War had not been maintained. No doubt,
  1720
  many difficulties, large expenditure, and inefficient management would have been avoided if the Secretary of State for War had assumed the general control of Departments, instead of taking the duties in detail under his sole and personal care. At all events, as far as I can judge, from merely listening to the speech explaining the details, the Secretary of State for War will now perform the duties of general control instead of personal management of details. It appears to me that the transfer of the duties connected with the armaments and warlike stores to the Adjutant General of the Army is not one worthy of being commended. The armaments as well as the equipments of the Army have always, in this country as well as in India, been subject to the general control of the Commander-in-Chief and of General Officers in command, the Ordnance Department and the Artillery Officers being mainly responsible for the fixed armaments mounted and the reserves in charge of the Ordnance Department, as also the warlike stores not required to be in immediate use. The present arrangement for the Adjutant General to have these armaments and stores under his control, is open to the grave objection of adding to his already sufficient duties. It is true that a Director of Artillery is also transferred to the Adjutant General, but in subordination to him, becoming thereby a purely executive officer. The marked and novel feature of the scheme is, in the transfer of the Commissariat Department to the Quartermaster General, on whom will rest the sole responsibility of the Commissariat in all the many duties connected with the transport and provisions of the Army. In addition to these, the Intelligence Department, hitherto under the Quartermaster General, and apparently properly so, is handed over to the Adjutant General. There is also added the Pay Department to that officer's duties. It may be, therefore, truly said that the two highest officers of the military portion of the Army must have had insufficient military duties to perform, or else that the largo addition of the new duties now imposed upon them cannot possibly be well performed. This, however, we may assume—that the many complaints which we have hitherto had against the defects in the stores and armaments of

  1721
  the nation, and in regard to the shortcomings of Supply and Transport, will either be silenced by much larger expenditure than has hitherto been incurred, or else that the cries about defects will not be heard against the powerful heads of the military side of the War Office. I do not wish to urge more objections against the proposed scheme, because I admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was under the necessity, from the loud cries which we have heard against the efficiency and financial management of the War Office, to re-organize the whole system. I may, however, be excused for saying that if I live long enough I do not expect to see the advantageous results which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State anticipates, I approve of the Financial Secretary including the Accountant General's Department exercising complete and efficient control over all monies of every kind entrusted by Parliament to the Secretary of State. Indeed, I am at a loss to understand how this control has not been exercised. It formed a prominent feature in the control arrangements made by Sir John Pakington; whereas, under Mr. Cardwell's scheme, this important principle of financial control must have been given up. The change in the Manufacturing Departments I have long advocated. These departments will be found exceedingly useful to the Army and Navy in manufacturing stores, and in keeping in check the prices charged by contractors. The finance of these Departments should be entirely distinct from the War Office Estimates, and made solely dependent for funds on the great branches of the Service, such as the Navy, Army, India, Colonies, and other Departments. The orders for manufacture given in time before the beginning of each year should be accompanied with an undertaking to pay by instalments the cost of the work as carried on. I, however, doubt the policy of placing all these Manufacturing Departments under the immediate management of one head. I do not believe it possible to find any one individual with the qualifications necessary for the direction of all manufactures so varied in quality, kind, and nature. All that I would wish done is the appointment of a Head with the powers of general supervision of financial control, but
  1722
  with fit Heads for each Department, qualified for the executive duties in detail. Of this I am confident—that the Government will never secure the services of Heads for these Departments on such economical salaries as at present. I am well pleased to hear that the Director of Contracts will carry on his duties as hitherto; but lam altogether at a loss as to how his relations to the various Departments which require his aid will be maintained as hitherto, seeing that they are in a great degree not under the immediate control of the Secretary of State. The financial control of the War Office is still retained by the Secretary of State; but, seeing that the Departments over whom that control will be exercised are separate from his immediate supervision, I am very confident that the new system will not work harmoniously, and certainly far from economically. One great and important improvement consists in the entire separation of the Naval stores from those of the Army. Whilst in the War Office I urged this separation, and for the 15 years I have been in Parliament, year by year I have advised the separation, and that the charges for the naval stores should be estimated for in the Navy Estimates. The cost of sea transport for Army men and stores, instead of being paid for out of Naval Estimates, in future will be borne—as I understand from the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton)—on the Army Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State mentions, in addition, that the cost to the Army of store-keeping for the Navy will be repaid by the Admiralty. I earnestly hope that the Navy will be allowed to provide for their own storekeeping; they have far better means than the Army. Their warrant officers and petty officers are peculiarly well trained for the charge of stores; the knowledge which can thereby be acquired by officers of the Navy and of the Marines will be singularly valuable in a professional point of view. I wish I could close my remarks by saying that the new system of organizing will be more efficient or economical than the present one; but time alone can prove whether my fears are well founded.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I rise to express my satisfaction at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for

  1723
  War. We have for a long time suffered from failures due to divided responsibility, and we have never been in a position to bring home to any individual the blame for what has occurred; in the future, however, owing to the changes which the right hon. Gentleman has to-night laid before us we shall be enabled to trace the defects which may exist to those who are responsible for them. With reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Adjutant General will be Head under the Commander-in-Chief, I consider the arrangement might be carried a little further, so that the officer of the Adjutant General's Department may practically be the Head of all the staff in the various districts throughout the country. I think it is right, generally speaking, that the Commander-in-Chief, assisted by his Military Secretary, should have the making of all appointments and promotions; but when I see an hon. and gallant Officer like the Member for Birkenhead (Sir Edward Hamley) left out in the cold for a number of years, I cannot but think that there is something wrong in the system, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will be able to give his attention to the matter. No doubt, confidential reports of officers are sent to the Military Secretary, who lays them before the Commander in-Chief; but the Adjutant General is responsible for the discipline of the Army, and I certainly do not see the necessity for keeping a Military Secretary of the high position we have now attached to the Commander-in-Chief, while the Adjutant General, who knows all about the discipline of the regiments, can bring specially to the notice of His Royal Highness the case of any officer considered to be inefficient. As the matter stands now, you have a double report sent in; and although it is a matter of detail, I think the practice is objectionable. There is no doubt that it will be a matter of much trouble to make these proposed Departments work satisfactorily; but if the plan of the right hon. Gentleman is carried out, and if close attention is given to the subject, I am of opinion the Army will be much better looked after in the future than it has been in the past. There has been no failure of the Commissariat in India, whereas in England it has failed on many occasions. The position of general officers at present
  1724
  does not admit of their becoming practised in matters of economy; they have, in fact, nothing to do with it, whereas, I think it admits of no question that in the same way as the Commander-in-Chief looks after the Army, the general officer in a similar way should look after his district and be responsible for everything that occurs in it. Of course, there might be some failures at first, for even Secretaries of State are not expected to succeed in their work the moment they are appointed to Office; and so it will be with some general officers. But by all means let them have an opportunity to try and get their hands in, so that when you send, them on field service they may be efficient in all particulars, and be able to keep that grasp on every branch of the Service which, in a general officer, is so essential, but for which an officer now has to wait until he goes on active service to commence.
  MR. WOODALL: I think that no one can have listened to the address in which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) has expounded his scheme without being impressed with the plainness of his statement; at the same time, most of us must feel that the question is so wide in its bearings and so necessarily intricate, that it is impossible at once to recognize the effect of some of the changes suggested. I cannot but regret that we have not been aided on this occasion by the excellent new method of supplying a printed Memorandum before being called on to discuss these proposals. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has, at any rate, had the advantage of a multitude of counsellors. He has been aided, as he has told us, by a number of Committees of Inquiry, and perhaps he has felt what has been felt by most of us, that there was some inconvenience in the several bodies entrusted with these inquiries overlapping each other in respect of their investigations. In regard to Lord Morley's Committee, on which I had the honour and advantage of serving with my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, we were entrusted, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, with inquiries sufficiently wide and important in themselves, but which did not, as we interpreted them, extend to the general administration of the Ordnance Department itself. As I had some responsibility in connection with the right hon.

  1725
  Gentleman the then Secretary of State for War in appointing that Committee, it may not be uninteresting to say that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell Bannerman) thought that our best way of dealing with the question would have been to address ourselves, in the first instance, to an investigation of the Manufacturing Department, and then have a reconstituted Committee in order to address itself to the larger question of how far the Ordnance Department was satisfactory for supplying the ordinary wants of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) will not have forgotten the agitation in the country 12 months ago, and the circumstances which rendered it imperative that there should be an inquiry into the very grave charges that were made not only with regard to the efficiency, but the integrity of those who were actually employed in the Department. We cannot allow this opportunity to pass without joining in the general congratulations that the charges have been so completely disproved. Let it be remembered how loudly, how confidently, these public servants were charged with corruption, corrupt favouritism, conspiracy, and incompetence—the Ordnance Department was said to be "a seething mass of corruption." These were the reasons which, in the minds of some, alone could explain how it was that guns of Colonel Hope and others had not been adopted into the Service; these reasons alone could justify the fact that certain Gentlemen were not placed on a specially constituted Committee to inquire into certain allegations; and it will be remembered that not only the public mind was possessed of these notions, but that they received the endorsement of The Times newspaper and several responsible Members of this House. But here we have found that a Royal Commission, after what has been admitted to be one of the most searching and thorough investigations by which these charges could be examined, has declared that they have no foundation; and Mr. Justice Stephen sums up by saying that—
  " The result of our whole inquiry into the charges of corruption brought before us is that we think they have utterly failed, and there was no evidence brought before us to justify even the suspicion that there has been any corruption at all among the superior officers of the Ordnance Department."
  1726
  We cannot allow this occasion to pass without calling attention to the fact that this was the view strongly expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and those who had had experience of the War Department; but it is only fair to say that after dismissing the question of the integrity of the officers of the Department, the Royal Commission held that there was evidence of a considerable amount of inefficiency. I have followed as closely as I can the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) with regard to the changes which he proposes to make, and I observe that he does not refer to the particular reflections made by the Royal Commission upon the Office which he holds with so much advantage to the State, and with so much ability, especially bearing in mind that the Secretary of State for War is therein said to be charged with duties which it is morally and physically impossible that any one man can discharge in a satisfactory manner. The Report of the Commission says—
  " No one can possess the strength or knowledge which would be indispensable for the purpose; but even if such a physical and intellectual prodigy were found he would have to do hi s duty under disadvantages which would reduce him practically to impotency."
  Now, the important question which I think underlies the whole of this inquiry is as to the particular relationship which exists between the Parliamentary and the technical and professional sides of the War Department, and I think that the Royal Commission, with all respect, does not seem to have completely realized that matter. Here and there are, for instance, statements which are obviously inaccurate—the statement for instance that there is no continuity in the administration of the Department, and no security that particular principles of manufacture will be adhered to or that particular systems for making guns and rifles will be developed; that each Secretary of State takes his own view, and each is advised by persons with whom he happens to work. I hope I shall convey a strong contradiction of that statement when I say that whatever may have been the faults of the Department, there has been a steady continuity of policy under the guidance of able professional men who, happily, have not

  1727
  been affected by changes of Government, I desire to make one reference at this particular point to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) who, at one time, filled with so much distinction the position of Secretary of State for War, who is associated in the Report with a responsibility not only administrative but technical with regard to the inquiry into the proposed new rifle. There is the statement, for instance, that the inquiry as to the new rifle wag embarrassed somewhat by the exclusion from it of the consideration of the breach, and that that was done, to the regret of the Committee, by the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). The words are—
  " They learnt that the decision to retain this action was made, by Mr. Childers personally. They remonstrated with him upon the matter; he, however, refused to alter his decision, and retained the rifle that they were constructing."
  It is very extraordinary that such a statement as that should be made. I know it was made before; it was made and contradicted in this House, and it is contradicted in the evidence submitted to the Commission. The Director of Artillery, for instance, gives evidence in precise and definite terms that the decision was arrived at by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, by and with the consent of his military advisers. I mention that only as going to show that the Secretary of State for War has been all along served by perfectly competent advisers, and that his decisions have been usually made in complete harmony with those by whom the military chiefs are guided. With regard to the position of the Surveyor General of Ordnance, we may all at any rate agree that it has been an anomalous Office, and that it has been considerably prejudiced by a rather extravagant and absurd title. It has also been exposed to the very great inconvenience of being the only important Office of State of which there was no permanent equivalent. The Surveyor General has been responsible for the Department to the House of Commons as its Parliamentary exponent, but I should suppose that for every other similar post in the State there has always been some head who is the permanent executive, and therefore a very important guide and aid to the Department. And I observe that although considerable reflections have
  1728
  been made upon the folly of entrusting such important duties to civilians who have no military or professional training, it does not appear that there has been much greater satisfaction given when the Office has been discharged by very distinguished military men— such as Sir Henry Storks and Sir John Adye. We have listened tonight to a most important and, as I think my hon. Friend near me correctly describes it, revolutionary proposal, and I trust that the hopes of the right hon. Gentleman in making these changes will be fully realized. My first feeling is one of very great relief that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has not adopted the recommendations of Mr. Justice Stephen in the main to reconstruct the Ordnance Department under a Master of Ordnance, who should be a Member either of this House or of the other House, who should be an important political figure, but independent of Ministerial changes and Party vicissitudes. No one can look at the manner in which that recommendation is stated in the Report without feeling that the recommendation carries with it its own contradiction. The Commission has, indeed, frankly stated that it might easily happen, or it might generally happen, that if the Master of the Ordnance held Office for seven years he would take an important part in the Government of the country after the retirement of the political Party by whom he was appointed. That is sufficient, I think, to show how utterly impracticable is this suggestion. But there is a suggestion in the Report of the Royal Commission which I think I find embodied in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and that is the constitution of a Council to the Master General of Ordnance. Now, the general motive of the Royal Commission, and especially in regard to this suggestion, is one which I am perfectly certain has seriously occupied the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The Royal Commission desired to find some sufficiently authoritative body or office which would be independent of the necessity of adapting itself to the polities of the hour, and which would put on authoritative record the necessities, the requirements, and deficiencies of the Service. I observe the right hon. Gen-

  1729
  tleman stated with great force and authority that in any proposals which he submitted to the House there is not the slightest intention of weakening the full responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament; but I gather that in the various heads of the different Departments he thinks he will have a council which will be able to advise him with judgment and with authority upon all the matters which come within the responsible administration of the War Department. I want to press him for an answer upon the point, if he does not think it inexpedient to give one, as to how far he accepts the evidence of a desire on the part of the Royal Commission that there should be some authoritative body whose reports should be published, and which should, to a certain extent, be independent of the Secretary of State, or of the Government of the day, with regard to the responsibility and accuracy of the statements they might make. I know that strong evidence was given in favour of this by Lord Wolesley. Now, Sir, we come to that portion of the inquiry which was entrusted to Lord Morley. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak of the value of the inquiry which was conducted by the Committee which had the good fortune to be presided over by Lord Morley. I do not think any reasonable complaint can be made that the right hon. Gentleman has not adopted in its entirety the Report of Lord Morley's Committee; because, although that Committee did address itself to the task entrusted to it with a very single-minded desire to arrive at a proper conclusion, and was in fact substantially in accord upon all the main points, the Committee felt quite conscious that there were many points on which there was still room for considerable difference of opinion. We did feel, and I am glad to see that feeling recognized by the right hon. Gentleman, that with regard to the Factories there was a great want of continuity and harmoniousness of management. It was obvious to us that the general control of all these immense establishments by the Director of Artillery was impossible. General Alderson—than whom the State could hardly have a more efficient servant—himself admitted that the many claims upon his time rendered it impossible for him to give that direct and continual control which was certainly
  1730
  required. For that reason we have recommended that the five great manufactories should be, as far as practicable, treated as different branches of one arsenal, and that, with that view, there should be placed over these establishments one General Superintendent, who we recommended should be called the Superintendent of the Ordnance Factories. I find that the right hon. Gentleman does not quite go with the Committee in the recommendation that the Superintendent of the Ordnance Factories should be aided by a Chief Mechanical Engineer, and I am frank enough to say that was a recommendation arrived at after much deliberation, some difficulty, and even some hesitation; and no one will find fault with the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks he can find one man sufficiently capable to take up the whole of the duties. At any rate, such a plan as that suggested would secure that which is felt to be greatly needed—namely, unity of administration. The right hon. Gentleman did not say where the responsibility of design was to rest.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I said that the approval of the design would rest with the Director of Artillery.
  MR. WOODALL: I gather that while you relieve the Director of Artillery of all responsibility for manufacture, upon him would devolve the responsibility of design.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I used the words "approval of design."
  MR. WOODALL: He is not to be called upon to design, but will be the judge of the merits of designs, whether the designs are made in Government factories or by independent contractors. Well, the conspicuous and all important change which is involved in the new scheme is the transfer on a very large scale to the military side of the War Department. That transfer will probably involve some diminution of friction, but no one can express an opinion upon it until we see the actual details of the proposal itself. It is very satisfactory to learn that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman have been approved by his advisers on the civilian as well as on the military side. I have spoken so far merely with reference to the Manufacturing Departments, and I gather that the Chief Superintendent of the Ordnance Factories will have control

  1731
  of all the manufacturing factories, the powder and small arms factories. Then comes the disappearance of another very important Department, and that is the Department of Supply and Transport. The right hon. Gentleman justly paid a sort of parting tribute to the very able man who has been entrusted with that Department. Sir Arthur Haliburton is not only a man of the greatest ability and courtesy, but he may challenge the severest criticism of his administration of the Supply and Transport Department under the trying circumstances of the recent wars, and be able to come out of the ordeal with flying colours. The Department was admirably managed during the Egyptian Campaign. I believe it was established as true that of the supplies sent to Egypt during the several campaigns, less than 5 per cent were unaccounted for, and that the actual losses from any preventible cause fell something below 1½ per cent. I speak in the presence of hon. Members who have personal knowledge of the facts. Although supplies were transported from the base to the front, sometimes as often as 40 times by road, boat, train, and camels' backs, the result comes out that Lord Wolseley testifies that there never was an Army in the field more efficiently served. It is only just to say so much for a very able and devoted public servant, especially after what has been commonly supposed to have been the disclosures of the Committee which sat upstairs in connection with supplies. Then the Department of the Inspector General of Fortifications goes over to the military side, and with it, I suppose, everything in the nature of provisions for buildings, roads, and all other matters which have hitherto been discharged by that Department. I do not quite understand what will happen to the Clothing Factory and to the Department of the Director of Contracts. I know the right hon. Gentleman mentioned them, and I understood him to say that they were to remain as at present. [Mr. E. STANHOPE: They will be placed under the Financial Secretary.] Then practically we shall come to the disappearance as a military administrative figure of the Surveyor General of Ordnance, and such of his duties as are now transferred to the military side will devolve upon the Finan-
  1732
  cial Secretary to the War Office. That is the conclusion which was anticipated, and which, in effect, would have been recommended by my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State, and one which I hope will be found to work on the whole very satisfactorily. It will obviously increase very considerably the importance of the Department of the Financial Secretary to the War Office. But I believe it is allowed that that Office has not hitherto been overworked, and I have no doubt at all that provision will be made by some means to increase the dignity as well as the importance of the Office. On the whole, I think that we may take it that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has addressed himself, as we know he would, to this important task with great earnestness, and a desire to arrive at a thorough and efficient reform. Let us hope that the reform will be lasting, that it will command the co-operation of all persons concerned, and that it will realize the expectations the right hon. Gentleman has formed with regard to it. At the same time, it is perfectly impossible to speak with confidence with respect to it, and I suppose it will be necessary for him to come to Parliament for legislative sanction. The condition of things established in 1870 was brought about under the authority of an Act of Parliament. One of the points I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is how far the change contemplated will necessitate the repeal or the amendment of that Act? I am sure we have all listened with the greatest pleasure and attention to the right hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him upon the general tenour of his scheme.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I think I may fairly follow the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him very much for the tone of the speech he has delivered. Although, of course, the hon. Gentleman reserves his judgment upon some of the suggestions I have made, I am bound to say that, on the whole, he is favourably disposed to my proposals. I should like to say, in the first place, that so far as I know no legislation will be necessary. The legislation under which the Surveyor General of Ordnance was appointed gave power to the Secretary of State to appoint the Surveyor General or not, and enabled him to lay down by Royal Warrant the duties of the Sur-

  1733
  veyor General. With regard to the transfer of the Supply and Transport Department from the civil to the military side, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke, I should like to say that it is a change strongly recommended by a powerful Committee, which examined carefully into the matter, and that it is also recommended by Sir Arthur Haliburton himself. I think that at once commends the change to the House. The hon. Gentleman also asks me with regard to the Council which it is proposed to set up. I am afraid that the Council I proposed is not the sort of Council which he sketched out, and which was recommended by the Royal Commission. I have no intention of proposing any such Council; I do not believe that it would be possible for the administration of the War Office to be carried on in this House if there were a Council empowered to make its Reports public independent of the Secretary of State. It is difficult in these days to carry on the administration of the War Office; but I think that to have the Head of the Ordnance Department independent, or to have a Council to Report to Parliament independently, would make the task of the Secretary of State almost impossible. The hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring under a misapprehension in respect to another point. He seems to think that it is intended that the responsibility of the Secretary of State should be diminished, and the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief increased. Now, the effect of the proposal is this. At the present time responsibility in regard to warlike stores is practically divided between the Director of Artillery and the Surveyor General of Ordnance. The effect of my proposal will be that the whole responsibility for the warlike stores of the Army will be placed upon the Director of Artillery, who will be subject to exactly the same control, as at present, of the Secretary of State, and subject in addition to the financial control of the Financial Secretary, so that the guarantees the House will have in regard to the administration of this important Department will be more ample than they have been up to the present time. The Commander-in-Chief will be the head of the military side, but the control of the Secretary of State will be as absolute as it is at the present
  1734
  moment. With regard to the control as to warlike armaments, it is obvious it all depends upon finance. These things cannot be ordered unless money is provided for them, and, that being so, there is the double control of the Secretary of State, because he controls the Commander-in-Chief on the one hand and the Financial Secretary on the other. Now, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Holborn Division of Finsbury (Colonel Duncan) spoke of the desirability of the Establishments at Walham and Enfield being under the control of the Head of the Manufacturing Department. They will be under such control, and no inconvenience will be found to arise therefrom. Then my hon. and gallant Friend also asked me with regard to the introduction of a larger military element into the clerical establishment of the War Office. That is a question which has often been raised in this House, and which has been raised upstairs in Committee. I should be very glad to see a larger military element at the War Office if it could be introduced; but I am not able to make any proposal to the House on the subject now, because I am waiting the Report of the Royal Commission presided over by Sir Matthew White Ridley, and which is examining into the Civil Departments of the War Office. I must see exactly what the Commission proposes before I can make any suggestion. I think I have now referred to all the points which have been raised in the course of the discussion.
  COLONEL DUNCAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who will be the Head of the Inspecting Department?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: He will be the Director of Artillery. He will be responsible for the inspection of all articles which come to the Army, whether manufactured by Government or by private contract.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: I think the Committee is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) for the very clear statement he has made. I think that so far as principle is concerned the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are necessary. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman at what date is it proposed that the change should commence; and I should also like to ask him whether the

  1735
  question of the five years' appointments has been considered, because there is a great deal to be said on both sides of the question? There is no doubt about it that in any Civil Department, in any great private manufacturing business, or in any establishment requiring knowledge and supervision, it would be regarded as madness to change heads of Departments absolutely every five years. Another matter I should like information upon is the separation of the naval and military charges. I think the Committee will have heard with the greatest possible satisfaction that all charges on the Army Votes under this system will be really for Army purposes, and that all charges on the Navy Votes for Naval purposes. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War stated, for example, that the transport services for the Army will be transferred to the Army Vote. I should like to know whether the net cost or the detailed charges will be transferred? With regard to military clerks I will not say a word except to say that I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Holborn Division of Finsbury (Colonel Duncan), and that there should be a greater infusion of military officers of experience into the War Office. There is one more point I wish to refer to, but it is one on which I cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to give me an answer now. I must, however, take the opportunity of bringing it under his notice for fear that it might escape his attention. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Colonial support. Now, let me point out that since all the various re-organizations have taken place in the War Office, a new state of things has arisen very much out of our sight, and that is the growth of the Colonial Military and Naval Forces. Of course, these forces must be supplied with stores. Now, because the War Office was in no way in touch under former systems with the military element of our Colonies, it so happens that some of our Colonies have adopted armaments of a pattern which we are not prepared to supply. The War Office may not know it, but demands will come home on the outbreak of war, and we shall not be able to meet them, unless we are in some way in touch at the War Office with the Colonial Military Authorities. I beg that the right hon. Gentleman the
  1736
  Secretary of State for War will make inquiry of those who held Office, or will have the Correspondence of 1878 examined with regard to the supply of stores for armaments in the Colonies. I think he will find that when the Colonies thought and expected that they would have to defend themselves, there came tumbling in from all parts of the Empire demands for all sorts of stores, which we were not in a position to supply. I therefore hope that, as the War Office is being re-organized upon principles which I believe will endure, this matter will receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure, knowing the interest the right hon. Gentleman takes in the Colonies, it is only necessary to bring this matter to his attention to secure its being considered and dealt with by him.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Colomb) for his kindly reference to myself. Of course, the last point raised is one which I cannot be expected to reply to at once. He asks, first of all, as to the date when these changes will come into operation. I do not want to pin myself to any one date, but I want to bring them into operation as best I can; of course, they cannot all be brought into actual effect until the 1st of April next. So far as I can, I wish to bring them into operation at the earliest possible moment. Then he asks with regard to the five years appointments. I recognize the value of what he has said upon this point. It is not our intention to limit the appointments to the Headships of the Manufacturing Departments to five years. I think we should be able to keep a good man when we have got him. Then, with regard to the actual charge of transports thrown on the Army Estimates, I should prefer to postpone my answer to that question until a subsequent date.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The main feature of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is the very large transfer of War Office control to the Commander-in-Chief. Notwithstanding the theory that the Secretary for War represents the popular element in this country, I have very great doubt as to whether, so long as the Commander-in-Chief is a great Officer of State, and in direct relation to

  1737
  the Crown, the control over such a great Office by the War Office will be, and can be, so complete as it is sometimes asserted to be. That is the only doubt I feel I ought to express with regard to the statement which has just been made.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £76,000, Yeomanry Cavalry.
  MAJOR RASCH: I should like, for one moment only, as an old Cavalry soldier, to say a word about this Vote. No one doubts that we want an irregular body of Cavalry to support our regular body of Cavalry—that we want a good and efficient body of irregular Cavalry; but that is what I would suggest we have not got. The Government are asking for £76,000 for Yeomanry, and for that sum we support 10,000 men—that is to say, give them three dismounted drill and eight days mounted drill in the course of the year. I submit that it is utterly impossible to imagine that we can get a good and efficient body of irregular Cavalry with the amount of drill and with this amount of money spent upon it. Of course, there are regiments of Yeomanry which are more or less efficient, but they have a great deal more money spent upon them than the Government are asking for now. For my own part, I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War either reduce the Yeomanry to a quarter of its present strength and ask for the same Vote, or else see the Vote now asked for quadrupled in amount, keeping the Yeomanry at its present strength. In either case we should get an amount of drill such as would make the men thoroughly efficient; or, at any rate, more efficient than they are at the present time.
  Vote agreed to,
  (11.) £655,000, Volunteer Corps.
  (12.) £448,000, Army Reserve Force.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to ask the Representatives of the War Department on the Treasury Bench a question with regard to this Vote. I should like to know what becomes of the Army Reserve man when he has put in his 12 years' service. We will suppose that the men are of the average age of 18 when they join, and that they stay in the Army six years— they may only spend three, but it is
  1738
  open to them to spend another three or six —say they spend six years in the ranks, and at the age of 24 go into the Reserve, receiving a certain amount of pay, I think it is 6d. a-day. When the man arrives at the age of 30—that is to say, after six years in the Reserve, I should like to know what becomes of him. I should like to know what the Government have to say about it, because I have a good idea on the subject myself. My idea is that you turn him away altogether, and that appears to me to be a very bad thing for the country. All the training that you have given to him is useless. I think he might with considerable advantage go on even to the age of 40, if you keep him in a sort of garrison reserve. I certainly do not see why men in the Reserve should be put out of it at the end of six years' service. Probably the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary (Mr. Brodrick), who has been more in attendance on the Army and Navy Estimates, than perhaps any other Menber, and who appears to have taken a deep interest in all these matters, will be able to give me some answer to my question. The matter is one of great interest to myself, because there are many of these Reserve men up and down my own constituency.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I do not object to having a Reserve Force, on the contrary, I should like to see it retained, and I should like to see the number larger than it is at present; but I am of opinion, that if we are to extend the Reserve Force, the present description of Reserves which we possess are not of the right kind. I cannot help thinking that the efficiency of the Army has been too much sacrificed in favour of the half-and-half system we have adopted. We have a sort of Regular Reserve under which system men are liable to be called out for foreign service, and we know that, situated as this country is, it very often happens that we are under the necessity of sending men on foreign service. Well, Sir, the country has been able to absorb a certain number of men who are ready at the call of the country when they are wanted, but my own belief is—and it is not altogether my own belief alone, because I am fortified in my opinion by that of Friends of much greater experience than myself—that if

  1739
  you extend this system at all, and the Reserve becomes too large, the country will not be able to absorb them without great difficulty—you will not find a sufficient number of employers of labour who are willing to take the men— and the result will be to cause great discontent amongst the men. The country can absorb a number of men in this way no doubt, but if you go beyond a certain point, I do not think the country will be able to do so. I think you have already got to the number the country is capable of absorbing under present conditions. I think that you ought not only to have as largo a Reserve as you have, but one ten times as large. I am strongly of opinion that we should divide the Army into two parts, and that we should have one Army for service abroad, and one for Home defence, like the Militia, which I should like to see ten times as great as it is now. This it appears to me can only be managed by a material alteration of the conditions under which the Reserves are formed. I think you should allow men to enlist in the Army, merely to qualify them for military service without being liable to go on foreign service or to India. You could, by a system of that kind, make your citizens capable of defending their country in the Reserve in connection with the Militia. In this way you would have a great defensive force, which I am sure, under present modern conditions, would render our position much more secure than it is. This is a country of great wealth, and it behoves us to make a great effort for its defence, but it will never be secure until it has such a system of defence as I propose. I think we can only secure the end which I hold to be so desirable by passing your men more quickly through the Army than you do now. You ought rather to do that than send all your soldiers to India making your Army professional soldiers. This view that I am expressing is one that I have long held. It is a view which has been growing, and which Secretaries of State have been inclined to. I think the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) when Secretary of State for War, inclined to it, for he made an experiment in the matter. He tried it in the Guards, and I must say that I should not have thought that the best experi-
  1740
  ment would be in that quarter. However, the experiment was made, and it proved successful. I should like to know if the experiment has been extended, and whether the Government do not think that it should be largely tried in other directions. Do they not think it would be advisable to extend the Reserve very considerably? Should we not have a Reserve which is not liable to foreign service, but which would only be liable to be called out when the country is in grave danger? You ought to be able to keep your Reserve up to a certain number by putting the men discharged from the Army in connection with the Militia, and giving them a retaining fee. I would ask whether the Government have under consideration the extension of the three years' service system or a shorter service system, and whether we may not hope in that way to have a greater Reserve than we have at present.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK): I cannot follow the lion. Member into his observations on the short-service system; but the question as to what becomes of the Reserve men when they are discharged is one which has occupied the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. After the expiration of 12 years, Reserve men can retire into civil life if they desire to do so; but if they so wish, they can be retained in the Reserve for four years longer.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Are they retained?
  MR. BRODRICK: Mostly they are; but the difficulty which has arisen is in making sure that they can obtain employment. An earnest attempt has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to get all classes of employment for them in the Government service. The condition of the Reserve is most satisfactory. It is found that very few cases of fraudulent enlistment take place, and I think hon. Members may rest assured that the present system is working satisfactorily.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: The objections raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) against the Army Reserve of 52,000 men are worthy of consideration, because the abolition of this force would result in important

  1741
  changes if his views were adopted; because this change could not be carried out without the country being provided with another force to serve as a Reserve for the Army. This probably would end in a large increase to the numbers of the standing Army, or else a kind of conscription would follow, so as to provide this country with the extensive Reserves which the Continental Armies have. At all events, considerable expenditure would be incurred in providing additional recruits for the Army. In fact, Mr. Cardwell, who largely extended the system of Army Reserve, did so in imitation of the Continent; he fully expected that the passing of men through the Army and entering them in the Reserve would have produced a much stronger force than has yet been provided. My own leaning is to a different mode of providing Reserves for the country. I am of opinion that the Militia, as re-constituted in 1756, would have formed the nucleus for a much more extensive and less expensive force than we at present obtain by means of the Militia and Army Reserve, as these forces are now formed. As I see the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary paying attention to my remarks, I suggest to him to read up the papers which have been written about supplying the country with Reserve Forces. I refer to the speech of that able man, Mr. Windham, on the training of men for the defence of the country. This practically provided for military training being given throughout the country to the young men willing to receive it. I believe that military instructors might be told off for each county to train the young men, who might be paid provided they attended a sufficient number of drills to ensure some degree of military fitness. Then there are most excellent papers in Cobbett's Register, written by that remarkable man between 1809 and 1813. Indeed, so good are these suggestions, that if the several papers, referring to the Army with reference to recruits, were reprinted so as to omit the parts which give a clue to the authorship the suggestions would be received as suitable to the present day. One part I would mention was a weekly payment, small in amount, to be paid to the parents of men who join the Army. I cannot but think that it would be well for the Government to resort to this
  1742
  means for securing services of men. In Ireland it could not fail to have a most beneficial and useful effect. With regard to the Vote, may I ask the Financial Secretary to sub-divide the charge of £440,500 under the different heads now lumped together. I have several times been put to great inconvenience by not having the amount of the several items.
  COLONEL NOLAN: This is a very important question, and I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary for the observations he has made. In the few words he has spoken he has given us a great deal of information. I did not, myself, know of this four years' extension of service; but I certainly think the Reserve men, after the expiration of their period of service, ought to be kept longer if they desired it—in my opinion, they ought to be kept in the Reserve up to the age of 40; at any rate, in the Artillery and Cavalry, as it takes a much longer period to qualify a man in these branches than in any other. If they could not be conveniently utilized in any other way, the large additional strength you would gain by adopting this system would enable you to have a greater force on garrison duty, provided, of course, that the men agreed to it. In the case of strong, healthy men, there is no reason why they should not be kept on such duty up to the age of 50. I am rather surprised at what has fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), because he is a person who always looks upon matters from a common-sense point of view'—and, of course, we all know that upon Indian matters he is almost the first authority in the House. When he said that this country could not absorb more than the present Reserve, I could not help thinking of the two greatest military countries of Europe—namely, France and Germany—I could not help thinking that these countries manage to absorb 2,500,000 men.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: My point was that the country could not absorb them whilst they are liable to be called out for foreign service.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I am rather of opinion that, in this country, the Reserve men have been called out unnecessarily. There have been instances in history where men have been called up unnecessarily from time to time until they have

  1743
  become dissatisfied, and when cities have been really in danger, and a call has been made upon them, they have refused to obey it. I think the Reserves ought never to be called out unless the country is really in imminent danger; and I also think that where you have a good soldier you should never force him into early retirement. Let it be a free service; but, of course, in the case of all soldiers I would not keep them for a long period in the Reserve, unless they were good shots, and, whilst in the case of the Infantry I would not keep them unless they were good walkers, in the case of the Cavalry I would not keep them unless they were good riders. I would not be, however, very strict with regard to character, and I would not reject a man on that score, unless, of course, he happened to be an unusually bad man. By accepting men in the way I propose you would have a good and effective Army ready to serve you abroad and at home, and at the same time you would have a good and effective Army at home. Of course, you would never be able to compete with Continental Armies, because the conditions are not the same. At any rate, what I suggest appears to me to be a solution of the present difficulty, and I think everything has been pointing to this solution lately.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £542,700, Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I have given Notice of my intention to move the reduction of this Vote and one or two other Votes; but I may at once say that I am not going to raise the questions mooted, as they have already been dealt with by the Committee. I am going to restrict myself to a hard matter of account, except with regard to one subject dealt with in a Paper delivered this morning, which raises another reason why we should remove our Army from Egypt, and save the money that it costs. On this occasion I will go into this matter of account. I think it will be admitted that in regard to our Army in Egypt there has been a great saving, therefore we may expect that Her Majesty's Government will agree to another reduction. The reduction of expenditure, so far as I can make out, is a reduction which is not to the
  1744
  relief of the British taxpayer, but to the benefit of the bondholder. The Egyptian Government was bound to pay £4 per head per month, that makes£48 per annum for each English soldier. That bargain was quoted by the Auditor General in his last Report, and as it is known to the Committee I need not waste time by quoting it. There was superadded to that bargain an understanding that, in no event, should the expense exceed £200,000. I find that the present Army Estimates, the amount to be received for the Army in Egypt, is £185,000, and £15,000 in the Navy. I do not go back on the original bargain, provided that bargain, such as it was, is kept. It is not kept if this £200,000 is not paid, and if the bondholders have their way it will never be paid. I want to know if the Government are to get the contribution from Egypt that stands on the Estimate, or if they are going to allow the Egyptian bondholders to get out of it as they have before? It is a question whether the British taxpayer should—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I think the hon. Member is probably under a misapprehension. The real fact is that the expenditure in the Estimates is the excess expended over the amount which these troops would cost in the ordinary way in Europe. It is true we put in the Estimates the amount we expected to pay; but if the troops do not cost us that full amount, the hon. Member cannot expect that the Egyptian Government should pay us a bigger sum.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I agree that if under your bargain of £48 per head the charge comes under £200,000, then the sum should be reduced; but we have some 4,500 troops in Egypt—and we have had during part of the year a great deal more—if the right hon. Gentleman will reckon that amount, he will find that at £48 a-head it comes to more than £200,000. The bondholders in Egypt, and those who represent the Government of Egypt, have made a great outcry on various pretexts and have managed to cut off the payment of the full amount. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) is not present, because—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I feel a delicacy in interfering with the argument of the

  1745
  hon. Gentleman, but the £185,000 in respect of the Army in Egypt is an Appropriation in Aid, which comes on under Vote 1. I do not see bow the hon. Member is entitled to raise the question of the reduction of the Appropriation in Aid under this Vote.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: My impression was that I could move the reduction of this Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: On what ground?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: On the ground that the money is not received in Appropriation—that the Appropriation is not received in Vote 1. If, Sir, you rule me out of Order, I must proceed upon another ground. I would move to reduce this amount on account of the relations between our Army and Egypt, as shown in the Papers published this morning. I refer to the attack made upon an English officer and the military execution that followed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Can the question be raised on this Vote?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I would venture to submit, Sir, that if the Army were, removed from Egypt, as I would have it removed, this money would be saved.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I would appeal the hon. Gentleman not to discuss the matter to which he refers in detail.
  Vote agreed to.
  (14.) £830,000, Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies.
  (15.) £2,943,500, Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike Stores.
  SIR EDWARD REED: I listened with great attention to the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and I was satisfied with it. I also could not take exception—although I feel very strongly on the point—to his proposal to keep open the question whether the managers at the head of the Manufacturing Departments of the Army should be military men or civilians. I noticed that as soon as he had completed his speech an hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway on his own side of the House (Colonel Duncan) put in an appeal on behalf of the appointment of military officers at the head of the Manufacturing Departments. Now, I really trust the right hon. Gentleman will not yield too readily to that proposal. The
  1746
  reason assigned for it by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was one of a very familiar kind, but singularly weak in my opinion. He states that there are many non-commissioned officers and other military men of an inferior position employed in the Royal Arsenal and other manufacturing establishments, and forsooth, it would interfere with their comfort and satisfaction to have a civilian placed over them ! Now, Sir, notwithstanding the authority of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I must say that the reason he has given for his proposal is most unsatisfactory. The idea of placing at the head of the Establishment, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite very properly promised us should be conducted on commercial principles, a military officer, whose training is certainly not of a technical character, and for no better reason than that the Department gives employment to some soldiers, I think would be reducing the reform of a great Department to the lowest possible point. One of the great grievances and one of the great grounds of dissatisfaction on the part of the Army, for very many years past, has been the absorption of mechanical duties and mechanical control by military officers. Now I can quite understand the desire, and quite sympathize with the desire, on the part of naval and military men as far as possible to employ military and naval men; but when a great scheme has been proposed for the reform of a great Department, and one branch of it, which is to separate the Manufacturing Departments from purely military control, and to establish these Departments upon a commercial and manufacturing basis, surely it is to threaten the breakdown of the whole reform to insist upon placing at the head military managers. I thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on that question very satisfactory, because what he said was that he would not pledge himself or the Government to the appointment of either military officers or civilians as Heads of these Departments, but that they would appoint the best men whether military or civilian. I do not think it would be fair to ask more than that; but I would express a hope that in deciding such appointments the right, hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that outside the Military Services, there is a great distrust of

  1747
  manufacturing departments managed by military officers, and there is a general feeling that such departments ought to be governed and controlled by men who understand manufacturing, and have been trained to it—by men who have given their lives to such duties.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: It was my intention to have spoken very fully on this Vote, but this is now unnecessary because of the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War of his intention to separate the stores, hitherto kept under the War Office, for Navy, as well as for Army, and to arrange for the Navy paying to the Army the cost of the services rendered, as well as for the Army paying the Navy for the transport of troops, hitherto borne by the Navy Estimates. There is one change which I would urge in regard to the intention of the War Office to continue to be storeholders for the Navy. I earnestly advise that the Navy should be allowed to be their own holders of stores. In the naval officers, especially Warrant officers and potty officers and seamen, the Navy has a personnel admirably adapted for the charge of stores—with daily training in the custody and care of stores — and, therefore, for the charge of the magazines, armaments, and stores they would have duties to perform which they are hourly in the habit of exercising. I speak from experience when I say that I wish the Army had classes of men as efficient and as well qualified for the charge of stores as are the seamen, marines, and officers of the Navy. In addition thereto the Admiralty possesses a Marine Artillery, as fine a force as England has.
  Vote agreed to.
  (16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £862,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Engineering Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Mr. Courtney, this Vote contains two items, one of £1,500 for the commencement of a new factory for the manufacturing of Brennan torpedoes, and the other of £4,500 for the installa-
  1748
  tion of those torpedoes; and it is stated in a footnote that the latter sum is merely of a provisional character, and that no determination has yet been arrived at as to the number to be installed. Then, Vote 15 contains the further sum of £16,000, part of the enormous sum of £110,000 which it has been agreed to give to the inventor of the torpedo. It is quite clear that this means the commencement of what will probably be a very large expenditure on this new weapon of defence; and therefore I feel it my duty to raise a protest against it, and to urge the Government not to proceed further without more inquiry into the matter. I can assure the Committee I should have been very glad to have postponed this discussion until next Session; but in the meantime all these works will be commenced, and next year I should be told that the House had already agreed to the matter and I was too late.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): It has already.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Committee will recollect that the subject of this torpedo was somewhat sprung upon the House in a Supplementary Vote early in the Session, when we were asked to Vote £30,000 out of the £110,000 to the inventor. I think that at that time no single Member of the House, with the exception perhaps of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir William Crossman), knew anything about the matter. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, very few Members had heard anything about the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, who is a man of great scientific attainments, certainly knew something about it, and he raised his voice again it. When I heard the details it seemed to me that the proposal was novel, and of such doubtful expediency, that I suggested a Committee should be appointed, not to consider so much the details of the particular invention, but to inquire into the expediency of entering upon such a policy as that of purchasing the secrets of inventions of this kind. The Government, however, refused, and the money was voted. In consequence, I presume, of the part I had taken in this matter, I received many communications on the subject of this torpedo from naval

  1749
  officers and others, and I was induced to make further inquiries. The result of my inquiries is to raise in my mind the gravest doubts as to the value of the weapon for defensive purposes, or as to the secrecy of the invention, for which we have agreed to give this enormous sum. I can undertake to say that the opinion of nearly all competent naval officers on the subject is that the weapon is of little or no value for defensive purposes, and they have all expressed the most unbounded astonishment that the Government should have given this large sum to the inventor, which is quite unprecedented. Beyond this, there appeared in Engineering a short time ago a series of articles purporting to give a full description and drawing of the torpedo. I have ascertained that the writer is a gentleman of great practical knowledge of torpedoes and of high character. That gentleman's statement is that, so far from the torpedo being any secret, all its main features were the subject of a patent which was taken out by its inventor in the name of another person five or six years ago, and his contention is that any practical engineer taking this patent and applying to it the knowledge and experience derived from the Whitehead torpedo, which is now no longer a secret, would have no difficulty whatever in constructing, if not exactly a Brennan torpedo, at least one capable of performing everything claimed for the weapon. Before going further, I will shortly describe the Brennan torpedo. It is a very ingenious device. The torpedo communicates with a fixed engine on shore by two wires. These wires unwind from rollers in the interior of the torpedo, which are connected with the two propellers; the pulling in from shore of these wires gives motion to the rollers and sets the screws in motion, and thus the harder the wires are pulled the faster the torpedo goes ahead to sea. The direction is given by pulling at one or other of the wires. All this is minutely described in the patent which I have in my hand, in which I am informed that any competent engineer can construct it. The only possible secret is in the method employed in keeping the torpedo at a uniform depth below the water, but that has been achieved in the Whitehead torpedo and others of the same class by a hydrostatic valve acting upon rudders, and it is probable that the Brennan has some
  1750
  analogous arrangement. In order to steer the Brennan it is necessary that its course should be clearly seen from the shore, and that is effected by a staff showing a flag above water. This, however, constitutes its main defect, for the flag can be equally seen by a ship against which it is directed, and which can then easily avoid it. The torpedo also clearly requires a fixed engine ashore, which requires the protection of a battery, and its whereabouts will always be known. There are also defects in its range, and in the fact that it cannot be brought back when discharged. As I have said, naval officers who are competent to form an opinion, are almost unanimously of opinion that it is of little value as a means of defence, on the ground that it can be so easily avoided. One naval officer of great repute has told me that if any officer under him were to lose a vessel through such a torpedo he would have him tried by court martial, and shot for negligence. I can quote any number of opinions on the subject, but I will content myself with one, that of Admiral Sir Cooper Key, who is a very high authority on such matters, and who states that in his opinion, and in that of all naval officers who have seen the weapon, it is of little value as a defence against ships, on the ground that it can be so easily avoided; that it can only be of use in very narrow channels, and that there fixed and sunk torpedoes will be far more efficacious. This I believe to be the opinion of nearly all naval officers; and I challenge the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) to say whether this is not his opinion and that of his naval colleagues. On the point of the secrecy of the invention the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) and the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) made a very great point of this when recommending the Vote at the beginning of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said that the Government considered it to be so important to keep the secret from the knowledge of other Powers that, if this could be done for five years only, it would be worth the money it was proposed to give for the invention. I cannot think the right hon. Gentleman can have known when he said this that all the main

  1751
  features were fully described in a patent which, is open to any foreign Goverment. I feel certain that the House would not have voted the money if it had known that the main features were the subject of a patent. For my own part, I thoroughly disbelieve in the possibility of keeping anything of this kind secret. There is an immense amount of engineering talent devoted to the subject of torpedoes, and there are already in the field at least six other torpedoes of the same class communicating with the shore by wires, and differing only in the method. Some of them are directed by electricity, some have their engines in their interior, two at least of them which are American inventions appear to have at least equal speed, and to have superior qualities to the Brennan. I should like to know whether any investigations were made as to these rival weapons before giving £110,000 for the Brennan? I allude to this for the purpose of showing that, although these particular torpedoes may not be identical with the Brennan, yet there are evidences that the engineering mind is especially directed in the direction of torpedoes, and that if others have not arrived exactly at the same solution of the thing they are very much on the same path. In the opinion of many competent men, and of Foreign Governments, many of these torpedoes are as valuable, if not more valuable than the Brennan. I have consulted on this point a member of one of the most eminent engineering firms in the country, and he said that, in the first place, it is impossible to keep a thing of this kind secret. There are so many minds directed to the manufacture of torpedoes at this moment that depend upon it whatever course you may adopt other people will be close upon your heels and will arrive pretty much at the same result. My friend said to me that if, instead of giving £110,000 to the maker of this particular torpedo, the Government had offered a reward, say of £10,000 for the best controllable torpedo an efficient weapon would have been forthcoming. He had not the smallest doubt that within a few weeks a dozen valuable inventions would have been sent in all of them very closely approaching, and perhaps many of them exceeding in value, the Brennan torpedo. I think that the facts that I have brought under the notice of the Com-
  1752
  mittee and of the Government at least show that there are some grounds for hesitation in this matter. I cannot help thinking that the Government have been somewhat hastily led into adopting this Brennan torpedo. My own impression is, that it would have been wise before going further in the matter to, at all events, have instituted further inquiry. I do not go further at this moment. My belief is, that it would be expedient and wise on the part of the Government to undertake an independent inquiry into this matter, putting upon the Committee of Inquiry—I do not mean a Committee of this House, but a Committee outside this House—some of the most eminent scientific and practical men, with a view of inquiring not merely into the value of the Brennan torpedo, but into the weapons of the same kind which are in the possession of other countries or which have been laid before the public by other inventors, and also with the view of inquiring into the question as to whether the invention of the Brennan torpedo is really a secret, whether the main features of the Brennan are really a secret, and of that value which they are represented to be. To my mind it seems clear that, if the facts I have stated are to be relied upon, it will be found eventually that we have spent a very large sum of money without any great result, and that it may also be found that other Powers are in possession, if not the Brennan torpedo, possibly of a torpedo of greater value. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £6,400 merely for the purpose of raising the Question.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £855,900, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is somewhat unusual, at any rate according to old fashion notions, to raise a discussion on precisely the same subject twice in the course of the same year. We discussed this matter very fully at a time when there was a large attendance. Many hon. Members spoke, and at that time the House, without any hesitation, arrived at the conclusion that this was a very good expenditure of public money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) now asks, why do not the Government,

  1753
  instead of spending tins large sum of money, offer a reward of £10,000 for the purpose of obtaining the best torpedo which anyone can produce. Well, I am bound to say that the Government with which, the right hon. Gentleman was connected had ample opportunity of doing what the right hon. Gentleman speaks of, but they did not do it. What, however, they did do was to spend many thousands of pounds in encouraging Mr. Brennan to perfect his invention although they had no claim whatever to the torpedo. First of all the right hon. Gentleman raises the question of secrecy in respect to this torpedo, and he actually suggests that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) could have known that the details of this torpedo or some of them had been published. Of course my right hon. Friend knew all about that, but I can say that, so far as I am informed, there is not a single statement which has appeared in Engineering from which the secret details of the torpedo could be ascertained. Nor is there the smallest suggestion at the present moment that the real secret—the secret for which we have paid this sum of money—has been in any way discovered or made known to anyone outside the people actually concerned in the manufacture. The right hon. Gentleman says we cannot keep secrets. That may be so, it may be that the secret of the invention will leak out; but I hope that before it does we shall have made a larger number of them. We have at present made 30 or 40 of these torpedos, and we shall be in a position to place them in situations where they will be of service before other nations know anything about them. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the torpedo at work, although he has described it in great detail. Those who are specially qualified to advise me at the War Office, and who have investigated this torpedo in all its bearings, are of opinion that it will be a weapon of the greatest possible value in time of war. I noticed the right hon. Gentleman studiously avoided quoting military authorities. He says that naval men whom he has consulted do not think it will be a very useful weapon. I fully admit that many naval men say that this torpedo cannot be fired from a ship; but, on the other hand, those who have a great opinion of this
  1754
  torpedo say it could. I will not express an opinion upon the point; but I have in my hand a written opinion of one of the most eminent naval men in this country, a gentleman whom I asked particularly to be good enough to go down and inspect this torpedo, because he had expressed an opinion in private against the advantages to be derived from it in time of war. This gallant Admiral went to see a trial of the torpedo the other day, and he has reported to me his opinion that this torpedo will be a most formidable weapon for the defence of channels through which vessels must pass within 2,000 yards of the shore. This is most powerful testimony, because it comes from a gallant Admiral who was at first prejudiced against the weapon. All I can say is that, from the best opinions we can obtain, we believe we have got a weapon of great value and importance, and one which can be applied usefully in the defence of many of our rivers, which will not require any other defence than the Brennan. The weapon is one which I believe will be of the greatest advantage in the defence of the coast of this country.
  SIR EDWARD REED: The speech the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has just delivered is exactly the speech he could have delivered in respect to any other torpedo. Opinions such as he has quoted can be obtained in regard to all kinds of weapons. Now, I have not seen any of the operations connected with this torpedo; but I have conversed with a gentleman who has seen the torpedo, and who has thoroughly studied the subject, and the opinion of that gentleman—a military officer—is that he could not see how the Naval Authorities could attach any value at all to the torpedo. Now I feel very strongly on the matter on the ground that the grant now asked for is a misappropriation of public money. We are called upon year after year to vote a large sum of money for this torpedo. I hold that this is wrong in principle, because it is perfectly possible that long before we have discharged our obligations to Mr. Brennan in these annual payments another torpedo of greater value may be placed at our disposal. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) said with great emphasis —he always speaks with emphasis—that the Brennan torpedo would be valuable

  1755
  for an attack from shore against a ship within a range of what?—2,000 yards— a little over a mile. I confess I am at a loss to understand the national value of a system of defence which only has a range of a little over a mile. I did not catch the exact purport of the interruption of the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett); if the hon. Gentleman will make himself a little more clear I shall be grateful to him. This is an example of voting public money under conditions which are unjustifiable when judged by the standard which all gentlemen apply when voting money for matters of this kind. I remember that I once had the greatest possible difficulty in getting the Government of this country to recompense me for my own personal expenses in the production of a design of a ship which cost £106,000 less than its predecessor, and which was pronounced by Naval Authorities to be a great deal better than its predecessor, as it certainly was cheaper. Yet, because I was not a stranger or an adventurer in any sense, or a person coming from a distance, I had the greatest difficulty in being reimbursed my own outlay on that design. I have known many other cases in which men have contributed beyond all question to the advantage and the economy of the Public Service; but in those cases no Minister ever thought of coming down to the House to ask for many thousands as remuneration for the men who had so acted.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question of remuneration of Mr. Brennan is not in this Vote. We are dealing with the cost of torpedoes.
  SIR EDWARD REED: I quite understand that; and although my remarks may seem outside the Vote, they really apply to it, for the reason that we are not only to pay money under Vote 15, but we are to erect establishments under Vote 13, which is now before the Committee. Now, with regard to the unknown character of this torpedo my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) stated very truly that matters of this kind are very rarely kept secret for any length of time at all, for whenever there is any real value in an invention other inventions of a similar kind are brought out. These things are not the product of one man's brain; the
  1756
  principle of the invention may be said to be "in the air," and it generally emanates from a number of quarters at once. In the case of the Whitehead torpedoes, it will be remembered how the Government put themselves in relation with Mr. Whitehead. What was the consequence? We went on building inferior Whitehead torpedoes at a high price after superior torpedoes had been produced and supplied to the whole world at a lower cost. That is a fact which is within my own knowledge. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has limited his Motion. Formally it takes the shape of a reduction of the Vote; but in reality it amounts to a request that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will make further inquiry into this matter. Now, I, for one, will object year after year to be told that because the Vote has been granted in the previous year we are to be debarred from resisting the Vote in the year upon us. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has rather reflected on my right hon. Friend because he has ventured to discuss this matter twice in one year. I do not think that was a fair cause for a reflection. If the proceeding of my right hon. Friend is unusual, surely it is an unusual proceeding to give a private inventor £110,000 for his secret, and then to ask for public funds for a factory in which to carry out the invention, the whole proceeding is of an unusual character. If we do not oppose demands of this kind at a very early stage we shall lay ourselves open to reproach. Although I feel very strongly on this subject, I do not think, looking at the late period of the Session, it would be right to prolong this discussion. I can only say I entirely sympathize with the position taken up by my right hon. Friend with regard to this part of the Vote. I regard it as a wasteful expenditure of the public money; and I think it is essentially in the nature of a transaction which will not bear the scrutiny of Parliament, and for that reason it is most objectionable.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but merely to say a word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman took exception to my bringing up the subject a second time this Session; but I justify

  1757
  my action on two grounds. In the first place, since I last brought the question forward communications have been made to me by Naval men, of whose opinions I had no knowledge before, all tending to show there was the gravest doubt on the part of the Naval Profession as to the value of this invention, and asking that strong representations should be made on the subject. I have challenged the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) to express his opinion on the subject; but he is discreetly silent. I ask him to say whether he is or is not adverse to this invention. I am satisfied that the great majority of naval men will agree with me in the opinions I have ventured to express. The second ground on which I justify my action to-night is that a statement was made in Engineering to the effect that the main features of this torpedo had been the subject of a patent, and that there is no secret worth any large sum. I said I could hardly think that the right hon. Gentlemen the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) and the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) knew that fact when they advocated the giving of £110,000 for this alleged secret. The hon. Gentleman the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. H. S. Northcote) has described the main features of the torpedo as those of a controllable weapon; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War says that there is another secret, the nature of which I understand he does not know himself. The whole thing is a matter of uncertainty. From all I have read and heard about the matter, my view is that that other secret, whatever it may be, is of a very subordinate character as compared with the main features, and not worth anything like £110,000. The future will show that I have done my duty, as a public man, in bringing the facts within my knowledge before the Government; and they must bear the responsibility of the action they have taken in the matter. I have great confidence that it will turn out I am right in this matter—that this is not a real invention, and that the torpedo is of no value.
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. H. S. NOBTHCOTE): I should like to correct a statement made by the right hon. Gen-
  1758
  tleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). He says I described the main features of the torpedo as being those of a controllable weapon. That was not at all my statement. I said it differed from other torpedoes in being controllable; but the main feature is a secret, with which neither my right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope) nor myself is acquainted. A competent Committee consisting of the most distinguished Artillery and Naval officers and the Director of Ordnance were unanimous in recommending the purchase by the Government of this invention. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the House having been misled into purchasing this invention, it must be borne in mind that a very full discussion took place, and that Gentlemen who differ as widely from the Government as the hon. Member for Gal way and the hon. Member for King's County very cordially supported the proposal to purchase this invention. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) has said, I may remind him that the money is borne entirely on the Army Votes, and that the torpedo is undoubtedly purchased on the responsibility of the Army, rather as a land defence than to be used by the Navy, although, I think it is possible and probable it will be useful for the Navy.
  SIR EDWARD REED: It does seem to me extraordinary, that after we have heard to-night of a redistribution of responsibility in the War Department under which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and his Successors are to be responsible for all the offices, we should be asked to vote a large sum of public money for a thing the right hon. Gentleman has never seen and knows nothing about.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Does the hon. Gentleman really suppose my opinion on a matter of engineering like the construction of a torpedo would be worth anything whatever?
  SIR EDWARD REED: I think the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as to whether an article is worth £110,000 would be in the highest degree valuable.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War seems to attach little importance to the opposition to the Brennan torpedo. When last we went

  1759
  to a Division on this question, we had one of the strongest supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, and also a great military authority—namely, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holborn (Colonel Duncan) with us. I think that is a little set off to some of the authorities quoted by the right hon. Gentleman this evening. I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford will take us again through the Division Lobby against this expenditure. I do not profess to be an authority upon the subject, yet I do confess that upon the evidence there is nothing to justify the enormous expenditure which it is proposed to incur in respect to this torpedo.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (17.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £130,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888."
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to call attention to the position of the head master and second master of the Royal Hibernian Military School in Dublin, under the Royal Warrant of 1884. The case rests upon paragraph 489 of the Royal Warrant, and this paragraph was devised on the report of Lord Morley's Committee, in order to meet admitted grievances of the officers who served in this establishment. The paragraph provides that the head master of the Royal Hibernian Military School shall be paid £250 a-year, increasing by £25 every five years to £350; that is a quinquennial increment. But the head master has been treated under the Warrant as if he were a new comer and not a gentleman of 39 years' service. I maintain, that under this Warrant the past services of this gentleman ought to be taken into account. The second master was intended by this Warrant to receive a salary of £150, rising gradually to £180. This gentleman had 13 years' service, and therefore was entitled to the maximum salary. He has been treated exactly as if he entered the service upon the day the Warrant was issued. This, of course, nullified the object of the paragraph. Now, the
  1760
  civilian masters at Chelsea have received the value of the Warrant. Lord Sandhurst visited the Royal Hibernian Military School last year, and he stated, that in his opinion the masters I have referred to had just claim to the reform they desired. The Board of Governors of the school have admitted the justice of the claim of these men. The second master in the Dublin School is placed in an absurd position, as well as a damaging one to himself. While he is the second master the third and fourth masters receive higher salaries than he does, simply because their full service is reckoned under the paragraph and his is ignored. I ask that the first and second masters be given the increments to which they are entitled on their service, and that the arrears be paid to them. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £250, being the arrears of pay to which these masters are entitled.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £130,350, be granted for the said Services."— (Mr. Sexton.)
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who was indistinctly heard) was understood to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would undertake to see that no injustice was done in the case of the masters of the Royal Hibernian Military School, but that the same rule would be applied to this case as was applied to other cases. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) ought to bear in mind that the masters at Chelsea, and those at the Royal Hibernian School, were appointed under totally different circumstances.
  MR. SEXTON: The object of the Royal Warrant of 1884 was to remedy grievances which existed. If the Warrant is not to be a nullity, so far as the masters of the Hibernian Military School are concerned, the service they have actually given must be recognized. The Head Master at Chelsea has served eight years, and he has received two increments. He has received every penny of value. The Head Master at the Dublin School has served five times as long as the Chelsea Head Master, and yet he has only received one increment. Is that justice or common sense? Surely the Head Master at Dublin ought to be

  1761
  placed at the maximum of his class? The three or four subordinate masters to the second masters receive higher salaries than he does, because every day of their services has been recognized. I really think a conclusive case is made out by these gentlemen. If the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary (Mr. Brodrick) will assure me that the Government will approach the case in the spirit in which Lord Sandhurst approached it—with a desire to do strict justice to these men—I will not press the matter further.
  MR. BRODRICK: I will undertake to look into the matter; and if I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman I will certainly do so.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I should like to point out that the second master of the Royal Military Asylum actually gets more pay than the Head Master in the Royal Hibernian Military School. There must be a mistake somewhere.
  COLONEL NOLAN: It is quite obvious that the gentlemen connected with establishments near the seat of Government have greater opportunities of pressing their claims upon the Secretary of State for War than those connected with distant establishments. The Government ought to seriously consider the case of the masters of the Hibernian School. Certainly, the Irish Members must persist in bringing it to the notice of the authorities. I trust we shall receive an assurance that the masters of the Hibernian School will be treated equally with those of the Chelsea Establishment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we desire, as far as possible, that there should be no distinction in this matter. I will look into the subject, and if I see substantial reasons I will take the course suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman ascertain how it is that the third master gets a higher salary than the second master?
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM: I wish to call the attention of the Committee and the
  1762
  right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to the Vote for the Staff College. I have no intention to object to the Vote, because I think it may be useful, and, in some cases, necessary, to educate officers at the expense of the State. But I do object most strongly, and I think many others object, to the preference given to officers of the Staff College, in the matter of employment, over regimental officers, who might, perhaps, be equally, or much better, qualified. I am sure it is the wish of the Army that the best and ablest men should be employed; but, as I have said, I object to the preference given to officers because they are educated at the expense of the State. I say let there be fair play in this matter—make no difference as between the two classes of officers; and when there is a vacancy, by all means let it be filled by the man who is best qualified, whether he is from the Staff College or not.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this is relevant to the present Vote.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War if the case has been brought under his notice of the claim of the riding master at the Royal Military College in respect of his military rank? The ridingmaster at Canterbury has been allowed his majority; but the ridingmaster at the Royal Military College, who is a man at least as competent, and of longer service, and, I believe, with higher pay, has been refused his majority. Now, I do not know on what ground that refusal is based, but the fact is so; and, as I am credibly informed, it is a matter of comment and some surprise throughout the Service.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: This is a matter which, I think, ought not to be brought under the consideration of the Committee. I am sorry to say that I have been attacked by one or two men on this ground. One of them has done me the favour to make attacks upon me in my constituency, because I will not promote him to the rank of major. I shall be glad to deal with this matter when the time arrives; but I am bound to say that I cannot give any consideration to unfair pressure put upon me in connection with it in this House.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I certainly do not desire to put any unfair pressure upon the right hon. Gentleman in this House. I am not altogether in the same position as I should occupy if I belonged to the Party opposite, or to the Party of the late Government. There is a very good reason indeed why a Member of the Irish Party should not have any direct personal dealings with any Member of Her Majesty's Government. However high may be the personal esteem of hon. Gentlemen on these Benches for Her Majesty's present Advisers, there is good reason why we should shrink from having personal intercourse with Ministers.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman is in Order in discussing on this Vote the relations of the Irish Party with Her Majesty's Government?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not out of Order.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I was saying that there was a reason why I should abstain from making a private and personal communication, which, coming from any other Members than those of the Party to which I belong, would be quite right. I desire that all my communications with Her Majesty's Government should be across the floor of the House. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not making this reference in the interest of the person concerned, who to me is only a name. I have made a note with respect to this particular Vote of what appears to me to be an anomaly. The persons I refer to are both doing precisely the same work; and, as a matter of fact, the ridingmaster at the Royal Military College has more important and more difficult work to do than the riding-master at Canterbury. I think, under the circumstances, that the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War were a little uncalled for; and I protest that in making my observations, and calling attention to the facts, I was not going beyond my plain duty.
  SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAM: Having held the office of Inspector General of Cavalry, and being in some way responsible for the ridingmasters in the Army, I may explain that all young ridingmasters are trained at
  1764
  Canterbury, which has always been recognized as the head place for riding instruction. It was always the custom to give the position of major to the riding-master at Canterbury. But when, some years ago, the second commandant was reduced, the ridingmaster, being a major, became second commandant. This was thought undesirable; and, on the appointment of ridingmaster becoming vacant, the rank of major was not given. Subsequently a second commandant was appointed, and then it was decided to restore the ridingmaster at Canterbury to the position of major. At Canterbury the whole training of riding-masters is carried out, and combined with that is the training of all Indian recruits. The present number of men at Canterbury in training is over 1,750, while the number taught at Sandhurst is 100 cadets and 25 Staff officers. The appointment of the officer at Sandhurst, who is an old and gallant soldier, was recommended by me.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I am rather inclined to protest against the doctrine lad down by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. There seems to be here a tendency to mix two things which are entirely distinct. It is, no doubt, an improper thing for an officer personally to attack the Secretary of State for War, and circulate statements in his constituency; but for an officer to have his grievance righted in this House is a totally different thing, and otherwise we should lose control over the Army altogether. The position as between the House and the Army has not been defined for the last 200 years; but to say that an officer cannot have his grievances righted here, and that he is liable to be reprimanded by his commanding officer, is, as I have said, subversive of all control on the part of the House over the Army. There are, no doubt, some officers in the Army who think they can and ought to be allowed to manage the whole of the Service by themselves; but that, I contend, is a most mischievous doctrine. To say that any Minister or other person, no matter how high may be his position in the Army, should have this power, would be totally opposed to the spirit of the Constitution, and I must say that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War decidedly leads in that direction. The effect of preventing

  1765
  aggrieved officers stating their cases in this House will be very likely to bring about a more objectionable result—that is to say, they will bring forward their grievances in the public Press. From my own experience, I can say that the grievances of officers and others are, as a rule, stated in this House in a very temperate manner; and the Secretary of State for War has plenty of means of voting down the cases that are not properly stated. I must say that, having regard to these considerations, I protest against the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that an officer of the Army is not to bring his grievance before the House of Commons.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: In this Vote there is an item of £4,000, to be used as rewards to officers for acquiring proficiency in languages. I believe this is the fourth year in which a grant has been taken for this purpose in the Army Estimates. In the two first years only £2,000 was voted, and then only as a reward for passing in the Russian language; but, if I err not, none was spent. I spoke to the late Secretary of State about enlarging the number of languages, and wrote to the War Office suggesting the extension of the rewards. I am glad to find that the sum has been raised to £4,000, and that it can now be spent as rewards to officers for acquiring proficiency in all modern languages. I trust that the Arabic, Persian, and Turkish languages may be included. I also urge that the grant should be extended, and that non-commissioned officers and soldiers should be entitled to rewards for proficiency. In India all ranks of the Army are entitled to claim rewards for knowledge, and the money yearly expended is four or five times the sum now voted—upwards of £20,000; and, looking to the necessity which England may have of employing men of other nations as soldiers, it is good policy to train officers and men in acquiring knowledge of languages. Let me suggest that our Military Attaché at Berlin should report upon the arrangements lately made for encouraging the acquisition of languages by the military as well as by the civil community.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (18.) £48,200, Miscellaneous Effective Services,
  LORD HENRY BRUCE: I wish to make a few remarks to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with reference to the arms of the Service. We are told that we have two complete Army Corps ready to take the field. I positively deny that, Sir. We have at the present time three different kinds of rifles and three different kinds of ammunition. I contend that to have three different kinds of ammunition is like running two or three different omnibuses through Temple Bar—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I rise to Order, Sir. The subject on which the noble Lord is speaking has no connection with this Vote in any sense whatever.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in this Vote which concerns the supply of rifles; and the observations of the noble Lord are, therefore, not relevant.
  LORD HENRY BRUCE: I regret that my reference to the rifles and ammunition is out of Order. I desire to point out that the Surveyor General of Stores under successive Governments has allowed the supply of stores to fall greatly too low. I think the Ordnance Committee are responsible for stores.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Ordnance Committee are not responsible for the supply of stores.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: On a point of Order, Sir, I ask whether there is not on this Vote a charge of £500 for officers engaged in special experimental services; and whether that does not cover the question of arms introduced into the Service?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir. It is not the case at all. This is solely for experimental purposes.
  Vote agreed to.
  (19.) £16,800, Rewards for Distinguished Services.
  (20.) £76,000, Half Pay.
  (21.) £127,600, Widows' Pensions, &c.
  (22.) £15,200, Pensions for Wounds.
  (23.) £81,400, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) whether the scheme for the re-organization of the War

  1767
  Office involves an alteration of the administration of Chelsea Hospital; and whether it is proposed to remove it to Pall Mall?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir.
  Vote agreed to.
  (24.) £1,358,300, Out-Pensions.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I brought before a former Secretary of State for War the cases of some men who were discharged on account of ill-health without a pension, after 18 or 19 years' service. I was told at the time that the authorities had no power to deal with these cases, but that they were drafting a Bill to enable them to do so; since which, time, now four years ago, I have heard nothing about the matter. I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to the position of these men, which I consider is a very hard one. When a man serves for 21 years he gets a pension of 1s. a-day; but here we have men discharged with 18 or 19 years' service who get no permanent pension at all. It is true, they get an allowance for a short time; but I do not know any worse principle than to give a man a pension for four or five years only. I have met with many cases of this kind where men have been left without the means of subsistence, in my capacity as Member of Parliament, and particularly in respect of being Chairman of a Poor Law Union. These cases occur all over the Kingdom and in every constituency, and I have in my mind one of a particularly distressing character. I believe the Secretary of State for War has no power to grant permanent pensions to men discharged after this long service, if the full period of 21 years has not been served. I think it is a great shame that the Secretary of State for War should not have this power. There are, no doubt, many of these men who think they have been defrauded in this respect, and I think so too. They expect to get pensions after long service, and there is no doubt that when they find that they are not to have them a great deal of discontent arises. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will tell us what the present state of the law is with regard to this—whether he can give a pension after 17 or 18 years' service, when he discharges men against their will; and, if not, I
  1768
  think he ought to tell us that he is going to take powers for the purpose.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK): In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I confess that I do not quite understand how such cases as he has referred to can have arisen, because I certainly think it is in the power of the Secretary of State for War to give pensions to soldiers discharged for ill-health after 17 or 18 years' service. I am not quite certain that we have power to give permanent pensions straight off; but, presumably, if a man is discharged for ill-health, he ultimately gets his pension. I must say that commanding officers, as a rule, are most kind and considerate in allowing men, as far as they are able, to complete their full period of service.
  COLONEL NOLAN:Is the limit 17 or 18 years, or am I to understand that after 15 or 16 years' service there is power to give these men pensions? Of course, we know that soldiers are nearly always protected by their commanding officers in the way the hon. Gentleman speaks of; but we have to remember that the men whose cases we are considering do not belong to the regiments in which they served.
  MR. BRODRICK: There is power first of all to give a temporary pension, and I believe that there are cases in which a permanent pension after 15 years' service has been given.
  MR. SEXTON: There are, within my knowledge, several cases of men in the North of Ireland who have been retired from the Army, and which I should wish to lay before the right hon. Gentleman. Not being an expert in these matters, I would ask whether, if I submit the particulars of a case in writing, after proper investigation, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will look into it and give the result at his convenience?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir.
  Vote agreed to.
  (25.) £183,300, Superannuation Allowances,
  (26.) £47,100, Retired Allowances, &c. to Officers of the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Forces.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  COMMITTEE.
  WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "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 £34,242,209 he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  MR. CLANCY: I intend at this stage, Sir, to draw attention to the treatment of the Irish tobacco manufacturers; but because the right lion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) said—
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the hon. Member could introduce this subject on Report of the Customs Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here himself now.
  MR. CLANCY: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has just come in, because I am going to bring forward a question relating to Irish tobacco manufacture. I have been asked by persons interested in this trade to bring the matter I am about to deal with under the notice of the Committee; and I think that when the Committee have heard the facts which I have to lay before them they will come to the conclusion that a very gross act of injustice has been perpetrated upon an Irish trade which deserved better treatment at the hands of the present Government—indeed, at the hands of any Government of this country.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is going to raise is a question connected with the administration of the Excise Department.
  MR. CLANCY: I am going to object to a Vote proposed for that Department on certain grounds.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then it will be appropriate for the hon. Member to do that on the Report of the Vote for that Department, which will come on in the course of a few minutes.
  MR. CLANCY: Would it not be possible to take the discussion now?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not appropriate to this Vote.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [7th September] reported.
  First Three Resolutions agreed to.
  Fourth Resolution read a second time.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: I should like, before this proceeds further, to ask for some information as to the increase of the Vote for the Naval Intelligence Department on page 27 of the Estimates. In doing that I wish to say I most cordially thank the Admiralty for the increase they have made to that Department. It was very much wanted, and I am delighted to see that there is an increase in the numbers, and also an increase in the charge. But I also wish to know what is the net increase in the salaries of the officers already in the Department? Last year the number was four, and the cost £1,322 — the cost of the whole Department; but this year the number is 10, and the total cost £5,483. I understand that the head of the Department received £500 a-year with half-pay, and that part of this increase is due to the fact that the £500 a-year he received has been doubled, and that he still gets his half-pay, so that in this Vote we have not the whole facts as to the costs of the Department. I should like to know what course the Admiralty intend to take; is not this a large addition to the salaries already paid?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he would put this question to me on Report of the Half-Pay Vote.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: I am very sorry if I misled the noble Lord. I said that I did not see how on the Half-Pay Vote we should discuss this question, and therefore I would raise it on Report of Supply.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I did not expect the matter to come on, and therefore am not prepared for the discussion.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: Then I will defer my observations to the Half-Pay Vote.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Remaining Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. —REPORT.
  Resolutions [6th September] reported.
  First Eight Resolutions agreed to.
  Ninth Resolution read a second time.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I desire to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £59, being the amount over-paid to Lord Lingen, the late Secretary to the Treasury. Sir, the Treasury is an Office which is very strict in interpreting Regulations and Acts of Parliament in respect of the claim of Civil servants in subordinate positions; but when it comes to the question of the interests of Members of the Treasury Office itself, or when it is a question of personal interests of high-placed Civil servants in any of the principal Offices of the State, then we find that a totally different standard is applied in gauging the merits or claims of individuals. It is easy to dismiss Dockyard labourers without pensions. It is easy to re-organize an office of secondary importance, and get rid of a number of lowly placed men on terms which inflict great hardship on the majority of them; but no case of re-organization of the Secretary of State's Office has been heard of in which the Heads of that Office were not materially benefited by the change, and no system of retirement in the Secretary of State's Office, or in the Treasury itself, has yet come under public notice in which the officers concerned were not treated in the most liberal manner. But, Sir, in the case of Lord Lingen an exceptionally strong course was taken by the Secretary in dealing with the claim for pension. Lord Lingen is an officer of 38 years' service. When he retired the other day he was entitled, under the ordinary Rules of the Service, to draw a pension equal to 38–60ths of his last year's salary; but instead of that the Treasury gave him a pension equal to two-thirds of his salary, and they attempted to justify the increased amount by representing that many years ago he had acted as an Examiner. Now, at the time he so acted there was no power in the Treasury to take into account the special qualifications which he possessed in that character with a view to an increase in his pension. But in the Superannuation Act of 1859 a clause—Clause 4 —was introduced which provided that it should be lawful for the Examiners of the Treasury from time to time to appoint persons possessing professional or other peculiar qualities not ordinarily acquired in the Public Service at a later period
  1772
  than the rule which ordinarily obtained in the Service. Now, what did the Treasury do when Lord Lingen retired? They bethought themselves of the fact that he had years before been an Examiner in a Public Department, and they made that clause of the Act of 1859 and the Order made under it retrospective. That was really going beyond the intentions of the Act. The increased allowance to Lord Lingen was objected by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the following words:—
  "This sub-head also includes the pension of £1,668 13 s. 4d., equivalent to 40–60ths of salary on retirement, granted to Lord Lingen, late Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. Lord Lingen's actual service amounted to 38 years, to which had been added the years on account of professional qualification as an Examiner in the Education Department. Under the Treasury Warrant of 1863, issued in accordance with the terms of Clause 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1859, as Lord Lingen had ceased to be an Examiner the three years before the issue of this Warrant, and as I have been advised that the Warrant issued under this Act is not retrospective in its action, I feel constrained to take exception to that portion of the pension allowed in respect of these two years; and I am, therefore, unable to consider that the sum of £57 0s. 9d. paid an account thereof during the year 1885–6 as properly charged against the Vote."
  Well, Sir, the matter having been reported upon by the Comptroller and Auditor General, it came before the Public Accounts Committee; and the Chairman asked a question of Mr. Hamilton, the Representative of the Treasury in the matter. Mr. Hamilton's answer was—
  "It is a question, as to the interpretation of the Treasury Warrant, as to whether a retrospective effect should be given under that Warrant or not."
  It was thought at the time at the Treasury that a retrospective effect should be given to it. This Treasury officer said—
  "I think wrongfully so; and I think that the Comptroller and Auditor General is quite right in his contention that the Treasury had no business to give retrospective effect to that Warrant. But so far as this particular case is concerned it would have had no material effect; because, considering what the services of Lord Lingen have been to the State, the Treasury would probably not have hesitated in submitting a case to Parliament for a special pension. Therefore, the difficulty would have been got over in that way had he not made up his official service of 40 years."
  Then Mr. Hamilton is asked—"That is, if Parliament had taken the same view

  1773
  as the Treasury officials?" "No;" he said—
  "The 9th section of the Superannuation Act gives the Treasury power to grant pensions for special services without the special consent of Parliament."
  Then he was further asked—
  "And if the Treasury had a discretionary authority which they desired to obtain, they would, in that case, have allowed the full pension?"
  His answer was—
  " They would have allowed the full pension; but they would have stated the facts to Parliament with a full explanation."
  A further question put was this—
  " If I understand you aright, you admit that the contention of the Comptroller and Auditor General is correct, that the Warrant under which it is sought to cover this higher pension in reality has no retrospective effect, and ought not to have any retrospective effect? "
  Mr. Hamilton's reply was, "That is so." Then the situation is simply this—that the Treasury, in order to serve Lord Lingen, a Treasury official, give a retrospective effect to a Warrant which, in point of fact, has no retrospective effect at all. On the strength of that Warrant they have given him a pension to which he is entitled; but they say— "If we are not entitled to do it in one way, then, at any rate, under another clause of the Act we could, if he had proceeded under it, have been able to effect the same object by laying a special statement before Parliament as to the eminent services rendered by Lord Lingen to the Treasury." But, Sir, the Treasury has not been able to, or at any rate in point of fact, to lay before Parliament this detailed statement of the eminent services of Lord Lingen. Therefore they are not entitled, under Section 9 of the Act in question, to give the special pension, neither are they entitled under Clause 4, and the Warrant issued under its provisions, to give him the larger pension which has been objected to by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The pension, therefore, which is paid to Lord Lingen is clearly illegal. I venture to contend that not only is it illegal, but that it is also improper and altogether indecorous and unseemly. I desire to speak with all due respect of Lord Lingen. He is a gentleman who has been in the Civil Service for a long time, and he has discharged his duties presumably to the
  1774
  best of his power; but I do protest against the Treasury coming forward and claiming that Lord Lingen, in his long career in the Public Service, has manifested any special qualification whatsoever which justified any exceptional treatment of him in the shape of pension. But I say, further than that, that the giving to Lord Lingen of a pension to which he is not legally entitled, at the same time that you treat in so inconsiderate and harsh a manner unimportant members of the Civil Service, can only result in one thing, and that is a deepening conviction in the Civil Service that the Service is not properly worked or supervised; but that it is worked harshly, and that it is worked unjustly—I do not say corruptly—in respect of men in high positions. Lord Lingen was in a high position—he was at headquarters. He, of all men in the Service, signalized himself for years by the harshness and the stringency with which he treated everybody in the Civil Service. If there was any possibility of cutting down an allowance, if there was any means of construing the Regulations in a niggardly spirit, Lord Lingen was sure to adopt that view. The whole of his record is of the same description. The whole of his reputation, however well - established, after years of experience through the various branches of administration, can leave no ground for doubt as to the tone of thought in respect of appointments of Civil servants generally, unless they happen to hold high places. His own case came in for consideration, and what do we find '? Why, that a mere job has been perpetrated in his favour—a job which, if it had been perpetrated in respect of someone else, Lord Lingen would have been the first to object to. What is there to be said in justification of what has been done? Absolutely nothing. The thing is illegal, the thing is improper, and is calculated to work very unjustly upon every rank of the Civil Service. Under these circumstances, I admit that it is a very invidious thing to do, because I have had personal relations with Lord Lingen. Still, I do not think it right that a statement of this kind, involving a charge of the nature I have described, should be allowed to pass without challenge in this House; and, therefore, I beg to move the reduction of this Vote. I do not know exactly the proper way

  1775
  to put my Motion; but I think the Question is, "That this House agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." If I am in Order I will move that the House do require the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £59.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£246,082," and insert "£246,023."— (Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That' £210,082' stand part of the Resolution."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): Sir, the hon. Gentleman who has raised this question has made use of some very strong language, and has insinuated that the pension granted to Lord Lingen was granted to him, not on account of his services, nor on account of the justice of the case, but because he was a Treasury officer. Sir, I believe that charges, if I may call them so—more unfounded insinuations founded on a less basis—never were made in this House. The hon. Member has said that the Comptroller and Auditor General called attention to this matter, and he has recited the circumstances in which the Comptroller and Auditor General did so; but the hon. Member did not represent what the Public Accounts Committee stated in answer to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Public Accounts Committee, in considering the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, stated in their Report in regard to Lord Lingen's pension that the point as to whether this sum of £57 0s. 9d. was a proper charge turned upon the question as to whether a retrospective effect could be given to the Treasury Warrant or not.. The Treasury agreed with the Comptroller and Auditor General that it was not competent for them to give retrospective effect to the Treasury Warrant in this particular instance. However, the matter was not of substantial importance, as Lord Lingen's services would, no doubt, have warranted the Treasury in granting him a special pension. Therefore, it was not merely a question of opinion in the Treasury, but it was the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee, who considered the Comptroller and Auditor's objection, that the Treasury would have been justified in granting a special pension to Lord Lingen for his services. The hon. Member made use of these
  1776
  words—"That the Treasury bethought themselves of this old Warrant." I am sorry that the hon. Member said that. The facts are very simple. Lord Lingen has, I believe, left a reputation at the Treasury which will livelong after him, for his strictness which the hon. Member has alluded to, but strictness in defence of the public purse. He has left a reputation for his strictness and impartiality in the administration of the onerous duties he was called upon to discharge. Sir, Lord Lingen had a get and determined opposition against special pensions. Lord Lingen interpreted special pensions to mean, not pensions which were earned, even although excellently well done, but all services which were special and outside the limit of any particular sphere of duty. Lord Lingen did not claim any special pension; but, following the precedents which had been set before—and I would wish to call the hon. Member's attention to this in proof of what I have stated that it was not that the Treasury bethought themselves of this old Warrant—following the precedent set in Sir Francis Sandford's case—
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Which is now admitted to be wrong.
  MR. JACKSON: Which he hon. Gentleman has now admitted to be wrong in Lord Lingen's case; but I am pointing out that the pension given to Lord Lingen was not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, given with the desire to serve him, and it was not that they bethought themselves of this Warrant when the case came under consideration; but the Treasury in the matter were following a precedent which up to that time had never been questioned, and to which no objection had been taken.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: It was not known.
  MR. JACKSON: It was not known; but pensions of this kind had been granted, and had come before the Comptroller and Auditor General, and had passed him. I want to emphasize this point—that the Treasury acted upon precedent, which up to that time had never been questioned, and which the Treasury at that time believed to be perfectly legal. I do not desire to prolong this discussion. I believe that everybody who has come in contact with Lord Lingen, or who knows anything about his services, will endorse the opinion of

  1777
  the Public Accounts Committee that those services would have justified a special pension. But, Sir, we are not responsible—the Government of that day are responsible for this. I have felt it my duty to say this, because I honestly believe that a Public Service never had a more faithful or diligent servant than it had in Lord Lingen. Lord Lingen's service at the time he retired was 38 years and nine months. Therefore it was a little more than the hon. Member has stated. I have pointed out that the precedent was followed which, up' to that time, had never been questioned; and I believe that had it been proposed to us, as has been suggested by the hon. Member, it would have received the unanimous endorsement of the House. Sir, I should just like to say, further, that the pension which, was awarded to Lord Lingen was endorsed with these words—
  "After the honour which, on gracious acceptance of my advice, Her Majesty has now conferred on Sir Ralph Lingen, I need not supply any less emphatic testimony of his pre-eminent merits."
  That was signed, or rather initialed, "W. E. G."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Very properly, no doubt.
  MR. JACKSON: So far as my knowledge goes, and so far as my experience of the short tenure of the Office I now hold enables me to form an opinion, I am justified in saying that Lord Lingen most thoroughly deserves a pension. The hon. Member questions the pension to the extent of £59. He questions it, I make no doubt, on principle. He questions it, I believe, altogether apart from personal considerations.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Certainly, Sir.
  MR. JACKSON: Well, I have endeavoured to point out that his insinuation that the Treasury have dealt with this case in a special manner, because of Lord Lingen's special connection with the Treasury, is not warranted or justified; and I have endeavoured to show that the Treasury at that time, in acting as they did, and in granting the pension which was given to Lord Lingen, and interpreting the Warrant with the Office which he had previously held, and which the hon. Gentleman knows was subsequently put upon the list of officers entitled to seven years' service on account
  1778
  of professional qualifications—I have endeavoured to show that the Treasury, in acting in this way, were acting upon precedent. They did not make a precedent to serve the particular case of Lord Lingen; and I honestly believe that they acted, as they thought at the time, in strict accordance with the law. I am certain of this—that, at any rate, they acted in strict accordance with the merits of the case.
  SIR EDWARD REED: I cannot allow the fact that a complimentary Minute initialed "W. E. G." —the initials of the late Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone)—should weigh with, me to the extent of barring me from expressing my conviction that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has given no satisfactory answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). I admit that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has given an answer to some of the incidental observations made by the hon. Member; but he has given no answer as to the merits of the case; on the contrary, he has set an example which, I confess, I never expected to find set in this House by a Secretary to the Treasury. I never expected to find a Secretary to the Treasury rising in his place to defend the appropriation of an excessive pension to a public officer without any recognition or legal authority whatever.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. That which I defended was sanctioned by Parliament adopting the Public Accounts Committee's Report.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: That is not absolute.
  SIR EDWARD REED: That was a very indirect sanction. It was acknowledged that the form in which the pension was given, and the grounds on which it was given, were illegal.
  MR. JACKSON: It was afterwards discovered to be illegal.
  SIR EDWARD REED: Well, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury says it was afterwards discovered to be illegal.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): No; highly irregular.
  SIR EDWARD REED: Well, highly irregular—I am satisfied with that; but, then, one would have thought that there

  1779
  would have been some step taken to set it right and make it legal and proper. In Committee in this House, over and over again, we have Ministers rising and expressing their inability to strain any point in the slightest degree in favour of the widows and families of poor men who have died in the Public Service; but here we have the Secretary to the Treasury rising at midnight and saying that when, in the case of a high official, they have discovered that he has received an improper pension, they have taken no steps to put it right, and do not intend to do so. That is a state of things which I must say I never expected to hear in this House from a responsible officer of the Treasury.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have heard the hon. Gentleman with some surprise. It is the practice in the Public Service, and the law of the Public Service, that the Public Accounts should be referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that his Report on these accounts shall be dealt with by the Committee of Public Accounts, which has the authority to allow or disallow, to enforce or the contrary, the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In this respect, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has read out the 77th Article of the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, in which they refuse to disallow the item in question. They distinctly assert that in this particular instance the matter is not of substantial importance, as Lord Lingen's services would, no doubt, have warranted the Treasury in granting him a special pension. Does the hon. Baronet suggest that it is the duty of the Government to go behind, and to act, independently of, the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, which is set up by this House as a protection to the public purse, and as a special tribunal to deal with the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General? Why, it would be an act most extraordinary in itself, and which has never, to my knowledge, been attempted to be done by any Government or Party. Reference has been made to the services of Lord Lingen, but it must be borne in mind that Lord Lingen is not a Member of the Party to which the present Government belongs. It must be borne in mind that Lord Lingen did not receive his pension from this Government—that
  1780
  the pension was not granted by a Treasury to which any Member of the present Government belonged at that time. The Treasury which granted the pension consisted of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler); and I certainly do not accuse any of these right hon. Gentlemen of any desire to deal lightly with the public purse. I believe they had as great a regard for the public purse as we claim to have on this side of the House; but they also had an intimate knowledge of the distinguished services of Lord Lingen.
  SIR EDWARD REED: Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Members of the Treasury to whom he refers wore, at the time of the granting of the pension, ignorant of the fact that the thing should not be retrospective.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: They granted it in good faith, no doubt, and in recognition of the valuable services of Lord Lingen. Then the fact transpires that the particular form and method in which it has been granted was open to some doubt, and the whole subject is referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Committee of Public Accounts, and the Committee of Public Accounts took upon themselves the responsibility of saying that the matter was not one of substantial importance. Does the hon. Member desire to pass a censure on the Committee of Public Accounts, and to say that they have neglected their duty—a majority, or, at any rate, some of them, were neglectful of their duty—to the country, and ought not to have inserted that paragraph in their Report? I believe that substantial justice has been done, and that Lord Lingen's pension has been fully and entirely merited. I served with Lord Lingen at the Treasury during three or four years, and I can bear testimony to his zeal and his devotion to the Public Service. I believe the Public Service never had a servant more thoroughly devoted to their interests than Lord Lingen was in every way; and though it has been remarked that Lord Lingen was indifferent to the claims of the humbler servants of the Crown—
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I did not say that.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Gentleman, at least, implied that Lord Lingen had administered the Department very severely.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to refer to my words if they have been taken down.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I did not take down the hon. Gentleman's words; but I do not think I am misrepresenting him when I say that the impression made by his words was that he believed Lord Lingen to have been harsh and severe and strict in his administration where poor men were concerned. Well, Sir, for my own part, I can bear testimony, through intimate acquaintance with Lord Lingen in the daily administration of his Office, to this—that when any hard cases came before him, and the interests of the persons in question were represented to him, he was as humane and considerate as it was possible for a man to be. But I admit—and I think that in this he did no more than his duty—that he insisted on the strict performance of duty, and that he did hold the purse-strings tightly when he thought that an attempt was being made to do an injustice to the country whose servant he was. Never, Sir, has there been a more careful or a more devoted public servant; and if a mistake has been made technically in the form and manner in which this pension has been granted to him, it is abundantly covered by the verdict of the tribunal which the House of Commons has just set up.
  MR. MASON: I feel called upon, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, to make a few remarks upon this question. I cannot endorse the special pleading which has been given to us by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) in connection with this particular question. I may state that I do not know the merits of Lord Lingen, not having his personal acquaintance. I am not acquainted with the services he has rendered to the State; but I take my position on the ground that we ought to do nothing irregular or illegal. This question should be settled on that basis. I attended the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee most regularly; but I am bound to say that when the Com-
  1782
  mittee came to consider the question of Lord Lingen's pension I was, unhappily, called away to Scotland in consequence of domestic affliction. But the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) and myself had resolved to oppose the decision of the Committee so far as this Vote was concerned, and we should have done so if we had been present. The Report was, however, sanctioned in my absence, and I believe in the absence of the hon. Member for East Donegal. I do not want to dispute the matter so far as the amount is concerned; but I hold that we are not justified in pressing this Vote on in an illegal manner, even though it has been sanctioned by the Report of the Public Accounts Committee; and I wish, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, to state most distinctly that with regard to that particular matter I entirely disagree with it, and that I do that on the ground of principle simply. I do not suppose that this small sum of money which Lord Lingen is to receive can be set against his valuable services; but I mean to say that we ought to do things in a legal and lawful and proper manner, either with respect to the highly-paid servants or the lowly-paid servants—in regard to public officials or in connection with servants of the Houses of Parliament. If this Motion comes to a Division, I shall certainly move to strike out this amount, and I shall do so on the ground of principle, because I cannot agree with the Vote, although a Member of the Public Accounts Committee. There is no Department connected with this House which is not amenable to Parliament; and I think that if the Public Accounts Committee has done wrong, the House has a perfect right to refuse to sanction its decision.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: It is not often that we find the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in a melting mood; but I thought, if I may say so, that there was quite a tear in his voice while he was referring to the services of Lord Lingen. As an old Civil Service official, I cordially and heartily admit that Lord Lingen was a good public servant. But I venture to think that Lord Lingen cannot possibly complain that his services have not been recognized by the State; and it is absurd to say that he performed anything which deserves the

  1783
  name of special service. We have been told—and it is quite true—that Lord Lingen was a strict steward of the public purse; and I think that, when his own claim came to be considered, to imitate his strictness would have been the best compliment which could have been paid to him. I am not at all surprised at the conduct of the Treasury in this matter. It is quite consistent with their settled policy, which appears to be based upon a misreading of a Scripture text—
  " Unto him that hath shall be given, and unto him that hath not even that which he seemeth to have shall he taken away."
  I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for East Donegal will go to a Division on this matter, and if he does I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting him.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I am unwilling to intrude myself upon the House at this late hour; but, having been a Member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I cannot, after what has been said, consent to give a silent vote. Sir, this question was most carefully considered by that Committee. The hon. Member for East Donegal, who has introduced this question, was not himself present when the subject was discussed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The Committee on that particular occasion, instead of meeting at 2 o'clock, as was usual, took a Sitting at half-past 12, at which hour it was impossible for me to attend.
  SIB RICHARD TEMPLE: I regret that we had not the advantage of the attendance of the hon. Member for East Donegal, and of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Mason); but I can assure them both, and I can assure the House, that the question was most carefully considered by the Committee. I wish the hon. Baronet the Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock), who was Chairman on that occasion, were here to bear me out in what I say. I quite admit, in reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, that this question ought to be considered strictly with reference to legality. I submit to the House that we considered it in that light. We were aware of the illegality which had occurred, and which was then specifically
  1784
  discussed; but, on the other hand, we were guided by this consideration—that had that irregularity been known at the time it would have been rectified, because the Treasury had power to grant special pensions. We were thus cognizant of all that has been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury this evening— namely, the eminent services which Lord Lingen had for a long series of years rendered to the State; and we thought it would not be worthy of the Representatives of a great nation to raise any further question in the case of such a distinguished servant, especially considering that no real breach of the Regulations had occurred.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 25: Majority 84. [12.15 P.M.]

  AYES.

  Addison, J. E. W.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Aird, J.

  Finch, G. H.

  Ambrose, W.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Baden-Powell, G. S.

  Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Barry, A. H. Smith-

  Fetcher, Sir H.

  Beresford, Lord G. W. De la Poer

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Bethell,Commander G. R.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Bigwood, J.

  Gedge, S.

  Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

  Gibson, J. G.

  Bond, G. H.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Godson, A. F.

  Boord, T. W.

  Goldsworthy, Major- General W. T.

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

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Gray, C. W.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Burghley, Lord

  Hall, C.

  Caldwell, J.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Carmarthen, Marq. of

  Charrington, S.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

  Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Davenport, H. T.

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

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Hoare, S.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Elton, C. I.

  Jeffreys, A, F.

  Evelyn, W. J.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

  Ewart, W.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Kimber, H.

  1785

  King-Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.

  Powell, F. S.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Knowles, L.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Lafone, A.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Lewiaham, right hon. Viscount

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Robertson, W. T.

  Long, W. H.

  Round, J.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

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

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Stephens, H. C.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Matthews, rt. hon. H.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Milvain, T.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Mount, W. G.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Parker, hon. F.

  TELLERS.

  Pelly, Sir L.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Plunket,rt. hon. D. R.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  NOES.

  Biggar, J. G.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Carew, J. L.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Proyand, A. D.

  Conway, M.

  Reed, Sir E. J.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Rowlands, T.

  Cossham, H.

  Sexton, T.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Stack, J.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Stewart, H.

  M'Arthur, W. A.

  Sullivan, D.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Woodall, W.

  Nolan, J.

  O'Brien, P.

  TELLERS.

  O'Connor, J. (Tipperary)

  Mason, S.

  O'Connor, A.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  Resolution agreed to.
  Tenth to Seventeenth Resolutions agreed to.
  Eighteenth Resolution—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £051,848, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs Department "
  —read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to urge on Her Majesty's Government that inquiry should be held into the case of the chief officer of the steamship City of Bristol, who has been dismissed from his employment in consequence of the discovery of contraband cigars in the ship. And I wish, further, to ask on what ground the Government refuse to refund the sum of £20 exacted from the owners of the vessel? I would point out that the officer in question, who has al-
  1786
  ways borne a respectable character, who has been for 30 years in the Merchant Service, and whom the owners believe to be perfectly innocent, has been utterly ruined in consequence of the representations of the Customs Authorities; and I ask the Government to make inquiry into the circumstances, so that, if possible, he may be restored without delay. I now come to the question of the Customs Authorities in their dealing with Belfast as a Customs port. From inquiries I have made, I find the treatment of the port is unfair in the extreme. I have received a letter from a man of experience in the trade of Belfast, and he states that the regulations of the Customs Department constitute a considerable obstruction to the development of the foreign trade of the port. Another statement is that foreign merchants do not consign cargoes to the port to the extent that they would if the Customs arrangements were better. And, further, not long ago I brought to the notice of the House the case of a firm whose contribution to the revenue was £26,000 a-year, and whose trade had doubled, but who were obliged to make many applications to the Customs Authorities before they could get permission to open a bonded store. The Customs revenue from Belfast has quadrupled in 30 years. The revenue of last year exceeded that of the previous year by £1,30,000; and, in spite of that, the Government added only £500 or £600 a-year to the Customs establishment of the port. Now, Belfast is the third port in the United Kingdom in point of contribution to the revenue; it comes next after London and Liverpool. London gives £10,000,000 to the Customs revenue, and the establishment costs £325,000; Liverpool gives £3,100,000, and the establishment costs £98,000; Belfast comes next with its revenue of £1,600,000 a-year, and what is the present establishment? It is represented by £15,000. The first comparison I make is that in London the cost of collecting the Customs revenue is 3·11; Liverpool, 3·10; and in Belfast it is 0·9; so that every pound of revenue collected in London costs for its collection three and a-half times what it costs in Belfast, and similarly with Liverpool. I want to have it made clear to me why the collection of £1 of revenue at London and Liverpool costs three and

  1787
  a-half times as much as it costs in Belfast. I maintain that the amount of revenue ought to be a sort of finger post or guide in respect of the cost of the establishment at a port, unless some overwhelming objection is advanced to that principle. After Belfast, the next ports in respect of revenue contribution are Bristol and Glasgow. It has been stated that Belfast derived its Customs revenue almost entirely from one article; but that statement is not correct, because it has a large revenue from spirits and general Customs. But what is to be said in the case of Bristol; where would Bristol be were it not for the duty on tobacco? The revenue of Bristol is £1,000,000, and that of Belfast is £ 1,600,000. Yet the Customs establishment costs £16,238, and Belfast only gets £15,000; so that every £1 of revenue at the former port costs twice as much to collect as the same amount costs at the latter. The revenue at Bristol is easily collected, and neither in respect of the number of articles imported, nor the amount of revenue, is the port on the same footing as Belfast. Then I take the case of Glasgow, which yields £1,000,000 in revenue, and I ask what amount is spent on the establishment? It is £23,000; so that every £1 of revenue collected there costs two and a-half times as much as in Belfast. The revenue at Hull is £116,000 a-year; the Customs establishment there costs £20,000, and the cost of the collection of revenue is 20 times greater than the collection at Belfast. Now, with regard to Dublin. It has been alleged in the case of Belfast that the reason why the Customs establishment there is so small is that the foreign trade there is limited. No doubt, in comparison with the foreign trade at large ports, it is limited, and so is the foreign trade of Dublin; in that respect they both stand on an equality; and, therefore, if the limited extent of its foreign trade were an argument against Belfast, the argument would apply to Dublin. The revenue of Dublin is £850,000 a-year, and the cost of the Customs establishment there is £15,127; so that every £1 of revenue collected at Dublin costs twice as much as at Belfast. Here, then, are two ports in Ireland, with the same amount of foreign trade, and we have the Customs establishment at one as nearly as possible double what it is at the other.
  1788
  My argument is that Dublin, which stands on an equality with Belfast in point of foreign trade, and at a disparity of one-half in point of revenue, has the same Customs establishment. Leith resembles Belfast, inasmuch as half its revenue is derived from spirits and half from general Customs; its Customs revenue is £500,000, and the cost of the Customs establishment there is £14,600; so that every £1 of revenue collected at Leith costs three times as much as at Belfast. I have now shown that Belfast stands in the third position in respect of revenue, and only seventh in point of establishment, and what I want is an explanation of this discrepancy. How is it that for every 1s. you spend in Belfast you spend relatively £1 in Hull? Now, the Port of Cork resembles Belfast in having a small foreign trade. It yields £ 148,000 a-year to the revenue, and its Customs establishment costs £6,800; so that every £1 of revenue costs for its collection live times as much as it costs at Belfast. I have now gone through the characteristics of some of the principal ports, and have shown that, no matter with what class of ports you compare Belfast, it has only a very small part of the Customs establishment to which it is entitled. We have a Return of 37 principal ports in the United Kingdom, showing the annual revenue collected at each of them, and from that Return I have obtained this extraordinary result. The cost of collection of revenue per cent is as follows:—at Barrow 24, Bristol 4·5, Cardiff 27, Dover 18, Folkestone 15, Grimsby 8, Liverpool 3, London 3, Newhaven 18, Newport 14, Rochester 7, Sunderland 9, Weymouth 20, Shields 6, Dundee 21, Glasgow a little over 2, Grangemouth 20, Leith 4¾, Dublin l¾—the lowest on the list is 1 per cent, and Belfast stands at 0·9. If it could be contended that the Customs establishment was sufficient for the requirements of the Port of Belfast I would make no complaint; but when we have complaints from merchants in the town that foreign merchants are kept from trading with the port because of the deficient establishment, and that traders cannot get from the Government any consideration of their claims to establish bonded stores, then I say that there must be something wrong, and it is time that the whole matter should be looked into. I have

  1789
  never seen the collector of Customs at Belfast; I know nothing about him, although I believe him to be an efficient officer. Now, with regard to salary. At Glasgow and Bristol, with two-thirds of the yield of revenue of Belfast, and at Hull, with one fourteenth, the collectors have each £800 a-year. At Belfast the collector has £700, and the collector at Dublin the same. Why is that? It is because they are Irish ports. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury smiles; but I can discover no other distinction to account for the disparity. I ask that the collector of Customs at Belfast shall be placed on a level with the collectors at the other ports I have mentioned—Glasgow, Bristol, and Hull. Then with regard to the number of surveyors. At Glasgow there are five surveyors, and one of them is a surveyor of the first class; in Bristol, which contributes two-thirds of the revenue of Belfast, there are only two, and yet one of them is a surveyor of the first class; at Hull there are four surveyors, one of them being of the first class; Leith has three, one of whom is of the first class; but at Belfast, with its enormous return, there are four surveyors, and yet not one of the four is a surveyor of the first class. This, I say, is degrading the port in a manner which is not justifiable, and I ask that one of the surveyors in Belfast should be rated as a surveyor of the first class. If this were done, and if the hon. Gentleman will agree that the collector shall be placed in respect of salary on a level with the collectors at Glasgow, Bristol, and Hull, I would be ready to take it as an earnest that the Government will take the whole matter into consideration; and then, if they are unable to discover some justifiable reason or trace of it for placing Belfast in an inferior position to ports far below it in respect of revenue, I would ask that all the circumstances should be looked into, and that an extension of establishment at Belfast shall take place, and that proportionate to the great and progressive increase of the trade of the port.
  SIR JAMES CORRY: I may mention that the case of the steamer City of Bristol, with regard to Customs, was brought to my notice some time ago, and a Petition was presented to the Board of Customs, which I know is under consideration. I wish also to state
  1790
  that, although I have been connected with the trade of Belfast for 30 years, this is the first time I have heard that foreign merchants were prevented sending their goods there in consequence of the inadequate facilities being given by the Board of Customs. I again say, emphatically, that I have never heard such a complaint before. I am quite aware that we have for a long time been anxious that Belfast should be made a first-class port; but that has nothing to do with the number of surveyors, or with the establishment kept up there by the Board of Customs. I think it only right to say that I have never heard of the claims made by the hon. Member for West Belfast.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), in bringing forward this question, has spoken of the niggardly and cheeseparing policy of the Government.
  MR. SEXTON: That is the question.
  MR. JACKSON: I may say this is not a new charge; and I will go further, and add that if it is a true charge I am very glad of it. The hon. Gentleman has gone into statistics which I admit at once show that, having regard to revenue, and having regard also to the amount of business done, the Port of Belfast is worked with exceeding economy as compared with some other towns.
  MR. SEXTON: All other towns.
  MK JACKSON: I will say all of them. If the hon. Gentleman had made the economical working of the Customs at Belfast a reason for attacking the extravagance which exists elsewhere, I could very well have understood his doing so, and should, to some extent, have supported him. But the hon. Gentleman has not shown—and the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) has rather confirmed what I anticipated—that at Belfast there is no lack of staff to do the necessary work, and provide facilities for trade. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast has also referred to the question of bonded warehouses; and on this point I would say that it is clearly the duty of the Board of Customs to avoid the increased expenditure which would result from granting further bonding facilities if those already

  1791
  in existence are ample for the requirements of the past, and I presume that is the case in the present instance. The hon. Gentleman has quoted statistics of revenue and the cost of Customs establishments at various ports; but I am bound to say that the revenue of a port is not necessarily evidence of the staff necessary to be kept there for Customs purposes, or that it can be taken as a sound basis for estimating the services of the staff. The staff which may be necessary for the Customs Department at a particular port is regulated not by the amount of revenue collected, but by the amount of work which the staff is called on to perform, and that work is regulated and determined more by the number of foreign ships which enter the port than by any other circumstance whatever. Take the case of Kirkcaldy, and compare it with Belfast. Looking at Belfast in that light, according to the Return that the hon. Gentleman moved for in the year 1887—that is the year ending the 81st of March, 1887—there were 389 vessels entered under the heading of foreign trade of a tonnage of 251,402 in Belfast. But at Kirkcaldy there were 2,658 vessels with a tonnage of 784,000.
  MR. SEXTON: There is the coasting trade.
  MR. JACKSON: I am following my own argument, and I say that the staff required at a port is more determined by the number of foreign vessels than the amount of foreign trade. The House knows very well that it is more important, in the matter of the prevention of smuggling, to look after vessels that came from foreign ports than it is to look after vessels that merely do coasting trade. In Glasgow there are 2,128 vessels, with a total tonnage of 2,282,659 tons. Then Hull has been mentioned, and, following the same line, we may say there are there 5,218 vessels, with a total tonnage of 2,998,368. Therefore, the number of foreign vessels coming into Hull is about sixteen times as great as those entering Belfast. Then Bristol has been mentioned, and there the numbers are, 1,020 foreign vessels, with a tonnage of 744,837 tons. In Leith the number of foreign vessels is 2,365, with a tonnage of 1,227,623 tons. In Cork the number of foreign vessels is 226, and the tonnage 138,644; while in Dublin the figures are 490 foreign vessels, with a tonnage of 286,007 tons. I
  1792
  mention that as a proof of the necessity of keeping up a large staff in certain cases. The hon. Member has referred to Dublin, and has said that the collector in Dublin has the same salary as the collector at Belfast, and the staff is about the same.
  MR. SEXTON: No; relative to the revenue of Dublin.
  MR. JACKSON: I mean the cost is about the same. I am not speaking about the revenue; but I would point out that in Dublin there is what I may call a central office, and that the staff in Dublin discharges duties which cover over parts of Ireland, perhaps, besides Dublin. That, I believe, will account for any increase of cost in the staff as compared with Belfast. The hon. Member has referred to London. Well, it is hardly necessary to point out that London is the centre of the Customs Staff, and that, therefore, to compare the total cost and the percentage of cost in London to that of Belfast is not comparing like with like. I admit that Belfast is worked very economically, having regard to the revenue it produces. The revenue has continued to increase, and one knows perfectly well that in the case of a growing and thriving revenue one can get it more cheaply collected than in the case of a more or less declining revenue. The number of vessels on the foreign trade at Belfast, I am sorry to see, does not show a disposition to increase, because in 1885 the number was 495 in 1886 it was 431, and in 1887 it was 387. The hon. Member has stated that the merchants complain that the trade is impaired there by the restrictions which are put upon it. Well, Sir, I think the House will receive that statement with a certain amount of hesitation, because everybody who is connected with the business here, or who knows anything about the business, must know perfectly well that unless there were very gross misuse of the powers possessed by the Customs no restrictions which could be put upon business could at all interfere with the cargoes to Belfast as compared with Bristol, if Belfast were the best port to send them to. I, quite as much as the hon. Gentleman, would hail with satisfaction the development of the Port of Belfast; but surely the hon. Gentleman will not ask me unnecessarily to increase the cost of the Customs Department in

  1793
  that port. I can assure him that, as I have already said, I have called the attention of the Customs Authority to the matter. I am sure they will do what they can to give Belfast a proper staff, but I hope I shall not be pressed to make any declaration with regard to the increase of salaries.
  MR. SEXTON: I should like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman would specially consider the question of placing the collectors and one of the surveyors on the same level with regard to salary as in similar ports in England.
  MR. JACKSON: I would point out that the collector in England is in the same position as the collector in Dublin. I am afraid I cannot promise any increase in the salary of this officer. I have said that I will call the attention of the Customs Authorities to the matter. I am sure they are all most anxious to do all they can to give Belfast its proper position and status; but I hope the hon. Member will not ask me to give any positive pledge in the matter.
  MR. E WART: This subject is one which has engaged the attention of the local bodies in Belfast for some years. There used to be at onetime first, second, and third class ports, and at that time it was of advantage to Belfast that it was not of the first class. But that system of classification has been done away with, and at the present time I believe there is no ground for the allegation that the shipowners of Belfast suffer through not having a first-class collector and a first-class assistant. However, I do think that the case made out is a very strong one for the raising of the salary of the collector and his assistants. There is a very large amount of revenue collected in Belfast, and the principle is recognized that where a great deal of responsibility exists the pay should be in proportion to it. There is serious dissatisfaction felt by the collector in Belfast, and he is very often shifted. We no sooner get a really good man than he wishes to get a larger salary. I do hope that the Government will see their way to raising the salary of the collector and his assistant.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I rise to call attention to the grievance of a very humble body of public servants. I refer to a certain class of extra messengers in the
  1794
  Customs. I asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury about this business a little while ago, but I think the hon. Gentleman either did not altogether appreciate my question, or he himself was misinformed on the matter, because he said these men were paid 3s. a-day when employed. That is not the class of men to whom I desire to direct his attention. The class I refer to are not "glut men," so called. They are not paid 3s. a day, but 3s. 6d., and their employment is continuous. Their grievance is that on the public holidays, when perforce they are idle, they are not paid, and that actually on the Jubilee Day they were not paid. I am afraid they will have no very pleasant recollection of the Jubilee Day, and their sentiments on the matter can hardly be very loyal. All I ask for is that they should be paid their wages on these four Bank holidays, the Queen's birthday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday, that is, seven days altogether. The grounds on which the claim is based are briefly these. In the first place, as I have indicated, they are not "glut men," employed now and then, but they are servants of the State in constant employment. Secondly, they are men of very long service, some of them having served 29 years, and, having taken the trouble to strike an average, I find that their service averages no less than 17 years. In the third place, these men do precisely the same work as the established messengers of the Customs, who receive from £70 to £100 a-year, and have 16 days' leave in the year. Now, it occurred to me to ask these men when they put their case before me how it was that when a vacancy occurred in the class of established messengers, these extra men were not appointed to fill these vacancies. I am informed by these men that the reason is this. Appointments to the class of established messengers are in the gift of the Treasury. They are made, I am informed, on the nomination of Members of this House, and they constitute, in fact, one of the relics, I may call it, of the old system of patronage. Now, Sir, with regard to the men performing similar functions in other offices—take the case of the extra messengers at the Admiralty—the temporary messengers at the Admiralty have 21 s. per week, the same as these

  1795
  men, but they have also a uniform allowed them, and they have 12 days' annual leave with pay, and 16 days' sick leave. Now, Sir, with regard to the coat which, satisfying the claim of these men, would entail upon the State. There are only 27 of them, and I believe the total cost would be £33 1s. 6d. I submit that no decent private employer would refuse to pay men for public holidays when those men had been 20 or 30 years in his service, and I think I shall have the sympathy of everyone when I say that the State ought not to be less liberal to its servants than private employers. Of course, the logical conclusion to the remarks which I have made would be to propose to add £33 1s. 6d. to the Vote, but I am precluded from adopting that course, and therefore what I propose to do is this, to move to reduce the Vote by £33. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by that amount.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£651,848," and insert" £651.815."— (Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed, "That '£651,848,' stand part of Resolution."
  MR. CLANCY: I do not know that I shall be in Order in discussing the question of the tobacco manufacturers of Ireland under this Vote.
  MR. SPEAKER: No; a distinct Motion for reduction is now before the House.
  MR. CLANCY: Shall I be enabled to raise this question of the tobacco manufacturers afterwards?
  MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.
  MR. JACKSON: I would just say a word in answer to what the hon. Member said upon this question of extra messengers. I am very sorry if I misunderstood in any way the classification of the messengers to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his Question to me some time ago. All I can say is that it was equally misunderstood elsewhere, because the Question of the hon. Member, as printed on the Paper, was transmitted to the Customs Authorities, and it was on their authority that I made the statement that the men were what is known as "glut men." I was referring to a class of men which he had not referred to. I quite admit that, and I admit
  1796
  that the amount the hon. Gentleman referred to would be very small. The question was brought before the Treasury, and, rightly or wrongly, I am bound to say that my own personal view is very strongly that if allowances of this kind were made to the men in one of the Public Departments, you could not stop at that one Department, but would have to deal with every man who is in the service of the State. Now, that really opened up a prospect of so very large a description, that I hesitated to face it. It would have involved the expenditure of a very large sum, and would have rendered it necessary to have brought in a Supplementary Estimate. It appeared to me to be rather inconsistent that Parliament should be asked to vote a large sum of money for such a purpose. Everybody knows that a Vote was submitted to us for certain necessary alterations which were necessary to be made in the building in which this Assembly is being held, and even that was discussed at a certain length by several hon. Members, and I confess I felt satisfied that I could not consent to any expenditure of the kind proposed by the hon. Member seeing what our position in the matter was.
  MR. CONYBEARE: If I understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, he did not lay stress on the question of the Jubilee Day, but the complaint of these public servants is that they are, if I may use the expression, docked of an amount of their pay for other public holidays as well, and what I would respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is whether it would not be possible to consider their position with a view to rectifying it in another year. I am very far from being anxious to urge on Her Majesty's Government any increase of expenditure, even of so small amount as this, especially when it would involve the consideration of other Departments as well, but I would base the application in this case strictly on the principle the hon. Gentleman has just laid down, that all public servants should be dealt with on the same terms, and equally. I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the fact, or whether it is not, that the officials in the higher grades of the Public Service have a portion of their salaries deducted on account

  1797
  of their absence on public holidays, deductions which, I understand, are made from the wages of the class of men under discussion. If that is not the case, I only hope that the hon. Gentleman who has moved this reduction will, another Session, move a reduction, not of this particular amount, but move a much more considerable reduction in respect of those officials occupying higher positions who do not lose any of their pay in consequence of these public holidays.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentlemen press the Amendment?
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Yes, I do, Sir.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 17: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 406.)
  [1.10 A.M.]
  Resolution agreed to.
  MR. CLANCY): I shall not make any apology for drawing attention, even at this late hour of the night (1.15), and even at this late period of the Session, to the subject of the treatment of the Irish roll tobacco manufacturers. If I need not apologize, I may say, apart altogether from the importance of the subject, that this is the only occasion upon which we have had an opportunity of directing attention to the subject. Now, the facts of the case are ridiculously simple. In the Budget statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) on the 21st of April, he announced a reduction of 4d. per 1b. in the duty on manufactured tobacco, and he fixed a month later, the 21st May, as the day on which the new duty was to come into operation. Now, in the case of the manufacture of English roll tobacco, the process of maturing takes only three or four days, so that the rearrangement could not work any injury to those engaged in that manufacture, and no complaint was made by them. They could buy at the old rates almost up to the very day on which the new duty came into operation; and they need incur only a trifling loss, for they could turn out the tobacco, as I say, in three or four days from the date on which they cleared the raw material from the bond. But it was different with the cigar manufacturers of England, and also with the
  1798
  Irish and Scotch roll tobacco manufacturers. While the English manufacturers of roll tobacco could turn out their article in three or four days, the cigar manufacturers and the Irish and Scotch manufacturers of roll tobacco work according to a system under which the article in each case takes three or four weeks to mature. That is an essential point, and that is the great difference between the two cases. As a consequence of that, if the cigar manufacturers and the Irish and Scotch roll tobacco manufacturers were to continue working between the 21st of April and the 21st of May, and were to continue to pay all that time the old duty, they would be working at a dead loss, for the tobacco manufactured in that time would not be marketable until after the new duty came into operation. I think that is perfectly clear; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted it in the case of the cigar manufacturers; but he did not admit it in the case of the cigar manufacturers immediately, for I find he was asked a Question on the subject on the 28th April, and then he said he could not understand why this should be the case —namely, why any loss should be incurred in the case even of cigar manufacturers. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that a pistol was presented at his breast by the manufacturers of cigars in England, and he was threatened with wholesale discharges of workmen if he persisted in his proposals as regarded them. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very brave man, as we all know, he yielded to this threat, and allowed a rebate of 4d. in the 1b. to the cigar manufacturers on all cigars turned out by them during the month previous to the 21st of May. But if he found considerable difficulty in the case of the cigar manufacturers, he found still more difficulty in understanding how loss could be incurred in the case of the Irish and Scotch roll tobacco manufacturers. In the case of these latter, he could not be made to see the point at all. I have been striving to account for this inability to see what appears to me to be a perfectly clear case, and the only reason for it that I can imagine is that it was a dangerous thing in view of the coming elections to disappoint a number of English work-

  1799
  ing men, or throw them out of employment; whereas in the case of the Irish and Scotch there was no such danger to apprehend, because Ireland and Scotland were already against the Government, and there was nothing to be gained by conciliating either the workmen of Ireland or Scotland. The consequence was that these working men got no advantage whatever, but were denied the advantage given to the cigar manufacturers, although the cases of the two classes of manufacturers were precisely the same. But the right hon. Gentleman said he would give the Irish find Scotch roll tobacco manufacturers a month's grace in which to allow them to reduce their stocks to the lowest possible limits. Well, now, from what has been already said, it will be seen that this concession was absolutely useless. If the Irish and Scotch roll tobacco manufacturers were situated as I have stated the English roll tobacco manufacturers are situated, and required only three or four days in which to mature their tobacco, the loss would be very slight; but the Irish and Scotch manufacturers require three or four weeks in which to mature their article, and consequently they would be obliged to buy every day up to the 21st of May the raw material at the old price, and it would be impossible for them to sell it until after the reduced duty came into operation. That is perfectly clear, and cannot be denied. I do not speak in this matter on behalf of Scotland; but the case of Scotland is on all-fours with that of Ireland. Consequently, the concession which was denied to Ireland was denied to Scotland, and I have no doubt the denial was equally felt by Scotland. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deny there would be some loss, but he talked in a lofty way about the loss being very insignificant, and one which ought to be easily borne on that account by the manufacturers concerned. Now, if Ireland were like the rich constituency of St. George's, Hanover Square, the loss would not be very keenly felt, But; Ireland is a very poor country, and an injury even of this trifling character is no small thing to Ireland. But the House would, perhaps, like to know the exact loss which Ireland was likely to incur. The Irish manufacturers estimated that the loss to them would be on their stocks £10,000 if they went on
  1800
  working, and if they ceased working they would be unable to supply the public, and consequently the whole supply of tobacco in Ireland would be disorganized. They estimated the output of Irish roll tobacco at 7,500 rolls per week, on which they reckoned they would lose 6s. 8d. per roll, which would amount to a total loss of £2,500 weekly. The number of hands who would be injured by this loss would be 800 hands employed in Dublin, 700 employed in Belfast, 200 employed in Cork, besides many more employed in other parts of Ireland. Although this loss may appear a small thing to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), who represents a University constituency, and who is laughing—
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. I was speaking to my hon. Friend near me of a totally different matter.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. Although this may seem a small matter to Representatives of districts like St, George's, Hanover Square, I repeat that to a poor country like Ireland, where manufactures are declining day by day, whore work is urgently needed, where, according to the contention of the Government itself, nothing is more wanted than employment for the population, this blow at an Irish industry, one of the few industries left, is a very serious matter indeed. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he did not arrive at this determination until he had admitted a deputation, and had consulted with them, and until he had learned from them—the cigar manufacturers of England, to whom he made the concession to which I have referred—that, their case was different from that of the Irish and Scotch roll tobacco manufacturers. But, Sir, it is a curious fact that on this deputation, which was so unanimous about the case of the manufacturers of cigars being different from that of the Irish and Scotch roll tobacco manufacturers, there was not a single Irishman who could present the case for Ireland. There was no Scotchman on the deputation either. No wonder the deputation was unanimous. The right hon. Gentle-

  1801
  man the Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that the roll tobacco manufacturers of Ireland could keep up the price of the article; and he referred—if I am informed rightly—to a circular which had been sent to him by one of the largest manufacturers in Ireland, in which it was stated that the price would not be reduced until about the 21st Juno, that is about a month after the reduced duty came into operation. On the basis of this circular from a firm of manufacturers in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman ventured, on the anticipation that the price need not be lowered, and might be kept up for a considerable time after the 21st of May. The House may be glad to learn what the result has been. I have here an account of what the result has been supplied to me by one of the tobacco manufacturers in Cork. I am told that practically nearly all the factories remained idle until the 21st of May, the day upon which the reduced duty came into operation; and the result of that was, of course, that a large number of hands were unemployed, and that when the 21st of May arrived the stocks were very low, and that orders which came in about the 21st of May could not be supplied, Everything was thrown into confusion. The statement of my informant is—
  "We have not been able to supply a single order promptly. Orders have been delayed in some eases from seven to 10 days. From all directions telegrams have been pouring in complaining of the great inconvenience caused by the delay in executing orders."
  Furthermore, I am informed that the disorganization of the tobacco trade is actually, to some extent, prevalent to the present moment. Instead of the roseate anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer being realized that is the result. I do not know whether it is any use—I suppose it is not—to ask for any redress on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done his best to ruin the tobacco trade of Ireland; and we are entitled to assume, in face of the distinct warnings which were given to him as to the inevitable result of his policy, it would be very little use now to ask him to do anything to repair the loss and ravage he has caused. There is, however, another matter which I think it is still within his
  1802
  power to pay attention to; and possibly he may be willing in this respect to make some concession to the tobacco roll manufacturers of Ireland. I refer to the question of moisture. According to the new Moisture Clause, tobacco can legally contain no more than 35 per cent of moisture, including the natural moisture of the raw material. Well, now, every person well knows that in consequence of the heating process every roll of tobacco contains various amounts of moisture. A roll, which on the outside would contain only 30 per cent of moisture, might, if analyzed, be found to contain towards the centre 33 per cent of moisture, and if the analysis were made from the heart of the roll it might be found that the moisture amounted to 35 or 36 per cent. I think it is unreasonable, and not only so, but unjust that the roll tobacco manufacturers should be obliged to lose two or three or four per cent by reason of the necessity of having the heart of the roll containing no more than 35 per cent of moisture. What the manufacturers ask is that some one point should be taken from which a sample should be selected. I do not know whether I have made myself clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I submit to him that since he cannot, or since he is unwilling to do anything to repair the mischief he did by refusing the Irish roll tobacco manufacturers any such rebate as he allowed the cigar manufacturers, he might take this question of moisture into account and save the Irish roll tobacco manufacturers the loss of one, two, three, or four per cent, as the case may be. As I said in the commencement of my remarks, I make no apology for drawing attention to this matter, even at this hour of the night, or at this period of the Session. The manufacture of tobacco is one of the few manufactures which is in any way prosperous in Ireland. It will not be to the credit or the advantage of the Government if it is found that the legislation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) tends to cripple this manufacture.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): One would have thought from the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) that the Government had

  1803
  been proposing some heavy duties upon the manufacture of tobacco instead of taking the step of reducing those duties. Instead of endeavouring to ruin the tobacco industry of Ireland the Government took a stop which I should have thought would have been considered to be to the interest of both the manufacturer and consumer—namely, a step in the direction of the reduction of the Tobacco Duty. I think everyone who has listened to the speech of the hon. Member must consider that there was great extravagance in his language when he argued that the manufacture of roll tobacco in Ireland had been injured in consequence of the reduction of duty. Now, I assure the hon. Gentleman—though I do not imagine my assurance will carry much weight with him—I regret extremely that the manufacturers of roll tobacco in Ireland, or that any of the industries in Ireland, should consider themselves damaged by the proposals I have had the honour to submit to Parliament. The Government and I have been most anxious to do perfect justice to Ireland in this matter. I should have thought there was evidence in the Budget of my anxiety to be perfectly just to Ireland. I wish to say no more in reply to the taunts of the hon. Gentleman to the effect that the Government have purposely neglected Irish interests in this matter. The hon. Gentleman called attention to the deputation which came to me, and alluded to a remark I made, that in consequence of the assurance I received from that deputation that there was a difference between cigar manufacture and roll tobacco manufacture, I had made a concession to the cigar manufacturers which I had refused to the roll tobacco manufacturers. That is not so; I never made a declaration to that effect. At that time there was a representation made to me by the manufacturers of cut tobacco. The representation made to me was that they stood in a different position to the cigar manufacturers.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have here a report of his answer to the question, and from beginning to end there is not a single word about the manufacture of cut tobacco.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am speaking of the deputation. I received the deputation, and I remember the circumstances
  1804
  precisely. I do not know what document the hon. Member alludes to, but I am aware of what took place. The representations which were made to me were made in reply to questions I put, not to the cigar manufacturers, but to the manufacturers of manufactured tobacco. I asked whether their position was analogous to that of the cigar manufacturers, and they assured me that it was not. There was no question of roll tobacco, I say, uppermost at that time. With regard to the concession made to the cigar manufacturers as compared with the manufacturers of roll tobacco there is this difference—in the case of the cigar manufacturers, the moment they suspended their operations the market might have been flooded with foreign cigars paying a lower duty, and the manufacturers would have had no means whatever of recouping themselves. There is no analogous circumstance in the manufacture of roll tobacco in Ireland, which is a speciality in Ireland. Customers keep to that particular article, and there is very little competition, as is shown by the remark of the hon. Member that the manufacturers could not supply the demand when the time arrived. But in the case of the cigar manufacturers, if they had suspended operations from the 21st of April to the 21st of May, they would not have been able to recoup themselves, because they had to compete with the foreign cigars. They would have been obliged to discharge their workmen. There were, I think, 7,000 workmen engaged in that trade, and it would certainly have been a very serious matter if all these men had been discharged, and I repudiate as ridiculous the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman that the concession was prompted by political considerations.
  MR. CLANCY: As a matter of fact, Irishmen were disemployed.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have got the exact numbers of those discharged. When I heard of the discharges I made inquiries, and I find that in Belfast, for instance, which is one of the largest centres of the tobacco manufacture—
  MR. CLANCY: Was it from the same gentleman who informed you that the price need not be lowered until the reduced duty came into operation?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am quite prepared that the hon. Gentleman should

  1805
  interrupt me when he has got anything reasonable to suggest. To whom does he think I should go for information except to the officers of the Inland Revenue who have got the tobacco duty in their charge? I had an official Return made to mo of the number of discharges because I had been threatened with wholesale discharges. At Belfast the total number of men who were discharged was 11, and instead of 800 being discharged in Dublin, I think the number discharged temporarily was 350. It is a curious fact that the quantity of tobacco which was taken out during the month in which I was informed the trade would be stopped was very nearly as great as the quantity taken out in any of the previous months. Therefore, the alarm which took place with regard to the discharge of workmen was quite illusory. I will admit to the hon. Member and to the House that you cannot have any great change, you cannot reduce or increase duty without causing some inconvenience, and possibly some loss to some parties. No one regrets that more than myself, but in this case the number of workmen discharged was greatly exaggerated, and it is also a question whether manufacturers did not take advantage of the opportunity to discharge a certain number of their workmen, and lay the blame at the door of the Government. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a double loss. The House will agree with me that it is hardly fair to speak of a double loss, since, if the manufactories continued operations, the workmen would not lose by being discharged, and if the workmen were discharged the manufacturers would not lose by taking the raw material out of bond at the higher rate of duty. In 1878, when the duty was increased, the manufacturers had an opportunity of making a profit equal to the loss they allege they have now sustained. They had large stocks of tobacco on hand at that time, and when the duty was increased they immediately increased the price to the consumer, and gained a profit which was analogous to the loss they allege they have now sustained. In the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the demand for the article had not been diminished and the manufacturers had an opportunity of disposing, I trust, profitably of their stock. I certainly would be the
  1806
  last person to cause any loss to be sustained by any industry in Ireland, but if any loss has been sustained it was due to changes which under the circumstances were unavoidable. Having drawn my attention to this point, the hon. Gentleman is anxious that an average sample should be taken with regard to certain classes of tobacco, and that a certain amount of moisture should be allowed. But we have not alone to consider the interest of the manufacturer but the interest of the consumer in this matter, and accordingly we have decided that the purchaser of an ounce of tobacco is not to pay for more than 35 per cent of moisture. That, I think, is a large allowance. The percentage includes natural moisture, which no doubt the hon. Gentleman will understand may extend to a large quantity in many instances. I am informed that there would be great difficulty as regards taking an average, and may conclude my remarks by saying that it would be contrary to the policy we have pursued to allow more than a maximum of 35 per cent of moisture to be established by law.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) said he would not be prepared to treat lightly any loss that might be incurred by any trade in Ireland; but I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman has treated rather lightly the loss which has been incurred by this trade, when he alluded to the inconvenience which has been sustained. There was something more than inconvenience suffered; there was downright loss. Yet the right hon. Gentleman took care to relieve a certain branch of the trade in England, and the loss they would incur would be quite harmless as compared with that of the trade in Ireland. It is true, as he says, that he gave the latter a month's grace, but that was of no use whatever to men who had to buy on the old rate; because if they did not manufacture they lost their customers, and if they did they lost money. Those who are acquainted with the trade in Ireland will know that there is much competition on the part of the manufacturers on this side of the water, and if the Irish manufacturers had not kept up their stocks, the result would have been that they would have

  1807
  come into competition with manufacturers in this country who would have established themselves in their trade. I have myself seen the competition which is carried on to a serious extent by people in this country with the traders in Ireland; and I know very well, that owing to it there has been great disturbance in the Irish trade, the effect of which was that some of the Irish traders were obliged to continue manufacturing tobacco at a loss, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) has pointed out, of 6s. 8d. per roll. Where they did not manufacture, their stocks ran down and they are suffering inconvenience which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not try to compensate in any way. He does not allow the manufacturers any rebate for the inconvenience they have suffered and are now suffering, nor does he allow them any compensation for the loss of 6s. 8d per roll which they were obliged to manufacture. There were over here at the time when this alteration was made many persons connected with the trade in Ireland, and they endeavoured to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the seriousness of the loss they incurred, and we complain that while the right hon. Gentleman took into account and considered the representations made to him by people on this side of the water, he treated lightly, to use his own words, the representations of Irish manufacturers. I think we have a right to complain of this one-sided treatment. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that a profit was made by the manufacturers when the duty was raised in 1878, but I point out that they were obliged to let their customers have a month's supply at the old rate, and as a matter of fact they really made no profit at all at the time referred to. I think my hon. Friend has done well in bringing this subject before the attention of the House, and in showing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he cannot go on disturbing the trade in Ireland and giving an undue advantage to the trade in this country without his action being called in question.
  MR. CLANCY: I pointed out that the English traders only took three or four days to mature their tobacco, as against
  1808
  one month, which is necessary for that purpose in Ireland.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Exactly; my hon. Friend says that those who manufacture tobacco here mature it in three or four days, and that in Ireland a much longer time is required, and hence it is that the English traders have had an undue advantage in this matter. I repeat that my hon. Friend has done perfectly right in pointing out that the unfair treatment suffered by the manufacturers of tobacco in Ireland at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Twentieth to Twenty-second Resolutions agreed to.
  Twenty-third Resolution—
  " That a sum, ' not exceeding' £6,069, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for repaying to the Civil Contingencies Fund certain Miscellaneous Advances"
  —read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. SEXTON: I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) on a former occasion to lay upon the Table a copy of the Report of the Commission which inquired into the riots at Belfast, but the right hon. Gentleman stated that this document was confidential. I certainly cannot understand why the Report should not be produced. The ratepayers are surely entitled to know what evidence was taken at the inquiry, and what was the Report of the Commission. I have never heard before of a Report of the kind being withheld on the ground alleged, and I would ask the Government for some further explanation that we have not yet received as to why the result of an inquiry of this nature is not placed in the hands of hon. Members. This Vote also contains an item for medical attendance on officers injured in the Belfast riots. There were a large number of men of the police force attended to in hospitals, which are supported by voluntary contributions; and I think it is a great shame that hospitals which

  1809
  have spent hundreds of pounds in curing the men of the force should not be paid back. I should be greatly pleased to have some explanation on this subject, and for that purpose I move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£6,069," and insert "£5,969."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That ' £6,069 ' stand part of the Resolution."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I have made some inquiries as to the number of men treated in hospitals, and the Inspector General informs me that there was no extraordinary medical expenditure except £5 5s. for attendance on wounded constables under exceptional services; there was no expenditure incurred with regard to the Constabulary during the riots at Belfast, because they have a service of medical officers paid for by Government. There may be cases in which injured members of the force called in additional aid, but by the rules of the service that aid is not paid for out of the fund. There was the case of three policemen on full pay who paid the regulation hospital charges themselves. We have, therefore, no knowledge that the hospitals were involved in any extra expense; at the same time, I think that if the hospitals were put to any considerable expense, if their resources were straitened or crippled in any way, an account ought to be rendered and the expense repaid.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am under the impression that the Inquiry at Belfast was conducted in a public manner; and that it was not private at all. The ratepayers and others were allowed to appear before the Commission; but the Reports of these bodies have always been regarded as a confidential document for the guidance of the Privy Council. That I believe was what my right hon. Friend intended to convey; but I will look into the matter, and if it is usual, or if there is a precedent for producing the Report I will endeavour to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 354.]
  (Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): On moving the second reading of this Bill, I wish to say a few words in explanation of the reason for its introduction. Many Members of this House will know that for some years past the question of the exercise by the Treasury of what are called extra powers, has been brought before the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts, and by them before the House. There are from time to time cases arising which do not come within the limits of the Superannuation Act of 1859, and I venture to say that these are cases which undoubtedly claim consideration at the hands of the State. The Public Accounts Committee have from time to time reported to the House irregularities in connection with these cases—I say irregularities because it is of no use disguising the fact that there is irregularity in the exercise of a power which is not statutory, and although the Treasury has held hitherto that the sanction of Parliament obtained by the Appropriation Act every year exonerated them, still they have always felt that these transactions were more or less irregular. In 1882 the Public Accounts Committee stated that in the grant of the extra statutory pensions the Treasury had acted according to precedent; but that such action should only be resorted to in special cases, and that unless caution is observed there would be some danger lest the strict compliance with the provisions of the Superannuation Act which it is important to maintain would be interfered with. In 1883 and 1884 the Committee while acquiescing in the Treasury practice showed nevertheless that they were watching it with some jealousy, and they recorded their opinion that several eases of extra statutory allowances were reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and in the opinion of the Committee very properly so. They said that when the number of allowances was very large, some cases of irregularity would be unavoidable; but they should be as few as possible, and any case the exer-

  1811
  cise of this power by the Treasury required to be carefully guarded. In 1886 the Committee reported that the Comptroller and Auditor General bad called the attention of the Public Accounts Committee to a number of cases in which pensions had been granted to the Treasury not in accordance with law; that the Treasury did not appear to admit the justice of the observations of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but considered that public convenience, or the urgency of some particular case, justified a departure from the strict letter of the law. Further, the Committee considered that it was Parliament and not the Treasury, which ought to decide whether the circumstances of any particular case are such as to require exceptional treatment, and that in straining the law for the purpose of meeting the exigencies of a particular case, the Treasury was usurping the functions of the Legislature. Again, in 1887, the Committee reported to the effect that last year they had commentated on the claim put forward by the Treasury to a discretionary power in dealing with superannuation and retired allowances, and reported that—
  " It is Parliament, and not the Treasury, which ought to decide whether the circumstances of any particular case are such as to require exceptional treatment, and it appears to your Committee that in straining the law for the purpose of meeting the exigencies of any particular case, the Treasury is usurping the functions of the Legislature."
  The Committee reported that in a Minute dealing with the subject, the Treasury stated that their only desire was to administer the Superannuation Acts according to the strict letter of the law, with due regard to the interests of economy on the one hand, and the equitable claims of individuals on the other; and that a Bill had been prepared for the purpose of legalizing so much of the existing practice as is now extra-Statutory, and can be defined by Statute without danger to the public interests. It is in accordance with that pledge, and with the requirements of the Public Accounts Committee, that the Treasury have introduced this Bill. I venture to say that, if superannuation is justifiable at all, if the present Superannuation Acts are to remain in force, I think the very cases which are the most deserving will be excluded from the four corners of those Acts. The Treasury desires to get rid
  1812
  altogether of the discretionary power which is now exercised, so that in future with regard to every case they may be able to comply strictly with the law, and to do that they think it necessary to make some provision by which the very hard cases which come before them may be met.
  MR. HUNTER: I rise to Order. Is it in Order to proceed with this Bill, which is blocked?
  MR. SPEAKER: This is a Money Bill, and the Notice of Amendment does not apply.
  MR. JACKSON: With regard to the clauses of the Bill, I am bound to say that I know of no objection which has been raised to any but Clauses 2 and 6. Clause 2 proposes to give power to the Treasury to grant a pension, in the event of retirement, to a Civil servant who may be not quite efficient and not 60 years of age, and who has a medical certificate, not exceeding in amount that for which his length of service would qualify him under the Superannuation Act of 1859. As I have said, some objection has been taken to this clause, and I am willing to admit that, as it stands in the Bill, it is open to misconception. I have had, however, the advantage of discussing the clause, not only with some civil servants who will be affected by it, but also with the hon. Member for the Brentford Division of Middlesex (Mr. Bigwood) and the hon. and learned Member for the Dulwich Division of Camberwell (Mr. Morgan Howard), who have taken a very great interest in the subject; and, in conjunction with them, I have framed an Amendment which I shall move in Committee, and which I believe meets the case entirely and removes any possible chance of injustice being done to existing civil servants. One portion of the Amendment provides that in case of any civil servant being reported by the Head of the Department as inefficient, the civil servant so reported shall have an opportunity of communicating with the Treasury, with whom the decision shall rest, and that the Treasury shall consider the representations so made. The other Proviso I propose to insert is that nothing in this Act shall interfere with the existing rights of any civil servant. I believe that these two alterations meet fairly the justice of the case, and I do not think there will be any

  1813
  difficulty with, regard to the matter. With regard to Clause B, I think I may say the same of it as I have said with regard to Clause 2. It may be open to misconception. I have framed another clause that I propose to put down as an Amendment and substitute for this. I think I may say, having had the advantage of consulting with very able military members of the Commission who have taken a great interest in the matter, and to whom I have had an opportunity of showing the rules that it is proposed to lay on the Table of the House, carrying out the power given under this Bill, that Clause B, as it stands, really does not injuriously affect the position of any officer in any way whatever, but it gives power to the Treasury to frame rules which will affect their position. These rules, I think I am justified in saying, have been carefully considered by some of the able military Members of this House, and have been approved of by them as preserving the rights of officers as they exist at present, and making some further concession to them. As regards the financial effect of the Bill I need hardly say that in my position it is my duty to consider carefully what that will be, to know whether it would involve the State in any very large addition to the more effective Vote, because I am alive to the fact that many Members of the House think that the non-effective Vote at present is a very heavy one, and one which should be carefully watched. I believe that the effect of the measure will be a slight increase in the non-effective Vote, but that increase will arise under Clause 4, which will give power to the Treasury to make certain allowances and gratuities to workmen who at present are debarred, being outside the Superannuation Acts. I hope the hon. Members who feel strongly against extending the Superannuation Acts or against giving increased facilities for superannuation, will agree in this, that if there is one class more than another which ought not to be left out of the advantages of this system it is the workmen who are paid the lowest class of wages, and who are not on the Establishment at present. The Treasury has no power to meet these cases. Several hard cases have come before the Treasury, and they must necessarily do so in connection with so large an employment of civil servants as we have. There have been eases of an extremely hard
  1814
  and urgent character, and it is to meet these cases and to meet them legally that the Bill has been drawn. I hope the House will be good enough to accept with favour the Bill as drawn. I think it will not largely increase the amount of superannuation, but it will enable the Treasury to meet legally and properly a great many hard cases which it is at present impossible to deal with. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: It was my intention to oppose this Bill, but since the Amendments which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has agreed to introduce I will not oppose it. At the same time, I should like to say that I think the whole question of withholding part of the pay of officers who retire and accept appointments which are not provided for out of the Imperial funds requires consideration. I do not consider that the country is justified in compulsorily retiring officers from the service and giving them inadequate pensions, and then afterwards taking from them, when they have succeeded in obtaining Colonial or other employment, in order to supplement their small pensions, which were granted for past services. As no opportunity can be found on this occasion to introduce a new clause in the Bill, or to introduce an Amendment to the 1st clause which will meet this case, I shall, with the permission of the House, call attention to the subject next Session.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I may, perhaps, be permitted to express my extreme regret that a Bill of such great importance not only to all the services of the State, but to the public, should be brought forward at this hour, and at this period of the Session. I am sorry the right hon Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) did not respond to my appeal to defer the Bill until the beginning of next Session. He based his refusal upon the ground that certain Statutory allowances were being made, which it was necessary to ratify, and he made a point of the fact that these allowances had been going on, and that the Committee of Public Accounts had

  1815
  been calling attention to them for the last five years. As the Committee of Public Accounts has been calling attention to the matter for the last five years, I think we might surely have got on with the existing condition of things for a few months longer. It is impossible to discuss this Bill, which seems to me to have been very badly drawn with reference to all the circumstances of the case. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury says that he has not heard any objection to the Bill except, I think, to the second and sixth sections. Well, with regard to the second section, I shall have something to say in a moment, but I want now to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fourth section in which I think the drafters of the Bill have certainly left out of account considerations that ought to have been present to their minds. The Treasury has been in the habit of granting compassionate gratuities on retirement which are not permitted by the law, and, roughly speaking, these gratuities have been given to two classes of persons, to workmen and also to what I may call professional men of whom draftsmen are perhaps the most representative class. And, Sir, the allowance granted to Class 2, professional men, has, of course, been upon a higher scale than that granted to Class 1—the workmen. Class 2, that is professional men, seems to have been left out of account by the drafters of the Bill. These draftsmen in some cases receive salaries of a maximum of £260 per annum, and by the Treasury Minute of February 1880, they are to receive one year's salary at the age of 60. Now, my point is that by the Treasury Minutes these draftsmen would be entitled to receive £100 more than they are entitled to get under this Bill. And as we are told that the object of this Bill is to prevent any allowances being made which are contrary to law, and of course contrary to this Satute, it seems to me that these draftsmen would not receive what they have been led to expect under the Treasury Minute of February 1880—that, in fact, they would receive under the Bill no less than£l00 less than they have been entitled to expect under the Treasury Minute. This Statute I am afraid would override the Treasury Minute of 1880. Then take another case—the case of the writers. There is another Minute affecting them—the
  1816
  Minute of December 1886. According to this Minute the writers are to receive a month's pay for each year of service, but this Bill would only give them two pays for each year. Now, I submit, as a matter of law, that the Statute would override each of these Minutes, and therefore the draftsmen on the one hand and the writers on the other would not receive what they are entitled to under those Minutes. I would just say one word with regards to Clause 2. The object of the clause is to enable the Department to get rid of a civil servant who is assumed to be inefficient. But, Sir, what is the test of inefficiency? It appears from the Memorandum to this Bill that the test of inefficiency is not to be the incapacity of these men to discharge their accustomed duties; but it is said that these persons are found inefficient to superintend or to carry out reforms, opportunities for effecting which arise in our Public Departments from time to time. So that the test of inefficiency is not to be proved inefficiency in the past work of those gentlemen, but speculative inefficiency with regard to their future work. The hon. Gentleman submits to us that sufficient safeguards have been introduced into the Bill by the Amendments of which he has just given notice. Well, Sir, of course these Amendments are sprung upon us, and it is difficult at a moment's notice to precisely gauge their real value and efficiency. The impression, in my mind, is that they do not, by any means, safeguard the rights of existing civil servants as fully as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. He says that a Proviso is to be introduced saving the rights of existing civil servants. But, Sir, the rights of the existing civil servants it would perhaps be very difficult strictly to define, and I observe that by the 9th Clause of this Bill the Treasury is to be the final authority upon any question arising under the Bill. So that after all saving the rights of civil servants does not carry us very far, because the Treasury is to be the only authority for determining what the rights of civil servants are. While I do not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, I shall certainly reserve my right very closely to scrutinize and carefully to consider between now and the Committee stage the Amendments of

  1817
  which, the hon. Member has given Notice.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  TECHNICAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 358.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th September.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 6 (Duties and powers of school board with respect to technical schools).
  MR. HUNTER: In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. The question which is raised in that Amendment is a very important question of principle. The other night the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) observed that there was only one Scotch Member opposed to this Bill. Well, he was very nearly, but not quite correct. If he bad said that not one Scotch Member was opposed to the Bill he would have been perfectly correct. I objected, however, and several Scotch Members objected to this Bill being brought on at so very late an hour that it was scarcely possible to get fair consideration for the question which was raised by it— the very important question of principle. Now, Sir, the clause, as it stands, is an enabling clause, and it is part of an enabling or permissive Bill. The principle of the Bill is simply this. It is to take away the prohibition which at the present moment excites much displeasure amongst the Scotch school boards—a prohibition which prevents them from using any of the money of the ratepayers for the purpose of providing buildings for technical education. The object of this Bill is to enable the school board, which is the only authority in Scotland concerned with education, to add technical instruction to the other subjects which it is within their power to teach. This clause provides that the school board may use for the purposes of a technical school any building, or part of any building, now vested with the school board for the purposes of
  1818
  the Education (Scotland) Acts of 1872 and 1883, but it adds this important Proviso—" with the consent of the Scotch Education Department." Now, Sir, that is the clause to which we object, and to which I, for my part, will offer very strong resistance. I object to it for this reason. If the Scotch Education Department were to give us any money for the purpose of technical instruction, then I admit that the Scotch Education Department would have a right to a voice in the way in which that money was to be spent. But the Scotch Education Department under this Bill does not contribute one single penny in aid of the rates for the purpose of technical instruction, and therefore to give to the Scotch Education Department the power to interfere with the school boards in the management of that which is exclusively their own, and in respect of instruction which does not impose any burden on the Exchequer, is, I venture to say, to introduce a principle totally at variance with the whole course of legislation, and one which is very inconvenient and objectionable. Let us consider what the operation of this clause will be. The school board investigating the facts in a particular locality is of opinion that some particular school or part of a school should be used for the purpose of technical instruction. In my opinion the school board is the best judge of that question and the only proper judge, but under this Bill before they can act they must first of all present a Memorial to the Education Department, and the Memorial must be considered by someone, and that Department gives its consent. Assuming that that might be an intelligent consent, and a consent founded on inquiry and involving inquiry, what you are doing is that you are creating a new Department in London to do work that is wholly useless and unnecessary — which is worse than useless and unnecessary—which is entirely mischievous. How is the Secretary of a Scotch Department to form an opinion as to whether a particular school ought or ought not to be used for technical instruction? He has no knowledge of the circumstances of the locality. If he institutes an inquiry who is going to inquire? He cannot possibly employ anybody who is better acquainted with the locality

  1819
  than the school board. The opinion of a Secretary in London never can be founded on the information that is accessible to the school board, therefore the inference is that the opinion of the Department must necessarily be less valuable than the decision of the school board itself. Again, Sir, I am one of those who hold very strongly the opinion that the powers of Local Authorities should as far as possible be left unfettered by a central bureaucracy either in London or in Edinburgh. Where the Central Authority has the disposition of public funds I should recognize their right to interfere, but where no such funds are forthcoming, to create a new Department to interfere with the Scotch school boards is objectionable in itself. It is also objectionable from the point of view of the taxpayer. We often hear of economy in this House, but how can you have economy if you persist in making useless work? If you make useless work you have to appoint persons to do it, and you thereby establish a serious expense which will continually increase; and under this clause, and under another clause to which I will call attention presently, you are creating very expensive administrative machinery in London which can be of no use, which is founded on no principle, and which must be necessarily an unjustifiable burden on the general taxpayer. Now, Sir, it may be said that at the present moment with regard to elementary education in Scotland the Scotch Department has a right to interfere. Of course it has, because the Scotch Department is the means by which the funds for carrying on the educational work of that country is dealt out to the people of Scotland. If the Scotch Education Department were to give us money for technical instruction. I should not object, but I do object now for the reason that there is a Department of the State which will assist the school boards in technical instruction, and that is the Department of Science and Art. The school boards have certain grants from the Department of Science and Art, and must follow the conditions laid down by that body. To introduce a third wheel, to introduce wholly unnecessary machinery, is a piece of policy which I am curious to know how the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H.A. Macdonald)
  1820
  can defend. It seems to me that this is a clause on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been misled by the influence of the Heads of Departments. We know that there is a constant tendency in Government Offices to act on the maxim which used to be professed by the Judges, that the business of a good Judge is to enlarge his jurisdiction. It would seem as though it were the desire now of a good Secretary to enlarge his powers. I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will agree to omit these words, the omission of which I now move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words "with the consent of the Scotch Education Department."—(Mr. E. Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am certainly very much astonished at the ground taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter). He declares that the Scotch Education Department has nothing to do with this matter. Does he not realize that this clause is a clause by which a school is to be erected for the purpose of elementary education originally and then to be turned into a technical school? Is it not important when it is proposed to use the existing buildings of State-aided schools for technical instruction—is it not important to see that these elementary schools are not so used as to interfere with their primary and proper purpose—namely, their being used for elementary education? And what is a more fit authority to see to that than the Education Department? As to what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the Scotch Education Department not providing any money for the obtaining of these schools, the Scotch Education Department, of course, has control of the grants which go to keep the schools as State-aided schools. I should be very much astonished if the Scotch Members were to agree with the hon. Gentleman in what he suggests; but certainly, so far as the Government are concerned, they must oppose it.
  MR. PROVAND: I rise, Sir, to support the

  1821
  Amendment. The Scotch Education Department is not made up of a body of men who can obtain the confidence of the people of Scotland. It is common knowledge that we have our own educational methods and our own ideas of the manner in which our people ought to be educated. In the opinion of some persons it may be that these are mere prejudices. Be that as it may, these opinions are held very strongly in Scotland, The Scotch Education Department is made up of five principal Members. Three of these five are the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, and the Lord President of the Council. Now, what can these persons know about education in Scotland? If they were to interfere in any way whatever it would be merely to the prejudice of education in that country; if they do not interfere then they are mere surplusage. If the Board were made up of those who represented the interests of the Scotch people, I should have no objection to the clause as it stands; but I am certain the people of Scotland would have no confidence in a Department constituted of the men I have just named, with only two others who may be supposed to know something about Scotch education—namely, the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate. May I ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate if there is any intention to reform the personnel of the Board, because it certainly stands much in need of it. There is not a member of the Board who is getatable by the people of Scotland, or who is in touch with the people of Scotland. If the Board were made up, say, of the Lord Advocate, the Scottish Secretary, and four or five Scottish Members of Parliament nominated by the Government, that Board would, to some extent, possess the confidence of the people of Scotland. The Scotch people would be able to approach the Board, or some members of it, and the majority of the people would be in touch with it, and the Board would know what their wants were, and would try to satisfy those wants. But, at the present time the only person who is approachable on the Board is a permanent official, and we know what permanent officials are. They will simply meet reforming proposals of every kind by advancing as many
  1822
  difficulties as they can. It is not to the advantage of permanent officials to make reforms or alterations, beneficial or otherwise. It is to their interest to leave matters as much as possible where they are. It is for that reason, and because the personnel of the Board is not such as will carry with it the confidence of the people of Scotland, that I support the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen.
  MR. MASON: I oppose the Amendment, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has answered very satisfactorily the objections which have been raised to the clause. Power must centre somewhere. Why should not the Scotch Education Department have as full control over technical education as over any other branch of education? I cannot see, for my part, why there should be any alteration in the central power. I should have preferred to see the Education Board in Edinburgh, but as that cannot be, I fail to see any real cause for the objections raised, considering that hitherto the work has been done exceedingly well. My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Provand) has complained of the constitution of the Board. If he can prove it is not satisfactory to the Scotch people let him move an alteration. I have heard no such complaints as the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary interfere in the slightest degree with education in Scotland. I believe the officials are doing their work admirably, and therefore I do not think there is the slightest necessity for this Amendment. I shall give my support to the Government.
  MR. HUNTER: The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said he would be surprised if any considerable number of Scotch Members were of my opinion. With the exception of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Mason) who had just spoken, I do not think he will find any who are not of my opinion. It is very unfortunate that this Bill should be brought on at a period of the Session when Scotch Members—owing to other engagements— have left town. I assure the right hon.

  1823
  and learned Gentleman that had all the Scotch Members been present he would have found himself in a very-small minority indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanark does not see why the Scotch Education Department should not have the same control over technical education as our elementary education. I think I had explained to the Committee that the Scotch Education Department pays for elementary education, and that they are not going to pay for technical education, and that that makes all the difference in the world. With regard to the argument of the Lord Advocate, I must confess I never heard a thinner, or a lower argument advanced. The Scotch Education Department is going to strangle the young Hercules of technical education in Scotland, and for what reason? Simply and solely because there are some portions of some schools which may have been built out of money contributed by Parliament. How can it be supposed that the school boards are going to substitute technical education for elementary education? The contrary is the result. The idea that the school boards of Scotland are going to rush to the destruction of elementary schools for the purpose of introducing technical schools is as wild an idea as I ever heard expressed. I have received no satisfaction on this point, and as far as I am concerned the Scotch Education Department shall never have the same power over technical instruction that they have over elementary instruction. Technical education is a matter in which local spontaniety is of great importance, and, in my opinion, there can be nothing worse for technical education than that it should be put into the hands of one man, who has his own particular fads. Every school board acts according to its own mind. It pays for its own work. The ratepayers have to find the money, and I should like to know whether they are not to have a voice in its disbursement?
  MR. CALDWELL: I quite agree with what my hon. Friend has said with regard to the Scotch Education Department, and in the necessity for a reform of that Department, and I do hope that the Government will see their way at some future time to undertake a reform of the Department. But with regard to this
  1824
  particular clause my hon. Friends are under a perfect miscomprehension. There is no necessity for leaving out the consent of the Scotch Education Department. These schools are not only under the control of the school board, but the Scotch Education Department. It is the duty of the Department to see that the schools are not applied to any purposes detrimental to elementary education.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, leave out "now."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 30, after "1883," insert the words "and a school board or combination of school board may, with the consent of the Scotch Education Department, use for the purposes of the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1872 to 1883, any buildings, or part of any buildings, authorised by this Act."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to propose the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) —namely, to leave out the words "with the consent of the Scotch Education Department," in lines 31 and 32. This is the same point as I raised before, only in this instance the necessity of the Amendment is greater. The school board is not to be allowed to go to the Public Works Loan Commissioners without the consent of the Scotch Education Department. Now that is emphatically an unnecessary provision.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: It is for the purpose of enabling the school board to spread the payment of the expense of providing a technical school over a number of years.
  MR. HUNTER: Then why go to the Scotch Education Department? This Amendment, as I say, raises the same point as my last Amendment, only the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has not got the technical plea that the Government have contributed any money in the matter.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 31 and 32, leave out "with the consent of the Scotch Education Department." —(Mr. Hunter.)
  Question, "That the words ' with the consent of the Scotch Education Department' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 33, after "years," insert "not exceeding 35 years, unless with the sanction of the Treasury, and in any case."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CALDWELL: I think it would be more advantageous if the maximum period were limited to 35 years. The clause allows 50 years in exceptional cases. I hope that if the Scotch Members are found to be unanimous in a matter of this kind, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will limit the number of years to 35.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I will consider the question before Report.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Combination of school boards to provide technical school).
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, after the word "school," to insert the words "and the sum necessary to meet any deficiency on the technical school accounts."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 13, to leave out the word "thereof," and insert the words "of said resolution."— (Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question, "That the word ' thereof ' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words ' of said resolution' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Scholars admissible to technical schools).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 21, to leave out from "from" to" Act," in line 25, inclusive, and insert" under section seventy-three of ' The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872,' as amended by section seven of ' The Education (Scotland) Act, 1883.' "—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  1826
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HUNTER: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate might well dispense with this clause. It is one which might operate inconveniently, and it is really unnecessary. No person goes to a school, and pays fees to go to that school, unless he has reason to think he is going to get some benefit from it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Technical schools deemed public. Effect of attendance).
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 29, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words" under the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1872 to 1883."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Definitions).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 32, prefix the following words: —" The expression ' technical school ' means a school or department of a school in which technical instruction is given, and ' school board ' shall include combination of school boards."— (The Lord Advocate.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The reason why I move this Amendment is simply that, without interfering with the discretion of the Science and Art Department, I wish to give power to the school boards to teach any of the subjects that are enumerated in this list at their own expense, if they choose to do so. If the school boards choose to teach these subjects, there is no reason why they should not do so without interference from the Scotch Education Department. The Glasgow School Board has passed a resolution, which I dare say has reached the hands of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, in which they lay great stress on the point. I do not wish to give the school boards too wide a discretion, and I think my Amendment gives sufficient guarantee against any extravagance in the public business.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 32, leave out from "means," to "any," in line 34, and insert" the following subjects: agriculture, drawing, modelling, working in leather, clay, glass, wood, and metal, weaving, dyeing, designing, printing, bleaching, building, machine construction, naval architecture, navigation, civil and mechanical engineering, mathematics, mechanics, natural philosophy, chemistry, metallurgy, textile fabrics, geology, botany, French, German, and."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am very much afraid the effect of the Amendment will be the very opposite of what my hon. Friend intends. Let me, in passing, notice that there are certainly subjects mentioned in the Amendment which, under no aspect, can be called technical subjects. For instance, I doubt very much whether French and German can be called technical subjects. Now, does this Amendment not do just the very thing it is desired to avoid? Here are a number of subjects, and the effect of specifying them will be that if any new subjects arise—and subjects arise every day—it will not be competent to teach them. The whole scope and intention of the Act is to give the greatest possible freedom; and I must protest against the suggestion that it is the object and intention of the Scotch Education Department to interfere with or cripple the school boards in carrying out reasonable technical instruction in their schools.
  MR. CALDWELL: There is another element which my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) has lost sight of, and that is the existence at present of technical schools. There are technical schools existing now in Glasgow, and it would never do to allow the School Board to establish schools which would interfere with the present technical schools without having the consent of the Scotch Education Department. We say that for the efficiency of technical schools you should not allow schools to come into collision and competition with each other without having the check of the Scotch Education Department.
  MR. HUNTER: I am afraid the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has not followed the Amendment. It enumerates a certain number of subjects which he
  1828
  complains of as being too wide, and then the words of the clause come in "in every subject which may for the time being be sanctioned by that Department "— namely, the Science and Art Department. The Science and Art Department is wholly unlimited. There is nothing which may not be introduced under these words; therefore the enumeration of these specific subjects is in addition to the powers of the Department, and not a limitation or a qualification of its powers. This is a matter upon which the School Board of Glasgow, which is the largest school board in Scotland, and I suppose, in some respects, the most important, have laid great stress. They are extremely desirous they should not be limited to the particular number of subjects which may, from time to time, be suggested by the Science and Art Department,
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I have to propose that the subjects shall be approved by the Scotch Education Department.
  MR. WOODALL: Did I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that modern languages are not to be regarded as technical subjects?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I said that French and German are not technical subjects.
  MR, WOODALL: But surely they are essential features in commercial instruction, which, it is admitted, ought to be encouraged in any technical scheme.
  MR. MASON: I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) that he should withdraw his Amendment, because I really believe its effect would be to limit the instruction, which I know is not the object which he has in view.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) is under a misapprehension as to the Definition Clause. A vast number of these subjects are subjects for which grants are given by the Science and Art Department. What my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate desires is to leave the subjects as open as possible. They are now left open in the Bill.
  MR. HUNTER: I think that the very argument of the right hon. and

  1829
  learned Lord Advocate furnishes a strong reason why we should insert words of this kind. He says that French and German are not to be included in the subjects for which grants are to be given, because they are not technical subjects. There can be no possible harm in enlarging the clause by inserting particular subjects.
  MR. WOODALL: Do the Science and Art Department undertake to give grants for any subject approved by the Scotch Education Department?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Not at all.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 32, after the words '' means instruction," insert the words "in subjects approved by the Scotch Educational Department, or "—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 36 and 37, to leave out all the words from" Department" to the end of the Clause.— (Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question," That those words be there left out," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out lines 40 and 41. — (Mr. Hunter.)
  Question," That those lines be there left out," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  New Clause—
  (School for subjects other than those for which grant is claimed to be conducted under Scotch Code.)
  " Every school provided under this Act shall, in respect to all subjects other than those for which a grant is claimed from the Science and Art Department, be conducted in accordance with the conditions which may from time to time be set forth in the Scotch Education Code annually laid before Parliament under the heading ' Technical Schools,' "
  —(The Lord Advocate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause be now read a second time"
  MR. HUNTER: This clause is one which carries the objectionable principle I have already alluded to further than any clause of the Bill. It is a clause which provides that, where
  1830
  a school board receives any money for the purpose of the Bill, the school board can only act under the control of the Scotch Education Department. It is carrying out, in the most naked form, the principle which, I say, underlies several clauses of the Bill. This is an express statutory declaration that in a case where a Government Department gives any money to a Local Body, that authority shall not have power to lay down any conditions without the consent of the Central Authority; and I must, therefore, object to the second reading of the clause.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 16: Majority 88. [3.20 A.M.]

  AYES.

  Addison, J.E. W.

  Fitz - Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

  Agg-Gardner, J. T.

  Aird, J.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Ambrose, W.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Baden-Powell, G. S.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Fraser, General C. C.

  Barry, A. H, Smith-

  Gedge, S.

  Bentinck, W. G. C.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

  Gibson, J. G.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Godson, A. F.

  Goldsworthy, Major General W. T.

  Big-wood, J.

  Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

  Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Bond, G. H.

  Hall, C.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Borthwick, Sir A.

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

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Burghley, Lord

  Caldwell, J.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Carmarthen, Marq. of

  Hoare, S.

  Charrington, S.

  Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Jeffreys, A. F.

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

  Kelly, J. R.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Kenyon - Slaney, Col. W.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W.H.

  Kimber, H.

  King - Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Elton, C. I.

  Knowles, L,

  Evelyn, W. J.

  Lafone, A.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Finch, G. H.

  Long, W. H.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  1831

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Round, J.

  Mason, S.

  Smith, right hon. W. H.

  Matthews, rt. hon. H.

  MaxWell, Sir H. E.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Milvain, T.

  Stephens, H. C.

  Mount, W. G.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Murdoch, C. T.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Northcote, hon. H. S.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Pelly. Sir L.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Powell, F. S.

  TELLERS,

  Puleston, Sir J. H.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Reed, H. B.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  NOES.

  Biggar, J. G.

  O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

  Carew, J. L.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Conway, M.

  Rowlands, J.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Sexton, T.

  Cossham, H.

  Stewart, H.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  M'Arthur, W. A.

  TELLERS.

  Nolan, J.

  Hunter, W. A.

  O'Brien, P.

  Provand, A. D.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  MR. MASON: I rise to move the second, reading of a new clause which I have placed upon the Paper. The object I have in view is to give power to school boards to assist other schools in providing technical education. As an instance, I will take the City of Glasgow. You have there 50 trades, perhaps in ail of which instruction is required, and it will be almost impossible for the school board to erect schools to provide for all this technical education. It will be very expensive work indeed to do all that will be required, and such as none of our cities, situated as Glasgow is, would face. There would be considerable difficulty in meeting all the demands on the school boards for technical education. But there are already a number of schools which stand greatly in need of assistance from the school board; and by the clause I have put down the school board would be able to give that assistance which without it they would have no power to grant. Of course, the school board would impose their own conditions as to the way in which they would assist the other schools. The object I have in view is, as much as possible, to save the money of the ratepayers, and also to stimulate the various trades to set up schoolrooms in the expectation that the school board would give them assistance. There are many
  1832
  towns in Scotland where there are three, six, or more trades being carried on, and in which it would be very difficult to set up schools for the purpose of the technical instruction required, without the assistance I propose should be given by the school board; and I have a confident feeling that a stimulus would be given in the right direction if my clause were added to the Bill. I trust, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will agree to the second reading of the clause.
  New Clause—
  (Power to school board to assist technical school.)
  " Subject to the conditions under which a school board may provide and maintain a technical school (so far as such conditions are applicable) a school board may (with the consent of the Scotch Education Department and in terms thereof) assist other schools providing technical instruction,"—(Mr. Mason,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I do not quite like the clause in its present form; there is one portion of it which it would be necessary to alter, and that is at the end of the clause. I suggest that words should be struck out of the last line for the purpose of inserting "on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed provide technical instruction." If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lanark will admit such words, I shall certainly be inclined to support his Amendment.
  MR. MASON: I shall be very glad to accept them.
  MR. CALDWELL: I feel compelled to give this clause my most strenuous opposition, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) to consider the very important principle involved in my hon. Friend's proposal. According to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, school boards were authorized to provide board schools for elementary instruction; but there was no provision in that Act authorizing school boards to contribute money to schools not under their management. There is no such

  1833
  principle in operation in Scotland as that the ratepayers' money should be collected for the purpose of providing schools to be maintained in any other way than under the control of the school board itself. It is an entirely novel principle which my hon. Friend seeks to introduce, when he asks for the subsidizing of schools that are not entirely under the control of the school board. Supposing that yen hold that school boards are to be entitled to subsidize technical schools which are purely of a voluntary nature, then you raise this important question—that they also will claim that they ought to have a grant out of the local rates for the purpose of starting other schools which may be quite as necessary as any technical schools can be; and I am surprised that the Government, at this period of the Session, should entertain a proposal which will meet, undoubtedly, with strong opposition.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I venture to appeal to the hon. Member for Mid Lanark (Mr. Mason) not to press his clause this evening, but to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate an opportunity of considering it between the present time and the Report. If the clause is pressed now, I shall feel it my duty to oppose it.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CALDWELL: There is another point which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will adjust before Report. According to the Education Act, all accounts must be laid before Parliament. It is necessary that the accounts of the schools should be taken and presented in the same way, and I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should provide for this on the Report.
  Schedule.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out the Schedule.—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MUNICIPAL REGULATION (CONSTABULARY, &c.) (BELFAST) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 291.]
  (Colonel King-Harman, M'. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged."
  MR. SEXTON: Sir, I feel it my duty to protest against the discharge of this Order.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1885–6.
  ACCOUNTS considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Resolved, That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1886, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

  (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £3,644,763 8s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £43,404 8s. 5d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services exceeded the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £3,601,358 19 s. 9d.;

  (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £3,664 16 s. 3d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £106,222 7s. 8d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £102,557 11 s. 5d.;

  (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  43,558

  16

  3

  Total Deficits

  3,542,360

  4

  7

  (2.) Resolved, That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net

  1835
  charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of the

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1885–6, Votes.

  Gross expenditure

  Appropriations in Aid

  Excess of Actual Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as comprd. with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as comprd. with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines

  106,454

  15

  7

  44

  16

  9

  2

  Victuals and Clothing for ditto

  83,251

  11

  0

  242

  2

  8

  3

  Admiralty Office

  3,234

  14

  3

  10

  14

  7

  4

  Coast Guard Service and Naval Reserves, &c

  12,634

  18

  11

  111

  0

  2

  5

  Scientific Branch

  783

  3

  6

  2,037

  10

  9

  6

  Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad

  98,047

  2

  10

  255

  11

  2

  7

  Victualling Yards, &c.

  3,403

  12

  0

  106

  10

  1

  8

  Medical Establishments, &c.

  769

  3

  5

  25

  5

  8

  9

  Marine Divisions

  925

  14

  1

  22

  15

  4

  10

  Sec. 1

  Naval stores

  610,886

  17

  10

  82,481

  1

  7

  Sec. 2

  Machinery, Ships built by Contract, &c.

  1,429,387

  10

  9

  13,060

  6

  5

  11

  New Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, &c.

  3,990

  7

  4

  1,252

  17

  6

  12

  Medicines and Medical Stores

  8,882

  11

  11

  697

  4

  2

  13

  Martial Law, &c.

  1,015

  5

  2

  19

  4

  0

  14

  Miscellaneous Services

  32,049

  13

  8

  1,308

  5

  2

  15

  Half Pay, &c

  13,169

  3

  7

  39

  18

  2

  16

  Sec. 1

  Military Pensions and Allowances

  11,668

  19

  4

  5

  11

  1

  Sec.2

  Civil Pensions and Allowances

  302

  12

  1

  58

  0

  6

  17

  Army Department—Conveyance of Troops

  1,266,141

  19

  7

  8,108

  8

  2

  Amount written off as irrecoverable

  1,167

  19

  9

  3,644,763

  8

  2

  43,404

  8

  5

  3,664

  16

  3

  106,222

  7

  8

  Net Deficit, £3,601,358 19 9 Net Surplus £102,557 11 5

  Total Deficit to be £3,498,801 8s. 4d.

  Met out of the Vote of credit for Naval and Military Operations.

  said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services towards meeting the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  (3.) Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
  (4.) Resolved, That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1886, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

  (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £6,165,137 5s. 6d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the Estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £129,190 1s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services exceeded the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £6,035,947 4s. 5d.;

  (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £20,749 3s. 10 d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £327,410 11 s.

  SCHEDULE

  No. of Vote.

  Army Services, 1885–6, Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excess Actual Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d

  £

  s.

  d

  £

  s.

  d

  £

  s.

  d

  1

  Pay of the General Staff, Regimental Pay, &c.

  747,340

  15

  10

  266,666

  19

  10

  2

  Divine Service

  5,261

  1

  9

  17

  9

  7

  3

  Administration of Military Law

  1,058

  12

  5

  146

  18

  9

  4

  Medical Establishments and Services

  45,076

  10

  9

  112

  17

  0

  5

  Militia Pay and Allowances

  66,452

  9

  2

  1,110

  19

  11

  6

  Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances

  4,991

  14

  8

  17

  7

  10

  7

  Volunteer Corps Pay and Allowances

  1,144

  18

  10

  176

  5

  6

  8

  Army Reserve Force Pay and Allowances

  41,438

  7

  9

  89

  19

  7

  9

  Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments

  349,722

  12

  11

  2,735

  18

  8

  10

  Provisions, Forage, Fuel, Transport, and other Services

  1,447,094

  18

  6

  47,096

  19

  8

  11

  Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies

  325,198

  19

  9

  3,814

  6

  4

  Carried forward

  2,991,139

  3

  4

  43,641

  19

  0

  5,213

  18

  4

  316,754

  4

  4

  as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £306,661 7s. 2d.;
  (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.: —

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  136,332

  8

  9

  Total Deficits

  5,865,618

  6

  0

  (5.) Resolved, That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated appropriations in aid, in respect of the same Services, and have also temporarily authorised the application of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services towards meeting the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  (6.) Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

  No. of Vote.

  Army Services, 1885–6, Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excess Actual Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d

  £

  s.

  d

  £

  s.

  d

  £

  s.

  d

  Brought forward

  2,991,139

  3

  4

  43,641

  19

  0

  5,231

  18

  4

  316,754

  4

  4

  12

  Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores

  2,327,461

  4

  10

  2,622

  15

  0

  13

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  809,358

  4

  6

  6,840

  9

  5

  14

  Establishments for Military Education

  3,925

  2

  3

  9,207

  15

  11

  15

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  8,123

  5

  2

  2,642

  16

  7

  16

  Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office

  11,440

  15

  1

  28

  4

  0

  17

  Rewards for Distinguished Services

  2,974

  10

  9

  39

  8

  7

  18

  Half Pay

  17,235

  3

  5

  696

  4

  9

  19

  Retired Pay, &c.

  32,232

  8

  0

  357

  5

  11

  20

  Widows' Pensions

  10,853

  5

  3

  69

  0

  0

  21

  Pensions for Wounds

  2,867

  16

  3

  300

  0

  0

  22

  Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals

  59

  2

  10

  95

  0

  1

  23

  Out-Pensions

  26,019

  5

  2

  3,216

  18

  11

  24

  Superannuation Allowances

  5,018

  5

  9

  57

  13

  0

  25

  Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps, Retired Pay

  1,058

  14

  9

  Balance irrecoverable

  919

  0

  5

  6,165,137

  5

  7

  129,190

  1

  2

  20,749

  3

  10

  327,410

  11

  0

  Net Deficit, £6,035,947

  4

  5

  Net Surplus, £306,661

  7

  2

  Total Deficit, £5,729,285 17 3, to be met out of the Vote of Credit for Naval and Military Operations.

  MR. CONYBEARE: I think we have a right to ask Her Majesty Government for some reason why it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account that there is this enormous excess over the original amount of the estimated expenditure. The general method of looking after the expenditure of taxes in this House is about as loose and slipshod as anything can be, and therefore I say we ought to have an explanation of the reason for our being
  1840
  asked to agree to this lengthy Resolution.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): This Resolution merely asks for the formal sanction of Parliament to the application of certain sums the temporary application of which has been sanctioned by the Treasury. It is also a question of sanctioning the transfer and appropriation to certain Services of surpluses which have arisen under Votes granted

  1841
  for other Services, a practice which hon. Members will be aware is allowed in the case of the Army and Navy, but which is not permitted in the case of the Civil Service. It is merely a transfer of the saving on one Vote to the deficit on another, for which the Treasury asks the formal sanction of Parliament.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not want to oppose the Resolution, and I am perfectly certain it would be of no use if I were to do so. I simply express my opinion that this is a most unsatisfactory way of doing the business of the country, and at the same time the hope that the time is not far distant when we shall know more about these matters.
  MR. CLANCY): The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has stated that this is a Motion for the purpose of transferring the surplus arising on one Vote to reduce the deficit occurring on another. But there appears to have been a deficit in every case, and I must therefore ask for some further explanation from the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JACKSON: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the money provided by Parliament in the present case comes from a Vote of Credit, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is quite different from an ordinary Vote on the Estimates, inasmuch as it is administered by the Treasury.
  MR. CLANCY: Is this the usual thing?
  MR. JACKSON: No.
  MR. CLANCY: My impression was that there was a pledge given at the end of last Session that this sort of thing would not occur again.
  MR. JACKSON: There seems that there has been a very large amount of what is called the war scare. Those sums were paid out of the Vote of Credit, and were sanctioned by the Treasury.
  MR. SEXTON): Members of the Committee are very disagreeably struck, after having heard the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury say that this is a matter merely for devoting surpluses for the payment of deficits, to hear that the surpluses were £40,000, where the deficits amounted to £3,500,000 in one case, and that whilst in the other case the surplus amounted to £306,000 the deficit
  1842
  amounts to over £6,000,000. I should like to ask whether the amount set out in the first of these columns has been covered by the Vote on Account?
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  VACANT GROUNDS (NUISANCES PREVENTION) BILL.—(BILL 388.)
  (Mr. Lawson, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Howell, Mr. James Rowlands.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR, J. ROWLANDS): I am sorry that I have to trouble the House at this early hour of the morning (3.50 a.m.) about this Bill; but I had hoped that the Government would have been able to accept it, without its being necessary to offer any explanation. I hope, under any circumstances, they will be able to accept it. It is merely an Amending Bill of some of the existing Acts of Parliament, and I believe that if they had been worked strictly, instead of being worked in a lax manner, it would have been possible to grapple with the case this measure is particularly intended to meet. I believe that if there is one subject more than another which has created a great deal of feeling in this House it is the subject of burial grounds. Hon. Members on all sides of the House have taken an interest in it, and all are most anxious that these places should not only not be desecrated, but should be properly respected. Now, for some considerable time, as is known to a great many persons, a great scandal has been taking place in the north-west of London in connection with a burial ground in Tottenham Court Road. I believe the owners of the burial ground got into some financial difficulties, and disassociated it from the Whitfield Tabernacle, and it fell into the hands of a speculative gentleman, who has tried to build on the ground. He commenced removing the remains of persons who had been interred, and he had to be prevented doing that. When he found it was impossible to build on the ground he seems to have taken other action, not out of disrespect to the ground, but for the benefit of the Whitfield Tabernacle. He then let it to someone who uses it for

  1843
  the holding of fairs. I ask can anyone look without outraged feelings at the fact that one of these burial places, consecrated not in the sense that burial grounds are consecrated in the Church of England, but by the remains of the ancestors of the people living in the locality, and which must be sacred to those relatives who remain, is being utilized for the purpose of merrymaking and for the holding of a fair. A relative of a person buried in this ground came to me to-day, and asked me to try and do my best to get this nuisance removed. As I say, there is an ordinary public fair going on upon this burial ground; there are rifle shooting galleries and all the rest of the nuisances—admitted nuisances to everyone living in the neighbourhood—which usually attend these fairs in crowded neighbourhoods. The inhabitants of the district have no means of preventing the nuisance, consequently this little Bill is brought in to grapple, if possible, with the difficulty. I am prepared to accept any Amendment the Government may think necessary, in order, if the Bill is not workable, to render it workable. I ask the Government sincerely, if they possibly can, to help us to get this Bill through, and to stop this grave scandal which, I believe, the police authorities have tried to put a stop to; but, if refused, it is powerless to prevent. An injunction has been obtained against the proprietor or lessee of the ground; but it only applies for one hour during the week while service is going on in the Whitfield Tabernacle on a Wednesday evening.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"— (Mr. J. Rowlands,)—put, and agreed to.

  COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 359.]
  (Mr. Haldane.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 1st September.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (All may be admitted by attorney.)
  MR. CLANCY): I submit that this is no hour to go on
  1844
  with this Bill, especially considering that the Municipal Regulation (Constabulary, &c) (Belfast) Bill has been postponed for another Session, because there is no time to consider it. It is ridiculous to proceed with a Bill like this, to which there may be great opposition. I beg leave to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  MR. ELTON: I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dublin will remember that this Bill is a Bill which has been through Committee and through the House for the last four or five years. There is hardly a word in it which has not been settled by the Land Commissioners, who have contributed every necessary Amendment. The measure does not affect Ireland in any way; but in some of the most populated parts of this country it will produce the removal of a great grievance which has been felt for a great many years. It is not a compulsory Bill, as hon. Members are aware, but a permissive one, and its effect will be to alleviate the condition of Lancashire copyholds and to make the enfranchisement of other copyholds easier.
  MR. SEXTON): My hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin has pointed out that on the Motion of the Government this morning a very important Bill urgently required concerning the public peace of a part of the United Kingdom has been withdrawn, and the order for it discharged, because there is not time to deal with it this Session, and that in spite of the fact that it was not opposed. That is a strong argument for the same course being taken here. This may be a simple Bill; but, Sir, I notice that you called out the names of several Gentlemen who have Amendments on the Paper, and that no one responded. These hon. Members are not present, and to take the Bill in their absence will probably be to risk passing the measure in an imperfect form.
  MR. ELTON: I have the authority of the hon. Members for the withdrawal of their Amendments.
  MR. SEXTON: To proceed with a Bill of this kind, in the absence of hon. Gentleman who have Amendments on the Paper, certainly does not seem to me like legislation. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Motion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I would point out that this Bill has come from the other House. In the case of the Belfast Bill, to which hon. Members opposite refer, it was a measure which originated in this House, and which, therefore, would have to be sent to the other House after it passes through all its stages here. Obviously there would not have been time to pass the measure through both Houses.
  MR. CLANCY: The fact of a Bill having come down from the other House is no argument with me in favour of such a Bill, and the fact that a Bill is approved of by the Land Commissioners is likewise no argument with me in its support. I remember making an inquiry last year with regard to those Land Commissioners, and the result of the inquiry was to make me distrust everything which comes down from them. It is ridiculous to be proceeding with such a question as this at 4 o'clock in the morning.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I should not desire to oppose this Bill under ordinary circumstances. It is in charge of an hon. and learned Friend of mine on the opposite Benches (Mr. Elton). He is now responsible for the measure; but I believe it is much more the legislative offspring of the hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) who sits on the other side of the House—I know, at any rate, that that hon. Member takes great interest in the matter. I should be the last person myself to oppose the Bill under ordinary circumstances; but considering the hour of the morning, I think the Motion my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin has made is only a reasonable one, and I support his proposal that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I think it would be a higher principle than going on with this Bill to refuse to deal with such a proposal at this unseemly hour. I think it would be a higher principle to take that course than
  1846
  to support a Bill merely because it is introduced by a personal Friend of one's own. I think the argument advanced by my hon. Friends on these Benches is strictly pertinent. If there is no time to go on with an important Bill, such as the Belfast Constabulary Bill, I do not see that we have any call to go on with this measure at this hour. As to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Government were pledged to carrying the Belfast Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEARE: The argument that the two Bills are not on a parity is not a matter deserving of consideration. The right hon. Gentleman would have found it perfectly possible to have got rid of the opposition to the Belfast Bill if he had wished to do so. Under the circumstances I shall support my hon. Friend.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 85: Majority 75.— (Div. List, No. 468.) [4.5 A.M.]
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Lord to retain his right in case of escheat).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I beg to move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair. I protest against legislating on a matter of this kind at 10 minutes past 4 o'clock in the morning.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Halley Stewart.)
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask the Government if they really intend to go on with this Bill of 19 pages at this hour of the morning? I ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill does he really expect the Committee to have any intelligent knowledge of what it is doing?
  MR. ELTON: If the hon. Gentleman will allow the Bill to go on until there is opposition to the clauses, I shall be

  1847
  content then to move that Progress be reported. Most of the Amendments on he Paper are withdrawn.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the CHAIRMAN stated he thought the Noes had it, and his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and thirteen Members only having stood up, the CHAIRMAN declared the Noes had it.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Before the clause passes I think it is desirable to make some observations upon it. This is a Bill which extends over something like 20 pages. There is a separate Paper containing a large number of Amendments. It is most ridiculous to ask us to proceed with such a Bill at this hour (4.15) of the morning. Some of the Amendments—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must speak to the clause.
  MR. CONYBEARE: All I have to say about this particular clause is that I have a very strong objection to it standing part of the Bill. If it is pressed we shall divide against it.
  MR. SEXTON: I notice there is an Amendment upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther) to the effect that the clause should be omitted from the Bill. I think the onus lies with the promoters of the Bill to prove why the clause should remain.
  MR. ELTON: I have great pleasure in answering what the hon. Member has asked me. At first sight it looks as if some privilege were going to be given to the lord of the manor; but this clause is really designed to prevent compensation being given to the lord of the manor under the name of compensation for right to escheat. It was considered that this compensation might very properly be abolished for this reason, that notwithstanding that the landlord was compensated for the right to escheat when the land was turned into freehold, the right to escheat remained. Under these circumstances, it was considered by the persons who introduced this clause that it would be a distinct benefit, and facilitate the enfranchisement of
  1848
  copyhold, to do away with the right to compensation.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 12: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 469).
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Restraint on the creation of new copyholds).
  MR. SEXTON): I notice there are two Amendments to this clause, one in the name of an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House—the Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther)—and the other in the name of an hon. and learned Gentleman on this side of the House—the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane). The Amendments are identical with each other, for they are to leave out all the words after the word "lands," in line 20, to end of the clause. I think an Amendment proposed on both sides of the House must be a very good one. I therefore beg to move it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, after "lands," leave out to end of Clause.— (Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. ELTON: The hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane), whose Amendment stands first on the Paper, wishes to withdraw it.
  MR. SEXTON: Is that all the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to vouchsafe to the Committee?
  MR. ELTON: It is proposed that the new copyholds in future shall not be created without the previous consent of the Land Commissioners.
  MR. SEXTON: That is very satisfactory.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 10, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Amendment of Section 6 of 21 & 22 Vict. c. 94).
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA (REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
  Ordered, That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament, relating to the Revenues of India, be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House.
  Resolved, That this House will this day resolve itself into the said Committee.—(Mr. Jackson.)

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I wish to say that in accordance with the usual practice, when Supply is closed, and in order that we may not sit quite so late, the House will t meet at 3 o'clock.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at half after Four o'clock in the morning.