SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 8 September 1887)

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
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) (Marylebone, E.)
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 (Kincardine)
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 (Devonport)
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.

§ COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)
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) (Middlesex, Ealing)
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 (Devonport)
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 (Cork, Co., Mid)
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 (Cornwall, Camborne)
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.

§ 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 (Kirkcaldy, &c.)
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 (Bethnal Green, N.E.)
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) (Strand, Westminster)
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. CONYBEARE
rose to continue the discussion, when—

THE CHAIRMAN
It would be quite irregular at this moment to enter into statistical details.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
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 (Cardiff)
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.

§ COLONEL HAMILTON (Southwark, Rotherhithe)
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) (Middlesex, Baling)
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 (Kincardine)
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 (Kirkcaldy, &c.)
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.

§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
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.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) (Middlesex, Ealing)
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 (Cardiff)
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 (Devonport)
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 (Bristol, E.)
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 (Cork Co., Mid)
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 (West Ham, S.)
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 (Clapham)
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.

§ 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.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)
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) (Middlesex, Ealing)
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 (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.)
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 (Kirkcaldy, &c.)
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) (Lancashire, Ormskirk)
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 (Hanley)
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 (Cork Co., Mid)
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) (Marylebone, E.)
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.