SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 21 June 1888)

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)
said, that this was a very important Vote, and he did not think it was fair that it should be taken at this time of the night. If it was taken, he hoped that some Member of the Committee upstairs would offer some explanation of the Vote. He should have thought that the Army Estimates were quite sufficient for this evening; and, certainly, if they did not hear some explanation of the Vote, he should consider it his duty to move to report Progress.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) (Middlesex, Ealing)
said, he was surprised at the course the hon. Gentleman had taken, as he was a Member of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Navy Estimates. A special Report was made by that Select Committee on this very Vote. That Report was favourable to the manner in which the victualling of the Navy, to which the Vote related, was conducted. Therefore, he did not see why the Committee should not come to a rapid decision on this Vote. The actual 921 words in which the Select Committee reported upon the Vote were—"The general arrangements appear to be business-like and satisfactory." Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would see the expediency of withdrawing the Motion.

§ DR. TANNER
said, he was not present when the Select Committee drew up their Report, though, of course, it might be said that that was his own fault. He did not pretend to be a very great adept in criticizing naval accounts; but there were many Members of the Select Committee who showed a great deal of knowledge of naval matters, and who certainly did not express themselves in that happy way, as regarded this Vote, which the noble Lord evidently wished the Committee to believe. He was under the impression that there was shown to be a certain amount of friction between the two branches of the Admiralty who were mainly concerned in completing these Estimates. Accordingly, he thought he was only doing his duty in preventing this Vote passing in silence.

§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)
said, that, of course, there was no reason whatever why the Committee should not discuss this Vote that night. He, however, hoped the Committee would not be led away by the fact that a certain Report had been handed in by the Select Committee. At the time the Committee agreed to its Report, he protested strongly against the inadequacy of the evidence upon which the Report was based. Here they had a very large Vote for the victualling of the Navy; but would the Committee believe that the only two witnesses connected with the Victualling Department who were called before the Select Committee were an official of the Admiralty—who, he believed, never went near the Victualling Yards—and the Director of Contracts for the whole Navy? There was no one called who was in any way directly connected with the Victualling Establishment, and therefore, so far as the Report of the Select Committee related to this particular Vote, it was really no guide to hon. Members.

§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (, &c.) Stirling
said, he was not surprised the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had made these observations, because in the Select 922 Committee he was one of a small minority which took the line he had now adopted. There was no doubt a great deal connected with the account-keeping in the Victualling Department which had yet to be inquired into by the Public Accounts' Committee; but he certainly thought the Select Committee received enough evidence to justify the Committee in giving the Admiralty the money now asked for. It was a matter of notoriety that the victualling work of the Navy was, perhaps, the best done of any work in the Public Service of the country.

§ LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (Marylebone, E.)
said, he hoped the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) would not press the Motion to report Progress. He did not think that any Member who sat on the Select Committee would say that he was an agreeable Member of that Committee. When he (Lord Charles Beresford) was at the Admiralty the victualling was directly under his own charge. He did not for one moment wish the Committee to think that for that reason he was satisfied. There were several things directly under his charge with which he was most dissatisfied. But, as far as his private knowledge went, he believed that the victualling of the Navy was about the best Service we had got. The country certainly got, in regard to victualling, value for its money. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had said, that there were very few witnesses called before the Select Committee in respect to this Vote. The reason of that was that the Committee got all they wanted to get out of the witnesses who were called. The evidence was most satisfactory, and, therefore, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.

§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
said, the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) had just told them that the country got value for its money—

§ LORD CHARLES BERESFORD
In respect to this Vote.

§ MR. CREMER
said, he should like the noble and gallant Lord to tell them whether the Report was true that men were to be found who lived by buying surplus stores of vessels?—

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that at present the Motion before the Committee was to report Progress. This Vote could not be discussed until that Motion was withdrawn.

§ DR. TANNER
said, that, after the request made by the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Charles Beresford), he should certainly ask leave to withdraw the Motion. At the same time, he hoped that the Committee would thoroughly understand his motive in making the Motion. That, in his opinion, was a Vote of great importance, and it was as well that it should not pass without comment.

§ MR. CREMER
said, he wished to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) what was done with the surplus stores of vessels when they returned from sea and were paid off? The allegation current at our chief naval stations was that there existed a class of men who lived by buying from the Government the surplus stores of vessels, such stores, for instance, as wine, spirits, beer, and tinned meats. It was said that, instead of these goods being transferred to other vessels, they were disposed of at a half and sometimes two-thirds less price than had been paid for them, that they were retained for a time by the men who made a living in this way, and then re-sold to the Government for victualling other ships at the prices originally paid for them. He wished to know from the Government whether this system really did prevail in our naval depôts, because, if it did, he could not concur in the statement just made that the nation got value for its money? Any commercial firm that had to make purchases and found surplus stores in vessels coming home would transfer them to other ships. That, however, did not seem to be the case with the Government, and he had frequently heard it stated at the Portsmouth and Plymouth Stations that there was a class of men who lived well, and sometimes realized large fortunes, by the purchase of stores under the conditions he had mentioned.

§ COLONEL HILL (Bristol, S.)
said, that, as a Member of the Committee on the Navy Estimates, he should like to say a word upon this Vote. He had 924 paid great attention to the evidence given, and was satisfied with it. He looked at the result, and it was with an experienced eye, for he was a shipowner himself and knew something about the cost of victualling men. He did not hesitate to say that the victualling was done by the Government on most economical terms. The cost to the Government was 1s. 1½d. per man per day, a result which he, as a private shipowner, never hoped to arrive at. It was a result which he was sure could only be arrived at by the exercise of the greatest economy in the purchase of stores, and in the manner in which they were used. He had particularly noted the evidence as to the manner in which the accounts were kept, and the comparison drawn as to the amount of stores served out for the men and the actual consumption, and he could only say that he was perfectly satisfied with that evidence. Any system which gave such a good result as that which he was describing was one which ought to give unmitigated satisfaction to the taxpayers of the country at large.

§ CAPTAIN PRICE (Devonport)
said, he was always glad to hear when there had been any economy effected in the Service; but he was bound to say that economy in the matter of victuals given to the men—economy in provisions—was not always very wise. He did not say that the Government had not been prudent in this matter; but he should like to have some explanation of one or two particulars of this Vote. He found that there were large savings made in the amount for victualling the Fleet. There was a reduction of £53,000 upon the provisions supplied to crews, and of £59,000 for seamen's clothing, soap, and tobacco. There was also incidentally a reduction of £3,000 in the amount of relief given to men in hospital. So that under the headings of provisions and clothing in the Fleet and hospitals they had a reduction of £115,000 this year over what it was last year. He did not see any explanation of that in the Estimates. These Estimates were framed in rather a new way, and he (Captain Price) and others had not yet been able to grasp their peculiarities. In view of the fact that the number of men in the Fleet was reduced by only 100, he should like to know what this reduction for provisions and clothing meant? Though 925 there was this large decrease in the cost of provisions and clothing, there was a satisfactory increase in the amount paid to the men in lieu of provisions not taken out. How were they to reconcile these two facts?

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD) (Lancashire, Ormskirk)
said, that in reply to the question of the hon. Member for the Haggerston Division of Shoreditch (Mr. Cramer), he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the course pursued was this. When vessels returned from their commissions, the stores on board were examined by a board of officers to see if they were in such a condition that it would be wise to put them on other vessels going away on long commissions. The stores of themselves might not be actually unserviceable, but they might be in such a condition that it would not be wise to put them on vessels that might be going on long voyages in tropical seas; therefore, those stores which were not considered fit for reshipment on examination by the board of officers were sold. The prices realized for these stores were very often very good prices. For example, biscuit which cost about 10s. 6d. per cwt., now sold in the way he described at 8s. or 9s. per cwt.; but the stores so sold were never bought again into the Service. It was much more economical to sell out stores which would not stand a long sea-voyage, than to put them on board outward-bound ships, because they might become worthless abroad. It was better to examine them at home and consume them at home than to sell them abroad where they might be, perhaps, of the very smallest value. Then, as to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Captain Price), there was considerable reduction, as he pointed out, in the clothing and food; but that arose from the fact that they had a larger stock than usual on hand at the end of the last financial year. After making allowance for the increased stock they were able to buy out of the economies of last year, there was no necessity for such large purchases to he made this year as there was last year.

§ MR. R. W. DUFF (Banffshire)
said, he did not rise to offer any observations as to this Vote; but he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the First 926 Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) to the fact that a great many of the items of this Vote were under the control of the Accountant General of the Navy. They had had some difficulty in Committee in ascertaining what the duties of the Accountant General of the Navy were, and he (Mr. R. W. Duff) wished to inquire what steps the Navy intended to take to carry out the Report of the Committee?

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, the Report alluded to called attention to the different interpretations put by themselves and the Navy on those duties. The Report suggested that the matter was one which should immediately occupy the attention of the Government, and that the Government should, as soon as possible, come to some decision upon it. Well, the question was under the consideration of the Government, and in a very short time a final conclusion on the points at issue would be arrived at. The Vote was under the control of the Junior Naval Lord.

§ MR. R. W. DUFF
said, he referred to the first item, Salaries and Allowances.

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, yes; the administration of the Vote was under the Junior Naval Lord.

§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said, as he understood it, the Government were endeavouring to bring about a solution of that question. Did the noble Lord hope soon that a final conclusion would be come to?

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
Yes.

§ LORD CHARLES BERESFORD
asked, would the noble Lord give the Committee a definite assurance that the position of the Accountant General in the Navy—

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The question is quite irrelevant to this Vote.

§ DR. TANNER
said, he thought that the Committee should be enlightened on one or two points—upon points which happened to be under discussion in the Committee upstairs on those days when he happened not to be present. He might say, for the purpose of putting himself right with the Committee, that he found great difficulty in attending the meetings of the Select Committee. The main difficulty was that he was on another Select Committee which sat on the same day and at the same hour, and hon, 927 Gentlemen would admit that Members were not now-a-days, like Sir Boyle Roche's bird, able to be in two places at one time. There were some points which deserved special consideration, notably item "I" for beer money. They all knew the great partiality of the present Government for beer, and when anyone took up these Estimates and looked into them, they found that their liking for beer and their desires in favour of the people who produced beer took a practical shape. They found that the beer money allowed to the Marines on shore amounted to £7,250, which was an increase on the Vote for last year. He found in every other item that, whereever there was any possibility of cutting down, the Department had cut down. It was only this individual item—and to this he wished to direct the attention of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cocker-mouth (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—which had increased, and the addition this year was some £250. What followed? Why the very next item, the excess account for bread and meat—which he supposed were necessary commodities even to Marines—beyond the 4½d. a day charged for the combined ration, was £2,700, although last year it amounted to £4,850. He thought some explanation of these items was absolutely necessary. How did they come to be set down in this way? Were the men to be starved in order that the publicans might prosper—were they to get less meat and bread in order that they might have extra rations of porter? He hoped hon. Members in that House who had forced Her Majesty's Government to drop the Licensing Clauses of an important Bill now before the House would take this matter up and demand an explanation. They would get that explanation just as they had very righteously got the Licensing Clauses dropped. He could not understand how the peculiarity in the Votes to which he called attention occurred. If the Government fed their sailors and marines on beer and porter, the men would not be good fighting men, especially if at the same time the Government cut down what was absolutely necessary for them—namely, bread and meat. If he did not receive a satisfactory explanation from the noble Lord, he should find it necessary to move the reduction in the excess money spent in this way.

§ CAPTAIN PRICE
said, he should like to have a satisfactory explanation of these differences. The amount of stores used afloat and ashore was about the same this year as last year; but he understood they had a decrease of £115,000 in the charge. They had bought £115,000 worth of stores less this year than last year. That was a large sum, and he trusted that the Committee would hear that that was a satisfactory state of things. He hoped it did not arise from any depletion of the authorized establishment, though that might account for a large decrease in the amount of stores purchased. They had heard before of such things as stores being depleted in order to show a saving in the Estimates.

§ MR. FORWOOD
said, they had savings last year in the matter of stores and clothing, and concluded the year in possession of excesses over the authorized establishment. That fact obviated the necessity of their having to buy the customary quantity in the coming year. During the coming year they would maintain the establishment.

§ CAPTAIN PRICE
asked what was the authorized establishment? There was nothing in the Estimates to show it. There was no stock-taking, and nothing, therefore, to show what stock the Government had last year and what they had now.

§ DR. TANNER
said, that perhaps it would be of benefit, in connection with this Vote, especially to help the House to understand the amount of stock in hand, if these Votes were arranged somewhat in the method of the Army Votes which had been under consideration that evening.

§ MR. FORWOOD
said, stock was taken every year to ascertain the quantity of victuals in hand; but it had not been customary for some years past to place a value upon that stock. However, he was in hopes that by the arrangement recently made they would be able to show, not only the quantity of stock in hand, but also its value.

§ CAPTAIN PRICE
In the Estimates?

§ MR. FORWOOD
Yes; in the Estimates. Then as to the authorized establishment, that varied according to the Victualling Yards, and according to the demands of the Service. The amount of stores was provided upon a regular basis according to the consumption and 929 the number of men maintained. The increase in the item for beer was due to the increase in the number of men receiving beer money.

§ DR. TANNER
said, he should like to understand this matter. Did he understand the hon. Member to mean that there were more Marines?

§ MR. FORWOOD
Yes; on shore.

§ DR. TANNER
More Marines on shore this year than there have been before?

§ MR. FORWOOD
Yes.

§ Dr. TANNER
And, therefore, you have an increase in this money?

§ MR. FORWOOD
Yes;

§ DR. TANNER
Then, in respect to the reduction in the item for bread and meat, is it due to a falling-off in the price of those commodities?

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, the beer money was for the Marines who would be on shore. Last year the amount was estimated at £7,000, and that estimate was more or less correct. This year there would be an increase in the number of Marines on shore, and consequently there was an increase of £250 put down in respect of the increased amount of beer they would consume. As to bread and meat, the falling-off in this excess expenditure was owing to the contracts made for supply, these being lower this year than they were last year. This decrease accounted for the difference between £2,700 and £4,800.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
said, that as to the answer given by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) just now, when the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) asked a question as to the reduction in the charge for victuals in the present year's accounts, he was informed that an abnormal quantity had been purchased in the previous year, and that that purchase had been effected by using certain savings. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) desired to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty whether those savings were obtained upon the Naval Vote, or whether they were obtained upon other Votes, because if they were obtained upon the Victualling Vote of the Navy it was clear that the Victualling Vote must have been largely in excess of the requirements, otherwise there would not have been an 930 abnormal amount of stock in hand at the end of the financial year. And then, if the savings were made upon other Votes, they came upon an important question as to the financial administration of the Admiralty. If the Navy was to be allowed to obtain for any one of half-a-dozen different purposes or services money which was not required for those services, and was to be able to divert the money so obtained without the knowledge of Parliament to the purchase of stores in excess of the amount which the Department had claimed from Parliament in the first instance for the purchase of these stores, he contended that the control of Parliament over this expenditure was shown to be altogether illusory. The question of the application of the savings on these different Votes really did involve the question of the financial arrangements of the Department generally. He would ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would be able to supplement the answer given by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty by saying whether these savings were obtained from the Victualling Vote or from other Votes?

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, that a certain proportion of the sum in question was from savings on this particular Vote, and a certain proportion was under other Votes; but as the hon. Member was aware that no appropriation of savings under any Vote could be devoted to a purpose other than that for which it was originally asked, except with the consent of the Treasury, therefore care had been taken to obtain that sanction. He admitted that if the practice of asking for more money than was required in order afterwards to obtain the sanction of the Treasury to devote the money to other purposes than that of the Vote were countenanced proper control over the money voted would not be exercised by Parliament. But the hon. Member would see that no Department could exactly estimate its wants at the beginning of the year. Very often great waste occurred when a Department was forced to surrender a considerable amount of savings at the end of the year over which it should have control. When they had to purchase stores for ships in the course of construction the optional power which the Treasury exercised of giving sanc- 931 tion from time to time to the use of savings was very much to the benefit of the Public Service; but the matter always came under the cognizance of the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Committee might rest assured that ample safeguards were adopted in these matters.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, it was true that very long afterwards there was made to the Public Accounts Committee a report of the savings under each head of the Estimate, and of the excess also under each head, and that there was a balance struck which showed the total excess or saving on each particular Vote; but that was so long after the event that for all purposes of practical control it was worthless. What he would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to do in the present instance would be to show, or to give to the House figures showing, the amount of savings on large Votes that were drawn upon for the purpose now under discussion, and what was the amount saved under the Victualling Vote itself. It would be perfectly clear to hon. Members, if they would reflect for a moment, that if the transfer of savings on different Votes was to be made merely on the sanction of the Treasury—on permission given in a general form—there was nothing to prevent a Department from appropriating money voted by Parliament for a purpose or for purposes which could never be properly traced in the Parliamentary accounts. It was all very well to say that the Comptroller and Auditor General brought this question before the notice of the Public Accounts Committee, but he did not do it in such a way as to show what were the specific items in regard to which the expense had been incurred—he merely reported as to the total expenditure, what were the original items and which were the new items he was not concerned with, and the Public Accounts Committee never knew. If they were to have a proper control over the funds of the Admiralty or the War Office, it was absolutely necessary that before the consent of the Treasury was obtained for the appropriation of a saving effected under one head of expenditure to another head of expenditure, the reason of the excess and the manner of the saving should be set forth 932 in detail, and those details should be laid before Parliament. He did not think that was too much to ask, and he was sure the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty would not object to this so far as his Department was concerned.

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, he was afraid he could not give the exact saving on this particular Vote last year, but if the hon. Member would put a question to him on Report he would be very glad to give him all the information in his power.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
said, that, however satisfactory the answer of the noble Lord might be to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), he did not think the Committee at large would hold it to be satisfactory. He thought they had a right to ask that the details of these savings should be set before them before they voted this money in Committee. Hon. Members were sent there as guardians of the public purse, in order to see that these accounts were correct. He had long ago come to the conclusion that the Army and Navy Estimates were, as was once said, "things which no fellow could understand." They had heard, at all events, that night, that those best qualified to judge did not know anything about them, so that it was useless for him (Mr. Conybeare) to endeavour to fathom those mysteries. At any rate, it would be still less possible to understand those Votes if the noble Lord, and those responsible for them, did not give them all the information in their power. It seemed to him in the highest degree essential that such information should be forth coming, and that the Committee should not be told to wait for it until the Votes were passed and the Report stage was reached. He was not going to follow his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) into the general question of waste; but he would like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Vote one or two questions about some matters which had been brought under his own cognizance. In the first instance, with regard to the question of the waste of stores. He could only say he believed, from the enormous quantity of material, whether in the form of boots, clothing, accoutrements, or equipments for the Army, which he had seen exposed for sale in this country 933 and elsewhere—and seemingly not in respect of the faulty character of the articles—that there must be enormous waste, and he would ask the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty whether he could throw any light on the matter? He wished to know how it was that such enormous quantities of articles which had evidently been issued for Government yards could find their way into the shops—such enormous quantities as he had seen offered for sale in the course of his journeyings in Southern parts? It could not be said that these articles were second hand—they had every appearance of being new, and of having got out of Government yards in some mysterious fashion into the Kaffir stores and some other strange quarters in South Africa, and, he supposed, in other parts of the world also. The question of boots had come under his notice especially in connection with this point. They were able to purchase these Government-made boots at a ridiculously small price in all sorts of places. He knew a shop, not far from where they were now sitting, where they could purchase any number of these boots. He had happened to come across a gentleman some little time ago who was able to throw some light upon this subject, and this gentleman had told him that one reason for this extraordinary and abominable waste of articles of clothing supplied to the Army and Navy was the faulty character of the inspection. There were inspectors who might be appointed because they knew everything or because they knew nothing in connection with the supply of boots and shoes in the Navy, and he believed it was the same in the Army. These men would go round and declare, in the most superficial manner, whole tons of fairly good articles condemned because, perhaps, they might not be made exactly according to their particular fad or fancy—because the seam of a boot was a little too much to the right or to the left, and such like reasons. Everyone who understood anything about boot-making knew that when they were made in wholesale quantities they were made exactly the same, and it seemed to him absurd when they got them at 6d. a-pair—as they had been led to believe lately that some Boards of Guardians procured them—those boots should be thrown upon the market and wasted 934 for no earthly reason but because they had not happened to square with the particular view of the individual who was given the control of the whole matter, and who very likely knew nothing whatever about boot-making. There was another question, in reference to beer money, which had been referred to. He thought this beer money was money supplied to the men in lieu of beer. He should like to know if he was right or not? From what was said just now it appeared to him that this money was supplied to the men to provide them with extra beer. If that were the case he should certainly object to the item, and in order to elicit further information on the matter he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £250.

§ MR. FORWOOD
said, that this was money paid to the men in lieu of beer. As to the remarks which had been made with regard to the waste of stores, it would be satisfactory to the hon. Member to learn that the total loss of stores by waste and condemnation in the Navy had not amounted to more than 1 per cent without deducting the proceeds of the sale of old stores. It was impossible to put a full statement before the House as to the past year, because the accounts had not yet come in from all parts of the world. It took six months for them all to come in, and they could not be known till the end of September. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Motion.

§ DR. TANNER
said, that he also would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Motion, as there was another item which he (Dr. Tanner) would like to get some explanation of.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, he did not wish to stand between the Committee and the Vote, but he had a very important question relating to a matter upon which he had questioned the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty upon another Vote. It was in regard to the Island of Ascension—and he saw here an item for live stock in that Island. The noble Lord would remember that he (Mr. Conybeare) had abstained from going into that matter on the last occasion. He would now 935 claim the right to put before the noble Lord certain facts—

§ MR. AIRD (Paddington, N.)
I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. Smith) (Strand, Westminster)
Looking at the hour (one minute to 12), might I ask that the whole Vote be taken now? Any information the hon. Member desires can be given on Report.

§ DR. TANNER
said, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £3,000 in respect of the cost of the Island of Ascension. He would move this reduction in order to give full facilities for discussing the question.

§ MR. AIRD
I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."

THE CHAIRMAN
The Question is that the Question be now put.

§ DR. TANNER
(seated, and with his hat on): Might I ask you, Sir, what is the Question to be put? I have moved an Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is impossible to hear the hon. Gentleman seated, except on a point of Order.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
asked, when the Government proposed to take the next stage of the Vote? In asking that, he wished to point out the exceedingly shabby manner in which he had been treated.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, Order!

§ MR. CONYBEARE
continued: He had been distinctly asked, when he raised the question of the Island of Ascension, to postpone discussion to this Vote; and when the Vote came on, and he was about to place his views before the Committee, the question was promptly closured. Before that the Government professed themselves willing to give ample time for the discussion of the subject, and he now asked if the Government would give an opportunity on the Report stage, taking that stage before 12 o'clock?

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
said, it was intended to take the Report stage on the following evening, but if it was not reached before 12 o'clock it would be postponed to a later day.