Commons Sitting of 18 June 1889

QUESTIONS.

  CHARGE OF BOYCOTTING.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the case of James Doyle, sentenced to a month's imprisonment at Pilltown, what illegal acts were alleged or proved against him except his putting in his window the notice, "No bum-bailiffs or emergency men shod here?"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am advised that it was proved at the trial of Doyle that boycotting was being carried on in the district, and that such a bad and dangerous feeling existed against two caretakers who were caring a farm within about 200 yards from the house where Doyle resided that it was necessary to place them under police protection. The case was heard at an ordinary Petty Sessions. The Magistrate found him-
  114
  self satisfied that the notice referred to was not being used by Doyle bonâ fide for any purpose of his trade, but was intended to have, and in fact had, the effect of stimulating the boycotting which was being carried on and the ill-feeling which existed against the caretakers. Doyle having refused, when asked by the presiding Magistrate, to give an undertaking to desist from the course he was pursuing, was ordered to find bail for his future good behaviour. This he declined to do, electing to go to prison in default.
  MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman says that boycotting was rife in the neighbourhood. May I ask if it was alleged or proved against Doyle that he took any part whatever in boycotting except in putting up this notice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Magistrate was satisfied that the action taken by this man was taken in connection with boycotting and that what he did was done with the view of promoting boycotting.
  MR. STOREY: Were the Magistrates satisfied upon the evidence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I presume so.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to give notice that on the Estimates, or on some other suitable occasion, I will call the attention of the House to this case

  MUZZLING OF DOGS.
  MR. NORRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is able to state whether the Privy Council is taking into consideration the recommendation of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts Executive Committee of the London County Council to make compulsory and stringent regulations for the whole kingdom as to the muzzling and detention of dogs; if he is aware that the number of mad dogs killed in London during January was three, in February three, in March five, April six, and in May five, making a total of 22 for the five months of the present year; and if his attention has been directed to the fact that, in the past month alone, 1,528 stray dogs were captured by the police in London?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Privy Council Office that they are now considering the proposal

  115
  of the London County Council. The total of mad dogs killed by police during the first five months of the year is, according to the latest police return, 23. The total captured during the month of May was 1,786.

  THE LIVERPOOL WATERWORKS IN MONTGOMERYSHIRE.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the gigantic character of the waterworks and reservoirs now being constructed by the Liverpool Corporation in Montgomeryshire and at Oswestry, and of the dangers to which the inhabitants of the districts will be exposed should the stone dam or earthen embankments give way, the Government will make such provision for an independent inspection of the works as will satisfy the public of their sufficiency?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Board of Trade have no statutory power to make any such inspection as is suggested. But if the parties interested in the reservoirs desired such an inspection, I would endeavour to see if arrangements could be made for the purpose. I may say that in 1886 Sir Andrew Clarke, C.B., K.G., visited Vyrnwy and reported that, in his opinion, the building of the wall was being well and skilfully carried out, and that the section was so enormously in excess of actual requirements as evidenced by comparison with other existing masonry dams, that nothing short of an earthquake could possibly disturb it.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will take steps to ascertain whether the Liverpool Corporation would object to such an inspection as the Board of Trade would be willing to provide?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I do not think I could quite do that; I might provide for inspection, if it was invited.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are large embankments in the neighbourhood of Oswestry which were not visited by the eminent engineer to whom he has referred?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: That is very possible, but I cannot undertake to do that which I have no statutory power to perform.

  ST. MARTIN'S-LE-GRAND MONEY ORDER OFFICE.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the whole of the building materials on the premises used until lately as the Money Order Office at St. Martin's-le·Grand have been sold quite recently for only £150, or thereabouts, to Messrs. Brass and Sons, builders and contractors, of Old Street, E.C.; whether these building materials were sold to that firm by private tender, and will he state the names of the other firms to whom an opportunity of tendering was given, if Messrs. Brass and Sons were not the only persons invited to offer a price for them; whether Messrs. Brass and Sons will, under the terms of their contract for the erection of the new Post Office buildings, have the right to use the bricks, &c., of the buildings to be pulled down, though, when the building materials on the adjoining premises were sold an express stipulation was made that they should be removed within a very short period of the date of the sales whether in similar cases the ordinary rule has been to hold a sale by public auction, as the only means of obtaining a proper price for the building materials to be sold, and he will state the reasons for that course having been departed from in the case in question; whether he will inform the House of the name of the person responsible for the rule having been ignored in the case of the sale of the building materials on the site of the old Money Order Office; whether he will cause inquiries to be made at once, with the view of ascertaining whether as much as £1,000 might not easily have been obtained for that which was sold to Messrs. Brass and Sons for only £150, or thereabouts; and, whether, on his ascertaining that, in consequence of the very unusual course adopted in selling the building materials in question, the loss of a considerable sum of money has been entailed upon the public, he will take any steps to rescind the contract made with Messrs. Brass and Sons for the sale to them of the building materials

  117
  in question, or at any rate call upon that firm so to vary its terms that such loss may, at any rate, as far as possible be minimised.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): As to the first paragraph of the question the answer is in the affirmative, but the materials were sold for £200, not £150 as stated in the question. As to the second paragraph the arrangement was made by private bargain, the amount being fixed by the Board's surveyor, Mr. Tanner, with my approval. No other firms were invited to tender. As to the third paragraph, the bricks can only be used for breaking up and mixing for concrete. Messrs. Brass are entitled by their contract to use broken bricks for concrete. As to the fourth paragraph, the most common practice is to include the sale and purchase of old materials on a building site in the contract for the new building, but they are sometimes sold separately, as in the case of the other buildings on this site (St. Martin's-le-Grand). This course was not followed in the case of the buildings of the Money Order Office because there was a pressure in regard to time, and also because it was considered that as good a price could be obtained from Messrs. Brass as from any one else. The price was fixed by the Board's surveyor as the result of a calculation based upon the prices which had been obtained after open competition for the materials of the other buildings on the site. These covered an area of 4,800 square yards, and fetched a net sum of £1,750. The Money Order building covered an area of 340 square yards, and an exact proportion would have given £124 for the materials. But as the buildings were loftier than the others the surveyor raised the amount he demanded to £200 net. As to the remaining paragraphs of my hon. Friend's question I think he will see from the facts I have stated that there is no ground for supposing that any considerable sum, or any sum at all, has been lost to the public, or that there has been any impropriety whatever in the course adopted.
  MR. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an offer of £800 was made for these building materials?
  MR. PLUNKET: No, Sir; I can only say that if the hon. Member will bring
  118
  any other facts under my notice I will inquire into them.

  THE ARMAGH RAILWAY ACCIDENT.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the fact that the only brake in use on the Great Northern of Ireland Railway is a simple vacuum brake which can only be applied by the driver, which is not self-acting, and cannot arrest the motion of detached carriages or portions of trains; whether the same brake is in use on the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford, Great Southern and Western, and Midland Great Western lines; that of these four principal lines in Ireland only one, the Midland Great Western, has a brake which is self-acting and complies with the conditions laid down in the Board of Trade Circular of 1877, and that only applied to six vehicles; whether it is a fact that on the English lines, of the total rolling stock, 18 per cent are still without any continuous brake, and 22 per cent are fitted with brakes which do not comply with the conditions laid down by the Board, and that on the Scotch lines 40 per cent of the vehicles are not fitted with continuous brakes, and the vehicles of one company, the Highland, are fitted with a brake which is not self-acting; whether his attention had been drawn to the Circular issued by the President of the Board of Trade twelve years ago, in which he stated that there was no reason far any further delay, and that the Board felt it their duty to urge upon the railway companies the necessity for arriving at an immediate decision and united action in the matter, and to the fact that since 1877 the Inspectors of the Board have, in their Reports on many hundred accidents, repeatedly recommended the general use of automatic brakes on passenger trains; and, whether, having regard to the unexampled loss of life in the accident near Armagh, and to the circumstances of that accident, he will reconsider his recent reply as to the extension of the powers of the Board of Trade to enforce their recommendations and proceed with his promised legislation immediately. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman also whether his attention has been called to the Resolution passed yester-

  119
  day by the Corporation of Dublin, asking Parliament to speedily adopt measures to provide against the recurrence of any such calamity?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: In reply to the last question of the hon. Member, I have to say that I have seen a report of the proceedings of the Dublin Corporation in the Press. The facts are practically as stated in the question of the hon. Member, except that, in the second paragraph, he has substituted the Midland Great Western for the Great Southern and Western, which has the automatic vacuum on one engine and six vehicles. I have, of course, seen the Circular of the 30th August, 1877, referred to, and the Reports of the inspecting officers. I cannot, as yet, form an opinion how far the recent terrible accident near Armagh may have been due to the want of an automatic brake or to any cause which legislation could prevent in the future. But if the opinion pointed to in the hon. Member's question should be borne out by General Hutchinson's report, I will certainly consider whether it may not be possible to deal with the subject during the present Session. I should hope that, in such an event, a Bill for the purpose would not be considered to fall within the category of fresh controversial matters of importance, which I should be precluded from undertaking by the statement made yesterday by the leader of the House.

  THE BOER EXPEDITION INTO SWAZILAND.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information as to the alleged Boer expedition into Swaziland, or as to the application for Portuguese protection said to have been made by the Queen of the Amatongas?
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: May I also ask whether Her Majesty's Government has received confirmation or contradiction of recent newspaper reports from Natal to the effect that agents of the South African Republic have proceeded to Swaziland with a view to the annexation of that country, and that the Queen of Amatongaland has asked to be placed under the protection of Portugal; and, if either of
  120
  these reports be true, whether the Government is prepared to sanction such proposed supercession of British influence in South Eastern Africa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: With the permission of the House, I will answer at the same time the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. The President of the South African Republic has informed the Acting High Commissioner that the Vice President and State Attorney have started for a visit to Swaziland, with the concurrence of the Swazi King, in order amicably to discuss certain matters at issue, and to endeavour to prevent any outbreak or disturbance on the occasion of the re-election of the European Committee next month. The President states that it is not the intention of the Government of the South African Republic to interfere with Swaziland. No military escort accompanies the Transvaal officials, but two men belonging to the local artillery force have been taken as drivers. Her Majesty's Government are at present considering the propriety of a Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of Swaziland, and in the meantime Colonel Martin has been directed to visit the King, and report the actual circumstances of the position. It is true that Queen Zambile of Amatongaland has sent messengers to the Portuguese Government, but there is no reason to doubt that that Government will loyally adhere to the terms of the MacMahon award. I may add that the Queen of Amatongaland concluded a treaty with this country in July, 1887, by which she bound herself not to cede her territory to any foreign power.

  HALF-TIME EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that the absence of any alternative qualification to the certificate of proficiency for the half-time employment of children under 13 years of age is felt as a hardship in certain cases of poor or dull children; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the number of children who availed

  121
  themselves of the certificate of previous due attendance permitted by the Act of 1876, and any opinions upon the working of that provision expressed by Her Majesty's Inspectors in their Reports?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): No evidence has reached the Department of the existence of any such sense of hardship as that indicated by my noble Friend. The alternative of previous attendance was abandoned by the Act of 1880 in the case of children under 13, in consequence of its proving impracticable to work the provision, and the opinion of persons engaged in the administration of the Education Acts was unanimous in favour of the change.

  TRAMWAY EMPLOYÉS.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that a large number of tramway employés, estimated at a thousand, are at present out of work, with licenses in their pockets, he will consider the propriety of restricting the issue of licenses by the Scotland Yard Authorities, and will give instructions accordingly?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I regret extremely the condition of things brought about by recent disputes between tramcar employers and their men; but it would not be lawful or justifiable for the police to intervene in these disputes by arbitrarily restricting the number of licenses issued. As I understand the law on the subject, any person of the prescribed age who produces evidence of good behaviour and fitness and pays the fee is entitled to a license as a qualification for obtaining work; and the police would exceed their powers if they refused to give a license to a qualified person.

  IRELAND—THE LABOURERS' DWELLING ACTS.
  SIR CHARLES LEWIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is still the case that the Labourers' Dwelling Acts (Ireland) are practically a dead letter throughout the whole of the province of Ulster; whether he is aware that this state of
  122
  things has caused widespread discontent throughout that district largely peopled with agricultural labourers; whether, considering the repeated legislation in the interest of the farmers, the wants and appeals for remedial legislation by the real tillers of the soil are not worthy of early attention; and, whether, in any future land legislation, the Government may hereafter undertake, the case and condition of the labourers will be provided for?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is the case that in Ulster the persons who have power to originate proceedings under the Labourers' Acts have not evinced much desire to do so. The Local Government Board have no information before them showing that this has caused widespread discontent. My hon. Friend will see that it is not possible for the Government to give any pledge with regard to the character of future legislation which it may be their duty to introduce. But I can assure him that we have every desire to promote the real interests of every class in the community.

  PUBLICATION OF BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
  MR. LEAKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it has been brought to his knowledge that considerable regret and dissatisfaction have been excited in the country by the prohibition of the practice of giving to local newspapers a list of the local deaths, marriages, and births, which practice has been customary for a period of 30 years; if he is aware that the Local Board of Radcliffe, at their last meeting, passed a resolution requesting the Member for the Division to ask the question in the House of Commons why the facilities for obtaining such information have been withdrawn; and if he could reconsider the decision on the subject?
  MR. MATTHEWS: On behalf of my right hon. Friend, who is unable to be present, I beg to answer the question for him. I have no information that there is any such dissatisfaction in the country as is suggested in the question with regard to the prohibition of registrars of births, deaths, and marriages furnishing local newspapers with particulars of the cases registered by them.

  123
  I am strongly of opinion that when a statutory duty is imposed upon persons to furnish information for registration for public purposes, they have good cause to complain if the officers who act as registrars supply the particulars to the local Press. When the facts have been thus communicated it has been in contravention of the regulations of the Registrar General, and I cannot undertake to suggest that any alteration should be made in these regulations in this respect.

  THE TITHE QUESTION IN WALES.
  MR. JASPER MOORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with reference to the memorials which have been presented to him from the clergy of most of the counties of Wales, stating that redemption of tithe rent-charge is the only settlement of the tithe question which would suit their case, the Government would favourably consider the appointment of a Committee of Members of both Houses of Parliament, now or next Session, to take the evidence of experts as to the value of the tithe rent-charge, with a view to its redemption?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): Without giving a definite pledge so far in advance, I think the Government would be willing to favourably consider the appointment next Session of a Committee of both Houses of Parliament to take evidence as to the value of the tithe rent-charge.

  MINING ROYALTIES COMMISSION.
  MR. BURT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, and the names of the Members who have agreed to serve on the Commission?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties will be as follows:—
  "To inquire into the amounts paid as royalties, dead-rents, and wayleaves on coal, ironstone, iron ore, and other metalliferous mines worked in the United Kingdom, and the terms and conditions under which those payments are made, and into the economic operation thereof upon the mining industries of the country; and, further, to inquire into the terms and conditions under which mining enterprise
  124
  is conducted in India, the Colonies, and foreign countries by the system of concession, or otherwise, and the economical operation thereof."
  The following gentlemen have been asked, or have intimated their readiness, to serve:—Lord Northbrook, Lord Macnaghten, Mr. Burt, M.P., Mr. Chisholm Robertson, Mr. W. Abraham, M.P., Mr. Josiah Thomas, Mr. S. Auldjo Jamieson, Sir W. Lewis, Mr. W. Cole Pendarves, Mr. Archibald Hood, Mr. N. Wood, M.P., Mr. John Knowles, Mr. D. Dale, Mr. G. Baker Forster, Mr. H. Hucks Gibbs, Mr. Kenrick, M.P., Professor Munro, Mr. T. R. Redington, and Mr. C. Whitmore, M.P.

  IRELAND—THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN AT WEXFORD.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Government have issued summonses against Canon Doyle, Father Brown, and Mr. J. Cummins, and 25 persons in County Wexford, for attending National League meetings, and for other work in connection with the Plan of Campaign, and if so, whether in view of the public excitement which has been occasioned by these proceedings, they will cause them to be discontinued, and so prevent the considerable disturbances which will probably be created?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of the question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I will put it to-morrow.

  THE NAVAL REVIEW.
  MR. CHANNING: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it has been definitely settled that the Naval Review is to take place on the next Bank Holiday, and as that day would be most inconvenient to Members, whether there is any possibility of altering it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): There is not to be a Naval Review in the ordinary sense of the term. There is to be an inspection of vessels in commission. The date of the inspection has been fixed for the 5th of August which, I believe, is Bank Holiday, and although I am sorry that that day will be inconvenient to Members of Parliament, it must be remembered that it is convenient to the general public.

  PARTNERSHIP BILL.
  Ordered—That the Select Committee on the Partnership Bill do consist of Seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Addison, Mr. Baring, Mr. Barran, Mr. J. A. Bright, Sir Edward Clarke, Mr. Radcliffe Cooke, Mr. Coddington, Sir Horace Davey, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Haldane, Colonel Hill, Mr. Peter M'Donald, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Sir Bernard Samuelson, Mr. J. W. Sidebotham, and Mr. Whitley.
  Ordered—That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered—That Five be the quorum.—(Colonel Hill.)

MOTIONS.

  MEDICAL ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to amend "The Medical Act, 1886," ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Whitmore, Sir Trevor Lawrence, Sir Guyer Hunter, Dr. Farquharson, and Sir Lyon Playfair.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 277.]

  OCCUPIERS AND LODGERS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Causton, Bill for the Registration of Occupiers and Lodgers in the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Causton, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Beaufoy, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Howell, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Octavius V. Morgan, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. James Rowlands, and Mr. James Stuart.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 278.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS [SALARIES, &c.]. (No. 188.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of salaries or remuneration to, and of the expenses incurred by, the Boundary Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, Secretary, Officers, and persons appointed under any Act of the present Session to make Supplementary Provisions for amending the Laws relating to Local Government in Scotland.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT [REMUNERATION]. (No. 199.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Remuneration to any person who may be directed by the Commissioners in Lunacy to visit a single patient under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Acts relating to Lunatics.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE [SALARIES, &c.]. (No. 221).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a Salary of £2,000 a year to the President of the Board of Agriculture, and of such salaries and remuneration as the Treasury may determine, to the Secretary, Officers, and Servants of the said Board, and of all Expenses incurred by the said Board under any Act of the present Session for establishing a Board of Agriculture for Great Britain.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (PILOTAGE) BILL. (No. 243.)
  Order for Committee read and discharged.
  Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c."
  Mr. CAUSTON: With regard to this Bill, I should like to state that a strong feeling prevails among wharfingers, lightermen, and others, that no notice has been taken in the Bill of the strong recommendation contained in the Report of the Select Committee on Pilotage in reference to the liability of the owner of a vessel when a pilot is on board. I beg to give notice that when the Bill reaches the Grand Committee I shall move an Amendment declaring that the liability of an owner or master of a vessel is not affected by the compulsory employment of a pilot.
  MR. COSSHAM: I had an interview yesterday with some pilots on this question, and they expressed anxiety that gentlemen who are experts

  127
  on the question of pilotage should be placed on the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. £451,000, Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad.
  2. £121,900, Medical Establishments and Services.
  3. £11,400, Martial Law, &c.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is in a position to say anything as to the extraordinary case which in a sense is still pending, with regard to the young man Thompson who was imprisoned as a deserter from one of Her Majesty's ships.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I should be very glad to make a full statement with regard to this case if judicial proceedings were not still pending. I may, however, just state one or two facts concerning it which I think are not known to the public. The main difficulty has arisen from the conduct of the young man himself, who stated, both to the police and to the adjutant of the Militia regiment which he joined, that he was a deserter from the Navy. There was also a remarkable identity between him and the actual deserter as regards tattoo marks on his left arm. While in prison he was visited by the chaplain 75 times, and neither to him nor to the visiting justices did Thompson make any complaint. While he was travelling to Lewes Gaol he stated to his escort that he was the deserter, but on arriving he informed the governor that he was not. The governor, on learning what the young man had said to the escort, disbelieved his story. I am not aware whether any punishment followed in regard to that statement. Thompson served his 90 days, and returned to the Duke of Wellington and then stated to Captain Woodward that he was not the deserter, and gave the name of his mother as a person who could testify to his identity. Captain Woodward at once communicated with the chief constable, and
  128
  received in reply a communication from the chief constable and Mrs. Thompson, which induced him to believe that the boy was not the deserter, and had never been in the Navy at all. Investigation followed, and, it being tolerably clear from the evidence that the young man was not the deserter, an order was sent to release him and hand him over to the Military Authorities. A statement to this effect was made to the clerk to the solicitor who had interested himself in the case, and it was not until after that that the solicitor applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The order of the Admiralty for the discharge of the young man was made two days before the writ of habeas corpus was issued. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised the question, because I desire to assure him that in my opinion every Department of the State, whether it be the Admiralty, the War Office, or any other Department, must comply with the very letter of an order of the court, and more especially so when the liberty of the subject is affected.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not intend to make comments which might be shown in Court to be ill-founded or which might be suspected of being used for the purpose of creating an outside opinion when the matter is being dealt with by the Judges, but I think there are some points of the case to which the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty will have to be drawn later. It is very remarkable that we should be told of the identity in the appearance of the two men when it appears that Thompson was two inches shorter than the deserter. I am quite aware, however, that there may have been foolishness and recklessness on the young man's part.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will raise the question on the Admiralty Vote. I wish, however, to correct one statement. The boy was induced to make an affidavit that he was two and a-half inches shorter and seven years younger than the deserter. Both of these statements were false. He was only one year younger than the deserter and he was two and a-half inches taller, not shorter. An examination of the deserter's antecedents showed that he only grew half-an-inch between the ages of 16 and 17, and it is quite possible he

  129
  might between 17 and 18 have grown two and a-half inches.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £71,900, Educational Services.
  (5.) £31,900, Divine Service.
  (6.) £147,500, Royal Naval Reserves.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: Perhaps the noble Lord will recollect the discussion which took place last year with regard to the teaching of signalling to men of the Reserve. I should be glad to know whether the noble Lord has carried out his undertaking to make an inquiry into the subject?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: We have not done much during the last twelve months to teach the Reserve men signalling, but we have taught signalling to more men in the Navy. I will look into the matter and try in some way to effect what the hon. Gentleman proposes.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I think that something might be done to teach signalling in the merchant service. The subject is certainly worth investigation.
  Vote agreed to.
  7. £1,619,300, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—Personnel.
  8. £1,475,500, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—Materiel.
  MR. HANBURY: I should just like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is being done to keep a proper check upon the stores? Some startling evidence was given by the late Director to the Public Accounts Committee last year as to these stores. He is now handing them over to his successor, and it is absolutely impossible for him or his successor, or for this House, to know what the value of the stores is. There is absolutely no control over the stores. Stock is taken by officials earning very small wages indeed, and under the control of the particular Department of the Admiralty from whose stores stock is being taken. The Director of Stores at the Admiralty cannot, on his own confession, exercise sufficient control over those stores, and I want to know how far any change in the Admiralty administration with regard to the control of these stores is being brought into play. It seems to me
  130
  a great anomaly, that, while we have the control, generally speaking, of almost every penny of expenditure, we have absolutely no control whatever over the enormous stores of this Department. This applies not only to the Admiralty but to the War Office. Do the Government intend to take any steps in order that the nation may be assured that the stores which have been paid for are really in the possession of the Government?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. FORWOOD,): I can assure the hon. Member for Preston that the question of the control over the stores is one engaging the attention of the Admiralty very anxiously. He will be aware that some eighteen years ago the examination of the stores accounts was placed for the first time in the hands of the Controller and Auditor General in order to have a more correct record of the stores than formerly. The accounts had previously been simply records as regards quantity, but the system of stock value was then introduced. In addition to quantity we now keep a record of the stores as applicable to each different ship, and these accounts are kept under the Dockyards Expenses Account. As to stock-taking, a Committee, consisting of an officer from the Treasury, the new Controller and Auditor General, and an officer of the Public Accounts Department, has been appointed to inquire into the mode of keeping the stores account. We are awaiting until the Report of that Committee is received in order to see how best the system can be improved. The Report has not been officially received by the Admiralty, although it has, I understand, reached the Treasury. I believe it will deal with the question of stocktaking, which is undoubtedly a very important matter. It has hitherto been conducted in a not very satisfactory way, but we hope before many months are over to be able to put the question of stock-taking and checking the quantity of stores under a responsible officer quite independent of the Controller of Stores.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I think it will be satisfactory to the Committee to know that this question has received the attention of the Public Accounts Committee. As soon as the Report of the Committee

  131
  of the Treasury has been received they will make a Report upon the subject. The Public Accounts Committee are quite alive to the great importance of putting a proper check upon the stores. I need hardly say that the Controller and Auditor General is also fully alive to the importance of the subject, and is giving to it much anxious consideration. When we have the Report of the Committee of the Treasury before us, however, we shall be in a much better position than we are now to discuss the question.
  Vote agreed to.
  9. £1,565,000, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.—Contract Work.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: Would it not be proper to ask on this Vote whether there is any hope of raising the Sultan?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: A salvage company did make proposals to the Government, the last of which was that if they brought the Sultan into dock, they should receive £50,000. As my hon. and gallant Friend is well aware, there are a number of valuable fittings on board the Sultan, and it is possible that the Salvage Company, though unable to raise the ship, may be able to save a portion of them, in which case the Company will receive a remuneration of 40 per cent of the value of the fittings saved. In the opinion of the most competent men at the Admiralty there is no chance of raising the vessel itself.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Will the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty tell us how many merchant vessels are included in the total Vote under the head "Royal Reserve Merchant Cruisers"? And can he tell us that in future the Admiralty will not recognise merchant cruisers as suitable vessels to be armed for Naval purposes, unless their engines are below the water line? I know that at present such vessels cannot be included in the list, as merchant ships have not been constructed on this plan; but it does strike us Naval men as an important point to be insisted on that in all future expenditure in this direction only such merchant vessels as have their engines below the water line shall be included.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: We have now 11 merchant vessels on our list,
  132
  each of them fitted so as to be utilised as Naval cruisers on the shortest notice, and several of them having their crews partly composed of Naval Reserve officers and men. We have made arrangements with the owners whereby these vessels would be armed and supplied with ammunition within eight days. The hon. and gallant Member desires me to lay down the rule that in future no vessel shall be recognised as a cruiser for Naval purposes unless it has its engines below the water line. Well, my hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to know that four out of the 11 ships I have referred to have their engines and boilers below the water line. These vessels are the new ships of the White Star Line. It is not felt desirable, however, to lay down an absolute rule upon the subject, although the example of Mr. Ismay of the White Star Line, to whom great credit is due in the matter, is one which other owners would do well to follow. It is possible in the case of large ocean-going steamers to put the engines below the water line and protect the vital parts with coal bunkers, but of course the case is different with small ships.
  MR. R. W. DUFF: I wish to refer to one of the recommendations of the Committee upstairs, to the effect that in selecting the designs for vessels regard should be had to outside opinion. So far as I can understand, the outside opinion that the Admiralty have chiefly regarded has been that of Naval officers. I do not deny that Naval officers ought to be consulted; but I think that what was intended by the Committee was that regard should be had to the opinion of Naval architects, according to the view expressed by Mr. White in his evidence. In this scientific age I think it is necessary to consult the leading experts in ship construction before any new departure is made. Well, a new departure has been made in regard to the Blake and Blenheim, for up to the present we have never built ships of 9,000 tons without vertical armour. This sort of armour is necessary in order to resist the high explosives—such as dynamite shells—which are coming into use in maritime warfare, and the Government seem to me to place too much reliance on horizontal armour.
  MR. ISAACSON: I wish to point out that the two firms which now supply the Admiralty with armour plates have no kind of competition whatever, and we pay in consequence something like £100 a ton. I want to know whether the Admiralty have any intention of starting works of their own with a view of competing with these two firms? I think the question is one that is worth considering, and I believe that if something were done we should be able to effect a considerable saving of money. No doubt there was a time when we were not in a position to pick and choose where we should obtain our armour plates; but we are now building a large number of new vessels, and as there is likely to be a continuance of shipbuilding, there would be ample employment for any works we might establish ourselves. I do not say that these two firms act in collusion in order to maintain prices; but I do think that £100 a ton is a great deal too much money to pay.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I should like to say a few words in regard to the question of what may be called outside advice. Certainly I do not see in what way such advice can be rendered more valuable than at present. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has constantly urged the appointment of a Committee; but he has never yet told us for what purpose a Committee is to be formed, nor of whom. Is it to be formed for the purpose of deciding what number of ships are to be built? That would altogether relieve the Government of the day of responsibility. If it is to be for the purpose of deciding the exact sort and shape of the ships to be built, the Constructor's Department and the whole of the Executive Department of the Admiralty would then be relieved of their responsibility. The present Constructor, Mr. White, is a man who was not brought up at the Admiralty, but who made his name in merchant shipping yards, and he is in constant communication with naval architects of all sorts. The designs which he has prepared this year have been laid before naval architects, and approved generally by them and by shipbuilders in this House. Therefore, I cannot see what is to be gained by call-
  134
  ing in other constructive experts. It will be for naval officers to decide what ships they will have to fight in, and what armour and guns are necessary; and all the Naval Constructor has to do is to carry out their decisions so as to ensure the speed and safety of the vessel to be constructed. That is what was done when the First Lord called in experts from outside the Admiralty and took their opinion upon the matter. With regard to the question of vertical armament, the hon. Member for Banff was in this House when Sir Thomas Brassey took credit to himself for the armament of the Mersey. In the presence also of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. Reed), who has of late said so much on this question, Sir Thomas Brassey held that the Mersey was quite equal to any of the Russian ironclads, because her 3-inch horizontal armour was equal to the 6-inch vertical armour which the Russian ironclads had. At present we have no new element of danger to compete with, whatever new ships may be laid down.
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if there is any possibility of altering the design of the protected cruisers in the new programme so as to maintain a somewhat higher rate of speed and also to increase the coal endurance of the cruisers? In regard to cruisers generally, the diminution of speed as compared with other vessels owing to the loss of coal-carrying power is a very serious drawback. To remove a ship from the range of highly explosive guns is essentially a question of speed; and the noble Lord in introducing the Naval Defence Bill admitted that speed is one of the most important elements in the strength of a cruiser. I hope we may have some assurance that in the respects I have mentioned the speed and rate of coal endurance will be something like those of the Blenheim.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: There is one other point to which I wish to draw attention. I think there would be much force in the remarks which have been made in regard to outside opinion if we could only get hold of that outside opinion. I entertain a great respect for the constructive talent of the Board of Admiralty; but I do not think they have a monopoly of all the talent, or that we ought to be confined to the opinion of

  135
  one man, be he ever so clever. I wish to press the noble Lord upon another point. A year has elapsed since I put a question to the noble Lord about it; but the officials of the House thought it right to scratch out a portion of it, because they thought I intended to make fun of the noble Lord. In my question I asked the noble Lord if he would adopt the plan of the French Navy, of sending our constructors to sea with the Channel Squadron in order that they might have an opportunity of studying the behaviour of ships when subjected to serious wave disturbance? It is an undoubted fact that we have had ships designed and passed into the Navy contrary to the opinions of the best officers of the Navy. Will the noble Lord take care that in future no Assistant Constructor shall be appointed to the post of Chief Constructor unless he has had practical experience at sea? I do not want to make him sea-sick; but I want him to be out in a jolly good gale of wind, so that he may thoroughly comprehend all that a sailor has to contend with, and have some experience of the tremendous strains ships have to bear in severe weather. If Naval Constructors had acquired such experience in the past they would not have designed battleships with the low freeboard of the Admiral class.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: If ever there were naval officers' ships they are those of the Admiral class. It is perfectly well known that the late Sir Cooper Key, and the Lords of the Admiralty of that day, were mainly responsible for this class, and Sir W. H. Stewart, who was then Controller of the Navy, has lately stated in public that he was proud to father them.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I will answer shortly the questions which have been put to me. It has been urged that a Committee should be formed of outside opinion to assist the Admiralty in considering new designs for battle-ships. Hitherto we have declined to call in constructors from the outside, who, it has been found, almost invariably adopt the designs of the Admiralty. At the same time, the Chief Constructor is in the habit of consulting experts outside the Admiralty and getting the best information he can, so that as far as possible a consensus of naval opinion as to the requirements of the various ships
  136
  that are built should be arrived at. The Chief Constructor considers the proposals submitted to him, and then states whether it is possible to comply with them. If he has any doubt upon the matter, or there is any point which requires outside opinion, he is at liberty to call in that outside opinion. But while this liberty is allowed, our object is to concentrate responsibility upon one man. I am of opinion that if it is desired to build a thoroughly bad ship the best thing would be to appoint a Royal Commission or a Committee to build it. The hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. Duff) has called attention to the two largest cruisers, the Blake and the Blenheim, and suggests that they should have a certain amount of vertical armour. I, however, agree with my hon. and gallant Friend behind me, the Member for Pembroke (Admiral Mayne), that we are still in the infancy of the science of high explosives, and it is impossible to say how much protection steel plates will give. But I agree that it is essential that protection should be given to the men who serve the guns, and the Admiralty have accordingly given special study to the means of protection other than vertical armour; and I believe we have succeeded in designing an armour casemate which will give sufficient protection to each gun's crew. It is, however, impossible adequately to protect cruisers of the size of the Blake and the Blenheim, because the Admiralty have thought it inadvisable to detract from their speed or offensive power by unduly increasing defensive armour. I have been asked why it is proposed to build cruisers of less speed than these. The reason is that we think it better to multiply cruisers of a rather inferior speed, because of the cost. The Blake and the Blenheim, with 20,000 horse power, attain 22 knots on the measured mile, while only 12,000 horse power is required to enable the other cruisers to attain 20 knots. Thus in order to obtain two additional knots per measured mile it would be necessary to increase the horse power by 8,000. With respect to armaments the Admiralty have really no option, as there are only two firms which have the plant necessary to provide the requisite armour plates. When we proposed to lay our shipping programme before Parliament we thought it desirable to

  137
  make arrangements by which we should secure the services of these two firms, and we made contracts with them, by which we are to obtain whatever armour plates are required for vessels built in the dockyards at the same price as that which was paid for the plates of the Nile and Trafalgar. Notwithstanding the rise in prices the Government will be able to secure the plates on moderate terms. I am in favour of competition if it is possible. But there are great difficulties, owing to the large capital which would be required and the impossibility of obtaining guarantees of quality, in securing this competition. It is unlikely that any new firm would engage in such a competition; and, in the second place, there would be no guarantee that the plates turned out would be as good as those of the two firms by which they are at present supplied. Subject to these two objections the Admiralty would be glad to consider any proposal that may be made from the outside.
  MR. ISAACSON: The existing firms are charging prices which are little less than exorbitant, and the noble Lord has said nothing about establishing works of our own.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am not in favour of extending Government manufactories, and persons who have had the control of thousands of Government employés know how difficult it is to conduct such establishments. In some cases it may be desirable, and may, perhaps, be worth consideration whether the Government should set up a factory of their own; but it is not a question upon which I should like to express a hasty opinion. The hon. and gallant Member for East Sussex (Admiral Field) has suggested that the Assistant Constructors might be sent to sea, in order that they might obtain some personal knowledge of the sea-going quality of our ships. I quite agree that experience of this kind is most desirable, and Mr. White himself had fully intended last year to be present at the manœuvres, but was unfortunately prevented from doing so, in consequence of having to give evidence before the Committee on the Navy Estimates. I trust that he will be able to be present at the autumn manœuvres, so that he may observe the behaviour of the ships, and be brought
  138
  in contact with naval officers. By this means he will be able to form an opinion as to the chief characteristics of a seagoing vessel; how it is likely to be affected as a war ship, and how it will be able to maintain its sea-way. The present practice of the Board of Admiralty is to endeavour to keep the authorities at the Admiralty in touch with the practical experience of the naval officers.
  MR. DUFF: I understand that sometimes when a ship was designed there was a difference of opinion between the naval architect and the Naval Department, and in such a case I think we should call in outside opinion. I have never presumed to say that the vessels to be built are designed on wrong lines; but I should be glad to have an assurance from the First Lord of the Admiralty that some outside opinion has been taken on that point, for when you have vessels of this great size, and involving so much outlay, it would be very desirable to have that opinion.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: The point which I wish to press on the First Lord is that an Assistant Constructor to the Navy should go systematically to sea with the squadron, and be attached to the flagship. There are, I believe, several Assistant Constructors working with Mr. Froude at Portsmouth Dockyard; and if one of these young men in the Constructor's Department were to be sent to sea, I am sure the Service would derive much advantage from the adoption of that policy. I do not know whether I shall be in order, but I hope, Sir, you will be a little merciful with me, as I was not present when the last Vote—for coals—was discussed, and I wish to raise a point which I think may be fairly raised on this Vote, inasmuch as coals are necessary for propelling the machinery in the ships. One of the declarations made by the noble Lord was that great pressure had been brought to bear upon him by interested parties to use North Country coal for the Navy, and I am glad to understand that he has resisted that pressure.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is out of order.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: Before this Vote is passed I wish to express a hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty will give his attention to the weight of machinery

  139
  and the nature of boilers in the new ships. I believe that half our breakdowns occur from the actual foundation of the machinery of our ships not being sufficiently heavy, and insufficient boiler space, and the tubes being too numerous and small.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I was not present in the early part of this discussion; but I desire to say a few words in support of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire, as to the expediency of the Admiralty taking advice from technical persons outside the Admiralty before commencing the construction of ships of a novel design. At the present moment we are about to commence the building of no less than eight vessels of the largest size that have ever been built in this country, and each of them will cost probably nearly a million pounds. In addition to that, we are to build two smaller vessels costing very nearly as much. In other words, ten vessels of enormous size are to be constructed at once, all involving a novel design. I do not think the present is a proper opportunity for raising again the question which we discussed at great length on the Naval Defence Bill. I accept in principle the decisions of the House and of the Government on the question; but there is one point in reference to it which I should like to allude to again, and that is the effect which this great effort of construction will have upon other countries. It so happens that in the course of the discussion on that Bill I ventured to point out that the great exertions which we are going to be called upon to make in reference to building these vessels would have the effect of stimulating other Powers to fresh expenditure in the same direction. During the last two or three days there has been a discussion in the French Chamber on this very point. Unfortunately we have not at present a full report of what took place there, because the French papers are somewhat behind in reporting the discussions of the Chamber, and we must therefore rely upon the telegrams which have been received. Now, I observe from one report that Vice-Admiral Dompierre d'Hornoy made an alarmist speech, and said that England was about to spend a sum of 23 millions on her
  140
  Navy. That is, of course, an exaggeration, for the speaker evidently took into his calculation the ordinary Estimates for the year. He went on to say that Italy was spending two and a half millions, and Germany over six and a half millions, and he pointed out that the French expenditure was quite insufficient to enable them to meet the forces thus to be called into existence. The Minister of Marine in reply said that an increase of the French Naval Estimates would be necessary, in consequence of the steps recently taken by England, Germany, and Italy, in increasing their Navies. It therefore appears that our action has already stimulated France to further expenditure. Now, I wish to call the attention of the House to the effect this may have upon our shipbuilding policy, and on the design of the vessels that we are about to lay down. I cannot but think it may be wise on the part of the Government, in view of the increased expenditure promised by the French Government, to delay for a short time the commencement of some of the proposed new vessels, in order to see what the French will do. I am afraid we may commit ourselves to the commencement of a considerable number of vessels, costing an enormous sum, that our dockyards will be supplied with work for a long time to come, while a few months hence the French will lay down vessels of a more advanced type, thus causing another alarm on this side of the Channel, and creating a cry for ships of a newer design. Thus we shall go on stimulating one another in our respective shipbuilding policies. Let me repeat, we are now about to commence ten vessels of very great size—eight of them of 14,000 tons—and steaming, I think, at a rate of 17 knots an hour. I have on a previous occasion discussed at great length the policy of building vessels of this size, and I have expressed my opinion that it would be better to have more vessels of a moderate size. I believe it would be quite possible to construct vessels which, though of a smaller type, would be capable of steaming at a greater rate of speed. But I do not want to press this argument too far. I only want to suggest to the Government, in view of what is likely to be done by other Powers, and especially by France, whether it would not be

  141
  wise to stay our hands somewhat before committing ourselves to the commencement of such a large number of vessels of the same type, and of the largest possible size. Ought we not rather to frame our policy with a view to what may be done on the other side of the Channel, for if the French do lay down vessels of an advanced type, and possessing a higher rate of speed, we may be compelled to launch out in the same direction. I, therefore, hope the noble Lord will stay his hand with regard to some of the proposed new ships. I have no doubt that in a short time, in pursuance of the policy indicated by the French Minister of Marine, we shall see what the shipbuilding scheme of the French Government will be.
  Question put.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Before the Vote is taken, I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will give some reply to what I have said.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I did not rise to answer the right hon. Gentleman because I understood his speech was more in the nature of advice, and moreover the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman deal with a point which does not arise upon this particular Vote, and which has previously been fully debated and affirmed by repeated majorities in the House. With regard to the Debate in the French Chamber, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the telegram that he has quoted, he will find that the French Admiral is reported to have said that the French Navy should be equal to the Italian Navy and the German Navy; and, consequently, whatever addition may be proposed in the French Navy will not be proposed because the English Navy is increased, but because of the increase of the Italian or the German Navy.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The passage I quoted had reference to the increase of the English Navy.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to point out the unwise policy of committing ourselves to building these ships until we know what the French are going to do. But what is the position of affairs? At the end of the present year we shall
  142
  have only one ironclad in the last stage of completion, and the French have four or five. Therefore their hands are tied for some time to come, and if they chose to lay down a considerable number of new ironclads, either they must largely increase their establishment, which I do not believe they will do, or they must delay the completion of the vessels already laid down until they would become obsolete. I think that we may rest assured that the effect of our laying down a considerable number of ships of the same type will not be to have them rendered obsolete through anything that the French do this year or in the next few years. Not only next year, but for three or four years to come, the interval between the date of building our ships and putting them in commission will be much less than could be the case with the French; and if they attempt to emulate our example and to enlarge their shipbuilding programme, which is already too big for their financial resources, they will get that programme into a worse state than it has been in during the last few years.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The speech which I quoted from the Daily News, and which was delivered in the French Chamber, as to the necessity of largely increasing the French naval expenditure, had reference to the increase in the English Navy, and not merely to the Italian and German Navies. The noble Lord has spoken of the French dockyards being heavily charged with shipbuilding work for some time to come; but the French might, if they chose, lay down an increased number of ships to be built by contract, and thus not interfere with the ordinary work of the dockyards. Immediately after we had committed ourselves to a programme which would take five or six years to complete, the French might initiate a large scheme for the reconstruction of their own Navy, and build vessels of an improved type as compared to our own. Remember that Naval designs now frequently change, almost from month to month. I have made my protest, and have pointed out that I believe the wiser course would be not to commit ourselves absolutely to commencing so many vessels at once.
  Vote agreed to.
  10. £1,463,500, Naval Armaments.
  MR. DUFF: This Vote is presented o us in a somewhat incomplete form, and I have complained about it on a former occasion. We are not given any details with regard to the number or size of the guns which we either have or which are to be provided. We do not know whether they are 9-inch guns or whether they are Nordenfelts, and it is quite impossible for the House to have any control over the Ordnance Department of the Admiralty, unless we get more information than is to be found in these Estimates. I give the present First Lord of the Admiralty credit for having afforded us more information with regard to the shipbuilding programme than we have ever had before. Now, I know that there exists an Estimate which is prepared by the Director of Naval Ordnance, and I consider that the details of that Estimate ought to be contained in this Estimate. I hope the Admiralty will be able to give us some explanation why this Estimate is presented in so extremely incomplete a form. There is another point I wish to raise. The First Lord has spoken of the serious deficiency of ammunition, yet the Ordnance Vote shows a considerable reduction, and I think the House would like to know how the noble Lord reconciles this state of affairs with his statement. With regard to the number of guns, I should like to know how we stand. According to a statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty on the 5th os August last year, we then required 81 guns of over 9-inch diameter. Eleven have, I believe, since been delivered, and that, therefore, leaves 70 guns still required to complete the old programme. According to my estimate, there are 70 guns required in the old programme. Then I make out that you require 24 guns for the re-arming of old vessels, and you want over 70 guns for your new programme. That makes 164 large guns required for the Navy within the next four years. According to the War Office Return, dated the 5th of April, you require 107 guns for the Army, so that your total requirements in the four years are 271 guns. What has been the delivery of guns hitherto? In 1887-8 we delivered 20 guns, and last year we delivered 22 guns of over
  144
  9-inch diameter, so that if you are to carry out your programme, instead of turning out 22 guns in the year you will have to turn out 68 guns. Unless the rate of delivery is very much accelerated, I do not see that there is much probability of having guns stored awaiting ironclads. I do not wish to go now into the reasons which have led to the delay. On a former occasion I went very fully into the subject; but I am bound to say I did not receive much support in the House so far as the Vote was concerned, although everyone in the House, except the representatives of the Admiralty and the War Office, spoke in favour of the Motion. I do not think we shall have the ordnance system carried out satisfactorily while it remains under the dual control of the Admiralty and the War Office. The reason given by the First Lord of the Admiralty for not ordering their own guns is that it would prevent interchangability between the Army and Navy. That certainly does not appear to me a very conclusive reason. If the Ordnance Committee make up their minds what the design of the guns shall be, I cannot see why they should get them at a certain establishment, why they should not get them where they can get them best, cheapest, and quickest. If, however, the Government persist in carrying out the present system, they must take the responsibility upon themselves. I really cannot understand how it can be an effective system so long as money is put on the Naval Votes and its expenditure left to the War Office. However, I will not pursue that point; but if the Admiralty are unable in the future, as in the past, to carry out their arrangements and fulfil their programme up to time, the question will again have to come before the House. As to contracts, I should like to point out that on a former occasion the Secretary of State for War told us that the contracts for guns were to be open. I do not for a moment mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman intended to mislead the House; but I assert that the contracts were not open in the sense in which I understand the term. What happened was this. Certain specifications were sent round to a few firms, who were thus given an opportunity of being put in the same position as Messrs. Vickers are now in. That is not my idea of open

  145
  competition. My belief is that if we were to advertise for guns we should have many firms competing. Under the present system a large amount of capital is being taken out of the country. I know a British firm which is setting up an establishment at Bilboa; under altered circumstances the firms would have continued their operations here. I should also like some information respecting shells. I believe that in the case of the bombardment of Alexandria not one-fifth of the shells burst; and I should therefore like to know what supervision naval men have over shells, and who is responsible? The construction of shells is of very considerable importance, especially now-a-days, when shells are so much more largely used than formerly. I do not think I need trouble the Committee with any further remarks; but I do trust that in future, when this Estimate is presented to the House, details will be given in such a form that Parliament may really have some control over the system.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I wish to ask my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has directed his attention to the question of the life of large guns? A short time ago I tried to persuade the Government to undertake some experiments with a view to ascertaining what is the life of one of the new large guns. The Secretary of the Admiralty of that day gave me to understand that there were certain difficulties in connection with the adoption of my proposal, and he was unable to see his way towards carrying out my suggestions. Now I think an opportunity might shortly be given for testing one of the large guns—a 67-ton or a 43-ton gun. I know there are certain difficulties in the way, and of course the testing cannot be done on the testing ground at Shoeburyness, but it might be done on one of Her Majesty's ships. It is very unsatisfactory that we should be making so many large guns without knowing what will be their condition under circumstances such as would be met with in actual warfare; what will be the result of the heat caused by frequent firing, and what the result of the scoriation of the bore?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Duff) suggested that we should adopt a system of open contract for heavy guns. I do not
  146
  think he has really seriously considered the enormous difficulties surrounding this question. If you invite public tenders for the construction of the guns the only result will be that a number of firms will tender who will say they will do the work at a certain price if we will give them an order amounting to so many hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is utterly futile to expect that any firm will lay down highly expensive plant without being certain of a large order from the War Office. We are satisfied that we shall be able to get sufficient gun-producing power if we encourage Messrs. Vickers to set up new machinery, and encourage Elswick and Whitworth's to increase their machinery. The system of open contract is in this case utterly inapplicable in regard to the large guns, or I should be happy to adopt it. Then the hon. Member reverted to the old question of the Admiralty making their own contracts for guns separately from the War Office. I said nothing about that in the debate the other day, because I confess there is a great deal to be urged on both sides of the question. The inter-departmental Committee recommended that for the present there should be no change in the existing system, by which interchangeable stores are purchased by the War Office, but that the consent of the Admiralty should be given to the purchase by the War Office of warlike stores for the Navy. That was on the 18th of October, 1886.
  MR. DUFF: I referred to the Committee of November, 1886.
  MR. STANHOPE: I am aware of that, but it was an inter-departmental Committee which sat while the hon. Gentleman was in office and continued at work after he left office. No doubt some of the political Members of the Committee were changed, but the permanent officials remained the same. I do not say I myself very strongly hold the opinion expressed by the Committee, but I say it is impossible to blame the Government for acting on the Report of the inter-departmental Committee.
  MR. DUFF: The right hon. Gentleman has not quoted the final Report of the Committee, dated the 8th of November, 1886.
  MR. STANHOPE: The hon. Gentleman is giving us altogether the wrong date. [Mr DUFF handed the

  147
  Report to Mr. Stanhope.] There is nothing in this Report that has to do with the question.
  MR. DUFF: You have not got the passage.
  MR. STANHOPE: The passage is marked.
  MR. DUFF: The right hon. Gentleman accuses me of misrepresenting a paper. I had the courtesy to give it him, and now he says he will have nothing to do with it.
  MR. STANHOPE: I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman to give me the quotation on which he relies.
  MR. DUFF: Certainly, I will give the quotation. The Report I quoted from is the last Report that is given. It recommends that the Admiralty shall annually furnish to the War Office notice of their probable requirements of warlike stores in order that the War Office may state the extent to which the requirements of the Navy can be met.
  MR. STANHOPE: I am justified in saying that there is not a single word in that Report which has reference to the subject we are discussing. On the 18th of October 1886, the inter-departmental Committee which included General Alderson, Mr. Knox, Mr. Fisher, Admiral Hopkins, and Mr. Fitzgerald, recommended that the two Departments should continue as before. I pass from that to another point, which is much more important. The hon. Member has asked whether under the arrangements which has been made, we shall be able to overtake the requirements of the Navy, and to supply the number of guns required by the Navy as well as by the War Office. In my statement on the Army Estimates I said we hoped to receive 23 guns before the end of the first quarter of next year for land and sea service, 32 during the second quarter, and 26 during the third quarter, making altogether 81 guns of over 22 tons weight. That will be more than are required to meet the demands of the Navy. The hon. Member says the projectiles were found to be defective at the bombardment of Alexandria. No doubt that was so. The difficulty in getting satisfactory projectiles has been in connection with the fuses. I have no doubt that at present we have a fuse as good as any possessed by any country in Europe, and I have no doubt we shall be able to improve even upon that.
  148
  Then my hon. and gallant Friend asks if experiments have been made as to the amount of erosion, and I may say that we have now had experience of guns from which a great many rounds have been fired, and are able to judge the effect. There is a certain amount of erosion we have to contend with, as is the case with foreign manufactured guns, but I hope, and I believe, that modern invention will tend to diminish the amount.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I am anxious to know if any of the big guns have been tested by rapid firing, and which.
  MR. STANHOPE: I am afraid I am unable to give any such results. It is clear that experiments of the kind would be very expensive.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: And very useful.
  MR. STANHOPE: I should have considerable hesitation in undertaking such experiments without very good reason.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I merely wish to call attention to two points which I hope will receive the noble Lord's consideration. The first is the size of the guns now being constructed for the Navy. I hope the days of the 110-ton guns have passed, and that the days of the 67-ton guns are numbered. I trust that in the future in the armament of the biggest ships the largest guns carried will be such as can be worked by hand, as well as by hydraulic power. It is of the greatest importance to have guns that can be worked by manual labour, so that we may not be entirely at the mercy of machinery. The 43-ton gun, or at the most the 50-ton gun, ought to be the largest. The other point I desire to mention has relation to torpedoes. From experiments that have been made I am led to believe that the fears that were created some two or three years ago as to the effect of torpedoes are utterly groundless, and that it is a very overrated weapon. I am of opinion that ships that carry four or five torpedo tubes, carry two, if not three, too many. I hope both these points will have the attention of the Admiralty.
  MR. GOURLEY: I agree with my hon. Friend that the system of a dual control in the supply of guns is the cause of much delay and inconvenience. Notwithstanding the

  149
  fact that the Departmental Committee recommended a continuance of the existing system, I long ago arrived at the conclusion that this dual control is the reason why there has been such delay in the supply of guns for our ships as they are built. I have no faith myself in Departmental Committees; as a rule they are always Conservative, always anxious to keep things as they are, and to avoid undertaking any kind of reform. I hope the time is not far distant when the House will insist on this dual control being abolished. The Secretary of State for War in answer to what had been stated as to forms of tender, said no new firm would tender for guns unless guaranteed a certain amount of work. But even so, it is better to subsidise new firms, and thus increase your supply, than to keep ships waiting in the dockyard year after year for the armament necessary to enable them to take their place in the ranks of fighting ships. I think the House ought to insist upon open tenders for the supply of guns. We have open tenders for ships, why should we not have the same for guns? It is all nonsense to say that private firms will not tender. I know one firm in the North of England that would tender if they bad the slightest chance of obtaining a fair share of Government orders, and they are prepared to lay down the plant for gun manufacture. I am sure the Government are acting unwisely in not seeking to improve their supply by means of open tenders. We ought to have the guns for our ships, though we have to get them from Krupp. Foreign Governments never keep their ships in dock waiting for guns, but our Government seem to have an impression that ships can fight without guns. I do hope the Government will see the necessity of providing some better means of supplying our ships with guns than they have at present.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: One or two questions have been put to me, which I think the Committee will expect me to answer. The hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion complained of the lack of information given with the Estimates, but it must be remembered we prepare our Estimates at the end of January, when there are still two months of the financial year to run, and it is almost impossible to say how far
  150
  the contractors will be able to fulfil what they have promised, and therefore impossible to give with absolute accuracy the number and proportion of the guns to be finished within the year. Moreover we have to make provision for a considerable variety of guns, no less than nine different guns from 4-inch upwards, and several quick-firing guns, and if we were to ear-mark and proportion the expenditure on each, we should find ourselves in the position that, though contractors for any one class of guns failed to deliver their guns within the year, still we should be unable to transfer the expenditure to other classes, the production of which might have been accelerated, and we should have to surrender considerable sums at the end of the year, or be constantly asking the Treasury to sanction the transfer of expenditure of small sums from one class of goods to another. The whole of this Vote comes under the supervision of the Auditor General, so I think the Committee may be satisfied with this guarantee that the Treasury regulations are complied with. At the same time I shall be glad to see whether next year, when we have made further progress in wiping off arrears and when it will be easier to classify our requirements, we can go somewhat in the direction the hon. Gentleman wishes, and some way to meet his demands. The hon. Member (Mr. Duff) quoting from what I am reported to have said last year, in which there appears to be some inaccuracy, asks as to our requirements in guns for our present programme. I do not remember the statement to which he refers, but I may say that we require for the present and future shipbuilding programme 137 guns of nine inches and upwards, including 68 of nine inches for new ships, and 22 for ships in hand, of which a certain number have passed proof, and the balance for reserve. The Secretary for War has made a statement as to the output of the gun factories, and we have to consider, in communication with the War Office, how far the demands of the Admiralty can be complied with. We have made a calculation, and so far as we can foresee the contractors ought to be able to deliver all the guns in the time they have undertaken. Alterations made in a considerable number of guns and the failure in liners have caused much delay

  151
  and trouble to the establishment. The hon. and gallant Member (Captain Bethell) wished to know if the strength and duration of the guns had been tested by rapid firing. To this I may say that we have, as the guns are used year by year, reports of the effects of firing and erosion, and we have had the 45-ton gun this year fired, I think it was, four times in something like 15 minutes, and remarkably good practice was made.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: My point is that by rapid firing we have never had the larger guns tested.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am not aware that guns have been so tested except in the manner I have mentioned, but I quite agree that we should devote our attention to increasing rapidity of fire. I believe more in rapidity of firing than in size and calibre. I hope that in the course of a few months we shall be able to perfect the 6-inch quick-firing guns, so that the firing shall be four times as quick as the ordinary 6-inch breech-loader, and to that extent ships armed with the new guns will be more powerful than those armed with the ordinary 6-inch breechloaders. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke that, as far as possible, we should follow the principle of limiting the size of guns, so that if necessary they may be worked by manual labour. The 10-inch gun can be so worked. I also agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that undue importance has been attached to torpedoes, and since the development of quick-firing guns those who four or five years ago were prepared to arm ships with torpedoes only now find they were mistaken and that they greatly overvalued that projectile, valuable as it undoubtedly is for defensive purposes. Attention has been called to the fact that there is a reduction in this Vote, as compared with last year, but it must be recollected that a large sum of money is taken on this account in the ten millions outside the Estimates; and, adding this proportion to the sum in the Estimates it will be found that the amount is an increase on the sum taken last year by about £400,000. In my statement I alluded to the fact that there are still considerable deficiencies to make good so far as ammunition and projectiles are concerned. On
  152
  foreign stations I am glad to say our outfit and reserves are practically complete. On home stations the outfit for all ships ready for commission is completed, and I hope that by the end of the present year we shall have a second outfit in reserve. That will still leave deficiencies to be made good in subsequent years, but if we keep the Ordnance Vote at its present level, we shall be able to meet normal requirements and to annually reduce existing deficiencies. That I think will be a more satisfactory way of replenishing our reserves than to embark at once on a wholesale expenditure upon material. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for War has done, and will do, his best to meet the requirements of the Navy, subordinating the wants of the Army to those of the Navy. We have a system of which neither of us are enamoured, but until some better system can be devised, it is our duty to work the existing system to the best of our ability. The suggestions of the hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion would not relieve us from our difficulties. In any change of system that may be made, there is one principle that must be enforced, and that is the interchangeability of patterns between the Army and Navy. With our numerous stations for which supplies are drawn for both services this is essential, but if we have two Departments competing with each other in the manufacture of ordnance it is certain that each Department would indulge some predilection for a particular class of gun or projectile which would operate against the principle of interchangeability. It is for this reason that neither I nor my right hon. Friend can hold out any hope of the adoption of the suggestion that each Department should be left free to make it own contracts.
  MR. R. W. DUFF: I am glad to hear the promise of further information as to these Estimates in the future. Distinction should at least be made between guns of 9 inches and those under that size. As to the last remarks of the noble Lord I may say that I never for a moment suggested that the Admiralty should make designs for their guns independently of the War Office, but that an Ordnance Committee should design for both, and prevent any difficulty about interchangeability of stores.

  153
  As to what the right hon. Gentleman said upon open competition for guns, any firm will set up plant if they get a Government order for 20 guns; and having once set up their plant of course they would supply foreign orders as well. In France, where there is less demand for guns than in this country, there are eight or nine firms competing for Government orders, and I do not see why that should not be done here. I am almost afraid to refer to the Report of the Committee again after exciting the wrath of the Secretary for War as I did just now. For the moment I could not put my hand on the passage I referred to as supporting my contention that the Board of Admiralty, to which I had the honour to belong, always advocated that the Admiralty should make their own contracts for guns. If the noble Lord will turn to page 109 he will see that Major General Alderson recommends that the Admiralty should make their own contracts. The Committee distinctly say they adopt his view, and it was upon this recommendation I made my statement. There seems to be a misprint of a figure in Hansard, owing to which the difference between myself and the noble Lord as to the number of guns is 27. He said he required 137; I put it at 164. But he has told us that hitherto the delivery of guns has not exceeded 22 a year, but he says now when we have one more firm to deliver—Messrs. Vickers—that he expects 80 will be turned out in the year. I hope it may be so, and I have no doubt a careful estimate has been made, but it is within my experience that hopes of this kind have been frequently disappointed. I remember that the Collingwood guns promised in six months were not delivered for two years. I think we ought to have some better assurance that faith will be kept, and I think we may well doubt whether the 80 heavy guns will be turned out as promised. It is not surprising that the country should look with suspicion on statements made by the Secretary of State for War, when we know that on no single occasion have the War Office succeeded in producing half the number of guns promised. Forty-five guns were to be delivered in the course of the financial year, but when I turn to the printed statement I find that only 22 guns of 94-inch diameter have been
  154
  delivered. I think, therefore, that the House ought to receive with some caution the very sanguine view of the Secretary for War.
  MR. STANHOPE: I do not think I have ever taken a sanguine view, and I have been very careful indeed to guard my remarks by pointing out that promises with regard to the production of guns have not been fulfilled, and that probably they will not be fulfilled again. But we have taken the best means at our disposal to promote the production of guns by a complete extinction of the whole circumstances of the case. Our Estimates are now based on a completed plan. It is quite true that the number of guns passed into the Service last year was 22 instead of 45, and the cause of that failure was that a large number of the guns had to be sent back in consequence of the failure of the linings. During the present year the ordnance factories have increased their plant—including Elswick, Whitworth's, and Vickers. In all these cases the supply will be increased. It is quite true that it is desirable we should have a great number of sources of supply. But the House will recollect that these firms have put down plant on the Government giving an undertaking that so long as they could turn out a good article at a fair price they should have Government orders. The guns have been distributed according to the best of our information, and we have good reason to expect that they will be delivered in ample time for the Service.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: I understand the big guns are now to be used without liners. I rose, however, to call attention to the First Lord's remarks regarding ammunition reserves. He has stated that our outfits in our Foreign Stations have been brought up to standard. But not so at home. At home he proposes the very dangerous doctrine of completing our outfits by a course of action which will cause them to stand over for several years. Surely that is not a position in which the ammunition reserves ought to stand. I should be glad if he is able to put another colouring on his statement, and tell us that he is prepared to put his ammunition reserves into that position in which they ought to be at once. Such reserves as are absolutely necessary ought to be ready for use at the present time.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: In regard to the subject of the reserve of ammunition, the hon. Gentleman will see that there is a great difference between the various classes required. The 110-ton guns need a powerful projectile, which cannot be manufactured under some months. Therefore, when I looked into this question I had to take into consideration the time which would be occupied in producing the different projectiles. We have three or four guns of very large calibre, and it is necessary that there should be a considerable reserve of ammunition. Each year the producing powers of the country are increasing for the manufacture of the smaller class of ammunition; and it does not appear to be wise to accumulate a large mass of materiel which would deteriorate in store, seeing that we can depend upon an adequate supply in any possible emergency. I have, therefore, determined to limit the demand for ammunition reserve to the larger projectiles, which can only be produced slowly, and to encourage the manufacturers to increase their plant, so that not only in time of peace there should be greater competition as regards production, but in time of war there should be larger sources of supply. That is the practical principle I have gone on, and it is one which I know the hon. Gentleman will approve of.
  Vote agreed to.
  11, £128,800, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the pressing necessity of bringing the coastguard stations at various prominent points into telegraphic communication with the Admiralty? I see there is a decrease of £2,000, and, if anything, that would make one fear that the matter is rather slackening in their hands.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: What has become of Vote 10?
  ADMIRAL FIELD: It is passed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I certainly desired to say something on Vote 10, and I have had no opportunity of doing so. No notice was given that the Vote was to be taken, and I think some explanation should be given.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The explanation is simply this—there are a
  156
  certain number of public works which are urgent, and new works. The Treasury gave a provisional assent to their commencement on the understanding that the Vote should be the first Vote taken, in order that the House might be afforded an opportunity to discuss it. Of course, it is much better that the Votes should be taken in the order in which they are printed. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend, I have to point out that this item merely relates to telegraph messages. If he looks a little lower down in the Votes he will see there is a sum of £3,190 for the works to which he alludes.
  MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I think we have a right to complain that Vote 10 was taken without any notice whatever. When a Vote is to be taken out of its order the usual practice is to state it distinctly on the Notice Paper. That is very commonly done, and I think the noble Lord is somewhat to blame in not having given notice of the fact. I can easily understand that it was desirable to take the Vote out of its order; but I think we are entitled to protest against the proceeding, and to hope that it will not form anything like a precedent in the future.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman has stated the practice correctly.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I hope the noble Lord will at any rate give the House an opportunity of criticizing that Vote.
  MR. GOURLEY: In regard to one of the matters connected with the item of £10,000 in this Vote, I understand the noble Lord to say that the officers of Her Majesty's ships are not in the habit of employing pilots in home waters, and I should like to know how much of the £10,000 applies to pilotage charges?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member the explanation he asks for off-hand.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to call attention to Item D for the hire of ships in connection with the blockade of Zanzibar. We were informed both by the First Lord of the Admiralty and other Members of the Government that whatever might happen in regard to that blockade it would not cost us any extra money, and we were also told that the ostensible object of the

  157
  blockade was the suppression of the Slave Trade. I think we are now entitled to obtain from the First Lord some information as to the necessity for hiring ships in connection with that blockade.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There is a charge of £2,300 for the hire of vessels in connection with the blockade of Zanzibar, and it arose in this way; the blockade extended along the coast, and it was found more convenient to hire vessels than to employ Her Majesty's ships for the work of keeping up communication between the Admiral and the various ships of the blockading squadron, which were at a distance from each other.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The noble Lord has not said from whom the vessels were hired.
  MR. HANBURY: I would point out to the Committee that this sum of £10,000 contains a number of charges which are lumped together without any proper sub division, such as miscellaneous payments for carriage and the maintenance of Royal personages, the travelling expenses of naval officers, and so forth. The Vote is one on which we should have more explanation than is given; and I, for one, object to matters like these being lumped together into one great mass like this. We have a right to ask for a few more sub-heads as to a class of expenses into which the House ought to look, and I trust that in future we shall find that the necessary information is given.
  MR. FORWOOD: If the hon. Gentleman will turn to page 264 of the Estimates he will see that details are given of the miscellaneous expenses for the year 1887–88, which we have made the basis for the present Estimate. The items are there given as to travelling expenses under sub-heads.
  MR. HANBURY: But that applies equally to all other Votes on other subjects. What I suggest is, that these items should be put down definitely, as it makes all the difference as to what we are to expend in the future.
  MR. FORWOOD: It is an incidental expenditure that we cannot estimate with any exactitude, and we are therefore obliged to put down a general item to provide for expenses which we are unable to state in definite sums.
  MR. GOURLEY: There is one item which I think the Secretary to the
  158
  Admiralty might explain, and that is the charge in connection with the launching of Her Majesty's ships.
  MR. FORWOOD: The charge is one which does not involve any question of food or drink; it is merely for the erection of platforms, in order that those connected with the dockyards and engaged in the work of constructing the vessels that have been launched might have the opportunity of witnessing the launching ceremonials. The expense would be comparatively small.
  Vote agreed to.
  12. £57,900, Scientific Services.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should like to call attention to an item relating to the expense in connection with the photographic mapping of the heavens. It forms a new sub-head, which, with some humour, considering the subject it deals with, is placed under the letters D D. I have always had some doubt whether the maintenance of Greenwich Hospital or the Hospital at the Cape ought to be charged in the Navy Estimates at all; and as this item to which I have referred is a new one, I should be glad to hear some explanation of it from the noble Lord.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I also wish to ask a question about another item in this Vote, in regard to the Hydrographical Department in the survey work of the Admiralty. Two incidents that have occurred lately may be said to have some connection with the Survey Department, and show that, although it may not be the fault of those in charge of the Department, as it may not have a sufficient number of ships at its command, there is some need of a closer system of survey. There has recently been the loss of H.M.S. sultan in the Comino Channel; and it is a singular fact that there has been no resurvey of the waters near Malta since about 1850. We have also heard of the alleged discovery on the South East Coast of Africa of a better navigable channel of the River Zambesi, and it has been urged upon the Admiralty that they should despatch a surveying vessel for the purpose of ascertaining whether such a navigable mouth of the Zambesi exists. The First Lord of the Admiralty has stated that there is no vessel at present available for the purpose, but that there is a ship at the

  159
  Cape undergoing refitting by means of which in a few months it may be possible to send to the point indicated in order to see whether there really is a better navigable mouth of the Zambesi. I do not think the Survey Department ought to be in such a condition that we cannot overtake such an emergency as this, nor do I think the Service can be effective if so important a station as that of Malta has not had a neighbouring channel resurveyed for a period of 30 or 35 years, especially when we have to consider the fact, or the alleged fact, that on certain other maps—not those of our own Admiralty—the reef on which the Sultan struck is laid down. There is another point I would mention in connection with this Vote. It is only a small matter, but it is one that I have brought before successive Lords of the Admiralty, and I think what I have suggested might be carried out without adding a single penny to the expense of the Department. We have for years been surveying the coasts of the British Islands, and especially the coast of Scotland, and what I have ventured on previous occasions to urge on the Admiralty is that the opportunity should be taken of the presence of a surveying vessel on the Western coasts of England and Scotland to do what is done by every other European country, and make a bathymetrical survey of the lakes of these countries. About 40 years ago the Admiralty did undertake the survey of two of our lakes—Loch Lomond and Loch Awe—and I put it to the Admiralty whether they might not permit the use of boats engaged in the coast survey to undertake the work of sounding the larger lakes of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The matter is one which has excited a good deal of interest in scientific circles both in England and Scotland, and I hope the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty will take it into his consideration.
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: Enormous time is required to carry out these surveys, and until recently that of the Mediterranean has been going on for a considerable number of years. As to a survey of the mouth of the Zambesi, though, no doubt, it would be very valuable, I scarcely believe it to be so argent as to necessitate special haste and a special commission to carry it out.
  MR. HANBURY: I should like to know how far the Hydrographical Department are to blame in this matter. If it is a question of the cost of a complete survey of the Mediterranean, there are large excuses to be made, no doubt; but I should like to know how it is that this rock upon which the Sultan struck is not marked on the map. I am informed that there is in the British Museum a map, prepared some years ago by Colonel Wilkinson, upon which this rock is marked. I think we should know how it is that, though marked on this old map, it is not marked on the more recent maps issued from the Hydrographer's Department. It looks like a case of gross negligence.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: There does not seem to be much knowledge amongst hon. Members as to what is required for making a marine survey of a coast. To make a survey of the kind suggested so as to find out every rock within two cables' length of the shore of the Mediterranean, the distance at which the Sultan was steaming when she struck, would mean carrying out a survey on a very large scale. People are apt to forget when looking, say, at the figure 10 s on an ordinary chart, it covers, perhaps, a quarter of a mile of ground. Two lines of soundings were taken on either side of the rocky ledge where the Sultan struck, but there was no indication of uneven bottom. If there had been, of course there would have been a careful examination of the spot. In all ordinary surveys, if you find no indication of a rock or an irregularity in the bottom, you are content with lines of soundings such as were taken in this instance. I do not believe the officers who made the survey were to blame. It was carried out under Captain Spratt and other able officers, who devoted years to the work, and I believe the survey was as complete as it could be. As to the general question of extending the surveys, it is one for the House to decide. I do not suppose that the First Lord of the Admiralty would object to increasing the Vote for the Hydrographer's Department, and to have more men on the work of surveying if it is considered necessary. As to the survey of the mouth of the Zambesi, if the East Coast of Africa has a claim for work of this kind, I would put in a claim for the survey of the coast of

  161
  Borneo. The fact is that the necessities of the great trade routes have been of paramount importance heretofore. I am sure that the Hydrographer is most anxious to do all that is possible with the small though very efficient staff at his disposal.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has said a word for the Hydrographer's Department. Hon. Gentlemen, I am afraid, do not understand the magnitude of this surveying work. No other nation, so far as I am aware, does more than survey its own coasts, but our hydrographers survey the seas of the world. In the present instance, it must be recollected that the place at which the Sultan went aground was not the channel ordinarily used, and I am not aware that there is a chart anywhere in existence with the rock marked upon it. It is said that there is one at Malta, but I have ascertained that the statement is inaccurate. Where the hon. Member for Preston obtained his information I do not know.
  MR. HANBURY: At the British Museum.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I cannot imagine how there can be other charts in existence besides those in the Hydrographer's Department. The Department now costs £100,000 a year. If the hydrographers had to make a microscopical survey, they could only do it in a very limited area; but the practice is to make a minute survey of entrances to harbours and trade routes, and to make a general survey of the rest of the coast and ocean. If it is thought desirable to have an extended survey I shall not object, but it must be understood that the cost will he great, and that neither the extra money nor men required can he taken from the existing supplies. Whatever observations can be made as to the stranding of the Sultan, nothing can be laid to the blame of the hydrographers. These officers discharge a very onerous duty, and the gentleman in charge of the Department is certainly overworked. As to the lakes referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, the question is one for the Land Survey Department; and as to the item for photographing the heavens, it was decided at a meeting of scientists not long ago that these photographs should he taken and that the
  162
  heavens should be mapped. Certain nations undertook to bear the expense. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was bombarded on all sides with requests that he should provide funds for the work. Ultimately he consented, and as the Admiralty was the only Department which could undertake the work the Vote—which is an exceptional one—finds a place in the Navy Estimates.
  MR. GOURLEY: Does this Vote complete the survey?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am not certain of that. There may have to be a charge made next year, but I will look into the matter before the Report of the Vote comes on.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it is much to be regretted that the Navy Estimates have to bear the charge for these scientific researches, which are of little direct benefit to the Navy. If it was necessary to undertake this survey of the heavens, I think the expense should have been charged to one of the Civil Service Votes rather than to Navy Votes. As to the Hydrographer's Department, we on this side re-echo what the noble Lord has said with regard to its efficiency. I would bear testimony from my own experience to the efficiency of the Hydrographer's Department, and the useful work which it has performed in the past under the different distinguished men who have presided over it, to whom the present head of the Department is in no way inferior. But the point is how it comes about that this rock is not marked on the Hydrographer's map. Is it the fact that there exists a map in the British Museum, on which this rock is marked? The hon. Member for Preston says that map was made by a Colonel Wilkinson, and that appears to point to the fact that it is a War Office map. If so, this affords a further instance of the want of communication between the War Office and the Admiralty—information as to this rock being in the possession of the War Office, while the Hydrographer's Department under the Admiralty is left unacquainted with the fact.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLThe point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, one of great interest. My impression is, that if there has been a survey made of the shore upon which

  163
  the Sultan struck other than that which is to be found in the Hydrographer's Department, and one made by a military officer, it must have been by a military officer attached to the ordinary survey. However, I should like the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to clear up the point. I strongly suspect that the rock marked in the chart referred to by the hon. Member for Preston is not the rock upon which the Sultan struck.
  MR. BUCHANAN: With regard to the statement of the noble Lord, that the survey of the lakes is a matter for the Land Survey, I would point out that the only survey which has hitherto taken place has been carried out by the Admiralty. If a survey of the kind I suggest is undertaken, it would, I think, be well to have it performed by the Admiralty. As to the Hydrographer's Department, nothing was further from my mind than to cast blame in that quarter; but I do not think that a re-survey, such as would discover a rock like that upon which the Sultan struck, would entail the re-survey of the whole of the Mediterranean. I believe it is the fact that our own coasts have been re-surveyed; and I think that looking at the fact that Malta is a British possession it is not too much to ask that the shores in the neighbourhood of the island should be re-surveyed. They should, it seems to me, come under the description of "home coasts," and should be more frequently surveyed than other parts of the Mediterranean. If any nation should be responsible for the survey of the Mediterranean, considering the important military stations we have there, I think it is this country.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I do not think that the fact of the discovery of this rock in the Mediterranean is an argument for a re-survey of the whole of that sea. The passage in which the Sultan struck was only a small channel very little used, and there was no reason to suppose that the old survey was not sufficient. The Mediterranean not being a tidal sea, the same necessity for constant resurveying does not arise.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The rock in question is 300 yards west of the spot marked on the chart. It may be that the reef which is given on the ordinary chart is the spot marked on the map to
  164
  which the hon. Member for Preston refers.
  MR. HANBURY: I am told that the mark is on the exact spot where the Sultan struck.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I will make inquiries into the matter.
  Vote agreed to.
  13. £217,400, Admiralty Office.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I desire to raise a question on this Vote of some importance, mainly with regard to the instructions given to officers in command at the Naval Manœuvres last year. In the course of last autumn the country was partly amused and partly shocked by the reports which appeared in the newspapers with regard to attacks upon unprotected towns and forts in this country by vessels belonging to the squadron engaged in the manœuvres. I certainly was in hopes, and confidently believed, it would turn out that these performances were the irresponsible frolics of the officers engaged; and I did not think that they were encouraged and authorized by the Admiralty. I find, however, that in the instructions given by the Admiralty, the commanding officers were directed especially with reference to the expediency of making raids upon the enemy's coasts and unprotected towns for the purpose of levying contributions. Accounts of what took place were given as though they were serious performances. These Reports were made public by the Admiralty, and as far as I can discover, no adverse comments have been made upon them by the First Lord of the Admiralty. It therefore went out to the world that the present Board of Admiralty approves of the manœuvres and the transactions accompanying them. I will briefly describe what occurred. The Rear-Admiral in command of one of the squadrons engaged in the manœuvres—escaped from the enemy with four vessels—two ironclads, and two cruisers. They were first heard of after their escape on the east coast of England and Scotland. They visited Aberdeen, and within half an hour they are supposed to have destroyed all the shipping in that town and to have requisitioned the town for the sum of £400,000. They then made their appearance in the Firth of Forth and

  165
  are supposed to have requisitioned Edinburgh—though how they could have done that in actual warfare I cannot make out, considering the distance of Edinburgh from the sea. The vessels then separated. The Iris made its appearance off Leith and destroyed the shipping there. The Rodney appeared off Shields, and in a short space of time is supposed to have destroyed all the shipping in the Tyne and requisitioned Shields for half a million and Newcastle for a million. The Rodney then went off Sunderland, and is supposed to have destroyed all the shipping there in half an hour. In the meantime the Severn had made her appearance off Hartlepool, and had requisitioned the town for £500,000, and destroyed all the shipping in an hour and 25 minutes, had then proceeded to Scarborough and levied a contribution of £500,000, and was supposed, between Hartlepool and Scarborough, to have destroyed a fleet of fishing boats without even removing their crews—an action altogether without warrant in the practice of civilized countries. The Warspite is supposed to have appeared off Grimsby, to have requisitioned the town for £500,000, and entering the Humber is supposed to have destroyed 45 steamers and 53 sailing vessels. At the same time, vessels visited other parts of the coasts and opened their fire upon unprotected towns, such as Oban and Greenock. This seems to me somewhat of a burlesque, and I am surprised that the First Lord of the Admiralty did not give instructions that such proceedings should be stopped. So far as I can ascertain they are without any warrant in the practice of civilized countries. It has not been the practice for a hundred years for a civilized Power to make raids upon unprotected towns on the sea coast and to demand ransoms. There cannot be produced any case among civilized Powers where this course has been followed. The most recent case which I can find of similar action on the part of a civilized Power is that which occurred in 1741 under Lord Anson in Chili. Lord Anson, at that time, when the ransom was not given, fired into the town, and the naval historian of the time, Mr. Young, speaking of the occurrence described it as worthy of the most lawless pirate. This case I have
  166
  mentioned occurred at Chili. From that time forth I cannot find that it has been the practice among civilized Powers to take advantage of unprotected towns when ransoms are refused. In all the European wars of the present century I cannot find any case of that kind. I venture to say, therefore, that the universal usage among civilized Powers in naval war is not to fire into unprotected towns after demanding ransoms from them. I think the only case in that direction was the bombardment of Odessa, and there the Admiral gave instructions not to fire in the direction of the commercial port, but only upon the forts that protected the town. Apart from reasons of humanity, there are two great reasons why the course of firing into unprotected towns is not taken. One is, that it would not, on the whole, pay, and the other is that it would lead to reprisals. Such is the cost of projectiles in these days that it would be hardly worth the while of a Naval Power to expend the powder and shot necessary to destroy an undefended town. After all, these usages depend very much upon what opponents are likely to do. If French vessels in time of war fired into any of our unprotected towns, it would be very possible for our vessels to make reprisals upon such places as Dieppe, Nice, and others. At all events, whatever the case may he, it is undoubtedly the fact that for the last 100 years the usage of civilized Powers has not been in the direction which I speak of. On the contrary, the practice of vessels of war has been to avoid firing into unprotected towns in the manner intended by the Autumn Manœuvres of last year. I venture to hope, therefore, that the noble Lord in the Autumn Manœuvres of this year will avoid giving instructions of the kind that were given last year to the officers in command. I think it would not be wise on the part of this country that we should give a sort of quasi sanction to practices such as I have alluded to. My confident belief is that in time of war our officers would not be permitted to act in this manner; and it is unwise in time of peace that in the manœuvres that are to take place that even a simulated practice of this kind should be allowed to grow up in the manner which I have indicated. I venture to hope that the noble Lord will not repeat his instruc-

  167
  tions, and that we shall not have a repetition of intended raids upon unprotected towns in the manner they were carried out last year. I do not think these proceedings redounded to the credit of the Service, and I feel confident that they would not be carried out in time of war. Therefore, it would be wise on the part of our Government to give no sanction whatever to a course which might afterwards be taken as a sanction on our part to a practice of this kind.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise this question.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I gave notice of it.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have not the papers relating to the question which he has raised. But, at the same time, he cannot have read with very much intelligence the Report of the manœuvres. He has attached enormous importance to one feature of them, and bas altogether failed to appreciate the lessons which those manœuvres taught. I am not aware that any one of Her Majesty's ships would attempt to bombard defenceless towns. The right hon. Gentleman's supposition seems to me to be based on a mistaken idea of what the usages are in time of war. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to pretend that in time of war a great Naval Power would spare our ships—that our merchant vessels would have immunity from capture or destruction? Let us see what were the objects of the instructions of Sir George Tryon, whose squadron was supposed to represent the hostile Navy, stationed on the north and south of Ireland. A fleet was supposed to be defending the shores and commerce of this country. Sir George Tryon gave orders that certain vessels were to rendezvous on the north of Ireland, and the instructions were that they were then to go round our coast and create as much commotion as they could in harrying it. His deliberate purpose was to distract the attention of the Admiral who was defending the English shores. He succeeded. The result was that at a critical moment Admiral Baird felt it necessary to go round to the Downs to protect the coast, and then Sir George Tryon achieved his object, and Liverpool was left undefended and was taken. The right hon. Gentleman has not apparently read the
  168
  Report of the three Admirals, and the Report upon the proceedings of the Admirals employed in those manœuvres, for none of these vessels bombarded defenceless towns—not one of them. The right hon. Gentleman objects to these vessels requisitioning defenceless towns. If it is to be held that an army is to have that power and the Navy not, it is certainly putting us at a very great disadvantage compared with other powers. Generally speaking, it is not desirable that unprotected towns should be attacked; but it will be admitted that even in this country there are certain establishments which in time of war would be destroyed. Take Greenock, for instance, with its shipbuilding yards, large marine foundries and engineering factories, all of which would be of great assistance to our Navy in time of war. Would it not be rather hazardous to assume that it would be left free from molestation and requisition by the enemy? Such an assumption would be very unwise. The Report of the Admirals last year seems to me sufficiently to indicate what is legitimate and what is illegitimate. On the one hand, while we must be careful not to do anything implying our sanction to a departure from the usages of civilized nations, it would be, on the other hand, dangerous to pursue a course in naval warfare in which we should assume that all unprotected towns and commerce would be unmolested by an enemy. Such a view, I think, the right hon. Gentleman himself would be the last to advance.
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMANThe observations of the noble Lord display a spirit of concession to our view which I hardly expected, and, therefore, I am thankful for what the House-has just listened to. The noble Lord has, at all events, no sympathy with those raids which have been made on small watering places and coast towns in the north of England and Scotland, under pretence of simulating naval warfare. My right hon. Friend near me has made no attack on the Autumn Manœuvres; he has not said a word in depreciation of their value, nor has he wished to damage the importance of the lesson they have taught. What he did say—and in this I entirely agree with him—was that the proceedings at those manœuvres were most mischievous and. misleading, in so far as they lead to a

  169
  popular belief that to go round the coast attacking absolutely peaceable and defenceless towns is a proper employment for a naval force. Such action can only be intended by those who take part in it to create a scare in the country; and I submit that it is no part of the duty of our naval officers, either during autumn manœuvres or at any other time, to influence the public feeling of the country, in the discharge of their duties, in such a way as to give an exaggerated view of the real position of these matters. Then my right hon. Friend dwelt strongly on this point—that the fact of our naval officers proceeding in this way with the sanction of the Admiralty established a precedent which might be followed by other nations, who, if they took such a course, might say to us, "Why you, in your naval manœuvres of 1888, showed that what we are doing was what you expected would be done." Again, I think there is a considerable amount of fallacy in the word "requisition" as it has been used, and I would call the attention of the First Lord to what seems to be the vital distinction between land and naval warfare in this respect. With regard to land warfare, what happens is this. An army in an enemy's country has to get its supplies from the districts through which it advances, and therefore uses its power of requisitioning what it requires, giving a receipt for all it so obtains, which is settled for at the end of the hostilities. But ships of war carry their own supplies, and are not dependent on the enemy's coast towns; and, therefore, if such a thing as the bombardment of such places as Campbelltown, Rothesay, Oban, or Scarborough should ever take place, it would be simply in order to punish those places because they belonged to the enemy's country; or ransom would be exacted under threat of bombardment for the purpose of striking terror into the minds of the population. I know it is said by high philosophical authorities that the object of war is to make it as mischievous as possible for the enemy, and that the more distressing the circumstances the better will be the result. I do not agree with this theory; but, at any rate, we have departed from it. According to this view, when the Prussian Army invaded France they ought to have
  170
  seized every peasant they found on the roadside, taken from him the few sous he had in his pocket, and strung him up to the nearest tree. That would have been the way to strike terror into the hearts of the French people. But the Prussians did nothing of the sort. The fortified towns were attacked or besieged and dealt with in a military manner, and open towns were requisitioned for supplies. A fine may indeed have been imposed in cases where some reluctance was shown in furnishing the supplies demanded; but no such proceedings were taken as were the case during last year's autumn manœuvres at Campbelltown at the mouth of the Clyde, when, without any pretence of supplies being required, landing parties were sent out to arrest the Provost, or to capture the Post Office. The noble Lord has spoken of attacking our commercial seaports, dockyards, and shipbuilding yards, and I quite agree that they would be a fair object of hostile action on the part of an enemy who might wish to strike at the commerce of a country like this, which depends so much on its commercial relations with the rest of the world; but this is altogether a different thing from that of which I complain, and would affect only a few places on the sea coasts of this country. But if I wished to give an illustration of the state of mind aroused by the late manœuvres I would point to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), who is continually asking what steps are to be taken to protect Kirkcaldy from the attacks of an enemy's fleet. Of course, no enemy's fleet under heaven would go anywhere near Kirkcaldy; and even if one should, perhaps my hon. Friend would be there to strike terror into the enemy's breast; hut the serious part of the matter is the effect that the autumn manœuvres seem to have produced in the mind of men like my hon. Friend, who actually expect the Government to take special measures for protecting individual places circumstanced like the town of Kirkcaldy. This illustration is, I think, enough to show what ridiculous lessons are taught by the proceedings I have referred to. I have very little more to say. We have fortunately drawn from the noble Lord the expression of his opinion that the exaction of ransom from places like Scarborough and Aberdeen, under threat of

  171
  bombardment, was not a representation of anything that is to be anticipated in time of war. For my part I have no desire in any way to weaken or limit our power at sea; but I have thought it only right to protest against the idea that we should use our naval power, or expect that other nations should employ their forces, in such a manner as was indicated by the autumn manœuvres.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I cannot but regard this discussion as what may be termed a sham debate about a sham fight; and I would point the attention of the Committee to the fact that there are somewhere about twenty Christians sitting in this House at the close of the nineteenth century actually discussing whether it is a proper thing to bombard defenceless towns. Such a fact surely is instructive in itself. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken that the manœuvres were carried on last year, and will be repeated this year, as a scare; though I do not think there is any necessity for the Government to scare the people of this country; they are quite ready enough to be scared without the help of the Admiralty Authorities. There is one point which I think has not been touched on in this debate. I remember seeing a report of a speech by one of the Naval Lords of the Admiralty—I do not recollect which—pointing out that these manœuvres were spoken of as showing the defenceless state of the country; whereas the real effect was forgotten—namely, that the defending fleet belonged to us as well as that which did the work of attack, and that in the event of war both of those fleets would be on our side. I think that this is sufficient to show the absurdity of drawing conclusions from such premisses. I hope my hon. Friend will not divide the Committee on this question. For my part, I think that the more we encourage the Government to continue these manœuvres the more discredit will be brought on our military and naval system.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I hold in my hand a book entitled "The Corsairs of France," and I intend to read an extract from it. The right hon. Gentleman who initiated this debate said there was no record of an open town being bombarded. But here is a case, for
  172
  according to this book, on the 28th of September, 1794, a French squadron approached the town of Sierra Leone under the English flag, brought up in a position to command every street in it, then hoisted its own colours, and commenced a heavy cannonade; and even after the inhabitants had struck their flag, two frigates, regardless of the submission, continued firing for two hours, and raked the streets with grape shot. They then landed men who plundered what houses were left standing; they set fire to the church and to the company's warehouse, as well as to the houses of English inhabitants. They remained off the town till the 23rd of October, when, having filled their vessels with plunder, they set sail. Again, I have here an instance of the capture of Carrickfergus on the coast of Ireland after threats of bombardment, and also of the enemy having forced their way up the Clyde, and made requisitions on Scotchmen. I think the right hon. Gentleman would find the account of these raids instructive reading. The right hon. Gentleman was the first last autumn, when the manœuvres were going on, to pride himself on ridiculing what naval men were doing under instructions. I think, instead of having ridicule thrown on them for the manner in which they carried out the manœuvres, they deserve praise. The Admiralty did right in issuing the instructions they gave in regard to the manœuvres, in order that the people of this country might be roused from the sleepy condition into which they had fallen, and might see what they had to expect if we should be again involved in a naval war. History shows that open towns on our coasts are liable to be raided upon and plundered in time of war; and it is well that the danger to which we might be exposed should be brought home to the mind of the country. I therefore trust that the First Lord of the Admiralty will not be deterred from issuing instructions which will convince the nation how necessary it is that they should have a strong naval force; and I hope that he will issue those instructions in spite of the taunts of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I think the discussion which has taken place has been perfectly justified by the important

  173
  declaration which has been drawn from the noble Lord, who said he did not approve of the bombardment of defenceless towns, and, so far as he could speak for the Government, they would do nothing in these Autumn Manœuvres which would depart in any way from the established usage of civilized nations. But before the Vote is taken, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord, if I am in order in so doing, as to the inquiry which has been going on into the loss of the Sultan. This was a special inquiry set on foot by the Admiralty to meet the especial circumstances of that particular case. If the inquiry is still pending, I, for my part, will not say a single word which would prejudice it; but I would remind the noble Lord that I put a question to him the other day, and that the answers which he gave to me are extremely difficult to reconcile with the evidence which has been published in the public Press. I will not go into the matter now; but I shall continue to feel it within my right to call upon the noble Lord to reconcile the statement he has made to me with the evidence which has been given. I have risen now to ask him whether the inquiry is still going on, and if the whole proceedings before the Court, including all the evidence taken, will be in due course laid before this House.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I only wish to say this. I think it a most monstrous thing that the resources of this country should be wasted in such tomfoolery as we have had described to us to day The hon. and gallant Admiral opposite boasts of what has been done to defenceless towns. Why, of course, any ship of war is able to knock down a defenceless town, and if that is the object of a Christian nation, then, I say, the less we have to do with it the better. I trust that the electors of this country will realize that this expenditure of money is simply for the purpose of filching more cash from the pockets of the people in the shape of extra Votes for the Admiralty.
  MR. HANBURY: I should like to know what at the present moment is the actual position of the Accountant General, about whom we heard a good deal during the sittings of the Committee on the Navy Estimates, and who also occupied a good deal of attention
  174
  at the hands of the Royal Commission when it was enquiring into Admiralty administration. I think this subject has been left open a great deal too long. We have an Accountant General under an Order in Council with certain defined duties. We have a staff on a large scale to assist him in doing those duties. But there is missing in the Admiralty an officer we ought to have in the shape of a permanent official, a Secretary, who should hold the threads of finance, and who should be a permanent official to carry on the duties from one Ministry to another. I know that now we are unusually well off in having the present Secretary to the Admiralty, who seems to have at his fingers ends everything connected with his Department; but should he resign, there is, I believe, no one who would be able to carry on properly his work. I therefore wish to know what decision has been arrived at in regard to this matter, and what is the actual position of the Accountant General? Then, again, as to the Director of Contracts, and as to the immense loss which apparently takes place every year from the way in which we dispose of obsolete ships. These ships cost an enormous sum of money, and yet they are practically sold for a mere song. There is no public competition; they are sold to the same firm year after year, and they go at a ridiculous price. Indeed, I am told that what we get for these ships is merely the value of the metal in them. It appears to me that there ought to be a great deal more open competition in these sales. I wish also to draw attention to the position of another officer—namely, the Engineering Chief. Now, this is a most important officer, and I fancy that the safety of our fleet depends largely upon the efficiency with which the duties of this office are carried out. We have hardly recognized in the Navy at the present moment the enormous importance of our engineers. We train up these men at great cost at our Royal Naval College, and yet some of them, having received their education at the public expense, leave the Public Service and are engaged by private firms. We have lately had the Engineering Chief (Mr. Sennett) leave us, and in his new appointment he is to receive, I believe, 3,500 a year, whereas he only received £1,000

  175
  at the Admiralty for practically taking control of the whole Engineering Department of our great Navy. I am not often found asking for an increase in the Estimates; but I think the whole of the Engineering Department, certainly the man responsible for the engines of our Fleet, is entitled to more than we pay at present. We ought not to grudge money being expended in this direction. I do not like to see these men being tempted away from our Service by private firms. When Mr. Sennett was examined before us, he complained of two things—he complained first of the vast amount of clerical work thrown on him at the Admiralty Office, saying that nearly three fourths of his time was taken up by duties of this description, and I do think that a man who has control over the vast machinery of the Engineering Department of the Navy should be, as far as possible, released from clerical work, which might be done by clerks receiving a much lower rate of pay. Another complaint he made was with reference to the repairs of the engines, and I should like to know how far that particular complaint has been met. It seems that no sooner has he designed the engines for our ships, and they have been put on board the vessels, than he practically loses all control over them, and he has nothing whatever to do with repairs done to the engines in the dockyards. It is a curious fact that we have an Engineering Chief at the Admiralty, nearly the whole of whose time is taken up by clerical work, while the responsibilities of his office are practically divided in the dockyards. It occurred to me that as a new appointment has been, or is about to be, made, some desirable change might be effected, and the First Lord of the Admiralty would be able to give us some information on these points.
  MR. FORWOOD: With reference to the question of the sale of ships, may I point out that an old mercantile ship can be devoted to a great many useful purposes, but an old obsolete warship can be turned to little or no account whatever and must be broken up. My desire has been to extend the area of competition for old warships and increase the number of buyers. When a number of vessels are condemned as obsolete the list is advertised, and particulars are sent to every firm in the kingdom
  176
  known to be likely to deal in old ships and old materials, and in that way we have been able largely to increase the number of buyers. I do not think the Engineer-in-Chief has an unnecessarily large amount of clerical work to do. He could not possibly look over every vessel that requires repairs; there must be a division of labour, and that division is so arranged as to throw the more important work of designing the new ships and their engines on the Engineer-in-Chief, making him likewise responsible for re-engining vessels and all important works, but leaving the minor matters to his assistants.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: With regard to the position of the Accountant General, we have endeavoured to make an arrangement by which a direct control over financial matters will be kept by a permanent official. I agree that the Admiralty and the country are much indebted to the exertions of the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. The result of his untiring energy has been apparent in every branch of the Admiralty; and I hope that it may be possible that the Admiralty should continue to have the benefit of the arrangements suggested by his ability and energy, even if it should lose his services as Financial Secretary. With regard to the competition of private firms for the services of eminent technical officers, I am decidedly of opinion that everything possible should be done to retain the services of such officers for the Navy. In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee I may point out it would be contrary to practice to lay on the table the Report of the inquiry into the loss of the Sultan, and I cannot promise that it will be done in the present case. The proceedings, however, were public, the Press being present.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I agree that the question of the remuneration of high technical officers in Public Departments is one of great difficulty, and that the salaries which are granted to those officers cannot compare with the amounts paid by private corporations for similar services, but I doubt if we could hope to compete with those enormous salaries. At the same time, it is desirable that the salaries of these high technical officers should be such as to enable the Admiralty to retain the services of those officials; and I am inclined

  177
  to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston that the position of Engineer-in-Chief with reference to the duties and responsibilities of the office does not compare favourably with other appointments at the Admiralty. On the contrary, the pay is very inadequate, and I hope that when on some future occasion the salaries are being discussed the First Lord of the Admiralty will bear this in mind. With regard to the Accountant General, I do not understand that the noble Lord has made any real change in what was the original design when the Order in Council was first framed. My impression is that it was intended that the Accountant General should be a permanent financial officer immediately under the Financial Secretary, with supervision and power to control the expenditure of every kind throughout the Admiralty. I am glad, at any rate, that the noble Lord has reverted to the original intention of the Order. With regard to the autumn manœuvres, I have nothing to say against them. I think the results have indeed been of a very valuable character, and I shall be glad to see the manœuvres repeated during the coming autumn. I do not wish the House to imagine for a moment that I have any objection to offer to those manœuvres.
  Vote agreed to.
  14. £78,900, Half Pay.
  15. £718,500, Reserved and Retired Pay.
  16. £757,700, Naval Pensions.
  17. £168,300, Widows' Pensions and Compassionate Allowances.
  18. £336,300, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
  MR. CHANNING: Upon this Vote, if I am in order, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord with regard to considerable services rendered by a distinguished naval officer. I would ask the noble Lord if adequate recognition has been made of the value of the flashing system of signalling, the invention of Admiral Columb in 1861, and adopted in Her Majesty's Fleet some five or six years afterwards? The value of this system of signalling at night during fog has been recognized by experienced men in the Navy and in
  178
  the Merchant Service, and there can be no doubt that it has been most useful in securing the safety of vessels in thick weather. In the recommendations of the Board of Trade Committee on Signalling at Sea a similar system was suggested for the Merchant Service. Has the Admiralty in any sufficient way recognized the value of the invention?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Personally, I willingly recognize the distinguished services rendered by the officer mentioned, not only in regard to the flash system of signalling, but in regard to other services rendered to the Navy. Certain compensation or remuneration was awarded, and whether sufficient or not it was the subject of long correspondence between the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Treasury, and we must assume the decision arrived at was final. But I quite admit that this is one of those cases where services rendered entitle the gallant officer to special distinction, and I will avail myself of any legitimate opportunity for the purpose.
  Vote agreed to.

  ARMY ESTIMATES.
  19. £477,600 Army Reserve Force (including Enrolled Pensioners).
  20. £668,400, Transport and Remounts.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: I should like to ask one or two questions on this very important Vote. In the first place, I should like to know what has been done in regard to providing transport for two Army Corps. My right hon. Friend told us last year that he was making arrangements by which this transport should be forthcoming, and I am anxious to know how far these arrangements have been carried out. There is no question of the importance of this if the necessity for our Army Corps taking the field should arise. I should also like to know whether the new system of providing remounts for the cavalry is as successful as has been reported. I understand that General Ravenshill has done his work remarkably well, and that the new remounts are as good as those formerly provided by colonels of regiments. I should like to have it on authority if that is the case. Then I should also like to have some information as to the

  179
  result of the system of registering horses by the annual payment of 10s. per head. It is important to know how far this has been successful, and will have a great bearing upon the ability of a force to take the field should complications in Europe make it necessary, and we are bound to hold ourselves prepared for any emergency.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am very glad my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity of saying a few words on the subjects he has mentioned. First, in regard to the remounts, I am glad to say that my sanguine expectations as to the new system have been amply fulfilled. The greatest credit is due to General Ravenshill and those who assisted him for the way in which they have carried out the duties of a somewhat novel character entrusted to them. It may be remembered that last year we registered 7,000 horses, and of those more than 1,000 were riding horses available for cavalry if required. This year we have applied to the owners of those horses to know if they are willing to register them for a second year, and with hardly an exception they have agreed to do so; only a very small proportion, due to various causes, is to be taken off the number. With the registration of 7,000 other animals this year, after the examination has been completed, I have not the smallest doubt that, humanly speaking, we shall have 14,000 horses available, and amongst these a considerable proportion of horses fit for cavalry purposes. The system has worked exceedingly well, and has surmounted one of the greatest difficulties we have had to encounter for years past. As to the transport, I should like to say that very careful attention has been given to it, and supposing that we should have to mobilize an Army Corps we should find it fully equipped in this respect, and much progress has been made towards providing transport for a second Army Corps. For foreign service matters are not so complete, but they are proceeding in the right direction; and I think that since the subject was taken up two years ago, the progress which has been made is thoroughly satisfactory.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many merchant ships are under engagements for the
  180
  purpose of transport, and what is thei average and highest rate of speed?
  MR. STANHOPE: As the hon. Gentleman is aware we are well provided with troopships, but exclusive of these there are no merchantships under engagement for the transport of troops. There is very little doubt that they would be available at very short notice should occasion arise.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I was under the impression that there were merchant ships receiving a subsidy in order that they might be available for the conveyance of guns and troops should they be required.
  MR. STANHOPE: The hon. Member is referring to a matter which rather concerns the Admiralty, and the arrangements by that Department in the case of war for the carrying of guns has nothing to do with the War Office and is a question which should be addressed to my noble Friend.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: Then I understand there are no merchant ships under engagement for the purpose of transport?
  MR. STANHOPE: It entirely rests with the Admiralty to make the contracts, and I am not able to speak from personal knowledge. But I have no doubt that the Admiralty have made arrangements for any emergency.
  Vote agreed to.
  21. £2,605,000, Provisions, Forage, &c.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: I should like to just say a few words on this very important Vote. It is only right that we should hear from the Secretary for War what steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations in the Report of the Committee in relation to this subject, and there are one or two questions I should like to put in regard to it. Before doing so it is scarcely necessary for me to insist upon the importance of having our soldiers properly and well fed, and also of the food that is given to them being better cooked than it has been in past years. You cannot expect young and growing lads to do the hard work they are called upon to perform unless they are properly fed; and I feel that many crimes that are committed have arisen through men not receiving what they think is a sufficient maintainence for them, and therefore going to the

  181
  public house. One of the first remarks made in this Report has relation to the meat supplied, and the Committee say that while in the larger stations it is fairly good in quality, in the smaller stations there is much reason to complain that the soldiers do not get the quality of meat they have a right to expect. There is no doubt that contractors, in many instances at the smaller stations, do really buy inferior meat, knowing that they can dispose of it to the Army and to the Navy, and that it will always command the contract price. Now this certainly ought not to be. I think there ought to be a most careful inspection, and I do not see how that inspection can be thorough unless it is carried out by men who have a knowledge of what good meat is—who know what a good sheep or beast is when they see it. I have had some opportunity of knowing how stores are supplied. I recollect that when I was at Limerick I was Chairman of a Board appointed to examine some preserved meat, and we were asked to pass a quantity with 5 or 6 samples open before us. But I immediately said "This will not do at all," and I directed that this, that, and the other should be opened. And the result was that we cast the whole quantity, and most righteously and properly we did so, for it was all bad, though the prepared samples were good. The next thing to which attention should be called is bread, and I shall not be contradicted when I insist upon the importance of this to the people from whom soldiers are recruited. The working classes always demand good bread, and they say, and very truly say, that it goes much further than that of inferior quality. If that is the case, certainly the claim of the soldier to have good bread is one that cannot be overlooked. A third question has relation to cooking and cooking-ranges. We know that in olden days there was much to be complained of in these respects. It is one of the things that in this country we fail over more than anything else, and we know that many men among the poorer classes are driven from their homes to the public-house by bad cooking. I will not go into every question that is touched upon in the Report of the Committee; but I will conclude by insisting
  182
  upon the necessity of an improvement in regard to cooking and cooking-ranges. This, after providing the men with really good food, is an absolute necessity, and I hope we shall got some satisfactory information from my right hon. Friend on these points.
  MR. HANBURY: I have not read the Report of the Committee in relation to these matters, but there is just one point I should like to raise before the right hon. Gentleman replies. I think the War Office ought to know that the price paid for meat is in some cases ridiculously low—namely, 4½d. or even 4¼d. per lb. It is bad enough if the men have the whole of that; but I understand that out of this it is possible for the officers and non-commissioned officers to purchase what they require at contract price, and of course the contractors give them the best of it. [Cries of "No."] I ask whether that is the fact? If it is it ought to be put a stop to.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am sorry that, owing to the late issue of the Report, my hon. Friend has not had an opportunity of seeing some of the passages it contains. The War Office have taken up during the present year the question of the purchasing of contract meat by officers and non-commissioned officers, and a distinct order has been issued by the Quartermaster General that it is no longer to be allowed. The price paid for meat does, no doubt, seem extraordinary till the Report of the Committee distinctly stated that, at the larger stations at any rate, the quality is excellent, though at some of the smaller stations it is not so. The Report makes various recommendations, and among others that the regimental officers should interest themselves in those matters. I believe that regimental officers are at the present time taking greater interest in those matters than at any other period in the history of this country, and that close personal interest must result in great improvement. My hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned the question of cooking. That matter also has been taken up in all the regiments in the Army. I am afraid the cooking ranges are not in all cases suitable. That is a matter I hope to deal with along with improved barrack accommodation. It is a very grave matter, and it affects

  183
  the comfort of the private soldier perhaps more than anything else. The question of bread also has been reported upon by the Committee, who mentioned two matters—first, the division of bread into smaller loaves. That I have already sanctioned. It is also suggested that different qualities of flour should be issued, but that question requires more consideration, and some persons think the flour at present issued is good enough for the purpose if properly dealt with, and I propose to await the result of dividing the bread into smaller loaves before I come to a decision on the subject. I desire to express the debt of gratitude I owe to the Members of this House who took part in the inquiry. The hon. Member for Exeter, who was the Chairman, and others devoted immense pains and very great attention to this very important subject, and I think they deserve the gratitude of the Committee and the country.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: The biscuits supplied to the men in the Navy are made from the best wheat. Surely the bread supplied to our soldiers should be equally good.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: As I have said, this is a question upon which I think it right at present to reserve a decision.
  LIEUTENANT - GENERAL FRASER: My experience may be my excuse for occupying a few minutes. It is 42 years since I joined the Army, and during all that time there has been strong reason to complain of the treatment of the troops in the matter of diet by the War Office. When I say that as an Inspecting General officer the men's dinners have been shown to me, consisting of three quarters of a pound of meat for each man, to last him with one pound of bread for 24 hours, and the meat bad itself, and including gristle and bone, I think the hon. Member for Preston will agree with me that the officers of the regiments are not likely to take tit-bits from the soldiers' rations with avidity. The simple fact is that thousands of complaints in past years of the quality of the rations, and their insufficiency, as well as inferior quality of the coals, candles, forage, &c., have been forwarded to successive Governments, and that no Government had listened to the representations. I can give many in-
  184
  stances of the delay, trouble, and expense of representing matters to the War Office. I will ask to give one. A few years back I was commanding the 11th Hussars in Dublin. The escort to the Prince of Wales came into quarters in the night wet through; the horses had to be groomed and done up. There being no gas, the officer bought candles, the cost being 2s. 8d. This outlay led to a long and ardent correspondence from the War Office before it was grudgingly admitted. The interest of officers in their men is not new born! I protested against the blame thrown by implication on generations of officers who had devoted their lives to improving the condition of their men, and predicted that military Members would be listened to with more attention in the future.
  MR. COSSHAM: I trust that to effort will be spared to improve ne cooking of soldiers' food, for I hold that good cooking is essential for our social comfort and the improvement of the culture of the people.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: Though, no doubt, it is right to take precautions to prevent the best pieces of meat being given to officers or married people when the meat is contracted for, I do not think that in any well-regulated regiment in the Army this can happen, as care is taken that there are separate issues of complete carcases.
  MAJOR RASCH: I do not wish to offer my opinion as against that of the Ration Committee, but having had to pass rations myself I have to some extent gone into this question. I cannot help thinking that the Committee began at the wrong end—that they put the cart before the horse to some extent by going into quality instead of quantity. It is all very well to go into the question of cooking, but we should first see that the soldiers have something to cook. At the present time the soldier gets one pound of bread and three-quarters of a pound of meat weighed out to him with the bone daily. The meat is weighed out to him with the hocks and knees. They might just as well weigh in the hoofs and horns whilst they are about it—for, instead of getting three-quarters of a pound of solid meat, he thus gets not more than three mouthfuls. The Secretary of State for War has instituted a system of physical drill which takes it

  185
  out of the young soldier, and when the drill is over the soldier finds no Government rations at the barracks, and therefore fills himself out with beer, and possibly there is a crime against him next morning. The soldier has no Government ration from one o'clock in the day until seven o'clock the next morning. The small quantity of food issued to the soldier is, in my opinion, one of the great incentives to crime in the Army. Our men only get 55 per cent of the quantity of food served out to the Russian soldiers. I am aware that the Secretary for War will say that our Army has existed for so many years on the present rations, but I ask any hon. Member, who thinks that the proper amount of food is allowed to our soldiers, himself to try the ration between now and September, and if he does I will undertake to say that when the Appropriation Bill comes on we shall find him on our side.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: If hon. Members would look at the Report of the Rations Committee they would find this matter exhaustively dealt with. That Committee carefully examined into the matter, and reported as to the quantity of food supplied to the soldier. Experience shows that recruits gain enormously in general condition, strength, and breadth of chest on the present rations.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I desire to say that the Committee, of which I was a member, went very carefully into the question of rations, and elicited from many sources information as to what was best for the soldier. We came to the unanimous conclusion that if the rations and the money allowed were properly utilized there is sufficient for the soldier. We found that the bread, when it is prepared in 2lb. loaves in the way suggested, is perfectly good and sweet at the end of a week. Formerly the articles supplied in some of the smaller stations were not as good as they ought to have been. The Committee thought that whatever was given to the soldier ought to be of the best quality. We found that the soldiers make no use of the meat bones, and that a great deal of valuable nutriment is thrown away. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen, who has taken a great interest in this matter, noticed when he was in the
  186
  Service that this was the practice. The hon. Member was examined before the Committee, and in their Report they were unanimous in stating that the food given was sufficient for the soldier if properly utilized. It had not theretofore been properly utilized. I do not blame the officers for the food not being properly utilized, because they are not properly instructed. I blame the system; and, I think, that if the Secretary of State for War looks into the matter in future the country will not have any cause to complain that the soldier is in any way underfed. There is no doubt a very general feeling that the officers and non-commissioned officers get the pick of the joints; but in well regulated regiments that is prevented. In a regiment I belonged to the colonel would not allow the contractor to provide for the mess as he said that if he did it would be suspected, however unjustly, that the officers got the pick of the joints. We know that the price paid for meat in the Army is low, but if the quality is bad it should be rejected by those who have to pass it, and the contractors, we may be sure will not long continue supplying meat at a loss. I am of opinion that everything will be right in the future if the War Office will pay attention to the recommendations of the Committee on Rations. The Members of the Committee were very pleased to find that before they were appointed some of the observations made in the House had been paid attention to by the Secretary of State for War.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I should like to ask whether it is a fact, as stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Essex, that the soldier receives no Government ration between one o'clock in the day and seven o'clock next morning?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: If the hon. Gentleman will consult the Report of the Committee, he will see that the amount of food supplied is amply sufficient for the soldier's wants.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I ask for a direct answer to my question.
  MR. BRODRICK: There is a fund in every regiment out of which tea is provided at 5 or 6 o'clock for the soldiers. The matter was discussed in the Report to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
  MR. CAUSTON: I must say I think the Secretary of State for War should say without asking us to read the Report of the Committee whether the statement is correct that the soldier has no food served out to him from 1o'clock in the day until 7o'clock next morning. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Essex, who has himself been in the Army, has pointed out the evils which exist under the present arrangement, and I think we are entitled to a full answer from the Secretary of State.
  MAJOR RASCH: As I have said, the Government ration is three-quarters of a pound of meat and one pound of bread. If the soldier saves his bread he has something left over for tea; but the bread and meat is generally consumed long before the meal called tea. In certain regiments a charge is made on the soldier's pay and an extra quarter of a pound of bread is provided, but this system is not carried out by the Government nor in every regiment, and many of the soldiers have to go without anything to eat—unless they buy it themselves—until seven in the morning.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Practically, then, it amounts to this, that many soldiers have nothing to eat between one o'clock and seven o'clock the next morning.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I do not think anyone can doubt that a more impartial Committee could have been appointed, or one that was more likely to consider the true interests of the soldiers, and they say that under proper arrangements the present ration is sufficient. I say that the arrangements now are proper.
  SIR F. FITZWYGRAM: The great evil of the present system arises from the early hour at which the soldiers get their evening meal. In many regiments it is the custom to serve it out at five o'clock in the evening, and the consequence is that the soldier has to go without food for a long period. I think that if in no case was the evening meal served out till seven o'clock it would be a great improvement. I am of opinion, however, that the present ration is sufficient for the soldier, if no robbery, either in weight or quality, takes place.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: The great difficulty about serving out the evening meal as late as seven o'clock is that the men on some stations will not come back to eat it. In most well-regulated regiments there is what they call a dry canteen where the men can get something to eat at night if they choose. What commanding officers have to do is to see that when men return to barracks at night they are able to get bread and cheese, or soup, or something of that sort. If the recommendations of the Committee are carried out I feel sure the soldier will be well-fed.
  Vote agreed to.
  22. £945,600, Clothing Establishments, Services and Supplies.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War will go fully into the question of clothing and see that the troops have good clothing, not only as regards to material but as regards the pattern. The materials of the greatcoats should be the best, because a man's life very often depends upon his having a good greatcoat. The under-clothing should also be good, and, the pants should be such as will stand a great deal of wear. I mention these matters because, though apparently small, they are matters of vital importance.
  MR. HANBURY: If my right hon. Friend recollects, the Reports of the medical officers nearly all complained: of the poor clothing of the recruits in the winter. Nearly every Report distinctly alludes to the fact that a great deal of consumption and chest complaints in the Army is due to that fact. It seems to be a very poor economy indeed. The clothing establishment at Pimlico is a most expensive establishment. In the first place it is in a position where the land is extremely valuable and could be sold by the foot. There are no poor people living in the neighbourhood, and they have to come from long distances, and have to be paid extra wages in consequence. I do believe that if my right hon. Friend sold the Pimlico establishment altogether and: transferred it to a place where the land is less valuable, he would have to pay cheaper wages and effect a great saving to the country. It seems to me mon-

  189
  strous to have an establishment of the Government in a more or less fashionable quarter like the present.
  MR. BRODRICK: My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the question of the clothing of the recruits requires attention. The attention of the War Office has already been called to the point, especially with regard to young soldiers returning from foreign climates, or recruits who have just joined; and under the regulations there is a discretionary power to issue extra clothing or an undress suit. With reference to the Army clothing factory at Pimlico, there is no doubt that it is very conveniently situated, and to remove it would be a very great alteration. It is very accessible, in case of war, for the rapid transport of clothing to stations where it would be required. That is a consideration which should not be altogether disregarded in view of the rapidity with which large numbers of men's clothing would have to be transported abroad in ease of the outbreak of hostilities.
  MR. HANBURY: This matter has been mentioned in two or three Reports, and it is not enough to tell me that attention has been called to the matter. I know what that means. I am not satisfied with that answer. I want to know whether as a matter of fact this clothing is going to be supplied to the recruits.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I beg to say that it was in consequence of the Reports of the medical officers that the special attention of commanding officers was called to this subject, and I believe that proper care will now be taken, at any rate ought to be taken by the commanding officers, who are responsible. One matter of importance is the proper clothing of recruits when they return from foreign service. Steps are being taken to ensure that the men who come from foreign service shall be supplied with warm clothing to enable them to withstand the rigours of this climate after coming from a warm climate.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I believe that it is a matter of great importance that the young men should be supplied with warm clothing, both as recruits, and on returning to this country.
  Vote agreed to.
  23. £1,808,000, Warlike and other Stores—Supply and Repair.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: This Vote 12 is one of the Votes which was mentioned in the Royal Commission of which I had the honour to be a Member. And Votes 1 and 12 were the very Votes which were always manipulated when the Government wished to reduce expenditure in the Army. Everyone knows that these are the Votes for which the money was taken. I hope a better state of things is now about to arise. There are many other Votes which might well be manipulated. The War Office Vote itself and other Votes must be reduced considerably, but to reduce either Votes 1 or 12 is the most monstrous things that could be done. I am not alluding to one Government more than another. It has been systematically done. Vote 12 has almost always suffered. We know that at one time we had nothing in store, and we were obliged to use moneys, voted by this House for other purposes, to replenish those stores which had been depleted for the sake of keeping down the expenditure of the Army, and in order to show that the Government of the day was economical in every way. You could not have a more false economy. I see that for guns and carriages £207,340 is taken as against £140,490, and that increase suggests various questions. This is one of the most important Votes we have got to deal with, and I should like to ask my hon. Friend with regard to the increased amount of it whether the Horse Artillery and Field Batteries are all armed, or are about to be armed, with the new 12-pounder gun which is said to be the best gun in the world. My right hon. Friend told us that a certain number of horse artillery and field batteries were armed. I should like to know whether the whole have been armed. I should like also to know what progress has been made with the arming of our coaling stations. We were told that Gibraltar and Malta were in a most deplorable state for want of arms and guns of precision. The Commander-in-Chief has been to see the exact state of things at those stations, and I hope my right hon. Friend will, be able to say that our Mediterranean.

  191
  forts are in such a position as to insure the safety of our road to India and the colonies. There are other stations which have been sadly neglected, especially the Cape, and I should like to know in what position those stations now are? I think my right hon. Friend will agree that these are matters which cannot be put off, and that the safety of our fleet is at stake if they have not these stations to go into for coaling purposes, when they are defending our mercantile marine. I would like also to ask my right hon. Friend whether our great dockyards have been properly armed—Plymouth, Portsmouth, Sheerness, and other places? We have been told quite lately that these forts have not been provided with all the guns which ought to have been there, and we know that it was necessary, in sending some ships to sea, to take the guns from these forts and put them into the ships which did not get their proper guns. I should also like to know how many of the new rifles have been made, and whether any have yet been served out to the troops? This new repeating rifle, we are told, is the best that has been yet invented, and that there is no nation in the world that has got anything like so good a weapon. I should also like to know when the whole complement necessary to arm our regular forces will be completed. I asked yesterday whether the ammunition for the Militia was to be a different ammunition, or is to be the same as that served out to the regular forces. My belief is that it is not. I think it would be dangerous to adopt that course, because you might have to send abroad your militia, and if you had different ammunition to that of the regular forces most disastrous consequences might ensue to us at certain times, and under certain circumstances. I have asked these questions because I look upon this Vote as of the gravest importance, and I hope the statements we shall hear from the Secretary of State will be satisfactory to the Committee and to the country.
  COLONEL EYRE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether if a war occurred we have sufficient gunpowder for our armaments, without depending upon foreign sources for a
  192
  supply. It is very important that our men should be properly fed and clothed, and it is also essential that we should provide ourselves with an efficient home artillery.
  GENERAL FRASER: I trust that the Committee may be informed as to the present Armament of the Royal Artillery in India. It may be remembered that two years back the distinguished and anonymous General Officer who recommended the Horse Artillery reductions to the Secretary of State for War sneered at the Horse Artillery gun, and that we proved to him that there were no less than 62 field batteries equipped with the very same gun.
  MR. HANBURY: With regard to the new magazine rifles, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what the payment for patents has been, because a rather curious question arises in connection with it. We discover that a good many of them have been taken out by persons in Government employment, and who have access to Government information. It is a very important question how far those Government servants ought to be rewarded for inventions that had to be worked out in Government time. Very large claims have been made for payment in respect of these patents, but I cannot believe for a moment that my right hon. Friend has recognized those claims, if made by Government servants. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me the exact sum paid.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I trust and believe the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a satisfactory answer as to the progress that has been made in arming the Field and Horse Artillery, which for a long time I have considered the most important branch of the services that are included in this Vote. In urgency and importance I put it even above the Magazine rifle, for after all our Infantry is armed at present with the Martini-Henry, which will compare favourably with the weapons of other countries, but in respect of the guns of our Field and Horse Artillery, we are lamentably behind the position which we ought to occupy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a satisfactory answer on that score. I listened with much interest, and a considerable amount of

  193
  sympathy, to the homily of my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir W. Barttelot), which he gave us by way of preamble to his observations. I agree that stores ought not to be depleted for what we may call political purposes, but at the same time I think it is right to protest against the idea that there is any particular advantage gained by exaggerated reserves of all sorts of stores. I never heard the true doctrine better laid down than by the First Lord of the Admiralty to - night. The true doctrine ought to be that we should maintain the fullest reserves that can be required of stores that do not perish while stored, and which take a long time to replace. But there can be no greater mistake than to heap up stores for the sake of giving ourselves the satisfaction of knowing that we have got a great quantity of stores, though they are perishable, or can be easily obtained. It is rather the habit I am afraid in military circles to say that we should have a large supply of every requisite, so that at any moment the Army may be sent on active service. And in naval circles it is the same thing. With regard to those articles which take a long time to manufacture, which are difficult to obtain, which can be kept in store without damage, and are not apt to become obsolete, the demand for a full reserve is reasonable enough; but on many of the most notorious occasions in which stores have been rapidly depleted, the process has been one of weeding out absolutely useless stores, and stores which it was much more desirable in the interest of the public service should be obtained at the time they were required.
  MR. STANHOPE: I desire to express my entire concurrence in the views of the right hon. Gentleman as to the principle on which we should keep our stores. I never desired for one moment to go beyond that, although I admit at the present moment we have hardly reached the point in respect of the Army when we can rest and be satisfied. I have endeavoured to check, as far as possible, any desire to extend our reserves of perishable stores, which would be a very great mistake. We are doing all we can to promote the centralization of stores and to facilitate the mobilization of the Forces. With reference to India
  194
  I have no control over the orders of the Indian Government, but, as the recipient of those orders I happen to know that the Indian Government have ordered an enormous number of 12-pounder guns; and I believe that in a short time the Army in India will be armed with those guns. With regard to the coaling stations, practically the armament of the coaling stations has been carried out under the loan of last year, with the exception that a sum of £250,000 or £300,000, will be found in the Estimates for the purpose of providing light arms and ammunition. There has been some delay in those armaments, especially in regard to the larger type of guns, owing to the heavy demands of the Navy, because on all occasions I have never hesitated to place the claims of the Navy first. Nevertheless, in spite of the demands of the Navy, progress is being made, and I trust that some of the particular difficulties encountered in the course of the last few years have now been surmounted. I have to express my deep sense of the obligation the War Office is under to the colony of Singapore to provide them with guns as soon as possible. Some guns are going out almost immediately, and the whole of the guns for Singapore will go out within a few weeks. With regard to the more important coaling stations, I hope that during the current year a considerable number of big guns for their defences will go out, the smaller armaments being already almost all in their places, while the 6-in. guns for the minor coaling stations are also being proceeded with, and, indeed, we have received them from the contractors. In the defences at home, too, good progress is being made. Without going into details, I may say that Portsmouth is very much stronger than it was last year, while in the case of the Thames somewhat larger armaments are contemplated than were originally thought of under the plan proposed last year. The manufacture of the magazine rifle is proceeding very satisfactorily, but I cannot say we have a large number of completed weapons at the present moment. We are, however, under contract to allow certain contractors to carry on the manufacture of Martini-Henry rifles until they are in a position to give

  195
  effect to the manufacture of magazine rifles; but they are manufacturing those rifles of such a bore that when we have the magazine rifle we shall also have a considerable number of Martini-Henrys of the new bore which will carry exactly the same ammunition as the magazine rifle, and which we shall be able, in case of emergency, to issue to the regular troops. With regard to the patterns for the new rifle, I do not intend to allow the country to be saddled with any payment until I am satisfied that a distinct invention had been made by which the country would profit.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I am afraid the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the new rifle cannot be considered satisfactory, that being in my opinion the first and most important weapon of the Army at the present day. As to the Martini-Henry that is a fairly good rifle compared with other breech-loaders; but to compare it with the magazine rifle would be like comparing the old muzzle-loading rifle with the breech-loading weapons by which it was succeeded. Had we adopted the magazine rifle 20 years ago, the military history of this country during that period would have been very different, and the country would have been put to far less expenditure. I say unhesitatingly that the first requisite for the troops of the present day is the magazine rifle. There is a danger to be guarded against of contractors trying to defer its construction if allowed to continue making Martini-Henrys.
  MR. HANBURY: I wish to put a question to my right hon. Friend the secretary for War with reference to the case of the man Dunn at Woolwich. It was owing to his investigations that I was able to disclose certain discreditable transactions in regard to the stores at Woolwich. That man was enabled to bring out the whole of the information then put forward in spite of the strongest opposition on the part of his superior officers and yet, having done so much public service, he has been punished instead of being- rewarded. The Judge Advocate General said he was even a better man than Spice, who was getting higher wages, and yet Dunn has been twice passed over in the matter of promotion by men whom he had been
  196
  the means of exposing. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to protect that man and see that he is not subjected to the tyranny of those whose want of technical knowledge—I will not say, malpractices—he exposed. So far as I know there is no possible explanation of that fact except that this man has in the interests of the country exposed certain evils which came under his notice. It is said that he has been offered a post elsewhere. But, Sir, as a fact, he has not been offered a post of the value of the membership to which he is entitled. Why, I should like to know, do you want to get rid of this man? The Judge Advocate General reported very strongly in favour of Dunn being promoted, and he is in fact the very man who in the interests of the country ought to be kept in this particular Department. Only one reason has been alleged for keeping this man back from promotion, and I do not say that that is a reason which the right hon. Gentleman below me would be likely to father—I do not think he would support such a shabby suggestion, but still it has been put into his mouth by the enemies of this deserving workman. It is this, that since these occurrences he revealed to me a fact which he certainly was entitled to reveal, because he had made remonstrances on the subject to his superior officers without avail, and, that being the case, he had no right in the public interest, to let the public know what he had to disclose. Now he found that some hair for hospital beds, in which there was a great deal of blood and which also was very inferior material, was being used for the padding and stuffing of saddles. Now for such work it is important that good hair should be used, and I do not think anyone will say that hair from hospital beds ought to be utilized for the purpose. I asked a question about the matter in this House. Dunn had described the hair to me as being dirty and not fit to be used. Inquiry was made and a quantity of hair was picked out without Dunn having any opportunity of selecting any of it himself.
  MR. BRODRICK: I may say that I was the person who went down to Woolwich in order to inquire into this matter. I requested Dunn to accompany me, and he did so and picked

  197
  out some of the hair with his own hands.
  MR. HANBURY: That is in direct contradiction to what I have been informed. But that is not all. The hair was sent not to an independent expert but to a man who acted as foreman to a firm which was contracting under another Government Department, and he said that the hair was good for the purpose for which it was used. Now it appears to me that Dunn is being kept back from promotion simply because he gave me what is called "bad information," and because he meddled in a matter in which he had no interest. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend would be a party to such treatment of the man. Undoubtedly he has done a great public service. The Judge Advocate General declared him to be a man thoroughly fitted for promotion, yet he has twice been passed over in the natural course, and for nothing but the somewhat shabby reason which I have already explained. I hope I shall have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in this matter. It is not raised in a controversial spirit, and I do think we ought to err rather on the side of generosity to a poor man who, in spite of tremendous odds, has done a great public service. I trust, therefore, that unless strong reasons are shown for keeping the man back, my hon. Friend will remedy this injustice.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Two or three questions have been addressed to me which I should like to answer at once. First with regard of the supply of gunpowder I am glad to be able to state that I have now made arrangements by which we are able to get all our gunpowder at home. I have not heard any complaints of it, and I believe it is of a satisfactory character. Next, as to the new rifles, I am confident that the contractors are desirous of pushing forward the new rifle. I believe that the delay has been mainly on the side of the War Office, though it was unavoidable. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Preston, the Committee will remember the circumstances under which the case was brought forward. My hon. Friend seems to think he was the originator of the inquiry, and that he disclosed the scandals, but
  198
  my recollection is that that inquiry was directed by myself the moment the Royal Commission of Sir James Fitz-James Stephen reported that it needed investigation. On that I asked the Judge Advocate General to hold the inquiry, and he did so in a thoroughly impartial spirit. The result of the inquiry was laid on the Table, and on it my hon. Friend based a very bitter attack on the Department of which I am the head. Now, Dunn and Moody were the men most instrumental in bringing the facts referred to to light, and the suggestion is that they have enemies in the Department who desire to keep them back and prevent them being promoted. But what are the facts? Moody has been promoted; he has been selected as a thoroughly good and competent man, and he has been promoted to the position of foreman. The case of Dunn is different. Dunn has not been in the same way reported for promotion by those under whom he serves. I have taken special care that Dunn's proceedings in every respect and the work he is doing shall be periodically reported to me, and I have seen the officers under whom he is serving. Last year a circumstance arose which told against him, and that was the question of the hair. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was present when Dunn made a selection, and he testified that the hair was taken out in a thoroughly fair and legitimate manner and submitted to an expert selected with the utmost care who reported that Dunn's complaints were without foundation, and the hair was thoroughly fit for the public service. It is possible that Dunn made a mistake in this matter. I do not want to judge him harshly. I am afraid he has been encouraged by my hon. Friend and other people, and that he has acted too hastily. But in consequence of that simple act I should not for a moment think of saying he was unfit for promotion. He may have honestly made a mistake. I am perfectly willing that he shall be promoted as soon as he is reported fit for it. We have already offered him an advance in his wages. One of the offers would have removed him from the shop in which he is now working to another shop where he would have undoubtedly earned more wages. But he did not

  199
  think fit to accept either of these promotions. I leave it to the House to say, under these circumstances, whether I have treated him otherwise than fairly. When he is fit for promotion, he shall have it.
  MR. HANBURY: I have no wish whatever to bring my right hon. Friend and Dunn into collision as to what happened at Woolwich in regard to this question of the use of hair from hospital beds, but the main facts remain undisputed. The man Dunn said that hair from hospital beds was being used for the padding of saddles. It is now admitted that it was used, and I do not think that any one will say that such material was the proper stuff to use. My right hon. Friend cannot indeed deny that that stuff is still being used at the present moment, and therefore it is no good his attempting to draw a red herring across the scent, and to try to lead us away from the main point. I say that Dunn was absolutely correct when he said that this hair from hospital beds was not the proper material to be used for the stuffing of cavalry saddles. Then the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has not had any report from Woolwich saying that Dunn is fit for promotion; but we have the actual fact that he has already been offered another post, and in addition to that we know that he actually acted as a viewer for several months without a single complaint being made against him. The Judge Advocate General specially reported him as a man who ought to be promoted, and added that he had more knowledge of this work than the very man on whose report apparently his promotion is made to depend. I refer to Inspector Spice, who is the man who practically has to recommend Dunn for promotion, for he is his immediate superior, and I do protest against Dunn 's fate being left in his hands.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: As one of the persons who may be accused of having egged Dunn on in this matter, may I venture to say that there was no egging on whatsoever in regard to this particular case. We have on more than one occasion been able to bring under the attention of the Government facts in connection with Public Departments which have
  200
  exposed radical wrongs, and time after time it has been admitted that information obtained from men like Dunn has proved very accurate indeed. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has met the case quite fairly. It has been admitted by the Judge Advocate General's Committee that he was equal to the position of viewer. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has not received the necessary information with regard to Dunn which would entitle him to promotion. Afterwards he told us that offers had been made to Dunn which would have placed him in a better position than the one he now holds, but that he declined to accept them. Why did Dunn decline? Because, Sir, he considered that they were offered to him, in order to shelve him from the legitimate promotion to which he was entitled, and he thinks he ought not to be deprived of that promotion simply because he has done his duty to the country. If he is not worthy of promotion why have these offers been made to him? I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will take a broad and generous view of this man's case, for whenever a. public servant—however humble the position he holds—does a great public service, he ought not to suffer for his action. The opinion 'at Woolwich among the Dockyard employés is that Dunn is suffering for what he attempted to do in the public interest, and if you look at the local press there, you will see that they take a similar view of his-position, and will make it clear to the employés in the public service that Dunn is not to suffer for the action he has taken.
  Vote agreed to.
  24. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £715,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Engineer Works, Buildings, and repairs at home and abroad (including purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890."
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it only right on this Vote that I should ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us any information as to what he proposes to do in regard to his new barracks scheme. He told

  201
  us in the beginning of the Session that he had a scheme in hand for the erection of new barracks, and he greatly disturbed the equanimity of many of us when he intimated that in the course of the Session he would be obliged to make a proposal to Parliament for a loan to meet this expenditure. Since then we have heard nothing of it, and I hope he will give us some information on the subject.
  MAJOR-GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I hope that the Secretary for War will be able to tell the Committee something satisfactory. Many of our barracks are a disgrace to the country, and the health of the men might be improved and crime prevented if the men were well lodged. It is not so much the new barracks which are complained of as the very old ones and temporary huts and like structures which they have to put up with. I trust also that special attention will be paid to recreation rooms and the provision of coffee bars, so that the men may be as comfortable as in civil life. I do not go so far as Lord Wolseley in advocating conscription, but every reasonable inducement should be offered men to join the Army, and I think it would be a very good thing if a larger number of men could be induced to enlist in the Army, if only for a short period, for they might go hack to civil life mentally, morally, and physically improved. Nothing would tend so much to the attainment of this end as the provision of good barracks.
  MR. STANHOPE: I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman has called attention to this matter; and I am sorry that I have been obliged to delay my statement so long. But my examination of the question was attended with great difficulty, and I felt it my duty to ascertain all the data, and to proceed upon careful Estimates of what was wanted. As it is I am afraid that I may not be able this Session to present any general scheme. It may be that the remainder of the Session will not be long enough to make an exhaustive inquiry, but I do at once propose to make a beginning; and a portion of the scheme will be presented in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. For example, I could not reconcile it with
  202
  my conscience to leave Dublin Barracks in their present condition. Nor can Portsmouth be neglected. The barracks at Portsmouth has been evacuated and will probably have to be pulled down. Those at Dublin will have to be dealt with as a whole, not only in regard to barrack accommodation, but also as regarded the stores, which are extremely inconvenient. If certain portions of the Royal Barracks were evacuated good store-rooms could be provided, and this it is proposed to do; and the place can be put into the best sanitary condition. Richmond Barracks, where I am sorry to say there has been a good deal of sickness latterly, can be remedied without great difficulty or expense. I can not say what is necessary, but the matter will at once be attended to. The Cavalry Barracks and the Ship-street Barracks will also be attended to, and portions of the latter may have to be pulled down. The Government are in possession of the old Richmond Prison, but more land will be wanted. Certain portions of it can be converted into barracks at less cost than new ones could be erected at. The Committee is entitled to all the information I can give, and may be assured that the Government has no intention of abandoning their plans, and mean thoroughly to grapple with this crying evil, although they could not mature a complete scheme this Session.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: There is included in the Vote the item of £20,000 for the purchase of land for mobilization stations. I have not been able to find it in a definite form, but I know it is there, because the Secretary of State for War told me so a few weeks ago, when I took the precaution of addressing to him a question on the subject. Mobilization is the order of the day. I do not say that mobilization is a fad of the day, because I am very sensible of the extreme importance of mobilization, but at the same time we cannot afford to sacrifice everything else to mobilization, however important it may be. The Secretary of State proposes to break up 14 batteries of Artillery, in, order to create ammunition trains.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No. I do not propose that. That was a proposal made two years ago, but now we have made other proposals.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I am extremely glad to have elicited that statement from the right hon. Gentleman, which, I venture to say, is not only new to me but new to many gentlemen of the military profession. But I only referred to the matter to show that at the present time mobilization is popular, that mobilization is, to some extent, a cry to conjure with, and it is under the name of mobilization that we are asked to-night to vote £20,000. As I am about to ask the Committee to reject the proposal to spend £20,000 for the purpose proposed, it is obvious I must refresh their memory as to the terms in which the proposal was submitted. The Secretary of State for War, referring to the scheme, said—
  "The scheme now adopted is an additional security, necessary only in what may be a remote contingency, but in that contingency some part of the battle would have to be fought by troops inferior to those to which they would be opposed. It is, therefore, necessary to prepare and strengthen the positions which they would occupy. There are certain strategic positions round London commanding roads and railways which are essential to its defence. These are the positions on which, on London being threatened, the defenders of London would, in a few days, be concentrated and entrenched. Almost all this work is to be left to be rapidly carried out when the emergency arises. There are, however, a few sites of specially urgent importance, which we deem it essential to acquire at once. It is the intention to establish ordinary field works in the form of entrenched camps, which would form a backbone of a defensive line, and in which certain articles which would be required on the shortest notice could be stored, and where it would be possible hereafter to exercise some of the defenders in the actual place which they might have to defend. The cost will be inconsiderable. The negotiations are pending for these essential sites, and I have accordingly included in the estimate the sum of £20,000."
  Now, I ask the Committee whether reading between the lines, they are satisfied that this sum is to be expended for a purpose which is necessary, which is essential to mere mobilization of the troops, which within certain limits I thoroughly approve of, or whether, on the other hand, this is not the first step in a course which I believe would lead
  204
  to the expenditure of millions sterling, and not only the expenditure, but the wasted expenditure of millions sterling. I mean the first step in the fortification of London. I wish to strengthen my position by calling attention to what I regard as a most remarkable coincidence. Last year there appeared in one of the magazines a remarkable series of articles upon the British Army, articles which were originally published anonymously, but which have since been republished under the admitted authorship of Sir Charles Dilke. Whatever hon. Members may think of these articles, every unprejudiced mind will consider them the result of a very close study of the subject. But it is more to my present purpose to point out that there is a remarkable resemblance between the suggestions which are thrown out in those articles and the propositions which have been put before the House by the Secretary of State for War. But although, as I contend, the two schemes are substantially identical, the Secretary of State misleads us, unintentionally of course, by the idea that the work can be done for £20,000, while Sir Charles Dilke fixes the price at between £3,000,000 and £5,000,000. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say that he is not about to commence the fortification of London, and I have no doubt also that he will be perfectly sincere in making that profession, that he really believes that £20,000 will be the extent of the expenditure. But in cases of this kind the experience of the past leads us to the conclusion that by a kind of fatalism, as it were, we are led on by promises of small expenditure until thousands and millions of pounds sterling have been expended. We are now asked to enter upon an entirely new road of military expenditure, and, therefore, I may fairly ask the Committee to pause before it takes the first step. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £20,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £695,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I think the statement of my hon. Friend is worthy of some notice by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend has, at least, tried to make out his case. He has pointed out what he thinks to be a now departure from our military expenditure, and I know I am not wrong in saying there are some military authorities who believe the fortification of London would be a great waste of money.
  MR. STANHOPE: I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pickersgill) will not think I meant any discourtesy to him in not rising to reply to his remarks. I thought I had made my case very clear in the speech I made on the Army Estimates, and which the hon. Gentleman did me the honour to quote. I certainly am quite prepared to rest my case on the statement I laid before the House on that occasion. The hon. Member for Finsbury says there are some military authorities who are opposed to the fortification of London. I am equally opposed to it. No one connected with the War Office have for a moment suggested the fortification of London. They have proposed, and I have approved a simple scheme for mobilising the Auxiliary Forces for the defence of the capital. Some money must be necessarily expended in order to obtain sites on which to put store-houses, which must necessarily be expended in order to enable the Forces to take up their positions with the least possible delay. I can assure the Committee there is nothing behind this which I have not fully explained, and nothing is further from our intentions than to allow the scheme to be developed into a general scheme for the fortification of London.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I propose to go to a division.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 150.—(Div. List No. 153.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WADDY: I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the dangerous character
  206
  of the Dover Barracks. They are practically sunk into the earth; which I daresay is a very desirable thing from a military point of view, but which results in their being about as unwholesome and damp as it is possible for them to be. For many years past the health of the men stationed there, even for a short time, has been most prejudicially affected. I do not know what steps ought to be taken in the matter, but certainly something ought to be done, because at present they are simply ruinous to the health of every man who dwells there even for a couple of months.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I notice that no money is being taken for Galway Barracks, which are among the worst in the kingdom. The main barracks must be over 100 years old. There is a new barracks at Galway, but it is a very small one.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Galway Barracks is certainly one of those which are engaging our attention, and I do not think it will be justifiable to allow troops to remain there for a much longer period. As to Dover, the question has ome before me, although I am not closely acquainted with the details of the case.
  MR. WADDY: It is the much larger rooms I referred to, those underground, where the walls are streaming with damp, and so unwholesome that many men have contracted serious illnesse from this cause.
  SIR E. HAMLEYPerhaps I may be allowed to ask for some definite information as to the works styled in the Estimates "Mobilization Stations," which are intended for the defence of the kingdom. In common, I am glad to think, with most of the public, I feel the deepest interest in this subject, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee information as to the localities and extent of the positions he proposes to fortify, the purpose they are intended to fulfil, and the circumstances

  207
  under which Volunteers would occupy them.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I think that if the hon. and gallant Member will consider, he will understand why I do not think it would be right for me to give such details as he desires. I think I am bound to maintain some reserve on this subject, not as regards my hon. Friend himself, from whom I have so often received valuable assistance and advice, if he or any other hon. Member specially interested will communicate with me, I will give the information desired.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Recurring again to the general question of barracks, and to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, I am glad to recognize that he does not contemplate any large and comprehensive scheme dealing with the subject at this late period of the Session. I am not surprised that when he came to close quarters with the subject he found that it required a good deal of detailed investigation. No doubt any scheme of the kind will require the fullest consideration, and I think that the appointment of a Committee or some tribunal of the kind would be highly satisfactory as a means of arriving at full information. With regard to any barracks, at Portsmouth, Dublin, or elsewhere, which the right hon. Gentleman can show to be in a wholly insanitary state, there will, I am sure, be every readiness in the House to support him in dealing with so urgent a case. The Dublin Barracks are in a very bad state, and when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that there is always a mystery about these barracks, I would add that there is the same mystery about many other public buildings in Ireland. I am afraid that even the Vice-regal Lodge and the Chief Secretary's Lodge are not above suspicion; I do not mean morally or politically, but physically. I know that at the Chief Secretary's Lodge there is some mystery. I remember that when I occupied that building for a short space when I held
  208
  the office of Chief Secretary, there was a doubt raised as to its condition, and the Report that was made was to the effect that structurally and in sanitary matters, and in drainage and water, the house was pronounced perfect; and I remember there was special approval of a particular well from which water was drawn by a pump; but then the Report concluded with a recommendation that the handle of the pump should be immediately removed. That little incident is significant of what might be said of many other buildings in that country. But what I meant to convey is that money required for the restoration of barracks, where it is necessary for the health of the troops will, I am sure, be given without grudging; but a large and comprehensive scheme for new barracks must require much consideration.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I must reserve the terms of any proposal I may have to make, but I undertake that no fixed scheme shall be pressed upon the House without full time being given for its consideration.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And we are not committed.
  MR. HANKEY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can inform me if there is any probability of Woking Prison being made available as a barracks for troops. It is a building comparatively unoccupied by convicts, and with small expenditure would provide excellent accommodation for troops.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: My hon. Friend must understand me as not giving a final answer, but I hope it will be found possible to secure Woking Prison for the purpose of barracks.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  25. £115,300, Establishments for Military Education.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to take this opportunity of asking a question in reference to the Royal Military Academy. I understand from the Press that the fees for the sons of the civilians are much increased. For the sons of military officers the fees are lower and

  209
  fixed on a scale according to rank. I have no objection, and that it is quite reasonable that military officers should have this advantage. But they should not get the advantage out of the pockets of the civilians, whatever loss there is to be made good should be provided by the State. I suspect this action arises out of the action of the Committee on the Navy Estimates; we certainly did find fault with some items of expenditure, and unnecessarily high salaries. The effects of this raising of fees against civilians is really to reintroduce purchase into the Army. Remember, the system of purchase which ultimately required eight or nine millions for its adoption, began with very small sums.
  GENERAL SIR F. FITZWYGRAM: I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice, to reduce the Vote for the Staff College by £100. It is not because I am altogether hostile to the Staff College, for I believe such an institution may be useful, and in some cases necessary, but it is because I wish to point out the strong, I might almost say the universal, feeling of injustice that prevails among Regimental officers as to the undue preference shown to Staff College officers in appointments to the staff. Staff appointments are the prizes of the Army, not so much because of the higher pay or lighter duties, as because these officers are brought more prominently forward for distinction after every campaign, when rewards are distributed, and Regimental officers are left in the cold shade of neglect. I am sure it is the wish of every officer in the Army that the staff should he supplied with the best men the Army can supply. If, then, when a Staff appointment is vacant, a Staff College officer is, in the opinion of the Military authorities, the best fitted, by all means let him have it. But if, in the opinion of the same authorities, there is a regimental officer better fitted, I say, in
  210
  the name of common-sense and justice, he ought to have it. I am for free trade and fair play in this matter as elsewhere. I have nothing to say against Staff College officers as a rule, and do not suggest that they are incompetent; what I protest against is this system of preference that tends to depreciate the value of regimental services. Regimental officers number some 6,000 or 7,000, the Staff College officers only about 300. Regiments are the backbone of the Army, and on their efficiency depends success or disaster. If the Staff College education is good, I do not see why fair competition with the Regimental office: s should be feared.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this discussion does not properly arise on this Vote. The administration of the College is relevant to the Vote; but I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be raising the question of promotion of Staff College officers, and this is pertinent to the War Office Vote.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Every good Regimental officer can get into the Staff College; it is simply a question of examination, and he has but to qualify himself. Regiments are the backbone of the Army; but the staff ought to be the brains. I have not had an answer to the question I raised about the Military Academy.
  MR. BRODRICK: The change made in the amount paid for cadets who are not officers' sons has been adopted on the recommendation of a Committee which inquired into the matter, and, having regard to what is paid at public schools, the charge is not excessive.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Before the Vote is passed I should like to have some explanation of the increase under the sub-head for regimental and garrison schools. Nowadays, with the extension of the system of primary education, we should naturally expect a reduction rather than an increase.
  MR. BRODRICK: A large number of soldiers availed themselves of the voluntary education than was anticipated last year, and that has necessitated

  211
  an increase in the staff for the present year.
  CAPTAIN NOLAN: I think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman in reference to the Military Academy is anything but satisfactory. It is monstrous to make a comparison with Eton and Harrow, and £150 a year is altogether out of proportion to the cost of education and maintenance of the cadets. I think this increase arises from the desire to show the Academy is a paying concern. I should like to know the composition of the Committee referred to.
  Vote agreed to.
  26. £89,800, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
  27. £15,700, Reward for Distinguished Services.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £79,300, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charges of Half Pay, &c., of Field Marshals, and of General, Regimental, and Departmental Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890."
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  TELEGRAPHS (ISLE OF MAN) BILL. (No. 273.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  "Resolved, that towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, the sum of £26,473,944 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolutions [17th June] (see page 34) reported, and agreed to.

  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY BILL.
  "On Motion of Mr. Plunket, Bill to provide a Site for a National Portrait Gallery; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Plunk et, the First Lord of the Treasury, and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 279.]

  ARTIFICIAL DAMS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to move for a return of the areas in Great Britain and Ireland which would be flooded so as to seriously endanger human life. There has been so much in the papers recently about the bursting of dams, that I do not think it necessary to make any speech on the subject.
  AN HON. MEMBER: I object.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Surely the Government do not object?
  MR. SPEAKER: Objection has been taken.

  ADVERTISEMENT RATING BILL. (No. 35.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  ADVERTISEMENT RATING BILL. (No. 35.)

    Clause 1.
    MR. HUNTER: I move to report Progress.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I hope the Motion will not be passed. The Bill applies to all parts of the country, and I am sure the House generally approve of it.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I oppose the Bill because my Motion was opposed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  TREASURY, SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT.
  Copy ordered,
  "Of Return of a Copy of the Treasury Minute, dated the 20th day of December, 1888, relating to the re-organisation of the Department of the Treasury Solicitor."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 198.)
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.