Commons Sitting of 20 May 1889

MAIL CONTRACT (SCRABSTER, SCAPA PIER, AND STROMNESS)
Copy ordered—
"Contract between Her Majesty's Postmaster General and the North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navigation Company, dated the 27th day of March, 1889, for the conveyance of Mails between Scrabster, Scapa Pier, and Stromness, with copy of Treasury Minute thereon."—(Mr. Jackson.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed (No. 156.)

COUNTY COURT JUDGES.
Address for—
"Return showing for the years 1887 and 1888 the number of days on which County Court Judges sat in their respective courts ditinguishing the days on which they sat by themselves and by deputy."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  NAVAL DEFENCE BILL. (186.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [17th May], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Howell.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. FENWICkIt seems to me that the speeches to which we listened the other night from the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan) and the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), will do much to recall the public mind to the vast importance of this measure and the very hasty and precipitate manner in which the Government have embarked in a policy which is to envolve the expenditure of a very large sum of public money. If such speeches had been delivered from the Front Opposition Bench in the earlier stages of the Bill, it would not have been possible for the noble Lord to have boasted as he did on Friday night that the proposals of the Government had received a greater amount of popular support than any similar proposal of recent years. As a matter of fact, I should be disposed to dispute the popularity of the proposals in the country, except in one or two places where advantages have been held out in the shape of prospective contracts, and even in such districts these prospects have not always been sufficient to create enthusiasm or popularity for the proposals of the Government. Though such prospects were artfully put before the electors both of the Govan and Gorton Divisions, the voters were not disposed to show any enthusiasm for the Government proposals. But I fear that the quiescent and unquestioning attitude displayed by our Front Opposition Bench will have done very much to create the impression in the public mind that the Government have made out their case, and I am afraid the Liberal Leaders will be saddled with some amount of responsibility for the blundering policy now being pursued by Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) complained the other night of the amount of repetition which has taken place in the course of this debate. No doubt it must be very inconvenient for a Minister to hear the strongest arguments in condemnation of his proposals coming from his own side of the House and quoted from his own public utterances. I doubt very much whether the House or the country

    537
    has yet fully realized the complete ministerial transformation that has taken place on this question. On the 2nd May, 1887, the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), speaking at the Royal Academy, and referring to the Jubilee Review that was shortly to take place at Spithead, is reported to have said:—
    "I may say without boasting that on that day will be paraded a Fleet superior in strength and power to any fleet which has ever been seen by any sovereign in time of peace."
    On the 19th of July following, in this House, he is reported to have said:—
    "I have never said that the Navy Estimates could not be reduced, and the estimates for this year show a reduction of £800,000. I stated in my Memorandum that I was satisfied that for years to come there could be a steady reduction of expenditure and an increase of efficiency."
    On the 4th of February last year, in an address to his constituents at Ealing, he is reported to have said:—
    "Our relative superiority to other fleets is greater now than it has been for years past. Next year and the year after it will be greater still."
    The House will remember that the main argument on which the noble Lord based his contention in favour of the introduction of this Bill was that it was necessary for the protection of British commerce that we should possess a Fleet equal in strength to the fleets of any two combined nations. On the 13th of March, 1888, he used language in this House which showed most clearly that at the present time we possess a Fleet exactly of the dimensions which he said we ought to maintain. He said:—
    "The result is that whereas on March 1st, 1887, we had 171,000 tons (of armoured ships), as against 119,000 for France, 41,000 for Italy, and 26,000 for Russia, we shall have at April, 1890, 311,000 tons, as against 184,000 for France, 100,000 for Italy, and 73,000 for Russia.… I am well within the mark when I say that we are from 30 to 40 per cent above the next most powerful naval power."
    Therefore, on the noble Lord's own showing, we shall in 1890 be possessed of as great a tonnage of armoured ships almost as the three greatest naval Powers of Europe. Lord Elphinstone, speaking in the other House last year, is reported to have said that the present rate of construction was such that we were turning out two ships to one of
    538
    any foreign Power. Is the noble Lord prepared to say that Lord Elphinstone, when he uttered those words, spoke correctly? [Lord G. HAMILTON was understood to indicate assent]. I am glad to have the assent of the noble Lord to that statement. Under such circumstances, why do the Government ask Parliament for additional money, and attempt to bind Parliament for a successive number of years? The noble Lord said on Friday morning that in the event of war it would be impossible. to make the necessary preparations on the spur of the moment. It seems to me that would be a very good argument if Parliament had hitherto refused to grant the necessary money for the purpose of strengthening the Navy. But, during the last ten years, Parliament has granted a sum of over £42,000,000 for the purpose of strengthening our naval defences. The House and the country are entitled to know what has led to the change of front on the part of the noble Lord. Parliament has not to my knowledge received any satisfactory answer to the question, and I think we are entitled to one. I do not say it is an unworthy thing for a man, when he sees that he has been in error, to frankly admit his error and to change his opinion. But I think we are entitled to know, after the repeated utterances we have had from the noble Lord as to the satisfactory and sufficient strength of the Navy, why he has seen fit to change his opinion, and to make such an extravagant demand upon the public purse as this. I think the country is also entitled to know what Department it is intended to trust the expenditure of this money to. Is it intended to entrust the unreformed Department of the Admiralty with it? I was surprised to observe the other day that even hon. and gallant. Gentlemen opposite are not yet satisfied with the administration of the Admiralty Department. I saw it stated in the Standard the other day that a number of gentlemen, led by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford), intend to raise this question on the Navy Vote, and even the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. A. B. Forwood) has complained about the wastefulness of the Admiralty Department. Speaking at Skelmersdale, the hon. Member said:—

    539
    "When he saw how matters were conducted there [at the Admiralty] and how money was expended, not to say wasted, a feeling of hopelessness, approaching sometimes to helplessness, came over him."
    When the Secretary to the Admiralty, with his knowledge of business, and how great and important businesses should be conducted, goes to the Admiralty, he is so appalled by the state of confusion and chaos he finds that a feeling of hopelessness, if not of helplessness, comes over him. And yet it is to this unreformed Department that the spending of this large sum of money is to be entrusted. Now, I regard the policy underlying this Bill as bad in the extreme, yea, as positively mischievous, and one to which I trust the working classes of this country will never for one moment lend their sympathy or support. The hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne (Admiral Field) made some reference on Friday night to the inheritance which he said the Conservatives succeeded to from their Liberal predecessors in 1842. I think he spoke somewhat scornfully of that inheritance. I happen to have by me an extract from a speech of a statesman whose name is sacred in the memory of the working classes of this country, a statesman whose authority, I think, will be admitted even by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have here a statement made by Sir Robert Peel on the 27th August, 1841, which, even now, completely represents the feelings of the working classes on this subject. When he was at the head of a large Conservative majority what were his opinions with reference to the inheritance to which the Conservatives succeeded? He said, in reply to the wirepullers who were then working the oracle, as they are working it now—he said, in reply to the gentlemen described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), the other night—as sweet little cherubs who sit up aloft:—
    "Is not the time come when the powerful countries of Europe should reduce those military, armaments which they have so sedulously raised? Is not the time come when they should be prepared to declare that there is no use in such overgrown establishments? What is the advantage of one Power greatly increasing its Army and Navy? Does it not see that other Powers will follow its example? The consequence of this must be, that no increase of relative strength will accrue to any one Power;
    540
    but there must be a universal consumption of the resources of every country in military preparations. They are, in fact, depriving peace of half its advantages, and anticipating the energies of war whenever they may be required."
    Sir Robert Peel went on to indicate a policy which the working classes now most earnestly implore the Government to carry out. He said:—
    "The true interest of Europe is to come to some one common accord so as to enable every country to reduce those military armaments which belong to a state of war rather than of peace. I do wish that the Councils of every country (or that the public voice and mind, if the Councils did not) would willingly propagate such a doctrine."
    Such is the policy which the working classes earnestly entreat you to support. The present time, too, is opportune for the adoption of such a policy, because you have repeatedly assured Parliament that our foreign relations continue to be most cordial and friendly. If you had wished to do honour to the memory of the great statesman I have referred to; you would have observed the course he lays down in the words I have quoted. Had you done so you would have earned the lasting gratitude of the working classes of this country. Believing, therefore, that the policy which underlies the proposal you have laid before Parliament is both mischievous and wasteful, I shall vote for the rejection of the Bill.
    ADMIRAL MAYNEI rise solely for the purpose of giving the House the exact words of Mr. Cobden, with reference to expenditure on the Navy, as he has been put in evidence and misquoted several times by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and his words carry great weight in the country. I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fenwick), who has just quoted the words of a revered statesman, will admit that Mr. Cobden is as sound an authority as Sir Robert Peel. At any rate, during the time which elapsed between the expression of the two opinions, Gentlemen opposite had ample opportunity of carrying out the policy they are now urging upon us, as they boast of having been in power for two-thirds of the last 50 years. When, in 1884, Sir Thomas Brassey proposed to spend £5,000,000 on the Navy, why did they not advocate the peace policy? Why did not the hon. Gentleman the

    541
    Member for Cardiff (Sir E. Reed) go in at that time for the criticism of the Admiral and Mersey class of vessels? But, as I have said, I wish to correct the statement as to Mr.. Cobden's opinion. The other night the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) told us that Mr. Cobden did say he would spend £100,000,000 on the Navy, but it was to be spent if there was a necessity. Mr. Cobden said nothing about necessity; but Mr. Cobden, with that clearness for which he was so celebrated, did not leave any one in doubt as to his real meaning. Mr. Cobden said—
    "If you take the Navies of the two countries for the last century you will find that when in a normal state of peace the French have had a Nary little more than half the size of that of England. If you take the expenditure, you will find that the French naval armaments had during all that period, by a sort of tacit arrangement, as I have said, spent rather more than half of what England has spent upon her Navy."
    He then goes on to say—
    "I would tell to the French Government, as I now tell you, that if I found that the French Government had done anything to disturb that relation which has existed pretty nearly for a century in the proportion of the French and English Navies, I should have suspected some sinister design on the part of the French Government and should have considered myself a traitor to my country if I had allowed the Government of that country, on proof of any sinister intentions, to have made use of me to mislead or hoodwink England by leading me to suppose that my instrumentality was being used for the promotion of commercial intercourse, when I had grounds to believe they were entering upon a policy of war. England has four times, at least, the amount of mercantile tonnage to protect at sea that France has, and surely that gives us a legitimate pretension to have a larger Navy than France. Besides, this country is an island; we cannot communicate with any part of the world except by sea. France, on the other hand, has a frontier upon land, by which she can communicate with the whole world. We have, I think, unfortunately for ourselves, about a hundred times the amount of territory beyond the seas to protect as colonies and dependencies that France has. France has also twice or three times as large an Army as England has. All these things give us the right to have a Navy somewhat in the proportion to the French Navy which we find to have existed, if we look back, over the past century. Nobody has disputed it."
    Mr. Cobden does not live in these days, or he would not have been able to say that. "I would be the last person," Mr. Cobden goes on to say—
    "who would even advocate any undue change in this proportion. On the contrary, I
    542
    have said it in the House of Commons, and I repeat it to you, if the French Government showed a sinister design to increase their Navy to an equality with ours, then, after every explanation to prevent such an abusrd waste, I should vote 100 millions sterling rather than allow that Navy to be increased to a level with ours, because I should say that any attempt of that sort, without any legitimate grounds, would argue some sinister designs upon this country."
    This speech was delivered at the time when Mr. Cobden had been negotiating with France a treaty which bound the two countries closer together than ever, and at a time when, certainly far more than at the present time, France had a stable Government. I have no intention of following hon. and right hon. Gentle men opposite into the question of whether formerly the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary for the Admiralty said something not altogether consistent with what they say now. The whole position is in no way altered since the Bill was introduced, or since the time that the hon. Gentleman the Leader—I do not know what party it is, but we will call it the simple aggravation party— proposed a direct veto of the Bill. Then he was defeated by a majority of 14, and I trust, and I believe, that at this stage the measure will have an equal number of supporters, because no hon. Member has got up and, attempted to show from anything like figures that bear looking into, that this increase of the Navy is not required to raise it, not to the standard that Cobden urged it should be kept up to, a proportion of two to one; but to keep it up to a third more than any other Navy, which everybody admits is necessary for the defence of the country. All other questions are mere side issues, and in no way justify this most unusual attempt to throw it out on the Third Reading.
    MR SHAW LEFEVREThe hon. and gallant Member is perfectly right in quoting Mr. Cobden; Mr. Cobden on that occasion said that if France determined to raise her Fleet to an equality with ours he would spend a hundred millions to bring our Fleet to a superiority. But the hon. and gallant Member should recollect that Mr. Cobden in his most able pamphlet on "Three Panics," published shortly afterwards, pointed out that since the beginning of the century the

    543
    porportion of the French Fleet to that of England had been as two to three, and he also pointed out that if we raised our Fleet beyond that proportion France would certainly follow and the proportion would remain the same, and so I think Mr. Cobden can be quoted in favour of an economical policy. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) in his able Speech made a complaint of the attitude of Members on this Bench; but for myself I feel that I am not open to his reflections, for I voted againt the Second Reading of the Bill, and in the course of Committee I endeavoured to reduce the measure to somewhat more moderate proportions, but in vain. It is proposed to spend no less than ten millions in excess of what may be called the normal rate of expenditure in Dockyards on shipbuilding. I have objected to that on the ground that the effect will be to stimulate other Powers and spend in a similar proportion, and I feel absolutely certain that when the Bill is passed we shall see the French Navy increased and the relative proportions between us will remain the same. Indeed I have already seen it stated that the French Minister of Marine has declared that in consequence of the measure proposed by the Board of Admiralty in this country, he will have to propose considerable larger expenditure to the French Legislature.
    LORD G. HAMILTONWhere is that stated?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREMy right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) stated to me only a few minutes ago that he had seen it in an account of the proceedings in the French Chamber. I have followed closely the statements of the noble Lord, and certainly expected that he would have made some defence for this largely increased expenditure, but I have not heard from him a single word in disproof of the many statements made last Session and the previous Session, that the Navy of England by the end of 1890 would be in excess of that of France by the proportion of three to two. The Secretary to the Admiralty has spoken frequently to the same effect, and it is somewhat curious that even pending these discussions here the Secretary to the Admiralty went to Liverpool and made a speech there in which he stated
    544
    more than once that the Navy was never better prepared for war than at present, and that numerically and in character it is superior to the Navies of any two foreign nations, but he said the lessons taught by the manœuvres showed that the extent of our superiority was not so great in the minds of responsible Naval officers as to secure our supremacy so absolutely unquestionable as it ought to be if we were to maintain the advantages of our position. So it would appear that the Secretary to the Admiralty has yielded his own better judgment to the opinion of Naval officers, and it would appear from what has been said by the hon and gallant Member who sits behind him that we are called upon to make this increase in the Navy, not because it is the real belief of the contract element of the Board of Admiralty, but in consequence of the pressure brought to bear upon the Board of Naval officers. I challenge the Secretary to the Navy to get up and say that he belives this expenditure is really necessary. I am perfectly certain he cannot and will not do so. He admits that the Navy is stronger than it has ever been, that it is equal to the Navies of any two Powers, and that the additional expenditure is forced by other authorities. But the noble Lord and the Secretary to the Admiralty have frequently told us during the last two years that if we only maintain our present rate of expenditure, that is to say, that if we take into account the vessels lost, falling out of service and depreciated, allowing 40 per cent. for wastage, that expenditure in a few years would add to our superiority. When we compare the expenditure of the last two or three years with the average of the last 20 years, we find that it is almost 70 per cent in excess of the normal expenditure. For the 20 years 1864 to 1884, the annual expenditure on materials on various constructions was £1,526,000, and this year it is £2,650,000, surely a very large increase irrespective of that now proposed. I stated in the debate on the Second Reading that if you compared the naval expenditure of this country with that of France for the last 50 or 60 years, you always find the proportion of expenditure as three to two. I will only go back for 25 years, and I find that proportion maintained, and just as our expenditure increased, so in pro-

    545
    portion did that of France. During the first five years of the period, our average was £1,375,000, and that of France £880,000. In 1859 our expenditure increased to £1,895,000, and that of France to £1,112,000. From 1864 to 1888 England spent £41,700,000 upon her fleet, France £28,100,000. In 1885 there was a very large increase in our expenditure under Lord Northbrook's programme, and in the following year France increased her expenditure in exactly the same proportion. During the last three years in England the expenditure on new ships has averaged £2,730,000; in France it has been £1,800,000, still keeping the same proportion. So I assume from what has gone before, that at the end of the period for the present programme, the proportion will still remain about the same. We are going to spend in four years 8 millions for new construction, wholly irrespective of armaments, and adding that to the normal expenditure in Dockyards, will make an average annual expenditure of £4,600,000, three times the expenditure of the 20 years I referred to. I am absolutely certain that France and other Powers will follow suit, and at the end of the period our relative position will be precisely the same. Assuming that it is desirable to increase somewhat the Navy, I maintain that the mode is unwise and impolitic. It is proposed to lay down 70 vessels. But no one has condemned such a policy more than the Secretary to the Admiralty, on the ground that by laying down many vessels at the same time we should stereotype the class and the designs of one construction, and the First Lord also has on many occasions pointed out how unwise that policy would be, and up to the present he has given us no reason for changing that policy hitherto pursued. I ventured to point out in Committee how it was possible by a slight modification in the programme spreading construction over six years instead of four some of the danger would be avoided. The true policy to my mind is to lay down a certain number of vessels each year, and to build continuously but cautiously, avoiding multiplication of types. For the first time the policy of annually laying down a certain number of ships is being abandoned, and we are asked to lay down 70 vessels, of which 42 are of the same type. Two
    546
    years ago the noble Lord said that he did not propose to lay down any more ironclads, and that the other Powers had come to the same conclusion. Then last year he proposed to build 24 vessels—sloops and small corvettes—which were to cost one and-a-half million. Now the country is suddenly asked to spend ten millions in building 10 ironclads of the largest class, and the reason assigned for this change is the development of quick-firing guns and new explosives, which has given a great impetus to the building of ironclads. I think it might be desirable to build a small number of ironclads, but to lay down 10 at once is certainly an unwise policy, both from the financial and the shipbuilding points of view. In three or four years better designs will be produced, and the ships built at such an enormous cost may prove to be obsolete. On this ground I endeavoured on a former occasion to restrict the threatened evils, but unfortunately without result, the noble Lord would not listen to the proposals from this Bench. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, in a long speech, also urged the objections from a financial point of view. On both grounds we urged the proposals of the Government were unwise and unnecessasy, and my strong belief is that the result will be to stimulate other Powers to fresh exertions. Two or three years hence we shall find other Powers making fresh preparations to facilitate the production of vessels of a new and improved type which will render almost obsolete those we are now about to lay down in large numbers at enormous cost.
    GENERAL SIR E. B. HAMLEYOne thing has been made clear during the progress of this Bill—that its opponents would be very glad to trip it up, but do not see their way to do it with safety to themselves. For it is evident that if there is one thing which the people of England just now have more at heart than another it is that the Navy should be raised to a strength adequate to the needs of the country. Therefore, hon. Members opposite began by endeavouring to do that indirectly which they did not dare to do directly, and in this spirit it was that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) proposed to raise the sum asked for by throwing it on the

    547
    annual Estimates, and that question has been again raised by the mover of the present Now, the proposal of the Government has there advantages—that it renders it certain that the money will be raised; that it will be applied to the purpose intended and to no other; and that this purpose will be accomplished in a certain definite time. For this certainty that the desire of the country will be fulfilled, hon. Members opposite wish to substitute a method by which that desire will certainly not be fulfilled, and they profess to advocate this from the highest motives because their method is more constitutional, for they appear for this occasion only as defenders of the Constitution. Now, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh knows, or if he does not, he is the only Member who does not know it—that if you wish to render a measure of this kind perfectly futile and inoperative you could not take a better way than to provide for it by the annual Estimates. And it is not too much to say that most of the shortcomings in works, stores, and equipments laid at the doors of the War Office and Admiralty have been mainly due to the system of sacrificing the provision made for them in the Estimates. I am not surprised, then, that neither the House nor the country accepted the authority of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the matter. Indeed it was not very surprising on other grounds that his authority was not accepted. It has been the fortune of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh to fill a great number of posts in the State£ had almost said his misfortune—for if he had only filled one or two we might still have been permitted to indulge the hope that one might yet be found to which his peculiar and as yet undiscovered genius might be suited. But we can no longer cherish that expectation. The right hon. Gentleman has run through the whole gamut, and the problem is still unsolved, and therefore it is not surprising that when the right hon. Gentleman advised us to drop the Government way, which means how to do it, and adopt his way, which means how not to do it, nobody listened to him, even though he gives his advice as the champion of the Constitution. On the Second Reading there was what I may call a short comic interlude during which the hon. Gentleman the Senior
    548
    Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland (Sir W. Lawson) made speeches which bore the same relation to the business of this House as a burlesque at the Strand does to the legitimate drama, and as they probably did not expect their eccentric performances to be taken seriously they need not occupy attention, and I will not further advert to them. The mover of the present Amendment and his supporters can hardly expect at this stage to defeat the Bill, but the hon. Members can still continue to express their dislike to it, and therefore they dwell on the extravagance of the measure, the waste of money— and in the supposed interests of that shadowy personage the taxpayer, in whose name so many strange doctrines are put forth, they denounce it. They appear to believe that all these millions will be so much money absolutely lost to the country, and that we shall have nothing to show for it except some unremunerative war-ships. But it must be evident that all this large sum will be spent in this country, and chiefly in the form of wages, and will therefore be expended entirely for the benefit of the working class, who, moreover, will contribute little or nothing to the taxation which is to produce or replace the money; and the Opponents of the measure are therefore opposing what would be for the benefit pure and simple of the working class—the class of which many of them claim to be specially the representatives.. Whether their unlucky clients will approve of their efforts to rob them of this great benefit must appear doubtful to those hon. Members themselves when they come to think of it. Well, the hon. Member for Leicester based his opposition mainly on different grounds, on sentimental grounds—namely, on his faith in human nature. And his faith in human nature has led him to believe, among other curious things, that the fact that we have the largest commerce in the world is a good reason why we should not protect it. The hon. Member and everybody else in a community like ours ought to know that security is the very life-blood of commerce, and that for us it means security on our coasts, and security on the high seas. Other Powers have little ocean commerce to guard or to lose, while we

    549
    must be prepared to spread our efforts over an immense area to defend a great many points and trade routes against a concentrated attack on either, and this alone ought to carry conviction of the necessity for our great superiority at sea. The hon. Member's faith in human nature has also led him to believe that our Government ought to make it its business to impress on other Governments the expediency of disarmament, and that to show our sincerity we should begin by ceasing all efforts for our own defence, just as some worthy persons become total abstainers in order the better to convert their intemperate brethren. I should much like to see the appeal formulated which the hon. Member would address to foreign Governments on the subject. Does he consider what disarmament means for them— the cessation and dissolution of that vast system, naval as well as military, which absorbs so huge a share of the population and resources and intellect of the Continent. Surely the people of those States would not submit to such a burthen unless they believed it to be necessary to their safety? And how would the hon, Member propose to convince Germany that she ought to disarm in the present attitude of France? How could he convert France to his views, while she is convinced that her great neighbour cherishes the hope of completely crushing her next time? How could he induce Russia to give up her traditional policy of aggression and conquest? How could he persuade Austria and Italy to abandon their means of defence, and with them all hope of obtaining powerful allies? And while the individual powers would be thus deaf to counsel, how could he hope to prevail on all together? Every one of them knows that to disarm would mean to drop out of her place as a great Power and never to regain it. Therefore the Cabinets of Europe would turn a deaf ear even to the honeyed words of the hon. Member for Leicester, or to any Government which should make itself his mouthpiece; and few of us would wish, I should hope to see England in the position of volunteering advice which nobody listens to. Let us hope that the time may come when disarmament may become possible, probably through the action of the peoples
    550
    of Europe, who will refuse any longer to continue the ruinous competition of warlike power. But it has not come yet, and till it does hon. Members who amuse themselves with devising plans for converting the Powers of Europe by talk must be content to be regarded as unpractical and even mischievous dreamers. And why do the people of England wish to See this Bill passed? It is because they feel that England should be not merely a great Naval Power, but the predominant Naval Power; and that, so long as her position as such is open to doubt, so long does she fall short of the necessities which her geographical situation and her widespread Empire impose on her. The people feel, more perhaps than their rulers feel, that England stands alone among nations in this—that she is nothing if not a sea Power, that she is encircled by the ocean, and that all her paths—paths which she must incessantly traverse—are on the deep, and her first duty, a duty fixed on her by nature herself, is to make these facts the basis of her policy, whether for peace or war. And the Government, therefore, cannot be too warmly congratulated on having recognized these facts, and on having wisely resolved to satisfy the desire of the people by raising England to its proper supremacy among the sea Powers.
    MR. S. STOREYWe always find that when the Admirals want anything the Generals will help them, and doubtless now, as on the former occasion, the noble Lord finding that he has a Douglas and a Hotspur to back him thinks he may bid defiance to the world of Radicals in arms who represent the shadowy taxpayer. I do not hope that at this late period of the debate I can say anything new, but perhaps hon. Members will premit me to say how these proposals have struck a mind which at any rate comes fresh to the question. I first heard of the proposals, in a happier atmosphere than. that of smoky London. I have not been present at the debates, I have not listened to the talk in the Lobbies, and the opinion I express may be called uninformed, but it is one I have come to upon considerations of my own. The first reports I heard in America were that the noble Lord proposed to ask for no less a sum than 21 millions for the

    551
    further enlargement of the British Navy. I must confess that so large a sum startled me. At the same time I am one of those who are always free to admit that it is the paramount duty of a Government worthy the name, and of the House of Commons, to perfect defensive position of the country, and I think they incur a grave responsibility who set themselves to oppose well-considered and necessary—even if expensive—proposals for that end. I have noticed, however, of late years, that this doctrine has been pushed to the length of holding that upon matters of armament, patriotism demand that we should be all at one to the extent of accepting any projects that Ministers or quacks may prescribe,ignoring the higher duties of the House,to examine with lynx-eyed keenness, that the scare does not usurp the place of Real danger. I was very much struck by the remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Har court). To that speech no answer has yet been given from the Front Bench, and I hope that the Secretary to the Admiralty, or some one for him, will rise and give an answer to the House and to the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is in the habit of putting things very plainly, and I should like to attempt to emphasize his position. I cannot hope to imitate the thunders of the gods, but I can put the thing in concrete English thus:—The right hon. Gentle man on Friday night proved, first, out of the mouth of the noble Lord, that in 1886 the Liberal Government handed over to the Tory Government a Fleet which was equal to the Fleets of any three other naval nations. He proved in the second place, out of the noble Lord's mouth, or by his works, that he reduced the Naval Estimates in 1887, and again in 1888, and encouraged the country to believe that there was every possibility that such a happy state of things would continue in the future. He proved in the third place from the noble Lord's statements that he came to the conclusion suddenly that some change was necessary, and some large expenditure desirable, and that that conviction sprang from the experience he got at the Autumn Manœuvres last year.
    LORD G. HAMILTONI did not say that.
    MR. STOREYI understood that to be the meaning of the noble Lord's words—and I have examined the point —or at any rate that his conviction was considerably reinforced by that experience, but there seems to be a difficulty both in and out of the House to know exactly what he did say.
    LORD G. HAMILTONAllusion had been made to a statement in my memorandum of 1887–88, and I stated that I considered that in fighting power we were superior to any other Naval Power, but I spoke with great reserve as to what protection we could give to our commerce, and I said the opinion I then held had been confirmed by the Autumn Manœuvres.
    MR. STOREYHolding that opinion why did the noble Lord permit the First Sea Lord a fortnight before to state that not more than six swift cruisers were necessary? I will not press the point, but, dealing with the most important statement of the hon. Member for Derby—as yet undenied—as to the Fleet of this country in 1886 being equal to the Fleets of any three Naval Powers—
    LORD G. HAMILTONI never said so.
    MR. STOREYWhose fault is it that we are in a worse position now, and if we are not, where is the justification for the enormous expenditure proposed? Let us suppose for the sake of argument—and I cannot suppose it otherwise—that the decision the noble Lord arrived at was right, that there ought to be an enormous and sudden increase of the Navy, I want to ask him how he should have gone about it, and perhaps the Secretary for the Admiralty will answer this point. If the increase be right, no more unbusinesslike method could be adopted by anybody. Let us suppose the existence of a firm which has large business dealings all over the world, and that it finds that rivals are stretching out their hands and taking possession of part of their field and coming into close competition. What would be the method of dealing with that difficulty on the part of any sensible business house? They would go to work quietly and make no noise about it; they would not indulge in shrieks and make flaming statements as to what they were doing,

    553
    to make their opponents more active than in the past. What has been the Government plan—the noble Lord's plan? Having hatched a sort of legislative bantam, he goes in front of the whole world and says: "Behold this bantam! when it grows to the size that I mean to have it, no possible combination of other bantams in the world will be able to beat it." This policy defeats its own ends. When the hon. Gentle. man opposite mentioned France he was met by denials from the Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Derby said he saw that the energetic action of the noble Lord was going to be followed by France; that was denied. I do not know how it may be with France. I was in the extreme West of America—California—when this proposal was made, and in crossing the States I found everywhere, amongst Democrats as well as Republicans, men of position, the resolution formed and stated that America should have a larger Fleet than in the past. When I got to Washington I saw the Secretary of the Admiralty, the most powerful politician in America, and I spoke to him about that resolution. He said—
    "We do intend to have a larger and stronger fleet, and you cannot complain of it in England because you are spending 21 millions extra on your own fleet."
    That is exactly the effect which this dramatic method of the Government has. Your action brings about a reflex action elsewhere, and ere long the relative proportions will remain as they have been. If the noble Lord had gone about this matter quietly, aiming at securing practical results rather than dramatic effects, he might with our long purse and unrivalled powers of shipbuilding have created the state of things he desires quietly. But he acts the part of Mr. Vincent Crummels, of that infant prodigy, of whom Dickens tells it was kept upon unlimited supplies of gin so as to keep it small— a method we should like to see applied to these bloated proposals. The proposal is theatrical in another sense. I saw it was to be an expenditure of 21 millions, whilst in the Western States of America; when I got nearer home I found it had dwindled to 10, and when I got to the House I soon discovered that the noble Lord allocates seven,and proposes to ask for a blank cheque
    554
    to be honoured some day for the other three. I happened to be present the other night when the hon. Member for Newcastle raised this point. The noble Lord said that if the present Government were in office it might be used for new buildings or for the reduction of the Estimates, so that three millions are to be free. I would suggest another method to the noble Lord for its use. If the virtuous Tories are in Office, I am sure s they will come down in 1891 or 1892, as they have done before, and plume themselves on having the magnificent sum of three millions in hand, and, in face of a General Election, they will apply it to the reduction of taxation. I think I have shown how this Motion strikes me as unbusinesslike, and likely to defeat its own ends, but I have a far stronger objection than that, which I think is also held by many Members on this side of the House. I say the proposal as to financial methods is decidedly unconstitutional, and in connection with this point, I cannot but refer to what the gallant Admiral (Admiral Field) opposite said. With the frankness which distinguishes a sailor, but is inconvenient in politicians, he said the Government meant to put compulsion on the House of Commons. That is treason to the House of Commons, neither more nor less. If the gallant Admiral had seen the face of the noble Lord when he said that, he would have thought he had made a mistake. The noble Lord himself said that he meant to take security against the hon. Member for Derby. I am sure if the gallant Admiral goes to sea and exposes his ships to be raked fore and aft by the enemy as he has done the Government arguments to the Radical Benches, he will never rest in Westminster Abbey. Some of my friends complain that I vote with the Tories. So I do, when I think they are right. I regard some of them on the Treasury Bench as more promising disciples of Radicalism than the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and the right hon. Member for Derby. They passed the closure, enacted perpetual coercion for Ireland, and they propose this unconstitutional method of taking away from the House of Commons the keystone of its power and the people's liberties, the right to vote each year the money for our defences. No wonder I can afford

    555
    to vote for a Conservative Government when it develops Radical propensities like these. I do not mean Radical because they are right, but in the sense of being extreme—revolutionary, I may call them. I trust there are some hon. Members opposite who realize what they are doing. If you can vote a sum of money for the Navy, spreading over several years, you can do it for the Army; if you can do it for the Army you can do it for any other service, and so you whittle away that Constitutional right of the House of Commons by which, in ancient days, we brought Kings and Lords to their knees and compelled them to obey the will of the people. What guarantee have we that either the Government or the Opposition in the future when they get the money, will, under the present system, expend it advantageously? This Bill, besides being unbusinesslike, ineffectual and unconstitutional, has one more objection that can be raised against it. What guarantee have we when those Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side take command in the future—nay, I will go so far as to say, when these Gentlemen on this side take command—that under such a system as the present the Bill before the House will be found to secure the ends aimed at? Why, during the comparatively short period of my life this House of Commons has provided for the Government to expend on the Navy alone a sum very nearly equal to the whole National Debt. Well, as to the money asked for by this Bill, you will get it, and, I will undertake to say, you will spend it; but I question very much whether you will produce the results you anticipate, unless the whole system of the Admiralty be altered. Unless new men be placed there, and new methods of conducting its business adopted, I see no hope of your being able to secure efficient results for the people. The noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty knows—and no one knows better—that five or seven years hence, when this money is all spent, and his mighty fleet of ships has been created, all of them that have not collided in the Channel, or that have not been sunk on the rocks of the Mediterranean, will have become as obsolete for fighting purposes as Noah's Ark; while in seven years' time there will be a new generation of
    556
    nautical Oliver Twists crying out for more, and money will then be demanded alike by Generals and Admirals, and expended by the Government just as it is to-day. I thank the House for having given me this opportunity of making these few remarks, and I will close by saying that, mainly on the ground that these proposals are in their money aspect unconstitutional, and that the method is unbusiness like and self-defeating, I condemn the scheme of the Government, and shall be glad, though at this late stage, to give my vote against it.
    MR. FORWOODI am sure there is no one in this House who will not join with me in welcoming back, after a long absence, the hon. Member for Sunderland, whose eloquent tones we have listened to in the important part he has taken in the discussions of this question. But, Sir, if I have rightly gathered what the hon. Gentleman has said, I think I am correct in saying that his opinion on this Bill has been very much founded upon what he heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) on Friday last. Although, after the eight or ten occasions on which the Bill has been discussed in this House I feel almost ashamed further to take up the time of the House, yet there are some points that have been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, to which attention must be called. I greatly regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, because it is very inconvenient when one has to call attention to very serious observations and mistakes that have been made in a particular speech to do so in the absence of the speaker, by whom they were made. I am sure that no one who was present in the House on Friday could have failed to observe the manœuvre which was then executed by inducing my noble Friend to reply at the hour he did. Immediately my noble Friend sat down, he was followed by the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Derby, and I am bound to say of that right hon. Gentleman that he adhered, if it were possible, even less scrupulously to the facts than is his wont. He gave on that occasion an additional license to his ingenuity and vivid imagination, and I very much

    557
    doubt whether that license would have been given had my noble Friend had the opportunity of reply. As it happened, in regard to that debate, my noble Friend's hands were tied behind his back, because he had not a further opportunity of replying to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. Observations have been made from time to time in this House as to the statements which have been put forward by my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, by my Friend the First Sea Lord (Sir Arthur Hood), and by myself, with regard to the state of the Navy. With regard to what I have had to say I may at once state I have not one single word to retract or withdraw, and I believe I am speaking quite as much for the noble Lord near me, as well as for the First Sea Lord, as I have said for myself, when I say that they also have nothing to withdraw from the public statements and evidence they have given. All that we ask is that what we have stated shall be quoted in our own words, and not garbled and made use of without the context. Furthermore, I think that the varying circumstances which do and must arise in regard to the naval policy of any Government ought to be considered in dealing with statements made two or three years ago; and I am bound to conclude that the unfair use made by right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby of statements, or alleged statements, on the part of the Government, has had considerable effect on the mind of the hon. Member for Sunderland who has just spoken. Now, Sir, the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby attributed to my noble Friend in a speech he made at Birmingham the remark "That the late Liberal Government had left the Navy in a terribly insufficient condition;" and in order to contrast my noble Friend's present position with his past utterances, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to state that at the Mansion House, in the year 1886, the noble Lord had stated "That the ships in commission exceeded the combined Forces of the three greatest Naval Powers in Europe," and he also said that that was my noble Friend's description of the Navy he had inherited from his predecessors. It was upon these two quotations that the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was based; but I do not think he will be
    558
    surprised to hear that neither statement was made by my noble Friend. What was said at Birmingham by my noble Friend was this: He was speaking in reference to certain ammunition that had not been ordered for quick firing guns by the late Government and he said: "Although the Government had ordered a large number of quick firing guns, yet they had deliberately struck out the order for the ammunition which rendered the guns efficient" Now, construed for Party purposes, these words of my noble Friend were transposed in this House to mean, that the late Liberal Government had left the Navy in a terribly insufficient condition. Well, Sir, I say that that statement, as made in this House, was perfectly unjustifiable; that it had never been made by my noble Friend, and that the words which really were used by him would bear no such interpretation. Now, I will take the other words that were said to have been used, and the contrast that was endeavoured to be drawn. What the noble Lord said at the Mansion House was that "The number of ships in commission was greater than that of any three navies "; and this was transposed by the right hon. Gentleman and put as an expression of opinion with regard to the condition of the Navy; though I dare say the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby does not know the difference between the number of ships in commission and the condition of the Navy. Then, Sir, comments were made on the evidence of an absent man—the First Sea Lord, which were even more unfair—and here I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman is not the only one who has not fairly quoted the evidence given by the First Sea Lord. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech on Friday stated that "The First Sea Lord was satisfied with everything on the 16th June; yet early in July we heard of this great plan for the increase of the Navy." My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. R. W. Duff) has, on a previous occasion, gone even further than this, for he said, "The First Sea Lord gave evidence to the Committee, and yet at the time he had the new scheme in his pocket." Now, Sir, when Sir Arthur Hood gave his evidence he had previously stated that no complete scheme, or plan of campaign, or whatever it may be called,

    559
    had ever been laid before the Admiralty. I am going to ask the House, in the case of Sir Arthur Hood, one of the most distinguished naval officers of the day, to allow me to quote his own words. Sir A. Hood was asked whether, in his opinion, the Navy at the present moment was fully adequate to perform its duties. His reply was:—
    "I am satisfied with the relative number of battle ships on these two conditions—first, that we shall continue to build battle ships to be ready to take the place of those that become obsolete, so that by the time they become obsolete we shall have new ships ready to take their place; and, secondly, that in the event of any other Power laying down more armourclads, we should, at the same time, lay down vessels which would be certainly more powerful and faster….I do not think we have enough fast cruisers…. They are the most pressing requirement."
    Now, I ask the House to bear in mind two important conditions which Sir Arthur Hood attached to his evidence. He said—
    "I am satisfied with the Navy on two points, provided we go on building further ironclads; and, secondly, that we watch the course of other Powers."
    And in regard to the second condition, I desire to give the House some information as to what has been the policy of other Powers during the last 12 or 15 months. The facts I am about to state were known before our programme was laid before the House and the public. I am dealing with the armoured vessels of the world, and I do so without in any sense desiring to draw an invidious comparison between the work being done by one Power and another. I wish to lay before the House all the information we possess before it comes to a vote. France had six armoured vessels dawdling upon the stocks up to within the last few months. They were doing their work in such a manner that the vessels would be in hand about ten years, but about the middle of last year they pushed them to completion, and they have since laid down three, if not four, certainly three more vessels. Russia also in 1888, had laid down, or was preparing to lay down, five armoured vessels, and they have one or two more under consideration. The largest is over 10,000 tons. Practically she is re-erecting her armoured Navy. I want the House to understand that this increase of Russia's Navy is not attributable to
    560
    our policy. I happened to take up a journal in which was a communication from one of those enterprising creations of modern times, the interviewer who has apparently been to Russia. I read the following:—
    "It is not surprising that mistaken ideas prevail as to the facts about Russia's armaments. It is stated in an English newspaper that Russia is taking steps to largely increase her Navy, in consequence of the extraordinary activity of the British Admiralty. Nothing could be further from the truth. The expansion of the Russian Navy is owing to no sudden impulse, but is the result of a carefully considered and long settled plan, but of late years,. the strides towards completion have been more rapid than was contemplated in the original proposal."
    We all know that within the past few months Germany has commenced a new programme, which includes 13 armoured vessels, four being heavy ironclads, and some of which are already under weigh. Italy, we know, has pushed on to completion the three iron-clads she had on hand, and proposes to lay down another. We also know that Spain has four armoured vessels under construction, and plans for several others are in course of preparation. The hon. Member (Mr. Storey) has referred to the United States, which are building two armoured vessels, and have obtained authority to build three additional vessels. From the remarks of the hon. Member, the House might have been led to believe that the action of the United States had been taken subsequent to the action of Her Majesty's Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Two vessels were laid down in the United States last year, and under the Bill, which received assent before the change of President on the 4th March last, three more were to be commenced.
    MR. STOREYThe hon. Gentleman is aware that in America they are slow moving, and he had better wait two or three months, when he will find that. what I have said is absolutely the fact, that in the United States they justify their action—as he will see from the debates—by the extreme action taken, by this Government.
    MR. FORWOODI shall not be surprised at all if America goes on increasing her Navy. She has a large surplus revenue which she does not know what to, do with. If she does not spend it on the

    561
    Navy or Public Works she will be obliged to reduce the duties, but the President is pledged to maintain the duties. As they must get rid of their money, they can do so in no more popular way than by spending it among the shipbuilders of the country.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHDid not the First Lord of the Admiralty in his opening speech declare that there was no abnormal expenditure on the part of the Naval Powers of the Continent?
    MR. FORWOODMy noble Friend's remark was that the expenditure was ceaseless, but had not been so remarkable in the past few months. The statement I have made has simply reference to what other nations are doing at the present moment. However, our programme is for four and a-half years, and we are placing before the House the work we propose to do in each of the following five years. Now, Sir, we have every reason to expect that foreign Governments will go on with the work of constructing their navies, and the facts I have stated with regard to foreign Powers have, I think, a very important bearing upon that part of Sir Arthur Hood's evidence which I have already quoted. come to another point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Friday, where he said it was all nonsense to talk about the programme being a new programme recommended by the responsible advicers of the Admiralty; it was nothing of the kind. Well, of course, that is the usually courteous way in which the right hon. Gentleman conveys his point blank denial. I can quite understand his scepticism as to any such plan being recommended by the responsible advisers of the Admiralty, for I am bound to say the mode of conducting the business of the Admiralty in past years has been exceedingly slovenly. It is probably the first time in Naval administration that any Government has had the courage to call in responsible Naval advisers to state what they considered a sufficient number of vessels to protect the trade, commerce, and interests of this country. There has always been a feeling that their advice would lead to a large expenditure, and that it would be very troublesome in constructing a popular Naval Budget, to have obtained the counsel of professional and responsible advisers beforehand as to what was necessary
    562
    for the security of the country. I admit that it was a bold step to take. The relative superiority between nations as regards their navies depends not only on numbers, but on the position their opponents may occupy. Of course, if it came merely to a question of Fleets meeting in the open sea it would be a simple matter to state the number of vessels that would be required to cope with another certain number of vessels. But it is a very different matter when we have objective points to defend, as well as the duty of protecting our own coasts. I believe that those who wish to see this country strong and properly protected hold that the right position for us to occupy is to have regard not only to the force that can be mustered by any two possible antagonists in positions most favourable to them, and that we must have regard to our having a force placed in the most difficult position as regards the interests of this country. This was the proposition placed before the naval advisers of the Board. That proposition they answered, and on that answer our scheme is based. What they recommend is supported by the evidence which the Naval Manœuvres afforded. I venture to say to this House that with such a knowledge as we possess, and with such an opinion from our responsible officers, we should have been untrue to the trust reposed in us for the protection of the Empire had we not laid before the House this plan, leaving to the House the responsibility of accepting or rejecting it. We are told that our scheme is to be opposed on the Third Reading, and a Division is to be taken; but, at any rate, we shall not have against us the vote of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, who, when challenged by me, said that, although it would be difficult for him to vote with us, yet he was going to support the proposition of the Government. The hon. Member for Sunderland and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford twitted us with the unbusinesslike manner in which we are carrying out our scheme, and said that no business man, no private firm, would lay down vessels in the way we propose. I quite admit that the right policy, and the best policy, in shipbuilding, whether by private companies or by the Government, is to lay down a continuous amount of tonnage, so that you may not have to put down a

    563
    large number one year, and a small number another. What might be prudent on the part of a private individual might be very imprudent on the part of the Government, in whose case time is the most important element. These vessels must be completed within the time stated in the Bill, and every care has been taken to have the designs completely matured and the amount of armament fixed before any steps are taken to have the vessels constructed. As the hon. Member for Sunderland has raised a question as to the constitutional character of the finance and there appears to be some confusion in the matter as to the three millions of money, I will again explain that the Bill provides for an expenditure of 10 millions of money on contract work and 11½ millions on work to be done in the dockyards, including armaments, and the three millions have nothing what ever to do with any amount in the Bill. It is simply a surplus sum of money—if the normal rate of expenditure is maintained—available to go on with new construction as present ships fall out of the dockyards, and so to prevent the discharge of men at the dockyards. I think the House will admit that if the Government lay down a programme to be executed within a given time, unless they wish to see the dockyards shut up, they must provide for further expenditure on other work to follow. With regard to the constitutional character of our finance, all I can say is that the £10,000,000 of money are going in contracts, and whether they are in the Bill or not, being contracts it can make no difference in the control of this House over the money. The money for dockyard-built ships will come before the House from year to year to be voted; but having the scheme embodied in the Bill, if any Government desired for popularity's sake to reduce the Estimates, they would have to explain that the reduction meant a reduction in the shipbuilding which the House had already ordered, and was not merely a sum to be cut off the Estimate without any explanation at all. I believe the Vote on the Second Reading showed that the Bill commends itself to the common sense of the majority of the House, and I trust that on the Third Reading there be sufficient unanimity to show that the
    564
    protection of the Empire is a matter in respect of which none will seek to gain a Party advantage.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)The speech of the hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir E. Hamley) has given me an additional reason for desiring to speak this afternoon. He seemed to think that some of us are putting ourselves out of touch with our constituents. Now, I believe that we—the opponents of the Bill will have no difficulty whatever in justifying ourselves before our constituents. So far as I can ascertain, we are just in the same position now as we were when the Bill was first brought in. There has been no clear Ministerial statement giving a distinct reason why there should be this extraordinary expenditure on the Navy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite only regard it as a sop in the pan, and tell us that something more will be required to make the Navy perfect. Even the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford) does not like the Bill, because the Government have not submitted a thoroughly complete scheme, and one that will be sufficient for the country once for all. I have risen to take part in the debate, however, chiefly on account of the extraordinary way in which the name of an illustrious statesman has been attempted to be utilized by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was astonished to be told on Friday by a gallant Admiral, who is one of the warm supporters of the Government, to study Richard Cobden. Now, I think that I studied Richard Cobden before the gallant Admiral made up his mind to favour the country with a specimen of his ability in the political arena. When I was quite a youth Richard Cobden was one of the men I followed most assiduously. When I heard him quoted the other night, I asked myself, "What has become of the author of 'The Three Panics?'" I wonder whether the gallant Admiral has ever read "The Three Panics" carefully and assiduously? The whole of Richard Cobden's life was spent in attacking with vigour the panics which were repeatedly being got up. He attacked—first, the panic of 1847–48; next, the panic of 1851–52 and 1853; and, lastly, the panic of 1859–60 and '61. Richard Cobden has over and over again been brought into court by

    565
    hon. Members on the other side of the House as a witness in favour of the scheme of the Government. Let me direct attention to Mr. Cobden's speech in this House in 1859 before the Commercial Treaty was signed. Was it a speech in favour of an extensive expenditure on the part of the Admiralty beyond the ordinary expenditure? Not at all. It was a powerful and trenchant speech against a similar panic to that which we are attacking now, and it was made in opposition to one of these extraordinary attempts to extract a large sum of money from the country without any particular object. On the 29th of July, 1859, Richard Cobden said:—
    "We have been asked to vote this year for the purposes of the Navy no less than £26,000,000 sterling, or twice the amount voted for a similar object when I first entered the House. We are called upon this year to vote three times as much for the Navy as was the case in 1835, when the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel were at the head of affairs."
    Is that a speech in favour of the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite? We have had in the course of this debate inuendos against the conduct of the French, Russian, and other European Governments, and we are given to understand that it is necessary to make this expenditure because something horrible is going to happen owing to the conduct of these Governments. Mr. Cobden, in the speech I am quoting, went on to say:—
    "While the Courts of these countries have been holding friendly intercourse, the Governments at the same time have been preparing for an outbreak of war, and have never shown the slightest confidence in each other. This is a degrading policy in the sight of the world. I say that we ought to have as large a Navy in England as any other country possesses. If I saw a disposition on the part of France to have as large a Navy as England—"
    ADMIRAL MAYNEThe speech which I quoted was one delivered by Mr. Cobden at Rochdale.
    MR. J. ROWLANDSThis is the only speech which I have, and it was delivered in this House. Mr. Cobden went on to say—
    "If I saw a disposition on the part of France to have as large a Navy as England, and no inclination to yield to the offer of an explanation, I should suspect France of having a sinister purpose in her armaments, and if it came to a question of rivalry after the offer of explanation had been made, I would as cheerfully vote £100,000,000 sterling as I would vote £5,000,000 under the present system."
    Speaking again as to what might be
    566
    necessary under certain circumstances, Mr. Cobden said—
    "I would submit to these evils when they are necessary; but for Heaven's sake do not impose them on the people longer than you can! With reason, argument, and justice remove them from among them."
    In the present instance the Government have not shown the paramount importance of expending this money. On the contrary, we are already overburdened with a struggling population, and we say, "Do not do this until it is an absolute necessity, and then, when you can show that there is a necessity, possibly we shall be as ready as you are to vote the money." Mr. Cobden told us in "The Three Panics" that—
    "The effect produced by the invasion panic in England was very dissimilar upon different classes in France. Statesmen and men of education and experience, did not give the British Government credit for sincerity when it made the alleged naval armaments of France the plea for extraordinary warlike preparations. Their opinion could not be better expressed than in the words of M. Ducos, who, when writing privately to one of his colleagues during the former panic, observed that 'the English Cabinet may possibly not be very much distressed by these imaginary terrors (as we have sometimes seen among ourselves), inasmuch as they enable them to swell their Budget, and serve to strengthen a somewhat uncertain majority in Parliament'"
    The Government want a huge sum of money to spend in the Dockyards, and we suspect that their object is to squander it before the next Election. [Cries of "Oh!"] I have a perfect right to look for an object. It is not necessary that I should refer further to Mr. Cobden; but I could stand here all day and pelt hon. Members opposite with quotations from his speeches. Before I sit down let me give another quotation—this time from the late Joseph flume, who on one occasion said—
    "Our present panics are not due, as in times past, to old women, but to having too many clubs about London containing so many half-pay officers, with nothing to do but to look after themselves and their friends. These are the men who write to the newspapers, and are anxious to bring grist to the mill somehow or other."
    There were, therefore, in those days persons who held very much the opinion which we hold now. It is the old rivalry and the old attempt to best one another, leaving the mass of the toilers of the country to pay the cost. But there are those who believe that the strength of an Empire does not consist in the amount of money spent year

    567
    by year in taxation, but upon the condition in which the masses of the people are. An Empire existing under good conditions, with a free and prosperous people, should the emergency arise, however strongly they may be imbued with high and noble peace principles, will know how to meet it, and would go forth to encounter any foe who might care to enter the field against them. I have made these remarks by way of protest against the policy of the Government, and I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green as one of the legitimate heirs of Richard Cobden. [Cries of "Oh!"] I should like to know how long hon. Gentlemen opposite have posed as the heirs of Richard Cobden, and have been proud of his deeds. I have yet to learn that they are admirers of his grand policy of Free Trade and non-intervention. It is certainly in his spirit that we on this side of the House shall go into the Lobby to vote against the proposals of the Government.
    LORD C. BERESFORD (Marylebone, E.)I should not have intervened in this debate but for the remarks of the Secretary of the Admiralty. It all shows how careful we ought to be in these matters on both sides of the House to bury all questions of Party when we are considering the defence of the country. I myself have always carefully avoided saying what occurred when other Governments were in power, and to put my views as clearly as possible before the House without touching sore places. Now, my noble Friend at Birmingham certainly did say something which irritated some people.
    LORD G. HAMILTONI said nothing at Birmingham which I have not said in this House over and over again.
    LORD C. BERESFORDMy noble Friend has corrected me. Then he has certainly been misunderstood, but the debate, in my opinion, has been prolonged in consequence of what he did say. I think that all questions of Party should be barred on an occasion like this when we are discussing the defences of the country. I do not blame the Front Bench for changing its mind and for making out black is white if they will only admit that they have been misinformed, but they have adopted the political way of getting out of the difficulty.
    568
    I think it is much better to be broad and honest, and if they have made a mistake say so. Depend upon it, the conduct of my late colleagues and the Government have done more to stop this Bill passing quickly than anything else. I object to their making out that I can neither read nor write, hear nor see. The Secretary of the Admiralty spoke of altered circumstances. I entirely disagree with him. The circumstances have not altered in the least. The proposals which I made on the 13th of December were almost identical with the proposals now made by the Government, but I was answered by the Government and told that I was altogether wrong, and that there was no necessity for them. I want to know what vessels Russia and France and Italy have laid down above and beyond that Return. I deny that there are any, and the Secretary of the Admiralty must know it.
    MR. FORWOODWhat Return is the noble Lord referring to? The facts I gave were from the Return made this year.
    LORD C. BERESFORDThe hon. Member stated that France, Italy, and Russia have laid down some battleships lately. I say that no battleships have been laid down since "the navies of other countries" Return—a Return which has been discussed over and over again.
    MR. FORWOODI must interrupt my noble Friend again. The facts I gave had reference to work since March in last year.
    LORD C. BERESFORDThat lands the hon. Member in a bigger hole than ever. It was only in December last that I spoke, and then I was proved to be altogether wrong.
    MR. FORWOODSo you were.
    LORD C. BERESFORDThe hon. Gentleman says—So I was. I cannot understand what he means, and I must leave him to explain. It is impossible to argue with people who go about like a weathercock. They have altered their minds, and now they are going to do the right thing. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have called attention to what has been said in justification of the plan of the Admiralty. What my noble Friend ought to have done was to call upon his naval advisers to prepare a complete plan saying what ships are necessary for the defence of

    569
    the Empire, with its enormous amount of imports and exports. What has he done according to his own statement? He has gone all through the figures of the Admiralty. I do not agree with him that the statements have been most extraordinary. Now, Sir, will the Civil Lord of the Admiralty tell the House that any Admiral besides Sir Arthur Hood declares that he is satisfied that this increase of the Fleet will meet all our requirements? Will it meet the wastage? We are not going to lay down any ships besides these for the next five years. Shall we, at the end of that time, have a Fleet? Do all the Admirals agree with Sir Arthur Hood? If the Civil Lord tells us they are, I shall be amazed.
    LORD G. HAMILTONAll the Naval Lords signed the statement that, if we make the addition to the Fleet, as according to the Bill we propose to do in the next four years, the Navy will be equal to the combined forces of two Powers.
    LORD C. BERESFORDI think that that is very satisfactory, and as the First Lord tells us that, I am perfectly ready to go with him as far as that argument goes. But I do not know what the House of Commons will say when, in four years' time, they are asked for a further increase of the Navy, as I know hon. Members will be, as sure as they sit on those Benches. What we ought to do is to run our Fleet up to a given standard first, and then allow for wastage. The Naval Estimates would then be nearly normal; but as sure as you go on with this sort of policy you will have these panics over and over again. I think the First Lord makes out his plan in a half-hearted and very unbusinesslike way. Take, for instance, the wastage of the Fleet. He puts down four ironclads as obsolete. But according to his own showing at the end of four years 14 other ironclads will have become obsolete, and yet in the next three years only 10 battle ships are to be built, so that he will not meet the actual wastage. With regard to some observations made by the hon. Member for Wansbeck, as to the naval position of this country and of France in 1843, I should like to point out that British commerce has, since that time, gone on increasing by hundreds of millions sterling, while the force which we have to defend it has hardly increased at all. That is the
    570
    point before the country. The Government have put difficulties in their own way by the manner in which they have brought their scheme forward. If they had made the addition to the Navy in a proper, businesslike fashion it would have been far better for the country, and for the House of Commons, and for themselves. At the same time, I shall go into the Lobby with them, as I consider it to be absolutely necessary that our Fleet should be run up to the standard which they have laid down.
    MR. R. W. DUFFI propose to trouble the House with but few remarks. We, on the Opposition side of the House, have been somewhat disappointed by the statement of the. Secretary to the Admiralty, who did not reply in the smallest degree to the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. The hon. Gentleman commenced by accusing the right hon. Gentleman of having made misstatements, but he has not attempted to deny or explain away the speech of the First Lord at the Mansion House in. 1886, in which he intended to convey to the country the idea that our Navy was strong enough to compete with that of any three Powers combined.
    LORD G. HAMILTONNothing of the kind.
    MR. DUFFThe right hon. Gentleman said that this country had more ships in commission than any three European Powers. Did that mean anything or nothing? I say it conveyed to the people the idea that our Navy was stronger than that of any three Powers. Of course, we knew that this was pure, sheer, unadulterated nonsense, and that in order to make the statement the Government would have to count every Queen's yacht, every receiving ship, and every old hulk even down to the Victory. But was it proper for the First Lord to go to the Mansion House and convey such an expression? I consider that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby was perfectly justified in quoting that remark of the noble Lord's as evidence that nine months after the Government came into Office they were satisfied with the condition of things in the Navy.
    LORD G. HAMILTONThe right hon. Gentleman has distorted my meaning. In the speech to which the hon. Member has referred I spoke of the grave defects and deficiencies in the

    571
    naval organization of the country, and said that they were in course of being remedied. I said it was as senseless to ignore any shortcomings as it was irrational to exaggerate or distort them. And then, after stating certain facts, I went on to say that we had in this country naval resources which were practically unlimited, and that it was the duty of the Department to see that proper steps were taken to utilize them.
    MR. DUFFI observe that the noble Lord has not alluded to the most important part of the speech, in which he said that "the number of ships in commission, armoured and unarmoured, exceeds the combined forces of the three greatest European Powers." We have heard no explanation of that statement, and later on at Birmingham he repeated the story of the quick-firing ammunition of which we have heard so much. In regard to that I should like to mention one circumstance, and that is, that in the year 1886 the amount taken for naval ordnance was £1,600,000, or £200,000 more than we are spending just now. Yet we are told that at that time there was a serious deficiency in the ammunition. The Secretary to the Admiralty has accused me of misrepresenting the evidence of Sir A. Hood. Now, I may mention that I have had a correspondence with Sir Arthur on the subject. He appeared to think that I misquoted him, and I told him that if he was not satisfied with my explanation, I was perfectly willing to publish it. He said, however, that there was no necessity for that. I confess that I am still at a loss to understand the position of the Admiralty with regard to an increase in the Navy. The First Naval Lord told the Committee on the 16th June that he only wanted six more cruisers.
    MR. FORWOODBy 1890.
    MR. DUFFHe was several times asked, are you satisfied with the armour clads, and he replied yes, provided you build me these six cruisers. Yet he admits that fourteen days afterwards—on the 1st July—this scheme was in print, at the very time when, as has been declared over and over again, our Fleet was equal to the combined Fleets of France and Russia.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONNever.
    MR. DUFFDo not be so rash in contradiction. I say we have had that
    572
    statement over and over again. Now, the Secretary to the Admiralty, in a speech delivered at the London Chamber of Commerce in March, 1888, said:—
    "But it was asked whether the British Navy was able to cope with any reasonable combination of Foreign Powers. It could be answered that England was more than equal in strength to two of the greatest nations in Europe—France and Russia."
    MR. FORWOODWill the hon. Member continue the quotation, and not divorce it from the context? In the next sentence I gave the numbers, and on those numbers I based the comparison.
    MR. DUFFI venture to say that that statement contains the deliberate opinion of the Admiralty.
    MR. FORWOODI gave the numbers and compared them.
    MR. DUFFI take the words "equal in strength;" how can that mean equal in numbers? That was the opinion of the Secretary to the Admiralty on March 23. On the 1st July he gives us a different account. How is it possible for the House or the country to have any confidence in such a vacillating policy as that of the Government? When I said the other day that the First Naval Lord must, while he was giving his evidence before the Committee, have had the present scheme in his pocket, I meant that he must have had it in his mind, for it was in print on July 1.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONThe scheme was not in print then.
    MR. DUFFThe First Naval Lord has stated that it was in print on the 1st July; he stated that in the correspondence, on his honour as an officer and a gentleman. The Secretary to the Admiralty has accused the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby of making garbled statements. I leave the House to judge which are the most garbled, his statements or those of the Admiralty. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that the Government scheme is really that of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone watered down; but while the noble Lord has put forward his scheme in a businesslike spirit and said what he thinks the British Navy has to do, and how many ships are required for the work, the Government have given the House no reasons whatever for their scheme. In the interests of the Navy, which I have very much at heart, I regret the spirit of

    573
    swagger in which this Bill—purporting to spend twenty-one and a half millions, whereas really we are only going to spend eight millions extra—has been introduced.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)I think the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby has completely knocked overboard this scheme of the Government, and it was evidently the duty of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to attempt to put it on its legs again. Now, Mr. Speaker, opinion on this side of the House, and out of doors, will certainly be that the Secretary to the Admiralty has not succeeded in re establishing the case of the Government. We were asked in the original Resolution to declare that it was expedient to increase the Navy considerably and to spend a large sum of money in the course of the next five years, and I confess that as the debate goes on I am becoming profoundly convinced that this is a scare to which the House of Commons is asked to give way, and that the longer the question remains under consideration, the less necessity will be shown for this extraordinary outlay. Sir, it is quite right—and no doubt the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Leader of the House of Commons were well advised in attempting to close the debate on Friday night—that the less opportunity there is given for the continuation of the debate the better for them. But the debate having been continued, I am bound to say that hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this evening may fairly claim to represent the feeling of the masses of the people—they may say that they really reflect the opinion of the vast majority of the public on the scheme. It may be that the Government found it necessary to bring forward the scheme, but what a marvel it is that the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty should have had anything to do with bringing it forward. If he desired to maintain his own character for consistency, and for knowledge of the Department of which he has charge, he would have said, after the declarations he had made in the country and in this House on the question of our Navy being able to cope with any two Continental Powers, that he could not consistently come down with proposals which implied
    574
    that the Navy was in no such safe condition. Now, many of us are placed in the difficulty of not knowing whether we are to believe, the noble Lord's-statement to-day, or the statement he has been making during the last two or three years. For my own part, I am, disposed to believe the noble Lord's original statement; I cannot place any reliance upon his present declarations, and my belief is that he has been driven to change his position. I am afraid it is only too true, as was said by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, that the First Lord of the Admiralty is nothing but a weather-cock, and that he changes his position day after day, week after week, and month after month as events occur. I believe the Vote asked for to-night shows, on the part of the Government, a want of consideration and a want of deliberation. I am not going to occupy the time of the House beyond dealing with one or two points which the noble Lord has referred to. He stated that this proposed enormous extension of the Navy was received by all the Powers with satisfaction. I ventured to interject at the time an inquiry "What Powers?" and at the same time the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, asked if any diplomatic despatches had been received from the different Governments in Europe, expressing approval of this singular increase of the British Navy. Now, I ask what Powers did the First Lord of the Admiralty refer to. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the British Government is taking sides, and is becoming a partizan in the squabbles of the Continent. I can understand that this proposal may be acceptable to Germany, and possibly to Austria and Italy; but does the noble Lord wish the House and the country to understand that Russia, or the United States of America, or France view this increase of the Navy to any satisfaction? The noble Lord knows very well these Powers cannot do so, because they must be aware that if we are arming in this way it is against a combination of some or all of these Powers that we are preparing. Well, Sir, the noble Lord has further informed us that this increase of the Navy is really intended to maintain the peace of Europe. But, Mr. Speaker, we were told at the outset that this extraordinary expenditure and this

    575
    large increase was intended to protect British commerce, and render the British shores safe from attack. Does the noble Lord intend us to understand that we are indulging in this enormous expenditure with a view to domineering over all the countries of Europe, and to maintaining the peace? If he does, I can only say that nothing more chimerical or more unlikely can be expected from British Government entering upon such a scheme which has been conceived in this way. If we are really interested in the maintenance of the peace of Europe, I venture to suggest that we must adopt very different methods than this rivalry in the increase of the Army and Navy, of this country, and instead of taking up such an attitude we should adopt a more rational position. The gallant officer stated that the time would come when the people of Europe would put a check to this mad expenditure on the part of Europe. I was glad to hear from such a quarter such a prophecy. We on this side have indulged this hope for a long time past, but we want to see the beginning of such a change, and what I assert is that if a great and general catastrophe in Europe is to be avoided it must be by proper steps being taken, to ameliorate the present pressure upon the industrial classes of the Continent. In Italy, Austria, and Germany the industrial classes are manifesting a great spirit of dissatisfaction and of despair, and a determination also no longer to tolerate the crushing burden under which they writhe. I know it is difficult for any one of the States on the Continent to take the initiative, but I think we might usefully employ ourselves in this direction. What use is diplomacy, if it is not able to do something in the way of mitigating situations? We spend large sums in keeping gentlemen in every capital in Europe in order that we may remain on good terms with the different nations and in order that they may remove any international difficulties which prevail. What have these gentlemen been doing all these years? Have we any evidence that any attempt whatever has been made by these gentlemen to mitigate the situation on the Continent, to offer their good offices towards a general reduction of armaments on the Continent? If they have not used their good offices in this direc-
    576
    tion, I maintain they have failed in their duty, not only towards England, but to the world at large. I have said there is evidence of a disposition on the part of the present Government to lean towards the triple alliance on the Continent. I am not here to say that the policy of Germany, Austria, and Italy may not be one as well worthy of our support as any that France or any other Power can suggest, but I insist that we ought to take no share in any of these Continental struggles. We are practically boycotting France, and I ask how by such means we shall keep out of difficulty. I believe the people will in a very short time come round to see that the proposals of the Government are mischievous from first to last, and that there has been cast on the country increased burdens for which there is no necessity whatever, and which will only tend to aggravate the situation.["Divide."] No doubt it is very important that Gentlemen opposite should dine at a certain hour, but it is also important that when it is proposed to spend 20 millions of money those who feel called upon to protest against the expenditure should be heard. I put infinitely more faith in a single act which has been performed within the last few days than I put in the expenditure of this extra 10 millions of money. The Lord Mayor of London has done this country splendid service by his presence in Paris, and by his declaration there that the British people wish to live on the best of terms with the French, and wish to remove every possible cause of jealousy, and, if Governments fail us, and if the House of Commons is not true to the people, then we must rely upon these other methods such as that taken by the Lord Mayor and the utterances of Members in this House who are entitled to speak on behalf of the industrial classes of this country to save us and the Continent of Europe from the catastrophe which seems impending.
    SIR W. LAWSONI thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that when it is proposed to spend enormous sums of money upon armaments, it is the duty of this House to carefully consider the proposition. I do not see how anyone can complain of this debate being prolonged, seeing that this measure has been described by the

    577
    Times, the official organ of the Government, as the principal measure of the Session. If the Government's scheme be right and good, one acceptable to the country, one which is capable of defence, surely it is in their interest that it should be discussed as much as possible in the House. Now, Sir, we were told in the Queen's Speech that the Navy is to be increased that it may the better protect our shores and our commerce. The First Lord of the Admiralty has said since that the object of it is the promotion of the peace of Europe. I suppose the promotion of the peace of Europe means an interference in the abominable quarrels which go on in Europe with which we have no manner of concern. Surely you do not want this Navy for that. It is only a year ago that the First Lord of the Admiralty said:—
    "I am well within the mark when I say we are 30 or 40 per cent above the next most powerful Naval Power."
    Where, therefore, is the danger to our commerce? What is the Government afraid of? I do not suppose they are anxious about commerce, for they are doing all they can to prevent sugar coming into this country. If there is any danger to the commerce of the country how is it that not one of the representatives of the working men in this House is found to support this measure? I see near me two friends of mine who are distinguished representatives of the commerce of the country— my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Evans). Both of them are dead against this scheme. Their living depends upon commerce, and surely if any persons are competent to speak on this matter they are gentlemen of that description. The fact is, this Bill is to give us power to meddle and muddle in every abominable European quarrel that goes on. Therefore, the object of the measure is bad; it is not defence but defiance. This is a preparation for war, and I declare that preparation for war is the first step towards war. The Bill is also bad in the way in which it attempts to accomplish its object. How delightful it was to hear the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Field) say that the scheme was one for compelling future Parliaments to do the bidding of the present government The hon. and gallant
    578
    Gentleman also said another good thing. He said it was very well to get all this money voted while we had the Irishmen with us, a clear admission that he knows Home Rule is coming very soon. Of course there is danger of invasion. Lord Salisbury told us the other day there was danger of being invaded by the Irish. I should think he is the only person who entertains that opinion. It seems to me that from beginning to end the scheme is a confession of incompetence on the part of the Government. Some time ago we had a whole night of quotations from the speeches of the First Lord of the Admiralty and his subordinate, the Secretary to the Admiralty. We have tried to get a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Eccleshall Division of Sheffield (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), who, no doubt, had he spoken would have made a speech more absurd than either of the other two. But we have not succeeded in the attempt. Again, the scheme involves the adoption of a most unconstitutional course. If I may use the expression, I assert that the policy which the Bill embodies is an idiotic policy—a policy of unlimited brag. We are practically saying to other nations, "We are stonger, more powerful than you, and we will show you we are." The expenditure of our money in such an effort is the most wicked and wanton waste of the resources of the country that has ever been proposed. Whom is this done to please? Who is at the bottom of this? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) told us the other night that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford) is at the bottom of it. I have a great respect for the noble Lord, and for his ability and courage, but I do not think he has influence enough to get up a scare entirely by himself. The First Lord of the Admiralty said in this House that the Monarchies and Governments of Europe were anxious to prolong the state of European peace, and they therefore welcomed this addition to our forces as a guarantee that we should have additional power to secure the maintenance of peace. I think that was one of the most extraordinary statements I ever heard in this House. The argument is that these great additions

    579
    to our Navy are made to please other Powers. I suppose, then, we must be pleased to see them arming. Then the noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) says that the increasing armaments of other nations have rendered an increase necessary on our part. So that all nations are to go on arming against one another because they cannot keep the peace with one another unless they do so. I think that declaration of the noble Lord is the most ridiculous political statement we have ever heard, except, of course, the one respecting the invasion of Ireland used by Lord Salisbury. I must say I never heard any proposal brought forward with so little show of argument in its favour. It would almost appear that the nations of the earth who are indulging in this insane rivalry had gone stark, staring mad. I think it was Bishop Butler who said there were times when nations went mad, and I should think that this is one of the occasions. But it is more sad than mad to see the Government of this country taking advantage of this ridiculous scare, which they know is a scare, just to put a few contracts into the hands of a few shipbuilders, and to get places and promotion and good pensions for the fighting classes. [Cries of "Divide."] I do not know why the hon. Gentlemen who called out "Divide" should remain to hear me. They do not agree with what I say, and I have not much hope of converting them. There are, however, many hon. Members here who are ready to repeat my protest against this wicked and wanton waste of public money. There are many other hon. Members here ready to repeat the protest. Lethon. Members opposite retire until the Division. If they do not hear our arguments, I am sure they will vote with a much clearer conscience against us. I am rejoiced to find the working men taking this matter up, and the more this matter is discussed the more they will see that this expenditure is a dead loss to the working men. Mr. Ruskin says the time is drawing near for the workmen who are conscious of their own power and probity to draw together into action, and that the real, true cause of the increase of armaments is simply the gain of manufacturers of the instruments of death. That is the opinion of all great thinkers and writers and philosophers
    580
    who have looked into this question—that these war armaments are kept up, for the sake of a class and not in the interest of the people. The First Lord of the Admiralty never answers me when I put questions to him in this House. I suppose he cannot answer me. But let him try. I am sorry he cannot speak again in this debate, but he could send for the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). I wonder what has become of him? The noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) talks about protecting the Empire, but he will not tell us who is the enemy he is afraid of, or what danger there is of our quarrelling with anybody. As long as that question remains unanswered, the Government remains condemned. If we really are on the cordial relations with foreign countries that the hon. Member says we are, why is it not possible for us to enter into negotiations with them? Mr. Cobden has been quoted to-night, but I would point out that in the very speech which has been referred to, he said, "he would vote that money after every explanation to present such an absurd waste had taken place." That is the whole point. All we want is some explanation with other Governments. There have been since 1850 no less than 52 important cases in which international disputes have been settled by arbitration. My gallant Friend opposite (Admiral Field), in his speech the other night, extolled the Jingoes, and said our country had been made by Jingoes. I will tell you one achievement in this generation which exceeds the deeds of all the Jingoes ever born, and that was the settlement of the Alabama question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and I tell the noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Hamilton), that long after the massacre of Tel-el-Kebir and the devastation of Alexandria have been forgotten, that arbitration business will be looked upon as one of the noblest and soundest pieces of statesmanship ever accomplished. I say that the Government can at least negotiate with Foreign Powers for a reduction of their armaments. It is because I cannot find a shred of evidence that either the Ministers or their Ambassadors have ever made a single step or an honest endeavour to obtain a mutual reduction

    581
    of armaments that I am opposed to this Bill. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I am really not altogether sorry that this measure has been brought in. It will teach the people of this country what the Tory Government is capable of. It will teach the country that the Tory Government considers that working men were born simply to maintain fighting men. It will prove that the Tory Government absolutely refuses to appeal to the conscience and the justice of other nations, but will maintain for evermore that odious military system which produces the misery of the many and conduces to the advantage of only a very small portion of the people. I will finish with an epilogue, which I read only yesterday. One of the Kings of Prussia was once appealed to by a poor woman to release her son from military service. He applied, "I myself and my nobles are soldiers. What can your son wish for better than to enter the Army?" The poor woman answered, "Ah, Sire, fighting may be very good for you and your nobles who have nothing better to do, but my son has learnt to be a shoemaker." Mr. Speaker, it is because I am heart and soul for the shoemakers, and heart and soul against the nobles, that I give my most hearty support to the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    The House divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 101—(Division List, No. 119.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  NATIONAL DEBT BILL. (No. 219.)

    Bill considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
    To be read the third time to-morrow, at two of the clock.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. (No. 215.)
  Read the third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £22,347, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the
    582
    sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
    DR. CLARKI hope we shall hear something from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to the remarks made on the last occasion, when we had this Vote before us, by one of the Welsh Members, in regard to the action of the Treasury in crushing out the development of the Welsh goldfields. To pursue the present system of royalties must result in their not getting anything like what they ought to get, and it will prevent this young industry from developing. That system is, to demand a certain amount on the gross proceeds of the mining, and that is similar to asking rent for land per acre irrespective of the character and situation of that land. Whether you work lodes yielding 5 oz. of gold to the ton, or lodes only producing 5 to 10 dwts., you ask the same royalty, though in the latter case there is no fair return for capital invested. The Transvaal gold fields were a rising industry, but would have been crushed by the action of the British Government, and it was only when the Boers resumed control again that their great development took place. I believe that not only in Wales, but in Scotland and Ireland, there is a field for this industry, and that gold can be found to the great benefit of the country and to the commerce of the world. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stopped anything of the kind, and I understand that the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Pritchard Morgan) has thrown up his Crown leases.
    MR. JACKSONThat has been said, but I think it is a mistake.
    DR. CLARKThe hon. Member said so. I think it would be a good thing to have an inquiry by Committee into this subject. We ought to have a Gold Law similar to that which we have in our Colonies to deal with this matter. I know that in Caithness and in other parts of the Highlands gold can be found in the silt of the rivers, and that men working it can make from a pound to thirty shilling a week. But they are entirely in the hands of the Government

    583
    officials and the factors of owners like the Duke of Sutherland, whose action sometimes puts a stop to the work. The Crown has the right to these Royal minerals, but prospecting for them should be regulated by law, as is the case in the Colonies.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER)I had not the advantage of hearing the remarks of the hon. Member for Merthyr, but I gather from previous discussions that the operations he is engaged in warrant the action taken by the Treasury. Under a system of competition it is difficult if we are to prevent favouritism to proceed in any other manner than by accepting the offer of the highest bidder. It is unfortunate if subsequently the person whose offer is accepted finds he has paid too much for the privilege of working. We have every desire to promote these undertakings, and there is no wish to exact the uttermost farthing, but unless competition is to be a farce we have no alternative but to accept the highest tender. However, I will once more look into the matter, and see if there is any preferable system.
    MR. CONYBEAREI am afraid that the range of vision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these matters is excessively limited, and that his knowledge of the Gold Laws in gold-producing countries must be not very extensive. The condition of the whole of this question of royalties is a disgrace to this country, a condition of things which I believe I am right in saying is not to be found in any other country in the world. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer supposes, with his knowledge of mining industry here and in other countries, that all the system of royalties to private individuals as well as to the State does not hamper and restrict mining industry in this country, all I can say is the sooner he learns what has been done in other countries, and what might be done here, the sooner and the better will he be able to discharge one of the responsibilities attaching to the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, I am not going to quarrel with the system of paying royalties on minerals in this country, whether gold or otherwise, to the Government of the country. That, so far as I under-
    584
    stand the matter, is a proceeding not inconsistent with that theory of naturalization of the land,which a great many of us on this side conceive to be the proper solution of the Land Question. I am entirely in favour of the State receiving something in the way of royalties for minerals taken from our native land, which I recognize as the property of the nation; but what I complain of is that, in addition to such royalties, there is an additional royalty paid to the individual in whose land the gold is found, placing a double incubus on the mining industry.
    THE CHAIRMANThe only question of royalties open upon this Vote is in relation to the action of the Department.
    MR. CONYBEAREI am giving my reasons for an alteration of the present system and for an inquiry on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. I do not, Sir, wish to question your ruling, but I would submit that I am entitled to give a reason for such an inquiry, and for some modification of the system of royalties that this new or resuscitated gold industry in Wales is hampered with. I am not going into the general question of royalties. I hope we shall have an opportunity at a later date, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who has expressed himself as willing to look into the matter that he should go a little further and study from a textbook on the subject what has been done in other countries. The Gold Law of the Transvaal is perhaps the most perfect to be found in any mining country, for I happen to know it was carefully elaborated after inquiry into the state of the Gold Mining Laws of every country in the civilized world. If the right hon. Gentleman does not feel disposed to accept the suggestion for a Select Committee, will he undertake that this subject shall form an integral part of the examination into the general question of royalties, which is to be entrusted. as I understand, to a Royal Commission. Of this I have not heard much, and I should like to know whether the Commission will have specific power to deal with all questions affecting gold and silver money in this country. I can corroborate what has been said by my hon. Friend that a great many industries in other parts of the country

    585
    besides Wales are stifled and impeded. I am sorry I am precluded from going into details to show how the Crown and private royalties combined prevent development of the gold mining industry in Sutherlandshire. Loss must accrue to the Exchequer, over which the right hon. Gentleman presides like a guardian angel, if private owners are permitted—
    THE CHAIRMANOrder, Order!
    MR. CONYBEAREI am not going into the question of private royalties.
    THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is diverging from the point—the way in which the Crown exercise the right.
    MR. CONYBEAREI did not understand that was the specific point to which I was tied down. I thought I could deal with the general question of the royalties to the Crown. I do not wish to trespass on forbidden ground. All I wished to say was that the gold mining industry is impeded in every part of the kingdom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it necessary to adopt the principle of competition, and says to prevent favouritism the highest offer must be accepted. That may be so. I am not against the general principle of public competition, nor would I suggest anything likely to increase that private jobbery which we know is inseparable from Tory administration, but I certainly do not understand that there is no alternative to placing on the industry a scale of royalties too heavy for it to bear. We must recollect the great competition now going on; the produce of gold in South Africa is increasing rapidly, and we should do everything we can to develop the industry here. The right lion. Gentleman said, as I understood, he did not consider that there was any grave ground for complaint because the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Pritchard Morgan) had sold his mines for a very large sum to a company. I had the pleasure the other morning of discussing that matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr, who showed me some of the specimens of gold from Wales. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to comfort himself with the reflection that my hon. Friend made a good thing out of this business. I hope he has done so. But the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the
    586
    outlay of my hon. Friend has been very large. I am given to understand that my hon. Friend has laid out no less a sum than £100,000 in his endeavour to make something of this mining industry. This I consider to be one of the most patriotic efforts we have heard of in recent years. English capitalists are only too ready to invest their money in every part of the civilized or uncivilized world, and it is a very great satisfaction to know that there are capitalists in this country ready to sink large sums of money in the endeavour to do some good to the industries of the country. Therefore, the fact that he has invested his money is an additional reason not that he should be heavily taxed, but that his patriotic efforts should be recognized, and that what can be done without unduly sacrificing the interests of the nation should be done for the purpose of encouraging him to carry on his patriotic efforts. I am not opposed to the principle of State royalties, but I think that if we cannot at once get rid of the additional incubus and burden of royalties, we ought, at any rate, so to arrange the scale of royalties as to impose the smallest burden possible upon a struggling industry like this gold mining industry. I have said these few words with the object of backing up what has been said by my hon. Friend, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us some further assurance that the question will be considered by the Royal Commission which I understand is to be granted for the purpose of discussing the question of royalties.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAMWe have heard a good deal of fault found with the mode in which these royalties are assessed, and, if I understand rightly, a great improvement could be made in respect of Crown royalties. I think that encouragement should be given to the finding of gold in this country. Although I do not believe that much gold will be found, yet, I think, that is all the more reason why those who are making the attempt should be encouraged. I would suggest that the royalty should be upon the gold discovered. One of the greatest difficulties is experienced in dealing with the sub-holders of land, and it does seem to me that they should not be an obstacle

    587
    in the way of working these minerals at a fair and reasonable rate.
    THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is travelling away from the point. The hon. Member has heard me twice warn another hon. Member, who was pursuing the same line of argument.
    MR. COSSHAMI was wishing to ascertain whether any arrangement could be made by which the Government could get possession of and work the metals without private individuals standing in the way. I find in connection with this Vote of £28,000 that the sum of £9,000 [An hon. MEMBER: £11,000] well,either £9,000 or £11,000, is for legal expenses. Such an amount absorbed in legal expenses appears to me to require very considerable justification. I see that the addition to this charge this year is something like £3,033. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be kind enough to give some explanation of this large amount for law expenses.
    MR. JACKSONThe total amount charged for legal expenses, including all the leases granted and all the legal arrangements, and all the conveyances that have to be made. [Mr. COSSHAM: They are paid for.] No. The legal branch deals with them, and I do not think that the amount is excessive. With reference to the mining royalties, I may remind the hon. Member that it has been agreed to appoint a Commission on Mining Royalties generally, and these royalties will not be excluded from the consideration of the Commission. Several hon. Members have raised the objection that the amount of the royalties is excessive. There are two answers to that. In the first place, it would be very difficult for the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to accept half the sum from one individual when there is another man willing to give twice as much. If there is one man willing to give 1-15th, it necessarily follows that they ought not to take 1-30th. The other answer is that the Commissioners would be perfectly willing, if it could be shown that there was inconvenience or waste, or that the value of the property was diminished to a lower point than reasonable to the adventurer, to re-consider the terms.
    MR. MOLLOYMr. Courtney, I have it on the authority
    588
    of a Member of this House that he had taken up a large number of leases of royalties for the Woods and Forests, and that he had found it so absolutely, impossible to work them under the conditions imposed that he had returned the whole of the leases to the Department.
    MR. JACKSONThe fact is not known to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The leases had not up to this morning been returned to them.
    MR. MOLLOYI can only give you the authority of a gentleman who is a Member of this House. He told me the royalty charges were so-great that he was obliged to return the leases. Perhaps it may be that the leases are now on their way. The example of all other gold-bearing countries will prove the practical inconvenience that must arise from these very large charges. Australia and America and other gold-bearing countries which started with royalties have absolutely abandoned them, whereas in this country, where a certain number of people are seeking to develop gold mining, a charge is made which renders it impossible to go on with the work. In foreign gold-bearing countries a charge of 5s. or 10s. for each registered claim is made, on condition that the property shall be worked and not kept idle. You ought to be guided by the experience of Australia, America, and other gold-bearing countries, which, having started by charging large royalties for gold, have abandoned them and contented themselves by charging a few shillings for registering a claim and requiring that the property should be worked. But the Secretary to the Treasury says—" Why should we give a reduction of half or even of less when we find there are a large number of people who are willing to give the whole?" The hon. Gentleman knows that whatever charge he likes to make there are a certain number of people who would accept the terms in the hope of getting something for themselves; but I say that that is not the class of people you would desire or who are likely to do any good. I know that in Ireland at the end of the last century the Government dealt in the same way with the gold interest there. The mines were then being worked by the peasantry, and in the course of a year and a half they actually

    589
    washed out something like£90,000 worth of gold. The Government then took the matter in hand and charged a royalty. What was the result? Why, that from that day to this not a single penny piece has been made, and a large loss was created by the action of the Government. Again, in Wales only 30 or 40 years ago a similar gold industry was started at a well-known mine, but the moment they came to difficult ground, when the production was much less than at first, the royalties charged by the Crown absolutely ruined them, and they had to abandon the development of the mine. There is no reason in these charges, and the only attempt to answer the arguments urged against them has been that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, the reason he gave for maintaining them being was that if the Crown did not keep them up some middlemen would step in and make money out of the industry. Was there ever such an argument as that? Why, the right hon. Gentleman knows that in every business there must be middlemen, there being in most cases the manufacturer, the wholesale buyer, and the retailer; and it is impossible to get rid of the middlemen. Therefore the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was only an excuse invented on the spur of the moment, because he had no better one to put forward. Now, on the one hand there is the loss the industry has sustained through the action of the Government; while on the other hand the Government make nothing by the course they take in this matter. The result is that the industry is being killed, and in order more particularly to draw the attention of the Government to their most ruinous and unreasonable conduct, I will move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £200.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,147, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr.Molloy).
    MR. BIGGARI may state that I have not any gold mines myself, but that as far as I can judge gold mining is a very poor business in these countries. If there is only a very small quantity of the ore in the quartz or earth taken out of the mines, a correspondingly low royalty ought to be asked
    590
    I think it would be well if the Government agreed to give short leases and low royalties for a few years, in order to encourage speculators to try for the gold that is to be had; because unless there is some profit, no one will be induced to risk money in making an expensive examination as to whether the gold exists in sufficient quantities to pay for the outlay. These are very speculative times, and I have no doubt that if a low rate of royalty were charged, the result would be, that people would be induced to take the risk. People will not be inclined to take very long leases on such a speculation, and I am sorry the Government should insist on leases of that kind. Probably ere long, an agitation may arise against the present system of royalties, and it would be wise on the part of the Government to anticipate that by the adoption of a more reasonable course.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGANThe Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that I have sold all my mining interests and netted a large sum of money. I deny the accuracy of that statement. I have not sold any of my freehold property, but on one of my leaseholds I have capitalized. What I complain of with reference to the action of the Woods and Forests Department is that they will not allow me to develop the property-freehold I have acquired in North Wales without going to them for a license, and paying for it. I say that that is unfair and unjust and not the way to encourage enterprize. The Crown does not claim the right of entering on land and working the mines itself; but it claims to prevent the removal of gold and silver on to the high road outside the limits of such land. That is what is claimed, but what I believe is the only right of the Crown under the Statute of William and Mary is to have the right of pre-emption at a price fixed by the Statute of George II. at£25per ton. Inasmuch as the Morgan Company have 100,000 tons of ore which is ready at the present moment, I should be glad if the Woods and Forests Department would comply with the letter of the law and give a cheque for £2,500,000 and take the ore away. But instead of doing this what do they do? They file a Bill against me to prevent my

    591
    searching for gold in that portion of Wales where no gold exists£I mean that situated where my own residence is. That action was commenced on the 26th April, 1888, and although I have endeavoured by every means to bring the case on for trial, they hamper me in every possible way. The other day the Crown, through its solicitor, (who is paid £1,200 or £1,500 a year for looking after the interests of the Woods and Forests), was ordered by the Court in the ordinary course to find security for £5—a merely nominal matter—and I am now to be compelled to contest an appeal to full Court as to whether or not the Crown should do what every other litigant does and enter into that security. This is the way the proceedings are being delayed. The other day I wanted to surrender an old license and take out a new one for a stated period; and for surrendering the old license and obtaining a new one they charged me the sum of £32 11 s. If that is the way to encourage industry (where the Crown has no legal rights whatsoever), what course of conduct would they adopt if they desired and determined to injure it? Now, Sir, I should like the House to understand the position of the matter, and to know what I have paid the Crown in actual money. We have produced in the twelve months ending March, £32,919 worth of gold from 5,297 tons of quartz, the yield of which was 1 oz. 18 dwts. Now, the royalties paid to the Crown in hard cash amounted to £1,104 10s. 5d. I do not include the royalties paid to the landlord. The Stamp Duty on the transfer of this property, which was worth nothing until £30,000 was expended upon it, was £802; the income tax on dividends £262 10s., and I myself paid £125 income tax, the total sum thus paid to the Government being £2,294 0s. 5d., or over £50 per week has this industry been taxed so far as one single mine is concerned. Now, I say that that is exceedingly unfair and unjust, and if any man, as the law now stands, owning a piece of land in Wales, desires to dig a hole in order to see if there is any gold in his property he must first pay a sum of seven guineas to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Not long ago these Commissioners sent to me a form to fill up, and I will read it in order that the
    592
    House may judge of the way in which that body is carrying on its business, and whether it is doing so in a proper manner. This is how the form reads:
    "Amount of store or vein stuff raised from— acres of land," "amount of visible gold stored," "visible gold delivered to the small machines"—and I am at a loss to understand. what is meant by small machines—"poor ore delivered to machines," "result from the poor ore."
    I do not understand that either. In answer I wrote to the Woods and Forests Commissioners—
    "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th February. If I were to fill up and certify the document which you have sent me, it would necessarily be of a most misleading character. I have not stored. 6 cwt. of visible gold, nor have I delivered one ton of visible gold to any small machines. I must confess my ignorance as to what small machines' mean, and if I may be pardoned for saying so, I think it absolutely necessary, if accounts have to be rendered, that the forms. should be altered in every respect. I hope to have an interview with Lord Salisbury at an early date, to obtain from him an expression of his views upon the subject of royalties and. returns generally."
    I then received a communication telling me I might alter the form in any way I liked. Here is another communication I received on the 31st December, 1888, in answer to one in which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests having written to me asking the conditions of the law, I had forwarded them a copy of the Act of William and Mary—
    "Dec. 31, 1888.
    "Sir,—I am directed by Mr. Cully to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th inst. enclosing a copy of the Act William and Mary, cap. 6, in which you state there is mentioned. auriferous and argentiferous ores, and upon which you founded your statement, that the persons who work lead mines have to give notice to the Crown that they have ores to dispose of. Mr. Cully is obliged to you for sending the copy, which, however, I am to return, as the Act is well known to Mr. Cully, and had been referred to before his previous communications were sent to you. Mr. Cully finds no provisions in it requiring persons who work lead mines to give notice to the Crown that they have ores to dispose of, neither is it the practice for such notice to be given. The Act gives the Crown the right of pre-emption at certain prices of copper, tin, iron, or lead ores, but it does not mention these ores as auriferous or argentiferous. I am, Sir,
    " Your obedient servant,
    "J. RUSSELL SOWNAY."
    Now, Sir, in order to show the manner in which the administration of this office

    593
    is conducted, I may say that the law is clear and unmistakable. Where gold or silver is obtained mixed up with iron, copper, lead, or other base metals, the Crown have no earthly right to it. The only right they have is the right of preemption at £25 per ton, and I ask this House to consider, whether or not the Woods and Forests Office is carrying out its duty efficiently or properly, or whether or not the House would be justified in saying that the Vote shall be reduced by a small amount for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to the administration of the Department. I say that this mere circumstance of the one incident I have related to the House, that of £32 11 s. being charged for nominal licenses to entitle one to search for gold upon private land, is a fact which ought to be taken into consideration by this House, and which I submit justifies the Committee in reducing the Vote in the manner which has been proposed.
    MR. CHILDERSI venture to address a few words to the House, because it was my good fortune about thirty years ago to be the Finance Minister of the Colony which has produced, I believe, the largest amount of gold, and I am personally acquainted with the legislation on the subject which has been referred to by the hon. Member for King's County in his short account of the policy pursued in the Colonies on this matter. During the first few years the gold mining was carried on in the colony, a good deal of difficulty existed in regard to the claims of the Government, and at last a decision was arrived at as to the best manner of charging for gold belonging to the Crown. In the first instance it was endeavoured to obtain the revenue by means of imposing a tax of so much per month upon all those who were employed in the industry. That tax, in the first place, was as much as 30s. per month, but it was found to be onerous and impossible to collect, and then the Government after the appointment of a Royal Commission, established a royalty amounting in the first instance to 2s. 6d., and afterwards to 1s. 6d. per ounce. This was collected for some years, and then was found to prove obstructive to those who were engaged in the industry, and therefore after trying these different experiments
    594
    the colony did what I believe all the colonies in which gold is obtained have done—they came to the conclusion that it is impolitic to attempt to charge these large sums, whether by way of personal payment or by way of royalty, and at the present time all these Acts have been repealed, and all that is done is to obtain licenses from the Crown for working any particular districts on plots of land which are marked out by the proper authority. There is no tax whatever either upon individuals or with respect to the gold thus obtained, and this system has been found to be the most advantageous to the public, and the only system under which the industry can be carried on with success. I would venture to suggest to the Government—and I do not know to what extent the history of the gold colonies is known to the Treasury or to the Woods and Forests Office—but I would advise the Government to follow some such system of granting licenses without imposing any charge upon individuals or in respect of the amount of gold obtained. I would not advise them to attempt to raise the revenue—and I had no idea it was so much as that which has been described by the hon. Member who last spoke. I understand from him that a revenue of as much as £2,000 was paid in respect of gold won by one company. I do not know whether the Treasury have ever had this matter under consideration, but I think that the experience of other countries, and the failure of the attempts to raise revenues in the way I have indicated, ought not to be forgotten, and that in regard to the gold mining industry in Wales and in Ireland, which might be carried on with great public advantage, I would venture to hope that some such change as I have indicated will receive the approval of the Government.
    MR. W. H. SMITHI have listened with great interest to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Undoubtedly the Treasury are not fully informed as to the legislation which prevails at the present moment in the Australian Colonies upon this subject. Now, the question is the proposal to reduce the Vote, but I should like to point out that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are trustees of the public Revenue, and are bound to adopt all the means in their power to

    595
    obtain revenue without oppression in the exercise of the rights of the Crown. Any hasty vote, therefore, on the part of the Committee would be a very serious matter, and would impede rather than promote the consideration of the question. A Committee has been formed to inquire into the administration of the Woods and Forests Department, and this question might be most usefully considered by that Committee. We should then acquire information which would guide the Government and the House in the decision to which they may ultimately come on this vexed question. It is clearly the duty of the Government of the day to guard the interest of the country at large, and we should not be wise in hastily or rashly giving way to a sense of injury or a difficulty which might be thrown in our way. I trust the House will be satisfied to let that question come before the Committee which will be appointed in the course of a very few days, and which has been granted by the House in order that the whole matter may be thoroughly, impartially, and judicially inquired into, and then we shall be able to make such recommendations as seem best in the interests alike of those engaged in the industry and of the State, which has a deep interest in it, as well as of the community at large.
    MR. BRADLAUGHThe First Lord has granted a Commission on Mining Royalties, as well as a Committee to inquire into the working of the Woods and Forests Department. Now the hon. Member for Merthyr complains, as I take it, that while the Committee and the Commission are pursuing their inquiries, he is having his industry broken up by harassing legal proceedings. Surely it is only fair that while the inquiry is proceeding he should not be subjected to this pressure.
    MR. W. H. SMITHI am sure there will be no desire on the part of the Government to press hardly on any individual while the inquiry is proceeding. I, however, think it is hardly right that an individual, though he is a Member of this House, should appeal to it on a question which ought to be decided in a Court of Law. If any good and solid ground can be given for a stay of proceeding, no Department of the Government will oppose it.
    MR. CONYBEAREMay I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Merthyr has not appealed to the House on his own account. Surely if a grievance can only be raised by detailing personal experiences, hon. Members are not to be debarred from bringing before the House oppressive measures which may be taken against an industry like this. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was in the House when my hon. Friend was explaining that he complained not that those proceedings had been instituted against him, but that in certain minor details the representative of the Government was proceeding in a manner which must strike everyone as oppressive. Surely it was not for the Law Officers of the Crown to force an appeal on a peddling point such as an order in Chambers that they should, like any ordinary litigant, give security for £5. Now I wish to ask what kind of Committee the Government intend to appoint, and whether it will have power to take evidence as to the mining laws of foreign countries? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has admitted that there is lamentable ignorance on the part of the Woods and Forests Department, and it is absolutely necessary we should have light thrown on the whole system of mining laws, both in this country and abroad.
    MR. W. H. SMITHI am sorry the hon. Gentleman has not followed the statements I made in the House on this subject. The Royal Commission will have full power to inquire into royalties and their economic effect in this country, and also specially to inquire into the practice in those matters in the Colonies and foreign countries. As regarded the Committee of the House it will have unrestricted power to inquire into the administration of the Woods and Forests. I do not think that any powers could be wider than these.
    DR. CLARKI think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman very satisfactory, and hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. The hon. Member for Merthyr, who is the pioneer of the industry in this country, has been compelled to throw up all his Crown leases.
    MR. JACKSONI do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I can

    597
    only repeat that the Woods and Forests are not aware of his having done so.
    DR. CLARKThe hon. Member himself said that he had thrown them up. I think we are in a more satisfactory position as the Select Committee and the Royal Commission will be able to thresh out the different aspects of the question, and the Government will know what the law is and will gain experience from the blunders committed by our Colonies and by foreign countries in the past. They ought to be able to get a fair royalty.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGANHear, hear.
    DR. CLARKThey ought to have a fair share of these royal metals, but the fault of the present system is that the same rent is charged for all classes of land. The same royalty is placed upon ore which yields 5 ounces a ton as upon that which yields 5 pennyweights a ton, although the cost of producing is vastly different. In that way the industry is being crushed. I am glad the Government have granted that inquiry, which I hope will result in some of the wealth which is lying waste in the rivers of Sutherlandshire being utilized, for there are many places where a man might earn 30s. a week by simply washing the sands on the river beds.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGANI understand that on more than one occasion in this debate a statement has been made to the effect that I have not surrendered my Crown leases. The House is unfortunately somewhat ignorant on this subject. The facts are that there are private lands and Crown lands in which I am interested, and upon both of these the Commissioners of Woods and Forests insist on a license being taken out. On one property, in which I am not solely interested, I have not thrown up my Crown lease because I am not in a position to do so, but in all other instances I have thrown up my Crown leases, or take notes as they are sometimes called, and have informed the Woods and Forests that I will not continue tenant to so unjust a landlord. The hon. Member who last spoke has indicated the real sources of the difficulty. On one occasion I communicated with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests informing them that I had treated 100 tons of ore and have produced only 4½
    598
    dwt. of gold per ton. That gold was obtained at a loss, and I asked them consequently—Are you still determined to charge a royalty upon gold obtained at a loss, and thereby increase the loss? The reply was that there was no earthly reason why the Crown should forego its rights. I say that the Woods and Forests Commissioners are incompetent to administer the Department. As far as I am concerned, I will not ask my hon. Friend to press his Amendment. All I asked is that the Government will kindly lend an ear to that matter. The ground of my complaint against the Government is that the question before the Court of Chancery is delayed by appeals about such paltry matters as giving security for £5. All I want is that we should come to trial and have the question decided. I do not ask any favour or affection of the Government, for I am sure that if I am wrong and the Woods and Forests right the country will take sufficient interest in the matter to induce the House to deal with it, and with the question of royalties on gold and silver in particular.
    MR. J. G. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)The First Lord of the Treasury has protested that cases of private oppression should not be brought forward in this House. I think, however, we have a right of complaint when the Crown on being ordered to lodge security for £5, take the matter before a Superior Court at the expense not only of the Crown, but of the hon. Member for Merthyr. This is the way in which law costs are heaped up by the Officers of the Crown; they manufacture costs in order to put money into their own pockets and into the pockets of their companions. I think it is the duty of this House to enter a protest against such conduct, and I think the Government ought to caution the Law Officers of the Crown against sanctioning litigation in similar instances, unless there is a clear case of its necessity.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 71; Noes, 116.—(Division List, No. 120.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LYELLI wish to refer for a moment to a matter affecting Orkney and Shetland. Certain portions of land there have been sold by the Commissioners of

    599
    Woods and Forests, and we do not know what has been done with the proceeds. A rumour prevailed at the time in the district that the money was used for the purpose of providing Londoners with Regent's Park, and the inhabitants of Orkney naturally felt that it should have been devoted to local purposes instead. I wish to hear some account of these funds, and to have an assurance that the money shall not be allocated to purposes outside Scotland.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAMIn consequence of the unsatisfactory explanation given as to the legal charges, I venture to propose the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £21,347, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Handel Cossham,)—put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. CLARKWill the Government take into consideration the question I raised last year about the large farms on Crown land in Caithness, and will this matter be dealt with by the Select Committee?
    MR. W. H. SMITHI cannot imagine that anything connected with the actual business of the Department is not included in the reference.
    MR. JACKSONI do not wish the hon. Member for Orkney to think I am discourteous towards him, I am sorry I have not the particulars necessary to enable me to answer the question raised by the hon. Member, but I will make inquiries. I can, however, give the hon. Member an assurance that it is not likely the money derived from the sale of the lands in Scotland would be expended in London, and, certainly, it could not be expended for such a purpose as Regent's Park.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £42,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    DR. CAMERONI move to reduce this Vote by £100. I feel I am hardly doing my duty in
    600
    limiting it to that small amount, but there is no man in this House more generally liked and respected than the First Commissioner of Works, and I can assure him that I feel for him the highest personal regard; hence the small monetary penalty I wish to impose on the result of his misdeeds. Now, Sir, it seems strange that I should have to stand up here as the guardian of public rights against hon. Members on the other side, but I complain that the right hon. Gentleman has handed over an important and historic monument, Dunblane Cathedral, from the custody of the Office of Works to that of an utterly unknown body, the Board of Manufactures in Scotland. Sir, I feel that I need not apologise for introducing this important subject to your notice. I know yonr admiration for these historic and antiquarian relics. I have had the pleasure of reading a speech of yours, delivered in Cornwall, in which, referring to the survival of an antediluvian war dance, locally known as furrying, you stated that if you happened to be in the district on the 5th of May you yourself would go a furrying. Now, Sir, Dunblane Cathedral is an institution which is older than the days of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, dating back to the time of the Culdees, while as a piece of architecture it has thrown Mr. Ruskin into ecstasies. Yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deprive us of this national property. Under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act the First Commissioner was authorized to advise with the Board of Manufacturers for the custody and preservation of this among other ancient monuments, and the result has been that the right hon. Gentleman, discovering that there were certain knotty points involved, handed over this national property to the Board of Manufactures. It appearing to some persons that there was, not sufficient church accommodation in the district, it was proposed to spend a modest sum of £3,000 to erect an additional church, but some person, wishing, I suppose, to immortalize his name by the destruction of this noble monument proposed to give £20,000 for the purpose of converting or perverting the cathedral into a parish church. Now Sir, the Board of Manufactures has been entrusted with the administration of the money, and I believe they are

    601
    about to commence the work. The objections to that are three-fold. I contend that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to hand over this property to the Board. The proposal has roused the ire of the Nonconformists, who consider it a piece of gross aggression on the part of the Established Church heritors, and it has given rise to the greatest indignation on the part of archæologists and antiquaries, who protest that the conversion scheme will utterly destroy the architectural beauties of the fabric and make of it a mongrel building. The windows are no common windows. The architect has taken for his model the leaves of forest trees, which are placed in picturesque and tasteful arrangement, and he has constructed a window of which Ruskin speaks in glowing terms, and which is the admiration of all who see it. To put glass into such windows would destroy them. This was a church intended for a double service, whereas under the Presbyterian ritual there is but a single service, and so the church would be inappropriate for the purpose for which it is required. The right hon. Gentleman will tell me that architects have approved of the scheme. I know a number of architects have allowed their names to be appended to an approval of the scheme, some of whom have since had cause to change their views. I have been furnished with a letter from one of these gentlemen, a man of very high architectural eminence in Glasgow, in which the writer says, that everything that could be done to maintain the present ruined structure in the most perfect way could be done for a few thousand pounds, that£5,000 would be spent on restoration, and£20,000 in its destruction. So evident is that to anyone who takes the trouble to inspect the spot that my hon. friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Haldane) who originally proposed to support the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman on the assumption that it would restore and perpetuate these windows, came back converted from a visit during the Easter holidays. I only regret that my hon. friend is not here now to join me in resisting this barbarous proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I am perfectly certain the great concensus of opinion in Scotland is against it. Of course there are
    602
    certain interested persons who are in favour of the scheme. There are the heritors who are ever willing to save this money, and there are some bigoted Churchmen who think that the people should belong to the National Church, and who would be very glad to have this particular place degraded into a parish church. I urge upon the House the immense importance of insisting upon proper constitutional procedure in a matter of this kind. If the First Commissioner of Works wishes to part with national property in Scotland the proper Department to whom he should hand it over is the Scotch Office, and not a mongrel and an altogether unsuitable and unknown body like this Board of Manufactures. I only propose to move a small reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, partly because of my personal regard for the right hon. Gentleman, and partly because I should like hon. Members to feel themselves in a position to vote for the reduction without doing him any harm. I beg to move the reduction which stands in my name.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That Item A, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the First Commissioner."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,I certainly have nothing to complain of in the spirit in which the hon. Member has discharged his ordnance against me, but I think I shall be able to dispose of the objection which he has raised to the course which has been pursued by the Government, especially by the office which I represent, in reference to Dunblane Cathedral. In the first place, he said I had no right to hand over to the Board of Manufactures this ancient Cathedral. [Dr. CAMERON: "No constitutional right."] The hon Member must know perfectly well I did it under a Statute which gives me a perfect right to do it. But I think the ground the hon. Member intended to take up was that the body to whom Dunblane Cathedral has been handed over was not the right kind of body to whom it should have been entrusted. The name of that body is slightly misleading. But, although the title is peculiar, this

    603
    is an ancient body created in 1727 by Royal Charter, and is composed of 18 or 20 of the most distinguished persons of all political parties who can be discovered, I believe, in all Scotland, and, so far from its being a body hitherto unheard of, it has in its charge the National Gallery of Scotland, the National Portrait Gallery of Scotland, the Antiquarian Museum, and all the buildings which are the receptacles of those great artistic treasures. I do not think, therefore, that one could find a better body in Scotland to hand the cathedral over to. What I have done has been done after long consultation, not only with the Board of Manufactures, but with the Secretary for Scotland, and one principal reason why I did not hand it over to the latter was that the Secretary for Scotland is always more or less a political personage belonging one political Party or the other, and my object was to find a body which should be removed from all suspicion of political or religious partizanship. The second objection of the hon. Gentleman is that no precaution has been taken to secure the burial rights of the parishioners. The parishioners are neither placed in a better nor a worse position as regards their rights of burial by the transfer. I deny that the Board of Manufactures are at all likely to act in any way opposed to the interests or rights of the parishioners, but, even if they do, the parishioners will have the same means of redress before the tribunals of the country as they have always had. In the third place, the hon. Member says that this proceeding has raised the ire of the Nonconformists. I have no reason, except the statement of the hon. Member, for thinking so. A deputation waited upon me composed of persons of all political Parties, among them being the Member for Dumbarton (Sir A. Orr Ewing) and the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane), and with two such Gentlemen on one deputation I felt myself protected from any imputation of partiality on grounds of Party politics. I am told that what I have done has excited the indignation of archæologists, but I am assured, however, by other archæologists that it is an excellent thing. I have sent my own surveyor, and the restoration has also been examined by the Archæological
    604
    Society of Great Britain and some of the leading architects of Glasgow, and they all express satisfaction with the manner in which the work has been carried out. I have seen my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire, since he visited the place during the Easter recess, and he certainly did not give me the least idea that he himself has been at all alarmed in the subject. He merely stated that some persons on the spot had become alarmed by statements made in the public press, and he expressed his intention of making further inquiries on the subject.
    MR. J. E. ELLISI rise to make an appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, at which I think he will not be surprised. At Question Time to-day he promised that the Report of the Home Office Vote should be taken at 10 o'clock. It is now forty minutes past that hour. I therefore beg to move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. E. Ellis.)
    MR. W. H. SMITHI hope hon. Gentlemen will allow this Vote to be taken.
    MR. G. A. CAVENDISH BENTINCKCertainly not.
    MR. W. H. SMITHThe discussion can be taken on Report.
    MR. G. A. CAVENDISH BENTINCKAt 1 o'clock in the morning?
    MR. W. H. SMITHNo; to-morrow. It was understood we should take two Reports of Supply, beginning at 10 o'clock; but for the convenience of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I agreed to postpone the second Report. I thought, therefore, it was reasonable we should go on some little time longer with Supply itself.
    MR. J. E. ELLISI understand there is not the slighest expectation of the discussion of this Vote being soon concluded, as several hon. Members desire to express their views about the policy adopted in regard to Dunblane Cathedral.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERFor official reasons it may be necessary from time to time to postpone the discussion of a Vote until Report; but I do not think it is a practice which ought to be encouraged.
    DR. FARQUHARSONI think it is very important that the adjourned debate on the Home Office Vote should be taken at an hour when there is some chance of its being reasonably fully reported. On a former occasion grave accusations were made against two scientific gentlemen; it is only right they should have a proper opportunity of replying.
    MR. G. A. CAVENDISH BENTINCKMy objection to the Vote which was under discussion before the Motion to report Progress was made is that it is undesirable that any buildings under the control of the Crown should be handed over to private bodies.
    MR. R. T. REIDI hope the right hon. Gentleman will not insist upon taking this Vote; he has already got fifty-five minutes more than his strict due.
    MR. W. H. SMITHI do not think there is anything more unprofitable in the House than discussions as to reporting Progress, and therefore, if the House does not wish to go on with the business, I will not oppose the Motion to report Progress.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again. To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SUPPLY [29TH APRIL].
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [30th April], to Resolution.
  "That a sum, not exceeding£79,688, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinates Offices."
  And which Amendment was, to leave out"£79,668," and insert "£79,618."—(Mr. Bernard Coleridge.)
  Question again proposed, "That '£79,668' stand part of the Resolution."
  MR. J. E. ELLISI rise to support the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Bernard Coleridge) to reduce the salary of the Inspector under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, by the
  606
  sum of£50. On the last occasion when this Vote was before the House my hon. Friend gave instances of very cruel experiments performed on living animals. I will not harrow the minds of Members by going into such details—my hon. Friend was justified in doing so to lay ground for his Motion—my remarks are of a somewhat different nature. The Act was passed in 1876, and was founded upon a Report of a Royal Commission, which sat to inquire into vivisection at a time when the public mind was very much horrified by details of the practice which became known. The Commissioners reported early in 1876. That Report emanated from a body of most emiment men, and those who have given any attention to the subject will know that it was by that Commission thoroughly investigated. Based on the recommendation of the Commission a Bill was introduced in 1876, which received the Royal Assent in the August of that year. Now, the pith and marrow of that Act lies in Clause 3, which places painful experiments on living animals under very severe restrictions. But during the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords, and mainly in consequence of strong representations from various scientific bodies, considerable alterations were made in this clause, with the result that the Bill when receiving Royal Assent had a very different shape to that which it had when it left this House. That part of the clause which provides for the issue of certificates, and sets aside the main restrictions of the licenses is to my mind very much to be regretted. One sentence in the Report of the Commissioners I may take as the foundation of my remarks. They say—
  "The Secretary of State must have the most complete power of efficient inspection and of obtaining full returns and accurate records of all experiments made."
  Evidence leads me to doubt whether at the present moment inspection is properly carried out. The intention of Parliament was perfectly clear, and was made manifest by the Division which was taken by Mr. Robert Lowe, now Lord Sherbrooke. He desired to relieve graduates of Universities from the onus of taking out licenses, but the House rejected the proposal by a majority of three to one, and

  607
  insisted upon no distinction being made between scientific men and laymen. In that spirit the Act should be administered. Now I turn to the Report of the Inspector, and, by the way, I may say that it approaches a Parliamentary scandal that we should, on the 29th April, vote the salary of an Inspector whose Report only comes into our hands on this the 20th May. I take the Report of the Inspector, Mr. Busk, which relates to 1879, and that of Mr. Erichsen for 1888, and I find that in 1879 36 of these licences were issued, and in 1888 there were 75 of them. In 1879 26 were operative, the others not being used, and in 1888, 55 were operative. But, whereas in 1879 there were 270 experiments reported, in 1888 the number had increased to 1,069. This enormous increase is precisely what the Royal Commission foretold. Then it becomes a very serious point who are the holders of these licenses. In 1883 there was a discussion in the House, initiated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) on which occasion he made a most careful and able speech that everyone interested in this matter might read with profit. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the names of two or three men who, since the passing of the Act, had performed I think I may say, hundreds of experiments. Of these gentlemen one is Mr. C. S. Roy, and another is Mr. Rutherford, and both of these names appear in the Schedule of the holders of licenses for 1888. But there is also another name which has become famous or infamous in relation to this matter, the name of Dr. E. Klein, and in mentioning his name I come to the root of the matter, and to my contention the Inspector does not obtain full and accurate information. Dr. Klein appeared before the Royal Commission, and this is part of the evidence he then gave (Question 3538). Dr. Klein says—
  "Except for teaching purposes and for demonstrations I never use anæsthetics where it is not necessary for convenience."
  Then he is asked—
  "When you say you never use them for convenience sake, do you mean that you have no regard at all to the sufferings of the animal?"
  And the reply is—
  "No regard at all."
  608
  Then again he is asked—
  "You are prepared to establish that as a principle which you approve?"
  And he says—
  "I think that with regard to an experimenter, a man who conducts special research, and performs an experiment, he has no time for thinking what the animal will feel or suffer.
  Then there is another question—
  "For your own purpose, then, you disregard entirely the question of the suffering of the animal in performing a painful experiment?"
  to which he answers "I do." In relation to Dr. Klein's there is a remarkable circumstance mentioned in the Report. The Secretary to the Commission sent the witness a proof of his evidence; it was not returned promptly, and upon the Secretary writing for it, it was returned so altered and mutilated that the Secretary deemed it his duty to take the instructions of the Commissioners as to whether it should be printed as Dr. Klein wished. The Commissioners declined to print the evidence so altered. They printed it as originally given before them, and added Dr. Klein's amended version, as an Appendix to the Report. Now, I do not think that a person so treated by the Commission and who so treated his own evidence is a fit person to hold a license under this Act. If the Inspector obtains his information from the holders of licenses, then I say information from Klein is not to be relied upon. Now I return to the reply of the hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend, or rather his speech in the discussion, for reply it can hardly be called. By this time the right hon. Gentleman must have discovered that he fell into some extraordinary misconceptions. In in the first place,he spoke of Mr. Erichsen as having discharged the duties of his position for 10 or 12 years to the entire satisfaction of successive Secretaries of State. Now, the actual fact is that Mr. Erichsen was appointed in 1886 by the right hon Gentleman and Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). Then the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary went on to say that those charges recited by my hon. Friend were impossible; but we must admit the evidence given by my hon. Friend (Mr. Reid) in 1883, established a case for great watchfulness. I will now refer to some evidence in support of my contention that the inspection is insufficient.

  609
  In volume 179 of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society for 1888, I find reference to experiments of such a nature as to shock humanity, experiments carried out by Mr. E. H. Schäfer, and this person's name appears as the holder of a license and a certificate relieving him from the obligations to kill animals before recovering from anæsthesia. In the Journal of Physiology for February, 1887, Dr. Pye Smith gives an account of experiments upon cats and rabbits extending over a period of six years. In the Practitioner of October, 1884, we have an account by Dr. Lauder Brunton as to the effect of extreme heat upon cats, baking the animals to death in fact, carried out by Mr. Cash, who, I observe, is the holder of five certificates under the Act. In the Zoophilist for April, 1888, I find Mr. Watson Cheyne, who is also a licensee under the Act, giving an account of the experiment of placing small glass balls full of croton oil under the skin of rabbits. In the Lancet of November 20th, 1886, Dr. Hughling Jackson observes in relation to some physiological reseaches—
  "I say little of Brown Sequard's researches in epilepsy because Mr. Victor Horsley has recently repeated this distinguished physician's experiments."
  Mr. Horsley, I find, is a licensee and a holder of six certificates. Again, at a lecture at the Royal Institution, May 29, 1885, we find how Mr. Coleman related experiments in freezing rabbits, by Mr. McKendrick, until they died, and Mr. McKendrick is a licensee. In the Journal of Physiology for November, 1888, occurs accounts of some terrible experiments by J. R. Bradford. I avoid details, but it is necessary to mention these things to get an idea of the importance of the point we are urging. The Home Secretary challenged my hon. Friend to say if he meant to suggest that the whole system of the Vivisection Act was a sham. I do not know that my hon. Friend went so far as that, but I do ask why, in these scientific publications year after year, we find these accounts of the most painful and horrible, and in many instances, unnecessary experiments on living animals, and still, year after year, we are lead to believe by statements of Secretaries of State and Reports of Inspectors that nothing of the kind is going on.
  610
  Another misconception of the right hon. Gentleman was, that curare is not allowed as an anaesthetic, and that, therefore, experiments of which my hon. Friend has given an account were absolutely prohibited. The Act does not prohibit the use of the drug, and a whiff of curare, the effect of which soon passes off, would be permitted under the Act. The right hon. Gentleman is also mistaken as to experiments upon dogs and cats. Anyone who holds a simple license can vivisect a cat or a dog if an anæsthetic is employed. Now I come to a name mentioned by my hon. Friend, that of Dr. McWilliam, of Aberdeen University. In the Journal of Physiology an account of these experiments is headed "From the Physiological Laboratory of the Aberdeen University," and there is nothing to suggest to the reader that the experiments did not take place within the University. This point I hope we may have cleared up. And now as to the provision of the official whose salary we are called upon to vote. I do not doubt his scientific eminence; but this I do say, that he is a warm advocate of the system against which the Royal Commission reported, and in the evidence before that Commission there is given at great length accounts of the most terrible experiments performed by Mr. Erichsen. True, these experiments were made in 1845, so that Mr. Erichsen was either a very young man then or he is considerably advanced in years now. He was a Member of the Royal Commission, but he acted throughout almost entirely as an advocate of those who performed those experiments. Acting as he did, Mr. Erichsen is not a fit person for the position of Inspector. I do not ask for the appointment of a man who takes the strong view. I know many people who hold that no experiments should be allowed on living animals for purposes of research, but I do not hold that view myself. But I do ask for the appointment of an Inspector who will hold the balance equal between parties. If I wanted further evidence of Mr. Erichsen's unsuitability, I should find it in his letter to the Scotsman, of May 10 last year, a most improper example of the bad habit which is growing up among officials of writing to the Press. The position is, then, we have an Act of Parliament imperfectly carried out; to use the words of the

  611
  Royal Commission, the Secretary of State has not complete inspection and the fullest accounts of experiments made. I would put one or two questions to the Under Secretary, which he may be able to answer in his reply. Is he able to assure us that none of these terrible experiments are going on except in licensed places? Are all licensed places frequently and unexpectedly inspected? And, finally, are the facts and figures given in the Annual Reports of the Inspector derived from his own knowledge, or are they simply the statements of the persons who by Act of Parliament are under inspection? I cannot sit down without one word about the rather unjust attack made by the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) upon my hon. Friend Mr. Coleridge. The right hon. Gentleman said he had never known a greater abuse of the privileges of this House by any hon. Member than in his speech. Those who were present know that my hon. Friend made a most able, lucid, and cogent speech on the subject, and I say that when we are asked to vote the salaries of any of the officials, we are perfectly within our right in criticizing their conduct. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see, on reflection, that he was not within his right in so strongly characterizing my hon. Friend's speech.
  Sir H. ROSCOE (Manchester, S.)I rise to oppose the Amendment, and I do so, in the first place, because I believe that the Acts referred to are worked honourably and honestly by all the men of science who obtain their licenses or certificates under them, and that the inspection and registration are carefully done. I was glad to learn from my hon. Friend (Mr. J. E. Ellis) tha the does not object to the Acts if they are properly carried out; but I think that is not altogether the case with many of those who speak on the question. A great number of those who are agitating on this matter desire the entire abolition of vivisection, that is of experiments on living animals whether effected under anæsthetics or not. I believe those experiments are of the very greatest value, and both medicine and surgery have highly benefited from them, both in this country and abroad. They are experiments not mainly or to any extent which give pain to animals, but are conducted under such restrictions and with
  612
  such care that the animals do not suffer at all. My hon. Friend mentioned the name of Professor Ferrier. The results following on the experiments made by that gentleman have, in the hands of many distinguished surgeons, and especially of Mr. Victor Horsley, actually effected the alleviation of one of the most dreadful diseases to which flesh is heir—the disease of epilepsy. Professor Ferrier's experiments proved that epilepsy is caused by the irritation of the surface of the brain as opposed to that of its mass. And it is now possible, solely owing to these experiments, to localize in an epileptic patient the actual seat of the pressure on the brain. In many cases a portion of the skull has been removed, a tumour has been found and removed, and the epilepsy has been entirely cured. In fact, in the same way, owing to previous experiments on animals, a diseased kidney can now be removed with ease, and thus the life of the patient saved. There is not a page in any manual of physiology of which the principles laid down are not in some way connected with, or dependant upon, these experiments on animals. Then, again, there is no doubt that the principles of antiseptic surgery, which have been laid down by Lister, have been ascertained by experiments of this kind. In the early years of the forties the deaths in the, Vienna Lying-in Hospital from puerperal fever were 92 per thousand. In 1863, in consequence of the adoption of an antiseptic treatment, the death rate had diminished to 13 per thousand, and in 1881, through the introduction of stringent antiseptic methods, it was still further reduced to four per thousand. In the same way in the York Road Lying-in Hospital in this neighbourhood, in 1838, 26 per cent of the patients died from this complaint. The hospital was often closed, but was re-opened in 1879 on strict antiseptic principles. The result has been that there has been only one case in three years, or less than one per thousand. I might continue to quote an almost endless number of cases in which humanity has benefited to an undreamt of extent by experiments on animals, but now I will content myself by reminding the House of the most remarkable of all—namely, the cure and prevention of that most horrible of all

  613
  maladies, hydrophobia, by the discoveries of Pasteur. Not one of these cases of cure could have been effected without experiments, for the most part painless, on animals, which the Amendment now before the House asks us practically to discountenance. But, Sir, it has been said by the opponents of these Acts that animals are thus sacrificed to the selfish interests of man. Such a statement only shows an entire ignorance of the facts, because the knowledge obtained by these experiments has been of the greatest value to animals themselves. Take the case of anthrax. Through the labours of M. Pasteur again, we know that that disease—Russian cattle plague—can now be actually overcome by innoculation, and that every year hundreds of thousands of sheep and cattle are now saved by inoculation from a painful death. I trust that those who think of supporting the reduction of the Vote will bear in mind that to stop those experiments will be to arrest the progress of scientific and modern medicine and surgery, and that by voting for the reduction they attempt to throw a most undeserved slur on the character of a high-minded, conscientious and eminent man.
  DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)I should like to say a few words about Dr. Klein, to whom reference has been made. He is a foreigner, and when ho was examined before the Royal Commission he was not well acquainted with our language, and he has practically confessed that he lost his head and said things which he did not intended to say, and this is why he asked permission to correct his proof. He may have been wrong, but I think his evidence and proceedings can be explained by the fact that he was not a native of this country and was imperfectly acquainted with our language. We have been told that it is an objection against Professor Erichsen that he is an eminent man and has some know ledge of the subject with which he has to deal. I should have thought it was an advantage rather than otherwise that Mr. Erichsen was a man of some scientific knowledge. The experiments in asphyxia, to which reference has been made, he made 40 years ago, when he was a young and enthusiastic phy-
  614
  siologist, and curiously enough they gained him the medal of the Royal Humane Society, they had a direct practical bearing and led to the adoption of improvements which have been the means of saving many lives. From that time Mr. Erichsen has not made any experiments. An intimate acquaintance with him enables me to say he is a man of singularly calm and judicial habit of mind and of recognized ability. Having retired from public duty as a surgeon, he has from patriotic motives taken up the distasteful and laborious work of this Inspectorship which brings him a good deal of worry and discomfort. The complaints I have heard of Mr. Erichsen from scientific men is that he is a great deal too strict, that he holds the reins too tightly, and that he will not allow latitude enough; and the Home Secretary lately received a deputation, including three of the highest scientific authorities, who represented to him the excessive strictness with which the Act is carried out. I notice, however, that when complaints are made of the Inspector's want of impartiality, they generally came from those who want a leaning in the direction of their own view, the adoption of which would make us a laughing-stock with every scientific society in Europe. In this matter neutrality seems almost impossible. All that can be done is to choose a judicially-minded man with some knowledge of the subject, and I think we have such a man in Professor Erichsen. The anti-vivisection party are really annoyed because Mr. Erichsen, more than anyone else, whilst acting as Scientific Assessee before the Royal Commission, pricked their bubble and showed how futile are many of the accusations brought against vivisection. The House knows pretty well what are the safeguards against abuse. A man cannot get a license unless he obtains a certificate signed by three scientific men of character that he can be safely trusted with these experiments. I am sorry not to see the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Professor Stokes), the President of the Royal Society, in his place, because he signs a good many of these certificates, and he could state with authority what class of men they are to whom these certificates are given. The public can

  615
  have reports of these experiments, and can judge for themselves as to whether or not they have been properly conducted. Laboratories are licensed from Aberdeen to Plymouth, and if it is proposed that these experiments shall be minutely inspected, even if a competent medical man could be found to take upon himself the odious task of acting as a scientific detective, going from one laboratory to another for the purpose, the expense of the undertaking would be enormous. It would be necessary to have scientific medical men to do the work, and I do not think it would be easy to find them. I think the time must come when you must trust somebody, and in spite of what we have heard to-night, from those who support the Amendment, I am bound to say that I think the person to be trusted is the scientific investigator whose sole cause of action is the alleviation of suffering. I have a better opinion of human nature—particularly scientific human nature—than hon. Gentlemen who have spoken against vivisection. I think we can trust the scientific authorities to carry out the law with all honesty and loyalty. From the Returns sent to us from year to year we can see that all the experiments which are carried out are almost conducted in public places and open to inspection by anyone. Objection has also been taken to Mr. Erichsen because he signed a memorial to the Royal College of Surgeon some years ago praying for better physiological laboratory accommodation, and the delusion is a common one that such institutions are largely used for the purpose of experiment on animals. But all who have any experience of them know that it is principally chemical and pathological work that is carried on, that experiments on living animals are few and occasional, and that they must invariably be carried out under the direct sanction of the law. Of course, nothing could be more unfair and calculated to lead people astray than to bring into account the cruel experiments that have taken place abroad. We all know what those experiments sometimes are, and that nothing of the kind is ever practised here—and we know that if some of the experiments that are conducted in foreign countries were practised here,
  616
  the national feeling, the feeling of the students, and the sentiment of everyone, would revolt against them, and soon bring such things to an end. And now I have arrived almost at the conclusion of what I desire to say. I have only one point more—namely, the second point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield as to the experiments carried on by Dr. McWilliam. Dr. McWilliam is a man of proved ability, who has made invaluable researches regarding the functions of the heart which give great promise of practical utility. It did not appear to me that the hon. Member for Sheffield was well instructed as to these experiments. I do not know where they were carried out, but wherever they were conducted, they were conducted absolutely and entirely without pain. I have received a letter from Dr. McWilliam on the subject which should satisfy hon. Members. He expresses himself astonished to find any charge of cruelty put forward with reference to his experiments, and says that anyone making such a charge must be misinformed. He declares that the animals experimented upon were profoundly anæsthetized, and were never allowed to regain consciousness; in fact, if they had been allowed to regain consciousness, the whole object of his experiments would have been frustrated. I am sure that the House will believe these statements. It is undoubted that in some cases it was necessary to apply artificial respiration, and the insinuation has been made that this proves that curare was used; but that does not follow. The reason why artificial respiration had to be used was because the chloroform which had been used as an anæsthetic interfered with the breathing of the animal, and artificial respiration was necessary to keep the animal alive. The Committee may take it from me that no curare was used. Though scientific men did not consider when the Vivisection Act was brought in that legislation was necessary, they have loyally obeyed it, and have honestly carried it out, and I venture to hope that after what I have said the Committee will say that Mr. Erichsen is to be regarded as a fit and proper person to carry on his duties, and that Mr. McWilliam ought to be absolved from all blame, and that the Amendment ought to be rejected.
  MR. R. T. REIDI do not want to say much on this subject, as it is one that every man of feeling must recoil from speaking about. My hon. Friend below me has spoken about the utility of these experiments as if it were a matter conceded by scientific opinion or conformable to the common sense of other people, who are as much entitled as men of science to exercise their common sense about these matters of fact, that almost every cure for every known human ill has been at some time or other discovered by these means. And when men of science are beaten upon one point in this regard, they go to another. To-night it is anthrax, epilepsy, and antiseptic surgery. I have no doubt that these claims will be exploded after a short time; and then some fresh series of diseases will be brought forward as having been cured by means of this process. It is well-known that there are scientific men who are living and scientific men who are no longer alive who have declared their opinion that the whole of this business is a cruel imposture. After the lapse of many centuries, during which these practices have been going on, and when men of great attainments and of undoubted honour have declared them to be an imposture, I am inclined to accept with a good deal of hesitation the language of scientific men in these days concerning the subject. We find that men of science really attempt to occupy the same sort of position that priests occupied of old. They want to govern our opinion, and I have more confidence in all men together than in men of a special class. But the question we have to face is how the Act is being worked. It is stated that animals do not suffer under these experiments; but if I cared to inflict on the House a repetition of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, I could give the House the most painful particulars of the most horribly cruel experiments that can be well conceived. Horrible cruelties have occurred that I do not wish to enter upon, but which will be found recorded in medical papers such as the Lancet as having occurred last year and in previous years. It is idle to say that these things do not take place. The Inspector under the Act is a gentleman named Erichsen, and I have no doubt
  618
  he is an honourable man. He is placed in the position of umpire or guardian of the interests of these animals—who are not the constituents of any Member of this House. What is this gentleman? Mr. Erichsen is himself an avowed performer of these experiments and an avowed advocate of them in the case of the Faculty. Does anybody think he has given these things up ever since his appointment? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] That he has denounced them ever since? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] Well, I see a good many scientific men around me, and I will say, even if we can suppose he has not committed these acts for a number of years, yet it must be admitted that that is what he used to do; and I further say that he was a gentleman who acted the part of advocate of those who support this class of scientific experiments from the beginning to the end of the Royal Commission, and was not, therefore, an impartial person to administer the Act; and he no doubt thinks that people who hold my views are utterly beneath contempt and unworthy of consideration in this matter as can be gathered from some letters he wrote on the subject in Scotland. What I say is that Mr. Erichsen cannot be regarded as an impartial administrator of this Act, and that, whether the person appointed to this office holds one opinion or the other, we ought to have a man who has not committed himself by his own acts, as Mr. Erichsen has done, to one particular line on this important question. Well, Sir, what is it that we see is being done? We see that there are a number of gentlemen who have received licenses under this Act, and among them is Mr. Klein. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. J. E. Ellis) has read his answers to a series of very short and perfectly clear questions as to which there can be no doubt at all, and anyone who does entertain the slightest doubt had better look at the language he is reported to have used when examined before the Royal Commission. On that occasion that gentleman said he had no regard for the sufferings of the animals experimented upon; that he had no time to think of them, but disregarded them altogether; and this evidence relates to some of the most cruel and horrible experiments ever

  619
  recorded—so horrible that I should not like to lay them before the House. I may also refer the House to some frightful experiments that were performed in 1883 by Mr. Roy and others—experiments which I will not detail; but those gentlemen have licenses and may continue to carry on experiments of the same nature. The fact is that, in my opinion the administration of this Act has been little better than a sham. I believe that the Home Office is in the habit of deputing its jurisdiction with regard to these experiments to some persons or to some body of men who take not the slightest notice of what is going on. The best proof that the administration of the Act is a sham is to be found in the expression used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire when he said that if anyone said a word in favour of effective supervision under the Act, he would be regarded as a scientific detective. But that is just what we want. While experiments of this sort are allowed to be carried on, it is absolutely essential that care should be taken to ensure that they are carried on properly. I should like to know how the inspection is carried on—whether the Inspector personally sees what is being done when these experiments are carried on, or whether he merely takes the statement of those who perpetrate the acts which constitute the experiments. In fact, it is my belief that there is very little inspection at all, and I trust that one good result of this discussion will be that the Home Office may be stirred into taking much greater care in regard to this matter in future. I hope we may find that public opinion will be brought into harmony with the view which I and a good many others hold on this subject; and although it may yet be a long time off, I trust that by continuing these debates in this House in a fair temper we may be enabled to induce those who have animals entirely at their mercy to believe there is something more in the exercise of kindness than, I am sorry to say, seems to be the prevalent opinion among men of science.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKMy hon. Friend who has just sat down has alluded to the necessity of showing tenderness towards animals, but I entirely deny that there is, in rela-
  620
  tion to this matter, any want of such tenderness among medical men. In fact, I entirely repudiate the view enunciated by the hon. Gentleman. Although there is a great difference of opinion in the Committee, I think, at any rate, we are all agreed in the desire to diminish suffering, and we only differ as to the mode in which that may best be done. My hon. Friend has said he is able to quote high scientific authorities who agree with him in the views he holds on this question. All I can say in reply to that is, that I very much wish he had done so.
  MR. REIDThere is Mr. Morse.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKEven if Mr. Morse may be regarded as one; he is only one. The almost unanimous opinion of those best qualified to judge is that these experiments have greatly diminished suffering, both on the part of animals and of mankind. But my hon. Friend seems to doubt that there are cases in which the experiments that have been made have really tended to diminish suffering. Well, in answer to that, I would point out that before such experiments were carried on, it was found that in cases of compound fracture from 50 to 60 and even 70 per cent of the operations proved fatal, whereas, at the present time, the percentage of deaths is not more than one or two, owing to the improvements in surgery, which have resulted from recent discoveries—a fact involving not only the preservation of an immense amount of human life, but also an enormous diminution of suffering. Then, again, take the cases of puerperal fever in women; it is proved by statistics that before the experiments, which have produced such great improvements in medical methods, there were in the lying-in hospitals fifty years ago 26 per cent of deaths in puerperal fever cases; whereas, at the present day, owing to the experiments which have led to the antiseptic treatment, the number of deaths in these cases has been reduced to less than 1 per 1,000. Again, in cerebral diseases—the most terrible forms of human suffering—take, for instance, epilepsy—recent researches have thrown much light on the causes of these terrible maladies, and the experiments that have been made give reasonable hopes of greatly diminishing

  621
  mental suffering, by means of successful operations, which would have been impossible some years ago. It has been said that the circulation of the blood was not discovered by means of experiments; but the great Harvey, to whom we are indebted for that discovery, always maintained that his experiments led him to that great discovery. That discovery, as we know, has led to important improvements in medical methods, and to an enormous diminution of human suffering. Then, again, take the case of neuralgia in the face. Previous to Sir Charles Bell's researches on the functions of the nerves, it was usual to divide the facial nerve, which is now known to be quite a useless operation. One of the most painful diseases from which human nature suffers is angina pectoris, but the discovery of the effect of nitrite of amyl —or, to speak more exactly, one of its components—has had a wonderful effect in easing human suffering from that disease. Then, again, the greater knowledge we now possess of the action of poisons—a knowledge which could only have been obtained by experiment—has gone far to stamp out the terrible crime of poisoning. Beyond this, we have one of the greatest discoveries of all — the introduction of anæsthetics. It must be remembered that vivisection, as practised under the Act, does not mean, in the greater number of cases, the cutting up of a living and feeling animal, but experiments performed under anæsthetic drugs; and it should also be recollected that under the name of vivisection are included experiments in inoculation, which have led to the antiseptic treatment which has so greatly diminished human suffering and death. The discovery of the properties of chloroform and laughing gas could only be ascertained by experiments, which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down wishes entirely to prevent. The hon. Gentleman has spoken with some contempt of scientific authority.
  MR. REIDWith great humility.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKHe says, "with great humility; "but I did not perceive much humility in the attitude he took. I have the greatest respect for the opinion of my hon. Friend in regard to any question of law, but when the subject at issue is one relating to medicine I should rather look to the opinion
  622
  of great medical authorities. My hon. Friend said there were differences of opinion, and he objected to accept the opinions of priests. Well, in all matters of theology there is a good deal of difference of opinion among the priests: but here, among the medical authorities, there is practically no difference of opinion. The International Medical Congress of 1885, containing the greatest Medical Authorities, not only of this country, but of the whole world, passed a resolution which was adopted unanimously, and which I should like to read to the House. It was as follows—
  "That this Congress records its conviction that experiments on living animals have proved of the utmost service to medicine in the past and are indispensable to its future progress. That accordingly, while strongly deprecating the infliction of unnecessary pain, it is of opinion alike in the interests of men and of animals that it is not desirable to restrict competent persons in the performance of such experiments."
  That resolution was adopted without a single dissentient. I say that this is a strong fact, and I think that no one can deny that medical men are most anxious to diminish suffering. I say, also, that when we see that the representatives of the medical profession at large and in the widest geographical sense are unanimously of opinion that the experiments which have been made have greatly tended to reduce suffering, we ought to be very careful to consider what we are doing before we decide on putting a stop to these experiments. I do not think the intention of the Act was to check experiment, but to ensure that no experiments were to be carried on except under proper safeguards. I believe we are practically united in what we wish to accomplish; the only difference of opinion is as to whether these experiments entail an unnecessary amount of suffering on animals, and whether they have been conducted with all proper precautions and a due desire to diminish pain rather than to increase it. But there is another point of view which I think the House ought to consider. I allude here to the pratical question. Anthrax is a disease which is very fatal to cattle and sheep. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am sure, will agree that the question of anthrax is one of very considerable importance from an agricultural point of view. Now, Sir, experiments which have

  623
  been made have greatly reduced this disease. In France in 1886 over 200,000 sheep and over 20,000 cattle were inoculated, and the number of deaths have been reduced to less than one-tenth of what it used to be. The Royal Agricultural Society were deeply impressed with the importance of that discovery, but when it was proposed to inoculate our flocks and herds so as to protect them from this disease, the Home Office interfered and maintained that to do so was illegal under the Act. On this the Royal Agricultural Society appointed a deputation to wait on the Home Secretary on the subject. Sir Matthew Ridley, in introducing the deputation, said:—
  "We have come before the Lord President in consequence of the practical difficulty which was standing in the way of ordinary operations upon domestic animals on a farm, because it appeared that unless there was an absolute certainty about the effect of an operation it was illegal."
  Lord Egerton of Tatton said that our herds were very liable to attacks from anthrax and swine fever, and that he believed that by inoculation those diseases could be to a great extent prevented; but that the law as it was at present stood in the way of any improvement. He also said—
  "Being President of the Royal Agricultural Society I have had certain operations carried out with the view to see whether these experiments would be successful or not, but practically I have been prevented by the somewhat stringent application of the existing Act, and I am anxious that Act should be somewhat relaxed in order that these experiments may be carried out, because the county rates are burdened by enormous sums. I am anxious that something should be done, because the law as it at present stands is in the way of any improvement."
  I am not now proposing to alter the law, but what I wish to impress upon the House, is that not only is this in the opinion of the highest agricultural authority a matter of great importance to the agricultural interest, but it also shows how many thousands and thousands of our domestic animals must be suffering from a very terrible and a very painful disease which might be entirely removed by more scientific treatment. Now, Sir, reference, has been made to the Inspectors under this Act. Well, the first Inspector under the Act was Mr.
  624
  Busk. I believe everyone who knew Mr. Busk knew that a more humane man never lived in this country. The present Inspector is Dr. Erichsen, who, it is quite true, holds with almost every medical man that these experiments have tended to diminish suffering, but I do not think that is any reason for interfering with him as Inspector under this Act. In conclusion I would like to read, at the request of Sir James Paget, a few lines of a letter I have received from him. Every one who knows Sir James Paget knows that he is one of the highest medical authorities of this country, and that there is not a more humane man living than he is, and he has begged me to express his deliberate conviction to the House that "in his opinion and in that of the overwhelming majority of the medical profession, the experiments which have been made have led to the most important results—that very few of them involved any pain, and that they have effected already an immense diminution of sickness and of suffering." He hopes that the House will not agree to the Amendment, though he was sure that it had been proposed with the very best intentions.
  MR. STANSFELDI will not detain the House for more than a few moments. It does not appear to me that the question we have to discuss on the Amendment of my hon. Friend, is the utility of vivisection. The question we are engaged upon is the administration of the Act of 1876, and what I propose to do in a very few words is, first of all, to say and to show why that Act requires very careful and watchful administration. How is it that I do not at present see the evidences of sufficient watchfulness in that administration? I am perfectly open to conviction. I say at this moment I am not aware of that sufficient watchfulness. And lastly, I want information upon several matters concerning the working of the Act. Now, Sir, with reference to the nature of the Act and the necessity for this watchfulness, let me point out its Peculiar character, If we turn to that Act, what we find is this, that the 2nd Section of the Act enacts that no person shall perform on a living animal any experiment calculated to give pain, except subject to restrictions contained in the Act. Then

  625
  in the 3rd Section you have the restrictions, and the restrictions are of this character:—
  "'The experiment must be performed with the view to the advancement of discovery, physiological knowledge,' and so on 'The animal must be under the influence of an anæsthetic,' 'the animal must if the pain continue, be destroyed before it regains consciousness.' &c."
  These restrictions express the views and desires of many persons at the time that measure was introduced, and those were the restrictions which if I remember aright were proposed by the Government. But in the very same clause containing those restrictions there is a certain number of provisos subsequently introduced, which repeal, or almost absolutely destroy, their power. I do not know that you could find any Statute containing a similar clause, in which you find a number of propositions in the first part of the Section, and those propositions practically repealed by what follows. What are these provisos? First of all, the experiments may be performed as an illustration of a lecture, if a certificate be given that they are necessary for the due instruction of the persons to be instructed. They may be performed without anæsthetics on a similar certificate being given that the presence of the anæsthetic would frustrate the objects of those experiments. They may be performed without the persons being under the obligation to kill the animal before it has regained consciousness, on a certificate that to kill it would destroy the value of the experiment. Well, now, I think the House cannot deny that these provisos absolutely repeal the force of the preceding part of the section, with the single exception of the restriction that the person performing the experiment is to be licensed by the Secretary of State. Under these circumstances, what I ask myself is this: What is the power, and what is the function of the Secretary of State? If you turn to the second Section of the Act you will find that the Secretary of State may insert in his license a provision that the place shall be registered in which the operations are to be performed. I should like to know from the Secretary of State whether he is in the habit of inserting any provisions in those licenses. I
  626
  have no information upon the subject; I am not aware whether any information is before the House. I want to know?
  THE HOME SECRETARY (Mr. MATTHEWS,There is Section 7.
  MR. STANSFELDBy Section 7, the Home Secretary is entitled to insert in his license that the place where the experiments are to be performed must be registered. What I want to know is, does the Secretary of State insert that provision? Well, then, another question is this. By Section 10, all registered places are to be inspected. I believe I understand correctly, therefore, that no places are inspected, except those now registered. But do I quite understand this correctly, that there are licensees who operate in places which are not registered? I am not aware. I see nothing in the Act which makes it impossible for the licensee to operate in an unregistered and uninspected place. Therefore, I assume that the licensees operate under any circumstances, and that practically speaking some places are not inspected at all. Well, then, has the Secretary of State really ever revoked a license for neglect of the conditions contained in the license granted by him to the experimenters, or have the experimenters ever reported to him the details, or has he directed those reports to be made. I find a statement made by Mr. Erichsen that only eight experiments involving pain were reported. I presume they were reported by the operator, and were not witnessed by himself. Only eight cases reported; that struck me as an extraordinary statement and a very unlikely figure. Turning to another part of the Report, I find there were 195 operations under certificates which dispensed with the necessity of killing the animals before the anæsthetic had ceased to operate. Therefore, it is evident that these animals in the 195 cases must have suffered, and that the eight cases cannot exhaust the number. I think I am entitled to ask the Secretary of State the actual number of real inspections, what is the nature of the inspections, and whether the places in which the experiments are conducted are all registered? I do not see how it can be so, and I want to know in what respect and in what manner the Secretary of State

  627
  finds himself able to exercise his discretion and fulfil his responsibility with regard to operations of this kind conducted in unregistered places? I will not carry the matter further at this time, but I hope the Secretary of State will be able to give us some information on these points.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYThe right hon. Gentleman must know that my right hon. Friend has exhausted his right of reply, and it is, therefore, my duty to answer him and other hon. Members. I am sorry he found it necessary to add such a large number of questions to the number already put, for they will necessitate my making longer observations than I had intended. It is true, Sir, that under the terms of the Act it is possible for experiments to be performed in unregistered places. There are only four licensees who enjoy that power, and I could give the right hon. Gentleman the names of the four Gentlemen who appear in the report, and I could give if necessary the reasons why they should be so privileged. The right hon. Gentleman asks also whether licenses had been revoked by the Secretary of State. I cannot speak to what was the practice before my right hon. Friend came into office, but I have in my mind the case of a gentleman who enjoyed the privilege of performing experiments in a private place, and whose license was revoked because of neglect of its conditions. Conditions are invariably attached to the licenses issued, alike in respect of the time, place and number of experiments. The number of inspections made appear on the face of the report. I wish to remind the House that the Government are coming for the first time to Parliament with the request to sanction the creation of a new and additional Inspector, so that if it be true that the inspection has been deficient in the past, we are to that extent doing our best to remedy the deficiency, and we hope to have a gentleman who will visit the various places, and so far as possible be present during the active performance of the experiments. We have had some remarks made as to the personal character of the inspection, and as to the honesty of the administration of the Act. I must, in justice to Mr. Erichsen,
  628
  say that great and humane improvements have been introduced by him in the administration of the Act, and the hon. Gentleman will notice that far more information is given to Parliament than used to be the case in the time of his predecessor. You have the number of experiments made, and the number in which certificates are given, and therefore you can arrive at a comparison between different kinds of experiments. He has himself introduced some of the most humane conditions, such as that which is attached to inoculation experiments. This condition renders it imperative on the part of the experimenter to destroy an animal under anæsthetics in the event of pain being developed as a result of the operation. I must notice another fallacy. When the right hon. Gentleman supposes that the experiments reported in the list had been made under the certificate dispensing with the use of anæsthetics, I wish to point out that that is not necessarily a test of the number of painful experiments. An enormous majority of these experiments are simply inoculation experiments for pathological purposes, and many of them do not involve more pain than is necessary in making a puncture, while directly the morbid conditions induced by the puncture are set up, then there is an obligation to destroy the animal under anæsthetics. If I do not deal further with the allegations made, it is not my fault. I see the impatience of the House, but I do wish to say one thing before I sit down. The hon. Member for Sheffield and some of his Friends have alleged that this Act has not been properly administered, that the Inspector is not be believed, that the act is worthless because it is worked by men of science for the medical profession, and indeed he has not scrupled to add that certain Members of the medical profession are banded together for the purpose of suppressing the truth. The hon. member for Sheffield, in support of his case, has read out to the House sensational reports of experiments carried out, not in England, but in a foreign country. Moreover, in reading the account of certain other experiments performed in this country he has suppressed the paragraph in that account which states that the

  629
  experiments were carried out upon completely anæsthetized animals— animals under the influence of ether or chloroform. This shows that the statements of others besides medical men are not always to be received without scrutiny, and that others may be banded together for purposes no better than those attributed to these professional men. The Act, I submit, is being administered honestly, and improvements in its administration are being carried out.
  The House divided:—Ayes 171; Noes 50.—Division List, No. 121.)
  Resolution agreed to.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE) BILL. [Bill 162.]
  Order for Committee read.
  An hon. MEMBERI hope the President of the Board of Trade will give us some assurance that this Bill will be pushed forward as rapidly as possible.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACHI will do my best to get it forward.
  MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)I need scarcely remind the right hon. Gentleman of the replies he made to me on the 8th March and the 6th April last, in regard to the deputation that waited on the Board of Trade in reference to this Bill, and when he pleaded for help to enable hint to get the Bill through. He admitted the urgency as well as the importance of the question, and pledged himself to use every exertion to pass the Bill. Now, I think it is obvious that if the House parts with the control of the Bill, and sends it to the Grand Committee on Trade, the little chance of its passing into law this year will be seriously jeopardized. The right hon. Gentleman says he will do his best. Well, his best is able to accomplish a great deal more than that, and all I ask him to do is to give us some proof of his earnest desire to get this Bill through, and to see that when the Grand Committee of Trade meet on Thursday next, the Bill goes before them. It is only the phraseology of the Bill that is complex. The matters at issue are few and are well understood, and I have no doubt that the Committee will be able to decide upon them in the course of a sitting or two,
  630
  and the Bill be ready for progress in the House immediately after the holidays. I think it will not be a credit to this House if we fail to get the Bill through this Session.
  Order for Committee, read and discharged.
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.

  ADVANCE NOTES TO SEAMEN BILL. [No. 222.]
  Read a second time and committed for Thursday.

  HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) BILL. [No. 224.]
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)I understand that the hon. Member for Argyle has no objection to the proposal which I have put on the paper to extend his Bill to Ireland, and I hope the Government will be good enough to accept the Amendment, for the result of simply stopping trawling on the Scotch coast will be to drive the steam trawlers to Ireland. The Secretary of State for Scotland well knows that when he stopped steam trawlers in the North of Scotland, they came down to the Clyde, and now if he prohibits it altogether in Scotland, he will simply stop the mischief done by these plunderers of the deep in one part of the country and send them to another part. I therefore beg to move that the Bill be re-committed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of Clauses 1, 2 and 6."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think we can do this without further inquiry. The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that there have been investigations into cases of alleged injury done by trawling, and after careful inquiry the allegations were found to be without foundation. It was decided that the injury to the spawn beds was practically nil, and the amount of premature fish destroyed was so trifling as not to be worth consideration, while any injury that was done was owing to the fishermen's own fault. When I was

  631
  Secretary for Scotland, I brought in a Bill restricting the action of trawlers; but I desire to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the conditions of the law in Scotland and in Ireland vary. In Scotland, as the law at present stands, there is no power to stop trawling. The only power which the Secretary for Scotland has is to limit it for the purposes of carrying on scientific investigations; but unless I misunderstand the character of the Irish Law, there the Fishery Boards have absolute power to stop trawling wherever it does damage; and I believe I am right in saying that if the Boards fail to take action the fishermen in any district have a right to move the Privy Council to set them in motion. Therefore, the grievance in Ireland is not in any sense of the same character as the grievance in Scotland; and the effect of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would be to alter the presumption rather than the actual law. The Bill has now reached a very advanced stage.
  MR. HEALYYes, through our concessions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman has helped us to get it forward, and I was referring to the fact in order to point out that it might be deferred for a few days without in the least endangering its chances of passing this Session. I cannot assent to the Amendment without first consulting the Fishery Board on the matter. I have already had one Report from them which has not satisfied me, and I should like to further consider the matter before I give a decision as to the Amendment.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSI am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to consent to the recommittal of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not dissent from it. I prefer to defer it.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSThen I am sorry he has not seen his way to assent to it now. As far as I am able to judge, the same conditions apply alike all round the coasts of Great Britain, and if it is detrimental to the fishing interest to permit trawling within the
  632
  three miles limit of the coast of Scotland, it is equally detrimental within the three miles limit of the coasts of England and Ireland. I must also dissent from the opinion the right hon. Gentleman has expressed in regard to the Fishery Board. I maintain that the Scotch Fishery Board have most complete power to prohibit trawling all round the coasts of Scotland, not merely for the purposes of scientific investigation, but for any purpose whatsoever. I know this is a matter as to which discussion has arisen. I still believe that the fact of prohibiting trawling within the three miles limit can do, and will do, very little harm indeed to trawlers, while it will do a great deal towards promoting the fishery supply of the kingdom, and also enabling the smaller and poorer class of fishermen to prosecute their calling to the greatest possible advantage. I believe this Act may be most beneficially applied both to Scotland and to Ireland, and I hope the Government will see their way so to extend it at no distant date. I trust, too, they will undertake to favourably consider this Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALYI think the best plan will be for me to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in order that the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity of consulting the Irish Fishery Board, although I entertain no hope that they will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. [No. 225].
  As amended, considered,
  And it being one of the clock, further proceedings on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned till this day.
  MR. SPEAKERadjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.