Lords Sitting of 18 July 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Ancient Monuments (197); Turnpike Acts Continuance * (198).
Second Reading—Bills of Exchange (183); Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *.
Committee—Report—Public Offices Site (184).
Third Reading— Entail (Scotland) * (195); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * (181); Corn Returns (No. 2) * (187), and passed.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill for the better protection of Ancient Monuments. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that Bills dealing with the same subject had previously been brought before Parliament. This year the Bill which he held in his hands was introduced into the House of Commons; but on account of the state of Business in that House, it had been thought better to withdraw it, and that it should be introduced into their Lordships' House. The difference between this and the previous measures was, that in this there was no compulsory power of interference with any ancient monuments. Owners might, if they liked, put their ancient monuments under the public guardianship of the Commissioners of Works, or the latter body might acquire the property by voluntary purchase.
  Bill for the better protection of Ancient Monuments—Presented (The LORD CHANCELLOR); read 1a. (No. 197.)

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.—(No. 183.)
(The Lord Bramwell.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BRAMWELL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the Bill had passed the House of Commons, where it had been carefully considered by a Committee, consisting of eminent merchants, bankers, and lawyers, presided over by the Solicitor General, and its object was to codify the laws of England and Scotland on the subject of bills of exchange. At first the Bill applied to England only; but, on the application of persons representing Scotch interests, it was extended to Scotland, and a number of Scotch Members were put upon the Committee. The Bill, to a certain extent, endeavoured to assimilate the law of England and Scotland on the subject of bills of exchange, and the object of those who framed it was not to alter, but to codify the existing laws. He did not for a moment pretend that the measure was complete and perfect; in-
834
deed, he should have Amendments to propose to it when they got into Committee; and if it passed and became a Code he did not suppose it was one which would supersede the lawyers and their law hooks. It would still be necessary to have recourse to the lawyers and the law books to interpret or apply the Bill to cases as they arose from time to time. The object of those who framed the Bill, as he said, was to make a Code of the existing law, and to alter it as little as possible; but it was impossible, in framing that Code, that there should not be some alterations in the laws which they were endeavouring to embody into that Code, because principles, each of which was right in itself, being carried to extremes, resulted sometimes in what appeared to be positively repugnant. He would give them an illustration of the alterations in the Bill. By the law of England, Christmas Day and Good Friday were Common Law holidays, and bills of exchange, which otherwise would fall due on either of those days, by the Common Law of the land were payable on the day before. There were also certain statutory holidays, and bills of exchange which became due on those were payable the day after. Well, in Scotland, Christmas Day and Good Friday were not Common Law holidays, but statutory. The question had, therefore, arisen, what was to be done? It was impossible to leave the law so that a bill of exchange would fall due on one day in Scotland and on another day in England; therefore, an arrangement was come to between those who had charge of the Bill, and those who represented Scotch interests, that the same law should be applicable to both sides of the Tweed; and that, in regard both to Christmas Day and Good Friday, bills of exchange which became due on either of those days should be payable in England and Scotland on the day before. He mentioned this to show the necessity there sometimes was, when they were codifying laws, to make some slight alterations in them. He would only add, in conclusion, that he had not taken the Bill from those who had prepared it on trust, but had thought it his duty to go through it himself; and having done this, he could recommend it to their Lordships as worthy of being read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the fact that the Bill had been examined by the noble and learned Lord would go a long way towards assuring their Lordships of its worth. At the same time, the subject was one of the utmost possible importance. The Bill codified, as his noble and learned Friend had said, the whole of the Common and Statute Law on the subject, and it affected a very large part of the most important transactions of the mercantile world. It was desirable, therefore, that those of their Lordships who were conversant with the subject should carefully consider the details of the Bill, and for that reason he (the Lord Chancellor) hoped the next stage would be put off till a reasonable day. To his mind, it was doubtful whether a Bill of this magnitude and importance on such a subject should be passed through Parliament in a single Session without being maturely considered by all classes whose transactions were affected. He had no doubt that the Bill was very carefully considered by the Select Committee of the House of Commons; but he did not know whether in the House itself it had been publicly discussed. He observed that the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) was not in his place, and urged that it would not be convenient to proceed in his absence.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he proposed to fix the Committee stage for that day week.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was doubtful whether the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) would be in his place by that day week.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he would suggest that the day should not be fixed until later on in the week.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) to fix the Committee for that day week; and then, if the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) was not in his place, it could be further postponed.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he would adopt that course.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL.—(No. 184.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
LOUD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, said, it would be unwise to hurry the Bill through without due consideration. He was by no means ready to concede that the proposed scheme would be the most economical one; and he thought its promoters, at all events, ought not to shrink from establishing its merits in that and other respects. There was no doubt that the existing War Office involved the greatest inconvenience; but it was by no means certain that by carrying this Bill without subjecting it to examination by a Select Committee the authorities and officials of the War Office would be released a day sooner from the hardships they now endured. Some other plan to be adopted in another Session might provide for the construction of a new War Office sooner and better than this measure would do. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
Amendment moved, to leave out from ("That") to the end of the Motion, for the purpose of inserting ("the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.")—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
LORD WAVENEYsaid, he considered this Bill was one of the most paradoxical ever presented to Parliament. The Bill was to enable the Government to purchase land for public buildings; but they had no plan of the buildings before them, and they ought to know something of what was intended to be done. It was a subject which should be considered by a Select Committee of that House and a Joint Committee of both Houses. It might be said that, this being in the nature of a measure to impose taxation and incur expenditure, their Lordships were precluded from dealing with it. He was aware, therefore, that there might be technical difficulties in the way of referring it to a Select Committee of that House; but the question had other im-

837
portant aspects besides its pecuniary one, which their Lordships were well entitled to take into consideration and give a judgment upon. They had at that end of Westminster a mass of the finest public buildings in Europe, which had arisen with the free consent and by the liberality of the British people. Those buildings were such as would bear comparison with the public buildings of any city in the world. They required no dictatorship in regard to the architectural adornment of that city; but what they did require and what they were entitled to before they expended the money levied from the taxpayers was that there should be scientific knowledge, accurately and well applied for the purposes to which that money was to be devoted; and he saw no proof of any such care and attention having been given in this case. He was prepared, at the risk of some possible informality, to go to a division on that question if the Motion were pressed.
LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he fully agreed that this was a subject which should be considered by a Select Committee, for a more unsatisfactory plan for public buildings had never been presented to Parliament. The proposed erections would block up the path, and prevent the carrying out of improvements. But after all the observations made upon the Bill, and bad as the scheme was, he was not prepared to send the Bill to a Select Committee, as they might have no new War Office at all, and one was urgently required. He, therefore, could not vote for the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, the scheme did require further examination. It had long been contemplated to open an exit from the Mall to Charing Cross, and if this were considered too costly at the present moment, it might be done in better times. But on the proposed plan, a block of buildings, described as official residences, was to be placed on the line of the avenue, so as to make this improvement impossible hereafter. As these residences could be otherwise provided for, he trusted that this part of the plan was not positively decided upon.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he thought it rather late in the Session to remove the Bill to a Select Committee. The object of the noble Lord who wished
838
to send the Bill to a Select Committee seemed to be to get rid of it altogether. He confessed, however, that he was not strongly in favour of the Bill. He thought considerations of economy should not be so strongly paramount as they were in the present scheme, and he did not think that they ought to ignore architectural considerations. At the same time, he feared that if they now sent the Bill to a Select Committee, with a view of considering the plan of the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale) for the adoption of the George Street site, it would only lead to the indefinite delay of the construction of new Offices, which were so urgently required. As to the architectural question, he thought there would be great difficulty in fitting in the War Office with the Admiralty. At all events, if the Bill passed, he hoped their Lordships would have some time given them for discussing the plans. He thought it impossible to have a frontage possessing good architectural symmetry. However, knowing, as he did, the state of the War Office, he would not take upon himself the responsibility of voting for an Amendment which had for its object the upsetting of the whole scheme.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that everyone seemed to be in favour of his plan; but he might remind their Lordships that if they passed this Bill it was completely gone. For his own part, he believed that the site at Spring Gardens would be by no means an effective one, being deprived of all frontage to Charing Cross, and certainly it would not be nearly so convenient as that at Great George Street, which was the proper place in which to erect the new public buildings, while the present Admiralty, with some alterations, might be devoted to some of the minor offices; and although he did not consider the present Admiralty was now of great beauty as an architectural elevation, there was nothing discreditable in it. The screen in front, which was originally very beautiful, was now almost entirely destroyed. Formerly there was only one entrance in it; but William IV., when Duke of Clarence, went to reside there, and, to increase the carriage accommodation, had two entrances cut in the screen, and also some of the pillars removed from the front. If they adopted the Parliament Street site they need remove no public buildings,

839
and as both the War Office and the Admiralty could go on together, they would be both connected with each other, which would be a great public convenience. As it was, they would have to pull down the Ship Tavern and the buildings right up to Drummond's Bank. The plan proposed was a miserable one in every way, and as public opinion was being so strongly pronounced against it he hoped it would not be proceeded with.
VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, he should support the Bill as it stood.
LORD TRUROsaid, he considered that the question had been virtually settled by the second reading of the measure, and contended that, looking at the absolute necessity there was for the immediate construction of a new War Office, it would be highly inexpedient to send the Bill to a Select Committee, and thus cause indefinite delay for the purpose of considering another scheme. Those who were connected with the War Office and the Admiralty had expressed their opinion in the most emphatic manner that, for doing away with the inconveniences they now suffered from, no better site could be chosen than that which the Government proposed to purchase. As he understood, no definite conclusion had been arrived at, either to what he might call the character of the building or the architecture. It had been the habit of late years for architects and builders to resort to a stone which they thought was more economical, but which was by no means so well suited to the atmosphere of this country as the old Portland stone, of which all our fine buildings were constructed.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that this question had been discussed over and over again, without any agreement being come to. If the matter was once more referred to a Select Committee, there would simply be a repetition of the old confusion. He did not altogether approve of the Spring Garden site; but he reminded their Lordships that it was far better to adopt some site on which the Government could agree at once rather than waste further time. It was of great importance, in the opinion of military men, that the War Office should be in immediate conjunction with the Horse Guards, as it was now proposed to accomplish. He regretted that for the purpose of the Admiralty and the
840
War Office the Government had not proposed to purchase the whole block of buildings from the Admiralty Office to Charing Cross. As to the houses between Great George Street and Charles Street, he thought they ought to have been pulled down years ago. That site could be appropriated to minor offices. The public would not endure that in Parliament Street there should be the deformity occasioned by the present houses between Charles Street and Great George Street. Necessarily, the adoption of the George Street site would lead to the preparation and adoption of plans that would cost an enormous sum of money, and then the Treasury would be sure to interfere. The difficulty which he found when in Office, and when proposing to obtain this site, was with the Treasury, which naturally objected to pay, not hundreds of thousands, but millions—£2,000,000 for the site. As to the question of architecture, he thought it would not be impossible to find an architect who, as in the ease of the barracks at Hyde Park, would combine public utility with a graceful exterior.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I hope you will not assent to the proposal of the noble Lord to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. The noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), who has just spoken, has advanced such strong reasons why this should not be so, that I can have very little to add to his statement. No doubt, under ordinary circumstances, and earlier in the Session, it would have been a proposal to which little objection could have been taken. But the circumstances under which the Bill comes before the House are exceptional. We are now towards the end of July, and it is clear, from the discussion which has just taken place, that if it were to go before a Select Committee, the whole question of sites would be re-opened, and there would be little chance of getting the Bill through this Session—especially if it were sent back altered to the other House. Let us glance for a moment at the history of this matter. I find it stated before a Committee, as far back as the year 1854, that the building of a new War Office was of "paramount importance. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) has stated to-night that the decision which this Bill carries with it is a hasty one.

841
Surely, my Lords, if the question has been under consideration for nearly 30 years, this step cannot be looked upon as an ill-considered or hasty one. During that time we have had Select Committee after Select Committee, plan upon plan, suggestion after suggestion, and nearly every First Commissioner of Works has had his own particular view of the question. Yet, still, we have the enormous inconvenience, which has been so often alluded to, of the War Office and the Admiralty being scattered over a number of different houses—a state of things which the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), in his evidence, rightly described as "a scandal to the country." In order to point out how difficult it is for a Select Committee to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion amidst various conflicting interests and opinions, it is only necessary to refer again to the last Committee which sat on this subject in 1877, and which, after carefully deliberating for more than two months, and having several plans before them, could only arrive at the obvious conclusion that the Government should lose no time in bringing forward "some plan." My Lords, I think no stronger argument is needed against the proposal for a Select Committee. But it must be remembered also that this Bill is not one which pledges the House to any definite plan, elevation, or architectural design. It is merely one to enable certain lands and houses to be purchased. Before anything can be done towards erecting the building, the whole matter must again come before Parliament. I will now deal briefly with the points raised by the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell). First of all, he objects to what he considers the very improper proceeding of not allowing this Bill to go before a Select Committee in this House, as it has already done in the other House, for the protection of individual rights. It is quite clear from this that the noble Lord is not aware that this is a Hybrid Bill, and has, in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House, been open to be petitioned against up till last Friday by any persons who might consider that by it their rights would be infringed—in which case the Bill must have gone to a Select Committee. But what has happened? Not a single person has presented a Petition, and the Bill, in the natural order of
842
things, has gone before the Committee presided over by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, and passed through that ordeal without objection. I hope your Lordships will agree that this completely answers the objection as to individual rights. The noble Lord objects again to-night, as he did on the second reading, to the pulling down of many of the houses in Spring Gardens of old historic association. Doubtless, it is a matter of considerable regret to us all; but it is quite clear that when any great improvements of this sort are carried out, they must interfere with the existence of such buildings, and I fear it will be the same in the present case. My Lords, in connection with this it is a curious thing that the principal opposition advanced in the other House to the Bill was not that these houses were to come down, but that a number of others—Drummond'sBank, the Sun Fire Office, the Union Bank, and other private offices—were not included in the proposed purchase. I think we may safely leave these two sets of opponents to meet each other's objections. The third objection is that the Council of Architects disapprove of the Bill, because they say it will prevent a broad avenue ever being made to open up Charing Cross to the Mall. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) opposite said, there is on the plan a block of buildings, intended as the residence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which would apparently prevent such an avenue being made; but, as I have pointed out, it is not proposed to commence these buildings for some time; and, therefore, if considered desirable, it would be quite possible to make an avenue at any time during the next 10 years, before the completion of these offices. As it would now involve an outlay of £150,000, it is not thought advisable to take up the question. The road by Drummond's Bank will be widened by 60 feet, so as to allow of proper access to the new Admiralty; and the small road by the Metropolitan Board of Works will also be widened to 40 feet, so that there may be ample convenience for ordinary traffic. Thus the objections of the noble Lord can in every way be thoroughly disposed of. The idea of having this office in Spring Gardens is not a new one. Mr. Ayrton reminds me that when First Commissioner in 1872, he proposed a scheme for

843
erecting a new War Office and Admiralty; and, though I am informed it differed in many important respects from that now before Parliament, it was certainly on the Spring Gardens site. As regards the erection, in the first instance, of the Admiralty, I wish to correct an error I fell into the other night as to what is proposed on this subject. I find the First Commissioner has, in a measure, reconsidered the matter, and proposes to first erect the block nearly facing the Park——one-half for the Admiralty, and one-half for the War Office—so that the Admiralty need not be disturbed till half their buildings are erected, and, in that way, no inconvenience will arise. The question has been thoroughly inquired into. We are approaching the end of the Session, and, as I have already said, it is of the greatest possible importance that this Bill should not be delayed. Cases have constantly occurred during the last 30 years in which, owing to the delay in purchasing sites, the value has very considerably increased, which of itself must be considered of grave moment; and I trust that in the public interest your Lordships will allow the Bill to be considered in a Committee of the Whole House.
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that, by the adoption of the scheme, the Admiralty would have to be erected first, so that the War Office—the condition of which had been so much deplored—would have to wait for a considerable time for any increased accommodation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that—inasmuch as it had been admitted that if it had been earlier in the Session it might have been a proper course to have sent the Bill to a Committee—when the question came before their Lordships next Session in a different shape, the Government ought to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to examine all the inconveniences that had been represented to their Lordships.
On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?
Resolved in the affirmative.
House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.

NAVY—SHIPBUILDING POLICY OF THE ADMIRALTY.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, who had the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ships of war of which it is intended to commence the construction during the present year, the thickness of armour in each case, the number and weight of guns, breech and muzzle loading, and the date at which it may be expected each ship will be completed; the number of torpedo boats, and estimated speed of each; and to move for Returns of the number and armament of ships of war in the navies of Foreign Powers, number and weight of guns carried by them, with the number of torpedo boats at the present time, and the estimated naval forces that are expected to he at the disposal of each Power at the expiration of three years from the present date,"
  said, that since he had taken his seat that afternoon the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Northbrook) had sent him a note, with the terms of which he felt it impossible not to comply. The noble Earl had stated that any reference to the Navies of Foreign Powers would, perhaps, be impolitic, and had requested that such should not be made, and to this request he (Viscount Sidmouth) felt bound to accede. Although precluded from going into the subject and the condition of the Navies of Foreign Powers, he might be allowed to say that he had gone through all the documents which had come within his reach most carefully, amongst others through the exhaustive book published by a Colleague of the noble Earl at the Admiralty, Sir Thomas Brassey; and every line he had read, and all the statistics he had perused, confirmed him in his belief that the numerical strength, and, in some instances, the condition of our Navy was not such as became a maritime country like England. He did not wish to lay the smallest blame on the noble Earl, because, no doubt, he was restricted in his operations by the Treasury; but all he could say was, that if the noble Earl, with all the information which he and his Colleagues must possess, could look on the Navy, numerically speaking, and, in some respects, as regarded construction of ships, as sufficient for the safety of this country, he (Viscount Sidmouth) was perfectly astonished. He was sure, were the noble Earl and his Colleagues in his place, they would not regard the condi-

  845
  tion of the Navy as satisfactory. Let them look at what was occurring in the Mediterranean—whether it was a measure of police or a naval demonstration—he did not know what to call it, that had resulted in the blowing up of an ancient city. We had had to send every available ship to overcome a sixth-rate Power in the hands of a rebel; while we had got just three ships at home for the protection of the Channel. Supposing a great war were to break out, and we had to defend our commerce, we had only one iron-clad in America, one in Australia, and another in China, and at present only three ships, and those not of the first class, to protect the Channel. Now, he would ask any of their Lordships, whether they were acquainted with naval affairs or not, whether the country could possibly be in a safe state under such conditions? He considered it his positive duty to state these things, and he should reserve to himself the right of bringing this subject before the country, either this or next Session, in some different form, because he was satisfied, on the opinion of the highest naval authorities of the country, that the Navy of England was not now too large for the force of united Powers that might be brought against it, and a few years hence there was reason to believe that it would not only be not superior, but absolutely inferior, to the Navy of a certain Power. The Inflexible was our strongest ship; but other countries would soon possess vessels superior to the Inflexible. It should be borne in mind that our merchant ships would require protection in time of war, and, without a very powerful Fleet and a sufficient supply of torpedoes, our Mercantile Marine could not be properly protected. The Inflexible had taken six or eight years to build, and it was well known that no iron-clad could be completed in these days in less than three or four years. Having regard to that fact, he could not refrain from observing that our staff of Dockyard workmen was less in number by some thousands than the staff of more than one foreign country. The Navy, he contended, was not in a state to inspire confidence, and the subject to which he had drawn attention ought, consequently, to command serious consideration.
  Moved, "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for Returns of the number and
  846
  armament of ships of war in the navies of Foreign Powers, number and weight of guns carried by them, with the number of torpedo boats at the present time, and the estimated naval forces that are expected to be at the disposal of each Power at the expiration of three years from the present date.—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he would be ready at any time to give an explanation as to the shipbuilding policy of the Government; but he had certainly written to the noble Viscount a few days ago suggesting that the Motion of which he had given Notice might advantageously be withdrawn, because it referred not only to the shipbuilding policy of the Admiralty of this country, but also to the number of war ships in the Navies of other countries. The noble Viscount, he thought, had exercised a wise discretion in refraining from raising a discussion about Foreign Navies, such discussions having always been deprecated by those who had filled the office he (the Earl of Northbrook)had now the honour to fill. He altogether disputed the statement of the noble Viscount that our Navy was insufficient for the protection of the country in case of attack. The noble Viscount had omitted to take into consideration the Reserve Squadron in the Channel and the ships in the Dockyards, which were ready to be brought forward with the utmost despatch; and he could assure the House that there was no adequate foundation for the alarming statements made by the noble Viscount with regard to the present condition of the Navy. The noble Viscount had observed in the course of his remarks that the number of years in which an iron-clad could be completed was about five; and, therefore, if it were the case, as the noble Viscount contended, that this country was in a position of great peril, it was quite clear that the present Board of Admiralty could not be responsible for such a state of things. For the existing number of armour-plated ships of the newer types recently launched and completing the late Government were obviously responsible; and, therefore, if the noble Viscount should desire at a future time again to bring the subject forward, he hoped that he would give Notice of his intention to the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith), so that some of that right hon. Gentleman's friends might be present in the House to answer the noble Viscount's attacks. He could not him-

  847
  self be expected to explain the reason which had governed the shipbuilding policy of the Board of Admiralty preceding that over which he had the honour to preside.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHsaid, the noble Earl had the advantage of him, having precluded him from referring to the Navies of Foreign Powers. It was utterly impossible for him to make out his case under the circumstances. He did not complain of the noble Earl's administration; but unless in the future the noble Earl placed the Navy in the condition the country desired it to be placed in, the country would not be safe. All the statements he (Viscount Sidmouth) had made had been based on positive information and semi-official documents which came into his possession. So far from being incorrect, his statements, so far as they had gone, were positively true.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, the opinion expressed in a pamphlet written by an Admiral of the Fleet—Sir Thomas. Symonds—and confirmed by a Lord of the Admiralty—Sir Thomas Brassey—was that, at the present rate of building in the two countries, the Fleet of France would by the year 1885 be superior to that of England. Since 1877 the tonnage of the French Fleet had been increased by 29,000 tons, while the British Fleet had in the same period been increased by 21,000 only. The Naval Force of 1885 would depend upon the number of ships begun in 1882, and, computed upon that basis, the French Navy of 1885 would be equal to our own. Seeing the noble Earl the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports in the place usually occupied by the Foreign Secretary, he would put to him a question in regard to the coast defences at Dover. He would not ask him this question as Foreign Secretary, but in the capacity in which he probably had greater freedom and less responsibility, of Lord Warden. The French were now making two great harbours near Calais and Boulogne respectively; and he should like to know from the noble Earl whether he was still of opinion that we ought to make some corresponding defences on this side of the Channel? It was understood that the Cinque Ports used to provide ships for the Navy; but who would take charge of them if now provided he did not know. It was, how-
  848
  ever, a matter of supreme importance, there being those two great harbours, with deep water, constructed within sight of our shores, that there should be some corresponding provision made for our men-of-war on this side of the Channel.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble and gallant Lord has made an appeal to me, and he has been good enough to distinguish between my capacity as Foreign Secretary and Lord Warden. As Foreign Secretary it is impossible to answer a Question without Notice; but, speaking not as Foreign Secretary, but as Lord Warden, I may say that, whether under this or the preceding Government, I have never left them at peace upon this question. I entirely agree not only with the noble and gallant Lord, but with the opinions which have been expressed by both branches of the Service, as to the importance of developing the harbour at Dover, and the great advantage of so doing from a military, naval, and commercial point of view. I am glad to say that this day the Harbour Board, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, has been promoting a Bill in "another place" with the object of making the preliminary arrangements for improvements to Dover Harbour.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, it was very desirable that those who took an interest in naval matters outside the Admiralty should know something of the strength of the Navies of Foreign Powers; and, therefore, the Returns asked for should be given, so that they might consider and discuss them.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE SPECIAL GRANT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONrose to ask the Lord Privy Seal, When the grant of money to the Royal Irish Constabulary proposed in the Estimates will be paid to them; what course the Government propose to take with regard to the Constabulary Bill; and to call attention to the delay which has taken place in dealing with the question? In doing so, he must complain of the wholly unnecessary delay which had taken place in regard to the question. He did not wish to embarrass the Government; but

  849
  the subject was one of the greatest possible importance. In the beginning of the year it was generally felt that some compensation should be made to members of the Constabulary Forces for the extra services which they had performed. It was a long time before an item on that account was inserted on the Votes, and when he asked a Question about it he was told that the matter was before the Treasury. Five weeks later, upon asking again, he was told that in a few days the scheme would be brought forward again, and now it was still unsettled. The fact was that the sums of money which were proposed to be paid to the Constabulary had been expended out of pocket by the men in the extra charges to which they had been put by the severe duties which they had performed in the last few years. In several instances the well-earned savings of the men during many years' service had been totally eaten up by those extra expenses, and there was a considerable doubt felt by the men whether they would ever get the compensation at all. Then the officers were to receive nothing at all, which was an additional grievance. Whether the Bill had actually been laid on the Table or not he could not ascertain; but he could not find it on the printed list, which was supposed to contain all the Bills presented. He thought it was a very serious thing that such a great delay should take place. He also complained that one of the senior posts had been taken away from the Constabulary to which officers had hitherto been entitled. He contended that there ought to be some Member in the House who was well acquainted with all Irish affairs, and could give answers to such Questions. The Lord Privy Seal did not post himself up in Irish questions, and then, if his answers were complained of, the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) rose and administered a castigation to the unfortunate offender. Within the last few days a third Cabinet Minister had found himself unable to act with his Colleagues, and had resigned; and he suggested that that was a good opportunity, as the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was vacant, to appoint some of those noble Lords who still were faithful to the Liberal Party, and who knew something about Ireland, to the post. The matter of which he complained was no light one. He knew
  850
  that the Questions which he asked were questions which were asked in every Constabulary barrack room in Ireland. The Government must remember they were dealing with a highly-educated and intelligent class of men, and men who were assailed, unfortunately, on many sides by the newspapers which were not friends of law and order. Only that morning he saw a paper which almost exulted over the fact that so many delays had taken place in deciding what was to be done with the Irish Constabulary Vote, because it thought that they might get tired and disgusted with the Service in which they had spent their lives. That was a consummation none of them would like to see; and, under those circumstances, it was neither wise nor right to keep such a body of men on the tenter hooks simply because the Government had not found time to apply itself in earnest to a subject which was grave and pressing. That was one of the cases in which it behoved Her Majesty's Government at the present time to be wise, and also to be wise in time.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, he was somewhat astonished at the violent outburst of wrath on the part of the noble Viscount, and which should have fallen upon the head of his noble Friend who represented the Treasury (Lord Thurlow), and not upon himself. He must remind the noble Lord that the question was one of time, and the Treasury were not able to concentrate their whole attention on the subject as the noble Lord was. But he (Lord Carlingford) entirely denied the justice of the statement that he was not prepared to and did not take sufficient pains to be able to answer daily Questions, provided he had reasonable Notice of them. At the present time the noble Viscount had asked him a Question about promotion in the Royal Irish Constabulary which he could not answer, simply because he had not the slightest Notice of it. If Notice had been given of that he would have been able to answer it. With respect to the matter of the Constabulary allowances and pensions, upon which there had, no doubt, been more delay than he had expected, he was happy to state that the Treasury had now agreed to the recommendations of the Irish Government, and had given their sanction to the scheme proposed. It was now merely a question of bringing in a short Consta-

  851
  bulary Bill, which was necessary for one part of the arrangement, and which was now being prepared and would be brought in at once. The money, of course, could not be paid until the Vote had been taken, and that would be done by a Supplementary Estimate in a short time. The matter had lately been brought to a conclusion, and, he believed, a satisfactory one.
  TUE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, the noble Lord might be satisfied with the plan he proposed, but the Irish Constabulary would not, after the hopes that had been held out to them, and the length of time they had been compelled to wait for the promised recognition of their services.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.