Lords Sitting of 14 July 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Archdeaconries (150); Tithe Kent Charge Redemption*(165).
Committee—Secretary for Scotland (117–178).
Select Committee—Earldom of Mar Restitution*(107), nominated.
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4)*(147); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (156); Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)* (157); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order* (148); Pier and Harbour Provisional Order*(114).

NEW PEER.
Gavin, Lord Breadalbane (Earl of Breadalbane in that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland), having been, created Earl of Ormelie in the county of Caithness, and Marquess of Breadalbane—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
(The Earl of Rosebery.)
SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.

  (NO. 117.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Short title).
  On the Motion of The Earl of ROSE-BERY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 5, in the title, after ("Scotland,") insert ("and President of the Scotch Education Department").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 severally agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Seal, style, and acts of the Secretary).
  On the Motion of The Earl of ROSE-RERY, the following Amendments made: —In page 1, line 27, leave out from ("and") to ("Secretary") in line 31, both inclusive; in line 34, after ("him,") insert ("or by any Secretary or other officer appointed by him for that purpose;") and in page 2, lines 1 and 2,

  587
  leave out ("the Assistant Secretary, or any,") and insert ("any Secretary or")."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Transfer of powers of Secretary of State).
  On the Motion of The Earl of ROSE-BERY, the following Amendments made: —In page 2, line 12, leave out ("or any Committee thereof;") and in line 13, leave out after ("Schedule") to ("Scotland") in line 15, both inclusive.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in explanation, said, that the object of the change was to provide for the transference of the functions in a different form in a new clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in proposing, after Clause 5, the insertion of a new clause in order to provide for the transference of the control of education to the New Department, said, it was not exactly the same as the one which appeared on the Notice Paper. It had been drawn up in consultation with the hon. and learned Lord Advocate, on the analogy of the constitution of the Board of Trade. There was no doubt that, if the clause were carried in the form in which it appeared on the Paper, it would be superseding, or in some respects interfering with the functions of the noble Viscount opposite the President of the Council (Viscount Cranbrook). The new clause which he now proposed was a more elaborate and distinct method of doing what the Bill already attempted to do, by reciting the Acts of Parliament which referred to the matter in question. It was found in practice, when they came to examine the Acts under which the Vice President of the Council exercised authority over education, that it was simpler to transfer the Scottish Education Department bodily to the control of the new Secretary, instead of reciting the Acts, clauses, and Schedules which were not quite complete in their operation. There was another object, which was to make the scope of the change more complete. Instead of a Committee of Council for Scottish Education, which had hitherto been more or less a collection of phantoms, it was proposed that the new Department should be assisted by a Council which
  588
  should have to deal, not only with the primary education, but with secondary education, exercising power over endowed schools in Scotland, and also exercising power with regard to the Universities. Their Lordships would see what a very complete and interesting scheme of educational reform this opened up. He thought that those who objected to the Bill from an educational point of view would feel that, in some degree, their objections were removed by the great prominence and importance given to education in this clause; whereas those who, like himself, were anxious to transfer education to the new Minister in the most complete and absolute fashion, would feel that that had been done much more efficiently by the new clause than by the somewhat passing references to the subject in the sub-section and in the Schedule. He wished to remove one possible ambiguity. Their Lordships would observe that it was said—
  "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty from time to time, by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, to appoint the Secretary for Scotland to be Vice President of the Scotch Education Department,"
  and so forth. That had the appearance of a permissive clause, and it might cause some alarm among those who wished to place education under a Scottish Minister. They might think that this would only be an option given, and that somebody under the Scottish Minister might hereafter be appointed Vice President of the Scottish Education Department; but, as a matter of fact, that exact form of words was copied from the Acts appointing the Vice President of the Council Minister of Education for England, and they might be perfectly safe as to the construction of the clause. There need be no fear that it was simply a permissive clause; it was an enabling form of words which he now proposed.
  Moved, after Clause 5, to insert as a new clause:—
  (Appointment of Secretary for Scotland as Vice President of the Scotch Education Department.)
  "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty from time to time, by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, to appoint the Secretary for Scotland to be Vice President of the Scotch Education Department, and the Scotch Education Department shall mean the Lords of any Committee of

  589
  the Privy Council appointed by Her Majesty on Education and Universities in Scotland."
  (Transference of powers and duties of Scotch Education Department.)
  "From and after the appointment of the Vice President of the Scotch Education Department, as hereinbefore provided, all powers and duties vested in or imposed on the Scotch Education Department constituted under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, shall be transferred to, vested in, and imposed on the Scotch Education Department constituted under this Act; and wherever in any Act of Parliament, Minute or Regulation, reference is made to the Scotch Education Department, such reference shall be read and construed as applying to the Scotch Education Department constituted under this Act."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, the House was in some little difficulty on account of the proposed Amendment coming before them, as it did, at that late period, and in a new form. Until he came down to the House he had not had an opportunity of seeing the form in which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) proposed to transfer the Scottish Education Department to the new Secretary for Scotland. Previous, however, to the Bill passing the second reading, he (Viscount Cran-brook)had endeavoured to introduce into the Scottish Council some Representatives of Scottish feeling and Scottish knowledge, who might very effectively have taken part in the administration of education there; and inasmuch as education was to be transferred to this new Official it should be done carefully, and therefore he was very glad, if it was to be done at all, that it was to be done in the way proposed by the noble Earl. The Department existed, the Secretary for Scotland would find that everything was ready to his hand, he would enter on his Office with Inspectors and other officials all ready, and he would merely have to take the place at present held by the Vice President of the Council for England, who was also Vice President of the Council for Scotland. But he (Viscount Cranbrook) must take an exception to the extent to which the noble Earl had gone with respect to the Universities. The Committee of Council in England had no authority with respect to the Universities in England. Judicial Committees were appointed for the special purpose of dealing with the questions that arose in reference
  590
  to the Universities; but the Committee of Council had nothing to do with these matters. The nature of the duties of the Committee of Council and of the University Committees were entirely different. The noble and learned Earl opposite (the Earl of Selborne) would bear him out in saying that Committees were appointed ad hoc for deciding on questions relating to Universities, and that the Committee of Council in England had nothing whatever to do with the Universities of England. It was a totally different subject which was brought before those Bodies. In the case of Committees of Council on Education, it was only in an administrative capacity that they acted; while, in the case of Committees of Council for the Universities, they had to deal with judicial questions, which were of a totally different character. The gentlemen who composed those Committees and dealt with Universities were Judges and other authorities, who were able to decide judicial questions in an authoritative manner. Neither their time nor their circumstances would admit of their giving that attention which would be required in such a scheme as the noble Earl proposed in connection with the Secretary for Scotland. Therefore, he should certainly oppose the insertion of the words "and Universities" in the clause of the noble Earl; and he would venture to suggest to the noble Earl that he should omit the words from the clause, and deal, if necessary, with the question of the Universities separately. That might be a proper function in which the Secretary for Scotland should assist, in combination with men who were able to decide questions of a judicial character, with which the administration of education had nothing whatever to do. He believed that the advantages to which the noble Earl alluded in regard to education might have been obtained by a Council of Scotsmen devoting their attention to this particular subject, and on which, if it were formed, a high dignitary like the Secretary for Scotland might appropriately have a seat.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he wished to be allowed to offer a word of explanation in regard to what had fallen from the noble Viscount opposite. The words "and Universities" were inserted in this clause for two reasons. In the

  591
  first place, the Bill already gave power to transfer to the Secretary for Scotland the powers which the Home Secretary exercised over Scotch Universities; secondly, there was a University Bill, which had long been before both Houses of Parliament, in which it was provided that a Committee of Council should supervise Scotch University matters. It was thought that it would be desirable to have one Council only; but if the noble Viscount saw insuperable objections to the adoption of that course, there would be time enough to consider the question when the Universities Bill came before their Lordships.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, he still thought the words "and Universities" should be omitted from the clause.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERTsaid, he left the matter entirely in the hands of their Lordships.
  Moved, To amend the clause by leaving out the words ("and Universities.")— (The Lord President.)
  Motion agreed to; words left out accordingly.
  On Question, "That the clause, as amended, be there inserted?"
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, he was able most heartily to join with the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) in regard to the transference of education to the now Department. Great complaints had been made with regard to the amount of red tape and officialism which there was about the great paraphernalia of the Privy Council. When Lord Young introduced the Scottish Education Bill, he thoroughly understood the characteristics of Scottish education. The functions of the Superintending Body were really very limited, the Act having been so drawn up that the school boards were carefully guarded against being embarrassed by any unnecessary interference on the part of anybody. There was no use retaining anybody with a high-sounding title. It was far better that the control of education should be in the hands of one man, and that man, he thought, should be the Secretary for Scotland.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that, in his opinion, the noble Earl who had introduced this Amendment (the
  592
  Earl of Rosebery) had very much underrated it with regard to the importance of the change it would make as respected education. The Amendment really introduced a very large change in the Bill, and he very much wished it were possible to give them a few days to consider it, as it was impossible in the few hours that had elapsed since they had received it to give it that amount of consideration which it deserved. As the Bill originally stood, it proposed to do away with the Scottish Education Department altogether, and to put the charge of Scottish education entirely into the hands of the new Secretary. This Amendment, on the contrary, proposed to continue the present system of a Scottish Committee of Council, presiding over which, or at all events a very prominent member of which, would be the Scottish Secretary. That was really to say they were going to continue the present system, with this difference, that it would be dividing education into two parts-—one part for England, and one for Scotland. The form of administration in each case would be precisely the same; but the separation between England and Scotland would be complete, so far as the Committees were concerned. There would be an English Committee presided over by the Vice President of the Council, and a Scottish Committee presided over by an analogous Officer, who would be the Scottish Secretary. There would be a separate Office and a separate Secretariate, and the whole supervision of Scotch education would be conducted apart from that of England. He was very doubtful whether that system would work well. It was by no means certain that the Amendment, leaving out the part of it preserving the Committee in reference to endowed education, was a great improvement in the Bill. Unlike his noble Friend who had just spoken (the Earl of Minto), he was unable to feel such complete confidence in any person who might be from time to time appointed Secretary for Scotland as to believe that he would alone and unassisted be a perfect Education Minister. This question of education was, of all subjects, most important, and it seemed to him that they should regard the question of education first and foremost from the point of view of education itself, and

  593
  that they should not look at all at it from the point of view of those who were more or less concerned about the status or position of the Secretary for Scotland. While he readily admitted that the new proposal in the Bill was an improvement on the original proposal in so far as secondary education was concerned, he thought that in regard to primary education they would find themselves very much where they were. The two Departments would have separate Secretaries; but, on the other hand, by the establishment of two Committees, they would lose the advantage which they had hitherto enjoyed, and which he thought had been a very great advantage—namely, that the same high Officer of State, the Vice President of the Council, had exercised a general superintendence and comparison over the systems of education in both countries, over their Codes and the regulations under which their teachers were appointed. In short, they would lose the bond of union which had hitherto existed between the systems of education in the two countries, as he believed with very great advantage to both. But there was more than this. Their Lordships would see that, if they now established two systems of education, with separate Departments and separate Officers, they would virtually make it impossible to discuss the question whether there should be a Minister of Education for the whole country. Their Lordships know that that question had been considered by a Committee last Session, and that that Committee reported unanimously in favour of the appointment of a Minister of Education. More than that, the late Prime Minister himself was in favour of the system.
  THE EARL OF POSEBERY: No.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, his noble Friend said that was not so; but he (the Earl of Camperdown) could only judge the Prime Minister by his own words. [Laughter.] He meant the late Prime Minister, and the future Prime Minister, he would call him, if they chose. He quite admitted there was very great difference of opinion on the Bench below him, and he had some reason to think that opinion on the Treasury Bench was not absolutely united on the subject; but on the 6th of November last, a Question was put to the late First Lord of the Treasury as to
  594
  whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill at an early date to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Education; and Mr. Gladstone, in reply, said—
  "I propose, on an early day—I cannot name the day exactly, but on an early day—to adopt a measure founded upon the Report of the Select Committee."
  These were the words of the late Prime Minister, and they justified him (the Earl of Camperdown) in saying that that right hon. Gentleman was then, so far as they knew, in favour of the proposals of the Select Committee, and not of those contained in the present Bill. But he wanted to point out that, if they accepted the proposals contained in the Bill, they would render the discussion of the whole question of a Minister of Education impossible. He had gone very carefully into the Petitions; and when they found that the School Boards of Glasgow, Govan, and Dundee, the Educational Institute of Scotland, almost all the institutes and local branches, and many persons eminent in education, went strongly against the transfer of these powers to the new Secretary, they must admit that there was a very considerable difference of opinion in Scotland on the point. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) said the other day that this was a change in the direction of decentralization; hut he (the Earl of Camperdown) thought it was not a change in that direction at all, and that, if anything, it was rather a change in the opposite direction. By the Act of 1872, Scottish education was as much decentralized as it was possible to decentralize it, for it was to be conducted by the school board of the parish, subject only to the general supervision of some Central Authority. Undoubtedly, it was not proposed that the authority of this Scotch Secretary should be less direct than that of the present Educational Department; and, therefore, so far as it was a change, it was in the direction not of decentralization but of centralization. But the real truth was that this change was a change in the direction of Home Rule. The word might be ungrateful or not to their Lordships, but that was the meaning of the change. They were going to establish a Department of Education for Scotland, as separate and

  595
  distinct from that of England as was the Education Department of Ireland. He therefore hoped that, in making up their minds on the question. their Lordships would take that into consideration. He had objected to the transfer on general grounds. He did not propose to enter upon these at present; but he asked their Lordships whether his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) would not really do better if he were to withdraw this question of education for the present. He (the Earl of Camperdown) wished to deal with the Bill as fairly as possible. He had stated more than once in that House that he was anxious to have a Secretary for Scotland, and he wished to give him a very good position indeed; but he did not wish to hand over this question of education to him in such a form as to narrow and insularize, if he might use the term, the education of Scotland. He would not move the Amendments he had himself put upon the Paper; but he should ask their Lordships to divide against the proposal, upon the ground that they should not make it impossible to establish a Ministry of Education, if, on discussion in Parliament, it should be deemed desirable.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he considered the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) an improvement upon the Bill. He was one of those who had regretted from the first that the whole question of Scottish education was not kept exclusively a Scottish question. Scotland had been long before England in a system of national education. The parish schools of Scotland had been the admiration of the world, and had educated their people in a manner in which no other people were educated; and these schools had no other fault than this—when they changed hands, that they had ceased to cover the whole population, and it was necessary to enlarge the system. He had always regretted that, owing to the grant by the Privy Council under the extended system of education, the management of the schools, to a very largo extent, so far as money was concerned, should have been centralized in London; and he must say that, when they were creating a Secretary for Scotland, he thought education was one of the very first matters which they ought to intrust to his cars. Therefore he entirely
  596
  agreed with his noble Friend the late Lord Privy Seal in the general principle of the Amendment he had introduced. He (the Duke of Argyll) was in favour of the separation of Scottish and English education. Scottish education was different from English in its history. It was different in its origin, and, to a large extent, it was different in its actual and existing system. But then he had always felt that, considering the Privy Council had been established for a considerable number of years, the complete transfer would be a matter of serious inconvenience. The Privy Council had the strings in its hands; it was in personal communication with all the Parochial Boards in Scotland; and the existing system had many friends in Scotland who thought their special interests would be interfered with by the change. He, therefore, was very anxious as to the mode in which this most important change should be carried into effect, and thought that the present proposal was a good way to meet the difficulty. They would not amalgamate the two systems, and he understood the effect of the Amendment of his noble Friend to be that the Scottish Secretary would be the permanent Chairman of the Scottish Committee on Education. That would ease the transfer, and would give a reality and life to the Scottish Committee on Education which it had never had before. At the beginning the Scotch Committee were occasionally summoned to decide two or three questions of principle; but since then they had never been summoned at all. It would be different when the Committee were presided over by the Scotch Secretary. Practically, it was a phantom or nonexistent body, such as that to which his noble Friend had referred; but the effect of the Amendment, he (the Duke of Argyll) believed, would be to make it a practical working body, and to carry out the proposed change in a more convenient way.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he thought it would be awkward to vote upon an Amendment like that now before the House without seeing the words of it in print. He was one of those who looked with suspicion upon this proposal to transfer the question of education to the control of the Scottish Secretary. He frankly admitted that he thought the proposal to continue the Committee of

  597
  the Privy Council was a very great improvement and a very great safeguard in the Bill, and he was very glad to see it. But he did not think it removed all the objections that could be taken to the proposal itself. The proposed transference would render it absolutely impossible in all time coining to have a Minister of Education for both countries. He was not to be understood as asking that the two systems of education—the Scotch and the English— should be made similar in all respects; but what he did say was that there was much that each country could learn from the other, and he looked with very great suspicion upon any proposal which should stereotype the educational system of Scotland for Scotland and the system of England for England. They ought, he thought, to do all they could not to have the two systems controlled by the same Staff and the same officials; but that they should be supervised, if he might say so, by one Parliamentary Head or Minister, who could take a comprehensive view of the interests of each country, and could import what was good for one system into the other, and gain experience for the management of one country by what was going on in the other. He very much regretted the change, if that was to be taken away from them. Therefore, if his noble Friend(the Earl of Camperdown) divided the House on the question whether the clause should be inserted, he should feel bound to support him. On the other hand, he was not quite certain whether there was any use dividing the House; because it was obvious, from what had taken place on former occasions, that there was in this House likely to be a majority in favour of the transference of education. As the noble Earl opposite had pointed out, the condition of the Front Benches, and the gaps behind them, showed that those against the view he took in this matter had got the upper hand. It was therefore useless for individual Members to divide the House, and although it was with great regret he said it, he could not recommend his noble Friend to go to a division. If, however, he did so, he should be very happy to record his opinion in his noble Friend's favour. He thought that, to some extent, the House had been misled—he did not mean intentionally—as to the way in
  598
  which opinion in Scotland was running upon this question. He knew that there was very great dissatisfaction with the present system, and he, for one, would not ask that the present system should be continued; but the dissatisfaction which had been expressed with the present system must not be taken to be co-equal with satisfaction at the proposal now before them. There was a very strong current of opinion in Scotland in favour of a Ministry of Education, which he thought was at least as strong in that direction as that in favour of the transfer of Scottish education to the new Scottish Minister. There was no doubt in the East of Scotland, and perhaps in the South, a considerable body of opinion in favour of the transfer of the charge of education to the Scottish Secretary; but he knew that in the West of Scotland, and among those who were mainly concerned with the management of education itself—he meant the school boards and the teachers—there was, if not a carelessness and indifference on the matter, at least amongst a great many the opinion that this transfer should not take place. He was sorry to hear the remark made on the other side, that the teachers had opposed this transference, solely because they thought it would interfere with their professional interests. That idea was certainly a wrong one; he believed it might have been to some extent caused by their action; but he was perfectly certain, from what the knew of them, that they had taken up the position they had done from an intelligent appreciation of the questions at issue, and the real belief that this proposed transference was not in the best interests of Scottish education. While he welcomed the change which was now proposed as in itself an improvement on the Bill as it stood when read a second time, he still regretted that it was proposed to transfer the charge of education to the Scottish Secretary. He would have preferred to keep the matter open until the question for and against a Minister of Education for the two countries had really been discussed and decided.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he must confess that he was exceedingly relieved to hear the speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown), because he (the Marquess of Lothian had supposed, from the noble Earl's

  599
  Amendment, that he had intended to give their Lordships reasons against the proposal of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery); but the fact was that he had come down and blessed the Bill. The Bill, as amended by the noble Earl who was in charge of it, was a very great improvement on what it was when it was first brought into their Lordships' House. The noble Earl who gave Notice of the Amendment (the Earl of Camperdown) seemed to agree entirely with the proposal of the noble Earl who brought in the Bill; he had not one word to say against that proposal. The only objection he (the Marquess of Lothian) understood the noble Earl to make now was that, if the proposal of the noble Earl was carried into effect, it would make it impossible in future to consider the question whether there should be a Secretary of State or a Minister for Education for the United Kingdom. That was another question altogether. He should be very sorry, for one, if anything done in their Lordships' House should have the effect of prejudging a question of that kind, and especially a question that had been so much considered. That question was before Mr. Childers's Committee; but if the proposal of the noble Earl to put education under the Scotch Minister was in itself a good one, it would be a wrong to postpone what was really good, with the view that some other thing that might take place hereafter might, in the opinion of some of their Lordships, be better. He was quite opposed to putting the education of the country under the control of one Minister of Education. The noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Balfour) said he was very much opposed to putting Scottish education under the control of the Scottish Minister, on the ground that the educational system of Scotland and England would be stereotyped. It seemed to him (the Marquess of Lothian) that when they talked of stereotyping education, they could not possibly do so more effectively than by putting the control of the education of the country in the hands of one Minister. As he had said on the previous occasion, he thought the Scotch system had more merits than the English system; and if the two systems were under the control of one Minister, the tendency would be that the Scotch system would gravitate down towards the English
  600
  system, although the English system might, to some extent, have a tendency to rise. But if they kept the systems separate, there was the tendency to emulation; and on that ground alone he would be very glad to see the Scottish system kept apart. In his opinion, no argument had been brought forward against the proposal, except, perhaps, that it would prejudice the case in favour of a Minister for Education for the whole United Kingdom; and he, for one, was prepared heartily to congratulate the noble Earl on his proposal, and to give him his support.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, it would perhaps be convenient, as he did not see any other noble Lord rising, if he now intervened in the debate with a general statement, which he trusted would not be at all a long one, in answer to what had been urged on the other side. He must, first of all, be allowed to congratulate himself on the nature of the discussion. It had been singularly favourable to the principles of the Bill which he had in charge at that moment; and he had reason also that night to congratulate himself the more on finding the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) on his side, for he had had very recent experience that it was much better to have him on his side than against him. With regard to what had fallen from his noble Friend behind him, who said the late Committee of the Privy Council was a phantom Committee, and that be feared the next Committee would be the same, but who at the same time wished that the Committee should not exist at all, it seemed to him that these two objections met each other. If the new Committee was to be a phantom Committee, it would not fetter the discretion of the new Minister; whereas if it were, as he believed it would be, a solid, substantial, and improved Committee, it would very materially assist him. As regarded the meaning of the words "Lords of the Privy Council," he might point out that the very keystone of the existence of the educational system, which was the Act of 1872, described the Scottish Education Department in these words—
  "The Scottish Education Department shall be the Lords of any Committee of the Privy Council appointed by Her Majesty on Education in Scotland."
  Therefore, in adopting these words, he

  601
  was only taking them as the absolute legal definition of the Scottish Education Department. Coming to what had fallen from his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Camperdown), who had an Amendment on the Paper, his noble Friend complained—he thought very justly—that he (the Earl of Rosebery) had not given sufficient Notice of this Amendment; but their Lordships would, he thought, remember that they were placed in a somewhat difficult position; they had really no time to postpone this Amendment. He put it down for yesterday. Had it been possible he would gladly have postponed the Committee until Thursday in order to give an opportunity for considering the Amendment; but he thought on the whole, as the choice of two evils, it was much better to give shorter Notice of his Amendment than risk the passing of the Bill for want of time. He wanted also to point out that the Amendment was perfectly congenial, and absolutely in accordance with what he said on a former occasion, which, it would be remembered, was that, whereas Mr. Childers's Committee proposed that there should be two Educational Departments—one for England and one for Scotland—but both responsible to the same Minister, he (the Earl of Rosebery) only proposed that there should be two distinct Departments, responsible to two distinct Ministers. His Amendment only emphasized and made clear what he ventured to lay down in that contention. His noble Friend, in one part of his speech, said this was not a measure of decentralization, and towards the end of his speech, he said it was a measure of insularization. He (the Earl of Rosebery) did not pretend to weigh exactly the meaning of those two expressions; he must leave that to those more competent in dialectics than himself. Coming to the more general objection that had been raised, and which had been urged the other day, he wished to say one word as to what had been frequently discussed — he meant the real popularity of this measure in Scotland. He thought that, on a former occasion, he was somewhat misunderstood in regard to that position. It was understood that he had said there were only 40 Petitions from school boards in favour of this proposal; and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) very justly said there was 970 school
  602
  boards in Scotland, and that 40 was only an insignificant fraction of the whole. He (the Earl of Rosebery) did not in the least pretend to enumerate all the Petitions that had been presented in favour of the Bill. He hastily jotted down some of the principal school boards who had petitioned; but he made no pretence whatever to an exhaustive computation. For instance, so defective was it that he omitted the School Board of Aberdeen, one of the most important cities in Scotland.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that he had been reported as if he had said the Aberdeen School Board had petitioned against the transference, whereas he know it had petitioned for the transference; he had quoted the School Board of Dundee.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was quite sure the noble Lord had no wish to lay stress on the matter; but he (the Earl of Rosebery) could never have put forward 40 as representing the Petitions from school boards, because he was aware that there were a great many more, one of his noble Friends having presented 40 Petitions himself, and he (the Earl of Roseberry) did not think any of them were reckoned in the list he submitted to their Lordships. The Petitions from school boards, which had not been sought or got up in any possible manner, were especially valuable as an indication of Scotch education opinion. They were spontaneous, therefore they had an importance of their own. But what, after all, were school boards? School boards very often contained persons of one idea, who thought that education was the only thing to be considered, and therefore were apt to take somewhat narrow views of the question. But, as a matter of fact, he wanted to know what number of Petitions were presented from school boards against this proposal? The noble Lord could not say that whatever Petitions had been presented against this proposal were spontaneous, because both the Educational Institute and another important public body sent the "fiery cross" round with the utmost ardour and with the utmost eagerness to get up Petitions against this proposal. He wanted to know how many had come? The noble Lord could count them on the fingers of one hand, The noble Lord paraded three. He always had these three. He

  603
  (the Earl of Rosebery) did not want to underrate their importance; but three Petitions, however important, did not represent the feelings of the school boards of Scotland. Then there was the question of the municipalities. The great municipalities of Scotland were keenly alive to public questions. He wanted to know what municipality in Scotland, great or small, had petitioned against this proposal? They had had it before them for months, and they were ready, if ever they had been ready, to petition against it, and he did not believe that one Petition had come from any of the municipalities of Scotland against the Bill. He must even take them one step further. It was useless for the House to ignore the fact that, in November, there would be a very interesting series of contests throughout these Islands, and the Scottish people were exceedingly alive to that circumstance. They had candidates and Members of every shade perambulating every part of Scotland—candidates some of whom they could hardly define; but he wanted to know from the noble Lord, and he hoped the noble Lord would give him an answer on this point—had there been any single candidate, or any single Member, he thought he might say, but he would certainly say candidate, who, in his public utterances, had not only not pledged himself against this proposal, but had not pledged himself most ardently in its favour? That was to say, that amongst the whole political candidature of Scotland not one man had ventured to stand on a platform and oppose this proposal. That, he thought, was enough on the question of feeling. He was prepared to put the question of Scottish feeling on this subject to any test which the noble Lord might suggest; but these candidates and these Members went further, and urged that the Secretary for Scotland should have a seat in the Cabinet. He thought they all urged that; but the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) went a little further the other night, and made a suggestion which he was sure the future Minister, whoever he might be, would cordially endorse—which was that his salary should be much larger than was proposed by the Bill. When that question was touched upon by the noble Earl on that occasion, it brought to his mind a most grave irregularity in this Bill,
  604
  for which they could only make an almost suppliant apology to the other House; because their Lordships ought never to have named salary in the Bill at all. It was a great indecorum— it was a breach of Privilege. He (the Earl of Rosebery) did not know that he might not be an inmate of the Clock Tower when the Bill reached the other House; and much more so his noble Friend behind him, for his comment on and his desire to amplify that salary. But as regarded a seat in the Cabinet, which the noble Lord opposite seemed to think so essential and desirable a thing in this matter, he must make one general remark. It applied both to a Minister for Education and a Minister for Scotland. The noble Lord said he thought a Minister for Education was much more likely to have a seat in the Cabinet than a Minister for Scotland, and that he would have a much better opportunity for urging his case on that Body. As regarded the Minister for Education, they had had 15 years' experience of him. The Vice President of the Council had been Minister of Education—in practice, though he knew not in form—for 15 years; and up to the formation of the present Cabinet, in these 15 years the Minister of Education had only been once in the Cabinet; and he confessed he thought a Minister for Scotland, plus Scottish education, representing the interests of a great and important portion of the community, was more likely to have a seat in the Cabinet than a Minister for Education alone. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) could probably give their Lordships the result of some recent experience which would be of value upon this point. It was impossible for any Bill to lay down what Ministers should or should not be in the Cabinet. They had now a Cabinet of 16. Heaven knew where the amplification of the Cabinet was going to stop if every interest and if every crotchet demanded a Minister with a seat for its representative in the Cabinet. It would become a great popular Body that would require to sit in Westminster Hall; and he, for one, was not prepared to see that unfortunate result. But, of course, they could do as had been done opposite—they could relegate two Members of the Cabinet to Dublin, and it might be possible to relegate the Minister for Scot-

  605
  land to reside in that country. Then there was the very important question about the teachers. The noble Lord said the teachers feared that they would not be so liable to be employed in England, if this Bill was passed and Scotch education was placed under a separate Department, as they were before.
  LORD BALFOURexplained, that what he said was that the certificates would not be interchangeable.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the matter was one of very simple arrangement indeed. The fact was, that they should require in both countries the most efficient teachers they could get. He believed it was a most futile fear on the part of the teachers. The most efficient teachers would be wanted, and would be got wherever they were to be found, no matter whether the Education Department was all under one Administration or not. The noble Lord also raised a difficulty in connection with the Science and Art Department. That, again, was a perfectly vain fear of his noble Friend. The Science and Art Department was in no degree touched, even remotely, by the Bill, and there was no reason why it should be. The Science and Art Department had authority in England, in Scotland, and in Ireland. It dealt with all Three Kingdoms, although Ireland had its own system of education under its own local managers, and there was no idea or proposal to interfere with the existing arrangement. He must say a word as to what fell from both his noble Friends (the Earl of Camperdown and Lord Balfour), who let the cat of the Education Minister out of the bag of their objection. He (the Earl of Resebery) did not pretend to try to legislate for Scotland with a view to the possible necessities of England. There were characteristics of Scottish education, the education of Scotland differing not merely in degree, but in kind, from the education of England. There were characteristics in Scotland which they should always be unwilling to leave at the risk of neglect by a Minister of Education in England. After all, what were the Votes? The Vote for Primary Education in England and Wales was over £3,000,000; the Vote for Scotland was under £500,000. It was quite clear which system of education would go to
  606
  the wall under a Minister who would have charge of both. He did not say he personally should be unwilling to consider the case of a Minister of Education; but there was no possibility of a Minister of Education. Mr. Childers's Committee never proposed, or ventured to propose, a Minister of Education. They heard no independent Scottish witnesses; therefore, they made the proposal he had referred to with regard to Scotland. They did hear a witness from Ireland, and from that moment all idea of including Ireland under a Minister of Education had vanished for ever. What, then, was the noble Lord looking forward to in the distant future? It was a two-thirds Minister of Education—a vulgar fraction of a Minister of Education. He entirely and most emphatically objected to postpone the interests of Scottish Education until they had a Minister of Education, or a two-thirds, or any other vulgar fraction of a possible Education Minister for England and Wales and Scotland. He believed if they were able to propose a Minister of Education for the United Kingdom they might have some chance; but as a Minister of Education would only have charge of a part, would not be really what he was in name, he did not think there was the slightest use in their persevering with their idea. He had now to apologize for detaining their Lordships at the length he had while addressing them; but there had been a great many illusions which it was necessary to dispel, and if there were any further illusions to be dispelled, he should be very happy to deal with them.
  THE LORD FRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILsaid, he would suggest that the Bill should be reprinted and circulated the following day.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he only wished to say a word with regard to what had fallen from his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery). The noble Earl told them just now that he was not prepared to postpone the necessities of Scotland for the necessities of England. They did not ask the noble Earl to do anything of the kind. What they were looking to was the good of the whole country. His noble Friend had addressed to their Lordships stirring words with regard to the question of Petitions. He had said the Educational

  607
  Institute had sent round the "fiery cross" to get up Petitions against the Bill. He (the Earl of Camperdown) did not know whether or not that was the case; but if the Educational Institute sent round the "fiery cross," they appeared to have been not the only persons who had taken that course. He had taken the trouble to examine the Petitions in favour of the Bill, and he discovered that more than a half — perhaps three-fourths—of them were drawn up in two forms, and the words were rather peculiar. Therefore, if the "fiery cross" went forth from one side, it went forth at least as much from the other side.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: And with more result.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNproceeded to say that Petitions in favour of the Bill had been sent from small burghs, school boards, literary associations, and other institutions of the same sort. [The Earl of ROSEBERY dissented.]He could assure the noble Earl that if he would only road his own Petitions he would find that that was so. He was afraid he would not obtain much support on the present occasion, because he perceived that many of the strongest opponents of the noble Earl's proposal were conspicuous by their absence, while he saw that every enemy was in his place; and as the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) with his mighty legions would probably overwhelm him, he thought the wiser course would be to leave the matter for discussion in "another place." He should not, therefore, trouble their Lordships with a division.
  On question? Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Remaining clauses severally agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to, with an Amendment.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 178.)

ARCHDEACONRIES BILL.—(No. 150.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
ARCHDEACONRIES BILL.—(No. 150.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was directed simply to explain Clause 34 of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, so as to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make up the salaries of archdeacons to the sum originally fixed. That clause had been interpreted in the sense of this Bill for 30 years up to 1869, when an opinion was given that the same stipend could be reviewed only once. Hence the intended stipends of £200 a-year, which often sufficed only for travelling expenses, had, in some cases, sunk much below that sum. This Bill merely explained that the Commissioners might, from time to time. review the cases and remedy the grievance.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—{The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE—RE-ERECTION AT ALDERSHOT.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in rising to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether an eligible site has finally been decided upon for the re-erection of the Wellington Statue at Aldershot; and, when the work in question is likely to be completed? said, that it had been reported that a site had been selected upon Cæsar's Camp, from which the statue would be visible to the whole camp and also from the South-Western Railway. He hoped the noble Viscount would be able to confirm this. There was another Question in connection with the subject which he would like the noble Viscount to answer, and of which he had given him private Notice—Whether it was true that up to the present time £6,000 had been spent in the work, and how much the expense was expected to come to?
  LORD DE ROSsaid, he hoped that the noble Viscount would be able to tell them that the statue was to be put up where it would be visible to all the camp. If it were put up upon Caesar's Camp, one of the wishes of the great Duke would be fulfilled—that the statue should be seen from one of the houses, not Apsley House, but Strathfieldsaye.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that there had been unsatisfactory delay in this matter. For the last year the delay was endured in silence, because it was understood that the late Government had some intention of placing the statue at Khartoum; but, as that plan was not to be carried out, it was hoped that the statue would at once be erected upon the site selected for it.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Viscount BURY), in reply, said, that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, as President of the Committee, assisted by other Members of it, had chosen a very prominent site for the statue upon a knoll on the North side of the Royal Pavilion at Aldershot. The works were already in progress, the pedestal for the statue being in course of erection; and Messrs. Martin and Wells, the contractors, had promised that the whole work should be completed by the end of August.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, the noble Viscount had not answered as to how much the works had cost up to the present time, and what would be the total cost when the work was finally completed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: Perhaps the noble Viscount will give Notice of the Question.

  EGYPT (THE NILE EXPEDITION)—SIR CHARLES WILSON. QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether there would be any objection to give official publicity to the following telegram which was sent by the Marquess of Hartington on or about 11th February 1885, to General Lord Wolseley, but which does not appear in the Papers recently presented to Parliament —viz.:
  "Express warm recognition of Government of brilliant services of Sir Charles Wilson, and satisfaction at gallant rescue of his party."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Viscount BURY): I believe that the omission of the telegram was an accident. The Papers in question were published by the Foreign Office, and furnished by the War Office, and by some means the telegram was omitted; but it will now be published.

THE VOTE OF CREDIT—NAVAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE LATE GOVERNMENT.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, as certain charges have been made in "another place" by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the administration of the Vote of Credit for Naval and Military Operations by the Admiralty, I am sure your Lordships will indulge me while I state the facts of the case, and show that, in my opinion, none of those charges have any foundation in fact.
I wish to make one preliminary observation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the time that he had spent in examining into this question Your Lordships will be surprised to hear that he has, nevertheless, entirely avoided asking for any information on the subject from the only person who was capable of affording him a full explanation as to the administration of that Vote of Credit. Your Lordships know that Votes of Credit differ very much from ordinary Estimates. An ordinary Estimate is divided under different beads of expenditure; so much is allowed for one branch and so much for another; and the Heads of Departments at the War Office, or at the Admiralty, are responsible that the grants under each head are not exceeded. A Vote of Credit is essentially and entirely different from an ordinary Estimate; it gives a lump sum for a certain purpose, and is not divided under different heads. The reason of the difference is that a Vote of Credit is only conceded by Parliament when the requirements are uncertain and an Estimate cannot be pro-pared. Therefore, it is framed in the general way I have described. It seems to me that, in these circumstances, the responsibility for the administration of a Vote of Credit must rest, and can only rest, with the responsible Heads of the Departments concerned. I happened at the time to fill the Office of First Lord of the Admiralty, and I was the responsible Head of that Department, and responsible for the administration of a part of the Vote of Credit. At that time the probability of war was great, and that was the only justification for a Vote of Credit. Your Lordships will readily understand what the administration of

611
such a Vote for the Navy involved. Care must be taken that the expenditure is right and necessary. There must be care taken that orders are given promptly, and it is necessary in many cases that the orders should be secret. It is essential, moreover, in the administration of such a Vote that the Minister responsible should be a Member of the Government, in order that he may be aware of all those political considerations? which may greatly affect the course of the expenditure. In fact, anyone who will think for a moment on the subject will see that the Head of the Admiralty alone can be responsible for the administration of a Naval Vote of Credit in all its varied aspects. The responsibility, therefore, rested with myself alone. Any information which I received from the different branches of the Admiralty, and from the Accountant General's weekly Reports, which I directed to be furnished to me, was entirely subordinated to the more general knowledge I alone could have of the whole administration of the Vote. In these cir-cumstanoes I say I was the only person who could give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the full information he required. No information was reliable unless communicated by me, or by my instructions. Any demi-official communications between subordinate officers must necessarily have been imperfect. When I heard the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons, I was astonished how it could have happened that he had not asked me for any information on the subject, as I am convinced that an hour or two's conversation between us would have enabled him to avoid the mistakes into which he has fallen. Not only did he not ask me for information, but I received no fair Notice from him that such an attack was to be made in the House of Commons, so that it was impossible for me to ask anyone in the House to answer the attack. Nothing can exceed the courtesy with which my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton), the present First Lord of the Admiralty, has treated me in this matter. He at once afforded me every facility for seeing the Papers in the case, so that I might make this statement.
What, then, is the charge made? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has ascertained that there may be an excess
612
of expenditure of £850,000 over the Vote of Credit which was laid before Parliament on the 21st of April last; and he has attributed that excess partly to the uncertainty of affairs, but mainly to certain "blunders" which he asserted had been committed.
I must first state the facts of the case. The Vote of Credit was prepared in April, and some expenditure had taken place before that time. It was thought at the time that there was an immediate probability of war. That Vote included, under the head "Remaining Charges in the Soudan and Upper Egypt,"£500,000 for transport—I am alluding only to the naval part of the Vote—and under the head. "Special Naval and Military Preparations,"£2,500,000. Out of that £2,500,000 I arranged with the Secretary of State for War that £200,000 would be at the disposal of the War Office for the provision of mining defences for certain coaling stations and commercial ports at home, leaving at the disposal of the Admiralty £2,300,000. There is no division of that £2,300,000 in the Estimate. I had calculated that out of that sum £500,000 would be spent by the Transport Department of the Admiralty in the hire of merchant ships to be used as cruisers. To show the inaccuracy that pervades the whole statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I may say he has misstated even the foundation of the Vote. He said—
"Out of the Estimate of £2,800,000, £1,000,000 was allowed for transports, besides a further sum for vessels taken up for ocean cruisers."
This was not the case. He continued—
"Subsequently £80,000 was added to this before the defeat of the late Government."
Where the Chancellor of the Exchequer found that piece of information I am quite ignorant. I am unable to explain it, because no such piece of information has ever come to my knowledge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, therefore, given an inaccurate statement of the foundation of the Vote.
I wish, as far as the responsibility which rests upon the Admiralty, to distinguish between that part of the Vote which is for transport in the Soudan and Upper Egypt, and that part of the Vote which is for Naval and Military Preparations, because the whole responsibility for the latter part of the

613
Vote rests upon the Admiralty; but as regards the Vote for Transport that is not entirely the case. As your Lordships are probably aware, it is convenient that the Transport Department of the Admiralty should take up ships for the transport requirements of the Army. As respects the cost of taking up those ships and the economical administration of the work of the Transport Department, the Admiralty are responsible; it is their duty to see that the freight paid is at the lowest rate practicable under the circumstances. Further than that the Admiralty cannot be held responsible; moreover, the Admiralty cannot exercise any control over expenditure for transport incurred in India by the Government of India, which, nevertheless, for purposes of account, is charged against the Navy Vote for Transport.
Such was the basis of the Vote of Credit when, in May last, there was reason to believe that our difficulties with Russia might be immediately settled; and Mr. Childers, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, asked me to toll him what saving might be effected if peace was assured. From the Reports I received and my own knowledge, I came to the conclusion, in the middle of May, that there might be a saving of £150,000 out of the money allotted to the Navy. But your Lordships know that the negotiations dragged on, and every day's delay in the orders to arrest preparations diminished the amount of the possible savings. On the 28th of May I instructed the Accountant General of the Navy to acquaint Sir Reginald Welby at the Treasury, who had been placed in communication with him by Mr. Childers for the purpose, in the following terms:—
"You can tell Sir Reginald Welby that it would not be safe to calculate upon any saving upon the Vote of Credit for the Navy. Possible credits"—I omit the particulars as it might not he desirable even now to mention them—"might prevent an excess; but I am by no means assured of this. The delay of the negotiations with Russia has hampered us. When I said some weeks ago that we might save £150,000, it was under the impression that peace was assured and our preparations might cease at once. This, unfortunately, has not been the case."
Now, my Lords, I have brought the matter down to the 28th of May, a few days before Mr. Childers made his
614
statement, which was on June 5. I wish to state the figures which were before me at that time. They show that there were incurred at that time liabilities of about £350,000 beyond the Vote of Credit. I had engaged more cruisers than I had expected; and there was another liability, to which I shall have again to allude—namely, the providing of torpedo gear for certain boats. It was my opinion that, if peace was assured, I might save this sum of £350,000; and I believe I might have done so by taking vigorous and immediate action. In the figures before me the pay and victuals for 1,000 men were taken for the whole year, and some of the stores for which Estimates had been made had not been ordered. It was at that time possible to make considerable savings in respect of the chartering of the mercantile cruisers, colliers, and transports; besides other assets which I cannot mention in detail. Thus I came to the conclusion that the liability of £350,000 in excess of the Vote of Credit might have been saved if peace had been assured. That was the basis of the information I gave to Mr. Childers, on which he made his statement to the House of Commons. No one who reads the Papers presented to Parliament can doubt that Mr. Childers was justified in making his calculations on the assumption that peace might be assured; because, at that time, the settlement with Russia might have taken place at any hour.
Such being the facts of the case, I now come to the statements made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the correctness of which I impugn. The first is couched in the following language:—
"The grave fact which I have to bring before the Committee is that we have now discovered that the Estimate of £2,800,000 presented to the late Government at the time I have stated (the 5th of June) by the Admiralty did not include all the liabilities that had been incurred. So far as I have yet ascertained the error was no less that £500,000'
I asked the First Lord to be good enough to furnish mo with the information given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the Admiralty. I am unable to find from that information any justification for the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

615
and I can assure your Lordships that no such Estimate as mentioned by him was ever furnished by mo or by my authority to the Government. The only statements that were furnished to the Government on my authority were the statement I have read to your Lordships, and a verbal statement to the same effect made by me at a meeting with some of my Colleagues; and this would have been at once explained to him if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been good enough to speak to me on the subject. I assert that I can imagine no reason for the allegation that at that time the liabilities of the Admiralty were under-estimated by £500,000. I have explained to your Lordships that I calculated we had £350,000 of liabilities beyond the Vote of Credit, but that I expected to save that sum if peace was assured.
Failing to see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have made such a statement, it is to my mind still more extraordinary that he could have gone on to speak as he did when he said— and this is the second statement made by him which I have to notice—
"I hope it will not be supposed that I blame the late Government collectively for this. One right hon. Gentleman in particular did his best to prevent it. In spite of the many and urgent affairs that must have distracted his attention at that moment, the late Prime Minister found time to put his finger on this very blot, and to represent to the Admiralty the urgent necessity for checking an expenditure which, I must say, so far as I have yet been able to investigate the circumstances, appears to me to have been incurred with an absence of method and supervision, to say the least, which is far from creditable to such a Department as the Admiralty."
Certainly it is one of the most remarkable characteristics of Mr. Gladstone that he is able to attend to large political questions, and at the same time to master financial details; and it is quite true that Mr. Gladstone instructed Sir Reginald Welby to communicate with the Accountant General of the Navy as to what saving could take place on the Vote of Credit, assuming peace to be assured, and that he noticed especially the possibility of saving money by paying off ships which had been contracted for, but would not in the altered circumstances be wanted. Mr. Gladstone was quite right. If peace had been then assured, we could have reduced our liabilities for cruisers and
616
transports, and so have effected the saving which he suggested; but other liabilities had already been incurred which absorbed this contingent saving. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, by some confusion of ideas, turned this inquiry by the Prime Minister into a contrast of his economy as compared with assumed Admiralty extravagance. There was no question then of actually reducing any expenditure. The only question was as to the best calculation which could be made of the possible reductions of expenditure if peace had been assured. Peace, as I have said before, was not assured; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to assume that when the time came I should not have acted as vigorously as Mr. Gladstone could have wished in the direction of economy.
The third accusation made against me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still more extraordinary. It is this—
"I am sorry to add that this is not all…I said the Admiralty had exceeded their Estimate of £2,800,000 by no less than £850,000. This is not all due to the increased cost of transport. It is also due to the fact—although, I think, quite rightly—provision was made in this £2,800,000 for building or purchasing 40 torpedo boats, the Admiralty actually omitted from that Estimate any provision whatever for furnishing these boats with torpedo gear."
That was naturally received with a considerable amount of laughter in the House; and the Press have, of course, taken the impression that there has been gross mismanagement by the Admiralty. For instance, The Globe, the next day, said that the Admiralty—
"Mismanaged in a manner as absurd as it was gross the public service to which the money was applicable. It reads like a passage from a burlesque, that the late Government lavished a huge sum on the construction of torpedo boats, but made no provision for furnishing them with torpedoes."
Well, my Lords, this is one of the most extraordinary mares' nests I ever came across. I will explain in a few minutes how this ridiculous mistake occurred. When preparations were being made, it was found desirable that we should get a considerable number of very fast boats to carry quick-firing guns, being armed with which these boats could attack and destroy any of the enemy's torpedo boats which might attack our fleets. I should not like to do any harm to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in retaliation for his attack upon.

617
us; but I should rather like to put him on board a boat armed with torpedoes, in the position of a lieutenant of the Navy, and let one of my gallant friends, who were likely to command our squadrons, order him to attack and destroy a Russian torpedo boat. What would the right hon. Gentleman have done, I wonder? A torpedo runs eight feet below the water, and a torpedo boat draws only six feet of water; and consequently he could not have possibly done any harm with his torpedoes to the torpedo boats which he would have been sent to attack. It was intended that these boats should be used for the purpose of attacking the enemy's boats with quick-firing guns; but they were ordered of such a class that, if peace was assured, they might be utilized as torpedo boats, and it will then be necessary to have torpedo gear for them. That is how the Chancellor of the Exchequer has fallen into his error. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that no provision was made for the torpedo gear in our Estimates. I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman knows that. If he had asked me, I should have told him that that was one of the liabilities which were before me at the very time I calculated the charges upon the Vote of Credit at the end of May, and when I made the calculation which I communicated to Mr. Childers. Fortunately, I have documentary evidence here, for in the letter from the Accountant General to me, on receipt of which my calculations were made, he informed me that £162,000 more might have to be spent for the provision of this torpedo gear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has doubtless fallen into this error innocently, because he may have taken Departmental Estimates which did not, and indeed could not, contain the whole of the facts before me. Such a fuss has been made about this torpedo gear question that I wish to make it quite clear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might ask me why the sum required was not put down in the later Estimates among the other liabilities. The reason was that, being of a frugal turn of mind, before settling what kind of torpedo gear should be bought for these boats, I thought it desirable that a trial should be made, and only after the description of the gear had been
618
settled could a reliable Estimate have been prepared.
I have now answered the three allegations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, I hope, explained exactly how matters stood respecting the Vote of Credit for Military and Naval Preparations when I made my calculations at the end of May. What has been the state of things since that time? Would it have been right for mo to have put any check upon the naval preparations which were actually going on? I do not think I need ask your Lordships to answer that question. If it would have been right for me to make any change in that expenditure, how does it happen that last night Her Majesty's Government asked for a Vote for the whole of the 35,000 men which the late Government intended to ask for when the question between this country and Russia was in its most critical state? Expenditure, of course, went on, and every day rendered it more and more impossible to effect any economy. Therefore, when the end of the month of Juno came, I was not surprised to hear that the whole power of economizing was gone, and that, in all probability, expenditure would have to be incurred in excess of the Vote of Credit. By the courtesy of Lord George Hamilton, I have seen Papers which give me some idea of the state of the liabilities at the present time, and I believe that the excess expenditure on the Vote of Credit for Naval and Military Preparations may be about 400,000. I should think, my Lords, it will probably be more, because of the expenses in regard to cruisers which have been manned and fitted abroad. That is a source of increased expenditure which will probably swell that sum of £400,000, and which would have been almost entirely stopped if peace had been assured at the end of May last. My Lords, if preparations for war continue during more than three months—a condition of things which places extraordinary responsibility upon the Admiralty, upon which Department the main work would have fallen if war had broken out, with the serious duty of protecting our enormous Mercantile Marine—it must be expected that Estimates made three months ago under the expectation that the condition of uncertainty would have shortly ceased will be exceeded.

619
Having dealt with that part of the Vote of Credit allotted to Naval and Military Preparations, I come to the Vote of £500,000 for Transport Charges in the Soudan and Upper Egypt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that some excesses of expenditure were to be expected in consequence of the unsettled state of foreign affairs, for which no one could be blamed, and I presume that he meant to refer to these charges for transport. According to the statement which I have received from Lord George Hamilton, I believe there is expected to be a further charge of either £200,000 or £300,000 in respect of the Transport Vote. I have already explained the degree of responsibility which rests upon the Admiralty in respect to it, and I understand part of this excess has been caused by the expenditure in India for the transport of the Indian Contingent, with which the Admiralty have nothing to do, having been larger than was expected. I have only to observe, generally, that in May last I had no reason to suppose that the Vote of £500,000 would be exceeded. I will also say that I believe there is no Government Office which has done its work better than the Transport Department of the Admiralty, which was for many years under the direction of a distinguished officer, Sir William Mends, who was worthily succeeded by Sir Francis Sullivan. These officers have been assisted by a valuable public servant, Mr. Baughan. In the Egyptian Campaign of 1882 and the Soudan Expedition of 1884 that Department did its duty in such a way as to elicit the highest commendation from the Naval and Military Commanders-in-Chief. Where I find that a Department is well conducted, it is my habit to repose complete confidence in it; and this is especially necessary in respect to the engagement of freight, where promptitude in dealing with tenders is very necessary, both for efficiency and economy. On a recent occasion some attacks that were made upon the Department were triumphantly disposed of in the House of Commons, and I have every confidence that the Department has done its work well on the present occasion.
The excess upon the Vote for the Soudan and Upper Egypt and upon
620
that for Naval and Military Preparations accounts, as far as I can calculate, for £700,000 out of the £850,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was the whole estimated excess upon the Vote of Credit. With regard to the £150,000 difference between those sums, your Lordships will be surprised when I explain that I believe it to consist of an Estimate, I do not know how framed, up to March, 1886, for the maintenance of a larger Force than that which was calculated would be kept in Egypt when the ordinary Estimates for the year were prepared. That Estimate may, or may not, be correct; because it is very difficult to say what Force may or may not be required in Egypt during the rest of the year. If it be true that the Mahdi is no longer alive, that may, of course, make a great difference as to the number of British troops to be kept on the Frontier. But, however this may be, I cannot understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could suppose that this charge could properly be put against the Vote of Credit, which can be used for two purposes only—namely —I am quoting the words of the Vote— first, "for Remaining Charges in the Soudan and Upper Egypt," and, second, "for Special Naval and Military Preparations."
My Lords, I have finished what I have to say upon these details; but I beg to impress upon your Lordships that the real question is, whether the expenditure incurred by the Admiralty under the powers given to us by the Vote of Credit has been rightly or wrongly incurred; whether the country will have, or would have had, if war had taken place, the money's worth for the outlay; whether I, as the responsible Minister, have taken such pains as I could, under the circumstances of the case, to order what was necessary, and what was necessary only; or, whether I have improperly administered the Vote of Credit, and misused the responsibility which Parliament has placed upon my shoulders? I beg to express my thanks to the First Lord of the Admiralty for having announced that Her Majesty's Government had deferred their decision whether any, and, if any, what kind of inquiry should take place until after my statement of to-night. I have to say, then, that in my opinion this is not a Departmental question at

621
all. The person responsible is the First Lord of the Admiralty; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied with the explanation I have given, let them formulate their charges against me—let the Government appoint a Committee of the best and most impartial men, who are qualified to judge of the question, and who are accustomed to the management of large affairs. There are men, both in this and the other House of Parliament, who have filled the same Office which I have just left, and are quite unconnected with the late Government; and I shall be ready, and even desirous and anxious, to offer to such a Committee any explanation in my power. I do not for a moment say that, in dealing with the various pressing matters which arose day by day and demanded immediate decision, affecting, as they did, the protection of our enormous commerce in the event of war, I may not have acted hastily, or that I may not have made mistakes; but I repeat that, with regard to any such cases, I am ready to give every explanation in my power, and I am willing to abide by the opinion of those who are qualified to judge of the validity of such charges.
My Lords, I have now concluded the observations I have to make upon the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which refer to the naval portion of the Vote of Credit. But I am obliged to allude to a remark which he has made, touching the Army portion of the Vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
"The War Office share"—of the Vote of Credit—"was to include £200,000, to be expended in the defence of coaling stations and commercial harbours; an item for which, in spite of its great importance and in spite of the pledges given to Parliament last December by the First Lord and the Secretary to the Admiralty, no provision had been made in the Army Estimates."
My Lords, I heard this remark with astonishment, for I was under the impression that, in accordance with the assurances given to Parliament by me in December last, and the programme which had been approved, and, I believe, laid before Parliament, a considerable sum had been taken in the ordinary Army Estimates of the year for the defences of coaling stations. In order to satisfy-my mind upon the matter I inquired at the War Office, and received the information which I will read—
622

ESTIMATES, 1885–6.

Coaling stations abroad. Provided in Vote 12 (normal). Guns, &c.

£134,600

Submarine Mining and Stores and Ships.

20,000

£154,600

In Vote 13, Works

43,750

Total

£198,350

So that, so far from no provision having been made, a sum of nearly £200,000 has been provided in the ordinary Army Estimates for the defence of coaling stations abroad. The additional sum which was to be applied from the Vote of Credit was, I understood, to be for the purpose of such additional provision as might be desirable in the immediate prospect of war. As regards the defence of commercial harbours, I have only to observe that I gave no pledge in the statement I made in your Lordships' House last December—my only observation on the subject was that it was under the consideration of the several Departments concerned, and that if the main responsibility of protecting those harbours should be placed upon the Navy I might have to propose an addition to the Naval Estimates for that purpose.
My Lords, when I gave Notice, on Friday last, of the remarks which I should have to submit to your Lordships to-night, I did not expect that I should have to trouble you with any observations, excepting those which I have now concluded, upon the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but my noble Friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), in his eloquent speech on that evening, made certain remarks as to the naval policy of the late Government upon which, out of respect for him, I am bound to offer some observations. I know that my noble Friend's remarks were not made in any spirit other than friendly towards myself personally. I cannot suppose that he is really a hostile critic of his old Colleagues generally; and therefore I trust he will be glad to receive an assurance from mo that there is no real foundation for his impression that the statement I made in your Lordships' House last December, explaining the additions which the late Government proposed to make in this year's Estimates for Shipbuilding, indicated that there had been any differences of opinion among us upon the maintenance of the

623
naval supremacy of Great Britain. I am glad of this opportunity of stating that there was no difference of opinion between myself and Mr. Childers, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the Navy. Indeed, I have been in constant communication with him during the past five years, and we are quite in accord on the subject, and I can also assure my noble Friend that there never was any such disagreement between Mr. Gladstone and myself. On no occasion during the five years I was First Lord of the Admiralty has Mr. Gladstone declined to accede to the proposals which I considered it my duty to make on the subject of increased expenditure upon the Navy. In fact, it is quite a mistake to suppose that there was any disagreement between the Members of the late Government upon this question.
As my connection with the Navy has come to an end, I can speak to-night with greater freedom than I have been able to do heretofore with regard to the policy of the late Government and of the late Board of Admiralty as to the building of ships. In 1880, when the late Government came into Office, we found the naval supremacy of this country in respect to ships perfectly secure for the present; but we also found that, with regard to the future, matters were not so satisfactory, because our powerful friend and neighbour France, in the exercise of her undoubted right, and for every good reasons, was building a great many armour-plated ships, and their number was greater than that of those we were building ourselves. We found, moreover, that France was superior to us in respect, not to the number or the armament, but to the speed of their cruisers. I do not say this with a desire to throw any blame upon the Board of Admiralty which preceded ours. It is impossible for me to say that they would not have pursued, if they had remained in Office, exactly the same policy which we have pursued and with equal success, and therefore I have no reason to blame them. I am simply stating facts. This having been the state of the ease, I might have come to Parliament with a story of the neglected state of the Navy under our Predecessors, have been praised to the skies by all the military papers, and have spent a large sum of money in ordering at once a great number of ships. I deliberately abstained
624
from doing this. I did not wish to throw any blame on our Predecessors, as I have said before; but I had another and a stronger reason for not stating the case publicly then. I did not want to proclaim our condition to the world, for if I had done so we might have been placed in an awkward position as regards our future supremacy at sea; for it would have been quite competent for our friends on the other side of the Channel to say—"We now know in what state the English Navy is, and we have only to increase our expenditure to keep up our strength to theirs." That would have defeated the object I had in view.
In order that your Lordships may feel satisfied that this description of our policy is not an afterthought, or invented for the occasion, I may mention that in 1881, when I was asked by the Royal Commission upon the Defences of the Colonies and Trade to appear before them, I gave my opinion respecting the general condition of the Navy, and I stated then frankly the circumstances of the case, and explained that the policy of the Admiralty was to increase very considerably the number of armour-plated ships and of fast cruisers. My Lords, that has been done steadily and gradually since. Year by year, as Members of the other House know very well, the money spent upon shipbuilding has been increased, and year by year we have laid down more armour-plated ships and more fast cruisers; and when public opinion was roused upon this subject, I am bound to say long after the Board of Admiralty were aware of the facts and were engaged in dealing practically with them, we gladly took advantage of the feeling for the purpose of adding considerably to the rate of expenditure. As I was satisfied, by carefully watching the progress made in the construction of ships of war abroad, that there was no immediate risk, I believe we were right in moving gradually and in accordance with public opinion. In my view, in a country where the Government depends upon the support of the House of Parliament elected by the people, it is not safe for any Administration to undertake large expenditure in advance of the general feeling of the people.
That has been our policy, and now I ask your Lordships to consider what the result has been. The result has been

625
what whereas five years ago the number of armour-plated ships and fast cruisers building was very limited, that number has largely increased. At the end of 1880 there were seven armour-plated ships under construction, all in Government Dockyards. At the present time, there are building 10 armour-plated ships, and to these may be added five belted cruisers, which should be included, because they are fully equal to many foreign iron-clads. Therefore, there are 15 armour-plated ships building, eight by contract and seven in the Dockyards, as against seven in the year 1880. I may just mention that during the period of which I am speaking France has commenced only five armour-plated ships, and not one of these is advanced so far as those we laid down at the same time. As regards fast cruisers, in 188.0 there were only three being built. At the present time we have 13, without including two armed despatch vessels. Very few ships of the same class are being built in France. Those are a few important facts showing the policy of the Admiralty and the condition in which we now stand, which is very different from our position of five years ago. I hope these remarks will satisfy my noble Friend that our policy has been consistent throughout. We have done quietly, without talking about it, what we intended to do five years ago, and we only took advantage of public opinion to increase the rate of our progress.
When the discussions in the Press to which the noble Duke alluded were going on last autumn I happened to be abroad, on a mission which I did not seek myself, and my acceptance of which I regret. I do not think I should have advised that the special statement, which it became my duty to make to this House last December, should have been made in that manner, and at that time. I am ready to admit that it may have given the impression that there was a change of policy—an impression which might not have been given if some other manner of putting our ease before the public had been adopted. I was away, as I have said, at that time, and I was not personally responsible for this; but it made no difference as to the real facts of the case.
As respects the class of ships we have built, I will just say that we have avoided
626
building such very large ships as have been built, for example, by the Italian Government. I will also say a word about the record of naval construction. Some years ago I read that our lunatic asylums were largely filled by persons whose minds had been absorbed by questions of religion and of currency. I almost think we are not unlikely to have shortly to add another dangerous subject to those two—namely, the calculation of tonnage as a test of progress in the construction of ships; for there is almost as much to be said about the question, "What is a ton?" as about the question, "What is a pound?" I will only observe now that I am well aware of the objections to our present system of calculation, and I have only abstained from altering it because, in doing so, I should have laid myself open to the imputation of casting blame upon my Predecessors in Office—for the result would have given the impression that they had done less than was supposed in the building of ships. My Lords, my practical conclusion is, that whether we take the returns of tons, which has been our system, or of percentages of progress, which is the French system—they do not really help us much. There are three stages in the building of a ship which cannot mislead anyone — first, when a ship is laid down; next, when a ship is launched, which shows she must have made considerable progress; and, lastly, when she is ready for sea. These are the points to which my attention has been mainly directed with respect to the rate of progress of our own and of foreign ships.
My Lords, I wish to say a word or two as to the Fleet now manoeuvring under the command of Sir Geoffrey Hornby, for I have heard some remarks passed on its constitution. The Board of Admiralty never for a moment imagined that it could be supposed that the constitution of that Fleet was the constitution our Squadrons would assume in the event of war. Sir Geoffrey Hornby is one of the best and most capable officers in the Service to conduct the important experiments we desired to make; and it was for that special purpose that the ships of all classes were collected and placed under the command of Sir Geoffrey Hornby, leaving to him full discretion to distribute them as he pleased for experimental purposes.

627
In what I have said, my Lords, with regard to the policy of the Board of Admiralty, I should not do justice to my own feelings if I were not to put aside all claim to personal merit in the matter. I had the advantage of the assistance of my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Alcester) and other naval officers of great ability and devotion to the Public Service. I am glad to have this opportunity of testifying in the highest terms to the eminent qualities of Sir Cooper Key, who during the five years I was in Office filled the important position of Senior Naval Lord of the Admiralty to the great advantage of the Public Service. I have seen it asked in the newspapers, and I believe the same thing has been said at the Military Clubs—"Why on earth do you naval officers stop at the Admiralty, when you know that the Navy is managed in a way you do not like? Why do you not give your opinions and leave the civilians to their own devices? I think what I have said will be an answer to those observations. During my administration the Naval Lords supported the First Lord of the Admiralty with the utmost loyalty, and with the most perfect freedom from political or personal bias; and I am sure I am not misinterpreting their feelings when I say that they have done so because they knew that I was determined, in general accordance with their views, to insure the naval supremacy of this country. I challenge a comparison at the present time of the position of Great Britain in respect of ships ready for service and building with the position in which this country has stood in recent times. Your Lordships know very well that many years ago England had a large preponderance in the old sailing line-of-battle ships. The introduction of steam equalized matters, and again all nations were put upon an equality for a time when armour-plating was introduced; but I will venture to say that the naval supremacy of this country is more firmly established now than it has been at any former time since the introduction of steam into shipbuilding. In saying this as to the strength of the Navy in ships, I hope your Lordships will not suppose that, in my opinion, the ships of the British Navy form its real and its greatest strength. It is not in ships, but in officers and men, that
628
the real strength of our magnificent Navy consists. I venture to assert that never in the history of England have our officers and men been more thoroughly instructed, animated by a higher spirit of discipline, or better able to maintain the honour of the British Flag whenever they may be called upon to do so in any part of the world.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Earl of HARROWBY): My Lords, on the part of Her Majesty's Government I wish at once to express my regret, and that of my Colleagues, that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Northbrook) should think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intended to make a personal attack upon him with regard to this large question affecting the Admiralty. It is the very last thing we should do, and after being in Office so very short a time it would be impossible to assail in a hasty and rash manner the reputation and character of the noble Earl, who has rendered such distinguished services to the country, and who is justly entitled to the respect of every man in it, by reason of the high character which he holds. I think that the tone and intention of the speech of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach has been very much misunderstood by the noble Earl, and that there was no such intention on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the noble Earl imputes to him. I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not make any personal attack either upon the noble Earl or upon any one of his Colleagues. He expressly said—"I cannot say at present who is to blame." I hope that the noble Earl will receive my assurance that at the present time no Member of Her Majesty's Government wishes to assail him, or any officers of his late Department. My right hon. Friend said that Her Majesty's Government reserved their opinion on this serious and grave question for the present, and that they neither attacked nor assailed any single individual. I am not so very much surprised at the tone the noble Earl adopted, when I see that he puts the issue on. such false and mistaken grounds as he has done. He says that the expenditure in excess of the Vote of Credit was right and proper, and he maintains that that is the question. That is not the question in the slightest degree raised by my right hon. Friend

629
in his Budget Speech in the House of Commons. The question is a perfectly different one. We do not give any opinion whatever on the subject of the expenditure, and we neither say that it was right or wrong, nor excessive or deficient. We do not go into that question, or enter into the subject of the administration of the Vote at all. The question we do raise is one of great gravity—namely, whether the financial control and the accounting arrangements in the Board of Admiralty have been efficient or not. That is the point raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will remind the noble Earl that my right hon. Friend did not rake up this matter for the purpose of making any attack upon anyone, either upon him or his Government; but it was forced upon his notice by his being compelled to bring forward a Budget on behalf of the new Government. The fact came under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when composing his Budget. Mr. Childers, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on the Budget, observed of the Vote of Credit for £11,000,000 that only £9,000,000 would be wanting, and that there was a surplus of £2,000,000. Of that £9,000,000, £3,000,000 were devoted to the Navy. From that it was necessary to deduct £200,000 allotted to the Army for coaling stations and commercial harbours, and the remaining £2,800,000 was allotted to the Navy. That was the statement made by Mr. Childers in his Budget Speech. The new Government received their (Seals on the 24th of June; but, by a curious legal arrangement, the First Lord of the Admiralty was unable to execute any legal functions of his Department until July 3 —a very inconvenient arrangement. As soon as that inconvenience was got over, Lord George Hamilton took possession of the Admiralty, and began to inquire into the administration of the Vote of Credit in connection with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What did he find? When he made inquiries, he was assured that all the liabilities under the Vote of Credit amounted to £2,874,000. That was much the same as stated by Mr. Childers, with the exception of being £74,000 more. It must be borne in mind that the whole finance of both Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, was based upon the accu-
630
racy of those figures, as to what remained to the good of this Vote of Credit. Both the Liberal and the Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer consulted the Admiralty as to the consumption of the Vote of Credit, and both were assured that only £2,800,000 would be required. When Lord George Hamilton found that there would be an excess of £74,000, he communicated the fact to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord George Hamilton thought that it would be better to inquire still more closely into the matter, and he was then told that there was a further liability of £350,000. That induced him to push his inquiries further, and in another week's time he was able to ascertain that that £350,000 had risen to £700,000. A few days more showed that, instead of the sum of £2,800,000 announced by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to have been expended by the Admiralty out of the Vote of Credit, no less than £952,000 more, or nearly another £1,000,000, had been spent. I have studied these details of gradation in order to show the extreme difficulty which my noble Friend had in ascertaining the real financial position of the Admiralty; and I venture to say it is somewhat strange that the Admiralty was not left in a position to afford that full information which the noble Earl the late First Lord states that he had in his breast with regard to these financial matters. I cannot help thinking that the revelations which have been made point to a very loose arrangement and great defects in the Department. It does seem extraordinary that it should take three weeks' pressing before the Head of a great Department can find out that the Department was under a liability of nearly £1,000,000 more than had been publicly stated. After the speech of the noble Earl opposite, I think I ought to give in a few words the exact statement now made to my noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty as to this deficit of £952,000. First of all, as to the excess which was reported to him on his assumption of Office—
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKasked where did the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) obtain the information?
THE LORD PEIVY SEAL: This Paper has been officially given to the First Lord.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: By whom?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL: I do not know, therefore I cannot give the noble Earl the name; but, no doubt, my noble Friend will be happy to supply the name to the noble Earl. I will give four sets of figures to your Lordships. The first excess which was reported to my noble Friend was that of £74,991 for further liabilities contingent and unavoidable. I may say that this excess is totally unprovided for in the Estimate or in the Vote of Credit, and falls due within the financial year. My first figure of items of excess ascertained is £16,000 for special gratuities to seamen and Marines—as promised to the Army —for their work in Egypt and their services in the Soudan. My second figure is £25,000, and that excess is duo to the balance still owing on the contract for the purchase of the submarine cable for the Baltic, and is in addition to the sum of £190,000 provided for in Mr. Guilders' Estimate. My third figure of excess is £127,000, being the cost of arming the 40 torpedo boats ordered by the late Government. The excess is in addition to a sum of £500,000 provided for the torpedo boats themselves in Mr. Childers' Estimate. I ought to state that the Naval Members of the present Board of Admiralty all agree that torpedo boats are almost useless without torpedo fittings; and, as far as we are able to ascertain, that was the opinion of the professional Members of the late Board. The fourth set of figures which I give is that of £710,000, in addition to £1,000,000 taken in Mr. Childers' Estimate, for the liabilities actually incurred upon transport; or, rather, I should say that £510,000 represents the liabilities actually incurred for transport before the present Government took Office, and £200,000 the amount which will probably be required in order to bring home the troops from Egypt, in consequence of the action of the late Government. This £710,000, I repeat, is in addition to the £1,000,000, which was stated in Mr. Childers' speech. The total excess, therefore, over the Vote of Credit assigned to the Navy comes to the figure of £952,991. I will say, however, that the First Lord of the Admiralty hopes to reduce that sum by, probably, £100,000, by selling submarine cables and other such matters. I ought also to
632
say, while upon this subject, that my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has had great satisfaction in being able to reduce the expenditure on transports by about £281,000 monthly, with regard to some he is able to discharge. Otherwise the bill would have been larger still. That is a short statement of the accounts that have been placed in the hands of the present Government, and I think your Lordships will feel that it was a serious picture that was laid before the present Government. We blame no one; we do not go into the question of how these errors in the administration of that Vote of Credit was made. We do not go into the merits and demerits of the expenditure of the Vote of Credit; but being face to face with these extraordinary disclosures, for such I am bound to call them, we think it absolutely necessary that there should be some Parliamentary inquiry into the subject. If they can be explained away satisfactorily, no one will rejoice more than Her Majesty's present Ministers; but it is absolutely essential that the absence of financial control which has resulted in the relation of the First Lord of the Admiralty with his Department, with liabilities amounting to £950,000 over and above what they were represented by his Predecessor—that this state of things should be thoroughly examined into by Parliament. My Lords, I will not trouble you with any longer statement. All I will venture to say is, that Her Majesty's Government feel that economy is most necessary in the present time of severe distress and industrial suffering. We feel that economy is one of our first duties; but, as men of business, we feel that it is hopeless to expect to secure economy in our great Departments unless there be a thoroughly good system of accounts in those Departments. It, therefore, becomes for us a very, very solemn duty to see that a perfectly good system of accounts is established in this great Department, if it is true that it does not exist. I confess, my Lords, that the statement of facts I have laid before you leads me to think that there must have been some slackness somewhere. Either the system is faulty, or the supervision of it is faulty, or the system is not worked out properly— where the screw may be loose I cannot say; but, in the face of the statements I have made, I think your Lordships will

633
agree with me we are right in having settled that Parliamentary inquiry in the interests of all Parties ought to be made; and I confess my own opinion upon this has been still further strengthened by hearing the statement of my noble Friend opposite, which shows a great number of discrepancies from the statement which we have received and which is now before the House. We have dealt with this question with a total absence of anything like personal feeling, and simply with a desire to do what is right, honourable, and best in a grave and very serious state of things.
THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Northbrook) was very candid, now that he was no longer hampered by official harness. He had broken loose, and he had told them that he had not been altogether satisfied with the condition of things at the Admiralty for a long time. If that were so, why had the noble Earl not attempted to mend them during his five years of Office? He (the Earl of Ravensworth) concurred with the Government in the necessity of Parliamentary inquiry into the matter. Votes of Credit were naturally, as a rule, asked for in times of emergency, and were granted with a little want of care as to how they were to be spent. He would point out that an audit did not interfere with the action of a Department at a time of emergency, but was merely a history, compiled afterwards, of that action. What he wanted to know was, what steps were taken by the Admiralty to satisfy the country that the Vote had been properly expended, and with a due regard to its interests? One great source of expenditure was labour in the Dockyards, and the system of checking the hill for labour by the Admiralty left a great deal to be desired. Unless the Admiralty were determined to weed obsolete ships out of the Channel Squadron, we should continue liable to the charge of being content with a paper Fleet. The Committee on which he served last year could not help seeing that there was room for still further inquiry as to the constitution of the Admiralty, and the administration of the Dockyards. The country certainly ought to be satisfied that steamers taken up for transport had been obtained on reasonable terms, in a favourable market, and
634
that money's worth had been obtained for the money expended.
Motion agreed to.

EARLDOM OF MAR RESTITUTION BILL.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  On Motion, that the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

  L. Chancellor.

  L. Rosebery.

  L. Privy Seal.

  L. Penzance.

  D. Bedford.

  L. Moncreiff.

  M. Bute.

  L. Coleridge.

  E. Sydney.

  L. Blackburn.

  E. Rodesdale.

  L. Watson.

  E. Selborne.

  L. Bramwell.

  L. Hopetoun.

  L. FitzGerald

  L. Ker.

  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he did not wish to enter into the question of the constitution of the Committee; but he thought it very desirable that it should contain some Peer who was conversant with the facts of the case, and competent to represent certain interests.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that this was a Bill moved from the opposite side of the House, and it was difficult to discuss it in the entire absence of the Party opposite; but he should have imagined that all interests were duly represented in the Committee as nominated. It would be better for his noble Friend to give Notice of any alteration he desired.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that the Committee could receive explanations or information from others than Members, and he did not see any necessity to increase the number.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that what he desired was simply for the purpose of giving public satisfaction.
  Motion agreed to.
  The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 22nd instant, at Two o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.