Sitting of 29 July 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Elementary Schools (Certificated Teachers) [No. 344].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Habitual Drunkards* [279]; Income Tax Collection, Public Departments (No. 2)* [280].
First Reading—Petroleum * [278].
Second Reading—Military Forces Localisation (Expenses) [222]; Expiring Laws Continuance * [244]; Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* [271]; Revising Barristers* [262]; Kensington Station and North and. South London Junction Railway Act, 1859 (Repayment of Moneys) * [273]; Appointment of Commissioners for taking Affidavits* [277].
Committee—Report—Merchant Shipping and Passenger Acts Amendment (re-comm.) * [258]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 3) * [254]; Greenwich Hospital* [253]; Public Works Loan Commissioners (School Boards
36
Loans)* [266]; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* [256]; Local Courts of Record (re-comm.)* [276].
Third Reading—Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment* [227]; Boundaries of Counties (Ireland) * [267]; Royal Military Canal Act Amendment* [270]; Statute Law Revision* [197]; Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act (1871) Amendment * [269], debate adjourned; Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds)* [138]; Pawnbrokers * [283], and passed.
Withdrawn—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation * [81]; Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [147]; War Office (Pensions) * [252]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act 1862 Amendment* [250]; Permissive Prohibitory Liquor * [3].

WEST AFRICAN SETTLEMENTS.
THE FANTI CONFEDERATION.
WEST AFRICAN SETTLEMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he would state to the House what instructions have been given to the Administrator at Cape Coast, and to the Administrator in Chief of the West African Settlements with regard to the Fanti Confederation; whether Her Majesty's Government intend to avail themselves of the facilities offered by that Confederation for the formation and maintenance of roads, the general education of the young native people, and the development of agricultural, mineral, and other resources in the protected territories of the Gold Coast, as proposed by the confederated kings and chiefs in the Constitution adopted by the said Fanti Confederation; and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to grant compensation to the persons who were imprisoned at Cape Coast by Mr. Salmon, the acting Administrator?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Sir, the Administrator in Chief of the West African Settlements has been instructed that Her Majesty's Government have no wish to discourage any legitimate efforts on the part of the Fanti kings and chiefs to establish for themselves any improved form of Government. As long, however, as they live under the protection of the British Government, that Government must be consulted previously to the framing of new institutions. Our information does not lead us to believe that the recent movement was of a character at all likely to afford such facilities as those mentioned in the Question; and until we receive further reports upon the subject,

  37
  I cannot announce any intention upon the part of Her Majesty's Government, nor can I enter into the question of compensation.

LAW EXPENSES OF EX-GOVERNOR EYRE.—PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
COLONEL NORTH, who had given Notice of a Question to be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the commutation of Mr. Edgar Bowring's pension, granted on the abolition of the office of Registrar of the Board of Trade, said: In consequence of a letter which I have received from the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bowring), and of an explanation made by him on Thursday last, I must beg the indulgence of the House while I make a few remarks before asking my Question. When I came down to the House on Thursday last, I was asked by several hon. Members why I was not in my place at the time for putting Questions, because the hon. Member for Exeter had stated that he had given me Notice to be in my place. I did come down, but later; but the hon. Gentleman, I suppose, instead of sending the letter to my house, gave it to the door-keeper as he passed through, because when I was writing afterwards in the Library, one of the officers of the House brought me the letter, requesting me to be in my place to day at Question time at a quarter past 4 o'clock. If I had received the letter in time I should have been in my place, to answer any Question which he might have had to put to me. I asked what statement the hon. Gentleman had made during my absence, but nobody could tell what was the state of the case; and I therefore had to wait until next morning to see the reports in the papers, where I found the hon. Gentleman represented as saying that—"following up the violent and thoroughly personal attack" [Mr. BOWRING: "Violent and entirely unprovoked personal attack" were the words I used]
"made upon him in the course of the debate on Governor Eyre, the hon. and gallant Gentleman without any previous Notice whatever, had placed on the Paper a Notice of his intention to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Monday next, a Question not merely un-Parliamentary in its terms, but, to those who understood its meaning, conveying an improper insinuation. Whatever explanation the hon. and gallant Gentleman might hereafter make, he (Mr. Bowring) should look upon the Question as conveying an imputation upon his honour and veracity; he should object
38
to the Question being withdrawn; and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not in his place to put it, he should request some one else to put it."
Now, with regard to the violent and thoroughly personal attack—[Mr. BOWRING: "Unprovoked attack" were the words.] Those who were in the House at the time will recollect that I certainly did make the remark that I thought the hon. Member for Exeter should have been the last—or one of the last—Members of this House to lead the attack against Mr. Eyre upon the ground of saving the pockets of the ratepayers of the country, because by the Papers which were in the Library and which had been placed upon the Table of the House, it appeared that the hon. Member himself had received for some years compensation, to the amount of £426 13 s. 4d. per annum, for the abolition of the office of Registrar of the Board of Trade, which he filled. I also remarked that I thought the taxpayers of this country, considering that the hon. Gentleman was at the time but 38 years of age, would not feel satisfied that he should at that age, and up to the present time, have received that compensation. The hon. Gentleman did not find fault either with the matter or the manner of my remarks on that occasion. I certainly do hope that whatever I did say was said in a manner calculated not to give pain to anybody; and the only interruption that was made was an observation from the hon. Gentleman himself—"Not one farthing of which ever reaches my pocket." Those were the words he used, according to the report in the newspapers; and I think the report was a true one, because at the time I got up and said—"If the money did not go into his pocket, I certainly should inquire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer into whose pocket it had gone." With regard to not having given Notice, I may say that I gave Notice on Wednesday, and it appeared on Thursday morning, and the hon. Gentleman being a Member of this House, and having the opportunity of seeing the Papers, I did not communicate with him, nor should I have thought it necessary, because the Question was not to be put to the hon. Gentleman, but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then, with regard to the Question being un-Parliamentary in its terms, I should be very sorry if any question I put was un-Parliamentary;

39
and I suppose that this one was not, or the Clerk at the Table would not have allowed it to pass. Then, the hon. Gentleman says that he objects to the Question being withdrawn. I cannot understand on what ground he supposed I intended to withdraw it; for I do not think it is the custom of Members of this House to give Notice of Questions, get them printed, and withdraw them. Certainly, I have sometimes withdrawn a Question when I found that it had been previously put by someone else and answered. My attention was next called to a letter published by the hon. Member for Exeter in The Times, in which he states—
"The gallant Gentleman felt it becoming to taunt me with the fact—as if it had any reference to the grave subject under debate—that I was in the receipt of £426 a-year compensation granted on the abolition of the office of Registrar to the Board of Trade held formerly by me, and stated that on Friday night last that sum had, as he saw by the Estimates, been voted to me, and would have to be paid by what he called the 'ratepayers' of the country. My exclamation was 'Not one farthing of that vote will ever reach' (not 'ever reaches,' as reported) 'my pocket.'
"The fact is—as I would have proceeded to state but for the evident disinclination of the House to attend to such a miserable personal charge—that the compensation formerly held by me was commuted last financial year (the commutation being paid out of a fund not raised from the taxpayers of the country); and that I was, therefore, greatly surprised to see my name figuring in the Estimates this year. I had intended to move the omission of the sum when the Vote was taken; but was assured by the Government that its insertion was necessary as a mere matter of account between the Government Departments. As I stated, not one farthing of it can possibly be received by me, and I am informed that the Vote will never appear again.
"I will only add that, previous to my election, I gave my constituents the fullest information respecting this compensation allowance, and voluntarily left it to them to say whether they wished me to draw the amount in future, as I was prepared to make an absolute surrender of it if desired. I was requested by an unanimous vote of an enthusiastic meeting of some 1,500 persons not to do so."
Now, I think those 1,500 unanimous and enthusiastic voters do not represent the opinion of the taxpayers of the country.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. and gallant Member was not confining his remarks to the subject-matter of the Question, and was therefore out of Order.
COLONEL NORTH: Then, Sir, without further preface, the Question I have to ask of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer
40
is, Out of what fund, not raised from the taxpayers of this country, Mr. Edgar A. Bowring received, according to the Return No. 304, just issued to the Members, a lump sum of £5,274 in commutation of the sum of £426 13 s. 4d. per annum, granted to him as compensation for the abolition of the Office of the Registrar of the Board of Trade, held by him, and the date when that commutation was granted? All I have to say is, that if the House is of opinion that I have mis-stated one single fact, I shall be happy to apologize to the hon. Gentleman, and to withdraw any statement I may have made under a misapprehension; but so far as I am aware I have not done so, and I hope I have not said anything which the House will consider evinces a want of courtesy.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the hon. Member for Exeter is entitled to a pension of £426 13 s. 4d. for services to the Board of Trade. On the 16th of January last he applied for leave to commute that pension. That leave was given, and on the 12th of February the pension was commuted for the sum of £5,274, which was on that day paid over to the hon. Gentleman. That sum was borrowed from the Trustees of the Savings Banks, who advanced it to the Government on these terms—that it should be repaid by a Terminable Annuity of £636 13 s. 4d., which would last for 10 years. The loan so made would be repaid by 10 instalments of that amount.
MR. BOWRING: Mr. Speaker, as the Question just answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer relates exclusively to myself, and therefore involves a Question of Privilege, I trust the House will extend to me the indulgence which it always allows to every hon. Member under similar circumstances. I may, perhaps, correct a slight mistake in the Answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He stated that my application was made on the 16th of January, and I have no doubt that is the date on which it reached the Savings Banks' Trustees; but it was made by me to the Board of Trade in November or December last, and accidentally mislaid in that Department for some weeks. I must, in the first place, state that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) is a perfect stranger

41
to me, and I have never spoken to Mm in my life, except to offer him those minor courtesies usual amongst hon. Members of this House. During the four years in which I have had a seat in this House, I have never to my knowledge said one single word personal to any hon. Member whatever; still less have I said anything designed to give pain to any hon. Member; but least of all has it ever entered into my mind to say one word that could be considered as conveying any imputation upon any hon. Member. Now, Sir, the complaint which it was my duty to make on Thursday last with reference to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire was the following. It is unfortunate that he was not in his place when I made it; but I hoped my letter would reach his hands in time, as I gave it to the doorkeeper at 2 o'clock. The newspapers, however, on the following day gave a sufficiently accurate report of what I said. The first complaint I made against the hon. and gallant Member was that, following up the violent and utterly unprovoked personal attack upon me made by him a few nights previously when the House was in Committee of Supply—an attack which was indignantly repudiated by the House at the time—the hon. and gallant Member felt it becoming, under the guise of a Question addressed to a Minister of the Crown, to attempt to convey, by way of insinuation and inuendo, an imputation which he would not have ventured to make openly, and the purport of which was understood only by those acquainted with the circumstances of the case. My second complaint against the hon. and gallant Member was, that when he thought proper to place upon the Notice Paper a Question relating to myself exclusively he gave me no Notice whatever of what he was doing, but left me to discover it by accident. I understand that in the case of a Question addressed to a Minister, it is quite sufficient to put it on the Notice Paper, because the Minister is supposed to read the Notice Paper; but, in the case of a private Member that is held not to be sufficient. My third charge against the hon. and gallant Member is, that having been a Member of this House for 20 years, and being, therefore, necessarily acquainted with its elementary rules of procedure, he has purposely
42
worded his Question in a manner which must strike everyone as un-Parliamentary. My last complaint against him is this—that being desirous, doubtless from motives of patriotic and benevolent curiosity, to ascertain the meaning of certain words addressed by myself to The Times, instead of applying to the only human being who could by possibility inform him what my meaning was—namely, myself—and if he had done so I would have given him the information he wanted—he has adopted the extraordinary course of publicly applying to a third person, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for an explanation of my meaning, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could only give by means of information which I myself have supplied to him. I leave the House to judge of the conduct of the hon. and gallant Member in this respect. In conclusion, I beg to give Notice that I shall move that there be laid upon the Table of this House, a Copy of a Letter which I addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 25th instant, when I first heard of the attack of the hon. and gallant Member, and which gives the fullest information respecting the whole subject.

LAW AND JUSTICE—OFFICE OF QUEEN'S ADVOCATE.—QUESTION.
MR. RAIKESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can state to the House what provision has been made for the discharge of the duties formerly fulfilled by the Queen's Advocate as an adviser of Her Majesty's Government on matters of International Law; what was the amount of salary saved by the abolition of this office, and what is the present application of the fees which would have been received by the Queen's Advocate had the office continued to exist; whether it has been found necessary to call in the assistance of any lawyer conversant with International Law to confer with the Law Officers of the Crown on the advice which they might be required to give to the Government on topics of this description, and what remuneration, if any, is paid for such services; whether the present arrangement is to be considered permanent or only provisional; and, what are likely to be the legal expenses of Her Majesty's Government in the Geneva

43
Arbitration as regards the remuneration of the eminent counsel other than the Law Officers of the Crown?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, by desire of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, he would answer the Questions of the hon. Member so far as he could, and for the sake of convenience he would take the first and third together. On the resignation of the office of Queen's Advocate by Sir Travers Twiss the other day, it was felt that in consequence of the changes which had occurred the office should not be continued. Formerly, Law Officers of the Crown could not practise in the Courts in which the Queen's Advocate practised, and therefore it was necessary to have an officer particularly attached to these Courts to represent the Crown. But the Law Officers of the Crown being now able under Act of Parliament to practise in those Courts, and the College of Advocates being destroyed, there seemed to be no use in keeping up a merely nominal office, which necessitated the payment of large fees in certain cases. Therefore, it was determined that the office should be abolished. But certain functions had been discharged by the Queen's Advocate in regard to business at the Foreign Office which was not of sufficient importance to be submitted to the Attorney and Solicitor General; and it was necessary that the Foreign Office should still have advice in these matters, to be given under the responsibility of the Law Officers. It was, therefore, considered requisite that as in the Courts of Common Law and Chancery, and in Charity cases, there was a counsel appointed by the Attorney General to assist him in such matters, so in like manner a counsel should be appointed to assist the Attorney General in these matters. The Foreign Office desired that such counsel should not be a mere counsel to that office, but an independent person practising at the Bar, and he had accordingly appointed Dr. Deane, at a salary of £2,000, as assistant to the Attorney General in regard to the business connected with the Foreign Office, and with the Colonial Office when the matter, as sometimes happened, related to both Departments, and also in all ecclesiastical matters. It was difficult to say what amount of salary was saved by the abolition of the office, because the Queen's Advocate had been
44
paid by fees, often very large, which could not easily be reduced to an average. These fees would be entirely saved, although the £2,000 would have to be set against them. He believed the remuneration of the Queen's Advocate had averaged £5,000 or £6,000 a-year. The new appointment would, be permanent so far as the Government were concerned; but there were certain offices, such as that of Queen's Proctor and others, which being held for life could not be dealt with at presnt. As to the legal expenses of the Geneva Arbitration, he had made inquiries, but was unable to give any information on the subject, as much must depend upon the time occupied, the amount of service performed, and a variety of other circumstances. He wished to state, however, that the Law Officers of the Crown received no remuneration, directly or indirectly, in connection with the proceedings at Geneva.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH SYSTEM.

  QUESTION'S.
  MR. GRAVESasked the Postmaster General, When the Report of Mr. Scudamore on the development of the Telegraph system, and on the Establishment generally, which was reviewed in the "Times," the "Daily News," and "Echo" newspapers of last week, will be presented to the House?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, the Report alluded to was, in fact, a letter addressed to himself, and it contained personal remarks on different individuals in the Office, and certain other statements which Her Majesty's Government thought it would not be right to publish at present. He regretted that the document bad been reviewed in The Times and other newspapers, and should endeavour to find out who had communicated it to them.
  MR. SYNANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the new classification of the Telegraph Clerks has been sanctioned by the Treasury; when it will be issued, and from what date it shall take effect; and, whether a Vote shall be taken before Parliament rises for the increased salaries under such classification?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, the new classification for the great body of the telegraph clerks has been settled by the Treasury, and is about to be officially communicated

  45
  to the Post Office. The increased salaries take effect from various dates, dependent on the time when the new duties were undertaken, and a Vote will be taken with regard to them before Parliament rises.

INLAND REVENUE—HORSES EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE.—QUESTION.
COLONEL AMCOTTSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would state to the House whether Farmers are allowed to lend their Teams without being surcharged for them?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that a farmer who had horses which were employed solely for purposes of husbandry, and who lent them to another person to be employed for the same purposes, was not liable to be surcharged.

HONDURAS—TREATY OF COMMERCE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the "Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation," between Her Majesty and the Republic of Honduras, signed at London, 27th August, 1856, in which Her Majesty "guarantees positively and efficaciously the entire neutrality" of the Interoceanic Route, and engages in conjunction with the Republic of Honduras, when the road is completed—
  "To protect the same from interruption, seizure, or unjust confiscation from whatsoever quarter the attempt may proceed,"
  is now still binding upon the High Contracting Powers?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the Treaty referred to by my noble Friend is no doubt still binding upon the High Contracting Powers; but it is held that the guarantee, according to the 2nd clause of the additional Article, does not take effect until the completion of the railroad from sea to sea.

THE ROYAL MINT—THE COINAGE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL TOMLINEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the following passage in the Second Report of Mr. Fremantle, the Deputy Master of the Mint:—
  46
  "The pressing demand for Imperial Coin rendered it impossible for the Mint to undertake a further Canadian Coinage during the autumn; but, with their Lordships' approval, the agent of the Canadian Government in this Country was able to make arrangements for its execution by Messrs. Heaton and Son, of Birmingham, under the supervision of this Department;"
  whether he is not misinformed when, on the 11th of April, he repeated to this House his assurance that the recent Silver Coinage for Canada was executed without the knowledge or authority of the Home Government; and, whether he will place upon the Table of the House Copies of all Correspondence between the authorities of the Mint and any public Company or private person on the subject of the Gold, Silver, and Bronze Coinage during the two years ending on the 1st day of July, 1872?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should have had great pleasure in answering the fourth Question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had put to him in the present Session on this important subject; but he found it impossible to do so in consequence of a difficulty which he would now state to the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked him—
  "Whether he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not misinformed when, on the 11th of April, he repeated to this House his assurance that the recent Silver Coinage for Canada was executed without the knowledge or authority of the Home Government?"
  On consulting Hansard, he found what he said was that—
  "The recent silver coinage for Canada was executed with the knowledge and without the authority of the Home Government."
  Of course, as he never made the statement alluded to in the Question, he could not admit he was misinformed at the time he made it. If he complied with the next request of the hon. and gallant Member, he would have to place on the Table of the House the whole Correspondence of the Department during the last two years. That, of course, he must decline to do.
  COLONEL TOMLINEsaid, he had in his hand a copy of The Times report, according to which the right hon. Gentleman said the Canadian coinage had been executed without the knowledge of the Home Government.

BOARD OF TRADE—FORESHORES AND BED OF THE SEA.—QUESTION.
COLONEL TOMLINEasked the Secretary of the Treasury, Why the Order of the House of the 17th March, 1869, for Return of Statements relative to Fore-shores and Bed of the Sea from the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, has not been complied with; who is the officer responsible for the delay in giving effect to that Order; and, when may the Return be expected to be laid upon the Table of the House?
MR. BAXTERsaid, he was afraid there had been a misunderstanding in regard to the Order. From the records of the Treasury he found that on the 19th of March no directions had been given, because the hon. and gallant Member had been requested to move for the Return in another form. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had not done so; but there was no objection to the substance of the Return, and he would communicate to the hon. and gallant Gentleman what information he was willing to give.

MERCHANT SHIPPING—REDUCTION OF LIGHT DUES.—QUESTION.
MR. T. E. SMITH (for Mr. NORWOOD)asked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is probable that a reduction in the dues levied on shipping for lights will shortly be made; and, if he can state the extent of the reduction contemplated?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEwas glad to say that the Board of Trade, on a review of the present condition of the revenue from light dues, was prepared to make a reduction in them to the amount of £60,000 per annum. The intention was that one-third of the reduction should go to the relief of the coasting trade, and the other two-thirds to the relief of the trade generally. The reduction would take effect from the 1st of October next.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES.)—QUESTION.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has considered the fact stated in the Letter of Mr. Serjeant Wheeler, dated 9th July 1872, addressed to the Lords of the Treasury; and, if so, whether he
48
still purposes to apply the rules laid down in the Treasury Minute of 22nd June 1872, to Judges appointed prior to the year 1870?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to state, in the first place, that the Minute in question was adopted in order to give effect to the wishes of the Committee of Supply with reference to the travelling expenses involved in the Question. ["No, no!"] However much that statement might be disputed, at all events he understood that to be the wish of the Committee. Moreover, whether that were so or not, he was unable to say he could deal with the arguments and facts stated in the letter of Mr. Serjeant Wheeler, because they seemed to amount to this—that when maintenance expenses were once fixed for a public officer they ought not to be revised or altered under any circumstances during his tenure of office. That would amount to a vested interest which he could not admit. With regard to the salary of an officer, he freely admitted it; but the expenses of an officer appeared to him to be perfectly met if he received a fair indemnity for the expense to which he was put. At the same time, he was bound in candour to say that fresh facts had come to his knowledge since the decision of the Committee was arrived at. It appeared to have been the opinion of several Lord Chancellors—though not of the present one nor of Lord Westbury—that County Court Judges should not reside in their districts; and he freely admitted that if any gentleman had made his arrangements for life in deference to that opinion the circumstance constituted a claim on the Treasury, and that expenses ought to be paid which otherwise would not have been allowed. The Treasury, therefore, were not willing to take the matter in a lump, but intended to consider each case separately, with a view of rendering complete justice to those who had submitted their claims. Lastly, anticipating the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), he had to state that the Estimates had been voted this year under the old footing, and would be applied for the coming year on that footing. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have ample opportunity to challenge the propriety of any Vote the Treasury might propose to make.
MR. JAMESsaid, it had also been his intention to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will suspend its operation until there has been an opportunity of taking the sense of Parliament upon it? In consequence, however, of the explanation just given, he should wait to see what course was taken by the Department, repeating the Question, if necessary, hereafter.

ARMY—WOOLWICH ACADEMY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Report of the Annual Inspection of Woolwich Academy, drawn up in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Military Education, will be presented to Parliament before the close of the Session?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Report would be presented before the Session closed.

IRELAND—MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that at the conclusion of the debate on Thursday there had been an understanding that the Government would give an early day for the resumption of this discussion. He, therefore, begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, On what day the debate would be resumed, in order that Irish Members, looking to the period of the Session, might take whatever course became necessary under the circumstances?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have been in expectation of seeing the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) in his place, and of having some communication with him upon the subject. The object of the postponement on Friday night was that we might be able, from the progress of Business, to form a clearer judgment as to the period when it would be possible to afford an opportunity for the resumption of the debate, and then to communicate this to my hon. and learned Friend and the other Irish Members. At present, we are unable to form any such judgment or to make any such communication, the progress on Friday and Saturday not having been such as we could have hoped. I can only trust that the next few days may
  50
  enable us to form some clearer judgment as to the period when the Committee of Supply will probably close, as that is the matter on which arrangements, in point of time, will naturally depend.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £928,510, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Stores for building, repairing, and outfitting the Fleet and Coast Guard, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873."
MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN, in calling attention to the controversy which had existed during the past 25 years on the relative merits of Welsh and North-country coal for use in the Navy, said, that Admiral Symonds had reported that the smoke produced by the use of North-country coal rendered the observation of signals almost impossible; that Sir Alexander Milne said that in case of war North-country coal would be entirely unfit for the service, as it would make known the position of vessels, for from his own flag-ship he had seen the smoke at the distance of 30 miles; and that Captain Willes also said that the smoke of this coal damaged the clothes of the men employed. Those opinions were recorded in print, as were also certain remarks bearing upon them which were made by Vice Admiral Sir Spencer Robinson. He (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had perused those remarks with great pain, because he found that their tendency was to snub a number of admirals, captains, and chief engineers who had conducted and reported upon a series of experiments with great skill and care. Their accuracy, too, had been questioned, for the trials of the Urgent and the Lucifer, upon which they were chiefly founded, were, it was maintained, of a special character. He should, therefore, like to hear how these figures were arrived at.
MR. GOSCHENexplained that the Minute of Sir Spencer Robinson was not communicated to the officers in question by way of censure, but was a confidential communication to the Admiralty for their information. It had only been presented to Parliament because some hon. Members had got to know the

51
nature of the Reports, which were unsatisfactory to them, and because the Papers which had been ordered would not have been complete without it.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he was glad to hear that the Minute had not been communicated to the officers. If hon. Members would refer to the Reports, they would find that at page 35 there was a summary of the first series of experiments on the Lucifer. Of Welsh coal the consumption was 4·65 lb per horse power per hour, against 5·72 lb of North-country coal, showing a loss of 23 per cent on North-country coal compared with Welsh coal; while in other experiments made with a mixture in equal proportions of Welsh and North-country coal, the consumption per horse power per hour was 5·37, or a difference of 16·4 per cent in favour of Welsh coal alone. In the summary relating to the trials on board the Urgent it appeared that the mixture was 5·176, and the difference 4·77, which was not a satisfactory result for Welsh coal; but it must be borne in mind that in making this experiment the areas of the grates had been made to suit North-country coal, and not to suit Welsh coal. With Welsh coal, when used alone in the first trial, the consumption was 6·45. The difference between the mixture and the Welsh coal alone was not less than 10 per cent, and that 10 per cent arose on one-half of the coal, consequently the difference was 20 per cent. On the former trials the difference was 32 per cent, the double of 16, because it was only on the half quantity. But be it as it might, the difference was very great. Now, these were the experiments on which Sir Spencer Robinson said there was an actual saving of 14·83. He would be glad if his right hon. Friend could show where there was the smallest saving, and where there was not a loss in the use of this mixture. He would find from the Report of Mr. Smith, who was a practical engineer on board one of Her Majesty's ships, that that gentleman did not arrive at the conclusion which Sir Spencer Robinson and Mr. Murdoch had arrived at. Mr. Smith said that when Welsh coal was carefully mixed, and compared with Welsh coal by itself, the Welsh coal by itself exhibited the almost unprecedented loss of 22 per cent; so that he quietly took the Report which Sir Spencer Robinson had
52
used as the basis of his remarks on the Report of the commanders of the Fleet, and set it aside, showing instead of a saving of 14·83 per cent an actual loss of 22 per cent. Again, Mr. Wright, who was a practical engineer on board the Indian transports, had stated the saving derived from the figures of the same Report as that out of which Sir Spencer Robinson deduced a saving of 14·83 per cent to be 16·03 per cent. Looking at these opinions, he was borne out in his belief that the conclusions drawn from these very experiments on board the Urgent and Lucifer were entirely erroneous and unfounded. Trials also had taken place on board another ship, but he could not find that these trials had been reported to the House, and he would pass them over. The next Report was that of Sir Hastings Yelverton, dated September, 1871, who stated that from the late evolutionary experiments with the combined squadrons, he had come to the conclusion that the present mode of using North-country coal was an error; but that looking at the question in a more serious point of view, in the event of war he was satisfied, from the difficulty he had experienced during the late cruise either in distinguishing ships or signals, that it would lead to a national disaster. The next Report was that of Commodore Augustus Phillimore, who calculated that the eight vessels which composed the Fleet to which his Report referred could have stowed 231 tons of Welsh coal alone more than of mixed coal. He put the average saving of Welsh coal over mixed at from 5 per cent to 12 per cent, and calculated that the Fleet could thus have kept at sea from five to seven days longer if the ships had been supplied with Welsh coal rather than with mixed Welsh or North-country coal. It was unnecessary to enlarge on the importance of employing coal which would enable the ships of the Fleet to keep at sea at least one-fourth longer than they could do if they used another description of coal. In reference to the burning of black smoke, the destruction which the consumption of the smoke caused to the boilers was a very serious matter; but from the Papers before the House it appeared that the reason of that destruction had not been at all apprehended, at least by those in official charge at Whitehall. Commodore Phillimore said that great

53
additional expense was caused by the fierce flame of the North-country coal acting on the boilers, and that all the engineers had been kept employed for a week to get rid of the injurious effects caused by the North-country coal. Commodore Phillimore also said that the dense volumes of black smoke were an intolerable nuisance under steam, and could not be tolerated in time of war. The next Paper was a Report by Mr. Smith, Inspector of machinery afloat, on Welsh and North-country coal. He calculated that the average saving was 10 per cent; the saving on the Hercules was 20 per cent, and on the Lord Warden 14 per cent. He also stated, in an engineering point of view, that the question of smoke in itself did not necessarily affect the question of economy; but every engineer knew how much easier it was to remove the grit and dust of the Welsh coal than the tenacious soot of the North-country coal. Mr. Smith further reported that with Welsh coal the ships could have kept at sea 33 days instead of 26; and he referred to the destruction of the boilers in still stronger terms and in more detail than Commodore Phillimore had done. Captain Rice, who had made the experiments on board the Urgent and the Lucifer, in his Report stated that three ships burnt the same quantity of mixed coal as of Welsh, and four burned more. But it was quite clear that experimental trips were of a very different character from the hard work of the service. Experiments of six hours' duration were not calculated to destroy tubes. What was wanted was not what would be the result in a laboratory, but under hard service in any part of the globe. There was one remarkable passage in the Report of Captain Rice, and it was that the packet boats on the East Coast of England on short voyages used North-country coal, which they would not do if it was destructive. It was true that those packets did burn North-country coal, and a precious smoke they made. But then those packets were not fitted with that beautiful smoke-consuming apparatus, and the whole gist of the question lay in that apparatus. It was not the North-country coal that did the mischief, but the attempt to burn the North-country coal without making black smoke. A significant phrase was employed by one of the engineers, who summed up the matter
54
by saying they could store less of the mixed coal, and that they burnt a great deal more of it than of the Welsh coal. Admiral Hornby, referring to the Channel Squadron experiments, said, that as long as a moderate and uniform speed could be kept up, the smoke from the mixture of the North-country and Welsh coal was not insufferable; but as soon as necessity arose for increasing the speed, the smoke became so dense that the advantage gained by the mixture of Welsh and North-country coal was no compensation. Before passing from the point under notice, he might, perhaps, be permitted to allude to a letter written to Admiral Hornby from the Admiralty, in which it was stated that—
"My Lords cannot refrain from pointing out to you that where the desire and the determination have existed to reduce the smoke emitted by the mixed coal to a minimum, remarkable results have been obtained, notwithstanding the advantages of Welsh coal when supplied in a fresh state."
Coming to the second part of the Report—namely, that relating to the Indian troop-ships, it appeared that in 1869–70, the Crocodile, for the first three months, used nearly all Welsh coal, and in the last nine months she used four of Welsh and one of North-country coal. In 1870–1 she used a mixture; and the result was, that her total consumption in 1870–1, when she used the mixture, was 14 per cent more than in the preceding year 1869–70. The Report of Mr. Wright, who was assistant engineer to the Admiralty on board the Indian troop-ships, stated that he could find no fault with the management on board the Crocodile, and could discover no cause for the increase of the consumption, except the larger proportion of North-country coal. As to the Serapis, he could not make out that the Report was of a very satisfactory character, because her furnaces were not altered, and there seemed to have been a good deal of general disarrangement. But in one voyage she burned 321 tons more coal than she had been burning previously. Mr. Wright said this showed an important improvement on former voyages. Her average performance during the season of 1869–70 showed, when her consumption theoretically should have been 631 tons, a consumption of 27 tons less than the actual consumption. Thus, with a clean bottom, the best performance did not come up, with mixed coal, to the average

55
of the season before, when she used Welsh coal. Her average was 174 tons too much per voyage, or 490 tons; that was 35½ per cent too much coal. The Euphrates used 199 tons too much per voyage, being 27½ per cent too much coal, owing to the mixture. The Malabar used 37 per cent too much, and the Jumna 31 per cent. Such serious results did not escape the notice of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of the Admiralty suggested that a trial should be made with two ships going out and home, supplied with the mixture and with the Welsh coal, and he sent out with the ships three engineers, in order that the mixture might have a good trial. Upon this trial there was a diversity in the conclusions arrived at. The captains of the ships—Captains Grant and Parkin—like all other captains of the Fleet, were very greatly in favour of Welsh coal; while, on the other hand, the engineers expressed a different opinion. Captain Grant stated that the amount of speed per ton got out of Welsh coal and out of the mixture showed a difference of 20 per cent in favour of the former. In addition to that, the smoke from the mixture beat down upon the deck and prevented the possibility of a good look-out, whilst in a gale it prevented the men from properly working the ship, in consequence of the smoke getting into their eyes and causing great pain. Captain Parkin said that when going 10 knots the consumption of Welsh coal was 519 tons as against 618 tons of the mixture; and at 9 knots the difference was as between 481 and 564 tons. It would thus be seen from the details he had read that in no single instance had any officer in the Navy or engineer employed on board ship recommended the use of the mixture, though no doubt some of those who had been employed in connection with the experiments had done so. The greatest authorities, however, were unanimously in favour of Welsh coal, and Welsh coal only. At the commencement of the Session the First Lord of the Admiralty said that at certain ports in England only Welsh coal would be supplied; so that at Portsmouth and Plymouth there was to be only Welsh coal, whilst at Chatham this kind of coal was not to be exclusively used. It was to be inferred, therefore, that a deterioration in Welsh coal took place at Chatham, while no such thing
56
occurred at Portsmouth. The difference in ordinary times between the prices of the two kinds of coal was scarcely 1s. per ton. One-third of the coal supplied at Gibraltar was North-country coal.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the reason was that the further they got south the more Welsh coal deteriorated in consequence of the greater heat of the climate.
MR. HUSSEY VIVIANwould not overlook that suggestion, though he could not find the slightest trace of it in the Report; and he believed that there had been great exaggeration in reference to it. At Malta, also, one-third of the fuel supplied consisted of the mixture; so that the whole of our Mediterranean Fleet was to be supplied with fuel which would show the position of the Fleet 30 miles away, and which spoiled the ships, the men's clothes, and the officers' tempers. This fuel also would make our ships resemble the cuttle fish, which could throw out an inky mixture which hid it from other fish which were going to attack it; and this was certainly not a condition in which British seamen would wish their ships to be placed. The Welsh coal would not deteriorate in hot climates if care was taken of it by seeing to the manner in which it was landed. No such care, however, was taken. He understood that at Bombay the coal was discharged into lighters, and then placed upon the land, where it was allowed to remain without any protection. That being so, of course the coal deteriorated. Common sense dictated that they should have a proper landing place, and sheds to hold the coal when it was landed. Beyond that, he must say that it did not seem as though the Admiralty had ever heard of Welsh Patent Fuel. He would venture to suggest the desirability of their trying that fuel, which was made from Welsh small coal. This fuel ought to be stored up abroad for an emergency. He had seen blocks of this fuel which had been standing in the open for 15 or 16 years, and the corners and edges of which were as sharp as when it was first put there, and no deterioration whatever had occurred. In conclusion, he must say he could find no sort of warrant for the use of mixed coal in any part of the world; and he hoped that the First Lord of the Admiralty would inform them upon what ground he ignored the advice of all the most competent men who had reported to the Admiralty, and why he

57
continued the use of this mixture in the Navy.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that in the vacation of 1870, which he had passed in India, he came home from Bombay in a 3,000-ton ship which was entirely supplied with the patent fuel. She had bunkers constructed for stowing the blocks in. Notwithstanding that the screw was imperfect, they steamed 9½ miles an hour upon a consumption of 15 tons per diem. Seeing the pertinacity, therefore, with which the Government adhered to a system which could not be defended upon any ground of common sense, he could not help thinking that there was some jobbery at the bottom of it, which would never be exposed until the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty consented to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject. As to the deterioration of Welsh coal in hot climates, he could corroborate what had just been said. At Aden, the coal store was at the bottom of the volcanic cliffs beside the roadway; there was not the slightest covering of any description; and when the temperature was from 140 to 150 in the sun the coals must rapidly deteriorate as a matter of course. The same thing occurred at Bombay; whilst if the Welsh coal were properly protected it would keep good for any reasonable time. His own opinion was, that Government should themselves manufacture the patent fuel—for which they had the most ample opportunity open to them at Cardiff—and have the ships' bunkers adapted for the stowage of it. In that way, a great saving might be effected in the stowage, in addition to there being a greater degree of cleanliness and comfort to the crews, and a great saving of corrosion in the tubes and in the boilers. He complained that there should be thrown upon Lord Clarence Paget the blame of all those pernicious Minutes which had been issued by the Admiralty, and which had had the effect of placing most of our ships in jeopardy, and of causing an unheard-of amount of rebuke and reprimand in the service. All that Lord Clarence Paget did was to sign, as Secretary to the Admiralty, an Order which was at that time by no means an improper Order. As Secretary, also, he would have nothing to do with originating such Orders, and would simply sign on behalf of the Board. Under
58
these circumstances, his Friends ought not to allow him to be made responsible for the subsequent laches of the Admiralty.
MR. HENDERSONsaid, he should have no objection to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject. He believed, indeed, that the use of patent fuel would prove advantageous in the Navy. This was not the first time that the hon. Member for Glamorganshire had brought before the House the question of the super-excellence of the Welsh coal; but he thought the hon. Gentleman might have had charity enough to admit that there was some excellence in coal found outside Wales. He (Mr. Henderson) thought that the hon. Member had too lightly set aside the evidence that told in favour of North-country coal. Nobody denied the excellence of Welsh coal if it could be had perfectly fresh, when it gave the highest results without smoke; but it could not be had fresh. As soon as it was shipped, it began to deteriorate so rapidly that at the end of a long voyage, in a hot climate, the waste was something serious, and, until mixture was proved to be practicable, thousands of tons were thrown overboard; and, in fact, he had heard of as much as 50 or 60 per cent of a Welsh cargo being wasted. The exclusive use of Welsh coal would, therefore, add enormously to the national expenditure. He was sorry to see the battle between North-country coal and Welsh coal renewed, for so large a proportion of Welsh coal was used that the matter might be allowed to rest. As to the damage alleged to be done by the use of the mixed coal, the Report showed, in the case of a vessel which was worked continuously for a long period, and whose tube plate ought to have been burnt out several times, that it was comparatively uninjured. In the Reports, moreover, to which his hon. Friend had referred, it would be found that Sir Spencer Robinson stated that they had demonstrated by experiments strictly practical, that North-country and Welsh coal mixed in equal proportions could be burnt with less smoke than Welsh coal singly. If the mixture was so bad, how was it that it was so largely used by the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and that years ago it was found so advantageous by the French Government?

59
He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not depart from the present system in regard to the coaling of the Navy, for the change made in the method of purchasing coal was a great improvement. Formerly, there were 50 or 60 kinds of coal on what was known as the Admiralty list, and, as the middlemen could take the cheapest, the system made it almost certain that the Government got the worst coal; but, under the present system, it was as certain that the Government got the best coal.
MR. CORRYsaid, it was only natural that the hon. Member for Durham should speak in favour of North-country coal, and pick from the Reports laid before Parliament as many crumbs of comfort as he could find. A large majority of officers condemned the use of the mixed coal not only because it begrimed the men with dirt and destroyed the sails and rigging, but, still more, because it endangered the safety of the vessels even in time of peace; and in war it would be absolutely inadmissible, because the volumns of black smoke issuing from the funnels would betray the position of our ships to an enemy at the distance of 40 or 50 miles. Stress had been laid on the fact that the experiments in the Lucifer and other ships had been successful; but it should be borne in mind that the experiments made by means furnished by the dockyards were carried on under the most favourable circumstances. All the officers in the command of squadrons had pointed out the positive danger there was in using mixed coal, and yet Her Majesty's Government persisted in its use. [Mr. GOSCHEN was understood to say that it would be discontinued.] That was true as regarded the Channel Squadron; but he had understood it was still to be used in the Mediterranean. The description of coal to be supplied to the Navy was not to be considered with a view to economy so much as the safety of the ships, and in time of war they dared not use mixed coal. It was their bounden duty to look to the safety of our ships, and not to a paltry saving of a few thousand pounds a-year by the use of mixed coal. A great deal had been said about the successful experiments that had been made with mixed coal, but it was experiment against practice. The practical result of its use was failure, although the experimental results were considered satisfactory;
60
and it was not difficult to account for this. Experiments in dockyards were carried on under more favourable circumstances than on board ships at sea. In the dockyards they had picked coal, picked stokers to burn it, and the most skilful engineers to superintend the experiments, in order that they might be carried out to the most successful result. But in the rough work at sea the result was very different, and no care on the part of the officers could overcome the difficulties with which they had to contend. He would not enter at any greater length into the question of mixed coal; because, in the first place, it had already been ably dealt with by the hon. Member for Glamorganshire, and, in the second place, because he flattered himself that during the last two or three years he had himself adduced arguments which had been instrumental in discouraging the use of North-country coal in Her Majesty's Navy. But there was one subject of a cognate character to which he would allude—namely, the Orders that had been issued from time to time by the Admiralty restricting the use of coal on board Her Majesty's ships. On two occasions, two of the leading Members of the Government—the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty—had endeavoured to fix on Lord Clarence Paget the responsibility of issuing the Orders which had been said to have endangered Her Majesty's ships. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in answer to a Question put by him (Mr. Corry), immediately after Lord Clarence Paget's first letter appeared in the newspapers, said that the Instruction, more stringent than any in force, was dated 1865, and that it was signed by Lord Clarence Paget. His words were—
"The House will, not unnaturally, ask the date of these Instructions. The Instruction was dated 1865, and it is signed 'By command of their Lordships, Clarence Paget.' The House will see, therefore, that the Secretary to the Board of Admiralty who proposed regulations more stringent than any of those now in force was Lord Clarence Paget."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 2017.]
He (Mr. Corry) maintained that that was a total misrepresentation of the facts, and he defied the right hon. Gentleman to point out a passage in the Circular signed by Lord Clarence Paget which exposed any ship in the Navy to the slightest danger. It insisted on due economy in the use of coal—a very proper thing to do—

61
and called attention to the Queen's Regulations, dated 1861; but it left it to the discretion of the officers in command to determine to what extent steam should be used; whereas subsequent instructions most improperly interfered with their discretion, by specifying the conditions under which steam might or might not be used. It also directed officers in command
"to examine logs and call attention to any unnecessary expenditure, and to report the same to the Admiralty,"
while it impressed on all officers
"the very great importance of reducing the expenditure of coal on board their ships to the lowest point consistent with safety and the due performance of the service on which they may be engaged."
That Order remained in force from 1865 to the end of 1868, under three First Lords of the Admiralty. But the year 1869 came, and with it the golden age for the Navy. Jam nova progenies cœlo demittitus alto. The right hon. Gentle man the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) became First Lord, and between the beginning of 1869 and the summer of 1870 no fewer than nine Circulars were issued relative to the consumption of coal. The principal object of some of these was to enforce the use of mixed coal. After the details which the Committee had just heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glamorganshire, what was to be thought of a statement like the following in one of the Admiralty Circulars?—
"The great amount of evidence the Admiralty have now received from all quarters respecting the advantage of having mixed coal makes it necessary to impress on officers that the consumption of mixed coal must be vigilantly enforced."
He wondered where the author of that paragraph expected to go to. Why, "from all quarters," from every officer, commanding or belonging to a squadron at sea, who reported on the subject, condemnation of the mixed coal had reached the Admiralty. He wondered how any Gentleman could make himself the laughing-stock of the service by putting his name to such a document. The first of the nine Orders was dated January, 1869, and from its magniloquent exordium he imagined, when he read it in the newspapers, that it was about to tell us how the Navy was to be regenerated. It began—
"The First Lord and the Board of Admiralty, in accepting the charge of this great department"—
62
but it merely went on gravely to instruct commanders in chief—such men as Sir Alexander Milne, Sir Thomas Symonds, and others, who knew their duty just as well as the Admiralty could tell it to them—
"To see that the necessary duties of their ships were performed without waste; that public property in the establishments on shore must be duly cared for; that officers commanding ships should be careful of the valuable stores entrusted to their charge;"
and the superintendents of dockyards were enjoined
"to economize the use of stores and materials, and see that skilled artizans and labourers were profitably employed."
But the culminating paragraph of this Circular pointed out the royal road to the favour of the new Board, and informed the service that those officers
"would secure the appreciation of the First Lord and the Board who might distinguish themselves"—
not by the display of the qualities which constitute an accomplished naval officer, but by the saving they might effect in the expenditure of stores. That was the first of the nine Circulars, and two of those which followed were, he maintained, absolutely inconsistent with the safety of armour-plated ships, and repeated accidents and disasters must have ensued if they had not been disregarded to a certain extent by the admirals commanding the squadrons. Those Circulars—the first of which was issued on the 7th August, 1869, and the second on the 9th August, 1870—were to the same effect, and ran as follows:—
"No ship, unless ordered to be at a given port by a given date, or unless her safety would be endangered by observing this rule, is ever to steam when she has a fair wind, capable of sending her between four and five knots, or when she has a foul wind sufficiently strong to prevent her carrying royals, unless when going in and out of harbour."
It was true that there was the exception "unless her safety would be endangered;" but it was quite clear that these words referred to some extraordinary occurrence, and not to a normal state of things. If such an order had been carried out, it would have been absolutely fatal to the safety of our armoured ships, and would have sent half of them to the bottom. Anyone who knew anything about armour-clad ships knew that a command of steam was absolutely necessary to their safety. He had not,

63
like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, hoisted his flag in command of the Channel Squadron; but he had been on board the flag-ship with the Channel Squadron in one of the heaviest seas it had encountered, and he knew that those heavy, lumbering ships were, under many circumstances, absolutely unmanageable under canvas only, when they often refused to answer their helms, and without steam the danger of collision would be constant and inevitable. Only the other day an officer who had commanded one of the largest iron-clad ships in a recent cruise gave him a convincing illustration of this, which the Committee would readily understand. He mentioned that in one of the manœuvres the admiral having signalled the ships to try rate of sailing under canvas only, and for that purpose to disconnect screws, he was only able to maintain his place in the lee line, and avoid running into the weather line, "by keeping the helm of his vessel hard up." The ordinary control of a vessel's steering powers being thus lost, how was the safety of a ship to be preserved if the Admiralty regulations to which he had referred were enforced? These regulations were absolutely inconsistent with the safety of Her Majesty's ships. Long before Lord Clarence Paget's letter came out, a distinguished admiral, of great experience with iron-clads, warned him that some dreadful disaster would be sure to occur if these stringent regulations as to the use of coal were peristed in. Another officer, one of the best seamen in the Navy, told him that his ship would have been run into, or would have run into others, scores of times during the manoeuvres of the Squadron to which he belonged, if the orders had been obeyed; and the officers accordingly took it on themselves to disobey them. But was it a proper thing for the Admiralty to make orders which the officers on service were obliged to disobey? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) revised the Orders a short time ago. But how? Why, by practically admitting the objections which had been urged against them. In his Circular, dated the 26th of April, 1872, the words which had previously stood "No ship," &c, were made to read, "No ship, not being an iron-clad," &c, and a new and special paragraph was added as follows:—
64
"Iron-clad ships may, at the discretion of the admiral in command, have steam all ready up on all occasions, and iron-clad ships making a passage or cruising singly may use steam at the discretion of their commanding officers in crowded or in narrow channels, or where special circumstances may render it expedient."
That Order met, to some extent, the exigencies of the case as to armour-clads, but Lord Clarence Paget knew nothing of it when he wrote, and it was not in existence when the accidents to which he referred in his letter had happened. The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted the danger of the previous Circulars issued in 1869 and 1870, and had to revise them. But the Committee must not suppose that these stringent regulations as to the consumption of coal were the only official documents by which the judgment of officers was hampered by the Admiralty. Officers had told him that they would rather pay for the coals out of their own pockets than have to give all the explanations which the Admiralty required when a ton or two of coals more than they chose to consider necessary had been used. The Circulars issued with regard to the consumption of fuel had been numerous, as he had shown, and minute in their directions. If there was the smallest deviation from them the officers who failed to carry them out were required to explain, and severely reprimanded, sometimes, to his own knowledge, for having done what was essential to the safety of their ships. He could give some amusing instances of this. He never before had been quite able to realize the meaning of the phrase "being hauled over the coals;" but that literally was what had happened to these officers. No doubt it was quite right to require proper economy; but it was certainly dangerous to put on too much pressure in matters of this kind. It was most unfair to say that his noble and gallant Friend (Lord Clarence Paget) was responsible for the objectionable Orders; and the Admiralty ought to have taken the responsibility on themselves, instead of trying to throw it on the shoulders of an able and gallant officer.
MR. SHAW LEFEVERsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire had stated that the controversy between the Welsh and mixed coal had lasted for a considerable time, and certainly it would last for a considerable time longer, if it were to be dealt with in the way in

65
which the hon. Member had dealt with it. The hon. Gentleman had dealt with it simply from a Welsh coalowner's point of view, as one of the strongest advocates of Welsh coal, and had made no reference whatever to those facts and opinions which were in favour of mixed coal. His hon. Friend stated that he left it to him (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) to defend the North-country coal—a position which he, as a Member of the Government, declined to accept. The duty of the Admiralty clearly was not to take upon themselves the office of advocates, but to hold an even balance, and to ascertain which of the two kinds of coal was, having regard to all the circumstances, the best for use in the Navy. The main reason why his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) adopted the use of mixed coal was, that in hot climates Welsh coal became very rapidly deteriorated in quality by disintegration, and the loss from this cause often amounted to 30 or 50 per cent, as it was found very difficult to get up steam with the small Welsh coal, as it would not burn freely. On the other hand, the North-country coal burnt much more freely than Welsh coal did under such circumstances, and by mixing the North-country coal with the small Welsh, it was found that the latter could be burnt. The great saving, therefore, in the use of mixed coal would be found in long voyages and on foreign service in hot climates, where, as he had said, Welsh coal became disintegrated. The mixed coal system, indeed, was not adopted until after a long course of crucial experiments had been conducted by Captain Rice, one of the most intelligent officers in the Navy, who had invented an improvement in the furnace grates to provide for the consumption of the smoke. A further series of experiments had been tried at Portsmouth and would be repeated, the result being, as far as they had yet gone, to confirm the results arrived at by Captain Rice. These experiments showed that there was a superiority in perfectly fresh Welsh coal over mixed coal of about 5·5 per cent, and of about 10 per cent in Welsh as compared with North-country coal; but as fresh Welsh coal could not always be obtained, and as it rapidly disintegrated when kept in foreign depôts, it was believed that a mixture of North-country coal was expedient on foreign
66
stations. The experience of the Peninsular and Oriental Company went to prove the accuracy of the experiments which had been made by the Admiralty. They employed Welsh coal at home and in the Mediterranean; but in India, China, and the Red Sea, they used a mixed coal, consisting in the summer months of half-and-half, and in the winter of two-thirds Welsh and one-third North-country coal. These, then, were the grounds upon which the use of mixed coal was ordered by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract when he was at the head of the Admiralty. The Reports since made by the commanding officers and chief engineers of ships in which the plan had been adopted, convinced him that where Captain Rice's apparatus was carefully used with mixed coal, the appearance of smoke from the funnels could be prevented by its consumption, for out of 110 Reports 40 were favourable and 20 only were adverse, while the remainder were not of a very decided character. It was true that many naval officers had reported against the mixture; but some of those Reports were made before the furnaces for the consumption of the smoke were altered, and it therefore appeared to him (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) that they were not to be taken as conclusive on the subject. The notion that bituminous coal destroyed the furnaces more quickly than Welsh was unfounded. It might be recollected by some that when first Welsh coal came into consumption, Welsh coal only was burnt; the advocates of the North-country coal asserted that the fierce flame of the Welsh coal destroyed the furnace far more rapidly than the bituminous, and it was long before the delusion could be destroyed. Now the tables were turned, and the reverse was asserted by the advocates of Welsh coal. He believed, however, there was no ground for either the one complaint or the other. Captain Phillimore's Report, to which the hon. Member had adverted, could scarcely be taken as conclusive, because some of the ships on which he reported consumed 80 per cent of the smoke, some 50 per cent, and others only about 5 or 10, and there was similar differences in their consumption of coal. Surely Captain Phillimore, before reporting, should have attempted to account for these differences. It seemed to be an undoubted fact, however, that

67
Welsh, coal was the best if used at once, but that it deteriorated by keeping. He thought it was also clear that there was advantage in using a mixture of North-country coal when the Welsh coal could not be obtained fresh, and with respect to the complaints of smoke, it appeared certain that with a proper use of the apparatus, and with good stoking, it might be prevented. With respect to the experiments in the Indian troopships, the only conclusion he had come to was that there was an enormous margin within which economy of fuel might be effected in these vessels, for already, from experiments in the case of three Indian troop-ships, it had been shown that there was an economy of 2,000 tons as compared with previous experience. This economy had been equally shown whether the comparison were made with mixed coal or with Welsh coal. After carefully considering all these experiments, the Admiralty came to the conclusion that, when perfectly fresh, Welsh coal was the better, but that when it could not be got fresh an admixture should be used. From the home ports, therefore, it was thought advisable to use Welsh coal, but in foreign depôts the mixed coals would be used. It appeared to him to be a matter of importance that we should be able to utilize bituminous coal for the Navy. Nearly all the coal to be obtained abroad was bituminous. The Australian coal, the Nova Scotia coal, the coal of Van-couvers Island, and of Japan, was all bituminous, and it might be most important to the Navy to be able to burn these coals as not to depend wholly upon the anthracite coal of Wales. It should also be recollected that the Welsh coal was, compared to North-country, limited to quantity, and in the hands of a small class. Last year there was a strike in the Welsh districts, and there was great difficulty in getting a supply of coal from day to day. Fortunately, however, the Admiralty had at the time a considerable quantity of North-country coal in stock, or some embarrassment would have been felt in supplying the wants of the service. The extent of the bituminous coal fields in comparison with the extent of the Welsh steam coal fields was as 14 to 1, and, therefore, the Admiralty were not in the least likely to suffer from a strike in the North-country districts. Besides, the owners of the Welsh coal were able to raise the price as they pleased, because
68
they enjoyed a monopoly, and the quantity of the coal was limited; and immediately on the announcement that Welsh coal was to be used in the home ports, the price of Welsh coal was raised 4s. or 5s. a-ton. The saving of £8,000 or £9,000 a-year might seem a small thing—one hardly worth the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Corry); but it was an economy which he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) did not despise. The real question, however, was what kind of coal was the best for the service, and if it could be shown that, on foreign stations, a mixture prevented the deterioration of the Welsh coal, then it was to the interest of the country that the mixture should be used. Before he sat down he would state a few figures showing the consumption of coal during the last four years. Taking the iron-clads, he found that in 1868 the mileage under steam was 44,350, the mileage under sail 25,814, and the coals consumed 12,836 tons. In 1871 the mileage under steam was 77,800, the mileage under sail 40,600, and the coals consumed 20,863 tons. With regard to all other vessels on foreign stations, exclusive of iron-clads, the mileage under steam was 302,000 in 1871, the mileage under sail 409,000, and the coals consumed 28,100; while in 1868, the mileage under steam was 404,000, the mileage under sail was 560,000, and the coals consumed 62,400 tons, showing, on the whole, a very great saving in the use of coal. It would be observed that the economy in the consumption of coal which had taken place, had occurred wholly in vessels other than iron-clads. The consumption of coals by iron-clads had increased, but relatively to their mileage, was about the same; while in all other vessels there had been a great reduction in the consumption of coal, and their mileage under sail had greatly increased. The House would be of opinion that it was of importance that our seamen should be trained as much as possible in navigating their ships under sail, and that steam should be used as little as possible. The facts he had quoted he thought showed that officers had rightly interpreted the rules which had been laid down by his right hon. Friend, and had not sacrificed the safety of ironclads to a desire to save coal. With the other portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech opposite relating to the

69
regulations, he would leave his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty to deal with at a later portion of the evening.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that the Returns which had been quoted by the hon. Gentleman opposite were perfectly useless.
MR. GOURLEYsaid, it was a perfect misnomer to apply the term "smokeless" to Welsh coal, and he altogether denied that it was more economical than North-country coal. Besides, it was well known that it was difficult to raise sufficient steam with Welsh coal alone. He therefore hoped the Admiralty would not be induced by the statement of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire—although he (Mr. Gourley) admitted his great authority—to discontinue the mixture of Welsh with North-country coal.
MR. LANCASTER, as representing a district which was not engaged in supplying coal to the Admiralty, said that the great difficulty, in the first place, appeared to turn on the question, whether smoke should be produced by burning bituminous, or semi-bituminous, or anthracitic coal. Although he acquiesced in the assertion that the best Welsh coal emitted very little smoke, yet, owing to the limited extent of the fields from which it was obtained, it would be very unwise on the part of the Government to rely solely on those fields for a supply. Some years ago a series of experiments were made for the purpose of ascertaining whether smoke could be consumed—on which £3,000 had been spent, and in which 60 varieties of coal had been tried—and the result arrived at was, that they could get quite as much work out of other kinds of coal as out of Welsh coal. The smoke could be entirely consumed, and there was scarcely any difference in the effects of the coal—in fact, it was altogether a question of stoking. He was therefore very glad to hear that Government were now paying more attention to that point, and raising stoking into a matter of higher importance. It had been said that the Welsh coal was easier upon the boilers; but if he understood the question at all, the very opposite was the fact, for Welsh coal was so local in its heat that it tended to injure the boilers; whereas the bituminous or semi-bituminous coal distributed its heat over them, and, consequently, had a less injurious effect. Vessels, moreover, which used
70
Welsh coal, felt the want of North-country coal, because they sometimes could not get steam enough up with Welsh coal. He therefore hoped the Admiralty would not be scared into a timid course, as they would find a proportion of hard Scotch or North-country coal better than unmixed Welsh.
MR. MAGNIACsaid, he thought it was the duty of every one who had any experience in this matter—where there was so much difference of opinion—to state what had been the result. Now, his experience went over a great many years, and it showed that a mixture of coal—particularly in the East—was absolutely the most economical. Those who had spoken from the opposite side had not taken into account the extraordinary deterioration which Welsh coal underwent in hot climates. The hon. Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone), who very frequently instructed the House on naval subjects, referred to a time when coal was not used in the Navy; and however valuable his experience might be with regard to sails, he could not claim the same right to intruct the House with regard to coals, for the fact was the testimony was universal that a mixture was best. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Corry), who had spoken a short time ago with a disregard of economy, said he cared nothing about economy.
MR. CORRY: I said no such thing. I said economy ought to be considered; but I said, also, that it ought not to be carried to the extent of endangering Her Majesty's ships—costing, some of them, nearly half a million of money—with the lives of those on board.
MR. MAGNIACwas very sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman in his recollection of what he had said. He had taken down the right hon. Gentleman's words at the time, and he understood him to say what he (Mr. Magniac) had attributed to him. The right hon. Gentleman said he wanted efficiency, he wanted safety, and he did not care for economy. But if the right hon. Gentleman stated he did not say so, he (Mr. Magniac) had not the slightest objection to withdraw the remark he had imputed to him. The right hon. Gentleman had made a contrast between safety, efficiency, and economy, and he would put to him a case where he would not find safety and economy in retaining the use

71
of Welsh coal. Welsh coal here and Welsh coal in the East were two different things. In the East, Welsh coal varied very much under different conditions, and coal which had been kept a certain time was as different as possible from fresh coal. In case of war, we could not rely on the regular sailing of colliers; we must have coals kept in store at our stations; and, if the coal so kept in store were Welsh, the result would be that vessels would be steaming four or five knots an hour less than was desired. Two or three days ago a captain telegraphed from Aden asking whether he should give 60 s. a-ton for coals, or accept those that were offered at 40 s.; and the difference was accounted for by the fact of deterioration. It was, therefore, an utter mistake to condemn the use of mixed coal in the belief that Welsh alone would give efficiency and safety, because, under certain conditions, it would give neither. The Peninsular and Oriental Company, for instance, used 260,000 tons of coal last year; they used a large proportion of bitumen compared with semi-anthracite; they had large supplies of Australian coal, which they used for mixing with Welsh; and it was only by having bituminous coal at command that they could get contract speed out of their steamers. It was also well known that with a mixture of Welsh and North-country coal you could get up steam much quicker than with Welsh coal alone. Fresh Welsh coal might be used without North-country coal; but the more Welsh coal had deteriorated by being kept the more North-country coal was it necessary to mix with it. In the East there was an immense waste of Welsh coal in consequence; but the published accounts did not afford the means of ascertaining the quantity. A Return, moreover, as to the use of coal, showed that 68 ships had used a mixture of North-country and Welsh coal; that the result was satisfactory; that steam was generated very quickly, and little or no smoke was emitted. What could be effected in so many instances could be accomplished in more, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would persist in the course he was pursuing. The men who failed to do it should be "called over the coals." Considering the small area of the Welsh coalfield, the power which its limits placed in the hands of owners, and the unusual
72
strength of the workmen in that district, reliance upon Welsh coal might some day involve the Admiralty in difficulty. Welsh coal required different furnaces from mixed coal, and if all the ships were fitted with furnaces for Welsh coal, we might some day have to fall back upon North-country coal under very unfavourable conditions indeed. For these reasons we ought to adhere to the use of mixed coal, and he therefore thought that the instructions were wisely framed in the widest manner, and left as much as possible to the discretion of officers in command. An unsuccessful attempt had been made to connect recent naval disasters with the coal question, but it had nothing to do with them. The truth was, the Fleet was much more active than it used to be, and the disasters had increased proportionately; but activity was the only way to obtain efficiency.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he had not the least wish to prolong the debate at that period of the Session; but all he and his Friends wished to do was to lay before the House the facts which had come to their knowledge, and the conclusions they had drawn from them, in order that the Admiralty might consider them during the Recess, and come to wiser conclusions than they had hitherto done. He could not clearly make out from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) how far he was going to continue the use of a mixture of Welsh coal. Certainly, he proposed to do so to some extent; but he did not say to what extent. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry) had said that he wished to have economy practised; but that that must not be carried out at the expense of the efficiency of the Fleet; and that was a statesmanlike expression. The hon. Gentleman opposite had taunted his right hon. Friend with saying that the use of this mixture might endanger the safety of ships, in consequence of signals not being seen through a thick smoke; but it was evident to anybody who understood the matter, that such a state of things would probably lead to great disaster. The Secretary to the Admiralty had said that they had approved of the use of the mixture, because they tad had such very strong reports as to the rapid decay of Welsh coal in hot alienates. When he and his Colleagues left office, however, in December, 1868, no

73
such reports had been received at the Admiralty, and yet on the 6th of January, 1869, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract issued the Circular, in which he said the Lords of the Admiralty had decided that the use of North-country coal should be considerably increased in the ships of the Navy; and he ordered such coal to be used on all stations, except in China and Africa, where the climate was so hot that the Welsh coal might be most expected to deteriorate. It had been asserted that the trials in the troopships were on the whole favourable to the mixed coal, but a Return which had been presented to the House distinctly contradicted the statement; and upon that subject he (Lord Henry Lennox) must complain in the strongest way of the course pursued by the Secretary to the Admiralty. He had read several private Returns which had been made to the Admiralty; and though those Returns might be perfectly accurate, it was at all events not usual for a Minister to base his case upon Papers which were not laid upon the Table of the House, and which were consequently not within the reach of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. He thought that the hon. Gentleman would have exercised a wise discretion, and also displayed courtesy to the House, if he had inserted those Returns in the Papers which he had laid before the House.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREexplained that the Returns which he had read were finished only that day; but if the noble Lord wished to have them they would be laid on the Table of the House.
LORD HENRY LENNOXthought they would be of little use now the Session was so near over; and he must repeat that it was extremely inconvenient to quote official Returns which were not in the possession of the House. The new system of postponing the Votes for the two great spending Departments until so very late in the Session also caused great inconvenience. The system was introduced last year, and it had never been known in the previous Parliamentary history of the country. He wished also to correct a statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty in reference to Lord Clarence Paget. He (Lord Henry Lennox) thought that the letter and pamphlet of his noble Relative, and
74
the discussion to which they had given rise, would be of immense benefit to the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) had corrected his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Corry); and his right hon. Friend wished him to explain that when he made his statement in reference to Lord Clarence Paget he was simply alluding to the Order issued by the Admiralty through their Secretary in 1865; because he had never seen the special Order which was issued at Malta, when Lord Clarence Paget was in command of the Fleet, but which Order probably the right hon. Gentleman opposite had in his mind. A just compliment had been paid to the First Lord of the Admiralty for excluding armour-clads from the operation of the Order as to coals; but the fact was that Lord Clarence Paget had done the same thing in connection with his Order issued at Malta. He apologized for detaining the Committee, but the question as to fuel was one of vital importance; and he also had been anxious to make an explanation as to what had been said of his gallant Relative.
MR. GOSCHENreminded the noble Lord the Member for Chichester that this year more time had been spent in discussing the Navy Estimates than had been so occupied, on the average, for many years past, and he regretted to say that right hon. and hon. Members opposite never discussed the Estimates now without going back to the period between the years 1866 and 1869, and consequently much time was taken up in discussing the historical part of the question before the real business of the evening was arrived at. The right hon. Member for Tyrone charged him (Mr. Goschen) with having stated that Lord Clarence Paget had issued Orders more stringent than any now in force. But what he did state, and what he still adhered to, was that Lord Clarence Paget, in 1865 or 1866, proposed and suggested to the Admiralty more stringent regulations than those which were issued by the Admiralty themselves. Lord Clarence Paget understood the statement in that sense, as anyone who had read his pamphlet would see. The hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone spoke as if it was unfair to bring this charge against Lord Clarence Paget, because he was only a Secretary,

75
and in putting his name to the regulations acted only ministerially. But what he charged Lord Clarence Paget with was, that in his own capacity he had proposed more stringent regulations.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that what he heard the right hon. Gentleman state was, that these regulations appeared under the signature of Lord Clarence Paget.
MR. GOSCHENadmitted that he made that statement; but he also said that Lord Clarence Paget had proposed more stringent regulations. The fact was, Lord Clarence Paget called the attention of the Admiralty to the consumption of coals, and in his own capacity proposed regulations more stringent than those which were issued. Lord Clarence Paget said himself—
"When preparing the Order, I suggested to the Admiralty that a more definite result would be obtained if there could be a sub-division of the usual sailing Orders, classifying the services upon which it was intended to send any of Her Majesty's ships."
The regulations which he suggested were these—that in ordinary services the voyages should be performed under sail alone; for prompt service they might go under steam to a certain extent, but that the full consumption of coal should be allowed for urgent service only. [Sir JOHN HAY: Nothing about armour-clads?] There was nothing about armour-clads, and only six iron-clads had been added to the Navy since that time.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that Lord Clarence Paget did not deny that he proposed more stringent Orders; but he issued Station Orders which were an embodiment of his propositions to the Admiralty; and he said in his explanations that the ordinary service had reference only to full-rigged unarmoured ships.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was quite true that Lord Clarence Paget issued Station Orders; but the officers to whom the regulations were issued had no reason to think that they were to apply only to full-rigged unarmoured ships. It might be true that Lord Clarence Paget might have explained to his officers, or might have had it in his own mind, that the regulations were to apply to iron-clads alone, but that did not appear.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the custom of the Commander-in-Chief of a station
76
was to send a copy of the Order to the particular ships only by which it was to be obeyed; and, as he understood, Lord Clarence Paget addressed a copy of the regulations only to those ships.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, the hon. Baronet was very ingenious in explaining things away; but what he maintained was that those Station Orders of December, 1866, were more stringent than the regulations issued by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. There was one point more upon which he felt very strongly, and which he repudiated with indignation. It was made a charge against the Admiralty—which in this case must mean himself—that in order to screen their doings the Admiralty sacrificed the reputation of their officers; and that was what Lord Clarence Paget practically affirmed in his letter. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: Hear, hear!] That he should have sacrificed the reputation of officers was a charge which affected his personal honour, and one which, if he was capable of doing, would render him unworthy to fill the office he held. If the hon. Baronet thought him capable of acting in that way, he would only say he did not think the hon. Baronet was capable of so acting, and he was surprised that the hon. Baronet should think that any hon. Member of that House could have acted so. The point was, whether it was right or wrong that the officers in question should have been tried by their peers. He believed there was not a single officer implicated who would himself take advantage of the point which had been raised.
SIR JOHN HAY: Was Admiral Wellesley tried by his peers?
MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly.
SIR JOHN HAY: Trial by peers in the Navy means trial by Court-martial; and was not an officer who had been acquitted by Court-martial dismissed by the Admiralty?
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the officer in question had been flag-captain to the Admiral, and ceased to be so when the Admiral hauled down his flag, and under the circumstances that was quite proper. With regard to Admiral Wellesley, the proceedings of the Admiralty in his case commended themselves, he believed, to the service as just; and Admiral Wellesley would be the last man himself to throw the blame on the Admiralty regulations. The Admiral gave orders to

77
have steam, in reserve for six knots, but the ships were only going at the rate of three knots when the accident happened. If the accident had resulted from a want of steam, such a cause would have been brought before the Court-martial; but it was not the view of the officers at the Court-martial that such had been the case. Nothing could be more painful to him than to think that any hon. Member of the House could suppose that he would sacrifice the reputation and future of officers for the sake of a saving of coals. With respect to the question of the use of mixed coal, he admitted that the Welsh coal was more suitable for European waters than any other, but the Government were reluctant to place themselves exclusively in the hands of the constituents of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire. The Admiralty had come to the conclusion to use Welsh coal only in the Channel Squadron, to use Welsh coal mainly in the Mediterranean Squadron, and to use a portion of mixed coal on foreign stations. But it would be very unwise for the Admiralty to limit themselves to a particular kind of coal on all occasions, and they had given directions that inquiries should be made as to the supply of coal that might be obtained at foreign stations, in order that they might not be driven to the necessity of relying upon a supply of one sort of coal.
MR. CORRYthought there was nothing whatever in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to show that he was justified in throwing on Lord Clarence Paget any responsibility for the more stringent regulations as to the use of coal; but as the question had been argued at length, he did not think it would be advantageous to discuss it any further. He wished to call the most serious attention to a question that concerned the safety of Her Majesty's ships in no less a degree that the Orders respecting the use of coal. He alluded to a branch of the policy introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, which he and others on the Opposition benches had protested against in the strongest manner—namely, the practice of re-commissioning Her Majesty's ships on foreign stations, instead of ordering them home to be refitted and repaired before being re-commissioned. The consequence was, that they were frequently kept on service without
78
a sufficient overhaul for a much longer period than was consistent with safety, and he doubted whether even in point of economy anything had been gained by this innovation, as instances had occurred in which ships had proved so defective that it was necessary to send them home immediately after having been re-commissioned, and after the expense had been incurred of sending out the new ships' companies in line-of-battle and other ships brought forward expressly for the purpose. A short time ago an officer who had recently returned from the East Indies told him of the case of the Dryad—a sloop of war of the largest class. She was re-commissioned in the East Indies. The new crew was sent out in the frigate Glasgow, and the old returned in the Forte viâ the Cape. But immediately after having been re-commissioned, she was found to be so defective that the was ordered home to be paid off, and she actually arrived in England, viâ the Suez Canal, with her new crew, before the arrival of the old crew which returned by the Cape. A similar instance occurred in the case of the Vestal, which it had been found necessary to send home and pay off, immediately after a new ship's company had been sent out to her in the West Indies. Numerous other instances had occurred of ships having been found in a defective state after having been re-commissioned abroad. But he wished to direct especial attention to the case of the Ocean, a largo wooden iron-clad which had recently returned from the China station. She was commissioned in 1866, when she went to the Mediterranean, but he (Mr. Corry) had ordered her to China in the following year—as circumstances had made it necessary to reinforce our squadron there with an ironclad. In the Estimates for 1870 she stood in the programme in the list of vessels for whose repair provision had been made; but instead of having been ordered home for that purpose, as she undoubtedly ought to have been, she was re-commissioned, and new officers and men sent out to her in a line-of-battle ship, and it was intended that the new commission should run till 1873. What was the result of this new economical practice? She had been found to be in so defective a state that it was necesary to order her home at the end of last year. The most sinister rumours

79
were spread concerning her before she left China, and she came home in a state something like that in which the Megœra went out—leaking 16 inches every 12 hours, which made it necessary to pump her out twice a-day. She was sheathed with Muntz's metal, which would not last above four years, and was found quite rotten by the divers when they went down to clean her bottom; yet she was kept out six years without the possibility of docking her, as there was no dock in China deep enough to take her in. On her arrival at the Cape it was necessary to detain her there three weeks to repair the tubes of her boilers—the ends of which had been quite burnt away. He happened to be at Portsmouth at the time when her arrival at the Cape was reported, and officers spoke as if it was quite a relief to them to hear that she had performed the worst part of the passage in safety, and the Admiral on the station mistrusted her so much that he would not undertake the responsibility of sending her home by the direct course—from Java Head, south of the Mauritius, to the Cape; but ordered her round by Galle and the Mozambique Channel for the sake of a smoother passage. That was the condition which a flag-ship returned from a distant station—not in consequence of any accident, but entirely owing to the economical innovation of requiring ships to serve a second commission without the necessary repairs. There was another flag-ship—the Zealous, in the Pacific—whose condition had excited alarm among those having friends on board; she, like the Ocean, had been re-commissioned abroad, and the First Lord had himself admitted that she was not in a very satisfactory state, as, in answer to a question which was put to him some time ago, he stated, as a reason why no apprehension need be felt respecting her, that her departure from the Pacific would be so timed that she would arrive before the winter gales. The moral results of the system were hardly less objectionable, for it destroyed the esprit de corps of the officers, and the pride which they ought to feel in their ship. Formerly they prided themselves on bringing their ships home in the highest order, and the favourable reports of Commanders-in-Chief, on their ships being paid off, was looked to by Commanders and First Lieutenants as a
80
stepping-stone to promotion. Now, it was their successors, on their ships being re-commissioned, who profited by their exertions, and this could not fail to have a discouraging effect on the service. He hoped, therefore, on every ground, that the right hon. Gentleman would abandon the system. He would now shortly advert to some matters of detail, but at that late hour he would abstain from noticing anything which was not of essential moment. The safety of our ships depended materially on the condition of their ropes, boilers, and chain cables, and, according to his information, it was at present far from satisfactory. He understood that the Admiralty had been receiving very unfavourable reports as to rope. The spinning of the yarn by machinery had been generally adopted at Chatham for some years, and two years ago arrangements were made for spinning all yarn at Devonport by machinery. Now, hand-spun yarn was certainly the strongest, and he would read a short extract from a letter which an officer of long experience had written to him on the subject—
"Hemp, which was formerly dressed by hatchelling, is now dressed by machinery which beats and weakens the fibre. Again, in spinning yarn, on coming to a fault, the machinery drives the hemp through when the hand of the spinner used to ease it off."
This evil was increased by the recent adoption of the practice of spinning by task and job, which gave the spinners an interest in the quantity only of yarn they could produce, and was a temptation to scamp the work. Another cause was, that the supply of hemp and the store of yarn had been allowed to fall so low that they had been obliged to make the rope of yarn which had only just been spun, whereas nothing was better known than that, in order to obtain thoroughly good rope, the yarn ought to be allowed to remain 18 months or two years, and the rope 12 months, before being used. There was no point more strongly urged by master-attendants and ropemakers than the importance of the yarn being well seasoned before being laid into rope, which was essential to durability and economy. An officer of great experience had expressed himself to him very strongly on this matter.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREasked the the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give the name of the officer, and

81
whether he had reported it to the Admiralty?
MR. CORRYsaid, that he thought it better not to give the name. He did not know whether he had reported to the Admiralty; but he had reason to believe that numerous representations to the same effect had been sent in.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that he did not at all complain of the right hon. Gentleman for quoting the officers who had communicated with him, but only that they had made no complaints to the Admiralty, who would have been glad to order inquiry into the matter.
MR. CORRYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would assert that no report of the badness of the rope had been received from the commanders of Squadrons, or the Superintendents of Dockyards? Unless he was much mistaken, a gallant officer, who was to be found not far from the Admiralty, and who had recently returned from service, had reported that during all his experience he had never known the rope supplied to the Royal Navy to be so bad as it was at present. Other reports of a similar character had, he was informed, been received.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that complaints had been received from only one such officer; whereas the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have a perfect accumulation of them, and he should have been glad to know the source from which they came.
MR. CORRYreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had himself given Notice of a Motion for a Return of the complaints addressed to the Admiralty, and that the right hon. Gentleman refused it. It was not his fault, therefore, if the Committee was not in possession of full information on the subject. He was now obliged to prove his case from private information; but these things were well known in the service. With respect to the rope now made, he had been informed that when tried new it stood the test; but that it was so rough and uneven that its wearing property was reduced some 60 per cent; but even in the case of new rope, he knew of an instance in which, when tested against some old condemned rope, the difference between them had been found almost infinitesimal. Apparent economy in avoiding outlay for stock, and in the manufacture of rope, had proved, as in many other
82
instances, to be real waste. With regard to chain cables, upon which the safety of a ship so materially depended, he had always been of the opinion that it was better to pay twice, or even ten times, the market price, if necessary, in order to secure the very best article possible. A single defect—a single imperfect link—and the ship might be lost. In former days the Admiralty anchors and chain cables were notoriously most superior to those sold in the market, as was proved by the fact that in the well-known hurricane off Balaclava, when every merchant vessel, he believed, went ashore, not a single one of Her Majesty's vessels was driven from her moorings. But he was informed that the cables now made under contract were frequently of a very inferior character—that nearly all the deliveries had been partially rejected—and even that the iron used in their construction was often not the proper iron for cables. He trusted that no false economy would be allowed to impair the safety of the Navy in that vital respect. With regard to the boilers of the Navy, he believed that they were in a very different condition from what they used to be. It was of the greatest importance that our ships should have their boilers in good condition; but he could name ship after ship in which the pressure on the boilers had been reduced from 25 to 18 or 15, or even 12lb. per inch. He had also been informed that no adequate measures had been taken to provide new boilers in the place of those that were worn or were wearing out. A flag officer, thoroughly conversant with the condition of the Navy, had stated in a letter to him, that he expected to see a crisis in the boilers of the Fleet before the expiration of a year or thereabouts. If that were so, he need hardly say that a very heavy Estimate under that head might be expected next year. Seeing how much had been said about the economical management of the Navy, he might just observe before sitting down that he had been informed that between 3,000 and 4,000 tons of the best dockyard copper—a most valuable description, as everyone knew—had been sold some time ago for about £70 per ton, whereas its value in the market was now, he believed, £110 per ton, thereby entailing upon the nation a loss of upwards of £120,000.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, with regard to the article of copper, that no such sales as mentioned had taken place within the last three years.
MR. CORRYthought that if the hon. Gentleman made inquiries he would find that he (Mr. Corry) was right. He could only further express the hope that the earnest attention of the First Lord would be directed to the three subjects—the rope, the boilers, and the cables and anchors—to which he had directed his observations.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, there could be no doubt that the great object of the Admiralty, both past and present, had been to economise fuel as much as possible. With that view, he would call their attention to the invention of a Mr. Prideaux, C. E., an ingenious gentleman in the City, by which, as was alleged, an economy of 10 per cent in the amount of fuel would be attained, smoke would be entirely done away with, and the temperature of the stoke-hole lowered to within four or five degrees of that of the after-cabins of a man-of-war. It had been tried by Captain Denman, and also by the commander of the Argus, with the greatest possible success; and no later than a fortnight since it was tested in the presence of three or four hon. Members of that House—one being the hon. Member for Hastings, another the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, and the third the hon. Member for Northumberland; and he had been authorized by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock to state that anything more perfect or satisfactory he could not imagine than the apparatus in question. The smoke was effectually shut off in a moment and the temperature effectually lowered. For 15 years, Mr. Prideaux, the inventor, had appealed to the Government to give him fair play; and although it was true that there had been an objection to the invention formerly on the ground that the furnace-doors were too costly, the arrangements since then had been greatly improved, and the former price reduced to nearly one-third. He asked the Admiralty to deal fairly and liberally with improvements or inventions, and not to allow themselves to be prejudiced by old reports.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper to reduce the Vote for Naval Stores by £150,000, being about
84
the amount of the increase of the Vote of 1870–71. He had no doubt that if the Government went into the market now they would have to pay a higher price for the articles required; but if they deferred purchasing for a few months they would be able to purchase at a considerable reduction. There was about the same amount of stores in stock in March last that there was in the March previous; and as there was no necessity for pushing on the building of iron and wooden vessels the Government might very well wait until they could purchase cheaper before going into the market, and therefore it was that he proposed the reduction of the Vote.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £778,510, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Stores for building, repairing, and outfitting the Fleet and Coast Guard, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873."—(Mr. Rylands.)
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that the Votes for the Dockyards and for Stores depended upon each other, and therefore they could not reduce the one without reducing the other. Moreover, on a former occasion the Motion of the hon. Gentleman for the reduction of the Dockyard Vote found not a single supporter, and was ultimately withdrawn. The House therefore being committed to the year's programme of shipbuilding, how could it now refuse to vote the stores necessary? Instead of requiring less money than usual this year, in the face of the high prices, he must tell hon. Members that the amount of the Vote would certainly be exceeded. Since the Estimates had been prepared, the prices of coal, iron, timber, copper—in fact, of almost every article, had increased with unparalleled rapidity. The Estimates for this Vote were framed in December last, when iron bars were £9 10 s. a-ton; in April they had risen to £12 5s.; in June, to £14; and now they ranged from £15 to £17. Last year, copper was £86 a-ton; in April, it was £98; and now it was from £109 to £116. Coal also had very nearly doubled in price. In December, Welsh coal was 19 s. delivered at Portsmouth; in June, it was 24 s.; and now it was 29 s. and 30 s. This rise in prices had set aside all calculation, and had rendered it impossible to make any estimate, and under the circumstances it was impossible to assent to the reduction

85
of the Vote. In fact, only a few weeks ago he was in consultation with his Colleague as to the expediency of preparing a Supplementary Estimate to meet the enhanced prices. Looking, however, to the very great uncertainty of prices—to the impossibility of saying what they might reach in the course of the autumn, it was thought better to postpone any such application till the beginning of next Session; but if present prices continued, it was certain there must be a large excess of expenditure over the amount he now asked for. The main increase of the Vote, as compared with last year, was due to timber. We had been drawing on our stock of timber for some years, and the time had now come when the stock was so far reduced that it was necessary to purchase in proportion to the average expenditure. One word as to what had teen said by the hon. Member for Cork. The furnace which had been alluded to was a very ingenious, but complicated and costly invention. It was, therefore, concluded at that time that it was not desirable to adopt the invention. He understood that its cost was now reduced; but whether it was possible to adopt it now he could not say, but would institute inquiries with a view to settle the point. Passing over the historical matters in the speech of the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Corry), he would admit that there were complaints a short time ago about the chain cables that were being supplied under contract. The contract was put an end to, and fresh tenders invited. He might add that the contractor who had failed to perform his contract was the selection of the right hon. Gentleman. The Admiralty test was so perfect that it was believed no bad cables had been received. There were no general complaints about rope; but during the last few months there had been two complaints. One came from the Cape, in respect of rope manufactured in 1861, so that it was difficult to ascertain what was the cause of the defect. The other came from the Flying Squadron, and it was believed the rope was made of yarn which was not sufficiently seasoned. At Devonport, the manufacture of yarn had not kept pace with that of rope, and in a few weeks fresh machinery would be set up to increase the manufacture of yarn, so that 18 months' supply might be kept in store.
86
In reply to what the right hon. Gentleman said about boilers, he might state that the Minotaur went out of the dockyard after repairs, and, when the pressure had been somewhat reduced, she performed the measured mile at the rate of 11 knots with ease, which was not a bad performance. Fresh boilers were being made for her; and having consulted the engineer, he could say that the supply of boilers in stock and in course of manufacture was sufficient. It was not desirable to keep too many boilers in stock, because they deteriorated; but it could not be said the question had been neglected when it was considered, that the Vote for making boilers by contract was £93,000 last year and £20,000 this.
MR. CORRYasked whether the Admiralty intended to re-commission ships on foreign stations? That was the most serious question of all.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not understand that there was once a rule never to re-commission ships, and that there had since been a practice always to re-commission ships. For instance, he believed it had always been held that gunboats might with advantage be re-commissioned on foreign stations. As to what would be done in future, a great deal must depend upon the ships themselves, and the reports of engineers as to their condition and that of their boilers. A ship never was re-commissioned until she had been fully reported upon; and such reports would be made more searching than before, for the reports of engineers had, in some instances, been found to be very incorrect. It was not likely that an iron-clad would again remain six years on a station. It would be premature now to say what would be done three years hence; it was more probable that the right hon. Gentleman himself would have to consider whether he would re-commission the ships which had lately gone out; but he (Mr. Goschen) did not think any large ironclad would remain out six years.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, that for once there was a proposal to reduce expenditure for which he could not vote. If the Motion for a reduction were agreed to, the expenditure would be greater in the future on account of the increased price at which the material would be purchased. He thought, however, that nothing should be pressed forward but

87
work that was urgent; for it was probable that before long they would have the ebb of the tide as to prices of which they were now having the flow. He therefore trusted the Motion would be withdrawn.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £459,116, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Steam Machinery and Ships building by Contract, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873."
CAPTAIN BEAUMONTcalled the attention of the Committee to the experiments recently made against the turret of the Glatton. Most exhaustive and conclusive experiments had been carried on at Shoeburyness, with the view of testing the best form and shape to give iron for the purpose of defence; and a most satisfactory result had been obtained from the experiments. The simple point was this—that the whole object of the experiments was to ascertain whether the revolving gear would or would not resist the impact of the shot, and upon that point the trial afforded no conclusive evidence, for the reason that the turret had been struck in a line with the axle, and that therefore the revolving gear could not be affected. All the artillery and engineer officers with whom he had conversed were agreed in the opinion that the trial ought to have been carried further, in order to test thoroughly the protection afforded by the glacis to the turret! and he certainly regretted that, in order perhaps to allow hon. Gentlemen to catch the train to London, another shot was not directed against the Glatton. He earnestly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take another opportunity of firing a few more shots at the Glatton, so that the vexed question to which he had referred might be satisfactorily set at rest.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that in accordance with the arrangement already announced, he must now move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Goschen.)
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEprotested against the Motion being now made, seeing that the Committee were ready and anxious to go on with the Votes.
MR. RYLANDSremarked upon the large number of Votes that still had to be taken in Supply, and said, if Progress were reported it would be impossible to guess when Supply would be taken again; certainly it would be upon some very inconvenient occasion, when hon. Gentlemen would not be able adequately to discuss them. Since Monday had been given to the Government entirely for Supply, it would be most unwise to report Progress as early as half-past 10. They had better go on and get through the Army and Navy Estimates that night.
MR. SAMUDAwas also of the opinion that it would be better to go on with the Votes. He thought the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the experiments on the Glatton need not detain them long. For his own part, the trial had perfectly satisfied him. No one supposed that the revolving gear of the turret was absolutely, and under all circumstances, beyond the danger of being deranged by a shot; but the experiments had proved the immense resisting power of the protection; and in the event of the gear being deranged, arrangements were always, he believed, made for revolving the gun by means of hand power.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was the usual practice of the House to allow the Government, on a Government night, to arrange as to the time to be devoted to different subjects. Moreover, in the present case, the Government had absolutely bound themselves to a number of hon. Gentlemen that other Business should be taken at the hour they had reached, and he therefore hoped the House would not waste what remained of that evening.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKthought the time at the disposal of the Government ought first to be given to the consideration of the Votes in Supply, which the House, according to the Constitution, had a right to discuss at a period of the Session when they could assemble in full numbers. He had never known Supply put off till so late a period in order to enable the Government to proceed with measures dictated by their

89
own political exigencies. He had a Motion on the Paper relating to the Civil Service Estimates which he should never he able to bring on, because the Prime Minister gave the precedence to measures which might give him a little popularity, such as a miserable shred or patch of a Public Health Bill or a Licensing Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was in favour of personal government by himself; but he was beginning to find out that he could not command hon. Members even on his own side of the House. It was one of the happiest moments of his (Mr. C. Bentinck's)life when the hon. Member for Warrington, about a fortnight ago, asked him to help him to stand up for the independence of the House of Commons; and he gladly accepted that hon. Member as a convert to the great constitutional cause. He was therefore delighted on the present occasion to hold out to that hon. Member the hand of a political brother, and to support his protest against now reporting Progress. The Prime Minister had called upon them on Friday in a most un-Parliamentary manner to sit on Saturday. He himself challenged that proceeding, but the Speaker decided that the Sitting was rightly called, although there was no precedent for it. ["Question!"] Hon. Members below the gangway who cried "Question" pretended to be independent Members.
MR. A. JOHNSTON: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether it is Parliamentary to say that hon. Gentlemen pretend to be independent?
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Whitehaven will see that the word conveys an imputation which may be offensive to hon. Members.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKwould, then, substitute "professed to be independent Members." He maintained that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had done more than anyone in that House to abrogate the rights of private Members. If any Saturday Sittings were called, they ought to be devoted to the consideration of the Estimates, and Progress ought not now to be reported without a distinct assurance from the Government that Supply would be resumed at the earliest possible opportunity.
MR. GOLDNEYthought at that period of the year they ought to accept the Government as the best judges in that
90
matter, and unless something was done it would be quite impossible ever to close the Session. They had been for seven hours engaged on one topic without having agreed to a single Vote; and the other Business of the House might fairly be gone on with now.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Chip-penham had not been in Parliament in the time of Lord Palmerston, and that if he had been, he would have known that that noble Lord consulted Parliamentary precedent and would never have brought on Votes in Supply at this period of the Session.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEthought the course pursued that evening was not such as was calculated to bring the Business of the Session to a speedy termination. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had taunted them with occupying so much time in discussing the Navy Estimates this year; but it must be remembered that the system at the Admiralty had been reorganized, and that questions of great national importance had required consideration. He protested against the progress of those Estimates being interrupted as proposed, when they might be concluded that evening, and contended that it was impossible they could be satisfactorily discussed by the daily waning Members of the House.
Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MILITARY FORCES LOCALISATION (EXPENSES) BILL— [BILL 222.]
(Mr. Bonham Carter, Mr. Secretary Cardwell, Sir Henry Storks, Mr. Campbell.)
MILITARY FORCES LOCALISATION (EXPENSES) BILL— [BILL 222.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [23rd July], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Holms.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH, in continuation, said he objected to the measure, because it proposed a large outlay in addition to the considerable military expenditure already sanctioned, and would enable a sum of three and a half millions of money to be raised over which Parliament would have no control. Moreover, even if the scheme embodied in it were a good one, it would lose nothing by being postponed until next Session, while the country would be able to form an opinion with respect to it during the Recess. A large portion of the expenses under the Bill would come from the pockets of the industrial classes, who had no apprehensions of danger and no wish to meddle with the affairs of our neighbours, and he therefore protested both against its being borne by them in such large proportion, and against such an expenditure, when taxation already pressed so heavily upon the industry of the country. If, therefore, this outlay were considered necessary, let it be paid by those who really wished for it. He objected also to the Bill for its intermixture of military with the civil population, feeling sure that the latter would thereby suffer. He did not pretend to be an authority on this subject, but his opinions had been gathered from Blue Books and official documents, which supported him in his strong repugnance to the measure. Barracks were, he believed, a nuisance wherever they were found. In our present relations with foreign Powers, was it necessary to foster our military system, and familiarize our population with it in the way now proposed? The calamity of the Continental States was their over-grown military system, and we should denounce that system instead of humbly copying it. Considering our well-nigh impregnable position and our Navy, and considering, also, the very subordinate position we should hereafter play in Continental quarrels, we should adopt a policy of non-intervention, and, while giving our advice, should preface it by stating candidly that we did not intend to fight. He could not understand how it was that a larger military expenditure was proposed by an economical Government than by a Government which made no such professions. No doubt, the Government hoped in the end to secure for us greater economy; but it was just possible they might be mistaken, and that their present
  92
  proposals, like many other great schemes of military outlay, might prove a delusion and a snare. It was said that we should be ready to back up our opinions, if necessary, by physical force. That, however, should not be our rôle. Duelling was put down by a combination between a few wise and prudent men; and England, with its high civilization and great professions of Christianity should take the lead in putting down the duels of nations. He thought that with the successful example just about being carried out between ourselves and America, we should endeavour to make International Arbitration the rule, and not the exception, and he called on the Government, by postponing this Bill, to give the country further time for considering whether they would incur this large outlay. He was certain the interests of the country would not suffer from the delay.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the evil prophecies of some persons upon the subject under discussion had failed in any way to be realized. He thought the opponents of the Bill had failed to show any connection between it and the evils they deprecated; and he denied that the measure was inconsistent with economy, morality, or the establishment of a sound military system. The object desired by many of his hon. Friends around him was that the country should be defended with a small number of men under the colours, and with a large number of men in the Reserves; and in doing so they seemed to wish to have the best part of the Prussian system without a plan of conscription. That was the scheme he had advocated by letters in The Times in 1870. Men, however, could not be enlisted for the short period of three years with a prospect of returning to citizen life, as long as they were liable to be sent to an unhealthy climate like India for an indefinite period. The Government, moreover, were deterred from facing the difficulty involved in this matter by those who told them that it would be dangerous to have a permanent Indian army of occupation, because it might be turned into a Praetorian Guard. Their establishment was 192,000, and the usual number of recruits was 10 per cent on the establishment, or 19,000 per annum. That was on 12 years' service. Last year they got 22,000; but as the service was

  93
  reduced to six years, instead of 10 per cent they required 15 percent, or 28,800 men. But if they adopted the scheme of the hon. Member for Hackney, they would require double their present number, and where were they to get them under the present system? The Commander-in-Chief had stated that the present system had yielded as much as could be expected. How then could the hon. Member for Hackney talk of doubling the number? There was only one remedy, and that was localisation. The Report of the Royal Commission on Recruiting stated that men would enlist more readily in corps which contained many of their own friends and acquaintances, than in any other, and that such a system ought to be encouraged. They said that much might be done in that direction by strengthening the relations which existed between particular regiments of the Line and Militia regiments. Now here was a Bill embodying the recommendations of that Commission, and the hon. Member for Hackney himself, at the beginning of the Session, stated that if the people of this country only knew the value of having an Army corps in each district, there would be no difficulty in procuring an efficient Army whenever it was required. Now, that was precisely what this Bill would give the country, and he was therefore at a loss to conceive how the hon. Member for Hackney could vote against it. Moreover, in his objection His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief did not contemplate, in 1868, the possibility of such a complete change as had been brought about by the interest which the nation took in the Army since the War of 1870—an interest not altogether unhealthy. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) objected to the Bill on the ground of the vice and immorality that would be caused by it. But did his hon. Friend realize the difference between a barrack and a training centre? The barrack was a station containing old soldiers who had learned their drill, who were getting tired of their profescion, and who might, therefore, be too much prone to self-indulgence. But these training centres were schools of discipline, where young men were carefully watched by non-commissioned officers—married men, who had risen from the ranks by their steadiness and good
  94
  conduct, and whose characters were as valuable to them as that of an accountant at Manchester was to him. But not only was the drill of these young men attended to, but every action of their lives was under strict supervision. A proof of the effect of military training upon young soldiers was afforded by the criterion of the relative mortality in civil life. More people died in civil life between the ages of 20 and 25 than in military life; but between 30 and 35 more died in military life. He would ask his hon. Friend, who last year voted £8,000,000 for the abolition of purchase, if he did not know that after that abolition took place, officers would be more zealous, industrious, and anxious to rise in their profession by skill and industry? Surely, therefore, young soldiers might be entrusted to the care of officers whose good services had been purchased for £8,000,000 sterling. So far from promoting immorality, he believed that the Bill would have the effect of checking it. Some years ago he witnessed the greatest enthusiasm amongst the peasantry for enlisting in the Army in Ireland, because many of their own relatives had enlisted. That, he repeated, was exactly what the present Bill would effect, by identifying regiments with particular localities, and introducing the ties of friendly association. Hon. Gentlemen in bringing these sweeping charges against the Army were acting unjustly towards the proceedings of the War Office for the last three years. In the first place, the temptation of bounty had been abolished, and men were induced to enter the Army on a higher principle. Then, instead of hauling a drunken man before a magistrate, and making the acceptance of a shilling an irrevocable enlistment, the magistrate was required carefully to examine the man, after a due distance of time, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he had entered Army with his eyes open, and he would be allowed to march to the depôt like a free citizen. Besides that, other honourable inducements had been held out, and men would no longer be kidnapped, as in many cases they had hitherto been. If, however, he had a right to complain of the course taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr, with a vigour out of proportion to his charge of immorality against the prospects of the Bill, he might be allowed to say something

  95
  as to the manner in which the hon. Member for Carlisle had spoken of its extravagance. The hon. Member had stated that anyone who voted for the reduction of the Army at the beginning of the year would vote against the Bill. Now, he (Mr. Trevelyan) voted for the reduction, because he wanted fewer men; and he voted for the Bill because he believed it would procure more efficient men. What was the object of the Bill? The object of the Bill was to make the Militia more effective by bringing it into connection with the Regular Army and placing it under the control of officers of that Army. He could not doubt that when that was effected, that Militia regiments such as that commanded by his hon. Friend the Member for West Gloucestershire—and which several hon. Members knew very well—after being embodied for four or six months would be fit to stand in any line of battle whatever. This, too, was an economical measure, because it would supply them with Militiamen who would cost only £7 per head, whereas the men of the Regular Army cost £42 per head. The objection of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, so far as he could make out, was somehow mixed up with the withdrawal of troops from the colonies. He (Mr. Trevelyan) regarded that withdrawal as a well-considered measure, for in Canada the Force acted as a drag in time of peace, and in the event of war it would have been a prize which would have been very much esteemed by their enemy. As to New Zealand, the Force there only robbed them of their money, and robbed the colony of its self-reliance. Those troops having been withdrawn, they were in want of barrack room for 9,000 men. The Bill gave them that barrack room as a sort of incidental result of the reorganization of our Army. It was also an economical measure in this respect—it would save them from military expenditure occasioned by periodical panics, for an enormous mass of the people of this country, right or wrong, would not be satisfied unless they felt that the country was secured against invasion. Well, up to this time, whenever the public mind was excited, the only resort the Government had was to enlist 10,000 or 20,000 men, who were at once dismissed as soon as the public mind became quiet again. But if the
  96
  system contemplated by this Bill were carried out, the Government, under every circumstance and at all times, would be able to refuse to listen to any cry for increased military expenditure, and the Secretary for War would be enabled to bring forward Military Estimates which would rival the Navy Estimates which were proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract. In conclusion, he would say that the result would be to provide them with 77 Line battalions and 70 Militia battalions, which would be able take the field at a cost at which, some years ago, they had 49 Line battalions, and a Militia which might be said to be no organized force at all. Besides that real security there was the moral security. All over the country the people would see that they had got their worth for their money, and these centres, instead of being centres of immorality, would be centres of public confidence. As long as they had a bad system it was impossible to economize, and for the first time in his experience of Parliament they had had within the last two years proposals as to the military expenditure by which, he must repeat, they would get their money's worth for their money.
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, that the policy of the Government had been approved of by the House and the country, and now that Her Majesty's Ministers were bringing forward a measure to work it out to a proper end, he thought that every man who was a soldier would do everything he could to support Her Majesty's Ministers. He thanked the hon. Member for the Border Burghs—with whom he did not often agree—for his able defence of the character of the soldier. The hon. Members for Knaresborough and Merthyr Tydvil had thought proper to cast most unfair and most untrue aspersions on the character of soldiers, but he (Colonel Hogg) knew, as one who had spent some of the best years of his life in the Army, that the assertions they had made in that House were unfounded. One hon. Gentleman had said that the civil population suffered because the Army was among them, but he very naturally added that he knew nothing about them. To those who knew the facts, that hon. Gentleman showed that he was utterly ignorant of what he was talking about. Those who had lived in the Army said that

  97
  their morality was equal to that of the civil population. He did not agree at all with the principle of short service; he thought three years and even six years was too short; and that the right hon. Gentleman would find that out, when he came to put his scheme into practice. By a judicious mixture of men who had money and of men who had none, but who wanted to rise in their profession the Army would gain a great advantage. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was, under existing circumstances, one of the best that could be brought in. Anybody who had anything to do with soldiers and Militia knew that one of the worst things was to take a number of young raw soldiers and billet them about. He believed that the best economy was to be prepared for war. That, he believed, was the object of the Secretary of State for War, and the House ought to assist him in bringing the Army and its Reserves to the highest state of efficiency.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, he had heard nothing from the hon. Member (Mr. Trevelyan) to make him desire to establish military centres throughout the country. As to the health of young soldiers being superior to that of the civil population, that was not surprising, considering that they were picked men, and that probably a third of the applicants for enlistment were rejected. The statement that barrack accommodation was deficient by 9,000 men was simply an argument for the diminution of a force greater than had been customary in time of peace; and he saw no prospect of preventing panics, which affected persons mostly of feeble intellect and of wealthy means, who felt alarm when people of sound judgment saw no ground for it. Whatever the object of the measure might be, it would tend to make us a military nation, though we had seen the calamities to which military ambition had led on the Continent. Far from complaining of the late introduction of the measure, he wished it had been still later, for the Government would then have been more easily induced to defer it till the nation had had time to consider it. It would be much pleasanter for him to support the Government, but he felt it his duty to oppose this Bill, and 18 months ago, when the London Press was endeavouring to excite the country to a war with Russia, a great meeting at Manchester pronounced emphatically
  98
  for a peace policy. It might be questioned whether, as insisted on by the opponents of the Ballot Bill, any great legislative change ought to be made which was not sanctioned by the people at the last Election; but it was manifest that Parliament had no right to act contrary to the decision of the constituencies, unless circumstances made it imperative, and at the last Election they decided by an enormous majority in favour of the policy of economy then advocated by the Members of the present Government. No hon. Gentleman now on the Treasury Bench would then have ventured to foreshadow a scheme like this, and if the Bill did not pass, and an election happened at the end of the year neither the Government nor the Opposition would put forward such a policy. Nobody could affirm that the security of the country had been jeopardized, for Germany would hesitate to enter on another war, with Prance in her present temper, and a Member of the Government (Mr. Grant Duff), whose Continental information entitled him to much attention, had ridiculed a German invasion as more difficult than an English invasion of Germany. He had been educated by the present Government to think £3,500,000 a large sum. It would take the 100,000 male adults of Manchester 35 weeks to earn it at £1 per head. He acquiesced a year or two ago in the refusal of the Treasury to grant £50,000 or £100,000 for a centre of science and learning, first because he could not help it; and secondly, because he hoped the Government would co-operate with the economical Members of this House; but if they had £3,500,000 to spare they might reduce the National Debt, or reserve it for the bill probably coming to us from Geneva, for which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) was considerably responsible; or taxes on articles of consumption might be reduced, seeing that the rise of wages was counterbalanced by the enchanced price of the necessaries of life, and that ignorant people were beginning to stone the butchers. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) had described these military centres as the centres of idleness and demoralization. Under the existing law a soldier who deserted his wife or abandoned his children, legitimate or illegitimate, could not be made responsible to the law, and, in his opinion, before

  99
  soldiers were collected together in fresh places these exemptions from the consequences of their wrongful acts should be abolished. He had heard it said at the beginning of the Session that the Secretary for War had saved the Government. If the Government ever was in such a strait that it required to be saved, he could only regret that it had not been saved by some other means than such as entailed the introduction of this Bill. There was a large number of Members in the House who were interested, either directly or indirectly, in military matters, and the moment it became known that the Secretary for War intended to throw these millions into their lap, they discovered that the Government was the most patriotic that we had had in recent times. It appeared rather extraordinary to him that the first great Cabinet that had opened its doors to the Society of Friends should imitate so extensively the military policy of the Continent, which entailed such an immense amount of poverty and crime. Taking our insular position into account, we spent nearly ten times as much upon our Army, proportionately, as foreign nations did upon theirs. It had been said that whenever the two front benches went together something was being done that ought not to be done, and he did not believe that the present case was an exception to the rule. He regretted that there was not a better Opposition in that House than there was at present. The fact was that the Opposition had no policy whatever. The speeches of their Leader at Manchester and at the Crystal Palace had proved that they were completely bankrupt in politics. He regretted that the Opposition had not stood forward in this instance as the protector of the people against the exactions of the military class. Hon. Members would have to appear before their constituents in a few days, and, for his own part, he should be able to say that, while approving in the main the conduct of the Government, he had opposed to the utmost of his power the squandering of £3,500,000 for military purposes.
  MR. F. STANLEYsaid, that the Bill was framed with the view of carrying into effect the objects that had received the sanction of Parliament last year. It, therefore, bore now an entirely different aspect from what it did when the matter was first brought forward, for since then
  100
  entirely different issues had been raised. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) spoke the other evening about these great military training centres being centres of vice, and he quoted a speech of Colonel Dickson. The latter Gentleman, however, spoke of an entirely different state of things from that contemplated by the Bill. In 1862, the soldiers were collected in one, two, or three centres, where they were entirely cut off from communication with the civil population; they had no amusements provided for them, and nothing was done to prevent them from indulging in immorality, whereas the object of the present Bill was not to bring soldiers in great numbers to one or two military centres, where they were to be kept separate; but it was to spread the military force over the country, and to endeavour to do away with the hard-and-fast line that had hitherto existed between the civil and military populations, at the same time keeping them under proper control. The remarks that fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) were too serious to regret, although his hon. Friend had substantial reason to be sorry to a considerable extent for the way in which his argument was treated. He (Mr. F. Stanley) would admit, however, that the argument was cogent enough to be brought before the House on any subject; and that whether it had met with the treatment it merited or not, it was at all events entitled to respect, for it was a complicated question, and his hon. Friend had expressed his opinion with great delicacy. In any view of the case, there was reason for circumspection, which faculty would no doubt be exercised by all concerned. Whatever might be said about the little notice given to the country of the Government plan, the details of it had really been made known since an early day in February. The scheme consisted of three parts—the abolition of purchase, the organization of the Army, and the localization of the military Forces; and the two latter parts met with general approval. The territorial designation of regiments was, for the first time, to be something more than a mere name. The Militia battalions were to be under canvas at the depôt centre, and though that arrangement had been somewhat modified by a subsequent Memorandum, he

  101
  wished to know whether, in principle, it would be maintained, and whether measures would be taken to provide for the circumstance of their being embodied in winter, when the inclement season might render it impossible for them to remain under canvas? He trusted the right hon. Gentleman was not going to ask the House to incur a large expense for permanent barracks, when structures of a more temporary character might be adopted, especially as after a time it might be found requisite to move some of the depôt centres to other places; for he thought that localization applied merely to depôts would fail, unless military centres for our Reserve men were established all over the country, for otherwise there would be considerable difficulty in securing the services of Reserve men when they might be wanted at a future period. Unless the places for drilling were situated within a comparatively short distance of the places where the men worked, they would not come up to drill, and after a certain time the Reserve itself would fall off in numbers and efficiency. As to the proposal of the hon. Member for Hackney, it should be borne in mind that in this country, without a conscription, we must deal with things as they were rather than as we might wish them to be, and the Militia, after all, would be the source to which we must look for our Army recruits. Entertaining, therefore, a very strong wish for the efficiency of the Army, he should certainly support the Bill. In conclusion, he would say that he was not now expressing the opinion for the first time—he had long entertained it, that the 40th clause of the Mutiny Act—the right hon. Gentleman would know exactly to what he referred—was a disgrace to the Army, and he hoped the Government would direct their attention, with a view to the adoption of some measures to prevent so serious an evil, which often led to other crimes, obtaining still further extension by the establishment of these centres.
  MR. T. E. SMITHthought the Government had been hardly used by the opposition that had sprung up against this Bill at that late period of the Session. If the Government had brought in and pressed on the Bill at a considerably earlier date hon. Gentleman would have gone down to their constituents and have said—"The Government are not
  102
  in earnest about the Ballot Bill; they evidently attach more importance to a measure for Army localization which they are pressing forward instead of the Ballot; and we request you by Petitions, and by all the pressure which you can bring to bear upon the Ministry to support the Ballot Bill, and let the other measure go." With regard to the effect which these military centres would have upon the people, he had seen something of the effect produced in garrison towns by having soldiers' barracks planted amongst them. If the barracks were properly situated—not right in the centre of a town, but sufficiently removed from it—they had no injurious effect at all. It was said that none of the large towns were in favour of the Bill; but most of those places were garrison towns at present, and they did not protest against the presence of military Forces in their midst. Certainly, if for nothing else, the Bill would do a great deal of good by preventing the billeting of the Militia in public-houses, which subjected them to degrading and debasing influences. The Militia, instead of being so billeted, would for the future be lodged in barracks, and thus be removed from injurious public-house influence. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) had stated that the Bill proposed to spend a great deal of money on a subject which had not been submitted to the opinion of the country. The country was not unwilling to meet Army expenditure, but objected to expenditure for an inefficient Army. It was because he believed that the destructive policy of last year and the organization scheme now before the House were necessary, and in the hope that next year they would have an economical policy, that he supported the Bill.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he had opposed the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, because he believed that it would be injurious to the Army, and he was not prepared to say now that he had changed his opinion; but as the House had decided otherwise, he felt that it was their duty to remove obstacles, and give every assistance in their power to the Government. The Report of the Royal Commission upon Recruiting had been referred to, and he would remind the House of two paragraphs in the Report which he had already read. The first of those paragraphs alleged that

  103
  in future wars would be sudden in their commencement and short in their duration, and that woeful results would fall upon an unprepared country. In the last paragraph, the Commissioners dwelt on the necessity for incurring expenditure in order to obtain an efficient Army. After such warnings, no Government could face the country, unless it had prepared the country to meet emergencies, and therefore he should give the Government his hearty support.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERT, in moving the adjournment of the debate, said, he knew the Bill was popular in the House, but did not believe the same remark applied to the country generally. There were several hon. Members who wished to speak upon the Bill, and he therefore desired that they should have an opportunity of speaking at an hour when their opinions could become known to their constituents, instead of at a time when speeches never were nor could be reported.
  MR. RYLANDSrose to second the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member for Warrington that, having spoken once in the debate, he could take no further part in the discussion.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had not spoken on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that being so, the hon. Member was in Order.
  MR. RYLANDSthen proceeded to say that if the House wished to divide then on the second reading, he would raise the question again on the Motion to go into Committee, and would appeal to the Prime Minister to fix the Committee for a time when he could have an opportunity of doing that.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Auberon Herbert.)
  MR. GOLDNEYtrusted that the Government would not enter into any engagement of the sort; for many hon. Members had attended that night to take part in the division, and it should be remembered that not only had the House once emphatically approved the proposition of the Secretary of State for War by a majority of 234 to 63, but the object of the Bill was merely to provide the expenses of a scheme which the House had already sanctioned. He considered
  104
  that the Government were entitled, as no discussion had been raised on the Report of General MacDougal, which had been laid on the Table, to carry the measure, which had now been thoroughly discussed and was well understood by the country.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he could not accept the Motion for the adjournment.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON, although as much opposed as anyone to the Bill, recommended the withdrawal of the Motion for the adjournment, but said he would oppose the progress of the Bill to the last.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 24: Majority 146.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

GALWAY ELECTION PETITION.
JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.
GALWAY ELECTION PETITION.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would propose to fix the resumption of the debate for Thursday next, and would move accordingly.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had no objection, although he did not think it likely they would be able to proceed with the adjourned debate on Thursday; but by that day they might be in a position to form a judgment as to when it could be brought on.
  Motion agreed to.
  Adjourned Debate on going into Committee thereupon [25th July] further adjourned till Thursday.

  HABITUAL DRUNKARDS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DONALD DALRYMPLE, Bill for making provision for the care and treatment of Habitual Drunkards, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DONALD DALRYMPLE, Mr. AKROYD, Mr. DOWNING, Mr. CLARE READ, and Mr. MILLER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 279.]

  INCOME TAX COLLECTION, PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Bill to abolish poundage for the collection of Income Tax in Public Departments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. BAXTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 280.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Countess of Mayo's Annuity * (258); Military Manœuvres * (259); Parish Constables Abolition* (260); Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 3)* (261)
Second Reading—Basses Lights (Ceylon) *(241); Local Government Board (Ireland)* (246); Irish Church Act Amendment (No. 2)* (249); Factories (Steam Whistles)* (252).
Committee—Adulteration of Food, Drugs, &c.* (243).
Committee—Report—Victoria Park * (227); Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* (247); Bastardy Law Amendment * (244); judges Salaries* (242).
Third Reading—Masters and Workmen (Arbitration)* (234); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (250); Grand Juries, Middlesex* (235); Galashiels Jurisdiction Act Amendment* (226); Elementary Education (Elections) (No. 2)* (240), and passed.

THE ROYAL GARDENS, KEW—DR. HOOKER AND THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DERBY, who had given Notice to call attention to the Case of Dr. Hooker, Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew, said: My Lords, in the actual state of this House, and the thinness of the benches on this side of the House, I think it will not be necessary for me to disclaim any intention on my part to make the subject to which I am about to call attention a party question; but though there is no such intention on my part, in pursuance of Notice given I have to call attention to a controversy—an unfortunate and disagreeable controversy—between Dr. Hooker, Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew, on the one hand, and the First Commissioner

  3
  of Works, representing Her Majesty's Government, on the other. I regret the delay which has occurred in bringing forward this subject; but though to me, personally, most of the facts are familiar, I could not, in fairness to one of the parties concerned, bring them forward until the argument on both sides—the justification, such as it is—was before the public. And even now I do so under great difficulty, for these Papers of 180 pages have not been yet quite 48 hours in either mine or your Lordships' hands, and being without index or lists of subjects, and classified in a way which I do not profess to understand, I am not at all sure that I may not have omitted some circumstance material, or at least important, in its bearings on the case. They, moreover, contain a mass of very trivial and irrelevant matter, while a good deal of what has passed between Dr. Hooker and the Government does not appear. Now, the case is one which, during the last few months, has attracted an unusual degree of attention, not only among members of various scientific professions, but also among the general public, which does not often interest itself in departmental controversies of this kind. Indeed, I can hardly call to mind an instance when a subject not of a political character—using the word in its conventional sense—not appealing to party feeling, or to class interest, or to sectarian zeal, has created so general a sympathy with the person attacked, or elicited so unanimous an expression of public opinion. Dr. Hooker's case has been taken up by the various representatives of science, with a degree of earnestness and warmth not often shown by persons occupied in these tranquil pursuits, and the substance of his complaint is contained in a Memorial addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury, by 11 gentlemen eminent alike by personal attainments and by professional position. I will enumerate them—Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Darwin, Professor Huxley, Professor Tyndall, Sir James Paget, Sir Henry Holland, the President of the College of Physicians, the President of the College of Surgeons, the President of the Linnæan Society, Sir Henry Rawlinson (President of the Geographical Society), and Mr. Spottiswoode. No words of mine are necessary to point out the weight of authority which attaches to these names. Many of them are Liberals in politics,
  4
  so far as they have any polities—practically, most are neutrals; and it is impossible to doubt that the only feeling that has actuated them in this matter is zeal for justice and for the interests of science. They declare that the resignation of Dr. Hooker—which they assume to be inevitable as a consequence of these transactions—unless some interference takes place, would be a calamity to English science, and a scandal to the English Government. Further, since this matter has been in my hands I have received numerous letters from men of more or less distinction in various lines of scientific study, all expressing the same feeling of sympathy and of indignation, though from various reasons the writers are unwilling to mix personally in the dispute. Memorials, too, from the Royal Horticultural Society, the Meteorological Society, from the Royal Botanic Society, from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and I believe from various other similar bodies, have been addressed to the Treasury, and I affirm confidently that all these individuals and public bodies have so bestirred themselves without pressure, or canvassing, or solicitation, and without the use of any one of those devices by which artificial agitation can be sometimes got up. My Lords, I set no undue value on what is called public opinion; it may be hastily formed—it may be formed on imperfect knowledge, or under the influence of strong prejudice; but where there has been time for consideration and reflection, where the facts are simple and generally known, where party or sectarian feeling does not and cannot operate, I think a Minister may reasonably suspect that he has put himself in the wrong when many voices are raised against him, and when not a single independent voice is raised in his support. I will say further—I cannot allow that this is a matter which concerns the First Commissioner of Works personally and exclusively; if it did so, as he is not a Member of this House, I should have preferred to leave the matter to be dealt with where he is able personally to reply. But though the acts complained of may have been his acts in the first instance, the responsibility of them is not confined to him; they have been made subjects of general complaint; they have been brought under the notice of the Treasury and the Cabinet; and there has been ample

  5
  opportunity to disavow any act which was disapproved, or to repair any wrong admitted to be such. But no such disavowal has taken place; no such reparation has been made, except in one instance, where an objectionable appointment was cancelled, and except the very slight and inadequate explanation contained in a document from which I shall presently quote. And as I would not lightly charge noble Lords opposite, or their Colleagues "elsewhere," with the childish folly of proposing to defend what they know to be indefensible, rather than seem to give way to pressure from political opponents, I am thrown back on the only other alternative, and compelled to assume that, on a deliberate investigation of the whole matter, they think Mr. Ayrton has been right and Dr. Hooker wrong. Now, my Lords, who is Dr. Hooker, and what is his position in regard to Kew Gardens? I will rather remind your Lordships of facts which have been made familiar to you through the Press than state them at length, but they are a necessary part of the case. Rather more than 30 years ago Kew Gardens were handed over by Her Majesty—in whose personal occupation or that of the Royal Family they were—to the use of the public. They were to be maintained, as they have been, as a national scientific establishment, as well as a place of popular enjoyment and recreation. Sir William Hooker, father of Dr. Hooker, was at that time Professor of Botany at the University of Glasgow. He gave up his post, sacrificing more than half his income, to undertake the management, and was appointed Director at £300 a-year, which sum was raised to £600 and £800, as the Gardens extended, and the work in connection with them became heavier. Three botanical collections, containing 50,000 specimens, were made at his private cost and given by him to the country, and they are said to be the most complete now existing in the world. The Herbarium, too, was made by him, and was bought by the State at a very low valuation. Considering the labour, the skill, the scientific knowledge, and the personal outlay of Sir William Hooker on these Gardens, it is no exaggeration to speak of them as being his creation. The State gave the opportunity, and provided the funds; the rest was done by him. His son, Dr.
  6
  Hooker, the present Director, assisted his father many years without pay in the scientific work of the Gardens. He served during four years as naturalist to the Antarctic Expedition; he was sent out by Government, first to the Himalayas, visiting there a country never traversed before or since by any European; he was afterwards employed on a scientific mission in Borneo, and I may mention that the cost to him of the Indian expedition more than doubled the allowance made for it by Government, while the collections at Kew have been largely enriched at his own cost. One instance is mentioned in which half his yearly salary was expended on a single purchase. The Gardens under his care now extend over 300 acres; and, as a scientific establishment, they are said by botanists to have no rival in Europe. As a place of popular enjoyment, they receive an average of 600,000 yearly visitors; while more than 130 volumes on subjects connected with botany have issued from Kew, and all this has been done at a cost of not more than £20,000 a-year. These are the antecedents of the gentleman who has been unfortunate enough to incur the displeasure of the First Commissioner of Works. It is also stated—and, I believe, not denied—that in 30 years of public service Dr. Hooker had never received a reprimand from an official superior; and there is not the least excuse for saying that there had been, on his part, either extravagance or waste. The Estimates for the last few years will show that the expenditure on these Gardens, at all times moderate, has, since Dr. Hooker's control of them, rather diminished than increased. He was undoubtedly subject to the Board of Works, and it was a matter of official routine that his estimates should be scrutinized and his plans approved by his official superiors; but he may reasonably have expected—and I presume he did expect—that, being master of his subject, having a long experience and almost unequalled knowledge of it, and that subject not being one with which Parliamentary officials are likely to have made themselves acquainted, he would be left to manage the ordinary business of the Gardens in his own way, using such means as seemed to him most suitable within certain definite limits of expense. Now, my Lords, what are the

  7
  acts of which. Dr. Hooker complains? The first he describes as
  "A transaction with my subordinate of a nature so new to my long experience of official life, and so repugnant to my principles, that I refrain from characterizing it."
  The circumstances appear to be these—The First Commissioner of Works called at Kew in December, 1870, Dr. Hooker being then on the spot. He did not see Dr. Hooker, nor ask to see him, but held a confidential conversation with the Curator, Dr. Hooker's subordinate, in which he offered to the latter a position in London as Secretary of the Parks, which, in regard to some of the duties which it involved, would have placed that gentleman over the head of Dr. Hooker himself. He was said to have added a request that the Curator would keep this proposal a secret from Dr. Hooker. That request—if it was made—very much to his credit, the Curator disregarded. I understand that fact is denied by the First Commissioner in his reply; but he admits that he told the Curator that it was unnecessary to mention the subject to Dr. Hooker, as he meant to do so himself, which he never did. My Lords, to anyone accustomed to official life, it is hardly possible to conceive a more singular violation of official discipline and custom, or even of the rules of fair play, than is involved in this transaction. The subordinate is consulted as to the placing him in a position of independence of, and even of superiority to his chief, and the offer is kept—whether by accident or design seems to be in dispute, but it is kept—from the person who is principally affected by it. In every branch of the public service of which I know anything, a head of a Department so treated would feel that in self-respect he had no alternative left except to resign. Only imagine the Foreign Secretary—I beg pardon for the supposition—corresponding privately with the Secretary of Embassy at Paris or Vienna, on the arrangements of those Embassies, and adding that it was not necessary that the Ambassador should be told of what was going on! I do not want to exaggerate, or use strong words, but it is difficult to speak of such a proceeding otherwise than as deliberately offensive. It may not have been meant so—I hope it was not; but if not, I must say the First Commissioner has a very odd idea of the way in
  8
  which business is done among gentlemen. The second charge is, removing the Curator from his duties under Dr. Hooker without communication with Dr. Hooker. What appears to have happened in this matter is, that some alterations being required in Hyde Park, or Kensington Gardens, with which Dr. Hooker had nothing to do—his functions being limited to Kew—the First Commissioner proposed to place this work under the charge of the Curator, removing him thereby for several weeks from the duty for which he was employed and paid, leaving Dr. Hooker to do without him as best he could, and this without so much as asking beforehand whether the Curator's services could be spared or not. I need hardly point out either the official irregularity or the substantial injustice of this proceeding. It was, of course, objected to, correspondence ensued, and, finally, the idea was dropped, but not until an appeal to the Treasury or the Prime Minister personally—I do not know which—had been threatened. My Lords, the third grievance is, that Dr. Hooker having been charged by a former First Commissioner with the duty of re-modelling the heating apparatus used in the Department, the plans and estimates having been supplied by him, and the apparatus being, as is stated, for scientific purposes the most perfect that exists, he suddenly in June of last year discovered that without notice given or reason assigned he had been superseded in this duty. He appeals to the First Commissioner to know if this is so, and he is told in reply curtly that he had been superseded and that he was "to govern himself accordingly." I could hardly believe, when I first read this statement, that it was an accurate representation of the facts. I searched through the Papers for an explanation of it, and I can find none except that the Chief Commissioner supposed the transfer to have been notorious—not a reason for not communicating it to the person most concerned; but even if that had been so, and if the ignoring of Dr. Hooker in the first instance was a mistake or act of omission, I venture to say that the proceeding described is equally objectionable in substance and in form. The more public it was, the greater was the necessity of explaining that it was not intended as a censure. It does not require any argument to show

  9
  that to take from the head of a Department—such as Kew—the control of the hot-houses, is to deprive him of all power over a very important part of his business, while leaving him responsible for the results. I believe that among botanists and horticulturists in this country there is on that point an absolute unanimity, and I have seen a letter stating that in the Jardin des Plantes, at Paris, the practice which prevails, and always has prevailed, is that which Dr. Hooker contends for. But even if the matter in dispute were more contestable, that could be no justification. It is one thing to limit in the first instance the functions of a public servant, and it is quite another thing to take away from him functions which he is actually performing, and as to his discharge of which no complaint has arisen—without warning, without an opportunity for discussion or appeal, and even without the common courtesy of informing him that these powers were to be withdrawn. Done in that way the act is an official censure—you can make nothing else of it—and a censure the more gratuitous, because—and I repeat it—anyone who looks at the Estimates will see that there was really no pretext for a charge of waste; on the contrary, since Dr. Hooker took charge of these Gardens the cost of them has been diminishing and not increasing. Another complaint is that the First Commissioner, without the knowledge of Dr. Hooker, the responsible person, did on his own account lay before the Treasury plans and estimates for an alteration in the Museum, which Dr. Hooker believes would have been entirely useless, which would have involved the closing of the Museum for months, and have led to great expenditure, for which Dr. Hooker would have been held by Parliament and the public to be the party responsible. What happens? He hears of this accidentally—he remonstrates. High powers interfere, the estimates are taken back and the matter is reconsidered. But even then the withdrawal is done in the most ungracious manner. Dr. Hooker, in this as in other cases, is not consulted nor informed; but the Curator, his subordinate, is sent for, and through that gentleman, without reference to his chief, the obnoxious act is cancelled. I am unwilling to go more than I can help into these details—but, as a sample of
  10
  the way in which matters have been carried on at Kew, I must refer to a matter which occupies the first 25 pages of the Blue Book, and which appears to me a signal instance of how Departments contrive to make unnecessary work for themselves. It appears that an assistant was wanted for the Curator to perform certain special duties. Those duties involved the keeping of accounts, the custody of stores, the conducting of a large correspondence, and the direction of the foremen employed in the Gardens. The appointment is competed for not by an open, but a special examination, showing that special qualifications were required, and is given, without any reference to Dr. Hooker, to a man who had been employed in the Gardens, well known to the Director, and of whom both the Director and the Curator had formed a very unfavourable opinion. Dr. Hooker's Report upon him is—
  "Writes indifferently, spells badly, incompetent to direct foremen in regard to stores, no preliminary education or training to fit him for the situation. He has never kept accounts, he has never been in charge of stores, and cannot conduct a correspondence creditably."
  Dr. Hooker entreats that he may be removed. The Treasury concur; in a letter dated May 2, of this year, the First Commissioner objects; and on June 26 the Treasury repeat their expression of opinion in a letter which is too long to quote, but which I am bound to say, to the credit of the writers, the Lords of the Treasury, and, I suppose, principally of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does very clearly show that they thought, in this instance, the position of the First Commissioner to be indefensible. The man was discharged at last, and then follows a controversy between the various Departments concerned—Treasury, Board of Works, and Civil Service Commission—which certainly points to a very curious state of confusion and uncertainty as to the status of persons holding appointments in the Civil Service. Justice compels me to admit that in this case the Treasury, though rather tardily, have set themselves right. But the fact remains that everything in the power of the First Commissioner was done to force on Dr. Hooker a man whom he disapproved, whom he knew to be unfit, and for whom he could find no suitable employment. I do not wish either to exaggerate or to

  11
  overlay my case, and I shall therefore pass by without notice the misunderstanding which occupies many pages of this volume, about the keeping and issuing of a certain work called The Flora of Tropical Africa, of which Dr. Hooker is the unpaid editor. I pass that over, although the misunderstanding, as far as I can see, might have been averted if Dr. Hooker had been consulted frankly, in the first instance, or even kept informed of what was doing. But it seems probable that the whole transaction arose out of a mistake, which may show carelessness, but shows nothing more. At any rate, that defence is put forward, and, in case of doubt, it is only fair we lean to a merciful view, although I may point out that the whole difficulty arose from that curious determination, of which we have seen so many instances, to do everything behind Dr. Hooker's back. But, my Lords, I fear that the list of these complaints is not fully exhausted by what appears in these Papers. I hold in my hand a statement coming from what ought to be the best authority, to the following effect:—That within the last 10 days the First Commissioner has sent to Dr. Hooker
  "Two letters containing vague charges of jobbery and mismanagement; one from a man of no character, the other from a late foreman of Kew, who is subject to hallucinations, and who, after engaging himself to another place, without informing the Director, suddenly left, wholly of his own accord, bringing purely imaginative charges against the Curator. For these the man abjectly apologized, and wrote to the Director expressing his regret, and begging that he might be taken into favour again. This man is known to have been for some time in communication with Mr. Ayrton, who, at the last hour, brings him forward."
  I should not put before you a statement of this kind if it did not come from a quarter which is to me a guarantee for the personal knowledge of the person making it. It may admit of explanation, I do not prejudge that; but unless or until explained, it certainly points to a continuance of the system of annoyance and persecution—petty persecution if you will, but not on that account less galling—to which for the last two years Dr. Hooker has been subjected. I need trouble your Lordships no further. I have endeavoured, with some difficulty—I hope not at some sacrifice of the interests which I am defending—to make my statement as brief as I could. I looked into the question first without
  12
  prejudice, my acquaintance with Dr. Hooker is extremely slight, and towards the First Commissioner I have no feeling, except respect for his undoubted energy and ability, and regret that he should so habitually destroy the effect of those abilities by an overweening arrogance, and what seems an habitual disregard of the ordinary courtesies of official life. I cannot but say that his action in this case has been harsh, peremptory, and vexatious to the last degree, and it has not even the poor excuse of being evidence of that zeal for economy so much boasted of in some quarters. Even those who profess contempt for artists and architects, and persons of that kind, may understand so simple an economical proposition as this—that public services are paid for not exclusively in money, and if you make any kind of public work disagreeable and humiliating, you will have fewer capable persons willing to undertake it, and will have to pay more for those whom you employ. It is not every day that you will get men like Dr. Hooker to manage your public gardens, and you will not get them at all if they are to be treated like insubordinate servants who have somehow or another managed to secure higher wages and better places than they are fit for. It may be argued that these matters are small in themselves and that their importance has been unduly exaggerated. I deny that proposition altogether. It is not a small matter to anyone at the head of a Department to take away his subordinates; to refuse the help he does want; to force upon him assistants whom he does not want; to deprive him of control over the necessary appliances of his work, and to listen to the most frivolous and ridiculous charges against him. But even admitting that each of these grievances singly was small, it is their collective and cumulative effect that must be looked to. It is not the thing done, it is the animus shown that you must consider. We have all heard of men being driven out of a regiment or out of a public office by a series of petty vexations, each in itself almost too slight for serious complaint; but in the aggregate, making it evident to the person attacked that the object was to get rid of him. Whether the object has been to get rid of Dr. Hooker and put some one in his place I do not know; but I do know

  13
  that if that had been intended, no course of conduct could have been more suitable. I said, in considering upon the subject, that Government substantially endorsed the views of the First Commissioner, and, with one exception, that view of the case is not altered by the Minute of the Treasury within five days ago, and published last Saturday. I readily admit that the tone of that document is far more—it could not well be less so—conciliatory than that of the Correspondence which led to it; and it is not an unfair inference, if I express my conviction that that change of tone has been mainly due—adopted as it was at the very last hour—to the expression of public feeling to which I have referred. For the first time in these Papers I find something like a recognition that public gratitude and consideration is due to Dr. Hooker. For the first time an attempt is made to define the position which he is to hold under the Office of Works. For the first time there is an admission that,
  "adverting to the facts contained in the Memorandum of the First Commissioner, they are not surprised that in various cases Dr. Hooker should have thought that he had just cause of complaint."
  My Lords, why has even that scanty amount of justice been so long delayed? Has not the most serious part of the case been for months before the Treasury; and has not an unusual space elapsed between the time that the Papers were moved for and the time they were laid on the Table? And is it not perfectly clear that this Minute, written in the immediate expectation of Parliamentary discussion, is only an attempt to smooth matters over—a very little for Dr. Hooker, and a great deal for the public? But is it a reparation? Not in one instance does the Minute admit that Dr. Hooker has had a cause of complaint, only that the writers are not surprised that he should have thought so. A very ambiguous phrase. So far from conciliating, it may be taken as exactly the reverse. It is open to be read as implying—"We see that you are a touchy, irritable sort of person, always raising grievances, and, being so, it is not surprising you should have made a grievance out of this." ["Hear, hear!"] I hope that is not the meaning. I do not believe it is. But if anything in the way of conciliation was intended,
  14
  surely one word of regret—such words cost gentlemen little—one assurance that no discourtesy was meant on the part of the Minister whose acts caused the offence, and under whom Dr. Hooker continues, would have answered the purpose. But for any such expression I look in vain. Again, the Minute declares that in future
  "no alterations in existing arrangements in the scientific branch of the department shall be made without the Director's concurrence."
  Well, that is something; it is a guarantee. But then, if you have virtually admitted, by giving this guarantee, that Dr. Hooker was right in his claim, I think a few words might have been said admitting the justice of his protest—which never has been admitted—against the act of interference about which he originally complained. Again, the Minute says—
  "My Lords do not consider that it would be conducive either to the public advantage or the maintenance of that good and friendly feeling which they are anxious to see prevailing in every public Department, if in closing this correspondence they were to go in detail into the cases where any disagreement has taken place between the First Commissioner and the Director."
  In their own interest, if they meant to support the First Commissioner, they are undoubtedly wise; but it seems to me rather hard and rather strange that a servant of Government asking redress for an injury is to be told—"We do not know whether you have been ill-used or not, and we shall not care to inquire." A very summary way of disposing of complaints, but more convenient to the tribunals than satisfactory to the applicants. But there is a more substantial grievance left—the Minute does not do what Dr. Hooker asked; it does not replace him in the position in which he stood before these controversies arose. He has hitherto had the sole and, practically, uncontrolled direction of these Gardens, within certain limits of expense. What is proposed now is that he shall have one-half of them left in his hands—the "Department of Botany," as it is called in the Minute; and that the other half shall be taken directly into the hands of the First Commissioner, giving his orders to the Curator through the Director, which is not practically the system which had prevailed up to the time of the present Ministry; and though, of course, the

  15
  power rests with the Executive in such matters, yet I think it very doubtful whether you will retain the services of Dr. Hooker on those terms. The redress you give him is this—that having taken all power out of his hands, you now, with various complimentary phrases, give him back half. One word more. I may be asked why, if I feel so strongly on this matter, I do not take the decision of the House upon it? That is the course which I should have preferred, but for two reasons—one, the time of year, never favourable in this House to Motions of this kind; the other, that I understand the matter is on the point of being discussed in the branch of the Legislature which has financial control over the Board of Works. If the action of the Government is there condemned, our vote is superfluous; if otherwise, there is always a disadvantage in opposite views being taken of the same subject by the two Houses. My wish in the matter is merely that justice may be done. I have endeavoured to call the attention of the House and of the country to proceedings which I think it would be discreditable to Parliament not to notice, and I shall heartily rejoice if by any interpretation that can be put upon them those proceedings can be made to bear a less painful character than that in which they appear to me.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSsaid, he regretted that such a discussion as that should have arisen in their Lordships' House, and he further regretted that he must address himself to the subject without the ability, weight, or Parliamentary experience of the noble Earl who had just spoken. Their Lordships were, no doubt, aware that, though in their Lordships' House he had for some time been accustomed to answer Questions with reference to the business of the office of the First Commissioner, he had nothing to do with the administration of the Department. He would ask their Lordships to consider, in the first place, the comparative positions of the two parties to this dispute. On the one hand there was a Gentleman who, by a long course of energetic action in political life, had evoked no small amount of party antagonism; on the other was a gentleman who had led a life devoted to science, and who found none but friends to view his proceedings. The name of Mr. Ayrton was as a red flag to some
  16
  politicians. The noble Earl had read to their Lordships the names of the memorialists in favour of Dr. Hooker. Prom such men even blame itself might be regarded as a distinction, but he could not help noticing an omission in the list of memorialists. He observed that the distinguished name of Professor Owen was not among them. He must ask their Lordships now, justly and impartially, to consider the less popular side, and he need not say that in treating the matter he felt a very great difficulty lest he should wound the feelings of a gentleman whose nature was as sensitively delicate as that of any of the plants under his care. But first he wished to allude to a statement not referred to in the Papers which had been produced on the subject—namely, that two important letters which had been received at the Office of Works had been forwarded to the Director. He wished to say that these letters came to the Office officially, and, like other letters, they were forwarded to the Director of Kew Gardens. There was no reason why an exception should be made in respect of those letters. But the fact was, that once an unfortunate misunderstanding had arisen, things which otherwise would be taken in the natural course of business assumed a new and extraordinary appearance. The Department of Botany, as stated in the Memorandum of the First Commissioner, was under the immediate direction and control of the Director of Kew Gardens, assisted by a special staff of officers. It comprised the Botanic Museum and Library, the collection and interchange of botanical specimens, whether for the Herbarium or for cultivation, and all other matters pertaining to the pursuit of botanical science. The Department of Horticulture was under the immediate direction of the Curator, subject to the orders and control of the Director as the responsible head. The Curator carried on the cultivation of the Gardens, with a large staff of gardeners and workmen. Dr. Hooker, having for some years held the office of Assistant Director, was appointed Director in 1865, by a letter from the First Commissioner, enjoining him to give his whole time to the business of the office, and to observe strictly such orders as he might receive from the First Commissioner. The noble Earl had stated that Dr. Hooker had received

  17
  various slights during the administration of the present First Commissioner of Works. But it would be his business now to show that it was necessary that proper supervision should be exercised over the management of those Gardens. In page 74 of the Correspondence, Sir Benjamin Hall, then First Commissioner, writing to Sir William Hooker, father of Dr. Hooker, on the 5th of October, 1856, said—
  "I think it necessary again to call your attention to the present state of the Gardens at Kew, which I do not consider at all satisfactory. Soon after I became First Commissioner I visited the Gardens and pointed out to you the very bad condition of the walks, the coarse appearance of the grass, and the very insufficient supply of flowers for the beds. Hardly any preparation had been made for filling the beds this year by providing cuttings; and when I desired to have a few more flower beds, in order that the Gardens might look more gay in the vicinity of the Palm-house, I was told that there were not cuttings enough to plant out, upon which I directed that the new beds should be filled with annuals. In short, there was little, scarcely any, preparation made, and when I was at the Gardens a few days ago I was informed that very little had been done in the way of making provision for next summer. I also saw that the walks were in a very bad state; the day was wet, and I was thus better able to judge of their condition than if it had been fine, for I could see the hollows in which the water stood most clearly. You agreed with me in the observations made, and you quite acquiesced in the opinion I expressed, that the condition of the Gardens was not at all what it ought to be…. The funds provided by Parliament are enormous, and ample for the purpose; and when I compare the state and general appearance of the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh, and compare them with those at Kew, and look at the miserable sum of £1,000 which is expended on the Edinburgh Gardens, which sum covers all salaries and expenses of every kind, I am sorry to say that the deductions to be drawn are by no means in favour of Kew; instead of your having a very insufficient supply of flowers to plant out in the Gardens of Kew, those Gardens should afford ample supply for other places, and it is very probable that I shall require geraniums and other half-hardy plants to put out in some of the clumps in St. James's Park and Kensington Gardens next year; I must, therefore, request that you will have ample provision. I wish also that the walks may be put in better order, and the grass kept in a better state, and that you should plant a large number of laburnams, lilacs, and other flowering shrubs in those parts of the Gardens and pleasure grounds where they can be placed with advantage."
  Then, again, in Letter 53, dated June 19, 1867, Lord John Manners appointed Dr. Percy and Mr. William Ingram on a Committee of Inquiry into "the present system of Heating the Houses," and in Letter 49, Mr. Starie, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ormson, and Mr. Weeks were appointed
  18
  to look over the horticultural works, and to advise as to "the best means of remedying defects" and "economizing of fuel." He had endeavoured by these short references to show that the First Commissioner has always exercised a certain legal power over the Director of Kew Gardens. In addition to that, Professor Owen had also complained that Kew had done little in the way of producing new fruits and flowers; whereas it was well known that our choicest cultivated plants had once been weeds. He came now to another point. A complaint had been made about a visit of the First Commissioner to Kew Gardens on a Sunday in December, 1870. But the object of the visit was to ascertain personally whether Mr. Smith was able to fill an independent and separate position as Surveyor of one of the parks in London. The noble Earl had also alluded to the fact that the same person was summoned up to take charge of some works in Hyde Park. There was no doubt of the fact being true. The Superintendent of Hyde Park was ill; there was pressing work to be done there, and naturally the First Commissioner obtained the services of Mr. Smith; but as soon as Dr. Hooker stated that his services could not be dispensed with at Kew, he was sent back to the Gardens. He regretted that he was only able to bring the facts of the case so imperfectly before their Lordships; but he must say that in common fairness Mr. Ayrton ought to be judged, not by the imperfect reports of conversations that had taken place months before, but by the official records in the Office. He might also say that the Office of Works was fully as anxious as the noble Earl opposite or the public could be to retain the services of Dr. Hooker as Director of Kew. It must be clear to all, that under the arrangements now sanctioned his position would be no worse than the one he formerly held under previous First Commissioners of Works. He regretted that Dr. Hooker had allowed the particulars of this unfortunate dispute to be communicated to the public Press, for such a course was not well calculated to uphold the discipline of the Department, nor was it an example that it was desirable to establish in the public service.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, he had seen with much regret many of the

  19
  articles which had appeared in the public Press on the subject, as they had a tendency to create a feeling which it was most desirable to avoid. He also regretted that they had appeared before Mr. Ayrton had had the opportunity of explaining his conduct, and would appeal to their Lordships, whether the facts of the case did not assume a very different footing now that all the particulars were published? Moreover, it was, in his opinion, of the greatest importance that harmony should prevail between the First Commissioner of Works and the Director of Kew Gardens. He must say, however, that he thought Dr. Hooker was rather apt to take offence, where none was intended; and that that was evident, from the fact that, as shown on the learned Doctor complaining of the proposed form of estimate to be applied to the expenditure at Kew, Mr. Ayrton immediately assented to its modification. As to the projected employment of Mr. Smith, there was no necessity to communicate with Dr. Hooker, because the plan which was at one time in contemplation was not adopted, and therefore there was an end of the matter. It was no doubt to be regretted that the matter was not mentioned to Dr. Hooker before Mr. Smith was summoned to London to assist in Hyde Park; but as soon as Dr. Hooker remonstrated, Mr. Smith was sent back to the Gardens. No doubt, it was also proposed that the construction of the heating houses should be entrusted to Mr. Ferguson, but it was not intended to take the control from Dr. Hooker. All that was said was, that whatever was done in respect to these buildings was to be done under the Director of Works, Dr. Hooker being, of course, consulted. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had certainly not been just to the Treasury in respect to the course they had adopted in this matter. While that Department had insisted that the First Commissioner must be supreme, as the Minister responsible to Parliament for the expenditure of the money voted, they had nevertheless dwelt emphatically upon the scientific eminence of Dr. Hooker and the peculiarity of the position he occupied, and had said that his recommendation should be treated with the greatest respect, and should never be overruled without strong reason.
  THE EARL OF DERBYremarked that all these expressions of civility on the part of the Treasury dated from a time when a good deal of feeling had been expressed out-of-doors with regard to Dr. Hooker's case.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, however that might be, he thought that the scientific part of Kew Gardens, of which Dr. Hooker was the head, formed a very small part of the establishment of Kew Gardens. The greater portion was capable of being managed by a very good gardener, and the care of young trees, the laying out of flower beds, and the preservation of walks did not require any great amount of science. The Treasury Minute of July 24, indeed, seemed to put the whole matter on a proper footing. It said—
  "It is essential to maintain the superior authority in all respects of the First Commissioner; but the nature of the case makes it evident that this authority should of course be exercised with due regard to the feelings and position of the officers under him. The Botanical Department has been formed by the exertions of Sir W. Hooker and of his son Dr. Hooker. It stands high in the estimation of men of science both here and abroad, and both these eminent men are entitled to the gratitude of the country for their services in this department of science. In all matters connected with this department of the establishment, whether as regards the hot-houses, buildings, or the cultivation of shrubs and plants for botanical purposes, the opinion of Dr. Hooker should be followed, subject only to the consideration of expense. It is for him to represent to the First Commissioner what he considers necessary for the advancement of botanical science, and it is then for the First Commissioner and the Treasury to determine whether the expense necessary for the purpose shall be incurred. No alterations in existing arrangements in the scientific branch of the Department should be made without the Director's concurrence. The actual execution of the works to be undertaken must be under the direction of the proper officer of the Office of Works, but the opinion of the Director of the Gardens should be taken as to the efficiency of what it is proposed to do, and any requisition of his for work or repairs necessary for the preservation of the valuable plants in the houses should on all occasions receive prompt attention. With regard to those parts of the grounds which are not used for the purpose of botanical science, but as nursery grounds or pleasure grounds, it will be the office of the First Commissioner to give such directions as he may think advisable. My Lords, however, think it desirable that even on these points he should communicate with the Director of the Gardens, through whom, as head of the establishment, all orders to the Curator and to other subordinate officers should, in regular course be conveyed. My Lords gather from the Memorandum of the First Commissioner that, speaking generally, the business connected with

  21
  Kew Gardens has been conducted in accordance with the views thus entertained by their Lordships. My Lords do not consider that it would be conducive either to the public advantage or to the maintenance of that good and friendly feeling which they are anxious to see prevailing in every public department, if, in closing this correspondence, they were to go in detail into the cases where any disagreement has taken place between the First Commissioner and the Director. But adverting to the facts contained in the Memorandum of the First Commissioner, they are not surprised that in various cases Dr. Hooker should have thought that he had just cause of complaint, though this may have grown in some instances out of arrangements for which the First Commissioner was not responsible, and in others they learn from the Memorandum of the First Commissioner that the cause of complaint has been removed. My Lords see no reason why under these conditions there should be any serious difficulty in discharging the respective duties of the First Commissioner and of the Director of the Gardens in a manner satisfactory to both, whoever may be the occupants of those offices, maintaining the proper authority of the First Commissioner, with due regard to the position and character of the Director of the Gardens."
  The supremacy of Dr. Hooker being thus thoroughly maintained, he most earnestly trusted that the harmony which should exist between the First Commissioner and the Director of Kew Gardens would be perfectly restored, and that Dr. Hooker would feel himself free to continue the devotion of his great acquirements in botanical science to the service of his country and to the preservation of the very valuable collection of plants at those Gardens. Meanwhile, it was well that nothing should be said tending to aggravate any angry feeling on either side.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he ventured to think that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) would not meet with much gratitude from the country for having added this Blue Book to the too large number which already existed, nor from their Lordships individually, for having imposed on them the burden of such tedious reading. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) disagreed entirely from those who accused Mr. Ayrton of making himself unpopular. From the nature of things, it was not the man, but the office that was unpopular. The Board of Works had to supervise and curtail the expenditure of public money; and if such supervision was carried out with fidelity to the public interests, it must be unpopular among those who were supervised. As an instance, the person who held the
  22
  office of Chancellor of the Exchequer and the strings of the public purse at the same time was similarly situated and was similarly unpopular. Now, Mr. Lowe was a most agreeable man in private life; but he must say from experience that few persons would desire to see Mr. Lowe on public business twice if they could avoid it. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that the outcry of a portion of the Press against Mr. Ayrton began with his struggle with the architect of the Houses of Parliament. Mr. Ayrton succeeded in emancipating the Parliament Houses from the lien established upon them by the architect, under the rules of the Architects' Trade Union, and thereby saved a large portion of the public money. His good services on that occasion were recognized and applauded by the leading journal, which went so far in speaking of the architect as to use the term "artistic morality," which was hard upon the artists, who had not deserved this, although it fully applied to the architect in question and to others. He did not think that anything in the Blue Book justified an attack upon an excellent public servant, especially in their Lordships' House, where he not only was not present himself, but also where his Department was not represented; for the noble Duke, who had spoken on behalf of the Government (the Duke of St. Albans), had no connection with the Board of Works, and no departmental knowledge of the subject. The necessity for the noble Earl's Motion, however, had been created by the memorial signed by 11 men of science and addressed to the Prime Minister. He did not attach any weight whatever to some of the signatures of that memorial, among other reasons because it had been called forth not by sympathy for Dr. Hooker, nor by ill-will to Mr. Ayrton, but by the fact that Professor Owen, of the British Museum, had expressed the views contained in Appendix No. 3 of the Blue Book—that he had severely critized Dr. Hooker and the Kew Herbarium, and had expressed the desire for its removal to a central botanical museum in London. Professor Owen's name alone was sufficient to array against the Board of Works, which favoured these views, the hostility of some of the leading men who had called for the emancipation of Dr. Hooker from all

  23
  official control; but, besides the scientific hostility to Professor Owen, there existed among some of the partizans of Dr. Hooker hostility to Professor Owen on other grounds, for the discussion of which their Lordships' House was not a very fitting place. Dr. Hooker applied to Lord Clarendon to be sent to a Botanical Congress at St. Petersburgh as Royal Commissioner. Dr. Hooker was informed that Lord Clarendon, after communicating with the Treasury, had declined to send him to St. Petersburgh. He would ask leave to read his reply to Mr. Layard, then First Commissioner of the Board of Works, in which Dr. Hooker took Her Majesty's Government to task with an amenity of language which showed that he was not a good judge of style—
  "I much regret this action of the Treasury, as contrasting so unfavourably with the liberal action of the Imperial Government of Russia, which sent Commissioners both to our Botanical and Horticultural Congress of 1867, and to our industrial exhibitions, and with the action of the foreign governments, who are now sending Commissioners to St. Petersburgh.
  "I cannot, further, refrain from expressing my conviction that the refusal on the part of Her Majesty's Government to recognise both the scientific and practical importance of the Congress about to assemble under the Imperial auspices at St. Petersburgh,…will be regarded as evidence of something more than mere indifference to the position which science holds in this country, or mere ignorance of that attained by the eminent men who convene the Congress, and who will assemble at it, or mere disregard of international courtesy in scientific matters."
  That Mr. Ayrton could not justly be accused of disregarding the claims of science or of scientific men might be proved by a passage of a letter of his to Lord Granville, dated January, 1866, and laid before the House of Commons, in which he said, speaking of the reorganization of the Metropolitan Public Schools—
  "Natural science should also be made a basis for the education of the faculties of perception, discrimination, reason, and judgment. It is easy to guard against the degenerating of such an education into the mere acquisition of information if the beginning be made with inorganic chemistry and the laws of physics, to be taught with precision, and the course ascend to the rigid investigation of physical phenomena and problems."
  Correspondence between the Board of Works, the Treasury, and Dr. Hooker.—Parl. Paper. (L. 213.)

CAPE COLONY—INTRODUCTION OF RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, on rising to move an Address for Copies of petitions addressed to Her Majesty with reference to the proposed introduction of Responsible Government in the Cape Colony, said, that whether it was owing to the temperature, or from some other cause, but from the scanty attendance then present, he was afraid their Lordships felt but little interest in this matter, but he could assure them it excited the deepest interest among our fellow-subjects abroad. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) desired to force on the colony of the Cape the peculiar Liberal nostrum which goes by the name of "responsible Government." He (the Marquess of Salisbury) must explain to their Lordships why there was an objection to that system—because responsible government was supposed to be the Palladium of English liberty, and it seemed to us inconceivable why there was so great an objection to it abroad. The objection was two-fold. In the first place, among the population at the Cape there were two Blacks for every White, and more than half of the Whites were Dutch and not English by their extraction. The other was a geograpical objection. The eastern portion of the colony, inhabited mainly by English, was industrious and progressive, but under responsible government it would be placed under the servitude of the Government in the west at Cape Town. The system of responsible government, which it was proposed to introduce into the colony of the Cape, although it had many advantages, yet it had one principal disadvantage in this case—that it placed the minority at the mercy of the majority; and where the majority was of one race or belonged to one district, the fate of the minority was hard indeed. He wished to call the attention of his noble Friend opposite to the manner in which his behests had been obeyed in the colony. His noble Friend said, in the spring of the present year, that he was not inclined to press against the wishes of the colonists the system of responsible government, and that he would be too glad if the responsibility were taken off his own shoulders and put upon theirs; but his noble

  25
  Friend's acts furnished a different interpretation of his words, for he had directed, in the strongest manner possible, that this system, which had been once rejected by the Parliament of the colony, should be brought before them again, and had refused an appeal to the country. The state of the case was this—Last year the change was passed by the Legislative Assembly, and rejected by the Legislative Council. Probably Her Majesty's Government, who treated their Lordships' House with contempt, would not value very highly the decision of the Upper House of the colony.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I rise to Order. The noble Marquess is not in Order when he states that any of us on this bench have treated your Lordships' House with contempt.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was referring to what happened last year on a great military subject, and their Lordships well knew how their wishes were received by the Secretary of State for War. They were aware that by a violent act—by the unworthy use of a technical quibble—the deliberate decision of their Lordships' House was overridden by the action of the Government and by the executive authority of the Crown. He alluded to that matter for the purpose of showing that their Lordships' House did not at the time stand high in the affections and respect of Her Majesty's Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I must again call the noble Marquess to Order. I deny that he has any ground whatever on which he can sustain the charge against Her Majesty's Government of want of respect or affection towards your Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was a matter not of Order, but of history. He had a right to comment on the conduct of Ministers of the Crown in their dealings with that House, and to say that they had been characterized by anything but sentiments of affection or respect. Such was the interpretation which he put on their conduct during the last 12 months, and he doubted whether the verdict of history would in any degree modify that interpretation. He might appeal, moreover, to the language of the supporters of the Government in the other House, and that of the newspapers which also supported them, to show that his judgment was not
  26
  wholly unfounded. Returning, after the noble Earl's interruption, to the matter now before the House, he wished to remark that the Legislative Council of the Cape received the same measure as this House, though, as a purely elective body, it ought to commend itself more to the affections of the Government. It represented the colony as much as the House of Assembly did, and there was consequently no pretence, on the principles of noble Lords opposite, for treating its decisions with less respect. The present Governor, Sir Henry Barkly, was sent out with instructions to get passed a system of so-called "responsible government," which was really a system of making the English or Eastern Province subject to the Western. In a despatch to the noble Earl opposite the Governor expressed a sanguine hope of being able to effect this sooner or later, were he able to furnish explanations or give assurances "privately, and as from himself" on points which were sure to be started in different quarters whenever the subject was seriously discussed. Last year the scheme was rejected by the Legislative Council. Before it came on again this year a Member who had been induced to alter his opinion since his election, yet retained sufficient honour to feel that he was bound to consult his constituents before giving effect to that change by his vote, appealed to them for re-election. His constituents, belonging to the Eastern Province, by a large majority rejected him, and returned a man pledged anew against the scheme. That circumstance alone should have warned the Government that their policy was inconsistent with the opinion of that portion of the colony, which, if ties of blood and kindred were worth anything, was entitled to special sympathy. The measure, however, passed the Lower House this year by 35 to 25, 24 of the minority being of English, and a considerable majority of its supporters of Dutch extraction. In the Council it would have been thrown out had all the Members adhered to their pledges and to their vote the previous year; but two gentlemen, for reasons with whose nature he was unacquainted, voted against their pledges, the new system thus gaining a majority of 1. Not only was that slender majority for the second reading accepted, but every clause of the Bill was passed through Committee

  27
  by the casting vote of the Chairman, whose vote in this House would be of no such avail. Moreover, the Standing Orders were suspended, and the Bill was read a third time the same night, thus showing that the Government were not slow in taking advantage of the opportunity thus acquired. Let their Lordships conceive a measure revolutionizing the Constitution of the Cape as thoroughly as our own Government was revolutionized in 1868 being thus passed by two of its pledged opponents being lured over, by the casting vote of the Chairman in Committee, and by the suspension of the Standing Orders, in order that those two men might not be induced to reconsider their policy. As might be imagined would be the case here, so there this proceeding excited the greatest scandal. He would not repeat the imputations made against the two Members, for with that he had nothing to do; but he asked the Government to consider the effect on the future of the colony, of a victory so obtained, and of a distinct refusal to appeal to the colonists before the final decision was taken. A Petition signed by all but two of the Members for the Eastern Province had been forwarded to him, the petitioners representing the most progressive part of the colony, the interests of which were likely to be neglected under the new system; and it was for the purpose of laying the case and prayer of the petitioners fairly before them that he had taken the step he had. They urged that for 18 years representative institutions had been rendered illusory by the majority commanded by the Western Province in both branches of the Legislature; that serious disadvantages and inconveniences had accrued from their distance from the seat of Government; that the Revenue contributed by the Eastern Province was £79,000 in excess of the Western, while its expenditure was £52,000 less; and that the policy of the Government in respect of the Native races bore with undue pressure on the Eastern Province. What might be expected to happen? Schleswig-Holstein was a name of terror to statesmen; but there the state of things was precisely the same as at the Cape. As long as there was Royal rule, the small German and the large Danish element lived peaceably and happily side by side; but responsible government was introduced,
  28
  the result being that the minority became the slaves of the majority. The Germans were neglected and oppressed by the Danes. Belonging to a race more powerful in other parts of the world, they would not bend meekly to the yoke thrust on them on the plea of Liberal principles. They resisted, and we know how the face of the Continent had been changed by that resistance. That was the case on a smaller area at the Cape, and the results would probably be much less, though not unimportant to the colony. A small and distinct population were to be subjected, in the name of Liberal principles and a theory of responsible government, to another and hostile race and district; but, feeling themselves to belong to a great nation, they would feel it bitterly, and would resist the servitude as far as they were able. What would happen would be that neither roads nor bridges would be made in the Eastern Province, and that all the railways would be made in the Western Province, while all political questions would be determined in accordance with the predilections of the Dutch part of the population, with the result that the Eastern Province would be involved in a Native war which it would be unable to carry on with success. When these things happened the inhabitants of the Eastern Province would ask themselves how they came about, and the reply would be that they had resulted not from their own legislation or with their own consent, but because England had placed them under a Secretary of State and a Governor who were bent upon carrying out a particular theory in reference to the colony regardless of consequences, and who had lured their representatives from the faith which they had pledged; and who, having by that means passed this measure through the Colonial Parliament by a bare majority, had, with an unwarrantable disregard of Constitutional Law, dealt with the fate of the colony at their pleasure. It could, however, scarcely be a matter of much self-denial on the part of the noble Earl to hold his hand in reference to this subject for a short time. The delay occasioned by once more submitting this question to the colony would be but slight, while much good might result from the noble Earl adopting that course before he came to a final determination with respect to this matter

  29
  by preventing any bitter memories attaching to the proposed change in after years, such as had attached to the Irish Union. The noble Earl would, he felt satisfied, give him credit for desiring that his measures should not actually be just, but that they should be regarded as just by those whose interests were deeply affected by them. Under the circumstances, he could not believe that the noble Earl would persist in what might be regarded by some inhabitants of the colony as a tyrannical proceeding, by which he would force upon the English inhabitants of one of our colonies a form of government which was distasteful to them, and to which the sanction of a bare majority of the Colonial Legislature had only been obtained by the means to which he had referred. Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of petitions addressed to Her Majesty with reference to the proposed introduction of Responsible Government in the Cape Colony.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYremarked that the noble Marquess was a master of strong language, and he had used his power in that respect to the utmost in reference to this question, and had bestowed every opprobrious epithet he could think of upon the policy to which he had objected. Of course, if one-tenth of what the noble Marquess had charged against the Government were true, no language could be too strong in which to reprobate their conduct; but if the House would permit him, he (the Earl of Kimberley) should in a few minutes be able to show that the course which had been adopted by the Government in this matter was entirely free from blame. The government of the Cape Colony was, undoubtedly, a very difficult matter, but that difficulty was not to be met merely by unmeasured denunciations of this or that policy. So far from forcing upon the Cape Colony the particular policy to which the noble Marquess objected, the Government had done nothing of the kind, for they had placed the question before the Cape Legislature in the most careful and deliberate manner. The noble Marquess had referred to a despatch, or rather letter, addressed to himself by Sir Henry Barkly, and had quoted extracts from it. Now, in the letter Sir Henry Barkly said—
  30
  "It is true that, judging from the tone of the leading colonial journals, and of letters published by the Members of the Cape Parliament in their columns, the desire for responsible government appears to be gaining ground, at any rate in the Western Province; and I should feel sanguine of being able to obtain a majority in its favour through out the colony sooner or later were I only in a position to furnish explanations, or to give assurances privately and as from myself, on points sure to be started in different quarters, whenever the subject was seriously discussed."
  It was essential to observe what was his answer to the letter, and what were the nature of the assurances which he had been able to give in reference to various matters connected with the question. If the noble Marquess had read the whole of that letter, he would have found that the private assurances asked for related to a broad and distinct line of policy—that of the withdrawal of the British troops from the colony. Nothing could be more natural than that Sir Henry Barkly should have asked the Secretary of State for some assurance in that matter, and he could assure the noble Marquess that the whole proceeding, so far from being underhand, was open and fair. The Government thought that the colonists had a right to know what they had to expect with regard to the withdrawal of the troops, in order that they might have ample time to make their arrangements accordingly. For his own part, he was most anxious that the colonists should know at what he was aiming in the matter. Sir Henry Barkly having expressed some doubt as to whether Her Majesty's Government were decidedly in favour of responsible government, in consequence of his having stated the two sides of the question so impartially, he had in November, 1870, sent him a letter containing the following paragraph:—
  "I do not precisely see the grounds for the doubts which you seem to entertain as to the views of Her Majesty's Government on the question of the form of government best adapted to the Cape Colony. I pointed out to you in my letter the evils which arise from the existing Constitution, and I distinctly stated that while either responsible government or a government resembling that of a Crown Colony would be preferable to the present system, Her Majesty's Government were, on the whole, of opinion that the colonists would act wisely in adopting the principles of responsible government."
  That was not forcing a policy on the colony. It was merely informing them that at the present moment they had got an unworkable Constitution. Sir Philip Wodehouse, the late Governor of the

  31
  Colony, who had been as much, opposed to responsible government as anybody, had stated that the existing system of government must be put an end to. The truth was that their present government was the worst possible form of government which could be devised—it being a government by the Crown, checked by a Colonial Legislature not directed by responsible Ministers. The colonists must either go forward or go back—they could not maintain the existing state of things. Either the Crown must assume the whole power of government, or else the colonists must adopt a responsible government. The most confidential despatches relating to the question had been published, and the matter had been laid before the colonists in ample time for them to have made up their minds as to which of the two systems they would prefer. The matter had been before the Colonial Legislature for the last two years. In the House of Assembly the majority in favour of the measure objected to by the noble Marquess was last year 34 to 27, and in the present year 35 to 25, in a House which consisted in all of 66 Members—that was to say, the majority in its favour was proportionately equal to a majority of 100, in the English House of Commons. It was true that the measure had been rejected last year by the other branch of the Legislature by a majority of 2; but in the present year two of its Members having changed their opinion, it was carried by a majority of 1. The noble Marquess had asked that the whole question might be remitted to the people. All he had to say to that appeal was that it must be recollected that the House of Assembly was, to all intents and purposes, a Representative House, while the Legislative Council, although to an extent representative, had an element of permanence and independence about it which the other branch of the Legislature did not possess—its Members retaining their seats for 10 years unless it were dissolved. Under these circumstances, it was absurd to say that because the measure had only been carried by a small majority in the Legislative Council, after having been carried by an overwhelming majority in the more popular Assembly, that the minority had a right to insist upon a dissolution in order to see if they could not get their views sanctioned by the colony at
  32
  the next General Election. Indeed, had he been of opinion that the measure was as undesirable a one as he believed it to be a desirable one, he should not have felt justified, under the circumstances, in advising the Crown to veto it. The noble Marquess had spoken of the Government having carried that Bill; but if he had understood the institutions of the Cape Colony, he would have known that the Government had no power in either House of Parliament. The Members of the Government might appear in either House to propose their measures; but they could not vote, and they had no direct power, and it was, among other reasons, because the Government had no direct power that a change was desired. Under these circumstances, it was very surprising that the Bill should have met with the success it had. The noble Marquess had referred to the division between the East and the West of the colony. He was aware that that was one of the most difficult parts of the whole subject. It was true that though several of the eastern Members voted for the Bill a large majority of them voted against it. In the Council eight eastern Members protested against the measure, and two sent their written opinions to the Government in favour of it. But that could be easily accounted for, for there was nothing more difficult than where there existed an extended territory and two capitals to reconcile the jealousies of the one and the other. That was an old standing grievance at the Cape Colony, and the whole question turned on the jealousy between the East and the West. The noble Marquess had talked of their forcing Liberal nostrums on that colony. The Cape colonists had not that reluctance which the noble Marquess supposed to governing their own affairs; but each section wished to have the predominance in their government; and it was impossible that both could possess that predominance. Sir Henry Barkly thought that there would be a better chance of solving that difficulty after responsible government had been introduced than there was at present. So far from believing that the difference between the East and the West would be increased by that change, it was more likely that some solution might be found for it after its adoption, and the best arrangement might be a

  33
  division into two or more provinces, with a central government. It had been found that there was a question not between the East and West only, but between the East, the Middle Provinces, and the West, and it was a question how those Middle Provinces should be constituted, for it was exceedingly difficult, when they came to deal with questions of boundary, to determine the various points which arose. He was convinced that the Dutch and the English colonists and the East and the West did not entertain those incurable rancours which the remarks of the noble Marquess might lead them to suppose. Whenever the East had been in danger the West, notwithstanding their jealousies, had always been found ready to assist it; and he believed that that would still continue to be the case. In his opinion, the future prosperity and safety of the colony depended entirely upon the Dutch and the English settlers not cherishing those feelings of mutual aversion which the noble Marquess appeared to think so natural. In conclusion, he would only repeat that there had not been in any degree a forcing of responsible institutions upon the colonists of the Cape, who had had, on the contrary, a perfectly fair opportunity of determining for themselves which form of government they would adopt, and that he did not think it would be right, by adopting the course proposed by the noble Marquess, to throw the whole colony into the turmoil of a dissolution merely to enable the minority to see whether they could not obtain a majority against a measure which had been duly passed. With regard, however, to the Papers moved for, he had not the slightest objection to their production.
  THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERsaid, it was to be regretted that a question on which a Representative House was equally divided should be decided by the casting vote of the Chairman. He had known in such a case of a Speaker or Chairman, without expressing his approval or disapproval of a measure, saying that he would give his vote in a certain way in order that the House might have another opportunity of considering the question. That was the course which he thought should have been followed in this instance in regard to the Colony of the Cape. As the Legislative Council was equally divided in opinion, it would have
  34
  relieved the Government of responsibility, and probably would have been preferred by the colonists themselves, if the matter had been referred to the constituencies.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexplained that he had said the noble Earl's particular Liberal nostrum failed to apply to that colony, because it was inhabited by diverse races and was so peculiarly placed geographically. That a Representative Assembly had a right to alter the conditions of its existence without appealing to those from whom its authority was derived was a principle which he believed to be fatal to the true working of any representative system. He regretted the conclusion at which the noble Earl opposite had arrived, and felt satisfied that he would himself have cause for regretting it in future.
  EARL GRANVILLEremarked that the noble Marquess' objection would apply not merely to the Constitution of the Cape Colony, but to the British Constitution itself.
  Motion agreed to.

METRICAL SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES—INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS.—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERasked Her Majesty's Government, What Instructions are to be given to the English Representatives at the International Congress summoned by Prance on the Metrical System of Weights and Measures? He expressed a hope that these instructions would not be such as to encourage any hope of our adopting the metrical system. It was usually said that the metrical system was scientific, while our own was arbitrary; but the metrical system really rested on a basis which was arbitrary too. The truth was that that system of weights and measures was best with which the public were most familiar, and mere scientific accuracy would never compensate for the inconvenience which would be suffered by all classes in this country from a change of system. Moreover, it was unreasonable on the part of the French to ask us to give up our system of weights and measures for theirs, considering the vastly greater area and population of Anglo-Saxon territory, and the rapid spread of the Anglo-Saxon race and

35
tongue. That being so, the French had no more right to ask us to adopt their weights and measures than they had to ask us to adopt their drama, their novels, or their revolutions.
EARL COWPERsaid, that in 1870 the Astronomer Royal, the Warden of the Stannaries, and Professor Miller were sent to Paris to attend the International Congress. They arrived in August, but the War, of course, put a stop to everything. In April of this year the same gentlemen went over again, and would return in September. They were sent to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners on Weights and Measures, the object being to assimilate our metrical system to that of the French. The noble Duke would remember that the metrical system was legalized in England nearly 10 years ago, and being legalized here, it was important that it should be the same as that existing in France and other countries. There was not much danger, however, that the metrical system would supersede our own weights and measures, and he (Earl Cowper) believed that, though legalized in England, it had never been used by anybody.
House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.