Sitting of 18 March 1886

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Town Holdings, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES; CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
Postponed Resolution [March 11] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee — Deficiencies, £38,715, 2s. 1d.; £8,256,018.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading — Contagious Diseases Acts Repeal (No. 2)* [147]; Post Office Sites * [148].
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund. (No 1).*
Committee — Compensation for Damages [120]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Marriages Validity* [137], and passed.
Considered as amended—Re-comm.—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Trees (Ireland) [30].
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order* [119], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  SCOTLAND—ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN KIRKWALL.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON (, &c.)asked the Lord Advocate for Scotland, Whether his attention has been called to a report of The Orkney Herald of the 23rd December last, of a case tried before Sheriff Thoms and Sheriffs Substitute Mellis and Mackenzie, in which seven men named Thomas Garrioch Tait, Robert Sinclair, James Mainland, James Cuff, Robert Dearness, John Wylie, and Robert Bremnar, were convicted of rioting; that the only evidence against Sinclair, as shown by the report alluded to, was that he was seen in the crowd, and only one witness saw a flour-bag coming from the point at which Sinclair stood, but could not swear that Sinclair threw it; is it the case that the Fiscal said he did not consider that there was evidence against the panel Robert Sinclair, and that he was prepared to desert the diet against him, but, in the face of this, the Sheriff passed one of the heaviest sentences on Sinclair; is it true that the Provost of Kirkwall had used threats against the postmaster of that town for supporting the present Member; and, will he cause an inquiry to be made into this case and furnish the House with copies of the evidence, and also into the general administration of justice in Kirkwall?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (, &c.): My attention has been called to this Report, and I have also seen the papers in the case. I cannot say that the evidence against Sinclair appears to have been confined solely to the point put in the Question; and what the Fiscal, in addressing the jury, is reported to have said, is—
  "He had very seriously considered whether it would not have been consistent with his duty to withdraw the charges against Sinclair, but had felt that the proper course was to leave him in the hands of the Court."
  1154
  In passing sentence the Sheriff said that, as regarded Sinclair—
  "He thought his position, influence, and the fact that he did not use it on the side of order, was an aggravation."
  I am informed that it is not true that the Provost of Kirkwall has used threats against the Postmaster of that town for supporting the present Member. I have to-day received statements signed by the Provost and the postmaster to this effect. I find that my hon. Friend who puts the Question had a correspondence with the Home Office, and I understand also an interview respecting the matter at the time, and that on the 5th of January an answer was sent to him to the effect that there was no ground for interference. I see no doubt as to the propriety of the conclusion thus arrived at by our Predecessors in Office.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—HIRING OF CARS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware that it is the custom at Bawnboy, county Cavan, for the police to insist on having receipts which purport to represent actual payments from persons from whom the police hire cars on public, although the actual payment does not take place for months after; and, whether he will take means to have the irregularity remedied?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, he understood that this practice had prevailed at the place mentioned. It was explained that the police did not insist on having receipts, and that the interval before payment seldom exceeded a few days. However, the practice was clearly irregular, and would be at once put a stop to.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE CAVAN GRAND JURY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that only fifteen grand jurors were sworn at last Cavan Assizes; whether less than twelve of these voted in favour of finding a true bill against two emergency men, Robert Bell and George Buggy, who were charged with setting fire to a byre at Clonloskan; and, whether, under these circumstances, any further legal

  1155
  proceedings will be taken against Bell and Buggy?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have no means of knowing; and, of course, the hon. Gentleman will see that it is scarcely proper for me to inquire whether there was any division amongst the members of the Grand Jury regarding this case. The Bill was ignored, and there must have been, of course, a legal majority. I am informed that, though there were very suspicious circumstances connected with the case, there was no direct evidence against the accused; and it is not intended to take any further proceedings unless new evidence should be disclosed.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — USE OF SCHOOLROOMS FOR POLITICAL MEETINGS.
  MR. HERBERT GARDNERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he has the power to compel the managers of schools in receipt of Parliamentary Grants to place the rooms of such schools at the disposal of Parliamentary candidates, on convenient occasions, for the purpose of holding political meetings; and, if so, whether he will put such powers in force?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): The Education Department has no power to compel managers to place the schools at the disposal of Parliamentary candidates. This rests at their own discretion, provided that they do not transgress Section 20 of the Corrupt Practices Act, 1883, which prohibits them from hiring the school, and that they do not contravene clauses which are sometimes in the trust deeds of the school.

  WESTMINSTER HALL (RESTORATION).
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the time has arrived when the public may be safely re-admitted to view Westminster Hall, under proper restrictions, and the privilege of drilling therein on certain evenings be re-accorded to the Queen's Westminsters, the London Scottish, the London Irish, and other Metropolitan regiments of Volunteers which, until January 1885, had enjoyed it for a quarter of a century, and whose efficiency has only
  1156
  been maintained with the greatest difficulty, owing to no place being provided by the Government in lieu thereof?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Member I may remind him that it was decided in December last by my Predecessor that it was not advisable as yet to relax the existing restrictions with regard to the use of Westminster Hall. I do not feel justified in departing from that decision, at least for the present.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS—FACILITIES FOR LIGHTKEEPERS ATTENDING DIVINE SERVICE.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If, in order to permit lightkeepers off the Irish Coast to attend Divine Service, he will direct that at stations where there are two trips per week ashore one of them shall be on Sanday; that the privilege of keeping a small boat, as enjoyed till November last, for forty years, shall be allowed to lighthouse keepers; and, when he will be able to state what additional stations will be made relieving stations?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): In fulfilment of the promise I made to the hon. Member the week before last, I have asked the Lighthouse Authorities of England, Scotland, and Ireland for detailed information as to the facilities in their respective services for attending Divine Service, and for the education of children. When I receive this information, the collection of which must necessarily take time, as it will be given in respect of each station, I will consider, in conjunction with the Lighthouse Boards, what can be done with the view to the solution of the question which the hon. Member has raised. The Board of Trade have no direct authority over the Lighthouse Boards, but only exercise a financial control over their expenditure.

  ARMS' LICENCES (IRELAND)—CASE OF PATRICK M'GINN.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Patrick M'Ginn, of Carr, was convicted at the Petty Sessions held at Clogher, county Tyrone, on March 9th, of being drunk

  1157
  while in possession of loaded firearms; whether he had a licence for arms under section 4 of "The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881," and whether he is a person qualified under the Act to hold a licence; whether the Justices, or either of them, who signed the certificate for the licence reside within the Petty Sessions District for which it was issued; whether it is a fact that Justices residing within that Petty Sessions had previously refused to sign a certificate; when were the Justices who signed the certificate appointed to the Commission of the Peace; and, whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has been drawn to their action in this matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have received a telegram from Dublin that at the last moment it was found necessary to make some further inquiries into this case, and I will ask the hon. Member to be good enough to put the Question again.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND) — THE BELTURBET RAILWAY—BRIDGE OVER THE BALLINAMORE CANAL.
  MR. H. CAMPBELL(for Mr. JORDAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether on a light line of Railway, now being made from Belturbet, county Cavan, Ireland, to Dromod, a bridge spans the Ballinamore Canal at that town; whether, in view of the possible completion of the Canal, the Railway bridge is at so low a level as to make it impossible for steam tugs or barges to pass under the arch at high water; whether the engineer of the Board of Works inspected the line, and was a party to this arrangement; and, whether, before the completion of the bridge, the Government will take steps to protect the Canal traffic which may arise between Limerick and Belfast?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)(who replied) said: The railway is now being constructed between Belturbet, and, in consequence, a bridge is being built spanning the Canal. Only the buttresses of the bridge have been constructed as yet, and the bridge might be raised to any height required for navigation purposes. The engineer of the Board of Works has
  1158
  made all the observations; but he was not certain that the Board had any power, as the Canal navigation was vested in Trustees, and not the Board. The Ballinamore Canal had never been used for navigation purposes, and the works had been for many years abandoned by the Navigation Trustees.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT—WEIGHTS AND SCALES.
  MR. FORWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If any and what arrangements have been made under "The Coal Mines Regulation Act," 35 and 36 Vic. c. 76, s. 19, to insure a systematic and periodical examination of the weights and scales used at collieries in South West Lancashire, by which the wages payable to any person employed in such mines are calculated according to the weight of coal gotten by such person; how frequently have such inspections been made, and what arrangements exist for the men employed at a mine to have the weights and scales examined at other times when they deem it necessary; and, has the Government Inspector of Mines any instructions to see that due effect is given to this section of the Act?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State for the Home Department has asked me to answer this Question. The Inspectors of Weights and Measures appointed by Local Authorities have power to inspect all weights and scales within their jurisdiction which are used on any premises for purposes of trade. It is the duty of the Local Authorities to make proper arrangements for inspection, and the responsibility rests exclusively with them. The Government Inspectors of Mines are under the direction of the Home Department; but I understand they have no power to exercise the authority of Inspectors of Weights and Measures.

  PAVING CONTRACTS—DUBLIN CORPORATION.
  MR. JONES-PARRY (, &c.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the second loan of £100,000, which the Local Government Board has sanc-

  1159
  tioned for the purpose of enabling the Corporation to repave the city of Dublin, Whether he is aware that the city of Dublin is making an application for an alteration in the terms of that loan, viz. that the work shall not be let by public competition, but that the Corporation may do it themselves, without any competition at all; and, further, that the period shall be extended for six years, to enable Mr. Parnell's quarry to be extended and make the supply, as appears from the proceedings of the Dublin Corporation as detailed in the Irish papers; whether he is aware that the Dublin Corporation are already paying Mr. Parnell 24 s. per ton, when another purely Irish firm offered to supply the same stones at 22 s. per ton, entirely to the satisfaction of their engineer in quality, viz. the Ballintoy Quarries, Antrim; whether he is aware that Mr. Parnell afterwards got the stone altered in shape, and apparently is now supplying stone, which can be supplied 2s. per ton less, at the same price as he got in his first tender; whether he is aware that in the county, the boroughs of which I have the honour to represent, the sett-making trade is a standing industry, and is in a very depressed condition; and, whether he is aware that they have stones enough ready to do the work in one year, and at a lower price than Mr. Parnell offers—namely, at Mr. Parnell's original size, at 23 s. per ton, and for the larger size at 20 s. per ton?
  MR. PETER M'DONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the application of the Dublin Corporation to the Local Government Board requests permission to use setts of Irish manufacture and material when they can be obtained of equal workmanship and quality to the Welsh; whether he is aware that, prior to the opening of quarries in Ireland, the Welsh quarry-owners possessed a monopoly of the supply to Dublin, and that their prices charged to the Corporation during a long series of years varied from 30 s. to 25 s. per ton, and never came so low as 24 s. until their monopoly was broken by the opening of quarries in Ireland; whether the most recent quotations by the Welsh quarry-owners to the Dublin Corporation, in response to advertisement for public tender, amounted to 27 s.
  1160
  per ton against 24 s. by Mr. Parnell; whether he is aware that the difference between the price of 22 s. and 24 s per ton given by the Corporation to the Ballintoy and Arklow quarries respectively is due to a difference between the specific gravities of the two stones, which makes the latter more economical for use; and, whether the only orders yet given by the Corporation on account of the new loan have been shared equally between Arklow and Ballintoy quarries?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Speaking for the Local Government Board, I have to say that their sanction to the loan of £100,000 to the Corporation of Dublin for repaving was not given with any condition as to how the work was to be carried out. It rests entirely with the Corporation to decide this, and there is nothing in the Act under which the loan was made requiring them to let such works by public competition. So far as the action of the Corporation is called in question I should not have thought it my duty to make any inquiries; but I have been voluntarily informed by the Town Clerk that tenders were invited last autumn by public advertisements, and the lowest quotations were from Ballintoy at 22 s., and Arklow at 24 s., which, owing to a greater specific gravity in the former stone, were reported by the City Engineer to be about equal. Three Welsh firms tendered at uniform quotations, of 27 s. per ton. The supplies now required are being ordered from Arklow and Ballintoy. The Town Clerk observes that it would be unusual and unbusinesslike to take amended offers after prices were disclosed, even if the firms in Wales were now ready to make them as suggested in the Question of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—CONSOLIDATION.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government are taking any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Irish Prisons as to the further consolidation of Prisons in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I understand that the comprehensive scheme of the Prisons Board for the consolidation

  1161
  of the Irish prisons will be laid before the Government in a few days. In the meantime, with the view of facilitating the arrangements, orders have been passed for closing altogether the prison at Lifford; Mullingar Prison has been reduced to the status of a minor prison; Downpatrick Prison has been closed wholly as a local prison, and reserved exclusively for convicts; and Naas has been closed as a civil prison, and will be handed over to the Military Authorities for their purposes.

  CRIMINAL LAW—PROSECUTION FOR LIBEL (CAPE COLONY).
  MR. MASONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the recent prosecution for criminal libel of the Reverend John G. Don, Presbyterian Minister in King William's Town, South Africa; whether he is aware that the alleged libel consisted in Mr. Don having publicly protested against the unwarranted action of the Premier and Attorney General of Cape Colony in preventing the trial for manslaughter of a Dutch farmer who had shot dead an inoffensive Kaffir, while the latter was searching for his master's horse; and, whether, in view of the action against Mr. Don having resulted in an acquittal, and full justification of his conduct in protecting the rights and lives of the Native races, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to see that the costs of his defence, amounting to about five hundred pounds, are defrayed out of the public revenue of the Cape Colony?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): My attention has been called to the recent prosecution in the Cape Colony of the Rev. J. G. Don for criminal libel. I have read a paper which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me, headed, Mr. Don's "Triumphant Vindication of Kaffir Life and Rights in South Africa," and purporting to give an account of the trial; but it is only just to Mr. Upington, the Premier and Attorney General of the Cape Colony, to state that he emphatically denies having, either directly or indirectly, interfered in the case of Pelzer, the Dutch farmer referred to in the Question; the fact being that, in declining to prosecute, the Solicitor Ge-
  1162
  neral, who is not a political officer, acted quite independently and on his own judgment. With regard to the last Question, the hon. Member must surely have forgotten that the Cape Colony is a self-governing Colony, and that whatever may have been the merits or the result of the trial to which he refers, Her Majesty's Government have no power to interfere with the administration of justice by the Courts of that Colony, or to see that the costs of any proceedings in such Courts shall be defrayed out of its public Revenue.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART (SCOTLAND) — SIR DAVID BAXTER'S BEQUEST TO DUNDEE.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that a bequest, now amounting to more than £25,000, left many years ago by the late Sir David Baxter, to maintain a Mechanics' Institute in Dundee, has not yet been applied to that purpose, although such an Institute is greatly needed; and, whether he can do anything to induce the Trustees to apply the money forthwith to the purposes for which it was intended?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN) (, &c.): I know something about Sir David Baxter's bequest for a Mechanics' Institute in Dundee; in fact, I have in my possession a most interesting Report addressed to his Trustees, who have unlimited powers in the matter, by gentlemen whom they several months ago requested to advise them and draw up a scheme. The Report is confidential, but, no doubt, will be published soon.

  TENURE REMOVAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will, on behalf of the Government, adopt the Tenure Removal (Scotland) Bill, introduced by the honourable Member for Dundee, or introduce a measure dealing with the same subject?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (, &c.)said, he knew this was a matter on which there was a good deal of feeling in Scotland. He should be very glad to propose a measure dealing with it; but while he

  1163
  found that there was a unanimity of opinion in favour of a uniform term there was a great deal of difference as to the particular days that would be chosen. He would be glad to confer with hon. Members from Scotland, and to endeavour to settle that question.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—REGISTRATION OF FISHING BOATS.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether he will, in the Crofters' Bill, or by a separate Bill, provide for the registration of fishing boats in such manner as will enable their owners to give valid mortgages on them?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN) (, &c.): The matter which the hon. Member refers to is one of great moment to the interests of the fishermen, and through them to the country at large; and the Government are carefully considering whether they should not introduce a Bill to apply to the whole of Scotland. With a register of fishing boats, in so many cases of considerable tonnage, giving as good security for a mortgage as small merchant ships, it is time the question should be carefully considered.

  IRELAND—THE BELFAST CORPORATION—SALARY OF THE TOWN CLERK.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to certain proceedings alleged to have taken place at Belfast; and, if not, will he cause inquiry to be made into the merits of the case, viz.: that Mr. Samuel Black was in the year 1878, with the approval (pursuant to the statute) of the Lord Lieutenant, appointed by the Corporation of Belfast to the joint office of town clerk and solicitor of the Corporation at a salary of £2,000 sterling per year; that the said town clerk afterwards claimed payment from the Corporation of the moneys paid by him to his Dublin agent, in addition to his salary, and the Corporation did pay same; that the matter was brought before the Local Government Board, on behalf of the ratepayers, who directed their auditor to disallow such payment, which the auditor accordingly did; that the Corporation brought the
  1164
  matter before the Court of Queen's Bench by certiorari, and, after two days' argument by counsel on behalf of the Corporation and the Local Government Board, the Court pronounced judgment on the 23rd February 1881, declaring the said payments to be illegal, as they were included in the salary paid to the town clerk, and that the auditor was quite right in surcharging the same on the members of the Corporation; that, notwithstanding the said judgment of the said Court of Queen's Bench, the Corporation at their meeting, on the 1st January 1886, passed the following Resolution, "That the town clerk's outlay shall include his Dublin agent's allowance for doing the work of the Corporation;" and, if these allegations are substantially correct, will he, as official head of the said Board, state what action the Board will adopt for the purpose of supporting the judgment of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, and the authority of the Local Government Board?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have no information as to the Corporation having adopted the Resolution on the 1st January, 1886, mentioned in the Question. Subject to the fact that the salary was fixed at £1,750, and not £2,000, I believe the statements of the hon. Member are substantially correct. I am advised that if the Corporation has by any resolution sanctioned a payment which the Court of Queen's Bench declared to be illegal, it will be the duty of the Auditor of the Local Government Board, at his audit, to surcharge them.

  SHIPWRECK ON THE COAST OF NORWAY—CASE OF ELIZABETH MOUAT.
  MR. LYELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have already expressed to the Government of Norway their appreciation of the bravery and humanity shown by the fishermen and others at Lepsöe, in rescuing the woman Elizabeth Mouat, who was lately wrecked on their shores in the Columbine; and, whether the Government are prepared to make some substantial acknowledgment of the services rendered to one of Her Majesty's subjects under circumstances so eminently deserving of recognition?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): Her Majesty's Minister accredited to Sweden and Norway was instructed on the 10th instant to express the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government for the services so humanely rendered to Elizabeth Mouat on the occasion in question; and the Board of Trade has been consulted as to what steps can be taken to reward these services, either by an acknowledgment in the shape of some benefit of a permanent nature to the community of Lepsoe, or by gifts to those concerned in the rescue.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883—DUTIES OF OFFICIALS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the President of the Board of Trade, Who is responsible for the performance of the duties of Trustees under section 121 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1883; what control the Inspector General in Bankruptcy has in the London District; and, whether it is the fact that the majority of the officers at the Chief Official Receiver's Office are under twenty-one years of age, and have had no previous experience of bankruptcy business?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): The Official Receivers, when acting as Trustees under Section 121 of the Bankruptcy Act, are responsible for the performance of their duties. The Official Trustees act under the direction of the Board of Trade. The control of the Inspector General in Bankruptcy does not at present extend to the London district, except for the purpose of audit. I am informed by the Chief Official Receiver that only 18 per cent of his staff are under 21 years of age, including boy copyists, and that of those over age all the officers and clerks who are entrusted with important or responsible duties (43 in number) have been selected by him for their knowledge of law and accounts, and for their experience in bankruptcy administration.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that under Section 121 of the Act there were Trustees other than the Official Receivers who might be appointed, and who superseded the Official Receivers. It was with regard to such Trustees that he had asked the Question which he would renew.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case of Mr. Buchanan, principal teacher of the Carnone National School, No. 4036, county Donegal, and into the circumstances under which, after nearly 40 years' service, he was compelled to resign on the 1st December last, just before the revised pension scheme came into operation; and, whether, if he finds that Mr. Buchanan has been hardly dealt with, he will move the Lord Lieutenant to allow him a pension calculated under the new scheme?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed by the Education Office that in August, 1885, Mr. Buchanan, the principal teacher of the Carnone National School, gave his manager three months' notice of his resignation owing to failing health, and in the following November he resigned. The manager thereupon applied for a pension for him, and obtained it on the 1st of December. In this state of facts I do not see how a case could be made out to bring the pension under the new rules, which did not come into effect until January, 1886; but if the hon. Member can satisfy the Treasury of the fairness of the claim I make no objection to his doing so.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire whether the statements with regard to this dismissed officer were substantially correct; and whether he was not compelled to resign at the date mentioned against his will?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY, in reply, said, he should assume that the facts supplied to him were correct, and the hon. Member was scarcely justified in saying that the man was dismissed, when the information was that he resigned.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—ALLEGED ATTACK UPON REV. W. P. KEARNEY, DROGHEDA.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, As to whether official information had reached him concerning a most savage attack having been made upon the Reverend William P. Kearney

  1167
  one of the curates of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Chapel, Drogheda, by a band of ruffians, accompanied by a number of the prostitutes of that town, and that the Reverend gentleman only escaped with his life by taking refuge in the house of a Protestant named Gardiner, who, at his own risk, protected him from further molestation; and, as the consequences may be very serious, the Reverend gentleman being since confined to bed, wholly unfit to attend to any duty, and if the above be correct, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in order to bring the perpetrators of this assault to justice?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that he has been misinformed. The Inspector of Police has called on the Rev. Mr. Kearney, who states that the whole affair is a fabrication, and that there is no truth in any portion of it.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND) — WOODFORD, CO. GALWAY.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be true that Sir Henry Burke took out sixty ejectment decrees against his tenants in Woodford parish at the January Quarter Sessions; and, if so, were these decrees legal instruments, though not signed by the solicitor, Mr. O'Farrell, or in Mr. O'Farrell's presence, whose name was on the decrees; whether it is true that Mrs. Lewis took out twenty civil bill decrees against her tenants in the same locality, though they had actually paid the hanging gale some time previously; is it a fact that the Marquess of Clanricarde has acted in a similar manner and has served writs on his tenants, and sold some of their farms by auction in the town of Galway; is it true that the trustees or managers of the estates of the Earl of Westmeath served processes of ejectment on all the poorer tenants around Woodford, though not proceeding to eject the tenants, owing to an informality in the mode of procedure; has Lord Dunsandle and other landlords in South Galway acted in a similar manner; and, if so, will the Government interfere?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed that Sir Henry Burke obtained 45 decrees against his tenants in Wood-
  1168
  ford parish, and that they were all signed by Mr. O'Farrell personally. Mrs. Lewis is stated to have obtained 19 decrees, and there were no hanging gales, except in the case of three. I am also informed that Lord Clanricarde sold four farms, but that in three instances the tenants have been reinstated on payment of costs. I am not aware how many writs have been served by him. According to the information before me, neither Lord Westmeath's trustees nor Lord Dunsandle have taken the proceedings mentioned in the hon. Member's Question.

  EGYPT — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE—REPORT OF JUDGE WEST.
  MR. DILLONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House the Reports of Judge West on the Administration of Justice in Egypt?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The Report to which the hon. Member refers has not yet reached Her Majesty's Government; but Sir Evelyn Baring will, no doubt, forward a copy of it. It will then be examined with a view to determine whether it should be laid upon the Table.

  INLAND REVENUE—LICENCE DUTY ON PUBLIC-HOUSES.
  MR. M'LARENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to charge Licence Duty on public houses according to the Poor Law valuation in each place, or according to any other valuation, and whether their practice varies in this respect in different places; and, whether any difference is made in cases where the owner of the licence is owner of the licensed premises?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, that it was not the practice of the Inland Revenue to charge Licence Duty according to the Poor Law valuation, but on the basis of the assessment to the Inhabited House Duty, where the premises were over £20 in annual value; where that was not the case, Schedule D of the Income Tax was taken as the basis. No difference was made in cases where the owner of the licence was owner of the licensed premises.

  STATE OF IRELAND—LAWLESSNESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.
  MR. MACARTNEY(for Colonel WARING)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, at the spring assizes held at Tralee on 10th March 1886, Mr. O'Driscoll, baronial high constable for Iveragh, asked leave of the Grand Jury to resign his office, on the ground that a portion of his barony—namely, the parish of Glanbeigh, was in so lawless a condition that he found himself unable to collect the county cess; whether it is a fact that he has visited certain lands three times with a view to making seizures, but found on the first and second occasions that all the cattle had been driven off on his approach; and, on the third, whether, having made seizures, he was compelled to abandon them by a mob of upwards of one hundred people; whether the police, though present, were powerless to protect him in the execution of his duty; whether the Grand Jury accepted Mr. O'Driscoll's resignation; and, whether they apprehend the gravest difficulty in inducing any one to accept the responsibility of undertaking the office of high constable of the barony of Iveragh?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed that Mr. O'Driscoll has resigned his post, and that the Grand Jury have accepted his resignation. The facts as to the attempted seizures are as stated. The police were quite able to protect Mr. O'Driscoll, and, as a matter of fact, did so. The failure of the seizure on the third occasion was due to the fact that there was not a sufficient number of drovers for the cattle, and it is not the duty of the police to act in that capacity. The County Inspector gives it as his personal opinion that, owing to the difficulty of getting money in that part of Kerry, which he describes as wretched and impoverished, he fancies no person would care to take the situation in question.

  RAILWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS, INDIA.
  MR. FELL PEASEasked the Under Secretary
  1170
  of State for India, Whether it is the intention of the Government, within the present year, to encourage and expedite the construction, whether by the State or by public Companies, of Railways and other Works in India, which have been recommended in the interests of that Empire, and would be securities against famine, while in this Country they might have the effect of encouraging the iron, steel, and other industries?
  MR. JACKSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, a Return, showing the extent of Railways in India which has been sanctioned since the Report of the Committee on East Indian Railways of 18th July 1884, giving the names of the sanctioned Railways, the mileage, the estimated cost, the time to be occupied in construction, and whether they were included in Schedules A and B of the Report; and, if he can say whether it is the intention of the Government to take advantage of the extremely low prices now ruling for Railway material, and push forward the extension of Railways in India at a more rapid rate?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): The annual Report on Railways in India for the year 1885–6, which will be presented as usual this Session, will give the desired information; but if the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Jackson) desires any part of the information immediately, perhaps he will confer with me, and I shall be happy, as far as possible, to meet his wishes. In the opinion of the Secretary of State in Council, the numerous railways and other public works now in course of construction, which include the Frontier Lines, should be further advanced towards completion before fresh obligations are incurred. I may add for the information of the House that the Budget Estimate for the current year included a capital expenditure of about £8,250,000 on Indian Railways. The Indian Midland Railway Company, with a capital of £3,000,000, has also been formed, and the Southern Mahratta Company have raised £600,000 for a new railway. These two sums were not included in the Estimate.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—SITTINGS AT AUGHNACLOY.
  MR. W. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the sittings of the Land Sub-Commissioners at Aughnacloy in February last were abandoned; where and when the next sittings will be held; and, what arrangements will be made to obviate the possibility of a fresh disappointment to litigants?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The sittings at Aughnacloy were abandoned because the sittings at the preceding town, Dungannon, were unexpectedly protracted, in consequence of the terribly bad weather at the time. The sittings at Dungannon, therefore, overlapped the proposed sittings at Aughnacloy. The Land Commissioners state that as they have only one Sub-Commission for the whole of Ulster, it will not be possible to return to Tyrone before September next. I appreciate the hon. Member's point as to the possibility of a hardship to the tenants; but that is owing to the policy of Parliament in allowing the fair rent to date, not from the time of application, but from the date of hearing.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Would it not be possible for the Land Commissioners to order that the judicial rent should date from the day of hearing originally set down in cases where the delay was not caused by any default on the part of the tenant?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I cannot answer that Question off-hand; but I am of opinion that it could not be done, as it is beyond the Act of Parliament.

  COAL STATISTICS, 1885.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can now state the amount of the output of coal in Great Britain in 1885, as compared with 1884; and also in which of our coalfields the official statistics show the largest decreases for the past year?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): The statistics of the output of coal in Great Britain
  1172
  in 1885 are in the hands of the printers. I will see that my hon. Friend is furnished with a copy as soon as they are ready.

  THE LONDON PARKS—GROUND RENTS AND REVENUES.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the amount of the ground rents and of any other source of revenue now paid into the Consolidated Fund in connection with the London parks?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The ground rents and other revenues received in connection with the Royal Parks in London, including Battersea and Victoria Parks, are under the control partly of the First Commissioner of Works, partly of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The sums received by the Office of Works amount to £1,480, and are paid into the Exchequer as extra receipts. The sums received by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are derived from property situate within or around certain of the Parks. They are not paid into the Consolidated Fund, but are accounted for as part of the land revenue of the Crown. The particulars for each Park are as follows:—Regent's Park.—For properties within the road known as the Outer Circle, £2,084 18 s. 4d.; for properties outside that circle, £14,826 2s. 3d. Victoria Park. This Park was purchased under the Acts 4 & 5 Vict., c. 27, and 5 Vict., c. 20. By these Acts the Commissioners were empowered to lease or sell any part of the Park not exceeding in the whole one fourth. The rental received by the land revenue for the portion leased amounted last year to £3,150 14 s. Hyde, Green, and St. James's Parks.—Some small pieces of land which anciently formed parts of the Parks or the freeboards of the Parks are let by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; but as the lettings include houses which were not any part of the Parks, the rental of the land which anciently formed a part of the Parks or the freeboards of the Parks cannot be separately stated. These pieces of land were inclosed from the open parts of the Parks about the end of the last century. The gross total of the figures I have stated amounts to £21,542.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT, 1883—OPERATION OF THE ACT.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state to the House how far the facilities afforded by "The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883," have been made use of in the extension of tramways, emigration, or the purchase of lands in Ireland, and what moneys have been advanced by the Government; and, if he could lay upon the Table of the House a Return up to the present time?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I do not think it would be convenient for me to attempt, within the limits of an answer to a Question, to state the operations which have taken place under this very important Act; but if the hon. Member will formulate a Return asking for the information he seeks, I will be very glad to see how far his wishes in the matter may be met.

  ARMY (IRELAND)—CASUALTY TO A SOLDIER IN BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether on the morning of the 1st of January last, Patrick Aherne, a private in the Fusiliers, stationed at Belfast, was found at an early hour lying in the barrack square in a state of insensibility; whether his teeth had been kicked out, his lip split in two, his ribs broken, and his skull fractured; whether he was carried to the Barrack Hospital, and left there with his wounds undressed and unattended to, until inquiries were made, two days after the occurrence, by Head Constable Tilson and another police officer; whether these officials were informed that nothing unusual had taken place in the barracks, and whether they learned only on the 5th or 6th of the same month, from the undertaker's man, that a soldier (Aherne) had died from the effects of violence; whether it is a fact that no inquest was held, that the dying man's depositions were not taken, and that the civil authority was not called in; and, whether the resident magistrates failed to perform their duty in not causing an investigation to be held, and what account they
  1174
  give of the case, and their course in reference to it?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Owing to some discrepancies in the information which I have received I shall have to make further inquiries, and I will ask the hon. Member kindly to put down his Question again for Tuesday.

  IRISH FISHERY COMMISSIONERS—CONTRACTS FOR PIERS, &c.
  MR. MULHOLLANDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a contract has been entered into for the construction of the fishery pier at Portstewart, county Derry; and, whether, in view of the distress which exists in some parts of Ireland, steps are being taken to obtain contracts as soon as possible for the works recommended by the Fishery Commissioners?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I beg to answer this Question. A contract has been entered into for the works at Portstewart. Of 57 works recommended by the Fishery Commissioners, and sanctioned, five are already completed, 44 are in course of construction, and the remaining eight are in forward condition for the earliest possible commencement.

  NAVY (ORDNANCE)—RETURN OF GUNS UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR NEW SHIPS OF WAR.
  MR. RUSTONasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If he can state when he will be prepared to lay upon the Table of the House his promised Return of the guns which are being prepared wherewith to arm the war ships now being built; and, whether in this Return he will give,—1st. The size of the guns; 2nd. The ships (by name) for which they are intended; 3rd. Where each gun is being constructed?
  THE CIVIL LORD (Mr. R. W. DUFF): I hope to lay the Return of the guns, which are being prepared for the war ships now being built, on the Table in a day or two. It will give the number and size of the guns and where they are being constructed; but the Admiralty do not consider that it is desirable, in the interests of the Service, to give the names of the ships for which the guns are intended.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—HALL MARKING OF FOREIGN MANUFACTURED GOLD AND SILVER WATCH CASES.
  MR. FORWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he can furnish the House with the number of gold and silver (separately) watch cases that were hallmarked by the Goldsmiths' Company in 1884 and in 1885, distinguishing those of Foreign manufacture from those of British make; if he is aware that the Foreign made cases, when so marked, are exported abroad, where they are fitted with watch movements, and then brought back to this Country, selling here as English made watches, by reason of bearing the British Goldsmiths' Hallmark, thus unfairly and seriously injuring an important but struggling British industry; and, whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to stop the marking of the Foreign manufactured cases with the British Hall mark, reserving the benefit of that mark solely for British productions?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): As to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I will communicate with the Goldsmiths' Company, and furnish such information as they are able to give. As to the second part, I have no information beyond that contained in the evidence given to the Hall-Marking Committee of 1878 and 1879, which went to show that about 10 per cent of silver watch cases were of foreign origin. I am aware that the law with respect to the hallmarking of silver plate is not in a satisfactory condition; but it must be remembered that the hall-mark is in its essence a test of quality and not a statement of origin. It is doubtful whether any such limitation as is suggested would effect the object which the hon. Member has in view. The question raised is one of misrepresentation of place of origin; and, as such, it shall have my consideration when dealing with that subject in connection with the Merchandise Marks Act.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE BARROW DRAINAGE AND ARDGLASS HARBOUR.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Re-
  1176
  ports on Ardglass Harbour, presented 18th February last, and Arklow Harbour, presented 4th March, will be in the hands of Members; whether he has observed that over five months have elapsed since the inspection of these harbours was made by the engineers for the purpose of reporting, and that the Reports are only a page and a-half each in length; and, whether he will take any notice of the apparently needless delay in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): With reference to these two questions, I have to state that I am informed by the Stationery Office that the Report on the Ardglass Harbour will be in the hands of Members to-morrow, and the Report of the Barrow Drainage Commission will be in the hands of Members on Monday next.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the recommendation contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Prisons in Ireland, as to an increase in the wages of warders, has not been carried out, such recommendation being as follows:
  "It therefore seems clear to us that a necessity for higher remuneration is created as well for the reasons above stated as by the fact of an improvement in the general rates of pay and wages in Ireland."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have already stated that the Report of the Royal Commission on Prisons recommended the abolition of a considerable number of prisons and bridewells and the formation of a consolidated scheme. This is now in progress, and is expected to be before the Government shortly; but, pending its final settlement, the Treasury have declined to sanction increases of salaries generally, on the ground that new interests and claims would be thereby created on the part of many whose services it might be found necessary to dispense with under a consolidation scheme.

  NAVY—ARMAMENT—THE HOTCHKISS GUN.
  MR. JACKSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If

  1177
  it is a fact that the Hotchkiss quick firing guns, supplied for use in the Navy, were made at the Hotchkiss facttory in France; if it is a fact that, although the body of the gun was made and supplied by an English firm, the gun was finished in France; and, whether in future contracts for machine or quick firing guns, for use in the Army or Navy, it will be stipulated that the guns shall be manufactured and finished in this Country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): It is a fact that of the Hotchkiss quick-firing guns for naval use the six-pounders were made at the Hotchkiss factory in France, and I believe that the steel forgings for these guns were supplied by an English firm. Subsequently, it has been found that Mr. Hotchkiss was able to arrange for the manufacture in England of his three-pounder guns of the same type, and a number of these are under order. In future contracts for guns of this description careful consideration will be given to the point whether it is practicable, without undue delay, to obtain the weapons in this country.

  BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) COURTS—LOCAL COURT AT BELFAST.
  MR. JAMES HASLETTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the strongly expressed desire of merchants in the North of Ireland, he will take the necessary steps to establish a local Court of Bankruptcy in Belfast?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am aware of the strong desire which exists in Belfast for the establishment of a local Court of Bankruptcy, a desire which appears to me to be perfectly reasonable. I find that successive Governments have introduced Bills for the establishment of such a Court. I need not enumerate all the occasions on which such Bills were introduced. In 1883, when the English Bankruptcy Bill of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board was before a Grand Committee, clauses were proposed by the Irish Government for extending that Bill to Ireland, and for establishing local Courts of Bankruptcy
  1178
  in that country; but in consequence of those clauses the passing of the whole Bill was put in peril, and the clauses had to be withdrawn. Since 1883 the Irish Government have not attempted to deal with the matter; and, having regard to the facts which I have recounted, I am afraid that it would be useless for me to promise to bring in any Bill on the subject at present.

  THE ROYAL LIVER FRIENDLY SOCIETY—THE REPORT.
  MR. HUTTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will lay upon the Table the evidence taken in the recent inquiry into the affairs of the Royal Liver Friendly Society, and the Report of the Inspector (Mr. Lyulph Stanley)?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)said, the Report of Mr. Stanley was now in type, and he hoped would be laid on the Table tomorrow or Monday. As the evidence was very voluminous, and it would cost a considerable sum to print it, the view he took was that he would lay the Report on the Table; and if hon. Members thought it desirable that the evidence should be printed he would raise no difficulty in the matter.

  VACCINATION ACT—REPEAL OF COMPULSORY VACCINATION.
  MR. THOMAS ROBINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, having regard to the large and increasing number of people who conscientiously object to have their children vaccinated, he will bring in a Bill this Session to repeal the Compulsory Clauses of the Vaccination Act?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN), in reply, said, he could not undertake to bring in a Bill this Session to repeal the compulsory clauses of the Vaccination Act; but he understood that his hon. Friend the hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) had a Motion on the Paper with reference to the Vaccination Act, which, when it was reached, would afford an opportunity for discussing the whole subject.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) — SERGEANTS MAJOR OF VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. ALEXANDER HALLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider the case of the Sergeant Majors of Volunteer Regiments, who, although performing the duties of Sergeant Majors, are only classed as "Acting Sergeant Majors;" and, whether they do not, in this respect, differ to their disadvantage from the Sergeant Majors of Militia, and from the position which they had originally occupied?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): The acting Sergeant Major of Volunteers does not receive the same pay or pension as a Sergeant Major of Militia; but the duties do not correspond. The acting Sergeant Major of a Volunteer battalion is only one of the Sergeant Instructors appointed to act as Sergeant Major and receiving 6d. a-day for the duty. I may add that the case was very fully considered by the right hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir Frederick Stanley), when Secretary of State for War; and his view was confirmed two years later by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary. I am not disposed to re-open the question.

  DEFENCES OF THE EMPIRE—COALING STATIONS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the amounts which have been expended out of the Votes for the current year, and out of the Vote of Credit, for the defences of the coaling stations, of the commercial ports, and of the military ports respectively?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): It is calculated that we have expended during the present financial year £46,458 on the fortification of coaling stations, besides £109,000, which, it is believed, has been paid in regard to the same stations by the Government of India and by the Colonial Governments at Singapore and Hong Kong—in all, £155,458. Beyond this amount, we have expended for coaling stations the following sums—namely, £13,000 for submarine mining buildings, £189,000 for armaments, and £60,000 for torpedo stores and boats—making a total for coaling stations of £417,458. As regards military ports,
  1180
  the expenditure has been limited to £28,000 for mining buildings; but on commercial ports there has been spent £26,000 for submarine mining buildings and £93,000 for torpedo stores and boats, together £119,000. The total expenditure on these defences has, therefore, amounted to £564,458. I wish to take this opportunity of explaining that when, on Monday, I informed the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Mr. Baden-Powell) that £50,000 was provided in the Estimates for the fortification works at coaling stations in the coming year, I confined myself to the terms of his Question, which regarded our Estimates only. But it is expected that a further amount of £120,000 will be spent during the year from India and Colonial funds.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)—DESTITUTE RUSSIANS AT HULL.
  MR. C. H. WILSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the case of certain destitute Russians who have become chargeable to the ratepayers of Hull; and, whether any arrangement exists with the Russian Government for the repatriation of such persons?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The case in question has been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office. No arrangement exists with the Russian Government for the repatriation of destitute Russian subjects. When the expediency of making arrangements for the reciprocal repatriation of paupers and lunatics was considered some years ago serious difficulties were found to stand in the way of such arrangements; but the subject is one which will receive the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—COMPENSATION TO INSPECTOR CONNAUGHTON.
  MR. JAMES FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the action of the County of Cork Grand Jury, on 12th instant, in awarding the sum of one thousand pounds to District Inspector Connaughton as compensation for injury sustained by him at Kingwilliamstown

  1181
  on 18th October last; whether he is aware that the assault upon Mr. Connaughton was committed by persons who had been engaged in a drunken row, and that (as appears from the sworn testimony of Serjeant Conderan, Government reporter) the occurrence was strongly denounced by the people at the time, and sternly reprobated by the Rev. Father M'Mahon, parish priest of the district; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will direct the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland to inquire if the Grand Jury have not exceeded their statutory authority in levying the sum upon the inoffensive taxpayers of the barony of Duhallow, who are already struggling under the burden of heavy rates and taxes?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): On the occasion in question Inspector Connaughton sustained a fracture of the arm, and he is still unfit for duty. It is a fact that the outrage was denounced by the Rev. Mr. M'Mahon and others at a meeting of the National League held that day. I am advised that the matter of compensation was entirely within the discretion of the Grand Jury, and that it was legally competent for them to act as they did. It is a question whether it would not have been possible to traverse the amount before the Judge of Assizes; but the time for that has now passed.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE CLOGHER JUSTICES.
  MR. W. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there are any, and, if so, how many, Catholics among the justices of the Clogher Petty Sessions district; will the police make arrangements to ascertain how many of these justices are members of the Orange Society; is it a fact that they have used their position as justices to arm the Orangemen of the district and to refuse certificates for licences to Nationalists, who are constantly subject to attacks by armed Orangemen; and, whether the state of Clogher Petty Sessions district will be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed that there is one Catholic magistrate, and the Resident Magistrate
  1182
  is also a Catholic. The Government do not think it would be proper for them to direct an inquiry into the suggestion contained in the second part of the Question. No complaint has been made to the Government as to the granting or withholding of certificates for arms' licences in this district, and the Government are not aware of any failure of duty in this respect. The hon. Member is, I suspect, aware that the issue of the licences is a matter with which the Resident Magistrate has to deal, and that gentleman is not aware of any such attacks by armed Orangemen being constantly made as alleged. I feel sure that the Lord Chancellor will be quite ready to deal with any representations from this district on the lines I have indicated in answer to a Question a few days ago.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I will call attention to this matter on the discussion of the Estimates.

  PROPOSED DAY OF HUMILIATION.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, in consideration of the widespread destitution throughout the United Kingdom, and the hardships endured by the people, he will advise Her Most Gracious Majesty to be pleased to appoint a day of humiliation and prayer as a National Appeal to Almighty God?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I have carefully considered the hon. Member's Question. There is undoubtedly much distress in the country, which is greatly to be lamented; but in order to warrant the appointment of days of this kind, which ought necessarily to be rare and separated by intervals from one another—for otherwise they would lose much of their peculiar character—the circumstances of the case should present certain particular characteristics, which we do not think that the description of distress now prevailing does present.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA—THE COMMITTEE.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What was the intention of the Government with reference to the fifth Order on the Paper for the consideration of the Message from the Lords respecting the appointment of a Com-

  1183
  mittee in regard to the Government of India? The Notice, as it now stood, might raise questions of great difficulty, and he hoped it was not the intention of the Government to take it to-night.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE)said, he was in hopes, from what he had heard, that the whole matter had been arranged; but if there was a difficulty remaining they should not be inclined to take the Order to-night.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the Question for a day or two.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, there was no hurry which would justify him in resisting that request.

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN.
  MR. DILLONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government had received information to the effect that a horrible famine was raging in the Soudan; and, whether it was true that persons who attempted to smuggle food for the starving Natives through the English lines were severely punished if caught?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE), in reply, said, that he had received no recent information agreeing with the allegations of the hon. Member. The hon. Member was aware of the circumstances of the blockade, as only a few days ago he had answered a Question of his upon the subject. He had no further information.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE INSANITARY CONDITION OF THIS HOUSE.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a Question of which I have not been able to give him Notice, but of the character of which he has probably been already apprised by his olfactory organ. It is whether his attention has been directed to the extremely disagreeable odours perceptible in the House this evening; and, whether arrangements cannot at once be made for a thorough inspection of the sanitary condition of the House by some competent authority?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I have not had the opportunity of making the observation this evening; but I have on previous evenings, and I have already mentioned the matter to Mr. Speaker, with reference to a thorough examination into the drains of the House. Mr. Speaker has suggested that the Committee which sat last Session should be re-appointed, and I will confer with the Works Department with reference to the appointment of that Committee.

  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2.) BILL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.)asked, What course the Government proposed to take in regard to the Crofters Bill, which was the third Order for the evening?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN) (, &c.)said, the Bill would not be taken after 10 o'clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

    DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) £2,902,900, Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): In rising, Mr. Courtney, to make a general Statement with respect to the Navy Estimates, I wish, in the first place, to thank hon. Members for the kind consideration which they extended to me on Monday night, when I was unavoidably absent, and when the noble and gallant Lord opposite the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) initiated a very interesting discussion with so much ability. I have also to thank the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. R. W. Duff) for having supplied my place at so short a notice; and I have, further, to congratulate him upon the knowledge and ability which he displayed. I feel that I stand here to-night in an unusual position, because in the past year there has taken place that which, I believe, never took place before. We have had three successive Boards of Admiralty within the last 10 months. We have had three successive First Lords, and three successive Parliamentary

    1185
    Representatives of the Admiralty in this House. In addition to that, we have, also, at the present time a larger number of new officers representing the various Departments—and very important Departments — of the Admiralty than ever represented them at one time before. I allude first to the gentleman who holds the important position of Accountant General, who was appointed by the Earl of Northbrook, a gentleman of great experience, who, I trust, will bring that experience to bear on the financial affairs of the Admiralty; and then we have two other important appointments made by the noble Lord opposite the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton)—I mean those of Controller and the Director of Naval Construction. They are also gentlemen of great ability and high reputation; and from them I expect that great strength will be given to the Board of Admiralty. We have also had two other appointments to very important positions in the Dockyard Department; and there have been other appointments in connection with the Dockyards, such as those of the Civil Assistants to the Superintendents at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Devonport. We all know that new brooms sweep clean, and, therefore, we expect a great number of reforms and changes from these gentlemen. I am sure that there is room in many ways for great reforms and changes; and particularly for reforms in the Dockyards. The first reform of which the Committee already have knowledge is the improved form of the Estimates in the hands of hon. Members to-night. This improved form is due to the unwearied labour and great ability of Admiral Graham, Sir Gerald Fitzgerald, and the Director of Naval Construction. The information contained in the Estimates now before the Committee and the country is greater than has ever been given in any previous year; and I think that anyone who will carefully look at that information will find the great advantage it affords to them if they desire to thoroughly understand the Estimates. You have information given to you, not only as to the cost of each particular ship in course of construction, but also information as to the cost of the year up to March, 1885; the original estimated cost for the year 1885–6, with corrections where necessary; of the condition of the work at
    1186
    the present time, and the proposed expenditure for 1886–7, together with the number of men to be employed. But that is not all; you have, in addition to that, further information given to you as to the estimated expenditure on each ship to be completed, and the original and corrected date for completion. It might have been thought that all that information is sufficient for hon. Members; but it is not all the information that is given. You have, in addition, information which has never been given before with respect to propelling machinery, gun mountings, torpedo carriages and gear, and guns chargeable to the Army Vote. All this information is given for the first time; and you are able to see what will be the total cost of every particular ship in the course of construction. All that is a great advantage; for, in my opinion, it is far better to give to hon. Members and the country every information about the expenditure in the year on shipbuilding, or any other subject, than to try to keep it back in any way. There is another important change in these Estimates; and it is one which was recommended first by the Earl of Northbrook in a Minute before he left the Admiralty, and carried out by the noble Lord opposite the late First Lord. I refer to the important change which has so long been a matter of dispute and discussion in the House with reference to the "Parliamentary ton," or tonnage measurement, as it appeared in the Estimates. I congratulate the noble Lord on having been able to carry out that great change. I remember, in a discussion which took place last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), who has, year after year, called attention to this disputed question, made use of these words, that—
    "The promise to build a certain tonnage has never been fulfilled by any Government."
    That form of promise has always been a cause of dispute in the House between one side and the other. Happily for myself, however, I have to make no such promise of any particular amount of tonnage to be built in the year; and it is a still more happy escape for hon. Members that they will no longer be troubled by the annual battle of the unfortunate "ton." Expenditure will for the future be the measure of the progress made in shipbuilding. I now

    1187
    come to the consideration of the Estimates which have been presented to Parliament for the ensuing year; and in making a short explanatory statement respecting them, I wish to remind the Committee of the very short period during which my noble Friend the present First Lord (the Marquess of Ripon) and the Board have been in Office, and of the consequent great pressure and haste with which, naturally, we have been compelled to consider and determine the preparation of the Estimates. I do not think the Committee can expect a perfect policy to be prepared in four or five weeks; nor do I think it would be advisable to attempt to prepare a policy in so short a time. But the policy of the present Board is a loyal adhesion to the policy followed and the expenditure undertaken by the Earl of Northbrook, and the further expenditure commenced by the noble Lord opposite. We do not stand either by a Liberal or a Conservative policy; but we follow the policy of both Parties; and therefore I think I am able to say that our policy is a national policy. Well, then, we have also carried out in good faith the promises made to Parliament and to the country in the years 1884 and 1885; but we have, at the same time, a firm determination to curtail all expenditure which can be properly curtailed without injury to the Naval Service. The result of all is a net Estimate, which you have now in your hands, amounting to £12,993,100, or an increase of £606,600 over the grant of 1885–6, and of £298,200 over last year's grant, plus the Supplementary Estimates. No doubt, this sum of £12,993,100 is too small a sum to please many of our Naval Friends who sit opposite; while, at the same time, it is too large a sum for some—I will not say many—of our economical Friends who sit on the Benches on this side of the House, and who wish to see a more economical administration of our finances. Therefore I feel that on the present occasion I have to stand, as it were, between two fires, and have to be prepared to receive an attack from both sides. I appear here to-night in two capacities. As Secretary to the Admiralty, I desire to carry out and maintain to the fullest extent the efficiency of the Navy; but I also appear here as an economist, and in that capacity I venture to hope that the explanation I have
    1188
    to give will be one which may disarm the opposition of both Parties. Though I admit our Estimates are high—too high for our economical Friends—and, omitting Votes of Credit, that they are higher than those of any year since the Crimean War, I think I may say that their amount has been rendered necessary owing to the large liabilities incurred in carrying out the shipbuilding programme of the last two Boards—the Earl of Northbrook's and that of the noble Lord opposite. The Earl of Northbrook's scheme for additional ships caused a liability on the Navy Votes of £3,500,000. The late Board, presided over by the noble Lord opposite, during the short time—seven months—they were in Office, commenced 11 additional ships, five of which were in the 1885–6 programme, but not ordered; no designs had been prepared, nor had they been commenced. I do not mean, by saying that the noble Lord commenced 11 additional ships, to throw any imputation upon him of having commenced building unnecessary ships. Of these 11 ships, five belonged, as it were, to the Earl of Northbrook's Administration, and six to that of the noble Lord opposite. But if I include — and I think I ought to include it in the amount of liability the noble Lord's programme entailed upon us—I shall have to add the Nile and the Trafalgar, because, although they had been suggested by the Earl of Northbrook, the designs were completed in the time of the noble Lord opposite; and I may say that the vessels already commenced created a further liability on the Navy Votes of £2,600,000. Then, again, we have a liability thrown upon us this year in respect of the non-completion of the 40 torpedo boats commenced out of the Vote of Credit last year, which amounts to £223,600. Unfortunately, those boats cannot be completed before the end of March, and the Vote of Credit does not run over into the new financial year, so that our total liability, taken from the programme of the two late Boards, and our liability under the Vote of Credit, amounts to no less a sum than £6,323,600, to be paid during the next few years. Of that sum, £3,828,000 has to be paid for our shipbuilding in 1886–7. I should have thought that those who are in favour of getting work out of hand would have been prepared to agree with the

    1189
    principle that you should complete what you have got in hand before you put additional ships on the stocks. I may be asked by some hon. Members—"Why do you not, instead of throwing this money over three years, throw it over five?" All I can say is, that I do not approve of a slow and dawdling system; and a return to such a policy would be, I believe, as wasteful, extravagant, and expensive as a rapid policy is economical. I think I can show hon. Members that it is a bad system, by referring to one or two ships whose construction has been thrown over a number of years, and how much the additional cost has been as compared with that of vessels built rapidly. There are two ships called the Agamemnon and the Ajax. The Agamemnon was proposed to be finished in seven years; but she was not really finished for nine. Well, Sir, what has been the consequence? The consequence is that the amount of money spent upon her for labour has been £185,522. The original Estimate was £140,000, so that it has been exceeded by no less a sum than £45,000, no doubt in consequence of a variety of reasons, some of them probably the alterations which were carried out during the construction of the ship. The Ajax is a similar case. It appears also to have taken nine years in construction, and the cost for labour was £188,894. The original Estimate was £162,000. In that case the excess was not so great, but still it was considerable. I hope I may be allowed to refer, for a few moments, to a list of vessels which I hold in my hand. I have named the Agamemnon and the Ajax. I now come to the Inflexible. The Inflexible took nine years to build, and the cost over the original Estimate was £102,400 for labour. Now I will come to some vessels which are to be built more rapidly. First, the Camperdown. She was proposed to be built in six years, and she will really be completed in six years, without any increase in the original Estimate. The original estimated cost of labour on hull was £196,000, and it is expected she will really be completed for £196,000. In the same way the Hero was fixed to be finished in six years, and she will be built within that time without any increase in the original Estimate. The Téméraire was to be built in four years, and she was completed in four years, without any addi-
    1190
    tion to the Estimate of £140,000. Then, again, the Rodney was to be completed in six years, and she will be completed in that time without any increase of cost. I think that shows that the more rapid system is the more economical system, and I trust that the system inaugurated last year for the more rapid completion of vessels will be the one which will be followed by the Board of Admiralty in future. What does the opposite system really mean? It means that we have a large capital lying idle for a great number of years. During the time that the Agamemnon and Ajax were being constructed, an amount of capital was lying idle which would have produced at 5 per cent something like £50,000 or £60,000 a-year. Therefore, on the ground of economy, I would myself press forward this new system of rapidity of execution. Another argument I would use to hon. Members in this House who are strongly in favour of economy is this—that I consider that a liberal provision for the Naval Service, carried out steadily and systematically from year to year, is far more economical than a policy which first blows hot and then blows cold. In the latter case, when a panic arises, we are led into very hasty and extravagant expenditure, and many Members consider that the money spent last year in taking up ships hastily from the Mercantile Service was so much money thrown into the sea. I think the noble Lord opposite used that expression. I do not go quite so far as that, but I will go with hon. Gentlemen to this extent—that it would be better, and would be more economical, to provide as many ships as we want than to spend money in that extravagant way. Having addressed a few words to hon. Members who are in favour of economy, I should now like to appeal to those who are in favour of increased Estimates, and ask them to consider how much has been done for the Navy during the last two years. In 1885–6 the Naval Estimates of the year amounted to £12,694,900, or an increase of more than £1,500,000 over the previous year. Well, in addition to that, out of the Vote of Credit there was spent on contract shipbuilding work no less a sum than £1,014,000; on Dockyard wages £98,000; and on purchase of naval stores nearly £450,000; so that you not only had this increase of £1,500,000 in favour of larger expenditure, but also another £1,500,000

    1191
    of money taken out of the Vote of Credit for shipbuilding purposes. I will invite hon. Members now to look with me into the naval expenditure of the country for a number of years past, and it will be found, as I have already pointed out, that the proposed expenditure this year is really higher than it has ever been in any year since the Crimean War. If you take the expenditure for the last 12 years, leaving out Votes of Credit, of course, and dividing it into two periods of six years, I find that in the first period, from 1874–5 to 1879–80, there was an aggregate sum of £66,802,000 spent on the Navy. These were the years when a Conservative Government was in Office, and I find that the average was £11,133,000 per annum. I find also that the gross Estimates this year are £2,500,000—£1,859,000 more than the average expenditure of each of those six years when a Conservative Government was in Office. I will now take the six years of a Liberal Government, and I find that the aggregate sum was £69,030,000 during the six years 1880–1 to 1885–6, or an average of £11,505,000, and less than this year's gross Estimate by over £2,000,000. When I mention Conservative and Liberal Governments, I do not do so for any Party purpose, but I merely do it because it may be useful to hon. Members who want larger Estimates to know what their Friends did for them during the period they were in Office. Then I will ask hon. Members to look at the provision for new construction, and the large number of ships now in progress. There are at the present time in progress 103 different ships—19 armoured ships, four protected ships, 26 unprotected, and 54 torpedo boats. In addition, I would say that the total estimated expenditure for the large number of new vessels which are now being constructed amounts to the very considerable sum of £13,155,000. I do not suppose that at any previous time in our history has there been so large a liability for the work of shipbuilding during the time of construction; and in addition to this sum we have to pay a further sum of £1,138,000 for guns for the ships which, though charged to Army Votes, has to come out of the taxpayers' pockets, and is practically for the purposes of the Navy. The Dockyard Vote this year for the labour on new ships is £693,990, against £605,330 last year, an
    1192
    increase of nearly £90,000; and the Contract Vote for hulls and propelling machinery for new ships this year is £1,720,000, against £1,530,000 last year. During the year seven torpedo cruisers, five gun vessels, and one large armour-clad vessel, the Benbow, will be completed by contractors. I think, then, with this work going on, I may safely appeal to hon. Members to wait a little to get all this work out of hand before we set to work to provide some of those new ships said to be by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which I believe and agree are, so much wanted for the Navy. Now, what are the reasons why we have made no proposals for new ships? My noble Friend—if he will allow me to call him so—the late First Lord (Lord George Hamilton) said that they had left a programme for new ships amounting to something like £1,000,000 of money. I quite agree that they did leave such a programme, but it was the programme of the Board of Admiralty, and I do not know that it was a programme which had been passed by the Treasury or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that programme, which the noble Lord desired to add to the expenditure for 1886–7, there was a certain number of gunboats and corvettes to be nearly completed in the course of that year, and the remainder in the following year. I quite admit that it is not desirable to go on patching up and repairing these old gunboats. I doubt whether it is economical to do so. Therefore, I should have been very glad if we could have seen our way this year to make provision for additional gunboats to replace these old, useless, and obsolete vessels; and I still hope, before the end of the year, we may be able to do something in that direction. The First Lord of the Admiralty desires to do so; and were he able to be here himself I know that he would say so. But I think I may fairly appeal to the Committee to support the plan we have adopted. My noble Friend thinks, and his Board thinks, that they ought to have time to mature their future policy. And I think there is no desire, either on one side of the House or the other, to call upon the Admiralty to enter into a large expenditure for iron-clads. But our attention must be turned at once, and I have no doubt that the present Board of Admimiralty will turn their attention at once,

    1193
    to the question of what description of vessel is to be the vessel of the future. We are fully alive to the importance of determining, after adequate consideration, the general lines of a policy, to be steadily followed as circumstances and means may permit. It is pretty generally admitted by the members of both the late and present Boards that, when the large armoured ships now building are completed, we may pause for a time at least in the building of vessels of that description, and so may at once turn our attention to other classes of ships—to fast cruisers, to a development of torpedo craft of all kinds—torpedo boats, torpedo catchers, and torpedo depôt ships—and to provide for the waste of the Navy in respect of gunboats, so far as required to replace old obsolete ships. The question of gunboats was referred to by several speakers on Monday night. If the Estimates are maintained at their present rate in 1887–8, combined with a decreasing liability for ships near completion, there will be nearly £1,000,000 which can be devoted to all these objects without the slightest interference with the shipbuilding already in operation. Therefore, I think I am justified in asking that we should be allowed time to consider what is to be the vessel of the future; that we should be allowed time to consider our programme; and that we should come forward, if we should be in a position to do so next year, with a definite proposal for additional ships in the direction which has been suggested by the noble Lord the late First Lord and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), and other speakers. Having said enough, I hope, on that question, I should like just to show what was done as to shipbuilding by the late Board of Admiralty in the Estimates of 1885–6. Why, Sir, the late Board of Admiralty—that presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), who, no doubt, will be able to offer some explanatory statement much better than mine — provided in the Estimates for 1885–6 for the commencement of five ships of which the designs were "not decided upon"—namely, two armour-clads, to be built, one at Portsmouth and one at Pembroke; one torpedo ram to be built at Chatham, designed, not ordered; one new vessel to be built at Sheerness, and one new Scout to be
    1194
    built at Devonport. Up to the Earl of Northbrook's retirement, however, no order had been given for the construction of these ships; and in the case of the vessels to be built at Portsmouth and Pembroke, the designs had not even been decided upon. The late Board, having decided upon the designs, ordered the construction of 11 ships, six of which are not in the Estimates. They were two armour-clads — the Trafalgar at Portsmouth and the Nile at Pembroke; two belted cruisers, 18 knots, the Immortalité, to be built at Chatham, and the Aurora at Pembroke, the Immortalité being substituted for the torpedo ram contemplated by the Earl of Northbrook, who left a Minute expressing his preference for that class over a large armour-clad; two Scouts, 16 to 17 knots, the Racoon and the Serpent, to be built at Devonport; one gun vessel, the Buzzard, to be built at Sheerness, 15 knots; three torpedo gunboats, one called the Grasshopper, to be built at Sheerness, and the Sandfly and Spider at Devonport; and in addition to these there was one other gunboat, the Rattlesnake, 19 knots, to be built by contract by Messrs. Laird, of the same character as the Grasshopper, and to be ready about August next. These four gunboats are of an entirely new type, and are intended for the destruction of the enemy's torpedo boats. They are 200 feet long, 23 feet wide, 450 tons displacement, with 2,700 indicated horse power, the speed being 19 knots. They will each of them carry 100 tons of coal, enough for 600 knots full speed, or 4,000 tons at 10 knots an hour. They have no rig except two light poles for signalling purposes. They are to be propelled by twin-screws, and they cost about £33,000 for hull and engines. In addition, four gunboats of the Rattler class were ordered after the change of Government to be constructed by contract, the money having been provided under the ordinary Estimates of 1885–6. I should now like to say a few words about the Nile and the Trafalgar. Of course, they are two of the most important vessels that will ever be put on the stocks in this country. They certainly will be the largest armour-clads yet constructed for the English Navy. Therefore, when we are about to commence the construction of such important vessels, I think it is desirable that I should say a few words to

    1195
    the Committee in order to show them what the vessels themselves will consist of. If hon. Members are already in possession of the information I will save them the trouble of listening to a repetition of it; but I am not aware that any account has, as yet, been given to the House. They surpass in displacement all foreign armour-clad ships except four vessels now being constructed for the Italian Iron-clad Navy. This being so, I think it is desirable that I should say something as to their dimensions. Their dimensions are — length, 345 feet; breadth, 73 feet; displacement, 11,940 tons; and indicated horse-power, 12,000. The estimated speed will be about 16½ knots. There will be an armoured citadel about 190 feet long in the central position of the ship, and at each end of the citadel a turret. Each turret will contain two 68-ton breech-loading guns. Between the turrets and above the citadel there will be a central box battery, lightly armoured, which will contain eight 5-inch breech-loading guns, and on the spar deck covering this battery the boats will be stowed and a number of quick-firing machine guns mounted. The guns will be loaded, and the turrets worked, by hydraulic power. In addition, each ship will have a powerful torpedo armament, and will also be fitted for ramming. They will be capable of carrying 1,200 tons of coal in the bunkers, and will have no rig. The armour belt at the waterline extends to about 230 feet amidships, and before and abaft the belt a strong steel deck, three inches thick, protects the vitals. The armour on the belt will be 20 inches, on the sides of the citadel 16 to 18 inches, and on the turret 18 inches. In addition to this there will be an inner armour of about two inches, which will also be worked behind the teak backing. Now we come to the cost, which is very large indeed—so large that I am almost afraid to mention it. But when I look at what some other ships have cost in the British Navy, which are not so powerful and which can never be so protective as these vessels, I do not know that the sum is very excessive. The cost of each vessel will amount, with the guns, to no less a sum than £919,134, which is approaching £1,000,000. [An hon. MEMBER: Both?] No; each. The hull will cost £686,000, the propelling machinery, £97,000, and the gun mountings, £79,794; making a total on
    1196
    the Navy Votes of £862,794. The guns will cost £56,340. Well, now, hon. Members may think that a large sum. I admit that it is a large sum; but we have expended these large sums previously on other vessels not so large as this, but still, for the size of the vessels, very considerable sums. Take the Inflexible—she cost £809,600; the Benbow, which is a contract ship—and we have always been told that we can build cheaper by contract than in our own Yards—the Benbow is to cost £789,162; and the Renown, built by Sir William Armstrong, which is the same size as the Benbow, is to cost £789,995. Well, if we are to be a strong country—and it is often stated that we ought to be as strong, if not stronger, than any other Power—we must make up our minds to go in for this large expenditure. But I think I may safely say that these two large iron-clads will probably be the last iron-clads of this type that will ever be built in this or any other country. In France they are ceasing to go on with the construction of large iron-clads. Very little is now being done by the French Naval Authorities in the way of building, but they are completing certain iron-clads which are larger than anything we now have. These two large iron-clads, however, which are being built, and which were first suggested by the Earl of Northbrook and commenced by the noble Lord opposite, will be equal—I think superior—to any ship of the same character in the French Navy. And now let me say a word or two about the development of our torpedo flotilla. It has been said that we have been doing very little in the way of torpedoes. I dare say we were a little backward about the time the noble Lord alluded to the other night—namely, the time of the Russian scare. Perhaps we were not then so well prepared with torpedo boats and torpedoes as we ought to have been, and as I think we shall be if any difficulty of the kind occurs again. The development of a torpedo flotilla has been, and is, receiving the greatest attention of the Board of Admiralty. There are now several sea-going torpedo boats rapidly approaching completion. There are the torpedo cruiser Scout and her sister ship, the Fearless, both of which will be finished in 1886–7, as well as two or three of the improved Scouts, of which eight are building and

    1197
    will be finished this year. Then there is the torpedo gunboat of the Rattlesnake class, which is much smaller than the cruisers to which I first alluded, and which is to have a speed of 19 knots, as against 17 to 17½ knots in the other class of cruisers. There are 40 torpedo boats, all of which are 125 feet long, being 12 feet longer than the largest of those which were used with the Experimental Squadron at Bantry Bay last year, and so may have, it is hoped, better sea-keeping qualities than the vessels tried upon that occasion, though they cannot be expected to be really intended for sea service. Even if they were able to keep the sea for a day or two, it would be almost cruel to the crews to keep them on board for a great number of days. And now I come to show the Committee that we do not want to be in too great haste in deciding upon any additional torpedo boats until we have had experience of the vessels which are now in the course of completion and almost ready to be experimented upon. We want to find out which is the best and strongest type of swift vessel that can be used as a torpedo boat-catcher at the smallest cost. In addition to those I have named, there is a special torpedo vessel, of 150 feet in length, bought from Messrs. White, of Cowes, now being fitted for trial; and another, 135 feet long, with a guaranteed speed higher than any yet built for the Navy, has been ordered from Messrs. Yarrow. When these vessels of these various types and of various strength are completed, trials will be made with them and with the Rattlesnake, so as to ascertain whether a satisfactory type has been gained, and what type is best for general purposes. When that has been decided, we shall know what to do in regard to the torpedo boats of the future. Then it is said that we have no torpedoes. With regard to the arrangements for the purchase of torpedoes, I may say that there has been considerable difficulty in finding out where to obtain them; but we have 541 now ready for use, and still require 1,463 before we shall have sufficient for our purposes. We have made arrangements to obtain these additional torpedoes in the best way we can. Some of the additional torpedoes we are having made by a firm near Leeds, and we are getting them made at Woolwich
    1198
    Arsenal at the rate of 250 per annum, and we are also getting an additional number elsewhere, so that by the end of this year we hope we shall be short by only 300 or 400 of the torpedoes we shall require. It is not a very easy matter to get these additional torpedoes. We want as soon as possible to get them made in this country, and if firms will undertake the making of them, we shall very readily try to promote business with them. In addition to what I have said about torpedo boats, it is intended to have 32 first-class torpedo boats at the following Colonial Stations: — Hong Kong six, of which two have already been sent; Malta eight, of which four have already been sent; Gibraltar six, of which two have already been sent; Simon's Bay four, of which two have already been sent; while two have been sent to North America, and more than double that number will be sent as soon as they are ready. Therefore, I do not think we are open to the complaint that was made the other night that we are doing so very little in torpedoe boats and torpedoes. I do not say that we are perfect, or that we ever shall be perfect, because the torpedo boat and the torpedo itself are weapons of such a scientific nature that we shall see the greatest changes taking place even from month to month in their construction. I do not suppose that we have yet arrived at anything like perfection in that class of warfare. The noble Lord the late First Lord drew attention on Monday night to the want of ammunition for our guns. I do not think that things are quite as bad as the noble Lord stated. I find that considerable provision has been made for guns, not only in the Navy Estimates this year, but also in the Army Estimates. There are also considerable sums for gunpowder and other matters which the noble Lord alluded to. We have made provision for projectiles both for the guns on the ships and for the guns proposed for the ships, and we have also a certain amount in reserve. We have not perhaps got so much in reserve as we should like; but still we have done much more than the noble Lord gives us credit for. I trust that the armaments of the ships in the future will be carried out much more expeditiously than they have been in past years. There is no doubt that many ships have

    1199
    been kept waiting for their armaments; but I do not think that will be the case in the future. Now, with respect to the guns, and the large guns particularly. I will give some idea of our position and prospects. In April, 1880, there was not a single breech-loading gun available, and on the 1st of July, 1885, there was no 110-ton gun or 64-ton gun available. By the 31st of March, 1887, there will be three of the former and 14 of the latter. On July 1, 1885, there were only 11 43-ton guns ready; in March, 1887, there will be 17. In July, 1885, there were only 230 6-inch guns; in March, 1887, there will be 468. I may also add that in the Estimates this year provision is made for the first time for the armaments of the six ships of the Narcissus type laid down last Spring. We commenced to make provision for the armaments at the same time that we made provision for laying down the ships. Before I sit down I will just refer to what has been done during the last six or seven months by the late Board of Admiralty with respect to the reorganization of the Admiralty and the Dockyards. I think the country is indebted for the very courageous way in which the noble Lord the late First Lord and my hon. Friend who was Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie) carried out the work on this question. Of course, they had to do it at the risk of incurring much obloquy and complaint; but I believe they have been doing a real duty to their country. In the first place, immediately after the Committee, which was called Mr. Goschen's Committee, they instituted, on August 4, a Committee consisting of the Secretary to the Admiralty, Sir Reginald Welby, the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty, and the Accountant General, to consider—
    "What alterations are necessary to ensure an effective control over the expenditure of the different Departments of the Admiralty."
    I think that was a very necessary thing to do, whatever Government might have been in power. The late Government further extended the inquiry of the Committee they had appointed by requiring them to investigate the position of the Dockyards, and the expenditure upon labour and material, as well as the work done in the Dockyards. That Committee have been sitting and taking evi-
    1200
    dence, and I believe the result of the inquiry will be of the most useful character. The Committee reported in September, recommending that the position of Accountant General should be strengthened by making him assistant and deputy to the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, which, by Order in Council, was carried out fully. By that means all estimates, liabilities, and expenditure come under his direct control. He has been provided with a deputy and two assistants, who are each in charge of a division. An Inspector of Yard Accounts has also been added for auditing and supervising the Yard Accounts, and of scrutinizing the expenditure upon shipbuilding and repairing. Also a Finance Committee has been appointed to meet fortnightly, consisting of the Financial Secretary, the Accountant General and his three deputies, and the Inspector of Yard Accounts as Secretary. Now, I believe myself that there is great room for reform and economy in the management of the Dockyards, and I am very glad indeed that the late Government approached the subject in the way they did. I believe the system they have laid down, which is only now just commencing, when it is brought into full operation, will be of the greatest use in reducing the expenditure of the country upon that portion of our naval expenditure. I believe that the country does not so much complain of the amount which you ask it to spend upon the Navy, as the question whether they get their money's worth for their money. It ought to be our duty to see that the country does get money's worth for the money it spends. I should like to say one word about the supervision of labour in the Dockyards. There is much in the evidence which shows that a very extensive amount of supineness and waste takes place there. I cannot admit that the Report, which refers to the workers in the Dockyards, can refer to the whole of them. No doubt there are idlers, and the sooner we get rid of the idlers the better. But I think we have a right to say to the workers in the Dockyards that if they want our sympathy and desire us to consider their grievances, and if they want us to give them a fair day's wage, we must have a fair day's work for the wage we give them. That, I trust, will be the principle adopted in dealing with the workers. I have now

    1201
    only to thank the Committee for the attention they have given me. I do not pretend to have made anything but a plain, unvarnished statement. I do not profess to know more than other hon. Members know, except a few secrets of the Admiralty; but I will give way to none in this House, whether he be a naval man or a civilian, in my desire to do as much as I can to promote the welfare of all classes of Her Majesty's Naval Service. At the same time, I do not wish to forget the strong claims which the taxpayers have upon us—that we should pay attention to the economical administration of the large funds which they entrust to our hands. While, I say, I am bound to consider these strong claims, I also consider the strong claims of our national responsibilities, and our anxiety and our desire in the future to maintain that supremacy at sea which England has always kept in past years, and which, I hope, she will occupy in future.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I think it will be the unanimous feeling of the Committee that I should express our congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his restoration to health and on the business-like and lucid statement he has just made. The right hon. Member has only had a few weeks to prepare himself for one of the most complicated and intricate statements which a Member of Parliament can make; and on this occasion it was more difficult than usual owing to the great mass of the Estimates having been necessarily prepared before he accepted Office. But he has acquitted himself in a manner which has given universal satisfaction to all who heard him; for although he did not profess that his statement was in any way a pretentious one, yet for the amount of information it contained, and for lucidity of arrangement, it quite equalled almost any statement of the kind which in past years I have heard in this House. It is extremely satisfactory to the members of the late Board to find the right hon. Gentleman speaking with his well-known business capacity, expressing approval of the alterations we made for the purpose of maintaining adequate efficiency and control over the expenditure of the Admiralty, and also for the improved system of supervision of the business in the Dockyards; and I can assure him,
    1202
    so long as he endeavours to support those principles in so magnanimous a manner, he will have our cordial co-operation. The accounts this year are exceptionally difficult to explain, because, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, they are embarrassed by the inclusion of a very large sum for the additional expenditure which the Earl of Northbrook sanctioned last year, and also for a considerable sum which remains from the Vote of Credit passed only last year. But there is one point in connection with the subject to which the hon. Gentleman did not attach too much importance, and that is the improvement in their form. For the first time, the Committee has before it not only a clear statement of the past and the estimated expenditure of the future, but also an account of the liabilities which that expenditure will entail. When we went to the Admiralty we found that the mistake which had occurred in the accounts to so large an amount was entirely due to there being no accurate record of liabilities. In fact, the system was most defective. The Heads of the Departments checked their own expenditure, and it is to their accuracy that no blunders of important dimensions have occurred in the past. We therefore determined, not only in regard to current expenditure, but any expenditure which had reference to future years, that there should be a full and complete record of all liabilities which would be entailed, and the Estimates have been framed with the greatest success in carrying out that view. There is another alteration by which the old and inaccurate Returns of tonnage have been abolished, and, for the first time, an accurate Return is taken of the progress which the expenditure of the money will entail, and also an accurate account, not only of the sum spent in the initial expenses, but also of the material used in the Dockyards. The right hon. Gentleman has further expressed his approval of the Returns which had been practically completed when we left Office; and in order to make the Returns more thoroughly complete he has added a Return, perhaps more valuable than any of the others, which shows everything connected with the question of the guns, torpedo gear, and complicated machinery, and in which the respective share borne by the War

    1203
    Office, as well as the Admiralty, is accurately stated. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman was not here the other night when the debate took place. From his remarks, he evidently did not understand the object with which I intervened in the debate and the purport of certain observations which I made. I quite agree with him that in the Estimates presented to the House the Board of Admiralty was perfectly right in laying down no new ships, because if they had extended the programme which they have given in the present Estimates, undoubtedly they would not be able to expedite the work. I know, and my hon. Friend who sits beside me knows, that the great difficulty any Board of Admiralty would have to face in the present year would be to find the ways and means to meet the enormous liability of the past two years; and I was certain that no Chancellor of the Exchequer would grant more than a certain sum out of the taxation for the naval purposes of this year. That being so, my proposal was that a portion of the expenditure which was abnormal and additional, and which formed part of the programme sanctioned by the Earl of Northbrook, should be taken out of the Estimates and should be converted into a Terminable Annuity to run over a certain number of years. I believe that that could have been done in five or six years, and at the end of that period you would not only have a large reduction in the naval expenditure, but the country would have had the satisfaction of knowing that the Navy was in the highest state of efficiency, and that the Fleet had been thoroughly renovated from top to bottom. And now, Sir, let me say a word as to the calculation by which I arrive at the opinion that a sum of about £2,000,000 sterling was necessary to thoroughly revivify the Fleet. I estimated its insufficiency at about £2,000,000 sterling, and I arrive at that figure in this way. The Earl of Northbrook left behind an Estimate that the sum which it was necessary to spend in shipbuilding was £3,100,000, and that it was to be spread in equal proportions, as far as possible, over the next five years. He estimated also that the amount for guns in the next five years would be £1,600,000, making in the aggregate an increased expenditure of £4,700,000. It is now
    1204
    estimated that during the past year we have reduced our liabilities of £4,700,000 by £1,700,000—namely, £1,000,000 for ships and £700,000 for gun. That leaves a liability on subsequent years on the extra expenditure, framed on the basis of the Earl of Northbrook's programme—an outstanding liability of £3,000,000 sterling. But certain investigations which were made during last year show that the sum the Earl of Northbrook proposed to expend in bringing the Fleet up to the requisite strength was insufficient; and I estimate that the amount to which it was insufficient was £2,000,000 sterling. I arrive at that figure in the following way:—I left behind me an Estimate of some small ships, which, in the opinion of naval men, were necessary to be built in the next two or three years, amounting to about £1,033,000. Then I estimated that for guns a sum of £500,000 more than was provided by the Earl of Northbrook would have to be spent, and I add to those sums about £350,000 as necessary to be spent during the next two or three years for the purpose of bringing up our torpedo boats and torpedoes to the necessary number. That made about £2,000,000, which, added to the £3,000,000 of liabilities under the Earl of Northbrook's programme, made £5,000,000 sterling. My wish was to take out of the Estimates for this the extraordinary expenditure, amounting to £1,800,000. Reducing the Estimates by that amount, I proposed in its place to substitute a Terminable Annuity for five years. My right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was opposed to me, and my right hon. Friends near me shared, to a certain extent, his objection. Therefore, I will not raise that point again. Nevertheless, it is well that the Committee should understand what will be our position during the next three or four years. You will have most magnificent iron-clads, but they may be useless for the want of guns. You will have the finest belted cruisers any nation can possess, but with absence of sufficient amunition for guns. Further, you will have gunboats admitted to be the most obsolete of any Naval Power in Europe, and deficient also in torpedo gear. Surely, if we spend 9–10ths of the sum which is necessary to put our Fleet in a state of pre-

    1205
    paration, it is unwise to decline to spend the remaining 10 per cent that is requisite to render our Navy efficient from top to bottom. As regards the alteration we have effected in the Admiralty during the current year, it must be recollected that we came in as a Government just as the war rumours were over and the scare had subsided. Our relations with Russia became in consequence more amicable, and we found that there were a considerable number of iron-clads which figured in the list of effective ships which were altogether obsolete. Therefore, the first step we took was to place certain iron-clads in reserve and to replace them with five sea-going vessels. We had also the advantage of the Report of one of our ablest Admirals—Sir Geoffrey Hornby—the Admiral of the Evolutionary Squadron, which gave us most useful information as to the types of the vessels of the future. Therefore, having regard to the expenditure which had been sanctioned, and the expenditure which it was clear would have to be sanctioned, the late Board of Admiralty thought it their duty to take steps to insure an effective control over the expenditure which was imminent, so that the nation should get as good a return as possible for it. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded so kindly to what we have done that it is not necessary for me to enter into a recapitulation. But there is one point in particular in connection with this matter on which I wish to say a word in behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. Persistent attacks have been made during the last six months by different newspapers upon the permanent officials of the Admiralty; and it has been asserted over and over again that they were doing all that was in their power to impede and embarrass my hon. Friend and myself in carrying out the necessary reforms. I wish to say that all these statements are untrue. My hon. Friend and myself had, undoubtedly, to effect considerable alterations; but we were most loyally supported throughout by the permanent officials of the Department; and, indeed, unless we had secured their cordial co-operation we would never have been able to effect even so much as we have done. The investigation, however, that was set on foot made it perfectly clear that our system of Dockyard administra-
    1206
    tion was most unsatisfactory. We came to the conclusion, in this investigation, that the materials supplied to the Dockyards were of the very best, that the workmen employed were the very pick of their class, and that, with regard to the constructive and engineering officers, there was no task that was not within the limit of their capacity. Therefore, if the system was defective, it was not from the want of hands and brains. The defects arose from too great centralization at the Admiralty, and too great isolation in the branches of the different departments of the Dockyards. As far as possible, we endeavoured to reverse these principles; and I believe we have laid down regulations which, while giving increased power to the local officers, will, at the same time, by an outside and independent audit, provide that sufficient control is kept over them. Perhaps, however, it will be a more suitable time to discuss this question when we get to the Dockyard Vote. There is one matter which I would ask the economically-minded Members of the Committee carefully to consider. About one-half of our naval expenditure is in connection with our manufacturing establishments. At the present there is a pressure being put upon the Government to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole expenditure of the Army and Navy. I trust that that question will not be considered by a Committee with so wide a Reference. I am perfectly satisfied that the inquiry would lead to no practical result. A Committee can be of no assistance in laying down the number of ships that there should be in commission or the number of men in the Army. That is alone the policy of the Government. But there is one point in regard to which an investigation would be of the greatest possible service, and that is the connection both of the Army and Navy with these manufacturing establishments. There is this great difficulty connected with these establishments—that it is the practice to vote an annual fixed sum for them. If any material is cheap at a particular time it is not possible to buy a quantity of it for use during another year; while, on the contrary, if the price of a material is high one year the Treasury would not thank the Board for returning the money, because they know that it would lead to the expenditure for the next year

    1207
    being larger. In the same way it is almost impossible to obtain sufficient sums to keep the plant of these establishments in proper order. No private manufacturing firms have such obsolete machinery as is to be found in Her Majesty's Dockyards. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] An hon. Member cheers that; but I am afraid that he must be regarded as a special exponent of the system which entails this wasteful system. I have not the slightest doubt that if funds could be found for the production of fresh plant and machinery great economy in labour would be obtained; but this cannot be done under an annual Vote. There is another question which is to undergo the investigation of a Committee. A great deal of work is at present done by convict labour—convicts are employed in building basins, and in other work of a similar character. Of course, the object of the Home Office is to employ the convicts, and to give them full employment; but I am certain that the result is that in certain cases works are undertaken in order to employ these convicts, which are too large, and cannot be maintained afterwards on the sum annually voted for their maintenance. This has been the case, for instance, at Chatham; and the result is that a portion of the money which was required for the maintenance of the old and smaller Yards is appropriated to the extension of the larger Yard, by which process the larger the Yard becomes the smaller is the sum annually voted for its maintenance. Into all these things a Committee might, with great advantage, inquire, in order to see whether we could not have some more business-like way of managing the expenditure of these establishments. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned at length the number of ships which the late Board of Admiralty laid down; and the Committee were, no doubt, somewhat surprised to hear the enormous cost of the two iron-clads we laid down. Now, to sanction the commencement of two iron-clads, each of which was to cost over £900,000, was a very serious responsibility; and we took all the pains we could to ascertain whether we should be justified in doing so. In the first place, we found that the Earl of Northbrook had intended to lay down two such vessels. What we had to consider was, first, the displacement; and the late Board of
    1208
    Admiralty—certainly my hon. Friend the late Secretary—had decided upon a displacement of 12,000 tons. The next question to consider was what type of vessel would give us the most powerful iron-clad. The other night we heard an able and technical speech from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Holderness Division of the East Riding (Commander Bethell), in which he expressed his opinion that iron-clads are practically obsolete. It may be that these two vessels may be the last great iron-clads that will ever be built; but if we are to maintain our naval supremacy, I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend, and all those who think with him, whether we can maintain it at this time by opposing unarmoured to armoured vessels? Let the hon. and gallant Member go back to the origin of armour-clad vessels, and let him read the record of the performances of the Merrimac and the other earlier American iron-clads, which positively wrecked and destroyed all the wooden ships of the American Navy. We know that the guns are now far more accurate and penetrating than any artillery of that time; and I think it would be absolutely madness to abandon iron-clads unless other nations do the same. At the same time, it is our duty carefully to consider the question of expenditure. It is quite true that the cost of these two ships is very large, and that it will amount to the sum mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman; but it amounts only to £76 per ton, while in the case of the Benbow, which is far inferior, the cost per ton will be £78, and in the two ships which were laid down just before we came into Office—the Renown and the Sanspareil—the cost will be over £70 per ton. I do not think anyone will contend that either of these vessels is superior in strength to those which we have laid down. There is one point in connection with these gigantic iron-clads which we had very carefully to consider, and that was—what guns should be placed in them. I found that there was a strong opinion among almost all naval officers against the giant ordnance of modern days—that is to say, such guns as those of 110 tons. There is one great ground of objection against guns of this calibre, and that is, that not only is it more costly in accordance with its size, but owing to the large charge of powder

    1209
    the force of the discharge is so great that after a certain number of discharges the steel lining of the gun becomes practically worthless, and the gun has to be taken out of the ship and relined. In addition to that, the larger a gun is the longer it takes to load. Taking all these things into consideration, we thought that these iron-clads would be more effective with four 68-ton guns than they would be with two 110-ton guns. Now, Sir, the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman gave us of the number of ships which we added to the Earl of Northbrook's programme was in the main accurate. The only difference we made was to add one cruiser, two vessels of the Scout class, and three new gun vessels; and I am glad to find that the present First Lord of the Admiralty approves entirely of the type of the vessels, and intends to push on their construction. But there were certain facts brought to my knowledge, after I had been appointed to the Office which I held in the late Government, when I was first acquainted with the naval administration, and when I had less knowledge concerning the Navy—there were certain facts connected with the construction of these vessels whish made me arrive at the conclusion that the Navy ought, as soon as possible, to be strengthened by an increase in the number of smaller and swifter vessels. Now, the improvements which have recently taken place in marine engines are peculiarly advantageous for the development of the strength of the Navy in this direction; and I will allude to two or three vessels which will abundantly prove this statement. There are two vessels of almost identical tonnage—the Iris and the Mersey—the engines of which are nearly of the same power. The Iris was laid down in 1877, and the Mersey in 1883; they are almost of the same displacement; the engines of the Iris weigh 1,020 tons, and she was intended to obtain a speed of 18 knots; the engines of the Mersey were only of 548 tons weight, or about one-half the weight of the engines of the Iris, and she was estimated to attain the same speed as the Iris. And what has resulted? It is that the Mersey's engines cost £54,000, and the engines of the Iris, £132,000. Again, in the case of the Nile and the Inflexible, an equally satisfactory comparison may be made. The engines of the Inflexible weigh
    1210
    1,444 tons, and the engines of the Nile weigh 1,050 tons; in other words, the engines of the Nile are one-third less in weight and yet of nearly one-third greater power than those of the Inflexible. This improvement in the construction of marine engines enables the designer to place in vessels engines of greater power than was possible before, and the result of which is a high rate of speed on a small displacement; and it is quite clear that in future it will be possible for the Navy to have a number of these fast cruisers of a small displacement. These small cruisers could be made faster than any of the merchant liners, and I am strongly of opinion that it would be far wiser for the Admiralty to expend a larger sum in building these small and fast vessels than in subsidizing the Mercantile Marine, or hiring merchant vessels at a high price during a period of panic, and endeavouring to protect our marine abroad by chartering these merchant vessels at high rates. There are, I believe, only five vessels in the world which will steam 18 knots an hour, three of which belong to the Cunard Line. What seems to me the great objection to subsidizing the vessels of the Mercantile Marine is, that when you pay a retaining fee for a vessel which you suppose to be one of the fastest vessels afloat, you may have in a few years a vessel built that will steam faster; you will have prevented the owner selling his ship, and when the time comes at which he is free his ship will be of a very much reduced value. The only plan for the Admiralty appears to me to be that they should subsidize one or two Companies instead of individual vessels, and to be allowed, in virtue of such subsidy, to take such vessels as it thinks fit when it is necessary to do so for the Public Service. But, probably, other Companies and owners would strongly object to that proposal. There is another reason why I think that the Board of Admiralty will be obliged shortly to spend certain sums of money in building these small vessels. Many naval men maintain that it is necessary to keep a certain number of full-rigged vessels afloat for the purpose of training our officers and men. We arrived at the conclusion, and it is one in which I hope the present Board of the Admiralty will think we were right, that in classifying the ships of

    1211
    the Navy, the war vessels should be distinguished from those intended for training purposes, and we decided that all the smaller vessels should not be fully rigged, but built mainly with a view to speed, and that the training of the men should be carried on in the large corvettes. Then, Sir, we thought that, although the quality of the personnel of the Navy was good, one great source of weakness is the large number of non-combatant men which every iron-clad is obliged to carry, especially the number of stokers and engineers; and we endeavoured to counteract this by determining that the stokers should be trained in small-arm practice, so that in time of need their services would be of use. We also directed that the work of butchers and other trades on board ship should not be done by civilians, but by Marines. And we also carried out the intention which the Earl of Northbrook had announced of giving a capitation grant to Naval Volunteers, fully recognizing that if our ports are to be placed in an efficient state we must mainly rely on local effort. If that policy is adhered to, and the men attain to the efficiency required of them, I have no doubt that before many years have passed the Admiralty will consider the advisability of increasing the number of corps who may obtain the capitation grant. [Mr. HIBBERT: That is done.] I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. Although we were in Office only a very short period, I had the good fortune to secure singularly able Colleagues; and if the changes which we effected, and which I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite approves of, turn out to be beneficial, the main credit is due to them. I believe that the naval officers who are on the Board of Admiralty can safely be trusted to keep the personnel of the Navy up to the highest state of efficiency, and that it is the business of the civilian members to see that the material of the Navy is similarly maintained. The changes effected during the last 12 months may individually appear small; but I believe that in their totality they form the foundation of a policy which, if resolutely pursued and expanded as circumstances require, will, beyond all doubt, establish for us, at a
    1212
    moderate cost to the taxpayer, that naval supremacy on the sea which, in times of trouble and difficulty, would be so necessary to us as a self-sustained and independent nation.
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: I desire to follow the noble Lord in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty on the excellent statement which he made on introducing the Naval Estimates, and I wish also to congratulate the noble Lord on his speech, and upon his administration at the Admiralty during his tenure of Office as First Lord. The noble Lord, during that time, was assisted by able Colleagues, and by a body of naval officers who did their duty in a way which entitles them to the thanks of this House and the country. I will pass from that subject to say a few words on the Estimates before us. My right hon. Friend referred to the new features in the Estimates. The Appendix relating to the shipbuilding programme, gives, for the first time, a summary of the total expenditure proposed for labour, materials, and machinery on account of each ship in course of construction. I should like to urge for the consideration of the Admiralty the addition of one or two tables in future Estimates. It is highly desirable that we should have in an Appendix the total expenditure for the manning and maintenance of every ship in commission, whether at home or on foreign stations. These statistics are supplied in the French Estimates. We have, under the present system, no such information available for easy reference, and there ought to be no difficulty in furnishing it. The French Estimates give in an Appendix the total cost in separate colums of the hull, machinery, equipment, and armament of every completed ship in the French Navy. That information is brought together for the use of the Admiralty in their Blue List of ships, and I would suggest that the principal figures, under the headings I have mentioned, should be presented to Parliament together with the Estimates. I now pass to a subject more important than the forms in which the Naval Estimates are presented to the House. The essential we have to consider in Parliament is whether the Estimates make sufficient provision for

    1213
    the Navy. For manning the Navy, we are in a fairly satisfactory position. There can be no question as to the high efficiency of the personnel of the Naval Service; but we want a reserve of lieutenants, and a considerable reserve in the engine-room complement. I am glad that a capitation grant is to be given to the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers. That is a boon which we owe to the administration of the noble Lord opposite. The late Board of Admiralty, doubtless, acted upon the advice of that able officer, Admiral Hamilton, who was appointed by the Earl of Northbrook to deal with the preliminary arrangements for Coast defence when we were under the apprehension of a war with Russia. As regards the numbers of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, I apprehend that no decision has yet been taken. I am glad to notice in the Public Press that the formation of a new brigade has been sanctioned on the Clyde. A new brigade should be established for service on the East Coast. I now turn to the question of ships. While I should have been glad if the additions to the Estimates which the noble Lord has recommended could have been made, the Estimates on the present liberal scale ought to place this country in a commanding position. The question is, do we, or do we not, get the best results for our vast expenditure? That is a question of the gravest importance from a political, naval, and administrative point of view, and I will endeavour to supply an answer. There is, doubtless, much room for improvement; but in justice to the officials concerned, and whose good name is at stake, I would ask that a comparison should be fairly made between the results obtained in this country and the results obtained elsewhere. I will deal first with the designs for our ships. On one point opinion is unanimous—high rate of speed is necessary in the construction of ships of war. In the case of armoured battle ships we raised the speed to nearly 17 knots. The armoured cruisers Warspite and Impérieuse steam 17˙2 knots—a knot more than was promised. Let the Committee compare these figures with those obtained by the latest French ships, and it will be seen that the Vauban, the last iron-clad which has been tried, ob-
    1214
    tained a speed of 14·3 knots. In unarmoured construction a great improvement has been accomplished. The small gunboats, justly described in France by the term poussière navale, have been swept out of our programme, and fast and effective vessels have taken their place. The change does credit to our administration. Passing from the designing of ships to the practical question of construction — the public has been impatient at the delay in the completion of ships. Those delays have been caused not through maladministration in the Dockyards; they are the result of the difficulty of settling many complicated details of armament during a period of transition. Taking the iron-clads included in the French programme of construction for 1886, a comparison of the dates of the commencement of the ships and their present state of advancement, will show that the time occupied in building in England is a little more than half of the time occupied in the French Dockyards. If we make a similar comparison with reference to cost, while we acknowledge that our original Estimates have been exceeded, the excesses are not so formidable as in France and Italy. A Report on this subject was presented by the Committee of the French Chambers on the Estimates of 1882, and it was stated in that Report that the programme of construction adopted in 1882, and originally estimated to cost £16,000,000 sterling, would probably involve an expenditure of £40,000,000. Again, in Italy, the 10 years' programme of building for the period from 1877 to 1887 was originally estimated to cost £5,840,000, and in 1882 the excess over the original Estimates had already reached the formidable sum of £2,000,000 sterling. A similar comparison as to repairs will give results decidedly in favour of English administration. Statistics on this question form a prominent part of the Report of the Committee to the French Chambers in 1879. I will not trespass on the patience of the Committee by reading the details of the subject. I proceed to refer to certain reforms, which, in my judgment, are very much needed. I have alluded to the Committee of Inquiry appointed by the late Government with reference

    1215
    to Admiralty administration; their recommendations were referred to a Departmental Committee of which, the Financial Secretary of the late Board was Chairman. The deliberations of that Committee have resulted in an extensive plan of reorganization. Dealing first with, the Department of the Accountant General, I observe, with satisfaction, that it is not proposed to appoint a new permanent official to whom the Accountant General would be subordinate. That would have been distinctly a retograde step. What was wanted was to strengthen the responsibility of the Accountant General, and to secure a more strict recognition of the authority of that officer.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to refer, unless in a general way, to the organization of the Admiralty Department on this Vote. It would be improper to enter into detail. The hon. Gentleman can deal with that subject on Vote 3 and Vote 6.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Upon the point of Order, Sir, may I ask whether it has not been the practice to discuss all questions on the first Estimate?
    SIR JOHN GORST: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty was, necessarily, a perfectly general one. He referred to the Dockyard management under the late Administration, which he very highly approves; but there was something said by the right hon. Gentleman to which I take extremely strong objection, and if the words of the Secretary to the Admiralty are to go to the country, and if we have to wait until Vote 6 is reached for an opportunity of contradicting his statement, we shall have to wait until the month of July or August.
    MR. RITCHIE: Sir, I believe it has always been the custom to discuss the policy of the Admiralty on the first Vote, and I venture to suggest that the changes to which the hon. Member for Hastings (Sir Thomas Brassey) was about to refer in connection with the administration of the Admiralty, as also the changes introduced in the Dockyard Department, is distinctly a matter of policy, and one of a most important and far-reaching character, and having been entered upon by the Financial Secretary to the Ad-
    1216
    miralty, I submit that it would be hardly correct to prevent discussion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, as has been remarked by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Sir John Gorst), to enter in a very general way into the question of reorganization in respect of the Admiralty and Dockyards, and it would, no doubt, be perfectly in Order for an hon. Member to enter into the question in the same general way. But to enter into detail would be improper, inasmuch as there are two Votes not yet reached to which the questions relate. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) asks me whether it is not the practice to discuss any question relating to the Admiralty on this Vote? I reply that it is right to discuss on this Vote all questions in connection with the Navy in a general way, but it would be a breach of Rule to enter into a specific question to which the Vote does not refer.
    MR. RITCHIE: Am I to understand, Mr. Courtney, that we shall be precluded from commenting upon reductions that have been made in the Votes which are now submitted, but which are subsequent to the one which is now before the Committee? Let us take, for instance, the Stores Vote. If it should be considered that a reduction has been made in that Vote, and that, in consequence, stores have been largely or are likely to be largely reduced, is that not one point which we may now fairly comment upon?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I should say not.
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: I bow, Sir, to your ruling, and will not enter any further into details with reference to the Report of the Committee to which I was referring. I may, however, say that the opening statement of the Representative of the Admiralty has generally been the occasion for a wide discussion; and it is extremely difficult, as you, Sir, recognize, to discriminate between what are observations on points of detail and what are observations of a general character. The office of Accountant General is undoubtedly one of great and general importance, and it is scarcely possible to say that any matters affecting the position of Accountant General in refer-

    1217
    ence to the administration of the Navy are matters of detail, or belong to any particular Vote. I will proceed to make two suggestions to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert), as the Representative of the Admiralty, with reference to economies in matters of expenditure, which depend upon the direct action of my right hon. Friend and his Colleagues. I particularly desire to call attention to the wisdom of resisting, and stoutly resisting, any proposals for costly alterations of ships upon which you do not reckon as effective vessels of war. As you look over the accounts of the past year you find that these expenditures have absorbed far too large a proportion of the resources placed at the disposal of the Admiralty. I also suggest, as another means to economy, that receiving ships and hulks which are not essentially required should gradually be replaced by permanent buildings. I ask my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) is it necessary to maintain as receiving ships such vessels as the Urgent at Port Royal, and the Revenge at Queenstown? How many ships have been commissioned and paid off, either at Jamaica or Queenstown, in recent years, and to what useful purpose is the crew maintained on board the Urgent, exposed, as they are, to be decimated by yellow fever? The Urgent and the Revenge are specimens of a large class which I think would disappear by a wise naval administration. Before I sit down I should like to refer to another question which I take to be of general importance, and as to which I placed a Notice on the Paper; but I should have been very sorry to interpose between the House and the statement which we expected to have been made to us on Monday last. It is in reference to the foreign squadrons. This subject was touched upon by the noble Lord the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), and with what he said I most cordially concur. The complaint which I wish to make with reference to our foreign squadrons is this—that we are spending a very large sum of money upon the maintenance of these squadrons, and that, constituted as they are now, they are quite incapable of affording sufficient protection for our commerce in the event of war. It is said that these squadrons are valuable for training; but I think that the training which is re-
    1218
    quired for the Navy could be given to our officers and men in a better way. The change which I desire to recommend is the gradual substitution of a less number of vessels of greater individual power for ineffective gun vessels and gunboats. In addition, it is essential to have the means of more effectively reinforcing our squadrons in an emergency; and for this purpose I suggest that a powerful Reserve Squadron should be formed of our fastest steam cruisers, and kept always in commission. They should be partly manned; they should be exercised at sea, and form part of our Evolutionary Squadron, which I hope will be formed every year. The organization of the Reserve Squadron of cruisers should, in my judgment, resemble generally that of the First Reserve Squadron. In addition to the Reserve Squadron of cruisers, it is most desirable for the efficiency of the Navy that a certain number of ships should be kept together of a class which can cruise under sail. It is satisfactory to know that we have one such squadron at sea under the command of Commodore Fitzroy. I was glad to hear of the satisfactory Report from Commodore Fitzroy. I hope that this Atlantic Squadron will be a permanent institution of the Navy. It should, from time to time, visit the Cape, the South-East Coast of America, and the North American Stations. It should return home once in every six months to give to the men who have had their turn at sea a spell in harbour, and an opportunity of receiving instruction in gunnery, and to clear out the ordinary seamen who are waiting in our receiving ships. Another Flying Squadron should be organized for cruising in more distant waters. A voyage to the Antipodes can easily be performed in 18 months, and no training squadron should be kept away from the home ports for a longer period. I claim for the plan which I recommend that the occasional visits of a powerful squadron to foreign waters exercise a greater political influence than the constant presence of the small vessels on which the Flag of England is usually carried in foreign waters. I believe that the establishment of these training squadrons would be of great advantage for the training of the Navy. The changes which I desire to see introduced should be made gradually; and I hope that this very important subject of the strength

    1219
    of our foreign squadrons may be considered by a Committee upon which the Admiralty, the Foreign Office, and the Colonial Office will be represented. It only remains for me to thank the Committee for the patient attention they have given me.
    SIR JOHN GORST: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I venture to give to the discussion this evening a somewhat more critical turn than it has yet taken, because there are Members, such as myself, whose duty to their constituents obliges them to appear in the House rather as critics than as praisers of the administration of the Admiralty. I can, however, agree with former speakers in one respect, and that is in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) on his recovery from his recent indisposition, and on his being able to appear before us and give us the extremely lucid and interesting statement he has made to-night. But when I say the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty I at once come to my first grievance. Why the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty? It does seem to me a most extraordinary thing that whenever certain Gentlemen who profess to be most desirous to bring questions of the Navy under the direct control of the House of Commons happen to be in Office we invariably have the affairs of the Navy intrusted, not to a Gentleman who sits here, and who is responsible to us, but to some Nobleman sitting "elsewhere." We cannot get at the First Lord of the Admiralty; many of us do not even know him by sight. We cannot question him, for he is entirely and absolutely beyond our control and reach. It is not for want of Gentlemen in this House competent to hold the Office that this peculiar arrangement always takes place. In the last Parliament we had a succession of Gentlemen—Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert)—one almost exceeding the other in his ability to administer the affairs of the Navy. I am quite sure I speak the unanimous opinion of the Committee to-night when I say we should hail with satisfaction the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) as First Lord of the Admiralty—for as First Lord of the Admiralty he would be much more in his place in this House, conducting the
    1220
    Business of the Navy, than he is when he only occupies the Office of Financial Secretary. Now, Mr. Courtney, I should have liked to go to-night in some detail into the subject of the re-organization of the Dockyards and the Reports of the various Committees which have been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert); but, of course, in obedience to your ruling, I shall only make now the most general statements on the subject; but I give Notice that those general statements which I shall make I am perfectly ready to support by testimony, and by detailed argument, so soon as it shall please Her Majesty's Government to allow us to discuss Vote 6, the Dockyard Vote. I think you will not consider me out of Order if I parenthetically make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) to allow the Dockyard Vote to be presented to the Committee of Supply and to be discussed this year at a somewhat earlier period than the end of July or the beginning of August, which is usually the date, because there is this burning question upon which many Members of the House are so desirous of expressing their opinion. It has been very justly represented—I think by the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) or the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie)—that the institution of this Committee, and the alterations which have been made in consequence of the findings of the Committee in the management of the Dockyards, is a question of vital importance in the administration of our Navy. I am persuaded the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) and his Colleagues will see the propriety of giving Parliament a proper opportunity for the discussion of the Vote. I know the right hon. Gentleman himself cannot dispose of the time of the House; but I hope he will represent to those who can that there is a great question of policy involved in this matter which deserves to be seriously discussed by the House. Well, now, as I said, I will be perfectly general. May I begin by saying I utterly and totally deny that the evidence adduced before the Committee proved anything like a general amount of idleness and waste in the Royal Dockyards. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert), with that kindness and courtesy which always distinguishes his speeches, was good enough to say that he could not

    1221
    believe it was general. I am sure that the men who are employed in our Dockyards will thank the right hon. Member for the kindness with which he spoke of them. I will not enter into detail now; but when I do enter into detail I shall show that the Committee made a most sweeping and unfounded charge, which they are utterly unable to support by any evidence whatever—a charge not against an isolated person here and there, but against the whole of the workmen in the Dockyards as a class. When the proper time comes I will undertake to refute the accusation. But I want to say something more than this concerning the Report of the Committee. The evidence adduced before the Committee showed most distinctly that there was an enormous amount of waste of public money by reason of the extremely injudicious and bad organization established at the headquarters of the Admiralty in Whitehall. Why is it—and this is a perfectly general observation to make—that ships built in the Dockyards cost so much more than ships built by private contractors? When we were going into Committee of Supply we had it stated—and it was not contradicted—that the Admiralty are perpetually making alterations, and that those who are charged with the construction of the ships have to wait for the plans, have to wait for the details of the propelling machinery, and have to wait for the gun fittings; at every turn of the business they are waiting. While they are waiting for orders and instructions necessarily the men are kept idle, and they are thereby, as I believe the Committee says, demoralized. Well, but that is not all. The cheeseparing instincts of the Board of Admiralty, I suppose enhanced by the strictness of the Treasury control, is such that it has been notorious for years past that no adequate stores have been kept in the Dockyards for the purpose of building ships; and when the time comes that I can, without breach of Order, enter into detail, I will undertake to amuse the Committee of Supply by giving them the detailed account, supplied by the Chief Constructor at the Chatham Dockyard, of how the men employed in shipbuilding are kept idle while persons are running all over the town to get ten-penny nails or screws which are not kept in stock, and for the want of which the progress of the ships can no longer
    1222
    proceed. And further, when the time comes, I will attack the expedient, which the Admiralty seems to have devised, of sending to the Dockyards what are called civil assistants. A civil assistant is a superior kind of policeman. He has no authority, but appears to spend his time in prowling about the Dockyards trying to find somebody he can bring before the authorities for some misconduct or other. I have got very near the verge of being out of Order; but when I can enter into minute particulars I will undertake to make good all the general and sweeping observations which I have submitted to the Committee. Well, now, turning again to the statements of the right hon Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert), I must say I was rather amused at the way in which he claimed that the Admiralty had laid down principles which had not been observed. It never seemed to occur to the Admiralty that it is themselves who are the persons who do not act in accordance with the principles laid down. I heard the right hon. Gentleman expatiating upon the advantage of a rapid system of shipbuilding. Well, but everybody admits it. I never met anybody in this Committee, or out-of-doors, who had any doubt whatever that the most economical course was to build a ship of war as fast as it could be built. But why are our ships not built rapidly? It is the fault of the Admiralty themselves. They do not need to come down to the Committee of Supply and lecture us upon the necessity of rapid shipbuilding. Let the right hon. Gentleman call his Board together at Whitehall and lecture them upon the advantages of speedy shipbuilding. He will find no dissentient in the Committee of Supply. Well, then, another thing that the right hon. Gentleman lectured the Committee upon was on what he called blowing hot and cold. But who blows hot and cold? We blow hot sometimes. Since I have had the honour of a seat in this House—at least, since I have represented a Dockyard constituency—I do not know that I have ever allowed an occasion, when the House was in Supply on the Navy Estimates, to pass without blowing as hot as I could; and it has been to me an unfeigned source of satisfaction that in this new House of Commons there is a large number of gallant officers connected with the Navy

    1223
    who have been able to come to the House and tell the truth at first-hand, to make statements on their own authority and own personal knowledge, which I and others were, in past years, obliged to make at second-hand, and, of course, with less weight in the House. I never heard anybody, except the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), blow cold. They are not here now; but I have no doubt that one or both will come in later in the evening, and give us the speech which they have made over and over again during the past 15 years. With the exception of these two hon. Members, I do not know that any great pressure—at least during the last 15 years—has ever been put on the Board of Admiralty by this Committee of Supply to reduce their Estimates below that point at which the Navy could be properly sustained. The cold blast which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) appears to find fault with has come either from his own Colleagues at the Admiralty, or from that other Department of State whose duty it is to blow cold—namely, the Treasury, the Representative of which (Sir Edward J. Reed) I now see sitting on the Government Bench. Well, let the right hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) either find fault with his own Colleagues, and beg them no longer to blow cold, or let him accept the pressure of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed), and beg that the Treasury will no longer cut down the Naval Estimates to such a point that the Navy cannot be kept in an efficient state. Furthermore, the right hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) told us he thought the Admiralty were not open to any complaint about torpedo boats and torpedoes. That was a very audacious statement to make, accompanied, as it was, by another statement of how little had been done, how much remained to be done, and how much they were going to do. A Department of the State which comes to the House of Commons and tells us that they have sent such a miserable pittance of torpedoes to Colonial and foreign stations that they mean to send double the number as soon as they can scrape them together ought not to be surprised if some fault is found with it. But, whether or not the House of Commons is in a position to make complaint against the
    1224
    Government in respect to torpedoes, and with regard to guns, the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) made the other night, and repeated it to-night, a charge against the administration of the present Government which ought to be treated with a good deal of seriousness. The noble Lord said—and no one ought to know better than he—that when you have built your ships and spent vast sums of money upon them, you find that you have not got sufficient guns and ammunition for the vessels. We have nothing at present but the bare statement of the noble Lord. I thought the other night that the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was going to give us some details on the subject, and going to show us that the statement was incorrect, and that there was sufficiency of guns and ammunition. It turns out that the War Office have not only failed to supply sufficient guns, but have also failed to supply sufficient ammunition; and the hon. Member could not give the House the information which he obviously intended at the time to give. Now, Mr. Courtney, I cannot say anything more upon the general subject; but I must ask a few questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) upon details which are germane to this Vote. I have only one or two to ask, and therefore I need not apologize for interpolating them into a general address, because it will save the Committee from being troubled with them subsequently. I want to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any steps have been, or are being, taken to redress the grievances of the warrant officers? The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Captain Verney) has, by the means of Questions, called attention to this matter. It is a fact that the warrant officers in the Navy who obtain commissions do not number more than one in 1,000; whereas in the Army the promotions from the ranks number as many as four in 1,000, so that in the Army there are four times as many promotions from the ranks as there are in the Navy. And, then, why a man in the Army who is fortunate enough to obtain a commission from the ranks should be placed in a position vastly superior to that of a man so promoted in the Navy I cannot understand. It is not only as regards

    1225
    pay and pension, but also as regards pensions to their widows, that the men in the Army get more than corresponding men in the Navy. There is another class of men—namely, the engine-room artificers, in respect to whom I want some information. Their case has been frequently before the Admiralty. I feel great interest in the engine-room artificers. About 10 years ago I several times brought their case before the House of Commons, and I was fortunate enough to induce the Admiralty to make very great changes in the amelioration of their position. Unfortunately, the thing has only been half done, and there are, as the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) knows, applications continually being made to put the engine-room artificer in that position on board a man-of-war which he ought to occupy. In these days, when men-of-war are very costly instruments, fitted up with costly machinery, every part of which is liable to get out of order, we ought to have the very pick of engine-room artificers. It is the worst economy in the world to employ anything but the very best labour; but we cannot get good men unless we pay them well, and give them that position on board ship which they ought to occupy. Another class whose condition requires improvement is the engine-room stokers. These men have fallen between two stools, because in 1880, when the seamen had their pay increased on engaging for service a second time, the stokers were left out; and then, when the first-class petty officers had their position revised, they were again left out of the calculation. I am quite sure that if their position were improved, many of the men would be found to remain in the Service instead of quitting it. I hope that when the time comes the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) will be good enough to answer the few questions I have put to him.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. W. DUFF): I hope to be able to remove a misapprehension which seems to exist in the mind of the noble Lord the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) in regard to guns. I stated on Monday evening that we have guns for all ships now ready for sea, and that by the time the ships now building are fit for commission we shall have guns for all of
    1226
    them. I stated that most distinctly, and also that we would prepare a Return showing the dates at which the guns would be delivered. I did not bring down that Return to-night, because the Return which was asked for by the hon. Member for Lincoln is now being prepared for us. The noble Lord has returned to the charge, and accuses us of neglect in the Ordnance Department. Well, I have conferred with the Director of Naval Ordnance (Admiral Hopkins), and he has assured me that the guns will be ready for the ships when they are required; and I may add that it is intended to take the sum of £46,000 in the Army Estimates this year for ammunition for guns already ordered. I may point out that the expenditure sanctioned by the War Office for naval ordnance this year is, perhaps, the largest we have ever had on the Estimates, being £1,000,000—£850,000, and £150,000 out of the Vote of Credit. This does not include a sum £200,000 for gunpowder and gun-cotton. I therefore think that when we have taken these sums we shall be able to supply the deficiencies which have been alluded to by the noble Lord. I may mention that the normal expenditure, until the year 1884, was £500,000. Last year it was £850,000, and this year it will be £1,000,000. I should also like to advert to what has fallen from the noble Lord the late First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to hiring a fleet of merchant vessels. There is no doubt we were last year urged, in many quarters of the House, to employ these ships; but it was never intended that they should fight men-of-war. It was rather intended that with their great speed they should be able to escape from men-of-war. I quite agree with the noble Lord that if we are to give a premium to these vessels it should be for speed rather than for any other quality. It would be no use hiring vessels which could be captured by fast men-of-war; but, on the other hand, we have a certain number of merchant vessels whose speed is so great that no man-of-war could overtake them, and the view of the Admiralty is that the subsidy should be given for speed rather than anything else. Then the noble Lord also alluded to the Royal Naval Volunteers, and I may remind him that we are now establishing depôts for these Volunteers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir

    1227
    Thomas Brassey) suggests that instead of the vessels we have on foreign stations, we ought to have—I am not certain whether he said two or three—Plying Squadrons. [Sir THOMAS BRASSEY: Two.] I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's observations on that subject. I should be sorry to see all the advantages which we derive from the present system given up—both as respects training of men and officers and protection to commerce. My hon. Friend has suggested that we should have a Committee to inquire as to what vessels are required on foreign stations.
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: I do not desire to see vessels withdrawn which are capable of giving protection to commerce.
    MR. R. W. DUFF: We have, at the present moment, on foreign stations 99 vessels. There was a Committee appointed by the Admiralty some years ago, consisting of representatives of the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, and the Foreign Office; and they recommended that there should be on foreign stations 83 vessels and 15 gunboats for the protection of British commerce and British subjects abroad. At present we have, as I say, 99, and after the inquiry instituted I do not think we can do with a less number. A Consul, I know, is always glad to get a gunboat, but we cannot always give him one. No doubt these boats are useful to Consuls. Everyone who has served abroad knows what services gunboats can render to British interests abroad. As to the remarks which have been made in reference to the warrant officers, they will be replied to by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert); and lam not going now into the question of Dockyards. I will defer any observations I may have to make with regard to them until we come to the Vote itself—Vote 6. When I saw the Notice on the Paper dealing with this matter, I could not help asking myself whether it would have been put there by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir John Gorst) if there had not been a change of Government. The question of the Dockyards has been fully discussed in the House. All I can say, speaking generally, is that the present Board of Admiralty approve of the reforms in the Dockyards carried out by the late Board. There are some details that probably
    1228
    may be capable of improvement. There is not, I think, that preciseness in the instructions given in the Controller's Department and the Department of the Constructor of the Navy that there should be. But these are matters which I do not want to criticize too minutely; and I may say that, generally, I entirely concur in the reforms carried out by the late Board. There is only one other subject to which I would allude, and it is the appreciation which the Viceroy of India has expressed of the services rendered by the officers and men of the Navy who took part in the Burmah Expedition. I think it only right and due to the Service that this recognition should be publicly acknowledged.
    MR. JACKS (, &c.): I listened with the greatest pleasure to the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen who introduced this debate, and was particularly impressed with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) when he said he was perfectly satisfied that the country desires that our Navy should be in an efficient state, but that there was another point on which they also wished to be satisfied—namely, that they were getting value for their money. We who have just come from feeling the strong pulsations of the national mind, and who are not in official life, can bear testimony to the soundness of that statement. There is a profound belief in the minds of the people of the country that they were not getting value for the money they were expending on the Navy. The only way of arriving at the truth in this matter is by instituting comparisons, as the hon. Gentleman sitting near me (Sir Thomas Brassey) has done. The hon. Gentleman compared the expenditure on our war ships—or rather, he said, by inadvertence I presume, the expenditure on "English" war ships, though as the swiftest and best war ships are not built in England at all, but on the Clyde, I suppose he means the British war ships—with the expenditure on the war ships of France. The comparison, however, does not quite hold, because the hon. Gentleman must know as well as I do—and there are Gentlemen in this House who are intimately acquainted with the arrangements of the Foreign Dockyards who will bear me out—that it is impossible to get at the correct cost of a foreign war

    1229
    ship, because so much of the material and armament is supplied by subsidized works, that the true cost never appears on the official Papers. I think my hon. Friend will bear me out in that. [Sir THOMAS BRASSEY: Quite correct.] But there is a comparison we ought to institute which will at once settle the question in this House and in the minds of the people. We should institute a correct comparison between the cost of ships built and of repairs executed in Her Majesty's Dockyards, and the cost of ships built and repaired in the private Dockyards throughout the Kingdom. I took the trouble to analyze the Returns which have been made on this subject. I will not trouble the Committee with many figures; but I will take the liberty of quoting two or three, in order to let the Committee see precisely what is their value. In the year 1872 there were 6,000 tons built, and the average cost per ton weight in Her Majesty's Dockyards was £49 and a small decimal. The same year, fortunately, about the same amount of tonnage was built by contract in the private Dockyards, and the cost was £37 decimal 50, as compared with £49. Now, I come to the next year, and we find the figures precisely reversed—£36 per ton weight in Her Majesty's Dockyards, as compared with £60 per ton in the private yards. We go on a few years, and the absurdity is always getting greater, until there is a small print put in which explains that the cost in Her Majesty's Dockyards is expenditure in wages only, as compared in the private Dockyards with both material and wages. Now, I ask any hon. Gentleman in this House who has had any experience in controlling and guiding large manufacturing establishments whether these Returns are of any value whatever; and whether they are not as useless, for all practical purposes, as if they were hidden in the deepest hieroglyphic obscurity? I would ask any hon. Member whether, if he were managing a large private establishment, he would waste three minutes of his time in looking at such Papers. What is the comparison we require? The only comparison we require is one which I am sure the hon. Member for Grovan (Mr. Pearce), if he were here, would say is carried out in the yard with which he is identified. Any other hon. Member
    1230
    connected with a Dockyard will say, I am sure, that the system to which I allude is carried out there—that is to say, having a simple form showing the cost of the ship for plates, angles and bar iron, woodwork and fittings; and then another line showing the expenditure in wages. That should be carried through with a small note at the end, where there is any difference in regard, for instance, to class of ship and of fitting. Let such a table be made out both in Her Majesty's Dockyards and the private Dockyards, and then we shall know where we are. We shall know what the cost is, and we shall know precisely how the money has been expended. We shall know more. We shall know what a certain ship will cost by simply taking into account the difference in the price of iron at the date when her prototype was built. And we shall even have a guide in this matter when we propose to have another class of ship. What is the reason we have not had these Tables or Returns? It is to be found in the Report which was only put into my hands a few minutes before the meeting of the Committee. I do not want to fall into the error for which the heathen of old were so justly condemned—a condemnation which may apply much nearer home than Galilee—of indulging in vain repetitions, and of expecting to be heard through much speaking; but I will ask any hon. Gentleman who has referred to this Report whether the whole burden of its story is not utter want of organization and management? The Report itself says there is this, that, and the other; but its own fatal words are—
    "Of management there is none." "Have you any check?" "No." "Have you any on wages?" "No." "On materials?" "No." "Do you check the stores?" "No." "There is no real audit of labour or store expenditure."
    —and so on.
    MR. PULESTON: What Report is the hon. Member speaking of?
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Of Admiral Graham's Committee.
    MR. JACKS: I thought it my duty to call attention to this particular point. I would urge on those who are responsible for these things to try to give us such a comparison as would be of practical use. I myself, like every Member of the Committee, have received lots of Returns, and I am sure that a great part

    1231
    of them are of no use whatever—fully 25 per cent are useless because they have no regularity or business-like precision. I never saw a more glaring instance of this than is to be found in these Returns, which are supposed to be authoritative, as to the cost of shipbuilding in Her Majesty's Dockyards and in private Dockyards. I will not go further than to refer to just one other point on which a declaration came from the hon. Member near me (Sir Thomas Brassey), and, of course, came from such a quarter with considerable weight. For I cannot sit down without mentioning the great desirability of increasing our Naval Reserves. Hon. Gentlemen who, like myself, are acquainted with seaport towns, and have been so all their lives, know very well that amongst the great fishing community we have the most splendid sailors, and, more than that, men of daring and of the highest courage that the world offers; and yet 80 per cent of these are quite unutilized. In them we have a power of which any country might be proud, and here we are letting it die away unutilized. I hope Her Majesty's Government will try to utilize this part of our national strength.
    MR. PULESTON: I had an idea, like the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir John Gorst) who spoke from this side of the House some time ago, and other hon. Members, that we were to have something like a general discussion on this Vote. I am sorry that it is not so. If I went into all these questions of Dockyard management I should be ruled out of Order; and yet one considers himself not only entitled, but feels it a duty, to reply to so many remarks which have been made on the subject. However, under the impression that we shall be able to go into these matters some other time, I shall content myself with referring to some remarks already made by the Secretary to the Admiralty and others who have preceded me in the debate so far. I must, and not as a formal thing, join other hon. Members on both sides in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) on the very plain and straightforward speech with which he has honoured us. I am glad that he has his materials so well in hand; and I must say, taking into consideration the fact which he remarked on himself that he has been so short a time at the helm, so to speak, that he has shown
    1232
    himself thoroughly capable of managing his craft. I regret that he is not here as First Lord. I thought that some time ago we had settled the point that it was most desirable that the First Lord should be in this House. However, when next the right hon. Gentleman addresses the House I hope he will do so in that capacity. He will then speak to us with more authority. He told us he addressed us in the double capacity of economist and Secretary to the Admiralty. I hope, too—for it is an important consideration—that he addressed us, to some extent, in his old capacity of Secretary to the Treasury. I think the difficulties we have had to face in these matters we are too often apt, in this House and elsewhere, to attribute to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman, who was pretty well grounded in his position at the Treasury, will be able to draw on his experience in that Department, and will be able to smooth over and manage more effectively the business of the Office he now holds through his late connection with the Treasury. I am glad he has had the courage to throw overboard, in a very direct and emphatic manner, the late First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook). It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Earl of Northbrook was five or six years building ships, and that the work could be done far more economically, and in a manner that would minister far more to the interests of the country, if no more than three years were occupied in construction. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having evinced so much courage, and on having been able so boldly, properly, and righteously to condemn the policy of the noble Earl who formerly held the position of Head of the Admiralty. With regard to the noble Earl of whom I speak, I am glad that, so far as the Admiralty is concerned, he has not re-occupied the position he held some time ago, and which deprived any of us humble Members who sit on this side of the House and who represent the Dockyards of the advantage of approaching him when we deemed it desirable. I think we have advanced a great deal of late. We have arrived, on both sides of the House, at a knowledge of the fact that whoever controls the Admiralty it is necessary to concede that vessels of war must be rapidly constructed. The

    1233
    excellent speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Jacks) bore upon this subject. I appreciate every word the hon. Gentleman has uttered, and I congratulate him on having made his statement in such a straightforward manner. He has heaped no abuse upon the Dockyards, and I am glad to see an hon. Member on his side of the House take up such a position as that he has assumed. Unfortunately, we regularly hear the Dockyards attacked from the opposite Benches. The Dockyards are denounced; they are to be abolished, and I know not what. That is the policy that has been pretty generally advocated on the other side; and hon. Gentlemen who doubt it have only to refer to the pages of Hansard. I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir William Crossman) is not going to run away because I mention this. I am sure he will strengthen his Party in the matter. There has been lavish expenditure on shipbuilding in Her Majesty's Dockyards, it is true; but it has not been the fault of the Dockyard Service or of the management locally. It has been the fault of the Admiralty. When the Admiralty have a ship to build, and they give it out by contract, they agree to its being constructed in the ordinary business manner; but when they build a ship in a Royal Dockyard, they cut it in pieces, alter its construction, and instead of completing it in a year, or two years, as the case may be, as it would be completed in a private Yard, they take four or five years to do the work. When a ship comes out of one of the Royal Dock-yards, it is an entirely different vessel to the vessel originally proposed. There is hardly a vestige of the original remaining. However startling these figures which have been referred to may be, you will find that they in no way tell against the Dockyard management. They tell against the way the Admiralty manage the Dockyards; but as for alleging the Dockyards to be full of idlers, as the right hon. Gentleman did, those of us who know anything about these places are able to refute the assertion.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): I did not make an attack upon the Dockyards per se. I merely wished to show that it was more expensive to spread the construction of ships over a number
    1234
    of years than to have them completed in a short time. I did not refer to the Dockyards.
    MR. PULESTON: I thank the right hon. Member for that explanation. It elucidates an important point, and I feel sure that after his experience at the Admiralty he does not think the charges made against the Dockyards are properly made. Of course, there are idlers there, as there are everywhere; but to charge a whole body of public servants like those of the Royal Dockyards with indulging in idleness is simply ridiculous. No one knows more about the efficiency of our Dockyards than the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed), and the loyalty with which the men work there—and that for less wages than in the private yards. He, I think, will gladly state to the Committee his high appreciation of the employés in the Dockyards. I trust we shall not lose any of the independence of criticism we used to get from the hon. Member now that he sits on the Treasury Bench; but, however that is, no one in the House, I am sure, is more conscientious, or more thoroughly acquainted, and no one is more entitled to respect, than the hon. Member for Cardiff. There is another very important question involved in this matter of building by contract and building in the Yards. Whilst I maintain that a ship can be built as cheaply, and, it goes without saying, as well in the Dockyards as in any private Yard, and ought to be, I think if the Reports were properly investigated and the right figures put in the right places, and so on, I think you will find that there is not the discrepancy the right hon. Gentleman refers to. But suppose it did cost a little more, which I deny—suppose it were a trifle more expensive to build in the Dockyards than the private Yards, it is still our duty to keep up the former for use when cases of emergency occur. We have had panics. We had one last year. Some years ago, at the time of the Russian War, we wanted one or two large vessels built rapidly, and we put them out by contract. The men struck work, and we had to send the Devonport men from their own Yards to help the private shipbuilders to fulfil their contracts. That was done at very great cost and at very great inconvenience. The hon. Gentleman the Member

    1235
    for Leith (Mr. Jacks) particularly will recognize the fact that we may purchase economy in shipbuilding at too dear a price. We have to run the risk of the Dockyards being inefficient, and they must be inefficient, and cannot be useful in times of emergency, if they are not always kept up at full work. It is because the Dockyards had not, for some time previously, been kept at their full complement that we are put to great strain and enormous outlay at the times of panics, such as frequently occur, and such as we had last year. At such times millions are thrown away, which would be much better and more effectively expended in our own Dockyards in times of peace and quietness. What do we see now? Why, that only last year there was the most wasteful extravagance. Millions of money were thrown away in buying ships here, there, and everywhere in the most reckless manner. All this is not ancient history: it is only the history of a year ago. It is useless to discuss here the question of 1 or 2 per cent difference in the construction of one ship here and another there when we take into consideration the cent per cent and the many cents per cent which were thrown away in buying ships upon an emergency like that of 12 months ago. While this question of the efficiency of the Navy is a burning question, while everybody, I believe, except a few hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite, but who do not represent, I undertake to say, anything like a prevailing opinion in the country, recognizes the great importance of having an efficient Navy, and while, besides, at the present time there is the greatest possible depression, what do we find at Devonport? Why, men discharged by wholesale—400 men discharged at one fell swoop. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) and my hon. Friend the Civil Lord (Mr. R. W. Duff) for the interest they have taken in this subject. They have certainly minimized the evil which was likely to arise from the discharging of men by reducing the number to be immediately discharged; but such a thing has never been known in the Dockyards of discharging so many men at one time. I quite appreciate the fact that the authorities of the Dockyards were within their right in discharging the men; having completed a certain
    1236
    job, the men engaged to work upon it were discharged. At the same time, some consideration should be had to the time and place. The Chairman shakes his head, and therefore I am afraid I am going too minutely into Dockyard matters. I regret that the Navy Estimates and other Estimates are not discussed day by day until they are disposed of. If they were we should save an immense amount of time, because when we come to discuss Dockyard matters again all that we have said to-day will be ancient history. Hon. Members will return fresh to the charge, and the probability is that much that has now been said will be repeated. Much time, too, would be saved if we had the opportunity of discussing the whole question, for practically naval matters form one question. Although the Estimates are split up into Votes 1, 2, and 3, and so on, the Votes are closely intertwined one with the other. I wanted to say something about the Victualling Yard, and also upon Votes 3 and 4; but it is almost impossible to discuss any one of the six Votes without, in some shape or other, touching upon another, and thus getting on the brink of disorder, so far as the Rules of the House are concerned. Now, before I resume my seat, I should like to make a few remarks upon the question of the rapid construction of vessels. We built the Hero in, I think, 16 months. It was said it would take four years to build; but the Admiralty were seized with a very good fit at the time, and we built the ship in about 16 months. I remember very well that the rapidity with which the Hero was turned out created very great consternation in France. The French said—"Look how quickly the English people can do their work." If hon. Members would refer to the cost they would find that the Hero was built proportionately cheap. There is another very good reason why the expenditures in connection with, ships are higher than they ought to be. The recommendation of the Committee to which hon. Gentlemen have referred was very strong on the question of repairs. The Committee recommended that repairs should be done at once. Why are they not done at once? I think the Invincible has been lying four or five months at Devonport for repair, and she has not yet been touched. Surely the Invincible should be taken

    1237
    promptly in hand. What is the consequence of the delay? It is that there is a large number of idle hands—well, not idle hands, but hands necessarily in attendance, or kept in readiness for the work upon the Invincible. The recommendation of the Committee does not seem to have had the least effect. There is one other observation I desire to make, and it is that it struck me as very remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) should ask us to wait for a year while the Admiralty decided as to the design of the ships of the future.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. W. DUFF): The hon. Gentleman will, I am quite sure, excuse my interruption. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) did not ask the Committee to wait for a year. He said the present Board had only been in Office six weeks, and they were now preparing to consider the plans of vessels.
    MR. PULESTON: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I certainly understood that we were asked to wait until next year for certain shipbuilding to be undertaken. What the Civil Lord (Mr. R. W. Duff) says is perfectly reasonable. What I was anxious to say was that we permit delay in the building of our ships. We cannot wait for a few years, or even for a year, in order to find out some new development in shipbuilding. I must express the pleasure it gives me to find that we have turned over a new leaf in regard to the Navy. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) in his place—I thought earlier in the evening he could not be far away. I am sure that even he will not venture to repeat to the full extent the speech with which he has annually favoured us against the rapid construction—or the construction at all—of ships of war, or against the spending of money upon our National Dockyards. I am sorry he has not been present during the whole of the discussion; but, however, I hope that when he rises he will be able to tell us that he, too, falls in with the sentiments of the whole country. The country has come to the conclusion that the more we spend—provided we spend it properly—to make the Navy efficient, the more we add to the security and prosperity of our country,
    1238
    the more we contribute eventually to economy in our finances. It is the piecemeal system of building ships, having a thing half done, doing a little this year and a little next, the Treasury knocking off this item and then that item, which has ruined our Navy, and which has prevented us from getting a proper show even for the money that has been voted. If, with a generous hand, we contribute to the better progress of our Navy, of course, taking care that we take all the safeguards against extravagance and waste—if we get our ships finished rapidly, one after the other, we shall the sooner be able to see our Navy in a thorough state of efficiency, and the better it will be for the country, the better for the country's commerce, and the better for the peace of mind of everyone.
    SIR WILLIAM CROSSMAN: I do not wish to trespass long upon the attention of the Committee. I merely rise, as one of the Members for Portsmouth, to say that I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) has said as regards the Dockyards. I am sure that anyone reading the Report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Jacks) has referred must have been struck with the statements therein made. I believe that the fault does not lie so much with the Dockyards as with the system carried out of late years by the Board of Admiralty; and I think the statements made in the Report in question are of such serious consequence to the State that it would be a good thing if the whole subject of Dockyard management were referred to a Select Committee of the House. However careful a Departmental Committee may be in investigating matters, it does not command the same confidence, either from the people of the country or the House, as a Select Committee of the House does. Therefore, it is, I think, much better that the whole of the question should be referred to a Select Committee. But this is not the time to propose such an arrangement. I can only say this—that I have met many Dockyard labourers, and have found that they are very much hurt indeed at the statements that are made about their general idleness. I do not at all say that there are not some idlers in the Dockyards; but an accusation to the effect that there is general

    1239
    idleness on the part of the men is one which cannot be received. Now, Sir, I do not intend to weary the Committee with any statements as to shipbuilding—a subject with which, perhaps, I am not very conversant; but there are certain matters in connection with this Vote, in addition to those mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Sir John Gorst), which I wish to mention. The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the claims of the warrant officers, the engine-room artificers, and the stokers. These are matters of detail which it is not necessary I should go into at present. But there are other classes of men which require some consideration—I refer particularly to the naval schoolmasters. They are not paid as well as schoolmasters in the Army are. I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) will give his consideration to the subject. Now, there is one important part of this Vote to which I wish specially to refer. Everyone will admit that no branch of the Service stands higher in reputation than the Royal Marines and the Royal Marine Artillery. There are 13,000 men in the Royal Marines and the Royal Marine Artillery; but they, particularly the officers, are placed in the most anomalous position. I have had the privilege and pleasure of sailing on board men-of-war, more often, perhaps, than most soldiers have; and nothing has ever struck me more on board Her Majesty's ships than the position which some of the officers in the corps I have named hold. When on board, Marines are not under the command of their own officers, but under the Captain of the ship; and even when they are on land, as they often are, they may still be under the orders of the Captain of the ship to which they belong. Now, I think that the Marines have a perfect right to claim that they shall be entirely commanded by their own officers. Even on bourd ship I think the Marine officer should have the power of punishing his own men. The only General Officer attached to the 13,000 is the Deputy Adjutant General of Marines; and when the men are landed and acting with other regiments of Infantry I do not think anyone ever heard of a case of a Marine officer commanding a Division or even a Brigade. On account of this Marine officers are kept out of those rewards
    1240
    which all soldiers look to when they have seen active service. But not only so, but Marine officers are debarred, at present, from having anything to do with the General Staff of the Army. They are, I believe, as highly educated and as good officers as any officers met with in any other branch of the Service; and, therefore, it is most unfair that men like these should be debarred from obtaining Staff appointments. They are even debarred, I find, from sitting on courts martial on men of their own corps on ships of war. That, I think, is grossly unfair to them—indeed, the whole system under which the Marines are managed requires the serious and immediate consideration of the Government. In my opinion, great saving might be effected if the Marines were turned to some uses for which they are particularly fitted. On my return from China, 15 years ago, I remember saying the same thing to the present Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Childers), then First Lord of the Admiralty. I thought then, and I think still, that the Marines are just the men to garrison all our coaling stations abroad. By placing Marines under the Admiral Commanding-in-Chief in charge of the coaling stations, we should obtain very good employment for the men, and we would effect great saving in our Army Estimates. We find that at Portsmouth there are some 2,000 Marine Artillery—I am not quite sure that that is the exact number—none of whom are actively employed in the defence of Portsmouth itself. They are being drilled for work on board ship which they hardly ever do, because there are so few of them in comparison to the total number of men employed on Her Majesty's ships. If we cannot employ them, as I do not say they might not be employed, in manning our own forts at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and other naval stations, they are the very men to man with advantage the forts of our coaling stations abroad. I hope that these suggestions will receive consideration, and that the Marines will be taken into greater account than they have been of late years. Of course, one has a good deal to say upon the Dockyard management; but as I understand the subject will come up under Vote 6 I will not attempt to say anything about it now. I desire, however, to say that I am convinced of the truth of what was said by

    1241
    the noble Lord the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), as to the advisability of putting our naval resources into a proper state of efficiency at once, and not leaving it over for five, or 10, or 25 years. I also think it is most advisable to carry out all these defences of the coaling stations referred to a few nights ago by the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford). It is desirable that both these objects should be attained, that we may be free from panic and wasteful extravagance hereafter. It is said that to provide the requisite money Terminable Annunities ought not to be resorted to. The suspension of the Sinking Fund is repudiated by both Parties in the House. If I might venture to give a hint as to the raising of the money it would be that ¼d. in the pound be put upon all realized property, leaving out all under £500, and we would have sufficient money to do everything that is required.
    MR. FORWOOD: I listened with great interest to the speeches addressed to the Committee this evening by the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert); but there was one point—and, I think, a very important point—omitted in their statements, and it had regard to the type of engines which the Admiralty were supplying to the modern men-of-war. Within the last three or four years a very great change has been made in the type of engines with which merchant vessels are fitted. Some 25 years ago a great change was made in the form of engines for all vessels. The Admiralty of that day, I know, were very slow in following the lead that was set by a very eminent firm which was represented by the hon. Member who sits on my left (Mr. Pearce). The saving in fuel which was effected by that change amounted to something like 30 per cent. The system was gradually developed up to two years ago, when it made a very great leap. The change of 25 years ago was from pressure on the boilers of vessels from 25 to 50 and 60 lbs. It then extended from 60 to 90 lbs., and within the last two years the pressure on the boilers in our merchant vessels has extended from 90 to something like 160
    1242
    lbs. Now, this difference of working pressure on the boilers with the triple or quadruple expansion engines has made a most serious difference in the working expenses and the consumption of coal of the Merchant Fleet. I hope that where the consumption of coal and weight carrying is of such importance as it is in Her Majesty's ships, the Admiralty will not allow themselves to be so far behind the progress of the age as they were 25 years ago. I have ascertained as well as I can from the Estimates the cost of fitting vessels with engines, and I find a very great discrepancy between the prices of London and Provincial makers. The price varies from something like £8 per indicated horsepower paid to makers out of London, to £10 10s. per indicated horse-power paid to London makers. Why there should be this difference between the prices of country makers and those of London makers I do not know, unless the reason is that the London makers are to put in some of the vessels the new type of modern engines. I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) will pardon me mentioning this matter. I only do so because I am quite sure it will be of great satisfaction to the shipowners of the country to feel that the Admiralty are keeping abreast with the important improvements in marine engineering. Something has been said as to the necessity of the country possessing fast cruisers in contradistinction to what I may call fighting vessels. It is well known that 12 months ago there was a great scare among shipowners simply because our Admiralty were not possessed of vessels of the type necessary for the protection of the great Commercial Fleet of the country. No doubt the Admiralty did the best they could in the panic. They chartered a number of fast cruisers. I asked the other day for a Return of the cost of these cruisers to the country. The Return has not yet been made; but I believe it will show that a very large sum of money was virtually wasted by the hiring of these vessels. When I say virtually wasted, I mean that if the Admiralty had in years past been alive to the necessity of protecting our commerce they would have had these fast vessels already in their possession, and would not have

    1243
    had to rush all over the world picking up a vessel where it happened to be. I doubt very much whether any great protection can be afforded to our commerce by the arming of merchant steamers. There are very few merchant steamers that are fitted to carry a gun, and I believe that when the Return for which I have moved is published it will be found that a very large sum of money was expended in fitting the cruisers with guns, and in taking the fittings off again. I trust the Admiralty will not overlook the necessity of keeping very fast light-armed cruisers ready to protect our commerce at the same time as they provide the very best fighting vessels. We cannot forget that 25 years ago 90 per cent of the American trade was carried on in American bottoms, and that, owing to the inaction of the American Government in not providing themselves with fast cruisers, one such cruiser almost succeeded in sweeping the American mercantile flag off the ocean. It would be a terrible thing if we found our Mercantile Marine without proper protection in case of need, and if our shipowners were obliged to fly for protection to a neutral flag. I wish to urge most seriously these points upon the attention of the Admiralty, because once a vessel changes her flag she never comes back to the original flag. The question of the stamp of engine used in merchant vessels is of great importance; but it is of even greater importance in the case of our armour-clad vessels. Therefore, I hope we shall have an assurance from the Admiralty that they are quite alive to the necessity of possessing fast cruisers, and of fitting our ships with the most modern engines.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I will not detain the Committee very long with the remarks I have to make, principally in reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert). I may touch lightly, as my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Puleston) did, on the question of the Dockyards. I, for one, should be very glad to see a reform of the Dockyards, not that I think the men and officers work badly, because their work is the best that could possibly be; but that there is occasionally considerable expenditure that might be avoided. Let me give the Committee an instance of this. It is quite clear
    1244
    that different types of ships require different classes of material. Now, there is the awning stanchions necessary for all all ships—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) will know what I mean. When I had the honour of being second in command of the iron-clad Thunderer, we naturally spread our awnings as soon as we commissioned, in order to ascertain if they would set properly. The stanchions being of the same strength and substance for a ship of 36-foot beam as for a ship of 70-foot beam, the result was that when we spread our awning the whole apparatus gave way. All this led to great expense, which could have been avoided if suitable stanchions had been made for the ship before she was actually in commission. Now, in regard to the reform of the Dockyards, I should be very glad to welcome the idea of having a civilian attached to the Admiral commanding, provided it is not the thin edge of the wedge to make a civilian the administrative officer in the Dockyard. From a boy an Admiral is brought up to administrate; it is his training. All our executive officers are taught to administrate. It is their duty to know what speed they want, and how many fathoms of rope are required, as well as to administer justice. As boys, they have practical experience of all work of administration; and, in my opinion, they are quite fitted for the work they are now called upon to perform, on account of the experience they have derived. I should be sorry to see them superseded by civilians. I should, however, welcome the assistance which civilians might render in promoting economy. You must remember this—that if ever civilians are appointed to the administrative posts in the Dockyards, the general supposition will be that the Navy was made for the Dockyards, whereas the Dockyards are necessarily made for the Navy. That is a very important point; but I merely mention it to see what view the Government take upon it. Now, I heard the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) say something about the increased Naval Estimates for the year; and, as far as I could gather, the idea he wished to convey to the Committee was that it was impossible the Navy could want anything else. I venture to say that was the sole argument, if it can be called an argument, which was urged against the facts

    1245
    which I adduced in the House the other night. The only argument the Chancellor of the Exchequer advanced in opposition to my Motion was, "How can it be possible for the Navy to be inefficient if you have such large Naval Estimates?" I do not consider that an argument at all. It does not matter what your Estimates are. The question is, is the Navy in the position it ought to be in? I endeavoured to show the other night that the reason the Navy Estimates are this year put at so high a figure is that the Navy was not in years past put in the position it ought to be in. The large Estimates of this year are simply the result of a panic. Now, we have had a great deal of debate, principally carried on by my brother Officers in the House, which has led to the conclusion that we who are connected with the Navy wish to spend a great deal of money. That, I believe, is so. ["Hear, hear!"] I heard an hon. Gentleman say "Hear, hear!" but I must say, also, that there are very great economies that we ask to have made in the expenditure of the Navy. For instance, we should like to see all the small and useless craft ordered home at once. Personally, I should like to see these vessels ordered home and paid off to-morrow, if it were possible. If we do not recall these obsolete vessels we shall have to repair them; and, therefore, we shall be expending money upon vessels which are really a danger to us, because we shall have to use them in time of war. I maintain there would be great economy if the Admiralty would order home all the small craft, and put in their stead one or two large and useful ships to do double work, and be as nearly as they can in two places at one time. Now, this is one economy I propose, and I propose it in the hope that hon. Gentlemen who hold very opposite opinions to mine will not think that we wish to spend money on the Navy simply for the sake of spending money, but that we wish to administer it properly, and with a view to economy. I think that all the great Votes submitted in respect of the Navy should be carefully scrutinized, for the best economy is to have the greatest efficiency. Now, Sir, with the few remarks which the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) made relative to the Nile and Trafalgar I entirely agree. I think it would have been
    1246
    very wrong for the Board of Admiralty succeeding that at the head of which was my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) if they had not proceeded with the construction of these ships. They are most useful ships; they are of a type that I myself, as a humble officer in Her Majesty's Service, entirely approve of. They are belted ships; they are not great floating batteries with four guns which can only be fired once in five minutes, but they have besides heavy guns a good armament of small and quick-firing guns, which are most useful in action. Their speed is not quite what I should like to see, when I recollect the class of ships the Italians are building. I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will make a note of this point, and see if it is possible, with a little extra expenditure, to increase their speed. I have no doubt each of these ships will cost £1,000,000 sterling; but the money will be well laid out. England cannot afford to let any other country build a ship which is better than any she has got, because each individual ship England has had a great deal more to do than a ship belonging to any foreign country. We must, of course, contemplate the possibility of a large iron-clad being blown up by torpedoes; but then we must also have regard to what the ship has to do, and the positions in which she would be most useful and available, where a torpedo boat or a fleet of torpedo boats would be perfectly useless. With small craft and torpedo boats what could we have done at Alexandria? What could such a Fleet do in the Baltic? It is no use sending torpedo boats; they cannot do the work required. In these days our Fleet must be formed of component parts; we must have big, heavy ironclads, as well as torpedo boats to protect them. The Secretary to the Admiralty said very truly that 40 torpedo boats had been ordered, and I understood him to add that 40 was a sufficient number. I do not agree with him there, and I endeavoured the other night to show the reason. I will not repeat myself, but I will point out this fact—that the 40 boats ordered are only to go 19 knots an hour and are 125 feet long, and that Foreign Governments have now got contracts out for boats 135 feet long to go 23 knots an hour. It is obvious that our boats cannot be driven at the speed of the larger craft.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): What I said was that we did not wish to build any other boats until we saw what was the best boat for the future.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Nothing can be fairer than what the right hon. Gentleman has said; but I hope he will give me an assurance that if he finds the 135 feet longboats the better craft he will order some of them. The point ought to be impressed on the Committee that we shall not have a sufficient number of boats when these are finished. These boats were ordered at a time of panic 12 months ago, when it was considered absolutely necessary that they should be built as quickly as possible. Although I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is well that we should have a trial to find which is the best boat, I must ask him and the Board with whom he acts to take into consideration the question whether there are boats enough. I must also remind him that the question of the size of the boats is of great importance. I understood him to say that the Government did not intend to build very many more torpedo boats of the larger class. No doubt, in these days of perfection in artillery practice, the larger your target the more certain you are of hitting it. That boats shall not be too large is of immense importance to the officers and crews of the boats leading a torpedo attack. I think that here an immense economy may be effected, and I say that with all deference to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. The present system of making guns at Woolwich has been fairly good in its results, but it has been extremely costly; because not only have ships been delayed for the want of guns and additional expense incurred in consequence, but when the guns are made they have to be tried, and the cost of the experiments, which is very heavy, comes upon the country. I believe the Navy would like the guns which they require to be ordered by them and put out to contract. We know exactly what we want, but at present we have very little to say in the matter. Well, Sir, I should like the guns for the Navy to be tendered for under contract. I should like to see an official announcement that such and such a gun is wanted, with the various requirements as to velocity, weight, powder, and the project-
    1248
    tile to be carried. The Naval Board should say to the contractors—"These are our conditions; produce a gun; we will try it; and if it is satisfactory and produces the results we demand we will order 100 guns." You would in that way get your gun at once, having to bear the cost of one experiment only, and without the process of red-tapeism which is called economy, but which is, in the long run, very extravagant. Well, Sir, I believe if it were tried the plan I have indicated would be found to be economical. There were several remarks made by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), who I am sorry to observe is not in his place, because I wanted to ask him one or two questions upon the subjects to which he has referred. The noble Lord stated that a larger sum than was now to be given—the sum of £1,000,000—was proposed by the Government of which he was a Member for the purpose of building small craft. I should like the noble Lord to have informed the Committee what is to be the tonnage of those small craft proposed by the late Government. I ask this because, as far as I understood the noble Lord from his speech, he entirely supported the theory and the proposals which I put forward the other night. There are liabilities, I believe, amounting to £3,000,000, although the money has not yet been expended, and that sum, taken together with what is required for the Navy to be put into next year's account, make up the £5,000,000 which I spoke of; and my proposal is, therefore, backed up most thoroughly by the noble Lord. I therefore trust that the Board of Admiralty will think this question over also. Another thing which the noble Lord referred to was the largeness of the establishments. But that is a necessary evil; we have to provide so much when we go to war, and it is, therefore, most necessary that we should keep our establishments on as large and efficient a scale as the nation will pay for, so as to have at our command what is necessary if there should be a declaration of war. The noble Lord made an excellent remark—if I may be bold enough to say so—with respect to the rigging of ships, because the question of rigging first-class fighting ships is a mystery to a great number of seamen. If you want your fighting ships to be successful in action, do not put masts,

    1249
    sails, and spars into them, because they are one of the greatest sources of danger. If a shot cuts the rigging through on the starboard or port side, over go masts, rigging, and all, and you cannot fight any more, because your screws will sure to get foul, and when once your screws are foul you are put out of action. Therefore, I say, do not put your ships in that position—have your fighting ships without rigging, but have your training ships rigged with masts and sails ready to be turned over to the Navy when required. Never do away with your Training Squadron, for it is that which creates seamen with those qualities so necessary for fighting with anything that floats. The noble Lord referred to another important point—namely, that of non-combatants in the Fleet. That question was brought forward by me some years ago. The large proportion of non-combatants in our ships is fraught with considerable risk. The French have in their ships probably 400 or 500 men, but they have only 5 per cent of non-combatants, whereas in our ships there is a far larger proportion. The non-combatants in our ships are the stokers, ship police, carpenters, sail-makers, servants, and so on—a class of men which in a ship like the Thunderer runs up to about 63 per cent. That, Sir, is a question which I think demands serious consideration, and I am of opinion that in ships of every class there should not be more than 5 per cent of non-combatants. When I was in command of the Thunderer it was thought we were going to war with Russia, and it was considered that the number of non-combatants on board was a serious thing for the ship and for England, because we were representing England at the time. Well, Sir, we called a muster to ascertain how many non-combatants there were; all the boats were manned and sent off from the ship, and the only men left on board who were combatants were the four quartermasters. Now, suppose it had been necessary to do anything quickly—suppose four ship's cutters had come alongside from the Russian Fleet, this 65 per cent of non-combatants would have been of no use; they could not have carried out the orders given; they could not have loaded a rifle, because they had never been drilled. Now, I think that constitutes a very great danger, and when I spoke on the subject before, it
    1250
    was to urge on the Admiralty that all these non-combatants should be drilled and taught to fight. The men want to learn to fight, but we do not teach them, and therefore I again press this matter upon the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Hastings (Sir Thomas Brassey), who, I regret, is also absent from his place, has made some comparisons which, however, I do not think applicable. There is no use in comparing ship with ship, or a certain number of ships with the same number; to arrive at any useful result, the comparison must be with regard to the work to be done; and I say that so far as the French and Italian Fleets are concerned, the comparison instituted by the hon. Member is useless. But the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings was also wrong in saying that the speed of the English ships to that of the French was as 17 to 14. The speed of our cruisers is at this moment a knot less than the French, and many of those vessels are obsolete. I am sorry that I have not the list with me; but I can state to the Committee that, out of the 41 cruisers which we have now, 18 are obsolete. I entirely agree with the remarks that have been made about the Training Squadrons. We cannot do without them. There are also some of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Sir John Gorst) with which I agree, particularly those which relate to the artificers of the Royal Navy. The grievance of these men is that their pensions are not in proportion to their pay, whereas the pensions of the chief petty officers, with whom they rank, are in proportion to their pay; and I submit to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty that he should take note of the fact, and that it should have the attention of the Board of Admiralty. The artificers of the Royal Navy are a most useful body of men. We must remember that, in these days of steam, although it rests with the captain to put his vessel in the position which he desires, he is entirely in the hands of the stokers and others. So much indebted do I feel to these men that, in one little action in which I had the luck to be engaged, I ordered the stokers to go to one side of the ship and the Blue-jackets to the other, and I called on the Blue-jackets to give the engine-room department three cheers.

    1251
    Well, Sir, the request I have to make on behalf of these men is that the question of their pensions and their position in the Navy should be taken into consideration; and, with regard to the latter, I ask that they should be called engine-room artificers—there is no need to call them warrant officers. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir William Crossman) has made some remarks about a corps of which we, as naval officers, are as proud as he is. I do not agree with the whole, but with some, of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I do not agree with him when he says the Marines should not always be under the control of the naval captain, because it is, I think, obvious that the captain's control must extend over everything and everybody connected with the ship. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the position of the Royal Marines is not what it should be, and that they do not get those advantages in which they are entitled to share. I also partly agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his remarks with regard to Staff appointments. The difference between a soldier and a sailor is this—that a sailor will run where he thinks he is wanted, but a soldier will stand at his post. At the time the Duke of Edinburgh was shot at in Australia, we stationed a Blue-jacket guard for his protection; there was a double ring of sentries around the house, and they were ordered to hail anybody who came past three times, and if there was no answer they were to fire. There was an emu in the garden. The emu passed; the Blue-jacket sentry hailed the emu, which did not answer; he hailed it three times, but it never answered, and then fired, and I am sorry to say he missed the bird. I mention this to show the difference between the Marine and the Blue-jacket, for directly afterwards every Blue-jacket sentry ran to the place where the shot had been fired; whereas, of course, military sentries would have remained at their posts. The fact is, you train one man—the Blue-jacket—to be useful everywhere on the spur of the moment, and you train the soldier to do his duty on the spot. I repeat that the Marines are a most useful body of men, capable of being landed and carrying out with the discipline and precision of the soldier
    1252
    whatever work they have to do. As to the question of expenditure, I have endeavoured to show as briefly as possible that great saving can be effected, particularly in the Dockyards; but not by reducing those establishments, because I believe you can never get work better done than it is in our Dockyards. What you want is better organization and better administration; and I hope that it will be clearly understood that an Admiral shall always administer the Dockyards over the heads of whatever civil assistants there may be to support him.
    CAPTAIN VERNEY: Sir, we have been told by an hon. Member (Mr. Illingworth) that we naval officers returned as Members of this House, when a question of naval policy comes forward, are not to take part in the discussion. But I venture to ask the Committee to consider that there are two or three sides to a question of naval policy, and there is one portion of it on which naval officers may claim to have something to say. In the first place, on the question of expenditure in connection with the Navy, naval officers do not pretend to be financiers; and they ought, therefore, to be content to leave questions of finance to those who understand them. As to the question of naval establishments, naval officers ought to know something about that; but they have no right to lay claim to exclusive knowledge on the subject, because there are others capable of forming just as good an opinion as they can of the class and number of ships required in the Navy. Those persons have, of course, the advantage of consulting with naval officers on questions relating to the requirements of the Fleet; and, therefore, I repeat that naval officers cannot lay claim to exclusive knowledge on that point. But there is one point on which naval officers have a right to speak, and on which men without practical experience should be silent. When the ships and guns have left the hands of the professional experts, the country does not want to know on what scientific theories they were constructed, but how they will serve us when put to the test of real work. Naval officers are alone capable of judging of the efficiency of the ships of the Navy; and, therefore, Sir, I think it is unwise of economists in this House

    1253
    to be desirous of shutting the mouths of naval officers, as the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) attempted to do a few nights ago. Why, Sir, it is the greatest service that can be performed from the point of view of economy in respect of naval administration to tell the House and the country whether the ships on which such vast sums of money are expended are or are not efficient. The old Navy before the days of steam was essentially an efficient Navy. Our ships were the best afloat; they had the best rope, the best canvas, and the best guns that could be made—there were no ships in the world that could compare with the ships of our Navy before iron-clads were introduced. They were thoroughly efficient; they always went at full speed; the material of which they were constructed was of the best; their armament was the very best that could be found; and, as I have said, there was no better class of ship than the sailing vessels of the Navy in the old days. But it is not so now. We have at the present time very few efficient ships in the Navy; and therefore I say that this is a subject on which we men of the Navy have a right to speak. Take the question of speed. We have not many ships in the Navy which can go at full speed for any length of time. When I was afloat from 1870 to 1873 in the Mediterranean, almost every ship had to work her boilers at reduced speed. Then we find other nations with more powerful weapons than we have; and therefore I say that our Navy is not efficient in the matter of weapons. The noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) told the House the other day that naval officers do not now get the training necessary to fit them for the command of ships. Well, Sir, reverting to the subject of the rate of speed, during the three years of my command I do not think I went more than 20 times at full speed. There is a standing order in the Navy that the captain shall ascertain what is the most economic rate of speed—that is to say, the speed at which he can cover the greatest distance with the least expenditure of coal. This generally works out at from five to seven knots an hour; and a ship, unless on particular service, is always required to steam at that speed, the consequence being that
    1254
    naval officers are only accustomed to handle their ships at a low speed. But when your Navy is required for active service, you have to go at full speed; you have to go at 10, 15, or 16 knots habitually; and I say that under the present system you do not give your naval officers a chance of handling their ships at that speed. A ship steers very differently, and requires, in consequence, very different handling when going at one speed from what she requires under another. The stokers cannot, under the circumstances I have mentioned, keep up steam enough to get speed out of the ships. What would be thought in the Army, if a Cavalry officer were expected to take his regiment into action at full gallop, when he had never been allowed to drill it except at a walk? Would any hon. Member intrust his carriage to a coachman who had never driven his horses except at a foot's pace? And yet you require your naval officers to go into action and manœuvre their ships at a tremendous speed to which they have not been accustomed. Why, Sir, when we do handle our ships at full speed, we feel we are not accustomed to it. No doubt, the cost to the country of allowing the ships of the Navy always to go at full speed would be very great; but that is no business of the naval officer. Our business is to tell you that your ships, on which you have spent large sums of money, are not as efficient as they ought to be; and it is the duty of every hon. Member to insist that the Navy of this country, even if it be small, shall at least be efficient. It cannot be efficient under the conditions I have described. English naval officers ought to be the best officers in the world. I do hope that hon. Members will not be found to rise in this House and ascribe to naval officers unworthy motives. Perhaps it would be well to give them credit for a little patriotism and regard for the efficiency of the Service to which they have devoted their lives, as well as a desire to win the respect and affection of their countrymen. I venture to say that the name of the noble and gallant Lord who sits opposite (Lord Charles Beresford), and who has spoken to-day, is beloved wherever it is mentioned. In the old days, when one ship fouled another very little harm was done, and the damage could be easily made good; but if one of our iron-clads fouls another a very different

    1255
    result follows; the ship has to be taken into dock, and it will probably be found that there is a great hole in her side. It is the enormous weight of the ships as compared with what it was formerly that causes this. For handling ships of this kind you want a man of exceeding nerve, and one who carries in his mind's eye the exact curve which the ship will make in steering. If a ship is going out of a narrow harbour, for instance, everything depends on the captain's knowledge of the behaviour of the ship under different rates of speed. You must not falter; you must not stop; if you do you will come to grief; you must, therefore, go on and have in your mind's eye the exact curve which the ship will make. Well, Sir, I think that in a situation demanding such discrimination the Committee will agree with me in saying that the captain must know exactly what his ship will do at full speed. It is necessary that our naval officers should know how to handle the great engines under them with perfect nerve and skill; and it is in my judgment clear that nothing ought to be allowed to stand in the way of their attaining the knowledge necessary to produce that result, because otherwise, in time of need, the nation will suffer for it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Commerell) has told us what his experience has been with a vessel having a twin-screw—the gallant Admiral may not be as well known to the House as the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford); but he is as well known in the Navy, and there is no man whose voice should be more attentively listened to. He explained his own experiences when in command of a heavily-sparred twin-screw vessel, and how he had represented to the Admiralty the uselessness, and even the danger, of such heavy masts; but when he returned home he found another twin-screw ship being rigged with still heavier spars. What have the economists to say to that? Now, I felt very much what the gallant Admiral said, because I also commanded a twin-screw ship, and I also made representations about her spars. What I found was this—that she would never go to windward at all under sail, and if ever I wanted to go a little way to windward it was necessary to get steam up. For instance, I had
    1256
    on one occasion to get steam up to steam only about 200 yards to get into Ascension. Well, surely that was not economy. But why was it? Because the Admiralty had put useless spars into the vessel, which was a positive blunder, and could have been no use to her in the event of her going into action. In regard to the efficiency of the men, all I can say is this—that there never was a time when our officers and men were more efficient than they are now. When I look back at the low class whom we had amongst the men of the Navy, when I first went to sea, and the low tastes they developed, I am astonished when I compare them with the men whom we have in the Service at the present time. The seamen of to-day are amongst the most sober, intelligent, and educated of Her Majesty's subjects. Then, in regard to the officers, I do not know that the members of any profession are better educated in their profession than are our naval officers. During the three years in which I commanded a ship in the Mediterranean, I never knew an instance when the captain of an English man-of-war did not take his ship in and out of harbour without a pilot, although the captain of every foreign man-of-war, without exception, always employed a pilot. It occurs to me, however, that the time has now come when this House should insist that there shall be promotion from the ranks in the Navy as well as in the Army. I believe that the time has gone by when the country will allow all the higher grades of the Profession to be held exclusively by one particular class, and before very long I hope to see a way open to the highest ranks of the Navy to seamen of the Fleet. I have a Notice on the Paper on this subject which I intend to bring forward. I postponed it until after Easter, because I believed that I was going right in the teeth of the Navy. To my astonishment, however, within the last few days I have discovered that many of the higher officers are in favour of it. I have asked three Questions on this subject from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert), and I cannot forbear expressing my thanks for the courteous and careful consideration with which he has replied to them. I have reason to believe that the matter is likely to be con-

    1257
    sidered in a short time by the Admiralty, with a view of seeing if it is possible to do an act of justice to every seaman in the Fleet, by giving him an opportunity of rising to the highest ranks of the Profession. If this be done, it will go far to remove the grievances of the seamen of the Fleet, and the English Navy in the future will continue to be what it always has been in the past. I hope the Committee will not think that we naval officers are extravagant when we demand efficiency. For my part, I shall never hesitate to speak out my mind when I think the Service falls short of what the country has a right to expect.
    CAPTAIN PRICE: I listened with the greatest pleasure to the very able and very lucid speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert); but I think I must also say that the Navy will listen with some feeling of disappointment to the statement which has been laid before us by the exponent of the Admiralty in this House this evening, and for this reason. After all the money we were called upon to spend last year; after the great scare which went over the country in regard to Russia, and after all the expense which was caused by it, the Navy did expect that the Representative of the Admiralty would have been able to come down here to-night and have told the Committee that at last the Navy had been put into a thoroughly efficient state. I know very well that he is not to blame, however, and that he has only followed the example of other Secretaries to the Admiralty, and has simply come down clearly to explain the Estimates before the Committee. It never has been the custom, unfortunately, and I am afraid it never will be, for the Representative of the Admiralty to tell us, to tell the Committee or the country, that the Estimates which he is placing before the House are sufficient to place the Navy in a thoroughly efficient condition. I did not take part in the debate on Monday night for this reason. There are several new Members in the House belonging to the Naval Profession, and I thought that it was only right that they should have a full opportunity of putting before the House their views on the state of the Navy. The House has been in the habit of hearing the same Representatives of Dockyard boroughs
    1258
    year after year advancing the same arguments on these Estimates in regard to the Navy; but this year we have new men, who have had great experience of the Navy, coming here and confirming everything that we have said before on these matters. What is the leading feature of the statement which has been put before the Committee tonight? I think the country will consider that it is this. That the Estimates of the late Board are really the Estimates which were presented to the Government, and that those Estimates have been reduced by no less than £500,000. It is well known in this House and out-of-doors that the Government have only to say that such and such a sum is necessary for the efficiency of the Navy, and no single Member in this House would decline to vote the sum asked for. For the first time within my knowledge, the Government have declined to ask for the sum of money which has been considered by the Board of Admiralty sufficient, and only sufficient, to put the Navy in an efficient condition. I do not think that I can be contradicted when I say that the Estimates now put forward are not those submitted by the Board of Admiralty. All the principal members of the present Board, and nearly all the permanent officials and heads of Departments, have been sitting at the Admiralty for months past, and they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to pay a certain amount of money to put the Navy in a proper state of efficiency. That sum was asked for by the Board, and that sum has been reduced by £500,000. I think I may put it in this way—that the Treasury have been asked for £500,000 more than we have been asked for to-night. I should like to put the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) into the witness-box on this matter to-night. Speaking in the City yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Admiralty could not have everything that they required, and that they must cut their coat according to their cloth. I think there is a great deal which we can read between the lines in that remark. What it amounts to is this—that the Admiralty cannot have what they require; that they must take what he was prepared to give them. Well, Sir, by-and-bye hon. Members are to be asked to give £200,000,000 for the dis-

    1259
    ruption of the Empire, and I do not think it is too much to ask them to give £5,000,000 to assist in maintaining the remnants of the Empire. My noble Friend below me the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) told us that he asked for £500,000 more for the purpose of laying down small ships and for providing torpedoes. He wanted £350,000 for torpedoes.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: For torpedoes and torpedo boats.
    CAPTAIN PRICE: I do not know how much that that would amount to for torpedoes alone. If I rightly understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hibbert), he said he can only ask the Committee to provide 900 torpedoes this year, although 1,400 would be eventually necessary. As Whitehead torpedoes cost last year between £300 and £400 a-piece, the purchase of 900 of them would require a good bit of money; but why are we not to have as many as are required? I believe it is because we have no means of making a sufficient quantity in this country. Last year, during the Russian scare, I am told that there was a great deficiency of torpedoes; and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert), therefore, whether any arrangement has been made at Woolwich or elsewhere for supplying them? I should like to ask him whether any contract has been entered into with Mr. Whitehead for manufacturing them this year? As to torpedo boats, we heard something amusing about them last year, when the Earl of Northbrook, in "another place," told us that he was going to provide 40 torpedo boats, and that they would be armed with guns during the war, and that after peace was proclaimed they were to be armed with their natural weapon—the torpedo. I should like to know whether that policy is to be repeated? The Secretary to the Admiralty, in his very able speech to-night, said nothing at all about the personnel of the Navy; but I dare say he intends to allude to that matter upon some subsequent Vote. It has been the custom to refer to the matter on this Vote, but I quite recognize the circumstance under which he has refrained from taking that course to-night; but I hope that he or his Colleague, at some future time, will give us a little more
    1260
    information upon the personnel of the Navy. There is one matter which I should like to refer to, and which reflects great credit upon recent First Lords of the Admiralty—and that is, that they have at last come to the conclusion that we ought to provide for the support of the widows of our seamen and marines. I hope that the matter will be satisfactorily settled, and in the most liberal possible spirit. Something has been said about that gallant corps, the Royal Marines; and I think that that is a question which no naval officer can altogether help referring to when Naval Estimates are before this House. I must say that I am sorry to see that this force is to be reduced by 70. The reduction is a small one, no doubt, but still it is a reduction. In my opinion, there in no force in the service of the Crown which is more economical, or more efficient, than the corps of Marines. Regarding the question which my noble and gallant Friend below the Gangway (Lord Charles Beresford) has mentioned, I understand that he spoke about the punishment of Marines for serious offences on board ship. I think my noble and gallant Friend was right—that that matter ought to be left to the captain of the ship. But, for my part, I think that the power of inflicting punishment on the Marines should be left in the hands of the senior officer of Marines on board ship as much as possible, and on shore entirely so. In regard to the engine-room artificers on board ship, also, I wish to say that I think that, in the interests of discipline, I believe it is necessary that those men who are put in charge of the engines ought, at the very least, to hold the position of warrant officers. I have always maintained that the upper classes of artificers, after 10 years' service, ought to be raised to the rank of warrant officers. Just one word on the question which the hon. Gentleman (Captain Verney) has raised as to warrant officers. I understand that after Easter he is going to raise the question, and take the vote of the House upon it. If he does, I shall have very great pleasure in seconding him. It is a question I have often raised in this House—that of the promotion of warrant officers. It seems to me extraordinary that in the Naval Service of this country, above all others, no man—no seaman—should be able to rise above the rank of warrant officer.

    1261
    It used not to be so in years gone by. There were frequent cases in the old days of seamen rising to be Captains and Admirals; but now they are altogether cut off from anything of the kind. This is not the condition of things in the Army. We do not pretend to have an Army. That small, if gallant, body of men we have to fight our battles for us is only by compliment on the Continent called an Army, and yet the cases in which men have risen from the ranks to the possession of commissions are very frequent. I think there are 120 men now holding commissions as Captains and Lieutenants who have sprung from the ranks, besides 600 or 700 Quartermasters and Ridingmasters. Though an Order was placed on the Statute Book by which it was provided that commissions should be given to seamen, yet, although that Order came out 30 years ago, not a single instance has ever yet been noted of a man being so promoted. I know I shall be told, as I have been before, that commissions are given. But what are these commissions? It has been the custom for the past few years to promote gunners and boatswains to be what are called chief gunners and chief boatswains; and they are told when they are so promoted that they are commissioned officers. They receive a piece of paper with the word "commission" written on it, which entitles them to call themselves commissioned officers; but they are not really commissioned officers. They are still boatswains and gunners, and do not rank with the officers. Well, there is no unreasonable request made in connection with this subject—there is no difficulty in the matter at all. We are told that there are social difficulties in the way of conferring the rank of commissioned officers upon these men; but there is no reason why they should not be promoted to be Lieutenants or Commanders. You need not put them in the ward room with the other officers, if this difficulty exists, which I do not believe; but, at all events, there is no reason why you should not put them in the Coastguard Service, where the social difficulty would not exist at all. We are sometimes told that we shall not be able to get the warrant officers to pass the examinations necessary to become Lieutenants, and I dispute that entirely. I maintain that every gunner
    1262
    in the Service is able to pass the same gunnery and seamanship examinations as the Lieutenants, and that the gunners and boatswains could easily, with the ordinary six months' training at the Naval College, pass the necessary examinations in navigation and mechanics. I have said there is no difficulty in regard to education or the social aspect of the question; and I say, if you can do it, promote those men to be Lieutenants who are worthy of it—place them in the Coastguard, or in command of gunboats, or second in command of gunboats. There are heaps of positions you could give them in the Navy. I want, further, to suggest—and I want the Representatives of the Admiralty to consider this matter, because it has been put before me by deputations and otherwise—that chief boatswains and gunners, when they retire from the Service, should be allowed to retire with the rank of Lieutenant. That may seem an empty kind of honour to ask for; but it is really nothing of the kind. If the rank of Lieutenant is given these men on retiring, their children—their sons—will have the satisfaction of knowing that many appointments are open to them which otherwise would not have been open to them, to say nothing of the pride which they will feel in being able to say that their fathers were promoted to commissions for long and faithful services. I hope the Admiralty will consider this question, and that, as the French soldier used to be able to say that every knapsack contained the baton of a Marshal of France, so every sailor in our Navy will be able to say that he has in his locker the cocked hat and epaulettes of a British Admiral.
    MR. RITCHIE: Your ruling, Sir, to-night, which is, no doubt, correct, is of such a nature as will, I am afraid, prevent me from dealing with many of the questions that have been raised with reference to certain action we thought it necessary to take when we were at the Admiralty with that fulness I should have been glad to have been able to adopt. I know, however, there will be other opportunities when we shall be able to discuss these matters in greater detail, and when we shall be able to defend the course we thought it right to take in the interest of the Service on the subject of

    1263
    reorganization. There are, however, one or two points I desire to refer to, and which I shall be able to touch upon without bringing myself under the censure of the Chair. With regard to the speech just delivered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) as to the Estimates which the late Government, in the interests of the Navy, thought it necessary to formulate, and the Estimates now before the Committee, I must express my great satisfaction that the proposals presented to Parliament by the present Board are, on the whole, of so satisfactory a nature. I am glad to think that the shipbuilding programme which we thought it necessary to formulate in reference to the building of ships in our Dockyards has been to the full adopted by the present Board, and that they propose in the Dockyards to spend this year probably a larger sum than has ever been spent before, exclusive of the sum taken from the Vote of Credit for wages. I am extremely glad that they have so far adopted our views in that respect, because I feel sure that if arrangements are made for the economical administration of the money that it is proposed to devote, the more wages you spend in the Dockyards, within certain limits, the more likely you are to have an efficient and cheap Navy. It would, perhaps, interest the Committee to hear that, large as are the wages taken for shipbuilding in our Dockyards, they are nothing like the proportion that would be spent in the private Dockyards which had the same amount of work on hand. Certainly, if it pays private builders to spend large sums of money in wages in order to get the work quickly out of hand, it ought to follow that a similar course would be to the interests of ecoonomy in Her Majesty's Dockyards. Great fault has been found—and I think rightly found—with the delay which has taken place, and which is almost the normal condition of things, with reference to building in our Dockyards; though it is true that in one or two cases ships have been turned out with remarkable and praiseworthy expedition—and especially I would refer to the ship to which reference has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston)—namely, the Hero, which was turned out with a speed which would have done
    1264
    credit to any private Yard in the country. In the case of the Hero, the ship was turned out so rapidly because there was not a large amount of new work being done at the Yard. A large amount of labour could be got on it, and kept on it, which is the great secret of turning out ships with rapidity. When we were at the Admiralty, our view was that it was to the truest interests of economy that everything in our power should be done to obtain more rapidity of construction in the Dockyards than had ever been exhibited. The Committee will see that the programme for work in the Dockyards that has now been adopted by the present Board of Admiralty is a programme which will insure much more satisfactory progress in the Dockyards than has hitherto been the case; and I would point out that whereas it was stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Hibbert) that the Ajax was nine years being built, the Nile and the Trafalgar, two ships of far greater tonnage than the Ajax, are put down in this year's Estimates to be completed by the year 1890, so that if the programme which is now placed before the Committee and the House is carried out, we shall see these two vessels, the Nile and the Trafalgar—which will be two of the most powerful ships in the world when they are afloat—turned out of Her Majesty's Dockyards in a period which I think in ordinary times would hardly be exceeded by any private Yard. I hope that the present Board will make it a point to see that their proposals in that respect are pushed forward with the view of carrying out the programme that is put before the Committee. While, however, I express my entire satisfaction with the proposals made by the Government with reference to the work in the Dockyards, I am sorry to say that I cannot express the same amount of approval of the other portion of their programme. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) said the Estimates presented by the present Government were not within £500,000 of the Estimates prepared by the previous Board. In that he rather under-estimated than over-estimated the condition of things. The Estimates presented by the present Board, so far as my recollection goes, are, in round numbers, £500,000 less upon what may be called the ordinary programme of the year

    1265
    than the Estimates of the late Board, apart from the additional programme for extra small vessels which we hoped—I must say, however, that it did not go beyond a hope—we might have been able to induce the Treasury to sanction. Therefore, how is it that notwithstanding the Estimates which are now before the Committee are £500,000 less, so far as what I may call the ordinary programme of the year is concerned, than those which we formulated, yet the same amount of work that we proposed is going to be turned out of the Dockyards? Well, I will tell the Committee that the difference is mainly in the Contract Vote, and that the present Estimates provide for a very considerable sum less being spent under that Vote than we estimated would be earned by the contractors during the year. I should very much like to know from the Secretary to the Admiralty how it is, and by what process it is, that these Estimates have been reduced in the way that I have mentioned, because I do not find that there is to be any smaller programme? The same number of ships are to be built—the contractors are to have the same work in hand—as we proposed. It is proposed to order machinery in the same way as we proposed to order it for ships that are building in the Dockyards; but, notwithstanding that, so far as we can see, taking the number of ships and the work that is to be taken in hand into consideration, the programme is to be the same as the one we left at the Admiralty, there is to be on that particular Vote something like £250,000 less spent than we expected we should have to spend during the year. I should like to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has obtained from his responsible advisers estimates of the progress which is to be made upon the ships and the machinery which has been ordered and is to be ordered, £250,000 less than those they furnished to us when we were in Office? Is it the case, as to my certain knowledge it has been in previous years, that it being desired to cut down the Estimates by £250,000, orders have been given to the permanent officials charged with the duty and carrying out the work to take off the sum by which it is thought desirable to reduce the Estimates pro rata from all the ships? I must say I cannot be-
    1266
    lieve that it is to the first of these causes that we have to look for this diminution in the amount of the Estimates, because I cannot imagine that the responsible officers of the Admiralty would within the short space of two or three weeks alter their minds so much as to be able to advise the Admiralty that the contractors would not earn within £200,000 or £300,000 of the money they had advised us they would be able to earn. If I were allowed to go into questions of detail, I could show the Committee that whether you take the ships that are being built by the contractors, or take the machinery now in order, or the machinery that is to be ordered and must be ordered, there is a suspicious look about these various items which makes it appear, certainly to me, as if a reduction had been ordered, and that simply £8,000 had been taken off this ship and £8,000 off the other, and £10,000 off this machinery and £10,000 off the other. I venture to say that if that is the course that has been followed it is a course that the Committee and the House ought to condemn. There is only one legitimate mode in which Estimates should be presented to this House, and that is by stating the amounts—I am speaking now of contract work—which you are advised by those who are responsible for directing you in these matters will be earned by the contractors in carrying out the work you have intrusted to them. What is the position the House is likely to be placed in at the end of the financial year if the reduction has been made by simply cutting down the Contract Vote by £250,000? They will find that if the contractors go on building in the way that was originally anticipated, they will at the end of the year be asked for a large Supplementary Vote. It was our fortune, or misfortune, to be the means of its becoming necessary for the present Government to present a considerable Supplementary Estimate to Parliament for the purpose of meeting the demands of the contractors. But, Sir, the course we adopted was one of which the House unanimously approved. We found that the contractors were proceeding more rapidly than was anticipated when the Estimates were prepared, and we did not think it necessary to stop them, feeling sure that the House would approve of the course we pursued in desiring to get these ships built as

    1267
    rapidly as they could be built. But while the House was quite willing to excuse us for having adopted that course, and to justify us for having adopted it, I do not think that the House would be likely to approve of the custom of adopting that as a principle. I do not think the House would be satisfied with a systematic under-estimating of the amounts to be earned by the contractors' Ministers trusting to the House at the end of the year to give them the amount rendered necessary by the extra earning of the contractors. But it is not only with reference to the work which is being undertaken by the contractors that there has been what I am afraid is an undue cutting down of the Estimates which we left behind us. There has been—and here, again, I cannot enter into detail—a large sum cut off the Stores Vote, the effect of which will be that at the end of the year the naval stores in stock will be lower than they have been at any time during the past 13 years. Well, I can quite understand the difficulties under which the Government labour. There is a declining Revenue and a failing trade, and I can quite understand their extreme desire to keep down these Estimates, which in any case are extremely high, to the lowest possible amount; but I do not think it is desirable to cut down the Estimates if it is done by the means which I have pointed out to the Committee. Well, now with reference to what I would call the extra programme which we left behind us and which we hoped we might have the authorization of the Treasury to proceed with. I can assure the Committee that there is no expenditure which is more necessary than that upon the small additional programme which we left behind. We, as the noble Lord the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) pointed out to the Committee, considered that it was our first duty to endeavour to bring the Iron-clad Fleet of the country up to a level with and a superiority over that of any other Power; and, therefore, we felt that our first duty was to see that ships were laid down and built which would be a match for any iron-clad that was building, or built, throughout Europe. But we did not shut our eyes to the fact that there was also a grave necessity for small vessels to be provided. I should like to point out to the
    1268
    Committee, speaking with regard to the gunboats, that although we have 33 on the list as effective, in five or six years we shall not have half-a-dozen effective gunboats in the British Navy. Well, that is a matter which I think requires the earnest attention of the Government; and I was very glad indeed to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty say that although the Government had not included this small additional programme of ours in the programme to be laid before Parliament, yet that they had hopes that before the end of the financial year they might see their way to proceeding with some of these extremely necessary small craft. I, of course, do not quite see myself where the money is to come from; but I hope my right hon. Friend has in his eye some unexplored mine into which he will be able to dip, and out of which he will be able, at any rate, to commence these vessels.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): As you commenced five new vessels without having the money for them.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am not aware that we commenced five new vessels without considering where the means were to come from to pay for them. I should like to have the details of that. I can only again express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do what he expects he will. The noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) asked me what is the tonnage of the small craft we proposed to build. We proposed to build four corvettes of 2,000 tons each, four sloops of 1,000 tons each, two improved Curlews of about 785 tons each, and eight gunboats of the Rattler type of 670 tons each. That is the whole of the additional programme we proposed, and we hoped of these to have built in the current year eight gunboats, one corvette, and two sloops. We felt that the time had arrived when it was absolutely essential that the question of gunboats should be taken in hand, because we were face to face with the fact that we had a large number of gunboats in the Navy List that were absolutely useless, and which, if money had been spent on their repair, would have been wasted, as we could not have got out of them more than eight knots an hour. I think the

    1269
    House would have had reason to complain if we had spent large sums of money in trying to make seaworthy gunboats, which, after they were made seaworthy, would not steam more than eight knots an hour. With reference to the question of reorganization at the Admiralty and in the Dockyards, my hon. and learned Friend (Sir John Gorst), who, for the purpose, has assumed a position of greater freedom and less responsibility below the Gangway, is evidently very angry with us.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: I rise to Order. If it is in Order for the hon. Member to go into that question, it will be equally in Order for us to reply, and I have a very long reply to make.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am not going into the question in any detail. The general question of Dockyard reform was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, and has been touched on by more than one speaker; and, while I will rigidly guard myself from going into any question of detail in connection with it, I think I shall be in Order if I say one or two words to show the necessity of dealing with the Dockyards. Now, what were the circumstances? We were face to face with the fact, about which there has been conflict in the House and in the country over and over again, that the ships which were building in our Dockyards were not being turned out with that expedition with which they ought to have been turned out, and that they were being turned out at a cost greatly in excess of a fair and proper amount. That led us to inquire into all the circumstances in connection with the Dockyard administration. Now, I wish it to be clearly understood that although in the Blue Book which has been referred to more than once, containing the Report of Admiral Graham's Committee of Investigation into the Dockyards, certain statements are made as to idleness in the Dockyards, the Committee must not be under the misapprehension that the reforms which we undertook were undertaken in the belief that the only fault, or the great fault even, was that of idling in the Dockyards. Of course, where there are large numbers of men congregated together, as there are in the Dockyards, there must be, and there will be, idleness here and there; but I
    1270
    am convinced that no country possesses more efficient servants than this country possesses in the artizans who are employed in our Royal Dockyards. And, further, Sir, I am satisfied of this—that whatever may be the question of cost in connection with what is turned out of the Dockyards, or whatever may be the question of time, no Dockyard in the country, or in any other country, turns out work superior to that turned out of Her Majesty's Dockyards. I would almost go further, and say that I greatly question whether work such as is turned out of Her Majesty's Dockyards is turned out of any private yard in the country. Hon. Members for Dockyard constituencies, whose indignation I can well understand and appreciate, must not run away with the notion that we have been driven into the question of Dockyard reform in consequence of the complaints which have been made with reference to the hands employed in the Dockyards. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Sir John Gorst) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston), while denouncing the reforms which we had made, and while applying the most opprobious terms to the assistants to the Superintendents whom we had appointed, themselves bore the strongest testimony it was possible for anyone to bear to the absolute necessity for the reforms which we had initiated. The hon. Gentlemen themselves complained of men standing idle for days and weeks together; they said the men had no work to do, although ships were lying in the Yards ready to be repaired, but upon which the men were not employed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham complained of the total inability of the men to obtain the stores which it was necessary they should obtain in order to proceed with their work. What did all these complaints point to? They pointed to a want of management. And, Sir, what we considered necessary, judging not only from the evidence which was placed before us, but from the evidence of our own eyes when we made our visitation to the Dockyards—what seemed to us to be absolutely essential was that there should be placed in the Dockyards someone with technical knowledge, who should be responsible to the Superintendent and the Admiralty for the efficiency of the work

    1271
    which was done there. And, Sir, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that there was as much necessity, to say the least of it, for taking in hand the reform of the central government in the Admiralty as any reform in the Dockyards; and I believe that we have instituted such a system, both at the Admiralty and in our manufacturing establishments, as will secure that the country obtains quickly, efficiently, and expeditiously value for the money which this House votes. We have endeavoured in all that we have done to follow out the system which leads to such successful results in the private Yards of the country. We formed our plans on the basis upon which private Dockyards in the country have been so successful for so many years; and I want to impress upon the present Board of Admiralty what we considered one of the fundamental, if not the fundamental, principle which underlies all the reforms which we have endeavoured to secure. We have adopted a system by which, for all practical purposes, the two Departments of designing and of building shall be separate, and that the officer charged with the designing shall be responsible for his designs, and that the officer charged with the building shall be responsible to the Board of Admiralty for quickly and economically and efficiently carrying out the work which has been placed in his hands. I would impress strongly upon the present Board of Admiralty that they cannot be too particular in endeavouring to secure, as far as it is possible, this clear division of labour, in order that there may be responsibility where responsibility ought to lie. Sir, I am speaking upon a subject which was to me one of daily and nightly concern during the whole time that I had the honour of filling the Office of Secretary to the Admiralty. There is much that I should like to say upon it, but I know it would be altogether irregular for me to do so; and, therefore, I shall reserve what I have to say with reference to the details of the arrangements which we have made until we have a legitimate opportunity of considering them. There is, however, one word which I should like to say in support of what was said by my noble Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) with reference to the manufacturing establish-
    1272
    ments of the Navy. You may make all the reforms in administration which you please, and yet you will not get what you have a right to expect unless you take in hand vigorously the reform of the tools which you give your servants to carry out their work with. I venture to say that no one can go round Her Majesty's Dockyards without being amazed at the antediluvian character of a vast deal of the machinery which is given to those in the Dockyards who have to carry out the programme decided upon. There is a great deal of machinery which ought to be ruthlessly swept out; and I can conceive nothing more unsatisfactory than the mode in which, at the annual visitation of the Lords of the Admiralty to the Yards, the question of what machinery is wanted and what buildings are wanted is settled. It is taken for granted that so long as the sum which was voted the previous year is not exceeded in the demands of the year that is to come, everything is all right; but, Sir, to my mind, that is a fatal and a most costly process. Anyone who goes round the private Yards will see that as little as possible is spent upon buildings and as much as possible upon machinery; anyone going round Her Majesty's Dockyards will see that the reverse is the case—that as much as possible is spent upon buildings and as little as possible upon machinery. I do no not care how flimsy your buildings are so long as you have fine machinery—machinery brought up to the present day. A person who inspects some of our greatest Shipbuilding Yards cannot but be struck with the flimsy character of the buildings and the splendour of the machinery. I remember saying, in one of the principal Yards—"Dear me, what a very light structure you have got for all this splendid machinery." "Yes," said the owner—"That is the principle we adopt. We put up a very light building. We never know what we may have to do. We may have to pull down the building. We may find it in an inconvenient position, and we may want to move it to another place. But we think it absolutely essential to have the best machinery that can be obtained." As I have said before, it seems to me the direct contrary is the case in Her Majesty's Dockyards. Now, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. Jacks) gave us one or two illustrations,

    1273
    by way of comparison, of the cost of building in Her Majesty's Dockyards and the cost of building in private Yards, and he said that the Returns which were presented to Parliament were of no value whatever. If the hon. Gentleman was speaking of the form of Estimates which have been presented to Parliament hitherto, I should feel very much inclined to believe him, for I am certain that anyone taking up the Estimates of previous years would be utterly unable to make head or tail of them, unless he possessed a great deal of technical knowledge and a considerable amount of special education. But, Sir, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will alter his mind when he studies the Estimates of the present year. He said he had only just received the Report of the Committees with reference to administration. I hope he has only just taken up the Estimates, and that he has not had time to look at them, because I should be extremely sorry and very much disappointed if his observations had been based upon the Estimates of the present year. He will find, and the Committee will find, in the Estimates of this year every possible kind of information which will enable the Committee to make comparisons, or to learn whatever they wish to learn in regard to the naval expenditure.
    MR. JACKS (, &c.): May I ask if in the Estimates comparisons are made between the cost of labour and material in the Royal Yards and private Yards?
    MR. RITCHIE: It is perfectly impossible for the Admiralty to adopt forms of Estimates giving the cost of labour and material in private Yards. What we have done in the present Estimates is to make a clear distinction between the labour and material on every ship that is being built, so that all the hon. Gentleman has to do is to look at the Estimates, and if he desires information about any particular ship, he will see, in separate columns, the labour and the material which have been spent on that ship, and the labour and material which it is proposed to expend on that ship in the current year. I presume I should be somewhat out of Order if I were to go into further details in connection with the Estimates; and, therefore, I will content myself by saying that our endeavour, with reference to these Estimates, has been to present in an intelli-
    1274
    gible form the progress which has been made, and the progress which it is proposed to make, during the ensuing year. Something was said by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. R. W. Duff) in reference to the amount which is to be expended during the next year upon guns and ammunition. I do not propose to go into details in reference to this subject; but I do desire to emphasize some remarks which have been made by my noble and gallant Friend the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) upon the point. My noble and gallant Friend spoke of the extremely unsatisfactory position of things, as between the Admiralty and the War Office, with reference to the armaments and ammunition supplied to the Navy. I entirely agree with the noble and gallant Lord. I think that the present condition of things, by which the War Office undertakes to supply the Admiralty with the guns which they require, is anything but satisfactory. My own belief, and I think it is a common-sense view, is that the Admiralty, which is responsible for the building and equipping and fitting of a ship, ought to be responsible for everything in connection with the ship. They ought to be able to bear upon their own Estimates the cost of all the guns and ammunition which they require, and they should be at liberty to go to the cheapest and the best markets in order to obtain their guns and ammunition. If Woolwich can supply them more cheaply, or as cheaply, and as good, and as quickly as any other people, then by all means employ Woolwich; but if it cannot, then let them be at liberty to go elsewhere. There is no doubt that, although there are many reasons why ships are delayed in the process of building, they are frequently delayed by the difficulty in obtaining their armaments. When we left the Admiralty negotiations were going on with a view of placing this matter on a satisfactory footing; and I trust those negotiations will proceed, and that in a short time the Navy will be able to have the money for her own guns and ammunition on her own Estimates, and will be able to provide her armaments more expeditiously. I am afraid, Sir, that in some cases I have approached very near to the limits of the debate which you have drawn; but I will not trespass longer upon the attention of the Committee.

    1275
    What one has to say on these matters is naturally of an extremely discursive character. In conclusion, I will say that there does not seem to be from any quarter of the Committee any strong opposition to the programme which the Admiralty have resolved to adopt. I myself regret very much indeed that they did not see their way to enlarge their programme somewhat; but I know that circumstances at present are extremely depressing, and that the difficulty of obtaining money from the Treasury must be very great. For my own part, I am sufficiently unorthodox to agree with my noble Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) in the proposal which he advocated the other evening. I do not think that it is a very advisable thing either to suspend the payment of the National Debt or to issue Terminable Annuities; but my opinion is it is the lesser of the two evils. If ships are wanted, if increased expenditure is necessary in order to bring the Navy up to an efficient condition, it is a much lesser evil to raise the requisite money by means of Terminable Annuities than to leave the Navy in an inefficient state. All we should do would be to pay 3 per cent for the money of which we obtained an advance; and I venture to say the advantage we would obtain by having our Navy in an efficient and strong condition is worth 10 times the 3 per cent we should have to pay. But that is a matter I do not wish to dwell upon. I can only express my personal thanks to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) for the extremely kind and courteous, and, indeed, handsome manner in which he has spoken with reference to the action which has been taken on several questions by the late Board of Admiralty, and for having so loyally set himself, as I know he has, to carry out the programme which was left behind by the late Board.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): I do not know whether we have arrived at the time when we may be allowed to take the Vote — [Admiral FIELD: No, certainly, we have not]—but I think the time has arrived when I may reply to the observations which have been made by several hon. Members. First of all, I may say that I do not feel at all dissatisfied with the discussion which has
    1276
    taken place upon the Estimates which are now before the Committee. Of course, there has been, very naturally, a considerable amount of criticism. The great part of it—the greatest part of it—has been of a friendly character, and where it has been otherwise we must, of course, try to make the best of it, and see whether we can do anything in future to carry out the views of those who do not agree with our proposals. Well, I should like to say a word, in the first place, in reply to the remarks of my hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie) as to the Navy being free to purchase their guns in the best market. I entirely agree with him. The noble and gallant Lord's (Lord Charles Beresford's) case is, I think, that if you do not confine the Navy to obtain its guns from one particular place, like the Woolwich Arsenal, it would probably have a much better chance of improving its armaments and of availing itself of new inventions. It is quite obvious that the Navy would profit very largely by being at liberty to go where it liked than if it were confined within the four walls, so to speak, of a Government Department. Then I also entirely agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) as to the necessity of getting rid of all obsolete machinery in our Dockyards. I did not touch upon that in my original statement—I meant to have done so, but I thought my observations were getting too extended. I may, however, say now, that since I have been at the Admiralty I have tried to ascertain what the amount is which will enable us to get rid of the really obsolete machinery in the different Yards. I find that the expense is really not of so very serious a character as one would have thought; and therefore I think that, before another year comes round, either we, or some other Government which may be at the Admiralty, will be able to undertake the abolition of the obsolete machinery. As far as I can ascertain, the total amount required in addition to what is being provided this year—for we are providing this year no less a sum than £70,000 for the purchase of new machines—is not much more than £70,000, the greater part of which would have to be expended at the Chatham Yard. Now, my hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) has said a great deal in favour of the programme of his own Board, and I ex-

    1277
    tremely regret that we were not in a position to carry out that programme. I believe that if we could have carried their programme out it would have made our proposals almost perfect; but we felt we could not adopt it. Then he asked me how it is that we can obtain money to carry out the proposal to build eight gunboats? We shall obtain our money probably in the same way that they have taken money for vessels which they commenced during the time they were in Office—they obtained it from savings, and from using moneys which could be adapted for the purpose. Probably we may be in the same fortunate position they were in; and if we are in that position we shall feel it our duty, and shall make the attempt, to lay down something like six or eight gunboats. Then, again, my hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) asked me how it is that we get rid of the £250,000 upon our Estimates for contract work? We thought the amount placed in the Estimates for contract work was excessive, and we asked that it should be revised, at the same time saying that we had no desire in any way to curtail or postpone the contract work. After going into the matter carefully and fully, we were assured it would be possible to reduce the amount put down for contract work by something like £200,000 or £250,000. Supposing the worst came to the worst, and the work goes on so rapidly that more money will be required than we have put down in our Estimate, why should we be more afraid of coming to the House and asking for money in a Suplementary Estimate than the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) were? I do not see why, if the money is earned and if it is desirable that these vessels should be built and delivered at as early a period as possible, we should not face the House of Commons and ask for the money that is required. But I do not suppose we shall be in that position. I trust we shall not—at least, I do not know which I hope for most. Personally, I shall be quite prepared to take a courageous course and ask the House for the money if it is earned. Now I should like to say something upon the Store Vote, because I have not referred to it hitherto. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) put a question to me in respect to torpedoes. I stated in my
    1278
    first speech that we were short of 1,463. Of that number we shall have 683 ready at the end of December next, being 780 to be provided for. As to this 780, we have arranged that from Woolwich we shall receive 230 annually, and we have also arranged with a firm at Armley, near Leeds—Greenwood, Batley & Co.—that they shall produce this year 80 instead of 20. That gives us 310, which leaves 470 to be obtained in the best way we can. As I have said before, we do not wish to go abroad for these things, but desire to keep the work in our own hands. I do not think there would be any difficulty in providing money for them next year. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Sir John Gorst) asked if any steps had been taken to redress the grievances of the warrant officers? In replying to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I wish to reply also to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckingham (Captain Verney), who also referred to the question, which is one in which I know he takes great interest. I may say that up to the present time nothing has been done in the way of carrying out the promotion such as was contemplated by the Order in Council to which reference has been made. But I quite agree with those hon. Members who have mentioned the question that it does seem rather singular that we should have an Order in Council providing and allowing for promotion of these officers in the way which this Order does, and that no case should have been fully carried out. Nor can I say what justification there is for withholding promotion from men who hold the position of warrant officers in the Navy and granting it to men in the position of non-commissioned officers in the Army. It is said there are social reasons in the way. If such reasons do exist they will, of course, be discovered when the time comes to attempt to make any promotion. I do not suppose that any promotion has ever been attempted; but I have to say in reply to the remarks that have been made that my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Marquess of Ripon) is prepared to consider the question with the view of seeing how far he can make this Order a workable Order, and thus promote an improvement in the position of a very deserving class of men. A question has also been asked me in regard

    1279
    to the engine-room artificers. No doubt these men have a grievance, and I am sure the First Lord of the Admiralty will be perfectly prepared to consider any grievance which is brought before him. I must, however, say this, that the pay of the engine-room artificers is so exceedingly good that I do not think there is any probability of any increase in it being made. I do not know whether it is that their grievance is in respect to pay or pension. ["Pension."] Of course, there is no difficulty in getting any number of first-class engine-room artificers at the rate of pay given, and that makes it difficult to consider the subject. At the same time, I think that if there are any grievances affecting a large and valuable class of men such as the engine-room artificers which can be removed it is very desirable they should be removed, and the present Board will be quite prepared to take the matter into consideration and see whether anything can be done. Now with respect to the stokers. They have also, I believe, grievances, but I am not prepared to say that anything can be done to redress them. Only a short time ago the rank of chief stoker was created, and pay at the rate of 2s. 8d. a-day granted. Besides, there is to be some new arrangement with respect to gunnery and torpedo practice which will give additional advantages to this class, enabling them to obtain extra pay. Then, again, with regard to what was said by the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) as to the large number of non-combatants carried in every vessel, I may say that the stokers and engine-room artificers will in future be trained in the use of the cutlass and pistol, and thus made available for really defensive work if it should be necessary to call upon them to do such work. Those, I think, are the principal questions which have been asked me in the course of the discussion; and I can only say that any other inquiries which hon. Gentlemen have to make will receive the attention of the Department which I have the honour to represent.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Sir, I am sorry that I have the privilege of following, instead of preceding, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty. I think I must say that it would have been a
    1280
    little more courteous on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, when he knew that there were other Navy men who desired to speak — ["No, no!"] — to have waited a short time longer before he rose. Hon. Gentlemen say "No!" but that is my opinion. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee at any undue length. My object in rising is to draw attention to one or two points of importance and to obtain an answer upon them, and not to go into any discussion, of which, perhaps, there has been too much already. We have had an interesting speech from the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), and I think it would have been courteous to naval men if the late Secretary to the Admiralty had waited for an opportunity of answering some questions. Upon this Vote I wish to draw attention to the question of wages to petty officers and seamen, and to point out the invidious distinction which exists between different branches of the Service. There are some officers, perhaps, who think it a wise distinction; but there are a great many who are of a different opinion, and the invidious distinction I refer to is felt by the Coastguardsmen, whom it affects deeply. I ask that to-night it should receive the attention of the official Representative of the Admiralty on the Treasury Bench. The representations of the men in question upon this subject were approved by the Duke of Edinburgh, and forwarded by him to the Board of Admiralty. Well, Sir, the question I refer to is that of the Coastguard men not receiving the extra 2d. a-day in common with others in the Service who receive it after 10 years' service on re-engagement. There never was before any such distinction in the Service, and I cannot but think it unwise and regrettable that such an invidious distinction should be made now between those who serve ashore and afloat. Although the Coastguardsmen are not serving afloat, it must be borne in mind that they are the salt of the Service, and the best part of your Naval Reserve.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the Coastguard Service is provided for in Vote 4.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Mr. Chairman, I bow to your decision, of course; but I must try to deal with this question in another way. There is an invidious distinction between a portion of the Ser-

    1281
    vice afloat, and another portion of it which serves on shore. ["Order!"] Well, I will not press the point now.
    CAPTAIN PRICE: Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. Is it not the case that the wages of the Coastguard are provided under Vote 1?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I believe that the wages are included within Vote 1.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: I am always very careful in endeavouring to avoid being called to Order. I was under the impression that I was right in dealing with this question under the present Vote, and I am glad to find that impression confirmed by the reply of the Chairman to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport. I will proceed with this subject. The further complaint of the Coastguardsmen is, that when they are required to go for their month's cruise they are not allowed to draw this paltry 2d. a-day. That is their grievance, and I repeat that it is an unwise and invidious distinction to make between them and other branches of the Service. The grievance has been pressed by the former Head of the Coastguard Service, the Duke of Edinburgh, and the claim approved by the then Board of Admiralty. Under these circumstances, I trust that there is very little difficulty in the way of its receiving the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty and the present Board. There is another matter to which I desire to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee in connection with the Egyptian Nile Expedition, and the Naval Contingent which served in that Expedition. Captain Boardman, of the Royal Navy, was one of the officers who served in that Contingent, and for one year was in charge of the line of communication; he had men and officers under him. I say nothing as to the way in which he did his duty; but everyone knows that he did his duty well. Captain Boardman served in the Naval Contingent, and he was borne on the books of his ship at Malta; but I find that he is not allowed to count sea time for his service in Egypt. Well, Sir, I beg to tell the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Admiralty that the Service is not satisfied with that Rule, and that they hope that the officers in question will be granted the right to count the time during which they were engaged on this hard and hazardous ser-
    1282
    vice. The other officer, whom I may now name because he is not present, was the noble and gallant Lord the popular Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford). He served in the Nile Expedition. If there is one man in the Naval Service of whom the Service is proud, it is that of the noble and gallant Lord whom I have mentioned. Everyone knows how that gallant Officer crossed the Desert; how he took his steamer up to Khartoum, and how, with a shot in her boiler, he repaired the damage under the enemy's fire; and now we are told that all that brilliant service is to count as harbour time. I say it is an insult to that Officer, and to the Service, that he should be so treated, and I believe the Committee will sympathize with me when I say that if the Rules do not allow these two officers to count the time spent by them in Egypt as sea time, it is the bounden duty of the Government to change the Rule. And I remind them that on a former occasion they found no difficulty in making an Order which brought about a great change in the constitution of the Admiralty. I hope I have said enough on this subject to convince the Government of the desirability of giving it their prompt attention, and that the Committee will perceive that I had a good reason for rising. Allusion has been made by the hon. Member opposite to certain grievances felt by the corps of Marines, and the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone also referred to the subject. We are all proud of that Corps, and we feel it has been very hardly treated in respect of its great service at Suakin, where they had to bear hard knocks with very little glory attached to them. A great many men were lost in garrisoning that place; but that is a fault which is not ours; it lies at the door of the Military Authorities. The next subject I wish to refer to is the subject of guns. It has been said that the present system is not economical, and that another system ought to be adopted instead of that under which the guns for the Navy are supplied by the War Department. After the remarks that have fallen from the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie), I am bound to say that I am sorry that when the late Government were in power they did not remedy the evil complained of. I always

    1283
    take a great interest in the utterances of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed), who is a warm friend of our Service, and whose opinions are so well formed upon this subject, that I have much pleasure in quoting him. The hon. Gentleman said, on the 20th of April last, that the Admiralty groaned under the delay of getting guns; that they should insist upon having them, and that he was sure the House would back up the Admiralty in freeing itself from the system under which the Navy of this country was made dependent on the routine of getting its guns made at Woolwich. Well, Sir, I would ask, will the hon. Member for Cardiff back up the Admiralty in getting rid of the present system? I think the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary to the Admiralty should have no trouble now in meeting this difficulty, and I can assure them that naval officers on this side of the House will support any action which they may take to bring about the desired result. The next subject I desire to touch upon is that of Dockyard accommodation for vessels on foreign stations, the importance of which will be understood by every Member of the Committee, although we have not heard much about it to-night. A little time ago, when the Bombay Flagship required some repairs, she had to leave the station to go to Malta. I may perhaps state that in Bombay Harbour there was a Dockyard containing four docks. At the time I speak of an Estimate was sent home for the purpose of getting permission to throw the two docks into one. All that was wanted for the work was £80,000; but the permission was not given, and, as I have said, the ship had to go to Malta. To show the advantage of having a dock on foreign stations when vessels are cruising about, I may refer to what happened at Bermuda. One of the vessels of the Squadron of Exercise damaged her screw and could not afterwards work her engines; permission was obtained to send the ship to Bermuda, which was accordingly done, and the defect remedied; but if it had not been for the dock at Bermuda the Squadron would have been hampered in every way. Therefore, I wish to draw attention to a subject that so vitally concerns the efficiency of our ships on foreign stations. Now, I intended to enter
    1284
    into a new subject, but will refrain from doing so now; I will merely say that it was hardly fair, after the Chairman of Committees had cautioned an hon. Member who went very near without crossing the border line of Order, that the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie) should have been allowed to speak on the subject. Sir, we have a rod in pickle for him and the noble Lord, and it will be in the shape of a discussion on naval matters. A former First Lord of the Admiralty, the Member for East Edinburgh, says, that while anxious for the efficient administration of naval affairs, it was of the utmost importance that "we should not do anything which would lead naval men to think that their views in these matters are entirely ignored." That is the very charge we bring against the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) and his Colleague—that they did ignore the views of naval men when it was of great importance that the efficiency of the Navy should be secured. Although I recognize the ability of the late Secretary to the Admiralty, especially when he is dealing with the question of sugar, I must confess that I have never had the same admiration for his speeches when he is dealing with "salts;" and I can tell the noble Lord that there are no two men who have done more to wound naval opinion and naval feeling than himself and his Colleague, since the day when they occupied the positions of First Lord and Secretary to the Admiralty. I venture to say, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had presided at the Admiralty, nothing of the kind would have taken place, and that there are men of great distinction in our Service who, if they had been consulted, would have given an opinion very different from that which has been expressed to-night. Sir, I conclude my remarks upon this Vote by expressing a hope that I have justified the statement with which I commenced—that I did not rise without having something of importance to say.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I desire to say one word before this Vote is taken with respect to what has fallen from the late Secretary to the Admiralty—that no strong protest against the increased naval expenditure has come from any part of the House. At least

    1285
    I offer my protest. There is only one redeeming thing which we learn from the discussion which has taken place, and that is that the Naval Estimates are £540,000 less than they would have been but for the fortunate change of Government. Every increase of naval expenditure has been sought to be justified by referring to the examples of France and Italy; but I may point out that there are items of comparison which have been omitted. One is, that that the deficit in France, created by such extravagance of warlike preparation, has involved the contracting of a new loan, stated at £70,000,000 sterling; and the other is, that, as the best criticisms represent it, the state of Italian finance is one of chronic disorder, because naval officers have been allowed to say that money should be spent without stint, and without saying where that money is to be earned.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £964,400, Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines.
    SIR JOHN GORST: I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to whether the amount of money that has been granted is not sufficient for the Public Service? I would remind the Committee that a Vote once granted can be used by the Admiralty as a provision for all other Votes. It is, in fact, a Vote of Credit; and the sum of money now obtained from the Committee—in round numbers £3,000,000—is sufficient to enable the Admiralty to conduct its business until the end of July. I think we ought to have a pledge from Her Majesty's Government, that if this Vote is obtained before the Committee report Progress, further application will not be deferred until the end of July or the beginning of August, when Members interested in the question of Admiralty administration have left, and when it is impossible to have matters discussed in the way they should be discussed. This question of the Dockyards is a very important one, and it will eventually excite a great amount of interest in the House, and it is one which I think the Secretary to the Admiralty ought to see is fully debated. Therefore, I ask the
    1286
    Secretary of State for the Home Department, the present Leader of the House, whether an undertaking can be given that if another Vote is taken before the Committee reports Progress, the House shall have an ample and early opportunity of discussion?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): The inquiry of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham is not an unreasonable one. We will inform him when the Navy Estimates will be taken.
    SIR JOHN COMMERELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large number of condemnations which have taken place in provisions and clothing during the past year? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that an officer of tried experience was appointed by the late Government to inspect the ship and victualling accounts, with an allowance of £100 a-year, and that since the advent of the present Government that officer, without any reason, has been displaced and his remuneration disallowed?
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. W. DUFF): I shall be happy to receive a communication from the hon. and gallant Admiral on the subject, and to entertain, as far as possible, anything he has to say on the matter.
    Vote agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  (3.) £3,403,400, Vote on Account, Civil Services and Revenue Departments, viz.:—

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

  Great Britain:—

  £

  Dover Harbour

  200

  Peterhead Harbour

  5,000

  Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

  80,000

  Metropolitan Fire Brigade

  2,500

  Disturnpiked and Main Roads (England and Wales)

  10,000

  Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland)

  5,000

  Ireland:—

  Public Buildings

  30,000

  Royal University Buildings

  2,000

  Science and Art Buildings, Dublin

  2,000

  Abroad:—

  Lighthouses Abroad

  1,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  6,000

  1287

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL
  DEPARTMENTS.

  England:—

  £

  House of Lords, Offices

  6,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  6,000

  Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel

  10,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Foreign Office

  10,000

  Colonial Office

  6,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  7,000

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  20,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  100

  Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

  7,000

  Civil Service Commission

  6,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  9,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  1,500

  Land Commission for England

  4,000

  Local Government Board

  40,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  20,000

  National Debt Office

  2,500

  Patent Office

  9,000

  Paymaster General's Office

  4,500

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,500

  Record Office

  4,000

  Registrar General's Office

  8,000

  Stationery Office and Printing

  90,000

  Woods, Forests, &c. Office of

  4,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  8,000

  Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

  10,000

  Secret Service

  10,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland

  1,500

  Exchequer and other Offices

  500

  Fishery Board

  2,500

  Lunacy Commission

  1,000

  Registrar General's Office

  1,000

  Board of Supervision

  3,000

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  1,000

  Chief Secretary's Office

  6,500

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  300

  Local Government Board

  20,000

  Public Works Office

  10,000

  Record Office

  1,000

  Registrar General's Office

  3,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  4,500

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

  England:—

  Law Charges

  14,000

  Criminal Prosecutions

  30,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  70,000

  Wreck Commission

  2,500

  County Courts

  20,000

  Land Registry

  1,000

  Revising Barristers, England

  Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

  2,500

  Metropolitan Police

  150,000

  Special Police

  6,000

  1288

  County and Borough Police, Great Britain

  £

  1,000

  Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies

  60,000

  Prisons, England

  60,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  70,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  5,000

  Lord Advocate, and Criminal Proceedings

  10,000

  Courts of Law and Justice

  5,000

  Register House Departments

  6,000

  Police, Counties and Burghs (Scotland)

  1,000

  Prisons, Scotland

  15,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  15,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  15,000

  Court of Bankruptcy

  1,500

  Admiralty Court Registry

  200

  Registry of Deeds

  3,000

  Registry of Judgments

  500

  Land Commission

  10,000

  County Court Officers, &c.

  15,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police (including Police Courts)

  30,000

  Constabulary

  250,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  25,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  25,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  1,500

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.

  England:—

  Public Education

  600,000

  Science and Art Department

  50,000

  British Museum

  25,000

  National Gallery

  1,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  600

  Learned Societies, &c.

  6,000

  London University

  2,000

  University Colleges, Wales

  Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report)

  1,000

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  130,000

  Universities, &c.

  2,000

  National Gallery

  400

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  160,000

  Teachers' Pension Office

  500

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  200

  National Gallery

  300

  Queen's Colleges

  500

  Royal Irish Academy

  100

  CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.

  Diplomatic Services

  50,000

  Consular Services

  40,000

  Slave Trade Services

  2,000

  Suez Canal (British Directors)

  400

  Colonies, Grants in Aid

  5,000

  South Africa and St. Helena

  10,000

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

  10,000

  Cyprus, Grant in Aid

  1289

  CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.

  £

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  120,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

  1,000

  Pauper Lunatics, England

  Pauper Lunatics, Scotland

  Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

  60,000

  Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland

  4,000

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  500

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland

  600

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.

  Temporary Commissions

  6,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  3,000

  Total for Civil Services

  £2,733,400

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  Customs

  100,000

  Inland Revenue

  100,000

  Post Office

  100,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  20,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  350,000

  £670,000

  Grand Total

  £3,403,400

  MR. MACFARLANE: I desire to call attention to the want of sufficient polling places in Scotch counties, and particularly in Argyllshire, at the last Election. I should be glad to postpone the discussion of this matter if the Government will give me an assurance that the question will not become one of practical interest within the present year. In October last I had occasion to call public attention, through the columns of The Times newspaper, to the question of polling places in Scotland, and especially in Argyllshire, in which I was then particularly interested. I also wrote to the Duke of Richmond, who was then Secretary for Scotland, and I pointed out to His Grace that in the Island of Tiree there were 156 voters and no polling place; that the polling place was in the Island of Mull, 23 miles distant by open sea, and that there was no accommodation for reaching that place except by fishing boats, and no accommodation if detained by stress of weather or other causes. The result was that the people were partially disfranchised in good weather, and absolutely disfranchised in bad weather.
  1290
  The case of the Island of Coll, where there were 80 voters, was all but identical, the polling place being 18 miles distant from Tobermory, in Mull, and the inconvenience was doubled by the appointment of two polling places for these two Islands in place of one, which might have been reached by one vessel. The people of these Islands petitioned in vain to the Sheriff of Argyllshire; but the Sheriff of Argyllshire refused to grant to 156 voters on one Island and 80 on another a common polling place, and the result was that a large portion of the voters were absolutely disfranchised, only about 70 voters from Tiree incurring the risk of going to the poll. In England it is the rule that where there are 100 voters it is compulsory to provide a polling place within three miles. But I have pointed out that in the case of Tiree the distance is 23 miles by open sea, and, in my letter to The Times, that it was like calling upon the electors of, say, Calais, to record their votes in Dover, and that they should be required to come over no matter what the weather was. That is what happened in this case, and the result was that a great many of them were disfranchised. In support of what I say I will quote the testimony of a newspaper, which is not supposed to be in favour of the opinion of these people. That paper stated that the Hebridean, which was the vessel I engaged, encountered very stormy weather, and the result was that I should be deprived of considerable support, as Tiree was noted for its strongly disaffected feeling. I should like to call attention for one moment to the word "disaffected." In England that word was taken to mean disloyalty to the Crown; but in Scotland it meant disloyalty to The Scotsman newspaper. I brought this matter before His Grace the Duke of Richmond. The next point I called His Grace's attention to was the case of another Island where there were 136 voters, and where the polling place was 25 miles distant. In the case of the Island of Jura, the voters of the North end had to go a distance of 40 or 50 miles to vote at Port Ellen. I think that is sufficient to show the system under which the spirit of the law is administered in Scotland. In his reply to me, I understood His Grace the Duke of Richmond to mean that he would make a representation to the Sheriff of Argyll, who, in conjunction with the late Lord

  1291
  Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), was responsible for the arrangement. I have no doubt His Grace did so; but there was no change, and I am curious to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what excuse he can possibly offer for practically disfranchising the people to a great extent. The people believe it was done designedly, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to persuade the Committee that it was done accidentally. I grant there were difficulties. I do not think it is possible to administer the law in Scotland as it is administered in England, where each 100 voters are bound to be supplied with a polling place not more than three miles distant; but there is a wide difference between that and voters having to go 40 or 50 miles. Not only in England, but in Scotland, when Gentlemen become public servants, they are apt to assume to themselves the airs of public masters, and there is no class that err more in this respect than Scotch Sheriffs. They believe that they are above the law. They are a law unto themselves. They do as they please. They despise the Representatives of the people; and while both political Parties of the country were contending for the honour of giving the people the right of voting, the Sheriffs were doing all they could to prevent them going to the poll. In Argyllshire, out of 10,000 electors less than 7,000 recorded their vote, and there was open jubilation on the part of my opponents in Argyllshire, because the tempestuous weather prevented a number of my supporters from coming to the poll. One boat was actually swamped in leaving one of the Islands; but 90 electors from the same place were plucky enough to defy the elements, and came to record their votes in spite of all the efforts of the Sheriff of Argyllshire, aided by the late Lord Advocate. It may be said why should you like more polling places when they cost so much? The charge for each was £35 to £50; but I would rather pay for more polling places, even at a cost of £50, than that the people should be disfranchised. In England the law lays down a hard-and-fast line. I believe that the maximum that can be charged for a polling place is £7 7s., but that does not suit those who are called the economical Party in Scotland. It does not suit the cliques in Edinburgh who profit by these trans-
  1292
  actions. There is a charge of £5 5s. a-day for a certain number of gentlemen who travel from Edinburgh on an excursion to become Returning Officers, when there were local men who would have been glad to do the work for £1 1s. each. I appeal now, first of all, to the late Lord Advocate to explain how these things come about, and I would appeal to the present Lord Advocate, who has the power to remedy this state of things before another election. It must be remembered that most of these voters are not young people, a large proportion of them are feeble people; but they are asked to tramp 30 or 40 miles to record their votes. How many people in London would tramp from Bow to Hammersmith to record their votes? There would be very few who would have pluck enough. What has been done in Scotland is this—a large percentage of the people have not been allowed to vote in consequence of the arrangements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Sheriff. One other charge I have to make against the Sheriff of Argyllshire. By the Ballot Act it is the universal custom to allow candidates, on the day when the votes are counted, to be represented by as many, or nearly as many, agents as there are counters. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that "Hear, hear!" because it confirms me in my belief as to the practice. Well, what happened in Argyllshire? I gave written permission to three gentlemen to attend on my behalf to scrutinize the action of 20 counters, and the Sheriff of Argyllshire, without the slightest hesitation, rejected two and allowed me one, because the other side had not demanded more than one. But why should they? Because all the counters were on their side, as was also the Sheriff. I got only one, but he was sufficient. Now, Sir, I complain of these things, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, to explain them. I charge the Sheriff of Argyllshire publicly and deliberately in this House with having done everything in his power by every possible means to defeat the Franchise Bill, and I ask the present Lord Advocate to make such arrangements for the future—whether it is in May or June, or five years hence—that we shall not be prevented by local efforts from obtaining a fair representation of the people.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I have no reason to complain of the hon. Gentleman having raised this question, because the style and manner in which he has spoken of me and the Sheriff of Argyllshire in this House corresponds with the way in which he has spoken of us elsewhere, and which has appeared in the Press, and I therefore think it is desirable that we should have an opportunity of making some remarks upon the subject. But I think the opportunity on my part would be very much abused if I adopted the same tone and the same kind of language as the hon. Gentleman has used in this House. It is not a very usual thing to make such charges as those the hon. Member has brought forward against the Sheriff of Argyllshire by mere verbal statements; and I cannot help thinking that if the hon. Gentleman had not disaffected constituents, as he has told us himself, he would not have thought it worth while to use such language as he has used to-night about a gentleman, whom, I venture to say in the presence of several hon. Gentlemen who know him well, that there is not a more honourable, more faithful, or more thorough gentleman than Mr. Irvine, the Sheriff of Argyllshire. I go further, and say that I am able to state to this House, I hope to the satisfaction of the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee—a statement which I make upon my honour as a Gentleman—that in all my conversations and correspondence with Mr. Irvine on this question of the settlement of the polling places of Argyllshire, I never saw one single trace of Party spirit, or a single desire on his part to do anything but what he thought best under all the circumstances of the case. I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman has on more than one occasion expressed a very emphatic opinion as to my conduct, and as to my being actuated by the same motives which he now, in the absence of the Sheriff of Argyllshire, attributes to him; but I certainly think the Committee will excuse me from making any reply to any such statements. If the hon. Member, from the very slight acquaintance he has of me, believes me capable of such conduct, it would be vain on my part to attempt to disabuse his mind of that opinion. I think I shall best fulfil my duty to-night by getting
  1294
  away from these personal allusions and aspersions. One thing I may say—I am sure the House will congratulate the hon. Member upon the fact that the corruption practised against him has not prevented his taking his seat in Parliament; and I think I may also venture to say that it is not from any fear of the future position of the polling places in Argyllshire that he has made this statement. I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward the matter thus publicly, and in a manner so that it can be publicly replied too. I think it will be instructive to the Committee to know the difficulties of the Lord Advocate when certain duties are thrust upon him. This I can say—that the accusations which the hon. Member has made in regard to his county are exactly the opposite to those which have been made in regard to other counties similarly situated. In some counties, such as Ross-shire, where the voters were very scattered, the charge made against the Lord Advocate and the Sheriff was that they were corruptly using their position by appointing far too many polling places, for the purpose of placing expense upon the candidate. So that we have a double difficulty. In one place we are accused of appointing too many polling places, and in another too few. I will give the Committee an idea of the kind of arguments that are adduced against us. As the Committee is aware, in the county of Ross-shire there are a great number of illiterate voters, so far as voting on English forms with English instructions is concerned; and, therefore, without having a great many polling places, it would have been impossible to poll all the inhabitants. The accusations which are made against us, therefore, are based upon the most absurd ground. Then, again, I would refer for a moment to a more populous, to a more civilized locality, where the Sheriff, who happens to belong to the Conservative Party, and myself were accused of the grossest corruption at Whitewich, near Patrick, for which my hon. and learned Friend sits, but who has not brought the matter forward. We were accused of purposely not having laid down a polling place there, because it was said that the Tories were anxious, if it was a wet day, that the Liberal voters of Whitewich might have to go a mile or a mile and a-half to the polling

  1295
  place. Well, Sir, it so happened that I had a number of petitions, on the part of the Conservatives of Whitewich, requesting that a polling place should be put down there. I also had a petition from the Liberals; but neither of them were acceded to. The fact was, I was unable to interfere, because the petitions did not reach me until after the time fixed by the Statute. That was the sole difficulty, and these were the sort of difficulties we had to face. But not only so, even as regards the case of Argyllshire, I can assure the hon. Member that if it had not been that the Sheriff and myself stretched a point to keep the matter open rather beyond the statutory time, we should not have been able to make some of the alterations which we did make. If we had desired to do what the hon. Member imputes to us, we might have taken our stand on this—that the representations came in too late, and that the thing could not be altered. Now I may state what I hinted at the time the representations came to the Secretary for Scotland in this matter. I ask the Committee to observe this—that the letters which the hon. Member wrote to the papers were not inserted until the time had come for holding the Registration Courts; and at that time it was quite impossible to alter the arrangements without disorganizing the whole of the plans for the election.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman? After my first letter appeared in The Times, two new polling places were added.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I can assure the hon. Member that he is entirely mistaken. It may have come to the hon. Member's knowledge afterwards; but the deliverance by which the polling places were added was a deliverance given before the letter appeared. I can assure him that that is a fact. I refer to my own note on the matter, as it was written down without expecting that this question would come up before Parliament at all. Perhaps I may be allowed to read it—
  "The arrangement of polling places in these outlying districts is very difficult, and Mr. Irvine and I have done our best. Polling cannot be easy where a number of small Islands are concerned. If polling places are multiplied the result to candidates becomes expensive, and in other parts of the West Highlands the Sheriff
  1296
  and I have been severely abused for appointing too many stations, and thereby increasing expense."
  The Committee will see, perhaps, the difficulty of our position. To refer to actual facts. So far as investigations are concerned, I myself saw reports from all sorts of officials in Argyllshire offering their opinions as to the best arrangements that could be made. I do not for a moment suggest that the work that we carried out was perfection. It was unlikely that it would be perfection, for there were many difficulties to be considered and many facts to be taken into account that the hon. Member does not understand. There was one difficulty above all others as regards the Island of Tiree and the Island of Coll. The hon. Member has especially referred to the matter. If a polling station had been established on them, and that stormy weather of which the hon. Member spoke as making it so difficult for voters to reach the main Island for the purpose of voting, had occurred, it would have rendered it impossible for the Presiding Officer to land. If he had not been able to do so at the proper time, it would have made the whole election null and void. We had to take it into serious contemplation whether it was better to put some 150 voters to some of these inconveniences, which it is absolutely impossible to prevent in such districts as Argyllshire, and which contain scattered Islands exposed to the Atlantic, or risk the chance of rendering the election null and void. We knew perfectly well that the voters could reach the Island of Mull if the weather permitted, and we did not lose sight of the fact that the rendering of the election void would have thrown all the expense of another contest upon the shoulders of the candidates. As regards Tiree and Coll, we divided them, so as to give as best we could the result of having a reasonable number of voters in each polling place, by sending the voters of one place to Mull and the voters of the other to Tobermory. We made the best divisions we could. I do not say it was the perfection of arrangements; but I do say, and I hope the hon. Member will try to believe me, that it was honestly done in the best interest of the carrying out of the election. Nothing that we have heard to-night has satisfied me that I was not right in the decision I took in

  1297
  the matter; and nothing I have heard has convinced me that, unless I had acted from corrupt motives, which I cannot realize to myself, I did not come to a right decision. Reference has been made to a place called Easdale and a place called Luing; and it is complained that the voters from Easdale were asked to vote at a place called Kilmelfort. Well, it is true that to follow the main road from Easdale to Kilmelfort, involves a journey of a considerable number of miles; but there is a very good bridle path, by which it takes only eight or nine miles to perform the journey. I am informed that that is so by people who know the district as well as the hon. Member; indeed, I venture to doubt whether the hon. Member has ever been in that district. If he has, I stand corrected. My information comes from the constable of the district. Then take the case of the inhabitants of Luing; they had only to go six or seven miles by land-locked water to record their votes. But if the people of Easdale had had a polling station near them, the people of Craiguish and Capel would have had to go 30 miles to vote. The Committee will see that, in a broken-up place like that, all you can do is to endeavour to get something like a central place as a polling station. No doubt most people who had to go a number of miles to vote would complain, and for selfish motives would desire to have a polling place near to them, regardless of the convenience of the inhabitants of other districts. It is plain, I say, that if the people the hon. Gentleman has referred to had had a polling station near them, other people would have been obliged to go 30 miles to vote.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Why did you not have two polling stations?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The hon. Member says why did we not have two polling stations. But I would ask how many voters does he mean to put to each?
  MR. MACFARLANE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has quite misunderstood my argument. There are 325 voters in the parish in which Easdale is situated; and what I claim is that a voting place should be allowed to these 325 voters, and that does not seem unreasonable.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: If there had been a voting place for every 325
  1298
  voters in the county, I do not think the hon. Member would be quite so comfortable in purse as he is at the present time. Then, again, it is all very well for these places to claim to be treated in the best possible way; but as it was, we increased the number of polling places from 14 to 24.
  MR. MACFARLANE: 20.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: 24.
  MR. MACFARLANE: 20.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I think the hon. Member, after the accusations he has made, might allow those on the other side to speak. Being in Committee, the hon. Member will have an opportunity to reply. With regard to Jura and Portaskaig, I am not very well prepared on that matter. If my recollection serves me aright, the great fact in connection with that incident was that there was no place that could be got suitable for a polling station, and that there were no workmen and materials to be got to knock up a booth; but so careful was I in that matter, that, before it was finally settled, I made inquiries to see if it was possible to get the desired accommodation. It was only after making that inquiry, and considering the matter most carefully, that our ultimate arrangements were made. Turning back for one moment to the original charge, I beg to point out again the position in which we were placed, with a General Election coming on and taking place under an entirely new franchise. I will suggest to the Committee and to the hon. Member, if he will allow me, that it would have been better if, on the first occasion on which efforts have been made to carry out an Act of Parliament of this kind, there had been a little more charity and belief that the officials intended to act honestly in this matter, and if the hon. Member and his Friends, whatever they might have thought privately, had tried to believe that we have endeavoured to do our best. If this had been the attitude of the hon. Member and his Friends, there might, perhaps, have been less difficulty in coming to an adjustment, and in, to a great extent, improving the arrangements we made. But, surely, it is not the way to deal with a subject of this kind in a Committee like this—to accuse the Sheriffs of Scotland of endeavouring to take up the position of public masters.
  DR. CLARK: Breakers of the law as well.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: If hon. Gentlemen adhere to that statement, I beg to give it the most emphatic contradiction that is consistent with the Rules of this Committee; and I venture to say that hon. Members will not get any number of respectable inhabitants in Scotland, or Members of this House, to join with them in saying that the Sheriffs do not act honourably, and do not do their duty faithfully and honestly. I desire to treat this matter good humouredly, as regards myself; but, as regards men whom we honour and respect — [Dr. CLARK: No!]—well, there is one inhabitant of Scotland who does not honour and respect them, and who thinks it is a worthy thing to say it in this House, and before this Committee. But knowing these men, and knowing that they are respected in Scotland, I repudiate altogether for them the suggestions hurled at them by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; and I say that accusations like this should not be made, except on the strongest grounds, and supported by the most clear and distinct evidence. [Mr. MACFARLANE: Hear, hear!] I say, that if matters of this kind are to be brought up in this way, there is no protection for honourable men in the carrying out of their duties. If such accusations are to be permitted, and such general aspersions are to be hurled by hon. Members, there is no protection for officials. Let the hon. Member make a real, straightforward, bonâ fide written accusation to the Secretary of State, and let it be fully examined. Do not let us have the honourable Sheriffs of Scotland accused and maligned in a manner which I do not use too strong an expression if I describe as disgraceful.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken up the question in the manner he has. He has called on me to make my charge in the form of a written statement. Well, the very first step I took was to make a written statement to the Duke of Richmond. [Mr. J. H. A. MAC-DONALD: Yes; in a letter to the newspapers.] No; in a letter to the then Secretary for Scotland, and the Duke of Richmond stated, in reply, that if my facts were correct—and they have not been refuted—has the right hon. and
  1300
  learned Gentleman refuted one of them? No, not one; he has wandered all over the world, but has never touched the gist of the whole matter. He has said they did the best they could; but he has never explained why they could not have done better. He says they could not find wood enough at Jura to make a polling booth. Was it not possible to import wood to Portaskaig, and make a polling booth there, so that when people landed they would not have had to go 12 or 14 miles further before they could vote? There has been no answer to my charge. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says—"Formulate your chage in black and white." I did so, to the highest authority in Scotland, and that highest authority, as I understand his letter, assured me that he would make representation to the Sheriff. But we have not heard what that representation was. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Lord Advocate if he would lay the correspondence on the Table; but he refused to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate has not said a word as to the nature of the representation made by the Duke of Richmond to himself and the Sheriff of Argyllshire in this matter. Why not? I have no doubt that the noble Duke did what he thought was right, and called on his subordinate officials to carry out what he thought to be justice; but they did not, and that, I suppose, is the reason we are refused a sight of the letter of the noble Duke. I ask those who have listened to this argument, so far as it has gone, passionate on the one side and cool and collected on the other—I ask this Committee to say if there has been one tittle, one pretence, one shadow of an answer made to the charges I have brought against these officials?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (, &c.): As an appeal has been made to me, I will say a few words in reply to it. If the hon. Member refers primarily to the future, I need not say that if experience in the future should prove that there is any remediable inconvenience, it will be always open for anyone to make a representation, and have it most carefully considered; and I am perfectly certain that every Sheriff in Scotland will be most ready and willing to give it a fair and dispassionate and careful considera-

  1301
  tion. I can only say, as regards the general allegation which has been made, that I entirely concur in what has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) on this matter. Having had to carry on the administration in regard to electoral matters for some years in Scotland, I have been put into communication with the Sheriffs on these as well as on other matters; and I can say, from experience, that without exception these gentlemen have taken a great deal of pains with the view to solving, if possible, the difficult problem of appointing a sufficient number of polling places, without unduly heaping up the expense. They have endeavoured to collect the best opinions and information and evidence they could from the localities, and have submitted schemes, and have tried to meet justice as well as convenience. I am certain, though I have not the actual official duty of carrying out the arrangements in Argyllshire, that that is exactly the spirit which is manifested there. I regret extremely that it has been thought necessary to make such a charge as this against the Sheriff of that county—to charge him with having acted for Party purposes. No one who knows him, as I have had the privilege of doing for years past, can have heard these charges without experiencing a feeling of something like rising indignation, and no one having the ability to do so would decline to get up and repudiate it in the strongest manner. Any representation for advancing the interest and convenience of electors will, I am sure, be as carefully considered by this gentleman in the future as it has been in the past. I have no knowledge of the representations which may have been made to the late Secretary for Scotland; but, so far as I know, I can only say that they did not contain a charge against anyone, but were merely representations bearing upon the number of polling places. That was the only matter which had to be considered, and I suppose it was considered so far as the statutory time would allow, though I rather think that October had then arrived. As regards the future, I can only repeat that any representation will be carefully considered. I know that some of the Sheriffs did remark upon the great difficulty they had experienced in consequence of their desire not to unneces-
  1302
  sarily multiply polling places, inasmuch as complaints were made to them that the expense of unduly extending the number of booths would be intolerable. I hope we shall be able to remove these difficulties—or some of them—by legislation. With regard to Returning Officers' expenses, I think that in so far as by legislation or administration the cost can be kept within reasonable bounds, and at the same time the opportunity given to the largest number of voters to vote, it will be done.
  DR. R. M'DONALD: If the Committee will listen to me for a few moments, I have an entirely different complaint to make against the authorities for the manner in which they managed the polling places in Scotland. My complaint is that I had a great deal more polling places than I wanted, the result being to make the election more expensive than it ought to have been; whereas the complaint of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) is that in his district of scattered Islands there were not sufficient polling places, the lack of them causing the candidates to employ steamers in order to carry the voters from the Islands to the mainland. We have been told by the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) that he did the best that in him lay to make the polling places as reasonable as possible. Well, in Argyllshire, with its 10,000 electors, we have 14 polling places, whilst in Ross-shire, which is 6,000 acres less in extent, and which has 9,000 electors—1,000 fewer than Argyllshire—there are 39 polling places. We sent representations to the authorities at Edinburgh—to the Secretary for Scotland for the time being—and all the reply we got was that two places were taken from a little town called Stornoway, about a mile long, for which three booths had been arranged. So far as I can see, the late Lord Advocate has not dealt with the facts of the case. It was with the greatest difficulty that we got the slight reduction I am referring to; and I want to know on what ground can the late Lord Advocate say he did his best, when we see there were provided for 10,000 voters 14 polling places, and for 9,000 voters 39 polling places? And these are facts which cannot be gainsaid. Another point has been taken up, and it is one which I maintain it is important

  1303
  to urge. Instead of having local people put on as polling Sheriffs in the Island of Lewis, they came from Edinburgh. They had to start from there on Monday, and could not get back until the Monday following. They had £3 3s. a-day each, and their clerks £1 1s., and all their expenses. There are men in the district who look after school board and other elections, and who are quite capable of conducting a Parliamentary election. It would be infinitely better to employ them than to employ gentlemen who run up a bill—as happened in one case—of £35 each. I object to the employment of briefless barristers in Edinburgh for this work; it is a mistake from beginning to end. I lay these facts before the Committee. They are not to be gainsaid, and I must say I think the Committee ought to see that in these matters we are not left to Lord Advocates or anyone else. A proper scheme of polling places should be drawn up so that we can get justice all round.
  DR. CLARK: If there is a feeling of lawlessness and disaffection in the Highlands of Scotland, some of us think that those who have caused it are not the agitators, but the men who represent law and order—the Sheriffs of the counties who break the law with impunity. I will not take up the time of the Committee to-night with a description of the various illegal acts of the Sheriffs; but, were I to do so, I could prove to you by a plain statement of fact that thousands of crofters and cottars have been disfranchised owing to the action of the Sheriffs. I will, however, point out in my own case two or three absolutely illegal acts performed by the Sheriff of my own county, who is probably one of the best of the Sheriffs. Hon. Gentlemen are aware that under the Ballot Act candidates have a right to be present to see the counting of the ballots. Well, in the case of my own election, I went to the Sheriff's Court to see the ballots counted, and was refused admission. I looked at the Act again and went back, saw the sergeant of police, and told him I had a right by Act of Parliament to see the thing done. I demanded that he should bring the Sheriff — I declared that unless he brought the Sheriff I would force my way in. The Sheriff was brought, and in my presence he ordered the policeman
  1304
  to keep me out. Here was an illegal act committed by the representative of the Crown, and I call the attention of the Lord Advocate to it. But, more than this, according to the Corrupt Practices Act, if a candidate pays an account after a certain date he commits an illegal act; and yet this Sheriff wishes to compel me to pay an account after that specified date. I cannot comply with his demand, for I should be breaking the law; but the Sheriff has £50 of mine in his hands, and I allow him to keep that rather than do what is illegal. There is no Schedule in the Act applying to Scotland, as there is in the case of Ireland and England, by which 1s. per mile is charged for carrying the ballot boxes. The Sheriff Clerk, therefore, charged me 10 s. per mile. I thought this a preposterous charge, and desired to have it taxed; but the Sheriff tells me I cannot have it taxed. I will give the Committee another instance before sitting down. The night before the polling my agent sent down a man to act as a polling clerk at a distance of 13 miles from a chief town. He did not get him to sign the usual form. He charged me £22 for going down to act as my polling clerk. The matter came before the Sheriff Clerk, who allowed this polling clerk £4 4s. a-day, while the Act only allows polling Sheriffs £3 3s., and polling clerks £1 1s. This is the kind of justice we get in the Highlands, and yet you expect us to fall down and worship these Sheriffs—men who commit illegal acts with impunity. The wonder is that, under the circumstances, the Highlanders have been so law-abiding as they have been for so long a time. As no reply has been given to the complaints of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane), I trust he will divide the Committee.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I have waited patiently, expecting to receive some assurance from the present Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) that he would do what he could to redress the wrongs of which I complained, done under the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald); but, instead of that—
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): If I did not say, I meant to say, that if there is any representation or suggestion made, it will be considered most fully.
  MR. MACFARLANE: What I complain of is that, in many cases, the Scot-

  1305
  tish officials require to be told what their duties are. Are they not aware of the necessities of these counties? The late Lord Advocate said the case was not presented to them until it was too late to interfere. Did it not occur to the Government that they had better consider the question before representations were made to them? The same remark applies to the present Lord Advocate. This seems to have been made an occasion for the present and late Lord Advocates to compliment each other across the Table upon the excellent arrangements that they have made, and upon their being two honourable men. I do not dispute that they are honourable men; but I say they may be mistaken. In consequence of the completely unsatisfactory answer of the present Lord Advocate, who, if my eyes had been shut, I should have thought when he was speaking he was sitting on the Tory Benches, I shall divide the Committee upon this question.
  MR. DILLON: In dividing the Committee, does the hon. Gentleman mean to refuse the entire £3,000,000? I would suggest that the hon. Member should move to reduce the Vote by the amount of the salary of the Lord Advocate. If he were to do so, I should certainly vote with him.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: It is quite clear that if the Government would give some fair and satisfactory promise to the hon. Member (Mr. Macfarlane), this matter might be settled. As we all know, there is a scale upon which we in England are charged for our polling places. There is no such scale in Scotland, and that is an obvious grievance. Again, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macfarlane) has shown that there are cases in which men have to travel 25 and 30 miles in order to record their votes. That, also, is an acknowledged grievance. Then it has been shown that men have, at the risk of their lives, had to cross stormy seas; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) said the Sheriff could not go over, as it might have been risky for him.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I said nothing of the kind. I said it so happened it was so stormy that no one could land from the steamer; the weather prevented a landing taking place.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: The right hon. Gentleman said it was risky for the Officer to land from the steamer.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know the coast of Argyllshire?
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: Yes; I do.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Then he must know it is not a question of risk, but of absolute impossibility.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: If it is a matter of absolute impossibility for the Sheriff to cross this sea, it ought also to be a matter of absolute impossibility for the voter. That is all the greater reason why the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macfarlane) was right in asking for additional polling stations. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will give a more satisfactory answer to hon. Members, and thus avoid a division.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (, &c.): The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken cannot have been present the other day, when, in answer to a Question in this House, I stated that we were preparing to legislate on the question of Returning Officers' expenses. To that part of the the matter we are fully alive. In regard to the rest, I am afraid I have not succeeded in making myself plain. I shall make the very best effort I can to investigate the representations that have been made to-night, and any others that are in any shape or form made.
  MR. MACFARLANE: The last statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite satisfactory.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Mr. Courtney, in this Vote on Account there is a small item for an Office in Dublin called the Registrar General's Office, Ireland. I have placed on the Paper, in regard to the ordinary Estimates, a Notice to reduce the sum for this Office by £200. My purpose in rising now is to obtain from the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley), or, if not from him, from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler), an assurance that the scheme for the reorganization of that Office will not be definitely adopted until the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has had an opportunity of really examining the merits of the case. In reply to a Question I put some days ago, the right hon. Gentleman intimated that the proposed

  1307
  scheme had received the sanction of the Treasury, but that it had not been finally adopted; and I understood him to say that he was prepared to consider the question. But if that consideration is not given before the 1st of April next—that is to say, in about 10 or 11 days—the scheme will be in active operation, and it will be too late to interfere with it. The Estimate for the Office is not likely to come on until considerably after that date, and then it will be almost too late to raise the question at all. I should like, especially as there is sufficient money in hand to carry on the Office, that the operation of the scheme should be delayed until we can upon the ordinary Civil Service Estimates thrash the question out. I should not make this application unless I did not believe—and my belief is shared by almost all the Members from Ireland, whether they sit above or below the Gangway—if I did not believe that the very greatest injustice will be done to a considerable number of men by the proposed scheme of reorganization. I trust the Government will be willing to postpone the adoption of the scheme until its merits have been laid before the House.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The scheme has not come before the Treasury yet.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Oh, yes; it has received the Treasury's sanction.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I thought it was still awaiting the decision of the Treasury. If it has received the sanction of the Treasury, I apprehend there will be no difficulty in carrying it out. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is not here. ["Yes."] Then I will leave the matter in his hands.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I was not in the House when the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) made his statement; but I think we shall be perfectly ready to postpone the operation of the scheme until there is some chance of considering it.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £595 12 s. 1d., Civil Services Excesses, viz.:—
  1308

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

  £

  s.

  d.

  New Courts of Justice and Offices.

  16

  8

  1

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

  Registrar General's Offices, Scotland

  1

  10

  11

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

  Supreme Court of Judicature, Ireland

  178

  17

  1

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  398

  16

  0

  Total

  £595

  12

  1

  (5.) £38,119 10 s., Navy Excess.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Postponed Resolution [11th March] considered.
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £62,216, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  Resolved, That the postponed Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply on the 11th March be re-committed to the said Committee.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.
  SUPPLY again considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in addition to the sum of £62,216 already granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens, the sum of £50,403 be granted, making together the sum of £112,619."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Courtney, are we to have any statement upon this proposal from the Secretary to the Treasury?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I am prepared to give an explanation if my hon. Friend wishes it. I understood that the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), who I am sorry has been compelled to leave the House, was very clear, and that it was agreeable to,

  1309
  and accepted by, my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere). The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this—that he proposed that the House should vote for this year the entire amount set down for Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds, and that the Government should bring in a Bill for the transfer of the Parks other than the Royal Parks to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. That Bill is now in course of preparation, and will be brought in by my right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt) as soon as he can find an opportunity to do so. In pursuance of that arrangement, which seemed to meet with general consent in the House, I am now moving the completion of the Vote for this year.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: That is as satisfactory an arrangement as can be come to. I merely want to point out that we were called perfect idiots for opposing this Vote, and we were told that we did not know our business. It seems that we did know our business, because, if we have not got the whole thing, we have got some of it. I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) as to the Royal Parks; still I know there is a difficulty about them, and I think we must be satisfied if we get any portion of the expenses of the London Parks thrown on the rates of the Metropolis. But we have now to consider this Vote. On the last occasion that the Vote was before the Committee I gave Notice of two Amendments. I was not able to put the second Amendment, because of the way the first was put to the Committee. Now that the Vote has been re-committed, I shall take the liberty of moving my second Amendment. I have to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,150, which is made up of several items. The Bailiff of the Royal Parks receives annually £780. I have not the slightest idea who the Bailiff of the Royal Parks is; but the £780 is composed of two items—namely, salary £700, and £80 for travelling expenses—I presume between Richmond, Greenwich, and London. There is set down for the Ranger of Richmond Park, £109 10 s., and for the Deputy Ranger, £63 10 s. I observe that the Ranger and Deputy Ranger are military officers of high rank receiving pay from Army funds. Very likely they are very valuable as military officers; but the probability is
  1310
  that they know absolutely nothing about the Parks, and that the offices they hold are purely and simply sinecures. Well, now, I ask the Committee to allow me to say one word in regard to Richmond Park. I happen to know a little about the Park, because I am sometimes in the neighbourhood. We find, in the first place, that the Department of the Ranger of Richmond Park costs us £1,643, of which £711 is put down for salaries, and that is one of the items I object to. Then, we have in Richmond Park two keepers. Many hon. Members have keepers of their own; but they will hardly credit that the country pays two keepers £358 a-year, besides allowing them house accommodation. At Hampton Court Park there is a keeper who receives £150 a-year, and at Bushey Park a keeper to whom £200 a-year is paid. I reduce all these gentlemen to the sum of £100 per annum, although I have no doubt that my hon. Friends around me will say I am too generous even now. I find we have a keeper at Greenwich Park for £100 per annum; and although I should say that most probably these keepers are not necessary, if we can get a keeper at Greenwich Park for £100, it is very evident we are foolish to pay £358 for two keepers at Richmond Park. It is these small amounts which swell the Estimates. Now, besides the salaries of the Ranger, Deputy Ranger, head keeper, and under keeper, £2,036 is set down for the maintenance of Richmond Park, and £1,643 for the Department of the Ranger. I presume that Richmond Park must be somewhere about 1,500 acres in extent. Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that a park of 1,500, or even of 2,000, acres ought not to cost £4,350 and bring in nothing. I will tell the Committee why Richmond Park costs so much. It is that the Ranger, an eminent Gentleman—the Duke of Cambridge, in fact—makes the Park a shooting preserve for himself. The inhabitants of the neighbourhood are disgusted with what goes on in the Park. The place is full of rabbits and pheasants. The game is reared for the amusement of the Duke of Cambridge, and what happens? A poor man goes through the Park. I consider a poor man has a natural right when he sees a rabbit to take it. Now, who would think it reasonable to throw

  1311
  such temptations in the way of people, close to the Metropolis, in a populous neighbourhood like that of Richmond Park? [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed; but if there were rabbits in Hyde Park, for instance, it is well known that the people would not scruple to take them. I ask the Committee to remember that these Parks are the people's Parks; they are there for the people, and not for eminent Noblemen to turn them into game preserves for themselves. Then, again, Hampton Court Park is included in this Estimate; and I have learned something about the foals, about which I complained on a former occasion. It appears that Hampton Court Park is about 500 or 600 acres in extent, and that almost the entire Park is devoted to the maintenance of these foals. The foals, I believe, belong to the Crown; and they are sold for the benefit of the Crown. There is a house there which is inhabited by one of the Royal Equerries for a month or two of the year, and for its maintenance we are charged four hundred and odd pounds. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler), or whoever the matter concerns, will look into the case, and will, for the benefit of the people in the neighbourhood, see that Hampton Court Park is thrown open to the public. A person is told that he may, by applying and paying a sovereign every year, have a key to admit him to the Park. If you want to have your horses there have them by all means; but do not exclude human beings, who do not pay £1 a-year, from the enjoyment of the Park. I have mentioned the items on which I shall ask the Committee to divide. I do not think any human being can defend these items. Nobody can say that an eminent Military Officer ought to have a sinecure office worth £700 a-year, with £80 travelling expenses, that we ought to pay a Ranger of Richmond Park £109, and a Deputy Ranger £63, or that we ought to pay two keepers £358 a-year, in order that the Park may be converted into a mere preserve of game. I beg to move that this Vote be reduced by £2,150.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in addition to the sum of £62,216 already granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of
  1312
  March 1887, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens, the reduced sum of £48,253 be granted, making together the sum of £110,469."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The explanation that I have to give to my hon. Friend is shortly this. The salary of the Ranger of Richmond Park is, as he stated, £109 a-year; but the Ranger of Richmond Park is also the Ranger of the St. James's, Green, and Hyde Parks, and he receives no remuneration whatever in the latter capacity. The game in Richmond Park is preserved at the private expense of the Ranger, who himself pays for the rearing and feeding of the pheasants. With reference to the Bailiff of the Royal Parks, I have to say that this officer was appointed in pursuance of the recommendations of a Committee of Inquiry. His salary was originally fixed at £400 a-year; but subsequently it was increased to £700, in lieu of the officer's civil and military pay and allowances. The office is not a sinecure. Prior to 1880 there was a second Bailiff, at a salary of £160. The Treasury exercise a very strict supervision as to the number of men employed in the Department of the Ranger; and, having regard to the duties the men perform, the Treasury do not consider that the sum asked for is excessive. The only other point to which my hon. Friend referred was that concerning Hampton Court Park. I may inform him that the whole of the Park at Hampton Court was not surrendered to the country under the Civil List Act, and the enjoyment of the Park has always been regarded as a privilege of the residents in Hampton Court Palace.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not quite understand what the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) means by the Park not being surrendered under the Civil List Act. There never has been any surrender under any of the Civil List Acts. The first Civil List was granted to William III. for life, the second was granted to Anne for life, the third was granted to George I. for life, and the fourth was granted to George II. for life. In the Civil List Act of George III. words were introduced as if implying that some surrender was made, but of no specific properties and having no real value. The

  1313
  grants in each case have been to the Monarch for life, and there has been no surrender whatever.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The amount of money involved in the maintenance of the Parks is a very small matter; but there is another aspect of the case, which I think ought to receive the attention of the Government, and that is the very large areas within such places as Richmond Park from which the public are excluded. The inclosures form a very large proportion of the Parks; and, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has said, they are virtually game preserves for a very small privileged circle. It is perfectly true, as the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has said, that the pheasants are now fed at the expense of the Ranger, or, in other words, at the expense of the Duke of Cambridge; but I recollect that three or four years ago it required a debate of nearly two hours to induce the House to knock off, as it did on my Motion, the sum of £75 for the feeding of the pheasants in Richmond Park. As at that time the pheasants fed at the public expense covered a large portion of ground which ought to have been devoted to public recreation, I trust, now that the pheasants are fed at the expense of His Royal Highness, or somebody else, the people are not to be equally excluded. I say that this is a very much more important part of the question than the mere consideration of expense; and I think we have some right to a reply from the Government that some steps will be taken to obtain for the people free admission to the whole area of the Parks.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: The passing of the Vote would not preclude the raising of the question with regard to the Royal Parks on an early occasion. The Royal Parks in London are for the enjoyment of the London people, and the cost of their maintenance should be cast on the London rates; and while the Government have met the demand of the House to a certain extent, it will be necessary to relieve the country from a charge which manifestly belongs to the Metropolis alone.
  MR. MOULTON: I strongly object to any proposal which throws upon the Metropolitan Board of
  1314
  Works the maintenance of the London Parks, without requiring the City to bear in all respects its share of the expense of maintaining them.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly incorrect as to the position of the City with relation to the maintenance of the Parks. It pays more than its proportion would be under the Board of Works.
  MR. MOLLOY: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury under what authority the Duke of Cambridge takes a portion of a public Park, paid for by the people of the country, and reserve it to himself as proprietor for the purpose of game preserving? I want an answer to that question, which is a very simple one.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I think the hon. Member for King's County has raised a very large question. This Park has not been taken from the public; it has never belonged to the public. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members say "Oh, oh!" but it is as I state. The Park has for hundreds of years been Royal property. The House will see that that is going into the whole question of Crown lands, and that it cannot be competent to deal with that question on this Vote. What the Treasury have to do is to submit to the law as it finds it. The Treasury are carrying out the arrangement made with the Crown when the present Sovereign came to the Throne, and the provisions of the Act of 1870, under which provision was made for the maintenance of the Parks.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided;—Ayes 65; Noes 141: Majority 76.—(Div. List. No. 37.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, Mr. Broadhurst.)
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES BILL.

    [BILL 120.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: Before you leave the Chair, Sir, I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

    1315
    ment whether it is not possible to postpone this Bill? I withdrew the block to the Bill, of course, thinking the right hon. Gentleman would bring it forward at a reasonable time.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE HOME DEPAETMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I do not know whether I could correctly answer the question of the right hon. Baronet as to its being possible to postpone the Bill; but I do hope we shall be able to go on with it to-night.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Childers.)
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: I must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as to whether he will still persevere with the Bill at this hour of the morning? I am very loth to trespass on the time of the House. It is a Bill of very considerable importance. I have received from various parts of the country representations urging upon me to oppose a partial Bill of this kind, which does not even extend to the whole area of the Metropolis. I do not see my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in his place, who told me that he was compelled to be absent when the Bill would come forward, but that I might say that he disapproved of the Bill, and that he thought it was one which ought not to have been brought forward at all. There are many hon. Members who disapprove of the Bill, and among them the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen)—who I do not see now—told me the other night that I might state that he represented a large Provincial town which was opposed to this partial legislation, which was of a character certainly not suitable to a Liberal Government. I do not want to prolong the discussion now, because in Committee—if we get into Committee—we shall have abundant opportunities of discussing the Bill. There is one thing affecting the Metropolis—the Preamble of the Bill does not state the case as it really is. It says it is a Bill for payment of compensation for damages in the Metropolis. Now, I understand that it is a provision for West End tradesmen receiving compensation for damages which occurred in a riot, owing to the scandalous mismanagement of the police. I do not want to debar them from com-
    1316
    pensation; but I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that this Bill which he says is for the Metropolis is of a very partial character indeed. I want to see it made general. I have in my hand the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. and gallant Member for North Lambeth (Major General Fraser). The hon. and gallant Member for North Lambeth asked the Home Secretary whether he would not be prepared to include the district of North Lambeth in the measure for compensation for damages which occurred as the result of the riots which took place? But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary informed him that he could not possibly extend the provisions of the Compensation Bill beyond the tradesmen of the West End. Now, I think that this is a very unfair Metropolitan Compensation Bill. I also hold in my hand a letter addressed to me by a tradesman in North Lambeth. It will be in the recollection of the House that after the disturbance of the 8th of February there were disturbances at various times up to the 21st of February. Let the House bear in mind that the question of compensation opens the whole question of police arrangements in relation to the riots which occurred, and we are perfectly in Order in discussing that question. The police drove the riotous people across Westminster Bridge into Lambeth, and the property of several tradesmen were injured. One of the poor tradesmen wrote to the Home Office, and I have here the reply which he received from the Home Office. I ask hon. Gentlemen whether it is possible to believe that in dealing with compensation for damages in the Metropolis at a time of riot that they should exclude North Lambeth and include Westminster? The reply of the Home Secretary was as follows:—
    "With reference to your letter, asking for compensation for damage done on the 21st ultimo, I am desired by the Secretary of State to inform you that it is impossible that special legislation should be undertaken to provide for every case of individual hardship, and each occurrence must, as a rule, be left to be dealt with by ordinary law."
    Now, ordinary law does not deal with the question at all. I contend that the Act of 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 31, is of that character that it does not apply to these cases of momentary ebullition. In the

    1317
    case of country towns you cannot recover, because the Chief Constable of the district is obsolete, and you are thrown on the Common Law. I believe there are some trials going on, and it has been found impossible to recover unless where fire has been put to a building, or unless some bricks have been pulled out of a house with a view to commit a felonious act. I believe I am correct in stating that. Well, Sir, in reference to this letter of the poor tradesman in North Lambeth, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make the Bill applicable to the whole Metropolis. I have here other letters, two of which I ask permission to read. One of them is from a person in Yorkshire, and the other from the Town Clerk of the borough which I have the honour to represent. The former says—
    "Allow me to thank you for drawing the attention of the Government to the unsatisfactory state of the law with respect to damages done by rioting, and to the unfair and unjust proceeding of the Home Secretary in compensating sufferers in London, and not doing the same for those who suffer under similar circumstances in the Provinces. There was a great deal of rioting here and in the neighbouring towns at the last Parliamentary Election, and much damage done. We feel our losses very keenly, and I would ask you, on behalf of myself and others, to do your best to alter the law as to future damage and that recently done, so that we may not feel that Parliament has less consideration for us than for London tradesmen."
    I must say that that is a very fair letter. The letter from the Town Clerk of Blackburn puts the case in a way which I am sure will satisfy the House that the partial legislation of the Home Secretary is such as not to satisfy the country at this moment. The Town Clerk of Blackburn says—
    "The more we think of this Bill for the relief of the sufferers by the late riot, the more unfair the proposal appears to the general community."
    That is the point which I take up. He continues—
    "The principle of past legislation is evidently unsound. In 1878, when riots took place in Blackburn, an enormous amount of damage was done and great loss inflicted on the shopkeepers and millowners, and compensation was only recovered in cases in which the rioters had used fire and pulled out some bricks. It was held that in all other cases there was only intention maliciously to damage, and that the latter class was not covered by the Statute. If the law were amended and made of general application it would have a tendency to prevent
    1318
    riot, because the hand of every ratepayer would be against the rioters. Let there he compensation by all means, but let the law apply to the whole community."
    I think that fairly puts the case. I am sorry to have occupied the time of the House as often as I have done on two or three occasions in presenting this matter, in which I have, of course, no personal interest. I only stand here because I think that the proposed legislation of the Home Secretary is very illiberal. I recollect reading the Act of 1827. There had been riots throughout the country; and when the Tory Government of the day were asked to legislate in a partial manner for the Metropolis or Provincial towns, they declined to entertain the proposal, and brought in a Bill covering the general area of the country. This is what I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to do now. I ask him to give the House an assurance that he will introduce a Bill dealing with the Provinces—York, Nottingham, Blackburn, and many other places I could name—which are subject to momentary ebullitions of feeling on the part of the population of those Provincial towns, and have no means of recovering compensation on such occasions. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider what I have submitted to him, and kindly to give me an assurance that he will, as representing the Government, introduce a Bill to amend the Act of the 7 & 8 Geo, IV., c. 31, in such a way as to make it applicable to the circumstances of the country at the present moment, and that he will be good enough also to make the present Bill extend to the case of the tradesmen of North Lambeth, who have a perfect right to compensation. These riots were due to the unfortunate mismanagement on the part of the police; and I appeal to him to make this Bill applicable to the Metropolis generally, and not tax the ratepayers in North Lambeth without giving them compensation. But I understand that representations have been made to the police by wealthy proprietors and others asking for compensation which the Home Secretary denies to the people of North Lambeth; and this, I say, is not fair. All I ask of the right hon. Gentleman is to deal with the whole of this subject in a general and comprehensive measure.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I will, in the first instance, refer to that part of the right hon. Baronet's speech in which he asks me to say what the Government propose to do in regard to this matter for the whole country. I do not think my right hon. Friend is quite accurate in regard to the history of the general subject. The general Act, which requires amendment, is not an Act of George IV., but one of the Reign of Edward III., which was supposed to provide compensation in case of damage done by riots. The fact is, however, that that Act was found to be altogether unworkable; for instance, it cannot be applied except when it can be shown than an effort has been made to entirely destroy the house or premises in question. The failure of that Act led me to consider, with the Legal Advisers of the Government, whether it would be possible to recast that Act, and make it applicable to the circumstances of the present time. Well, Sir, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) has worked with me in the matter, and I may give my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Robert Peel) this assurance—that great progress has been made with the amending Bill, and I hope that within a week or two I may be able to introduce it. But I may point out that there are a great many difficulties connected with the question. The subject is by no means an easy one when we come to deal with small towns and villages. I cannot postpone this Bill, which is very urgently required, until the general Act is ripe for introduction; but I will give this assurance, however—that I will, as early as possible, bring in such a general Bill as I think will be satisfactory both to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House. Then my right hon. Friend asks me why this Bill should apply to some places in the West End and not to North Lambeth? Well, I can only say that this Bill was brought in to deal with a particular state of things which occurred on the 8th of February, and which were of an exceptional character; whereas, in regard to what occurred on the 21st of February, there was really nothing but the damaging of a few windows. There was nothing, in fact, that could be called a riot, and nothing which would justify
    1320
    us in calling upon the Hundreds to contribute towards the damage. But the riot on the 8th was a very serious riot, and, as we think, justified us in bringing in this Bill. I cannot undertake to extend the provisions of this Bill, or the provisions of any other Bill, to such email occurrences as those to which glass to the value of only a few shillings, or even a few pounds, is broken. It is impossible that this Act or any other Act can apply to such occurrences as that; it can only apply, as I said before, to occasions on which something like a serious riot has occurred. No delay whatever shall take place in introducing the general measure that I have mentioned. I pledge my word to that. Some points have been very difficult to deal with, and, therefore, the Bill cannot be introduced immediately; and, under these circumstances, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow this Bill to go into Committee.
    MR. BAGGALLAY: The House will bear in mind that the proposal of the Bill is to charge the whole of this compensation upon the rates of the Metropolis; and Lambeth and the whole of South London will have to pay its part of the damage that was done in the West End only. Now, let me remind the House of what the burdens are in South London already. We have the parishes of Camberwell, Newington, Lambeth, and Southwark in the South of London, and these are four of the poorest parishes in the Metropolis; whilst in the neighbourhood where these occurrences took place we find the wealthy parishes of Paddington, St. James's, Westminster, St. George's, Hanover Square, and St. Martin-in-the-Fields; so that the ratepayers of South London—the poor districts of Lambeth, Newington, and Southwark, where the rates are half as much again as they are in the West End—are asked to contribute to the damage which was done in the West End; but no offer is made by the West End to contribute towards the damage that was done in South London on the 21st of February. I must remind the House also that South London took no part whatever in the riots which occurred on the 8th of February. The people of South London are a law-abiding people. Throughout the whole of the General Election there was nothing approaching a disturbance or a

    1321
    riot. I venture to say, moreover, that the cause of the riot on the 8th of February in no way arose in South London; the damage was not done in South London; and I ask, therefore, why South London should be called upon to pay the cost of it? I do not think that South London should be called upon to pay for damage in which it took no part whatever. The House will not forget that without this Bill the law does not give any compensation whatever, and that we are being asked to grant compensation in a special case. I contend that this Bill is founded on a wrong principle altogether. I shall be very glad to see the West End tradesmen compensated for the damage they sustained; but let their neighbours in the West End pay for it. Let the principle of the Act of George IV. be carried into effect, and do not extend the area over which the compensation is to be levied. The Act of George IV. provided that the compensation should be levied on the Hundreds, so that it should fall upon the neighbourhood where the riots occurred. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to relieve in some manner the ratepayers of South London from the charge which he proposes to put upon them. I hope he will, in Committee, make such alterations in the Bill as will enable the rate to be levied solely upon the West End.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: We have had a general promise of the introduction of a general measure; but if that measure is not retrospective it will give no relief to Nottingham, Blackburn, and other places where riots have occurred. It may be said that retrospective legislation is objectionable; but, in that case, I would point out that the measure at present before the House is essentially a retrospective one. In Nottingham, at present, there are as many as 200 claims for compensation awaiting decision, because of the legal difficulties involved. The Corporation of Nottingham are willing to pay the claims; but the difficulty arises from the state of the law. I hope, therefore, that we shall not merely have a general measure, as promised, dealing with the future; but that we shall find that it deals out equal justice, and treats the Provincial towns where riots have occurred in the same way as it is now proposed to treat a portion of London.
    SIR JOHN RAMSDEN: I wish, Sir, to add my appeal to that of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. On the day of election a riot occurred in the constituency I have the honour to represent. By that riot there were many sufferers, and I know that among those sufferers there is a feeling that a great hardship would be inflicted if, when the Government have admitted the defective state of the law, and are going to amend it, their cases were not brought within the scope of the measure. They do feel that they would be very hardly treated indeed if there is not a clause in the Bill which will give it a retrospective character. I hope, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman will very seriously consider this matter.
    MR. CHILDERS: I have to say that we will very carefully consider the question as to what the operation of the Bill the Government propose to introduce shall embrace. It is not at all an easy question; but we will give it our most earnest consideration.
    MR. LIONEL COHEN: I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the suggestion that, if he merely loft out of the Bill the particular day on which the occurrences took place, and simply referred to the occurrences of "the month of February last," that would give the Bill a general character. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to doing that, I am sure it will give great and general satisfaction.
    GENERAL FRASER: The House well knows that great injury was done to the shopkeepers of South London for a day or two after the disturbances on February 8, through excess of zeal on the part of the police, who told the people to shut their shops. Then on Sunday, the 20th of February, the mob was not allowed to come quietly down Whitehall, but was turned on to the Embankment, and then driven over the bridge on to the South side, where there were no adequate police arrangements for protecting property. I advised the people who had suffered damage in consequence to write to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers), and his reply has been read by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel). Directly that reply was received, however, it was stuck up in a shop

    1323
    window in South London with this heading over it—
    "The persons who threw milk cans down upon the people get compensation, while the poor people of Lambeth do not."
    That way of dealing with the matter fairly indicates the feeling existing in South London on this subject. I do not wish to take up the time of the House; but I do earnestly hope that the claims of the people of North Lambeth will be considered.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The Act of George IV. restricts compensation to damage that is the result of riotous proceedings; and it cannot be given unless the property is wholly destroyed, or there is a felonious intent to wholly destroy. It is in no way contemplated by that Act to give compensation for anything except what can be described as the result of "riotous proceedings." I want to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for North Lambeth (Major General Eraser), therefore, that even if the area covered by this Bill were extended so as to include North Lambeth, and the period which it covers were extended to the 28th of February, it would not give compensation to North Lambeth unless it could be shown that the damage was caused by a riot. Now, the damage complained of in North Lambeth was very slight, and was not caused by what may be called a "riotous assembly." It was done by stone-throwing, certainly; but it was not the result of a riot.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: In discussing this question the exceptional position of London ought to be considered. In Blackburn the people have power to protect themselves; but the people of London have not. The people of London are in the hands of the Commissioners of Police, who are only responsible to this House; and, therefore, the people of London have no control over the police. If this rate is to be thrown on London, the Metropolitan Members will do their best to see that it is thrown on the whole of London, including the City, and not only upon the Metropolis outside the City. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this matter, or that he will leave the Bill as it was originally drawn. I have indicated the opinion I believe many hon. Friends of mine who sit on these Benches
    1324
    hold of this Bill. If the Amendments which are proposed by the Government are persevered in, we shall certainly press for the cost to be thrown upon the whole of London—the City as well as other parts.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to move that you report Progress, Sir. It is far too late to proceed now.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir James Fergusson.)
    MR. CHILDERS: No doubt, half-past 2 is a late hour to go on with, the Bill. I shall not oppose the Motion if it is understood that we proceed with it on the next available opportunity.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  TREES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 30.]
  (Mr. Gilhooly, Mr. Timothy Harrington, Mr. Marum, Mr. Pyne, Mr. Q'Hanlon.)
  TREES (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 30.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. CHANCE: I beg to move that a new clause be added to the Bill after Clause 4.
    MR. SPEAKER: That Motion will require Notice.
    MR. CHANCE: Then I will move that the Bill be re-committed.
    A Clause (Improvements under "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,") added.
    Amendment made.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move that I now leave the Chair?
    MR. CHANCE: Yes.
    Bill re-committed in respect of New Clause; considered in Committee.
    MR. MULHOLLAND: An hon. Friend of mine wishes to oppose one of the clauses of the Bill; therefore I move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mulholland.)
    MR. CHANCE: The clauses have received the assent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes). If the hon. Member understood the meaning of this clause—the limited meaning of it—he would make no difficulty in allowing it to pass. Its object is merely to remove a doubt as to the 10th section of 23 & 24 Geo. III., c. 39. Owing to the defective construction of that clause, the landlord, where a tenant cuts down a tree, is entitled to have compensation assessed, and to take all the trees and cut them down and remove them. That has been thought unreasonable; hence this Bill.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): So far as the Government is concerned we have no objection to the clause.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GILHOOLY: Following the example of the Lord Advocate, I beg to move the third reading of the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: It must be reported before that stage can be taken.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March 1885, the sum of £38,715 2s. 1d., be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    (2.) Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, the sum of £8,256,018, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  TOWN HOLDINGS.
  Select Committee on Town Holdings to consist of Twenty-four Members:—Committee nominated of,—Mr. MELLOR, Mr. WODEHOUSE, Lord WILLIAM COMPTON, Viscount WOLMER, Mr. ASHER, Mr. LEWIS FRY, Mr. EDWARD RUSSELL, Mr. CONYBEARE, Mr. GOSCHEN, Sir HENRY JAMES, Mr. LAWSON, Mr. SAUNDERS, Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Mr. GIBSON, Mr. MACARTNEY, Mr. TYSSEN AMHERST, Viscount FOLKESTONE, Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, Mr. GREGORY, Sir JOHN ELLIS, Mr. BARTLEY,
  1326
  Mr. CRILLY, Mr. O'DOGHERTY, and Colonel NOLAN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Instruction to the Select Committee on Town Holdings to inquire into the expediency of giving to leaseholders facilities for the purchase of the fee simple of their property.—(Mr. Lawson.)

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS REPEAL (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Stansfeld, Bill to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts 1866 to 1869, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stanfeld, Mr. James Stuart, Sir Robert Fowler, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Burt, and Mr. Henry Wilson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 147.]

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Spencer, Bill to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire lands in Birmingham for the public service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Spencer and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 148.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sporting Lands Rating (Scotland)* (36).
Committee—Lunacy Acts Amendment (12–37).

LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (No. 12.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Chancellor).
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that it had been his duty last year to

  1137
  pay great attention to this Bill. It was unnecessary to remind their Lordships of the great services rendered by the late Lord Shaftesbury in connection with this subject. Lord Shaftesbury's life had been an illustrious one from beginning to end, and his memory was not likely soon to pass away. Although that noble Lord was no longer among them, he hoped the views which he had expressed on this subject would still have weight with their Lordships. There were two points in the Bill to which he wished specially to call attention. The first was the initial treatment of the lunatic, especially of the curable lunatic. Experience had abundantly shown that a very large proportion of lunatics were curable, and it was most important at the early stages not to offer impediments to the efficient treatment of the patient. It was for this reason that Lord Shaftesbury was exceedingly reluctant to acquiesce in the securities which he had himself thought necessary against abuse of the Lunacy Law, and even in any form of application to a magistrate. So strongly did the late noble Lord feel on the question of introducing the magistrate's interference that he sent in, for that reason only, his resignation of the office of Lunacy Commissioner. That resignation he was induced for the time to withdraw, but without waiving the objection which he entertained to that part of the Bill. He (the Earl of Selborne), on his own part, had desired to meet that objection by introducing into that part of the Bill every reasonable safeguard against the evils which Lord Shaftesbury apprehended; and he could not now willingly agree to any diminution of those safeguards. There was an Amendment on the Paper which proposed that it should be the primâ facie duty of the magistrate to see the lunatic, so that every lunatic would practically be in the position of one so found by inquisition. As the Bill stood the magistrate could, if he thought proper, examine the lunatic; but no duty to do so was cast upon him. He greatly feared that the Amendment would lead to those delays which it was so desirable to avoid, and which might often be injurious to the patient. Where the magistrate was a stipendiary or a County Court Judge the delay might be serious. Lord Shaftesbury's evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons in
  1138
  1877 was to the effect that most persons were extremely indisposed to come to the conclusion that their relatives were lunatics; and, even when they did come to that conclusion, after calling in medical advice, they were liable to be deterred by the fear of publicity from taking with promptitude proper measures. If the Amendment were accepted this indisposition to act would be encouraged, especially as there would be a greater tendency to publicity in the proceedings. All unnecessary publicity was earnestly to be deprecated. The other question to which he desired now to call attention was that of private asylums. This was a point of great importance to the public, and also one in which largo private interests were concerned. He thought that, on this subject, there would be much danger in going too fast or too far. The late Lord Shaftesbury gave evidence about it before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1877. Being asked as to the advisability of placing everybody under public care, Lord Shaftesbury said that he saw great advantage in having public asylums as the basis of the system. At the same time, he said he should be sorry to see an enactment which prohibited licensed houses altogether, as he believed there were a great many persons who would always prefer to send their relatives to licensed houses rather than public asylums. Lord Shaftesbury's idea was that if public asylums were established as the basis of the lunacy system, all the inferior licensed houses would be eliminated and the better sort only would remain. These latter he then expressed himself to be desirous to retain; and to the merits of some of them he bore very emphatic testimony; saying particularly of that of Dr. Newington, at Ticehurst, that its discontinuance would be a great public loss. With those opinions he concurred, and he trusted that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would reconsider those Amendments of which he had given Notice, which aimed at the early suppression of existing licensed houses. Apart from the points urged by Lord Shaftesbury in opposition to the abolition of all these establishments, it might be all very well if they had institutions tried and approved to take their place. There would for an indefinite, and probably for a long time, be nothing of the kind. They would

  1139
  only have the large public asylums; and as there were scarcely any of these establishments with fewer than 2,000 patients, it was, at least, a serious question whether they were not far too large to satisfactorily deal with the patients now in them. The late Lord Shaftesbury had given it as his decided opinion that 300 patients were all that one medical superintendent could properly attend to. In these great public establishments, as now constituted, much more power than was desirable was necessarily in the hands of attendants and servants, who, if they had not the motive of profit, might have other motives—such as that of their own ease—to abuse it, and had not the same motive for tenderness towards the patients which would generally actuate the proprietors of well-managed licensed houses. These great establishments were hardly fit for any but chronic patients. With respect to the present licensed houses, it was proposed, by his noble and learned Friend's Amendment, that the licences should continue during the lives of the present holders only. When that life was gone, however many patients there were in the asylum, it must be closed. That would be a great hardship, both on the patients and their friends, and on the families of those who had carried on these asylums. He believed that private asylums were, at the present time, as necessary as public asylums; because, while the great public asylums were the best suited for the care of patients who could not be cured, private licensed houses were much more suitable for those who could be. He hoped that their Lordships would not assent to the proposal to abolish existing private asylums as fast as the lives of the present proprietors fell in, without awarding compensation. The proprietors of private lunatic asylums were aware that under the existing law their licences would not be renewed in the event of their establishments not being carried on in a way which satisfied the Commissioners. But, subject to that condition, they had actually been invited by law to invest their fortunes in these asylums; and, therefore, it would be most unjust to deprive them of the right of transferring their interest to others for a pecuniary consideration unless they were to be compensated for the loss that they would thereby sustain.
  1140
  The result of the legislation now proposed would be to convert a permanent into a mere life interest. With this exception, he was entirely of the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, that it was most desirable to put an end to the pecuniary interest of any person in keeping any other individual in confinement. The process of substituting public asylums for private ones should be gradual, and no hasty or rash experiment in that direction ought to be tried. Much required to be done to make in those public asylums such arrangements as would be indispensable to enable them to provide, in a proper and satisfactory manner, for the treatment and comfort of that class of patients who were now accommodated in licensed houses. The Bill gave power for those arrangements to be made; and it must depend upon their practical success whether, in the result, they would be fit altogether to supply the wants now met by the licensed houses, or not. It was going quite far enough to say, as he had himself proposed last year, that the number of licensed houses should not, in the meantime, be increased.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he could assure the noble and learned Earl who had just cat down, and with whom he agreed upon many points, that no unjust or rash experiments in the direction he had indicated would be entered upon. He confessed, however, that he was somewhat more impressed by the evil of the system under which it was possible for a person to be improperly incarcerated as a lunatic for the direct pecuniary interest of another than the noble and learned Earl appeared to be. He was inclined to think that in attempting to effect any real reform in our Lunacy Laws the first thing was to get rid of such a pecuniary interest. When we had established a system under which it would be impossible to detain a man in confinement in a lunatic asylum after he had become sane, we might well afford to get rid of some of the restrictions and difficulties which now existed in the way of obtaining the confinement of those who were actually lunatics. It must not be forgotten how much the visitor of the lunatic asylum was dependent upon the honesty and the good faith of the proprietor of the establishment. At the same time, he was quite ready to admit

  1141
  that it was impossible to put an end to the existing system suddenly. The only difference between himself and the noble and learned Earl upon that point was one of time. It was a remarkable fact that out of the innumerable letters which he had received upon the subject the only one that complained of the proposal to extinguish the private lunatic asylums had been sent by those pecuniarily interested in their maintenance. He quite agreed that great weight should be given to the opinions of the late Lord Shaftesbury upon this question; but he was not sure that it would be possible to abolish those ayslums which that noble Lord desired to see extinguished without putting an end to many of those which he desired should be permitted to exist. He thought, further, that it was quite possible that the noble Lord who had presided over the Commission so long, and had rendered such good services, might, perhaps, have had a tendency to think that in the case of private asylums they could be secured against anything wrong being done if they were only visited from time to time by the Commissioners or their agents. Even some of the persons employed by the Commissioners were not themselves satisfied that that was a sufficient safeguard. He had desired, therefore, to introduce into the Bill provisions which would lead to the ultimate extinction of private asylums; but he was not wedded to the particular form of those provisions. If it was thought that they went too far, he was content that such a limitation should be put on them as might be deemed desirable. All he was very anxious for was that they should endeavour to provide, as soon as well might be, for the ultimate extinction of those asylums for which the proprietors had a pecuniary interest in retaining the patients. He had prepared an Amendment that would enable the Commissioners, in regard to all private asylums, to transfer the licence in the case of death or resignation of the existing proprietor for a certain number of years. That would give time to enable accommodation to be obtained for patients elsewhere before the asylums ceased to exist; and, perhaps, a period of three years would be sufficient for the purpose. He mentioned that altogether apart from any claim to compensation.
  1142
  Then there was the case of persons who had expended considerable sums upon asylums for the reception of patients. It had been urged strongly—and he felt the force of the appeal—that in the case of those asylums considerable loss might be incurred from the difficulty of turning them to other purposes. He could not help thinking that many of those asylums would find their way into the hands of public authorities, and that well-managed private asylums would become well-managed public asylums. But he would suggest that it might be sufficient in the case of asylums where money had been expended, and where, consequently, loss would occur through their ceasing to exist, that a power should be given to continue those asylums, and to transfer them to other fit persons for a certain number of years. He could not admit, however, that there was a vested interest in a man to keep a lunatic asylum by himself and his heirs for ever. That was rather going beyond what one was bound to recognize in vested interests. In regard to the alternative of compensation, there would be considerable difficulty in determining the rate of compensation, and out of what fund it should come. Then, as to the case of private patients they might have in the case of a single patient the same danger in respect to undue detention which they had in regard to paying patients in private asylums; and, therefore, they required for a single patient the same protection as was applicable to all other cases. He should be quite willing to allow private patients, who, as a rule, were well-to-do persons, to be detained by order of a Judge in Lunacy to be obtained in Chambers. He could not go the whole length with his noble and learned Friend with respect to the case of a single patient; but he was ready to make it more easy than the Bill, as it stood, did to continue the care of a single patient under the charge of a medical man. In regard to interference with vested interests, he was only following in the footsteps of his noble and learned Friend because in the Bill of last year there was a provision that at the end of five years no pauper lunatics should be received in any licensed house.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that pauper lunatics were in the custody of the State.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had received the same representation in respect to pauper lunatics as in respect to other lunatics. If he had erred, he had erred in company with his noble and learned Friend; and he certainly did not wish to interfere with private interests beyond what was reasonably demanded by the public interests. The licence from year to year was not a licence to the house, but to the individual to keep patients in the house. He entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend as to the expediency of securing promptitude of treatment for lunatic patients. Then, if they were to have the examination before a magistrate or a County Court Judge, he wanted that examination to be a reality, and not a sham; and he had a considerable fear that a magistrate might say that the certificate was all in order, that there was an end of the matter, and that he could do nothing more. He should consider it extremely unfortunate if such a result ensued. But he agreed with his noble and learned Friend that there were many instances in which it was very undesirable that a magistrate should be compelled to see or should see a patient. He wanted the magistrate to have it as one of his duties to consider whether the documents were enough, or whether he really ought not to see the patient or other person; and probably the clause of the Bill might be so modified as to effect that object. He would only be too happy to receive any suggestions which their Lordships might be good enough to make for the improvement of the measure. So far as the ultimate extinction of private asylums was concerned, whatever modifications their Lordships might think just and expedient he would be glad to carefully consider, and if possible assent to.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, it seemed to him that this question of pecuniary interest was pressed somewhat too far, as medical men were actuated by other motives, at least as strong, acting in another direction. There might be cases in other professions where the desire of lucre prevailed; but they were the exceptions, and not the rule, in those honourable occupations. In his opinion the relatives of a lunatic had, or ought to have, an enormous responsibility in respect not only of his care, but also of his cure—a responsibility which was just
  1144
  as great as that of parents in the care of children who were dependent upon them. By this Bill, however, the danger seemed to be that the State was taking out of the hands of the parents and other relatives the responsibility which ought properly to devolve upon them for the care of the lunatic. Were these persons to have no choice as to the place in which they should put their relatives? Were they to hand them over to the custody of the State, and to deprive themselves altogether of any charge which they naturally owed to their relatives? It seemed to him to be a new doctrine that these helpless creatures, who were dependent upon relatives, should be deprived of the choice of a place where they were to be detained, especially when they had property of their own, or their relations were able and bound to maintain them. It was well known that there was a good deal more disinclination among persons to speak of diseases of the mind than there was to speak of ailments affecting the body. There was a certain sense of what might be called shame, or reticence, with respect to ailments affecting the mind. People did not like it to be known that there was any deficiency in this respect; but yet by this Bill they were going to provide that there should be no place of resort for lunatics that was not public in its character, where no step could be taken without public inquiry and public inspection. If the State was to have this entire control of everyone who was weak in intellect or dangerous to himself or others, notwithstanding the competency of his relatives to keep him in their own charge, he wished to know why it was provided by a clause of the Bill that the Secretary of State was not to call upon the State to build asylums for the maintenance of patients, but to compel the county to provide the means without, so far as he could see, any means being provided to recoup them for the expense? If the State was going to undertake this responsibility, it seemed just that the State should meet the expense. He could name lunatic asylums where patients received an amount of care almost amounting to luxury, and it would be inflicting the greatest possible injury to society if these places were to be put an end to. In the neighbourhood of some of these asylums there were as many as from 200 to 300

  1145
  persons employed in connection with them; and if this measure was carried out as it at present stood these persons might be dismissed from their employment, thereby inflicting a large amount of hardship. Not only would they affect the position of the lunatics, but a great deal of injury would be caused to a body of persons who would not be fully compensated for the wrong they suffered. He did not think that the remedies proposed in regard to private asylums went far enough in the way of compensation or of protection, nor was adequate provision made in case any of them were brought to an end. Neither was it necessary for the lunatics to be placed in the charge of the State, and the responsibility taken away from their relatives; but if the State insisted upon doing so it ought to bear the expense.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he wished to refer their Lordships to the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1877–8 on this subject, besides the evidence in it of Lord Shaftesbury which his noble and learned Friend opposite had quoted. They reported that the few complaints made against private asylums had been satisfactorily answered; that there had been a great improvement in them; and that the jealousy with which the treatment of lunatics was watched at the present day was a great security against any recurrence of the horrible cruelties practised in former times. The evidence was taken nine years ago; but had anything occurred since that time to call for such legislation as this? Were their Lordships, on theoretical grounds, to say that they disbelieved the summary of the evidence taken at great length by that Committee? All the sentimental and imaginative reasons existed as much then as they did now; but the Committee of that day said there was no occasion to do anything of the kind now suggested. Property of any kind was never taken from individuals by the State except on grounds of public justice or public necessity. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that the licences of private asylums were only during good behaviour. Yes; but, as the Bill stood, they would be terminated by wants entirely independent of good behaviour. In cases where houses of this kind had been in the
  1146
  hands of persons for a long series of years, and on which large sums of money had been expended, it seemed to him to be a strange proposition that this property should be confiscated by the State, without the least pretence of evidence of any necessity for so doing, and in the face of such evidence and such a Report as he had quoted. Mention had been made of the large number of letters received regarding lunatic asylums, of which not one was of anything more than bare opinion. He had himself received a letter from an old lady, who was now a voluntary boarder in a well-known private lunatic asylum. Although she had been cured she preferred to remain there, because she had no nicer place to live in. She received more home comforts for her money there than she could get anywhere else; and she protested most strongly against being turned out, because if that were done she would have to betake herself to some lonely lodgings and be in danger of a relapse. She saw her doctor every day, and was very much attached to him. This was one instance out of several cases within his own knowledge. He used to go and visit a clergyman every year at Buxton, who was an inmate of a lunatic asylum. This gentleman was just in that mental condition in which it might be said that for half-an-hour he was quite sane, and in the succeeding half-hour just the reverse. He took an interest in everything that was going on around him, and in all the news of his family, and talked rationally about it; and always said that he was very comfortable. He read the newspapers. If they were to turn this gentleman out he would protest just as strongly as in the other case. He asked, therefore, why they should embark on a policy destroying all those interests in private asylums, which had been in some families for generations, whenever the present proprietor happened to die, and turning all the patients into the streets, or into some huge county institution where they would not be half so comfortable, or so well attended to? Perhaps some noble Lords had the case of Mrs. Weldon in their minds while considering this matter. But Mrs. Weldon's was no case against private lunatic asylums rather than public ones. Her complaint was that she had been sent somewhere; that some people,

  1147
  for a good or a bad reason, wished to get her out of the way. Another recent trial about a man named Hillman actually was about sending him to a public asylum without proper examination by Justices. As far as he had read, there was not a single charge of misconduct against any private lunatic asylum. That being so, it was not at all a proper thing to ruin above half-a-million's worth of property, now or 15 years hence, when the improvements that were continually going on might have made private asylums even better than they were now, when no charge was made against them. If it were considered desirable, let there be another inquiry, to be followed, if necessary, by further legislation; but there was plenty for this Bill to do without burdening it with clauses for which at present there did not seem to be sufficient justification.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, that circumstances had led to his having some acquaintance with the management of more than one private lunatic asylum; and he wished to say a word or two in the interests, not of the owners or managers, but of the public and of the patients. He quite agreed with the observations of the last speaker. By a private asylum he understood one not only under private management, but one in which individuals could have privacy as regarded the time and manner of their admission, without the risk of their being exposed to the contemptuous gaze of the public. He had more than once met in society persons who had been a short time inmates of a private lunatic asylum; but if they had been inmates of a public asylum, and they had been exposed to publicity, the fact of that publicity would have been to them a cause of lifelong suffering. It seemed to be important, in the interests of humanity, that there should not be a needless publication of infirmities which many—rightly or wrongly — considered a disgrace to their families. The desire to obtain publicity might involve the danger of inflicting injury; and the question was whether it was necessary to go so far in trying to prevent abuse. Another disadvantage in the abolition of private asylums was the loss of individualizing care. In small asylums an amount of attention could be given to individual
  1148
  cases which was not possible in large asylums, where patients had to be dealt with more in masses. The diminution of this individual treatment would be a loss to the cause of science as regarded the method of dealing with the insane. It was said that practitioners might keep people too long in the asylums; but there was also the danger of practitioners being too anxious to get patients out too soon. When a hospital was crowded there was a natural anxiety for vacant beds, and the same motive might operate less favourably in the management of large public asylums if it led to individual cases being dealt with in a perfunctory way. Again, if poor and rich patients were treated together there might be a danger that rich patients might receive more care and attention than the poor. For these reasons he felt hesitation in adopting as a fixed principle that we were, sooner or later, to abolish private asylums. A Justice of the Peace might be a good judge of a poacher; but it by no means followed that he would be an equally good judge of a lunatic; and it certainly seemed desirable that a Justice of the Peace should be assisted by a medical expert in exercising the discretion which the Bill would cast upon him.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that the Bill was a valuable one; but, unless some modification were made in it with respect to private lunatic asylums, the Bill might be jeopardized. The Bill must be looked at not only from the standpoint of those who were directly interested in such asylums, but also from the standpoint of rich and solvent lunatics, and also from the standpoint of the ratepayers, who were asked to provide, at the public expense, habitations for those who had been housed in private asylums, and who had been so housed in a way which commended itself to the lunatics themselves, when they were capable of exercising a choice, and in other cases to their families and friends. There might have been abuses, and it was well to legislate against their recurrence; but was it necessary to say that private asylums must be got rid of altogether? It must be possible to devise machinery that would prevent abuse. It was not at all clear that it would be agreeable to the relatives and friends of the insane, who had to decide for them where they should be sent, that they should in every case be

  1149
  deprived of the chance of sending them to private asylums. Was there likely to be any benefit derived if there was to be no private enterprize in the matter? If private asylums were abolished, either lunatics would not be sent anywhere, but stay at home; or they would be sent to places for the reception of single patients; or they would be sent to public institutions partly inhabited by pauper lunatics; or, again, they might be sent altogether out of the jurisdiction to one of the numerous foreign establishments. There was another important consideration which had not been dealt with. Was it reasonable to impose additional burdens on the already over-laden taxpayer to provide accommodation for those who could afford to provide for themselves? He would be glad to know what were the intentions of the Government with respect to Ireland? He hoped it was either intended to apply the Bill to Ireland or such parts of it as would be desirable, or that a Bill was being prepared for Ireland in the Irish Office.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was willing to admit that the Bill was bristled with difficulties; but he regretted very much that the objections raised in this debate, which were objections of principle, had not been raised on the second reading of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that he had omitted to state that he had consulted with the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) who dealt with Irish questions, and with the Irish Law Officers, and they did not think it practicable to extend the Bill to Ireland; but the Irish Office would make provision for Ireland in this matter.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Urgency Orders).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he proposed to amend the 2nd rule, which provided that no person should be received under an urgency order unless the medical practitioner who signed the certificate had personally examined the patient not more than three days previously to the reception of such person. He considered the time too long, and would move the substitution of 24 hours.
  Amendment moved, in page 6, line 22, leave out ("three clear days") and insert ("twenty-four hours.") — (The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was willing to make it two days, instead of three.
  Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had done his best to meet the views suggested on the second reading as to the proteetion which should be given to those issuing certificates under the Bill. Undoubtedly the fear of responsibility would lead, without such protection, many persons to refrain from giving such certificates when their doing so was in the highest degree desirable, and when it would be extremely beneficial to the patients themselves. Such persons ought to be freed from responsibility, if they acted in good faith and with reasonable care. Frequently many of the actions were brought upon absolutely frivolous grounds, and the medical men were, consequently, put to considerable expense and annoyance in defending them. He, therefore, proposed to amend the clause by giving summary power to stay actions which were brought against medical men for having given such certificates where it could be shown that there was no ground for the allegation that they had acted with want of reasonable care and of good faith. He thought that such a provision would satisfy medical practitioners, who had been alarmed by the costly proceedings which had been taken against some of them in recent years.
  Amendment moved, in page 7, after Section 4, insert the following new section:—
  (Protection as to person signing orders and certificates.)
  "(1.) A person who before the commencement of this Act has signed or done any act with a view to sign an order for the reception of a person as a lunatic, or a medical certificate that a person is of unsound mind, and a person who in the manner required by this Act presents a petition for any such order, or sign or does any act with a view to sign an urgency order, or any such medical certificate as aforesaid, shall not be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings if such person has acted in good faith and with reasonable care.
  "(2.) If any proceedings are taken against any person for signing or doing any act with a

  1151
  view to sign any such order or certificate, or presenting any such petition as in the preceding sub-section mentioned, on the ground that such person did not act in good faith or with reasonable care, such proceedings may, upon summary application to a judge of the High Court, be stayed if the judge is satisfied that there is no reasonable ground for alleging want of good faith or reasonable care.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the cases of which they had heard so much lately and other circumstances had created a deal of apprehension in the minds of persons issuing certificates; and there appeared to be a grave fear that, unless adequate protection was afforded, considerable difficulty would be experienced in getting the necessary certificates. He had, therefore, much pleasure in supporting the Amendment, which, he trusted, would tend to allay the alarm which had been created in the minds of medical practitioners.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Amendments as to single patients).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the clause, coupled with Clauses 43 and 44, raised very important questions, as to which much had been said that night; and he did not think they could usefully discuss them at the present moment. He admitted that considerable modifications would have to be made in that part of the Bill; and he was most anxious, if possible, to hit upon some such modification as they were all likely to agree to. Therefore he proposed to postpone all the clauses that were of a controversial nature until a later date, and to proceed now only with those clauses which were not of a controversial character.
  Clause postponed accordingly.
  Clauses 27 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Institutions for idiots and imbeciles); and Clause 35 (Licensed houses for idiots).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as these clauses dealt with idiotcy and imbeciles he proposed to strike them out of the Bill, and keep them quite apart from the subject of lunacy. He would introduce another measure, embodying the provisions relating to idiotcy and imbeciles.
  Clauses struck out accordingly.
  Clauses 36 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 43 and 44 postponed.
  Clauses 45 to 69, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 70 (Abuse of female lunatic).
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNproposed an Amendment, to make it felony for a man to carnally know an insane person.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 41, line 2, after ("patient,") insert ("he shall be guilty of felony, and shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any period not less than five years, or to be imprisoned for any period not exceeding two years with or without hard labour; and if any such person shall attempt to have carnal knowledge of, or be guilty of any indecent assault or other indecent behaviour upon or towards any such female patient.")—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he approved the object of the Amendment; but he thought the case was provided for by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and he must ask for time to look into the matter.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 37.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.