Sitting of 8 September 1886

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES, Votes 7 to 10 & 13. Resolutions [September 7] reported.
QUESTION'S.

  POOR LAW—HOMELESS POOR OF THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. PICKERSKILLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that a large number of homeless poor, comprising men, women, and children, sleep nightly on the Embankment and other open spaces of the Metropolis; and, if he will make special inquiry to ascertain whether the Guardians of the Metropolitan Unions fulfil all the requirements of the Law as regards providing accommodation for such persons?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Mr. LONG)(who replied) said: The Board have no information beyond what has appeared in the newspapers with respect to the number of poor persons who sleep on the Embankment and in the open spaces of the Metropolis. Having referred this morning to the Report of the superintendent visiting officer of vagrant wards for the past month, I find that there are only three wards in which persons have been refused admission. The refusals were only high in number in two cases, respecting both of which the Board have asked for explanations. In all cases of refusal care is taken to ascertain, if the applicants are women or children, whether they are in a fit condition to move on.

  THE NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVEN TION—THE PROTECTING CRUISERS.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, taking into consideration the fact that continued and serious depredations by Foreign trawlers on English drift-net fishing vessels have taken place off the East Coast of England every year from September to
  1630
  Christmas, the losses resulting therefrom amounting to many thousands of pounds, and affecting both owners and fishermen, and that the provisions of the North Sea Fisheries Convention cannot be enforced without a fisherman-pilot being placed on board each of the four Cruisers appointed to protect the fisheries in question, he will agree to give the necessary instructions to engage a fisherman for each of the four Cruisers as an experiment, on the first intimation of depredations being committed, and that the expenses be paid by the Admiralty?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): My hon. Friend has, during the past few years, taken a very leading position in endeavouring to protect the fishermen of the East Coast from depredations committed upon them by the foreign trawlers, and any strong opinion which he may express as to the means most likely to secure that end is entitled to careful consideration. As he knows, last year I endeavoured to improve and extend the protection to which these fishermen were entitled, and the result, I believe, was that last year there were more convictions under the provisions of the North Sea Fisheries Convention than in any previous year. The Hearty, a powerful vessel well adapted for this service, is now being fitted out, and will shortly be on the East Coast and on this duty. As regards the suggestion that a fisherman-pilot should be placed on board each of the cruisers, there is an obvious objection to a fisherman-pilot forming part of the complement of such cruisers; but I am quite willing to try the experiment for a month, and will give directions that such pilots should be on board each of the cruisers. I shall thus be able to ascertain whether their presence and local knowledge is of such advantage to the officers in command as to justify a continuation of the arrangement.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

NAVY—RETURNS OF SHIPS OF WAR.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, before the Speaker left the Chair he wished to call attention to the very unsatisfactory manner in which the Naval Parliamentary Returns to the House were presented. He had detected the grossest inaccuracies in the se Returns—inaccuracies which had a very bad appearance, and which were calculated to have very mischievous effects, inasmuch as they favoured conclusions that were known to be foregone conclusions at the Admiralty, and generally made it appear that the Navy of this country was stronger than it was as compared with the Navies of other countries. In this respect he would first say a few words about a Return presented recently, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), now one of the Naval Lords of the Admiralty. It was a Return relating to the Fleets of England, France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Russia, and Greece. Everyone who looked at that Return, and remembered the discussions in the last Parliament, would be aware that the noble Lord who moved the Return did so with the patriotic object of bringing before the country the true relative positions of those Navies, both existent and prospective. It would be of great importance if these Returns bore the name and were attested by some other person than the Clerical Secretary to the Admiralty, who could not be expected to guarantee their accuracy from any knowledge of his own. The consequence was that whatever the Departmental people put before the Clerical Secretary came to this House, and the Departmental gentlemen were wholly irresponsible for the Return. He would ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) to take into consideration the propriety of having the names of a technical officer coupled, if need were, with that of the Clerical Secretary in future Returns of this nature. The noble Lord did not seem disposed to take much notice of this appeal; but if he did not he warned the noble Lord that it would not save any time or enable him to escape from the urgency with which he would press the point. The time had arrived, in his (Sir Edward Reed's) opinion, when hon. Mem-
  1632
  bers of this House must refuse to be participators in the exchange of that light coin, "that tinsel clink of compliment" which was continually passing between the two Front Benches of this House, and must go behind and look into the facts for themselves. Now, in this Return there was a great deficiency in a most important particular—namely, that of the Russian Fleet. Either he was inaccurately informed by Russian officers who were well acquainted with the Dockyards and the Navy of Russia, or there were armoured ships of very great importance indeed now constructed by the Russian Government of which no proper note was taken in this Return. He believed that it was equally true of the un-armoured vessels that vessels of considerable importance built for the Russian Government were excluded from the Return. In consequence of such errors as these many hon. Members of the House—and the new Parliament might contain many Members anxious to inform themselves of the facts in relation to the Navy—would be completely misled as to the comparative strength of the Navy if they placed reliance on this Navy Return. That was a very notable fact at a time like the present when, if he was not mistaken, the country would have to consider very seriously the strength of the Russian Navy. Another question had reference to the French Navy, and he invited the particular attention of the House to the illusive system under which the Return was granted. For some reason unknown to himself, except that it might be a wish to defeat the natural desire of the House and the country to understand the real position of the Naval Service, the system of classification adopted was most illusory. He would guard himself on this point, because there was prefixed to the Return a Memorandum, in which hon. Members were told that vessels had been grouped in accordance with the official classification of each country, and that to compare the different Navies correctly the different classifications must be taken into account, adding vessels in some places and deducting them in others on the different lists. But the curious thing was that he found that, whether he took this prefatory Memorandum or the notes attached to the Return, he found that all bore in one direction, that was, to give an exaggerated view of the strength

  1633
  of our own Navy and a view of foreign Navies that did not realize the true position and character of the se Navies. Could anything be more serious than that in a Return made to Parliament; and was he not justified in interposing at this moment and commending the matter to the attention of the noble Lord? He found that in the classification of our ships, whenever boilers were protected by deck armour, although the vessel's side was not protected, she was taken out of the category of unarmoured and put into the armoured or protected class. There was a class of vessels now building for which he was entitled to claim considerable credit—he alluded to the belted cruisers. Part of the extended programme of Lord Northbrook was the adoption of five belted cruisers. These ships, which had belts, and were to that extent armoured, came at once into the category of armoured vessels; but in the Return no distinction was made between them and the fully armoured ships of the Navy. He confessed that these bolted cruisers were much better protected than many of the large iron-clads; but they had no protection at all to their guns, and he thought they should be classed as armoured belted cruisers. A question arose on the previous night in a debate about certain vessels armed with long modern guns, and there seemed to be an idea in some quarters of the House that there was not much difference between barbette and turret vessels; but the distinction was that the turret guns were protected, while the barbette guns were not. If no exception had been taken to this Return they should have had the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), or some other hon. Member of the House, totalling up the tonnage of the se ships as so much armoured tonnage, and never reflecting or considering that in such a method of procedure as that they might get figures to show anything. The noble Lord would do well to withdraw this Return and give it to the House in a complete form—a Return which, at any rate, would be correct as far as it wont. He had called attention to this as a specimen of the general system of presenting Returns that were quite misleading. He did not know how it could be dealt with—not by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) pressed with the multifarious duties of his Office,
  1634
  nor by the Secretary. (Mr. Forwood); but he had thrown out the suggestion that the responsibility of inaccuracies should be fixed upon some one, and the independence of the House should be vindicated, not leaving hon. Members to the dangers of accepting misleading Returns of this nature.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) to the fact that in the Egyptian and Soudan Campaigns there were similar defects in the Transport Service and arrangements of the Navy as the se in the Army to which he had called attention on the previous evening. For instance, for the purpose of landing heavy stores in Egypt a very large pair of shears was constructed in England—so large that its component parts had to be taken out in two vessels, the result being that one leg was landed at its destination, where it lay utterly useless, and the other left at home, where, he believed, it was still to be seen. In addition to this, a composite pier was constructed for the landing of stores in Egypt, and a number of men were drilled in the work of putting the pier together; but the pieces being sent out in slow-steaming vessels did not arrive until after all the stores had been landed at another place than that at which the pier was to have been erected. Again, with regard to medicines that were sent out in largo consignments, they could not be found when wanted; but in one ship the medicine chests were discovered crushed beneath some tons of flour, which, however, was not damaged thereby, inasmuch as it was reported to be unfit for use before it left England. Beyond this, quantities of sugar, tea, and other necessaries were put into a heavy vessel under heavy gun carriages, and could not be got at until it was too late for their use on board. On another vessel the sugar and tea intended for the troops was so carefully stowed away that no amount of search was able to discover their whereabouts until after the campaign was over. He was desirous of obtaining from the Government some assurance that the extraordinary occurrences and failures which had happened during the se campaigns should not again take place, and that

  1635
  every endeavour would be made to prevent the possibility of any recurrence of such things.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he had to complain of the way in which business was conducted at the Admiralty, and of the system under which ships were designed and built, and thought that more information should be laid before the House, so that Parliament should be able to exercise more control. He suggested that a Royal Commission or a Committee of the House should be appointed to consider the designs upon which the ships of the Navy were being built, and also as to the general condition of the Service. He had also to complain of the Mediterranean Squadron being taken on what appeared to be yachting excursions to Alexandria and other places, instead of the ships being utilized for the education of the men on board in torpedo and gunnery exercise, and the Service generally. He alleged that instruction in drill was not efficient, and that when vessels were sent round the stations it was looked upon as a huge holiday.
  ADMIRAL SIR JOHN COMMERELLsaid, he desired to remove a very erroneous impression that seemed to have got possession of the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Grourley). He could assure that hon. Gentleman that on all occasions gunnery, torpedo, and ordinary exercises were most carefully carried out in the Mediterranean Squadron. Journals of these matters were carefully kept by the commanders of the vessels and submitted to the Admiral, and these were afterwards forwarded to the Admiralty; and if anything wrong appeared there, any neglect of ordinary or extraordinary exercises, the responsible officer was pretty sure to be reminded of it. But there was an old adage too often forgotten in our censure of other people's duties, that "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy;" and depend upon it, if our seamen, marines, and boys were carefully educated—he might almost say over-educated—according to the requirements of the Service; if, from the Commander-in-Chief downwards, the work was done as the Admiralty, no doubt, had reason to believe it was done, then a certain amount of liberty was the necessary accompaniment. The hon. Member should bear in mind that ships
  1636
  were sent to foreign stations with more objects than one, and one object was to keep up the entente cordiale which ought to exist between pepole on shore and officers and men afloat. It would be a very hard case if, when the Squadron was off the coast of Syria, a little leave and license should not be allowed men who desired to make a visit to the Holy Land. From time immemorial such leave had been granted in the Service, and there was really no reason to depart from the precedents. There was no officer in the Navy who, with those attributes of command that required any man under him to do his work, was more willing to allow opportunities for relaxation than H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh. In reference to the Impérieuse, he quite agreed that she was among the most complete failures of modern ships. Badly designed, and badly carried out; such vessels were absolutely dangerous. As an ocean cruiser, what was the use of a ship designed to carry 400 tons of coal, a quantity that at full speed would only last her a day and a-half, and, the supply being exhausted, she had nothing to rely upon—absolutely nothing? Every able constructor, every Controller of the Navy knows, as every sailor knows, that a vessel with double screws is unmanageable under sail. You may increase the speed by a knot or two by supplementing steam with sail; but under sail only such a vessel would be useless and unsafe. In reference to the two ships, the Impérieuse and the Warspite, he last year asked that a Committee of naval and constructive experts should consider and report what in their judgment was the best thing to be done with the ships. His own idea—and he knew it was shared by a large number of naval officers of experience and knowledge that made their opinion valuable—was that the masts and yards should be taken out of them, the upper deck should be removed, and they should be turned into coast defence vessels, for which purpose they would be fairly useful. It was impossible to combine the two things—sailing, with the double screws. He would say nothing against the advantage of double screws as such; but if a spar or hawser, or any of the sailing gear happened to go over the side and fouled the screws, then the latter would become entirely useless. He trusted the First Lord of

  1637
  the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) would boldly face the question, and have the position of the double-screw vessels carefully considered, and also with regard to those not yet fully rigged. The result, he was strongly of opinion, would be a recommendation that the masts and yards should be removed, and the ships converted into fighting turrets for coast defence under steam. He was not quite certain that a Royal Commission was the best means of arriving at a decision. Commissions usually collected a great amount of evidence, and presented a long-winded Report, and that was all. But some means should be adopted for arriving at the best thing to be done for our fighting ships and cruisers, for at present the Navy was in a most unsatisfactory state—we were, in fact, living in a fool's paradise. Vessels that on the measured mile had been certified to do 12 knots could not really do more than 10. The measured mile trial, in fact, was quite fallacious. Under the most favourable circumstances of first-class picked coal, engineers and stokers specially trained, they got the best possible results out of the trial and produced a good result; but, as was known from particular instances, this was done sometimes by the trick of bottling up the steam until the last moment. The speed test was a fallacy, and never in ordinary service was the measured mile rate realized. In the case of the Northampton the speed put down was 13½ knots, and an expenditure of 250 tons; but all he could say was that in a three years' commission, and with the greatest possible care, he could never get out of her more than 11½ knots. The Impérieuse would burn the same amount of coal, for the ugh she was more modern, longer, and with engines compounded in a different manner, he did not hesitate to say that, though on the measured mile test she was put down at 17 knots, she would in commission drift into a 15 knot vessel.
  THE FIRST LOED OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)said, he was much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Southampton (Sir John Commerell) for the practical suggestions he had made. With regard to the Impérieuse, he was quite aware that a grave miscalculation had been made. It had for some time past been the practice of the Constructors'
  1638
  Department to estimate the speed of a new vessel with what was called only her "legend" weights aboard. These legend weights only include a certain proportion of the coal the ship could carry; and the trials of speed were, therefore, carried out without all the weights being aboard, which the vessel, when ready for service, would carry. This practice led to deceptive statements being made concerning the speed and coal endurance of new ships. The Impérieuse was publicly stated to be able to either steam 17 knots for so many hundred miles, or, at a lower rate of speed, to have a coal endurance of so many thousand miles. If the vessel, however, had all her weights aboard, she would not be able to steam 17 knots; if she was not loaded up to her full coal-carrying capacity she would not have the coal endurance claimed for her. The belt and portholes of the Impérieuse were, when she was fully loaded, nearly two feet deeper immersed than was anticipated. They had, however, taken steps by which in future all trials of speed would be made with all weights aboard, and the trial was to be of a more the rough and lengthened character than before. By these steps they would prevent the difference between the designed draught and the actual draught which had occurred in the past; and the speed obtained at the trials would not be a fancy speed, but that which the vessel, when commissioned, can accomplish. The Impérieuse, though deeper in her draught by two feet than designed, would be a powerful and effective man-of-war. She was now on an experimental cruise under Captain Fane; and he had little doubt that the result of that cruise would be that her heavy spars and bolts would be removed, and a considerable gain in weight achieved. In reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), he might say that the subjects the hon. Member referred to, as to recent experiences in Egypt, were matters of Parliamentary investigation; and it would be the duty of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) and himself (Lord George Hamilton) to see whether they could not institute a better system of organization, by which stores intended for the benefit and comfort of troops should be made more readibly accessible; and he agreed that where expensive plant was taken out

  1639
  to assist any expedition in which Her Majesty's Forces were engaged abroad it was essential that when not required it should be returned home or placed in some appropriate position. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) alluded to one of the Returns presented to the House in regard to foreign Navies as being misleading; but the hon. Member did not give them any facts in support of his assertion, but seemed to base it upon the assumption that certain Russian vessels were not included in the Returns. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that all the Returns should, as far as possible, be accurate; but in this instance it should be remembered it was a Return made at the request of the House of Commons, and, therefore, was not a classification by the Admiralty; consequently, if there was any error, it was entirely due to those who obtained it for the House of Commons. He denied that there was any misstatement in the description or classification; and the hon. Gentleman (Sir Edward Reed), who had special means of information, and had been informed by Russian officers that this Return was misleading, should have had it rectified or withdrawn. The Return in question was given by the late Government, being moved for on the 23rd March, and granted on the 17th May, 1886; and the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government, and specially attached to the Admiralty in order that they might have the benefit of his knowledge.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, that he never saw the Return until a short time ago; and at the time referred to he had no more to do with the Admiralty than the noble Lord. It did not lie with him, as a Lord of the Treasury, to revise such Returns.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that, at all events, the hon. Member was in Office when the Return was laid on the Table of the House, and from his special knowledge he had the opportunity of informing his Colleagues that the Return was misleading, and therefore ought to be withdrawn. He was quite aware there was a tendency in certain quarters to assume that whoever was at the Admiralty was inclined to over-estimate the fighting power of our Navy, and under-estimate that of foreign countries. What the Admiralty had to
  1640
  do was to place as fairly and as accurately as they could before the House all the information in their possession, and draw as fair a comparison as they could between the relative strength of the Navies of the world. In discussing these Estimates they were anxious to have the advantage of any practical question raised by any hon. Members; but, as far as the discussion had now gone, he thought it was of a nature that would be more advantageously disposed of when the House had gone into Committee.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that as the late Board of Admiralty were answerable for the Return commented upon by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) he wished to make a few observations. The question was raised as to foreign vessels by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford); and the reply of the late Government was that they were unable to give absolutely full information respecting foreign Navies, but that they would furnish the best at their command. The Lords of the Admiralty went for information to the Heads of the Departments, and on the occasion referred to the person who supplied the information was Captain Kane, Naval Attaché to Foreign Countries; and, on the whole, he believed that the information so obtained was accurate, and he must protest against the assumption by his hon. Friend (Sir Edward Reed) that the Returns were cooked by the Admiralty.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, it had not been his intention to make any such suggestion. He did not think the blame lay with the Board of Admiralty, but with the people who were behind them.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, they gave the best information in their power, and in regard to the question of under-rating the interest of the Admiralty was rather to over-rate the strength of Foreign Powers, but not of our own. Any Return presented to Parliament was presented on the responsibility of the Admiralty; and he was sure that no First Lord, or other Member of the Board, would wish to throw the responsibility upon any of their subordinates. In a large Return like that dealing with foreign Navies there might be inaccuracies, and that was pointed out to the

  1641
  noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) when the Return was presented; but, on the whole, he believed it was correct. With regard to the remark that fell from the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), respecting the Impérieuse, he thought that the policy of the present Admiralty was a very wise one; that the policy of sending her on a cruise for the purpose of testing her was au exceedingly good one; and when she returned again to Portsmouth he believed they would have to take from her the enormous masts, and that she would then prove a satisfactory vessel. One other subject he would like to refer to was the Report which was of considerable interest to the Naval Service—he meant the Report of the Committee that had considered for a period of 18 months the question of the education of naval officers.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the question the hon. Member was now about to enter upon did not refer to any of the Estimates about to be taken.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, he was merely going to ask the noble Lord if he had any objection to present the Report; but he would not press the subject further; and he would only say that, so far as the policy indicated by the noble Lord was sketched out, he thought it bore out the policy of the noble Lord's Predecessors, and, so far as he knew, was an entirely satisfactory one, and would have the support of the late Board.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, the House was naturally concerned to know who was responsible for the inaccuracies in the Return. He considered that his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) was somewhat hard on the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed), because if he was correct the Return in question was not circulated before the Dissolution of Parliament. It was ordered to be printed before the Dissolution; but he did not think that hon. Members got possession of it until after the Dissolution. Therefore the hon. Member for Cardiff could not have had it till recently. The late Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. R. W. Duff) had stated that one of the reasons for the inaccuracies in the Return might possibly have been owing to the fact that the Admiralty were not in a position to give
  1642
  accurate information as to the ships possessed by Foreign Powers. A fact of that kind probably lay at the root of the whole question; and when the Vote came on he should point out to the Committee how necessary it was that the Government should obtain this particular kind of information—with reference to the existence and building of war ships in foreign countries—by appointing a stronger staff of officers in the Intelligence Department.
  Mr. PEARCEsaid, he did not know whether he was in Order; but he wished to call attention to the Returns moved for by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood), as to the number of merchant vessels engaged by the Admiralty for the purpose of being converted into cruisers last year. The amount paid last year for these vessels was £535,000; and he wished to know whether any provision had been made in the present Estimates, or whether such provision was contemplated in any future Estimates, in order to meet the employment of this class of ship in the future? To him it was very clear that it was necessary for this country to have fast cruisers in the Merchant Service. At the present time they had vessels crossing the Atlantic at 19 knots an hour, and it would be the aim of Foreign Powers to get these vessels for the purpose of improving their own Fleets, which would naturally be to the disadvantage of the Fleet of this country. He thought it would be of considerable importance to the Navy if they could always rely upon having from 10 to 20 fast steamers of the Merchant Service in the hands of the Admiralty; and this could be done by subsidizing them. He would, therefore, propose to the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) that a Committee should be appointed to take into consideration the requirements of fast cruisers, their rate of speed, and how they could be best adapted for, and made use of, in time of war.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD)said, the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Pearce) had raised a question of very considerable interest, and one that was engaging the attention of the Admiralty at the present moment. The large sum of money paid last year for the retention

  1643
  of a number of merchant cruisers had drawn the attention of the Admiralty to the importance of considering how far preparation could be made in advance for the employment of that class of vessels, instead of being obliged to take them up—he would not say in an indiscriminate manner, but in a hasty manner, such as was the case last year. Communications had been made to the Board by the owners of large vessels of exceptional speed as to their building vessels of exceptional speed suitable for cruisers, and the Board of Admiralty are now considering the whole question. He might say, on behalf of his noble Friend the First Lord (Lord George Hamilton), that any suggestions from the owners of steamers at present in existence of exceptional speed, and suitable for cruisers, or from those who contemplated building such vessels, would be gladly accepted by the Admiralty for consideration.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £69,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of the Victualling Yards at Homo and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887."
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I find, under this head, an item of £500 a-year, the salary of the Superintending Civil Engineer for the Victualling Yard at Haulbowline, together with £100 as a special allowance for superintending the works, which is to cease on their completion. I desire to draw the attention of the First of the Admiralty to the way in which the contracts in connection with the Victualling Yards are given out, and particularly to the contracts for mess pork, which I think could be much better obtained at home than abroad. Unfortunately, a system prevails at present of contracting for supplies in foreign ports, although the same supply could be obtained cheaper and much better at home. At the present time the Navy are being supplied with mess pork from Hamburg, while quite as good food could be supplied more readily and
  1644
  cheaply from Ireland. What is the result of that system? It is that establishments from which we ought to obtain a supply at home have been starved out of existence. I am not old enough to recollect all the incidents of the Crimean Campaign; but I have conversed with men who were both at home and abroad at the time of that campaign; and I believe it is a matter of tradition, especially in connection with the Army stores, that the stores and food supplied to those who were engaged in the campaign were of a very inferior quality. What could have been expected under the existing system, when food supplies were wanted in an emergency? We possessed no establishments which were accustomed to bear so sudden a strain on their resources, owing to the habit which had grown up of neglecting them in a time of peace. The number of tradesmen who could be employed in making up the supply are necessarily limited. The trade of the coopers, for instance, is a close Corporation, and they keep the work entirely for themselves. I have heard stories of the manner in which the supplies were made up, some of which were altogether laughable and ridiculous. I have heard of a tradesman who declined to walk from one store to another, and demanded that a carriage should be sent to convey him. That may appear very absurd on the face of it; but there was some reason in it. Wages went up to an extraordinary figure; in fact, almost any price could be obtained that might be asked; and in this instance the tradesman calculated that he would have lost 20 s. while he was walking from one store to another. As to the workmen, they were employed until they became positively exhausted, and some of them fell down prostrate over their work. Under these circumstances, a great amount of bad work was done, and the disasters in connection with the Crimean Campaign occurred in consequence; all because the Government, owing to some infatuation, would continue to give contracts outside the Three Kingdoms; and consequently when a strain came they had no establishment that was accustomed to the turning out of supplies in good working order. This was the case not only with regard to the supply of mess pork, but with other food supplies. We have here on the Front Bench a number of

  1645
  noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen to answer questions put to them by Members; but they are supplied with their information from other sources, and I always view with suspicion the evasive answers which are returned in reference to this subject of the contracts for food supplies. They remind me of the truth of a saying of Talleyrand—that words were invented for the purpose of concealing thoughts. Many of the answers we get from the Treasury Bench are of that character, and whenever I hear of a contract being sent abroad my suspicions are aroused. I may add that the facts, when they become known, very often bear out my suspicions. It must be borne in mind that the answers to these questions are frequently supplied from an interested source. I believe that Her Majesty's Ministers do not investigate far enough into the organization of their Departments. I believe that if they did they would find that many of the officials have a special interest in procuring contracts for foreign firms. I know that many establishments in Ireland have been starved out. There were splendid establishments in Cork and Tralee which did a large business during the Crimean War, but which are now absolutely closed. I wish to impress upon the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Charles Beresford) and the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) that it is their duty to look closely into this matter of food contracts, and to do all they can in support of native sources of supply. Why should it be necessary to go outside this country for a supply? Take the case of mess pork. Why should the Government want to go out of Ireland for a supply of that article? It has often been said that the pig is almost indigenous to the soil of Ireland; that Ireland is the home of the pig; that the pig is the friend of the family; and that he pays the rent and the taxes. He ought also to fulfil another duty—namely, that of supplying the Navy with pork, which could easily be done if the unlimited resources of Ireland were called into existence. I wish to impress that point upon the noble Lord, and also upon right hon. Gentlemen who sit with him on the Front Bench. I do not think we ought to be satisfied with their coming down here and giving us evasive answers on these subjects, in regard to which we are pro-
  1646
  bably better posted than themselves. All that we desire is to receive plain and straightforward answers; but I am afraid that will never be the case until Ministers go back to their Departments and the roughly investigate their organization to the bottom. There is also another matter connected with this Vote upon which I ask for information. There is a Superintending Civil Engineer at £500 a-year, with a special allowance of £100 a-year until the completion of the works now going on at Haulbowline. I should very much like to know when the works at Haulbowline are going to be completed? I was down there the other day, and I found them in a very incomplete state. A leak had been sprung at the head of the dry dock, which has resulted in the curtailment of the length of the dock by, I believe, 67 feet. A good deal of money has been spent there, although the works have been carried out, in a great measure, by convict labour. I presume that many hon. Members have seen Cork Harbour. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty has been there and inspected these Docks to my knowledge. The year before last the noble Lord visited this establishment, as well as the Victoria Docks at Passage, and he himself has seen the capabilities of the harbour. Cork Harbour is one of the finest harbours in the world. It seems to have been specially designed by nature for the security and protection of the entire Fleet of England. We boast in the City of Cork that our harbour is capable of receiving upon its bosom, and of affording protection to, the entire Fleet. The country has built at an enormous cost two of the finest seaports in the world. We have recently spent £1,000,000 on the Camden Fort, and another £1,000,000 is in course of expenditure on the Carlisle Fort. Not only is Cork Harbour a safe harbour, but it is a very beautiful harbour; it is highly picturesque, and there is good anchorage there—perhaps, after Bantry Bay, the best anchorage in the world. Then, again, it is a most safe harbour. Long before you built these forts, and even, I believe, before the harbour came into your possession, the arms of Cork indicated its security. The arms of Cork are represented by two forts with a ship sailing in between them safe and sound. The motto of the City is statio bene fida carinis. We take a special interest in

  1647
  this harbour and in seeing the docks finally completed; and if possible another Estimate should be asked for next year in order to carry out an original plan of making a second dry dock. You have spoilt, to a great extent, the one upon which you have already been at work by defective engineering, and I am very much afraid that you will not be able to remedy your bad work. We entertain the hope that at no very distant date we shall have greater interest in the maintenance and security of your Navy than we have at present. We believe that the relations of the two countries will be on such a footing as to induce us to take greater pride in your Army and Navy, and greater interest than we take now. I believe they will be in the mind of every Irishman as much his Army and Navy, and as much for his protection as for yours. We are, therefore, anxious that you should complete this work as quickly as possible, taking into account the great advantage to be derived to the Navy from the Harbour of Cork, and that you intend to rely upon it as a harbour of refuge. That that is so is proved by the fact that you have already erected there two of the strongest forts in the world; yet at the same time you are paying out, with a very niggardly hand, the taxes of the country that must necessarily be spent in order to make these works complete. You may be glad some day to have these docks, and at no very distant date it may be a matter of regret that you did not push on with the works in a manner more becoming the requirements of the case. There was a time when this Harbour of Cork, even without its forts, rendered you incalculable service. I presume that the reputation of Admiral Drake is unsullied, and yet that famous Commander was very glad to take refuge in Cork Harbour; and we point out with pride a spot in a little river which flows into the harbour, almost at its mouth, and which we call "Drake's Pool," where Drake lay concealed. It is round a corner in the rear of the Camden Fort, and Admiral Drake sailed round that corner into this little creek with his Fleet, and there remained safe and sound while the Spaniards explored every part of the harbour, and failed to find him. Yet, with all these natural advantages, the Admiralty and the Government of England, with their usual niggardliness where the ex-
  1648
  penditure of money in Ireland is concerned, have been carrying on this work for many years by convict labour; and now that the convicts have been dispersed they will not hasten the completion of the works. And why? I presume it is owing to their fear that they may have to erect stores and supply them with engines and machinery. Of course, as soon as the docks are completed it will be impossible to allow them to remain idle, and the Government will be obliged to get a portion of the naval construction and repairs done in Cork Harbour. I cannot help thinking that the starvation system hitherto adopted has been altogether unworthy of Her Majesty's Government. Why should not Ireland be treated on a footing of equality with other parts of the Kingdom in this respect? We have heard professions from successive Governments with regard to Ireland, that they are going to develop her industrial resources, to give her a measure of self-government, or something of some sort or other. They are always going to do something, but they never do anything. This has been the case in regard to the Haulbowline Docks, and I would press upon the Government the desirableness of hastening on the works, so that a portion of the Imperial expenditure may be applied to Ireland, and the reproach which has been made against successive Governments who have dealt with the subject may be removed. I have now raised two questions under this Vote in regard to the contracts, and I have endeavoured to sustain my remarks by arguments that appertain to the interests of the Public Service. I trust that we may hear no more evasive answers from the noble Lord, or whoever may occupy the noble Lord's position in future, but that the organization of the Departments will be investigated down to the very bottom, so that hereafter the contracts may be given out fairly, and for the advantage of the Public Service. I would also suggest that in the course of the autumn the members of the Board of Admiralty should visit Cork Harbour on their round of inspection, as they have done before, with a view of hastening on the works at Haulbowline, and of giving to Cork that due share of work to which it is entitled by its natural resources, and by reason of the fact that Ireland

  1649
  contributes so largely to the Imperial Exchequer.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY): I will answer the remarks of the hon. Member as far as the Victualling Department is concerned, and as far as I am able. The hon. Member spoke of evasive answers. I imagine that he refers to an answer given to a Question the other day, relative to some food supplies to the Channel Fleet.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR; I did not refer particularly to that answer.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I think that is the only answer I have given; but as the Victualling Yards come under my Department I will not give an evasive, but a straight answer upon the subject. The question of tenders for contracts is a very important question from two points of view. One is, that we must get the best article; and the other is, that the price should not be too high. The Admiralty endeavour, first of all, to consider how good the article is, or whether it is good enough; and, secondly, the question of price. The hon. Member has spoken about the contracts for pork. I may tell him that the merchants in Ireland have always been invited to tender for pork. Only a few months ago contracts were put out for Deptford and Haulbowline, and the reason why an Irish firm was accepted as contractor for Haulbowline was that the price was the lowest price tendered and the pork was good; but in regard to Deptford the Irish firm asked 17 s. 6d. more per tierce of 200 lbs. than a Danish firm, and, therefore, the tender of the Danish firm was taken. I may say with regard to this question of contracts that when they come before the Admiralty and are discussed there is a large amount of inquiry as to whether, in the interests of the Public Service, foreign firms ought to be accepted against English firms. It is the wish of the Admiralty always to accept an English firm and home produce in preference to a foreign firm, providing the article is of the same quality and the price is fair. In one of the Minutes recently passed in connection with the Contract Department it is proposed that in future, whenever we take a contract from a foreign firm, which is also tendered for by a home
  1650
  firm, the reason why the foreign firm has been accepted in preference to the home firm shall always be placed on paper. I cannot answer the question asked by the hon. Member in reference to the works at Haulbowline, because they will come under another Vote.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: One word in explanation. The prices tendered for by the Danish firm in the instance referred to by the noble and gallant Lord for mess pork ranged from 50 s. to 56 s., while the tenders of the Irish firm were from 52 s. to 72 s.; so that the difference between some of the prices was not very considerable. These are the market prices—the highest quotations of the market.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: The hon. Member may be correct in saying that they were the prices in the trade; but they were not the prices in the tender offered to the Admiralty.
  ADMIRAL SIR JOHN COMMERELL: I would ask the Admiralty to take into consideration the desirability of issuing cocoa or other rations to men who have to get up early in the morning. When men have to get up at 4 o'clock in the morning in tropical climates it is necessary that they should not be left without food; and if rations were issued earlier I believe there would be greater advantage so far as the vitality of the men is concerned, and there would not be such a severe strain upon the Medical Establishment owing to the number of invalids thrown upon their hands.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is out of Order in discussing the rations of the men. This is the Victualling Yards Vote, and not a Vote for victuals, which is contained in another Vote.
  MR. P. MCDONALD: I am much pleased to have heard the explanation given by the noble and gallant Lord to my hon. Friend the Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor). The subject is one to which I drew attention last Session. I refer to the Return under the head of contracts with foreigners; and on the face of that Return I find, somewhat to my surprise, that under the head of salt pork and preserved butter—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The observation which I have already made to the hon.

  1651
  and gallant Admiral applies also to the question which the hon. Member for Sligo proposes to discuss. It comes under a different Vote altogether, this being a Vote for the Victualling Yards.
  MR. P. McDONALD: Then I will raise the question again on Report.
  DR. TANNER: In respect of the Vote we are now asked to pass, there is one portion of it which I should like to bring under the notice of the Government—namely, the works at the Haulbowline Victualling Yard, I believe they have already been brought under the attention of the present and of the late Government and that they have also engaged the attention of many other successive Governments. Indeed, Haulbowline has been a sort of stumbling block to English Governments as they have succeeded each other. It has also been expected that something was going to be done to hasten on the works at Haulbowline, and by making Haulbowline complete to convert Queen'stown Harbour into what it is really intended to be by nature.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Vote for the works at Haulbowline is Vote 11, and his observations must be confined to the Victualling Yard only.
  DR. TANNER: It is in connection with the Victualling Yard that I am about to speak. I am going to move that the Vote be reduced by the amount of the salary of the Superintending Civil Engineer—namely, £500, and the special allowance to him of £100, which is to cease on the completion of the works. If the Committee will allow me to say so, it is palpable, even to the most superficial observer, that this special allowance to this gentleman makes it to his interest to delay the completion of the works. I wish the Committee to consider how the works are being proceeded with, and if the Engineer is not superintending them properly then this Vote ought to be disallowed; and I shall certainly take a division if I receive no satisfactory assurance that the First Lord of the Admiralty and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench will take the subject into their serious consideration. I see from the Votes for Victualling Yards that the total sum for the Haulbowline Yard is £3,644,
  1652
  whereas the amount spent at Plymouth is £12,600; at Gosport, £13,595; and at Deptford, £32,632. Now, I think it will be readily seen that Ireland has not been properly treated in this matter. Of this large sum of money more than £58,000 is being spent in connection with Victualling Yards at home in England, while only the miserable sum of £3,644 is spent at Haulbowline. I think that is neither fair nor just. Haulbowline is an Island in Cork Harbour, and Cork Harbour was certainly intended by nature to be, as its motto—statio bene fida carinis—implies, capable of taking in all Her Majesty's Fleet, and therefore the establishment ought to be much better looked after. Some mention has been made of the supply of butter and butterine in connection with the Department represented by the noble and gallant Lord. I think we are justified in connecting the name of butter with the Admiralty procedure generally in connection with this establishment at Haulbowline. In the South of Ireland there is a saying that not unfrequently the English Government, in order to promote their own ends, are accustomed to treat the Irish Members in this way. First of all, "to butter them up in order the better to slither them down." On the part of my hon. Friends who sit on this side of the House I may say that we decline to be "slithered down," and we hope the noble and gallant Lord and the First Lord will take the matter into their serious consideration with the view of remedying the evils of which we complain. I must also say that all the advantages which Queenstown Harbour possesses as a Victualling Yard have not had due attention paid to them. In the first place, the harbour is capacious enough to take in the whole of the English Fleet, and possibly another Fleet as well. The hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) has told the Committee how Admiral Drake once sailed in there and found refuge when running away from the Spanish Fleet. Of course, at that time the harbour was not so well defended as it is now. The shelter afforded by Queenstown Harbour is second to that of no other harbour in the world. Furthermore, it is one of the most westerly harbours in Europe, and that also enhances its importance considerably. Added to that the depth of water in

  1653
  Queenstown Harbour is second to that of no other harbour in Europe. Respecting the item in the Vote of £500 to the Superintending Civil Engineer with a special allowance of £100 to cease on the completion of the works, I have to say that, notwithstanding the answer given to a Question recently addressed to the Treasury Bench, the dry dock at Haulbowline, which this gentleman has had under his superintendence, has sprung a leak. The leak has been patched up to a certain extent; but it has not been effectually cured or stopped, and the consequence is that the works there have been materially delayed. Again, complaints have been made of the river entrance to the Dock which this gentleman has to superintend. The shipwrights have complained from time to time that the works are not being proceeded with as they ought to be, and that an insufficient number of men are employed. My attention has also been called to the fact that the men employed there are being discharged day by day. It appears to me that the Government have been carrying out in connection with the works at Haulbowline a policy of procrastination, and I think a policy of procrastination ought to be the roughly condemned. Any attempt to make a scape-goat of this gentleman would be highly culpable on the part of the Government; but, unfortunately, the only person we can deal with happens to be the Engineer, and certainly strong complaints have been made as to the way in which he has done his work. There is a further point in regard to this Dock. I understand that the engine-house which has been erected has been suffered to get altogether out of repair. Taking the work which has been done there as a whole, I think it cannot be condemned too strongly; and now that I see upon the Treasury Bench a noble and gallant Lord whose name has been handed down to fame in connection with the Royal Navy, and I know further that that noble and gallant Lord happens to be an Irishman, I entertain the strongest hope that in Ireland we may in future find greater attention paid to the construction of reproductive works. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the amount of £500—the salary of the Superintending Civil Engineer, together with the item of £100 as an allowance.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £69,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of the Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887."—(Dr. Tanner.)
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I cheerfully support my hon. Friend in the Motion he has made, because it appears to me that the whole policy of the Government in regard to Haulbowline, and in respect of this particular officer, is a mischievous one. It appears that this gentleman has been employed in superintending the construction of these works since 1855—going on now for 21 years, and the works themselves do not appear to be much nearer completion than they were within 12 months of the commencement. Why is this? It is because you put a premium on delay. As soon as the works are completed, this gentleman's salary, and £100 besides his pay, will come to an end; and he is, therefore, interested in making as little advance with the works as possible. His chief interest is merely to make a show of doing something, but to employ as small a number of men under him as will secure him from official censure. The result of this system of paying a man for delay is that you have kept at Haulbowline a number of men—whose wages are also given in this Vote—evidently so ridiculously small as to indicate the intention of the Government that nothing effective shall be done. On the same page as this officer's salary appears there is a charge for the wages of 10 men on the establishment, and eight hired artificers and labourers. Is it not evidently a mere farce to have 10 established men and eight hired labourers to complete these enormous works that were commenced in 1855? If we compare the policy of the Government with regard to other Victualling Yards in the same Vote the disparity appears very striking. In the first of these Yards—namely, Deptford, you have no less than 375 men engaged, 194 being on the establishment, and 181 being hired artificers and labourers, and there you have no such works to carry out. There can be no pretence that you have at Deptford works at all similar to those supposed to be making progress under this Superintending Civil Engineer at Haulbowline. Then at the

  1655
  Royal Clarence Yard at Gosport you have 75 men on the establishment, and 41 hired artificers and labourers; making 116 altogether. There, also, you have no such works as those which are in progress at Haulbowline, yet the number of men employed, both on the establishment and hired, is immensely greater than at the Victualling Yard at Haulbowline. Then, again, if you go to the third of the Victualling Yards of Great Britain—the Royal William Yard, at Plymouth—you will find that 65 workmen are employed on the establishment, with hired artificers and labourers to the number of 36—making 101 altogether. Why is this? It is because this is really a Yard which is kept in proper working order by the Government; and, therefore, more than 100 men are employed constantly, although no works are in progress at all similar to those which the Superintending Engineer of Haulbowline is supposed to be pushing forward. The whole policy of appointing officers with an amount of pay that is to terminate on the completion of certain work is, of course, calculated to defeat the object the Government pretend to have in view. It is, however, all of a piece with the general system of the treatment of Ireland by the Admiralty. If hon. Members will look through the whole of the Estimates, it will be found that just as in this Vote the policy of the Government is to spend all the money necessary to keep up the naval resources of this country, or upon places abroad, they starve Ireland as much as possible, making only the ridiculous pretence of giving her something like a share in the distribution of public money in connection with this institution at Haulbowline. Now, Sir, the administration of this Vote is strikingly unfair to Ireland. You have no Dockyard at all, and only this one Victualling Yard; whereas on the South Coast of England you have no less than three. There are along the coast of Ireland places eminently fit for Victualling Yards, or institutions of that kind, where, at present, there is nothing of the sort. I may instance the Port of Galway. That is a place upon which the Admiralty ought to spend a large sum of money under the head of this Vote. It is a railway terminus, with a magnificent bay affording refuge from the storms of the At-
  1656
  lantic. It is in the extreme west of the coast-line of the Kingdom, and in the centre of an agricultural district from which stores could be readily drawn if any institution of this kind were established for the purpose. In order to protest against the unfair treatment which Ireland has received, not only under this head, but generally in regard to Admiralty administration. I shall certainly support my hon. Friend in the reduction of the Vote which he has moved.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY): I wish to explain that the artificers and labourers included in the Vote for the Victualling Department at Haulbowline are not employed in the construction of the Dockyard works.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: They are put down for Haulbowline in the same way that, they are put down for the Other Victualling Yards. The only complaint I make is that you have a certain number of men put down for Haulbowline who are evidently inadequate to do anything like effective work; whereas in the English Victualling Yards you have hundreds of men at your service.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I wish to explain that the salary of the Superintending Civil Engineer for Haulbowline ought to have been charged in Vote 11, and that it only appears here owing to some misconception. This Vote has reference simply to the maintenance of the Victualling Yard at Haulbowline, and has nothing to do with the construction of the Dockyard works. The Engineer, however, has to look after the buildings in the Victualling Yard as well as in the Dockyard, and the artificers and labourers included in the Vote are simply those who perform ordinary duties connected with the Victualling Yard. They have no connection whatever with the engineering works going on in the Haulbowline Dockyard. The hon. Gentleman has objected to the sum of money spent in the Haulbowline Victualling Yard as compared with the expenditure in the Yards upon the South Coast of England. I must point out to him that although it is necessary, and always will be from the exigencies of the Naval Service, that the bulk of

  1657
  the money in reference to the Victualling Yards should be spent in England. Ireland is better off than Scotland, because Scotland does not possess a Victualling Yard at all. In distributing the Vote regard must be had to the capacity of the works, and in each case we have to ask for the precise sum which is necessary to keep up the establishment. It is hoped that when this Yard is completed at Haulbowline there will be further establishments attached to it. I do not see how it is expected to hasten the completion of the works by rejecting the salary of the officer in charge of them.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: May I be allowed to illustrate by another fact the niggardly system which the Admiralty applies to Ireland? Under this Vote will be found a number of charges in connection with all the English Victualling Yards, on account of the wages of the Police Force. At Deptford there is a sum of £2,842 a-year taken on account of the Police; at Gosport £1,600; and at Plymouth £1,300 or £1,400. That is to say that the wages of the police employed in the English Victualling Yards is defrayed out of the Navy Estimates. But although the wages of the police employed in the Haulbowline Yard used to be defrayed out of the Navy Estimates, it appears to have suddenly occurred to the Admiralty some 18 months or two years ago that it would be a very good thing to economize in this Vote at the expense of Ireland; and they now insist on throwing upon Ireland the Vote annually submitted for the Constabulary that previously used to be borne by the Navy Estimates. Whenever the Government can prevent any expenditure upon naval resources in Ireland they invariably do it; and they actually insist on the expense in connection with the police at Haulbowline being no longer defrayed out of this Vote, but out of the Irish Constabulary Vote. Then we are told in Committee of Supply, when we complain of the excessive character of the Constabulary Vote, that it is kept so large because of the condition of Ireland, although there is a considerable portion of the Vote for the Constabulary which ought to be paid out of the Navy Estimates, but which is no longer met by it. The police, in that respect in
  1658
  Ireland, are not treated in the same way as the police in this country. I submit that that is an illustration of the stingy manner in which the whole of the Admiralty work has for years been systematically treated in Ireland, and on that ground I shall vote with my hon. Friend.
  MR. DEASY: I wish to ask one question in reference to the works at Haulbowline. In an answer given to a Question which was put to the Admiralty we were informed that the works at Haulbowline would be completed in 1888 or 1889. No doubt that is perfectly correct; but there will not be a single workshop erected by 1888. As far as I can make out not 1s. has been provided by the Government for the erection of works in connection with the Dock, or for putting up the machinery necessary for the working of the Dock when it is established. All the expenditure, so far incurred, has been applied to the harbour.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out several times that the works at Haulbowline come under another Vote. The only question raised here in reference to the works is the salary of the Superintending Civil Engineer.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not quite understand the explanation which was given to the Committee by the noble Lord the First Lord of tee Admiralty a short time ago. I am not quite sure whether he said that the items we are now asked to vote ought to be included in Vote 11, or whether be explained that there has been something included in Vote 11 which ought to appear in Vote 7.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I said that any charge in connection with Haulbowline Dockyard ought to have appeared in Vote 11. That, however, is merely a matter of account, and in this case I pointed out that there had been a mistake on the part of the Accounting Officer.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: That is to say that the items under Sub-head E. ought really to have gone into the other Vote?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes.
  MR. DEASY: As the salary of the Engineer in charge of these works is now under consideration, I

  1659
  would ask the noble Lord to give me an answer to this question—whether the Government intend to take steps to have the works complete in 1888? Unless this is done the money—£500,000 I believe—which ought to be expended in 1888 upon the Dockyard and Harbour of Haulbowline will be practically hung up for another year.
  MR. R. W. DUFF: The works at Haulbowline will require to be finished before engines and machinery and other things are provided. What I understand to be the position of the matter is this—the Engineer, who is paid £500 a-year under this Vote, has really nothing to do with superintending the Haulbowline works. While I was in Office I saw the Director of the Works several times, and I may confirm what has fallen from my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) that the works will be finished next year. It is impossible to carry out all the works that are intended to be undertaken at Haulbowline until the Docks are completed. As soon as they are completed the other works will be taken in hand.
  MR. DEASY: On the first opportunity I shall draw the attention of the Government to what I consider the serious delay which has taken place in connection with the execution of the works at Haulbowline.
  DR. TANNER: I must say that the answer I have received from the Government in reference to my Motion is not only incomplete, but most unsatisfactory. The noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) pointed out that the pay of the Engineer had got into this Victualling Yard Estimate by a mistake. Nevertheless it has got into the Estimate, and of course I can easily understand that the noble Lord is somewhat annoyed at our having been able to pick a hole in the Admiralty harness. No doubt Haulbowline is a standing proof of the incapacity, or the want of appreciation of the requirements of Ireland by the Board of Admiralty. I must say that the noble Lord has given no answer whatever to my complaint. I called attention to the fact that the Superintending Engineer has been engaged in the work for a considerable number of years, and that no steps have been taken to hasten their completion. I brought a charge of insufficiency and
  1660
  incapacity against him in dealing with this subject. I showed the noble Lord how this Dock has sprung a leak, and I certainly have received no reply from the Treasury Bench which is at all satisfactory. I was told that there was no leak in the Dock at all; but on referring to the people of Queenstown I received an intimation that the Dock is actually leaking at the present moment. Now I do not like subterfuge; but what I ask for is plain speaking and open and honest dealing. I do not understand being dealt with in this way either by the noble Lord, or any other occupant of the Treasury Bench.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I rise to Order. I wish to know if it is Parliamentary language to charge the noble Lord, or any other Member of the Treasury Bench, with having resorted to subterfuge?
  DR. TANNER: I never said so.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I did not understand the hon. Member to apply that term to the noble Lord, or I should have called him to Order.
  DR. TANNER: I did not accuse the noble Lord; but what I said was that those in charge of the work had been guilty of subterfuge, and I think I have plainly established that charge against them. When I hear from the Secretary to the Admiralty, or any other right hon. Gentleman opposite, that there is no such thing as a leak existing at the present moment in the Dock at Queens-town, and when I get an intimation from competent authorities on the spot telling me there is a leak, how am I to reconcile the discrepancy which exists between those two statements? I must believe either one side or the other. I cannot believe both, and to my mind there is something in the nature of a subterfuge on the part of the authorities in Queenstown who have supplied the noble Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary with the means of answering the Question which was put to them only the week before last. Then, again, in connection with another question which has already been before the House, how are these works to be gone on with if this leak continues; and if the leak continues is the engineer to be allowed to pursue the same course he has been following for so many years? Then, again, the noble Lord did not answer my question about the men

  1661
  employed at the works. I asserted that they were being discharged week after week and being sent about their business. At the present moment labour is cheap and easily obtainable; and if these works are to be finished in the course of two years, surely it is desirable to employ extra labour, and for the Admiralty to set about the work in earnest.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: My contention is that so long as the Superintending Civil Engineer is receiving a salary of £500 a-year, together with a special allowance of £100 a-year until the works are completed, the work itself will never be satisfactorily pushed on. The hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff), who spoke from above the Gangway on this side of the House, referred to the time at which it is calculated the works ought to be completed. I think it will be within his recollection that during his tenure of Office a sum of £1,500 was set aside for the erection of an engine room. In reply to a Question of mine the other day the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) stated that the machinery was ready, and that a space had been set aside for the erection of the engine room. I was quite aware of that; but if I remember rightly the hon. Gentleman said that the works had been ordered. Now, if the machinery is ready and a space has been set aside, and the Superintendent is on the spot, why not go on with the works? Why should they be delayed for another year or another two years, so that the Superintendent should have another additional £500 or £1,000, with an additional £100 or £200 for special allowance? What is he engaged in superintending at present? The convicts are all dispersed; the dock is dug to its proper depth; and yet this delay unfortunately continues. I think we ought to insist that the works for fitting up the Victualling Yard should go on pari passu with the works for the completion of the Dock, so that the salary of this Superintending Civil Engineer, together with the special allowance, may be withdrawn from the Estimates of next year, or, at any rate, the year after. That is the ground of our contention now, and a very good ground it is, and one which the noble Lord and the Admiralty ought to entertain. In regard to the leak I
  1662
  am able to speak from my own personal experience, because I saw it myself the other day, and yet right hon. Gentlemen are prepared to stand up in their places on the Front Bench and say that no leak exists. I saw tons of water flowing through it, and I do not wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) should use the language he did to characterize the information we received from the Front Bench in regard to matters of which we ourselves have special knowledge. I trust that the opportunity which has been given to-day for making these speeches and representations to the Committee will not arise in future. It is our earnest hope that an opportunity will not be given. You, Mr. Courtney, know from past experience that scarcely a year has passed without complaints of this kind having been brought under the notice of the Committee of Supply. If you will turn over the pages of Hansard you will see that year after year these matters have been brought forward and earnestly pressed by the Irish Members. I trust that this is the last appeal that we shall have to make to this Parliament for the purpose of insuring that these works shall be pressed forward. I hope that they will be rapidly completed, and the opportunity removed by the withdrawal from the Estimates of the salary of this officer, and his special allowance. I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should send down Sir Andrew Clarke to inspect the works. When there was a leak in the water works at Liverpool Sir Andrew Clarke went down and provided a remedy at once. I, therefore, trust that he may be sent down to Haul-bowline.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I must point out to the hon. Member that the late Inspector General of Fortifications has resigned his post. The simple question now before the Committee is whether or not we should pay the Superintending Civil Engineer his salary for supervising the works? I must say that I do not think the additional allowance of £100 a-year is any inducement to the Superintending Civil Engineer to procrastinate the execution of the work.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I quite agree with the complaints which have been made by hon. Friends, and I think

  1663
  that the noble Lord should give some definite assurance that the works at Haulbowline will be carried out. In the absence of such an assurance it will be the duty of the Irish Members to protract the discussion of the matter.
  DR. TANNER: In connection with the answer I received from the Treasury Bench the other day, although it may not exactly be pertinent to the matter under discussion, I dare say I may be allowed to mention it. I was told that the Dock at Haulbowline would be capable of receiving either first or second-class ships in the Royal Navy. I see that there are several celebrated naval authorities in the House; and I want to know whether a Dock which can only accommodate a ship of 391 feet of keel will really be adequate for the accommodation of any of our large ships—such as the Minotaur or Agincourt?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question which is clearly out of Order upon this Vote.
  DR. TANNER: I knew it was; I said so.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 140: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 16.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. DEASY: Before you put the Question, Mr. Courtney, I wish to ask the noble Lord for a further statement on two points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor). It is a matter of notoriety that this leakage really exists in the Dock at Haulbowline, and I think there is very little reliance to be placed on the Report made by the Engineers and others interested in this matter. As far as we are concerned, we are not prepared to take their word on a matter of this sort. It is very easy for the noble Lord to get up and refer to the Engineers; but we know that these men are in the habit of representing facts to suit their own purposes. Therefore, I think that at least we should have an inspection of these works, which would cost the Government very little, and would place the matter beyond doubt. I myself went over the works with the Engineer, and was really astonished at the condition of things which
  1664
  I found to exist. I may not, however, be in Order in discussing the particulars in detail; and, therefore, I shall be content with the statement I have already made to the Committee. I would also like to know from him what are the intentions of the authorities with regard to the erection of the engine house? It appears to me that the machinery to be placed in this house has been completed, and that it is lying idle, and that the works have been ordered, but that the Engineer has not taken any steps to carry out the work. As this gentleman will have to be paid for a couple of years after the completion of the work, it is clearly his interest to continue this delay, so that he may be retained in the service of the Government for a further period. This is a state of things which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see the impropriety of; and I hope he will say that the Engineer, who has little to do and who would be but slightly inconvenienced by looking after this work, will be ordered to carry out at once the intentions of the Government in respect of this small building, and get the machinery into position, so that some use may be made of it. I have to express my satisfaction at the answer of the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) in respect of tenders, and I trust that the policy indicated will be carried out to a greater extent than hitherto.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY): I can assure the hon. Member that there is every desire on the part of the Government to see that these works are proceeded with as rapidly as they can be consistently with the interests of the Public Service. There seems to be a misunderstanding as to the answer I gave the other day on the question of the leakage in Haulbowline Dock. My reply was not that there was no leakage at the present moment, but that last year a certain amount of water made its way into the basin, below the finished portion of the Dock, and that this had since been remedied. If there is now a fresh inrush of water, it will be carefully examined and remedied.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: We are still without any definite intimation of the intentions of the Admiralty with regard to the completion of the

  1665
  Docks which there is supposed to be a person superintending, and also with regard to the erection of the engine-house. In answer to a Question put the other day, of which I gave full Notice, it was stated that the machinery was ready. I asked when the commencement of the work would be ordered; but have we anything definite from the Government on the points we have laid down and which we have pressed on the noble Lord? Has anything been said in the course of the discussion that will lead us to believe that these Docks will be completed, that the machinery will be erected, or that the works and repairs will be carried out? We have heard nothing of the kind from the noble Lord. The Lords of the Admiralty, two years ago, to my knowledge, fully inspected the Docks, and pronounced them tit for the building of small vessels. The same answer will continue to be given, and perhaps, when the Docks are finished, the Admiralty will issue a contract for a water-tank ship, and there will be a great deal of trumpet-blowing over it. Is Ireland anything bettor for these visits? Was 1d. more spent in Ireland from the Imperial Exchequer because of the noble Lord's visit to the North of Ireland? Not 1d. more; and yet we contribute to the Imperial Exchequer; we contribute to the cost of erecting these Docks; we pay a portion of the Engineer's salary, and we are entitled to insist that his salary should cease when the work is completed. I ask the noble Lord to stand up and give us a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. All the Representatives of the Admiralty have stood up one after another in their places, and, with the exception of the answer given by the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) to another question, we have had no distinct answer on the points raised. It is made a standing charge against us that we are prolonging this discussion. It is no pleasure to us to do so; on the contrary, it is very disagreeable to us. Almost every hon. Member who has joined in this discussion have said that they have no desire whatever to exhaust the Forms of the House. We have no desire whatever to obstruct the Business of the House; but we shall certainly insist on our right to have a fair discussion of the points which interest us, and we certainly insist on
  1666
  our right that Her Majesty's Government shall tell us what they mean to do in these matters. Do they mean only to sit still and not answer with regard to the Establishments over which they preside? Do they mean that we should stand up year after year and occupy the time of the Committee on this question? We desire that there should be an earnest endeavour on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and on the part of the First Lord of the Admiralty, to complete these works at Haulbowline. We want you to begin, once for all, not only to construct your vessels there, but to have your vessels there, whether in time of war or peace, to equip your vessels there, and to make the place a port of call for repairs.
  THE FIRST LOED OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I do not know that I can go one step further than I have in replying to the hon. Member for South Tipperary. I have pointed out that this is not the Vote on which a discussion upon the money for the Dockyard can take place. I explained that the Engineer's and Superintendent's salary had been put under this Vote by mistake, and that it was anticipated that the work would be completed in two years, and that the desire of the Admiralty was that the work should begin as soon as possible. I do not think I can add anything to that statement. I repeat that it is our desire to utilize the Docks as fast as we can. I trust that hon. Gentlemen will now allow us to take the Vote.
  MR. O'HEA: There is one matter I would mention to the noble Lord, and that is that there should be some assurance with regard to the arrangements for the carrying out of the work being properly continued.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I can say that if, when we go over the Docks, we have reason to believe that the existing arrangements for the completion of the works are not found to be effective, other arrangements will be substituted.
  DR. TANNER: I see an item for water supplied to the Victualling Yard. I understand that to be for water supplied from Queens-town and carried over to Haulbowline. I find that the water supply of these establishments is paid for under another

  1667
  Vote—namely, that in which the money for the Docks is taken. I should like an explanation of what seems to me an extraordinary fact—namely, that this Vote is not in its proper place.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Estimates, he will see that the water supply, in other cases, is treated in the same way.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £66,000, to complete the sum for Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.
  DR. TANNER: In the debate on the Army Medical Service which took place the night before last, I said that I should reiterate on this occasion the statement I had made with reference to that branch of the Service. I stated that the Army Medical Service did not occupy the position which it ought to occupy, and I now say that the Naval Medical Service is in the same position. I do not intend to convey any disrespect for the eminent officers who concentrate in their persons a knowledge of the science which they profess, and who would shed a lustre on any Service; but, although there are many shining lights in both the Army and Navy Medical Departments, yet, as a rule, the rank and file supplied to these Departments of the Public Service have not been, in my opinion, of the order they should be—not so highly qualified, and what was the case in the past is practically the case at the present. We find that in the past the Naval Medical Service was for a long time distinctly "Boycotted" in the Medical Schools.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I rise to Order. I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is in Order in discussing, on the Vote relating to the Naval Medical Service, points which ought to have been taken on Vote 1?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am not aware that this subject comes exclusively under Vote 1.
  DR. TANNER: I was saying that in the past, and indeed, to a great extent, at the present time, the Medical Service has been and is "Boycotted" at the various Medical Schools. In the Irish Schools, and many others with which I am acquainted intimately, I am able to say that this has been the practice; and
  1668
  I say that, if you will go down the list of the gentlemen in this Department, you will find that a great number of these officers come from Ireland. Accordingly I say that the greater number of those men who come from our Medical Schools and enter the Naval and Military Medical Service are not the best qualified men—that they are not men who distinguished themselves in their College course.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have given attention to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price), and I am of opinion that he was right on the point of Order. The Vote 8 refers exclusively to certain medical establishments, to which the remarks of the hon. Member do not apply.
  DR. TANNER: I have not the slightest wish to transgress your ruling; but I point out that this Vote applies to hospitals, and I presume they are attended by medical practitioners in the Naval Medical Service. I maintain that the medical men I have referred to are not of the standing they should be. While the country maintains these men at a great expense, who have not the qualifications they ought to have, I think the subject ought to be brought under the notice of this House. Of course, Sir, if you desire it, I shall say nothing more about the education of these medical men. At the same time, I think it is a matter deserving the close attention on the part of the House and the Committee that medical men belonging to the Service should be of the best class obtainable, and that the Navy should be better served in this respect than it is at present.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be in Order in pursuing that line of argument.
  DR. TANNER: Then, Sir, I will refer to the hospitals which come under the consideration of the Committee in connection with this Vote. I find we have amongst them Haulbowline Hospital. Now, Sir, this is an extremely small hospital, and I find that the Vote in connection with it is only £1,935; whereas there is voted for Plymouth £12,160, and Haslar £16,766. We find that Haulbowline is treated in precisely the same way as the Dockyard we were speaking about just now. Hon. Members, I think, should bear in mind that

  1669
  the Admiral commanding at Queens-town is in command of the entire Irish Station; Queenstown is one of the principal ports of call also; and we find, notwithstanding, that Haulbowline is not served in the way it should be. I presume I am in Order in quoting the Medical Reports of the gentlemen who inspect the hospitals. I find that the last Report was issued in June, and here I may mention that the Medical Reports are not furnished as rapidly as they should be. It is important that we should have more Medical Reports than are now practically at the service of the House. I find that, unfortunately, we do not get in connection with the Navy the same direct Reports that are given in the case of the Army Medical Department. For instance, I find, in connection with the Army Medical Department, there are Reports actually dealing with the sanitary condition of the hospitals which come under consideration; but with regard to the hospitals in the Navy Medical Department I regret to say that this is not the case. However, in the General Report there is a great increase in the number of deaths and the amount of sickness. The people who are sick are not well treated in those hospitals, and generally speaking, we find that men are invalided there. We find, also, that there is an increase in some of the more serious forms of disease. In the last Report which I have been able to obtain I find that in comparison with a preceding year, and also with those of the last 10 years, an increase is shown in the amount of sickness and in the number of deaths. The Report says—
  "Of course, this cannot be held to imply any retrogression in the general sanitary condition of the force; it is due to exceptional causes."
  I will now call the close attention of the Committee to another branch of the subject in connection with the hospital to which I was alluding. The number of officers and men in the Fleet, I believe, is 43,000, of whom 22,950, or about 53·55 per cent, are between the ages of 25 and 35. The total number of cases of disease entered on the sick list is 49,814, which gives an average of nearly 1 1/7 per man—that is to say, one-seventh more than the entire number are on the sick list, which, comparing it with the average ratios of the last 10 years, shows a very serious state of affairs. The de-
  1670
  ductions to be drawn from these statistics are by no means satisfactory; and, as a medical man, I should certainly not be doing my duty in my place in this House if I did not call the attention of the occupants of the Treasury Bench to the state of things which exist in the Medical Department. Passing forward, I point out that there is an average loss of service, owing to disease and injury, of 18·88 days for each person treated in the hospital, being an increase of 1·44 days. Now, I maintain that this country pays for its soldiers, and that, too, very heavily, and that by the loss of the services of these men the country is suffering loss to a very large extent; and I think we may be sure that this is largely due to want of care and attention on the part of the Admiralty in dealing with this Department of the Service. I find, also, that there is an increase of 20 per cent due to diseases of the digestive system. What is the reason of this increase? We find that it is practically brought about by the treatment both in the hospital and in service. Many persons treated at Haulbowline, after they have passed through the acute stage of disease to the chronic stage, are sent to Cork. When they arrive there they enter other hospitals, and we are able to get some explanation of the treatment they received in the Royal Naval Hospitals. Well, Sir, we find that they are not properly fed in those hospitals; that in Haulbowline in particular the dietary is not what it should be; and not only that, but this remark applies to the dietary in the Navy. I sincerely hope that the Government, and particularly the noble Lord who presides over the Department, will give serious attention to this subject. There is also another point in connection with the expenditure on these hospitals to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee. There has been a distinct increase in the more serious forms of venereal disease since the non-enforcement of certain clauses of the Contagious Diseases Act. I will not go into this matter in detail; but express a hope that some steps may be taken by both branches of the Service more effectively to prevent the increase of this form of disease. There is in Cork one hospital under this Act for both purposes; but I think some more effective stops may be taken by the Naval Autho-

  1671
  rities for dealing with this matter, and I shall leave it to the noble Lord to find out the best way of doing it. I may also say that these Reports show the highest yearly ratio in connection with this special matter since the year 1866, the year in which it first became the subject of legislation. Although I intended, I do not now propose to deal with the general question. I have drawn attention to a branch of the Service which demands every care and consideration; it is one with which the whole of the Service is indissolubly bound up; it is one in connection with which the cutting down of expenditure would undoubtedly be penny wise and pound foolish. What has been said with regard to the Commissariat applies with even more extended force to the Medical Department of the Service. We generally find that when a Tory Government comes into power it spends a good deal of money. Nevertheless, I observe that the Naval Estimates of this year have been more or less cut down; and for the reason I have given I venture to urge upon the Government, and especially upon the noble Lord at the head of the Department, that they should deal with the matter of these hospitals in no grudging spirit.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY): Sir, I believe you ruled the hon. Member out of Order as to his proposal to treat of the qualifications of medical officers in the Navy. I do not intend to discuss that question; but I am bound to say that, as far as the officers and men of the Navy are concerned, we are quite satisfied with the class of medical men who come into the Service. We find them all to be a very careful and genial set of men, and, as I have said, we are quite satisfied with their treatment as medical practitioners. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the proportion of money voted for Haslar Hospital, which is the headquarters for all classes in the Navy, must necessarily be in excess of that voted for the hospital at Queenstown. In our opinion the money voted for Queenstown is sufficient for the purposes for which it is intended, although when the demands on it increase there is no doubt that a larger sum will be devoted to it. I think the hon. Gentleman is quite right in his
  1672
  remarks upon the increase of the rate of sickness. The rate of sickness has increased, and he is justified in asking why it has done so. The considerable addition to the number of men on the sick lists of the various hospitals is the result of the law which recently came into force with respect to venereal disease. When that law came into force it increased very largely the number of men in the hospital. The next point is that we have had lately extensive operations in Egypt, and this has also had an effect in increasing the number on the sick list, the climate in the neighbourhood of Suakin being very bad for men under 40 years of age. Even if the men do not get affected while they are there, they are almost sure to suffer from the climate afterwards. I have one more remark to make in reply to the hon. Gentleman; and that is, as far as comparisons between the Army and Navy in the matter of sickness are concerned, there must always be an excess in the case of the Navy, and for a very natural reason. We in the Navy are practically always on active service; it makes no difference to us whether it is a time of peace or war. The mere drill of our men, the severe work they have to go through, and the climatic influences to which they are exposed, are in themselves sufficient to show an excess of sickness as compared with the sister Service.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The noble and gallant Lord who has just sat down omitted to mention a most important point brought forward by the hon. Member for Cork County (Dr. Tanner). My hon. Friend, speaking as a medical man, said that, when persons were brought to be treated at Cork by civil practitioners, the latter came to the conclusion that the men in the naval hospitals were not dieted in a proper manner; and he went on to say that he had some reason to believe that this deficiency of dietary was not merely limited to hospitals, but was general throughout the Service. I think the Committee will agree that, if there is any foundation whatever for such an opinion as my hon. Friend has expressed with regard to the dietary in the Service, it is a very serious matter, and demands close attention on the part of Her Majesty's Government as well as the Admiralty Authorities. The noble and

  1673
  gallant Lord appears to have passed this point by as one not calling for special reference; but it appears to me to be one of more importance than any other which my hon. Friend brought forward. With reference to this Vote, I wish to point out that wherever the Admiralty can prevent the expenditure of naval resources in Ireland they do so. In the Medical Establishments in Great Britain you find a constant charge for the services of the police force employed in hospitals and elsewhere. Well, Sir, under the heads of all these hospitals in England you will find this charge for police; the Police Votes being relieved in this manner of a charge in connection with naval hospitals; but it is not so in Ireland, the Constabulary Vote having to bear the expenditure in connection with the police force in hospitals. I want to know why the Government adopt these different systems as between the two countries? Why should the Constabulary Vote bear that which in England is not brought against the Police Vote? It seems to me that the Admiralty cut down the expenditure in Ireland in order to increase their expenditure in this country. With regard to works in England, the Admiralty never hesitate to exceed the amount voted by Parliament; but you never find a Vote exceeded in the case of Ireland. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unduly with this matter; but I must say that it is a system of which it is impossible for an Irish Member to witness the application to every branch of the Naval Service, in every year, without some feelings of irritation. This subject has been brought under the attention of Her Majesty's Government year after year; the Representatives of the Admiralty come down to this House and constantly make the same statements; but nothing is ever done to remedy this inequality. I think, at any rate, if the Admiralty take such small Votes for Ireland, they should insist upon those Votes being expended, instead of half of them being returned to the Treasury, as is now the case.
  DR. TANNERThe noble and gallant Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) said that officers and men were quite satisfied with the medical attendance they received in the Service. I wish to call the attention of the noble and gallant Lord to the fact that officers
  1674
  of the Royal Navy, when stationed at Queenstown, Plymouth, or Portsmouth, are not altogether satisfied, when they are ill, with the medical officers on the Station. On the contrary, as a rule, you find that when they are ill a civil practitioner is brought in; and that, in itself, ought to convince the noble and gallant Lord that the standing of the Medical Service is not actually what he has represented it to be. There is another point which I overlooked just now. We find that heart disease, both functional and organic, is a most frequent cause of the invaliding of men in the Navy; and my supposition is that the examination is insufficient. I am told that every fully trained soldier costs the country £120. If a man enters the Service suffering from incipient heart disease, organic or inorganic, and goes through certain stages of training, the physical exercise which that training entails must in due process of time tend to increase a disease, the germs of which he had when he entered the Naval Service. The man is brought down on his weak point; and accordingly we find that, owing to heart disease, by far the greater number of men are invalided from the Navy. I maintain that this constitutes a serious indictment against the Naval Medical Service. The noble and gallant Lord is, no doubt, quite right in saying that he is satisfied with the medical officers in the Navy; but that is not, as I have shown, the case with others.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Gentleman more than once that he is out of Order in discussing the question of medical officers on this Vote.
  DR. TANNER: In that case, Sir, I will not pursue the subject further.
  ADMIRAL SIR JOHN COMMERELL: On the part of the Naval Profession, I trust, Sir, you will allow me to give my unqualified contradiction to the statement of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. NOLAN: My hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has pointed out that the duties of the police in connection with the hospitals in Ireland are discharged by the Constabulary. Now, attention has been also called to the fact that there is a great want of employment for discharged soldiers and sailors whose time is expired, and for

  1675
  others who, having served a considerable portion of their time, were waiting for discharge. I suggest, therefore, to the noble and gallant Lord that in these hospitals and similar establishments employment might be found for soldiers and sailors who have been discharged. The duties at these establishments might very well be discharged by these men instead of by outsiders.
  DR. TANNER: I addressed a question to the noble and gallant Lord, to which I trust I shall have an answer. I want the noble and gallant Lord to explain to the Committee how it is that such large numbers of men in the Navy are invalided on account of heart disease? If I cannot get an answer, I shall have no alternative but to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salaries of the medical officers.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (A LORD of the ADMIRALTY): In answer to the question of the hon. Member, as to how it is that so many men in Her Majesty's Navy appear on the sick list, I cannot give any reason, unless it is that, as I have said, the work is always going on in the Navy, which may tend to produce heart disease. But I think the hon. Gentleman is in error when he says that the boys have it when they enter the Service. It costs £300 to make a man a seaman. The boys are carefully selected, not only with respect to their character, but also with respect to their health. With regard to the question of diet, I think the hon. Gentleman is also in error. I can only say that there is no complaint as to the food supplied in the Navy. I may mention, also, that the boys, by not taking up all they are allowed by the Crown, can materially add to their savings, and therefore add to their diet as they please. With regard to the question which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Nolan) asked in reference to the employment of police at hospitals, I must say that this is not a matter within my knowledge.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3) £20,700, to complete the sum for Marine Divisions.
  (4.) £1,205,000, to complete the sum for Naval Stores for Building and Repairing the Fleet, &c.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I trust the Committee will excuse me if I intrude on their attention for a few minutes. I did not attempt to address the House on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, because I was desirous to promote the progress of Business. Allusion has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) to certain deficiencies in our shipbuilding policy, and notably in the case of the Impérieuse. I first drew attention to this matter by a Question which the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) answered. I do not wish to say more with regard to the answer of the noble Lord than that it has not been quite verified by the result. As far as my information goes, on the eve of the ship going to sea she was drawing more water than he told us at that time she was drawing.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I rise to Order, Mr. Courtney. Would it not be better if the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised this question on the second part of the Vote?
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I am dealing with "Naval Stores for Building and Repairing the Fleet;" and, therefore, I imagine I am entitled to speak on either portion of the Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be more pertinent to the second portion of the Vote, though I cannot say he would be out of Order in continuing them now.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Chairman, for not ruling me out of Order, and I ask the noble Lord to bear patiently with me. I only desire to help him and his Department, and not to impede or embarrass him; that has not been my object in a single question I have addressed to him in the House. I have but one burning desire, and that is to stand up for what I believe to be right, and to promote in every way the efficiency of our Naval Service, upon which the safety of this Empire mainly depends. I ask for the patience and forbearance of my hon. Friends, and beg them not to look upon me as a hostile critic. What I may say does not affect the noble Lord or his Board; he is not

  1677
  responsible for the shortcomings of which I complain; his Predecessors are the persons who are responsible. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members say "No, no!" but it is not difficult to prove the statement. But I do not wish to make this a Party question. I was alluding to the case of the Impérieuse, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Peed) referred. I will not say more in respect to this case than that a great scandal has been exposed, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord state that precautions will be taken to prevent a repetition of such grave scandals. A Constructor's Department of the Admiralty is, no doubt, absolutely necessary; but I think we depend too much upon that Department, and do not avail ourselves of the great ability which lies outside of it. We do not pay enough to command the best talent of the country. Naval architecture is a most difficult study, and yet we do not give to the designer of a first-class iron-clad what an architect gets for designing a church. The most intricate problems have to be solved in the designing of an iron-clad; therefore we ought to seek the best talent, and ought not to be afraid to pay for it. The Impérieuse is not the only ship of which complaint is to be made. The defects of the Phéton are notorious.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is clearly out of Order in entering on the question of the construction and designs of ships, or the organization of ships, on this Vote. This Vote refers only to naval stores, and the discussion should be confined to stores. The 2nd section of the Vote is the one upon which the question in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is interested could be more properly raised.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Then I will pass by that question, and wait until the 2nd section of the Vote is brought on. I find that £51,500 is included in this Vote for the purchase of torpedoes; and, therefore, I will ask the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) whether he can give us any information as to when the torpedo boats that have been ordered by contract are likely to be completed?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Torpedoes also come under the 2nd section of the Vote.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Then we will pass on to the remedy I was about to suggest
  1678
  for the shortcomings which I allege exist in our Admiralty administration. I maintain there is a great want of responsibility for the Admiralty shortcomings, be they connected with shipbuilding, repairs, or stores. My brother officers agree with me that there is no adequate naval responsibility under the existing system. The whole system of naval responsibility has been changed within my recollection and the recollection of everybody in this House. A very important and radical change took place in 1869. The then First Lord of the Admiralty practically got himself converted into a Minister of Marine without the sanction of Parliament, and reduced the Naval Lords to mere Heads of Departments.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now indulging in criticism of the personnel of the Admiralty, which is not proper under this Vote.
  DR. TANNER: Mr. Courtney, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking just now about torpedoes, and you called him to Order. I find that Sub-head F, under Naval Stores, relates to "electrical, torpedo, and other appliances," and that "for torpedo and other purposes" £54,800 is asked. I wonder how that is explained.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I did explain to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and he appreciated the explanation.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to make some observations with regard to the 1st section of this Vote. Perhaps it is rather to be regretted that the two sections could not be taken together, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Admiral Field) might have been able to realize his ardent wish. In regard to naval stores, I desire to ask the noble Lord if he can give the Committee any information as to the condition of the stores at the present time? Of late years there have been very great oscillations in the amount of stores in hand and available for active service from time to time. The depletion of stores at certain periods during the last two years has been very great indeed. The reduction has not been carried out with regard to one kind of stores only—has not been confined to the stores which are technically known as naval stores—but has extended to almost every kind of stores within the administration

  1679
  of Her Majesty's Board of Admiralty. The Comptroller and Auditor General has said that it is perfectly impossible for him to certify that the accounts are properly kept, or that the stocks on hand are what they are represented to be. In his last Report the Comptroller and Auditor General says—
  "From the Stock Valuation Returns it will be observed that the values of the respective stocks have in the course of the year 1884–5 diminished to the extent of £114,000 worth in the case of the victualling stores, and to the amount of £150,000 worth in the case of the clothing stores."
  It is, however, not so much to the victualling and clothing stores, which do not properly come under the present Vote, that I wish to ask the attention of the Committee, but to those stores which are more technically known as naval stores. The reduction with regard to them is also very notable. The Comptroller and Auditor General says—
  "In the case of the diminution in value of naval stores under Vote 10 to the amount of £150,775, it is to be observed that it has occurred notwithstanding a net excess of expenditure over grant of £11,000, after taking into account the sum of £87,000 voted in the Supplementary Estimates"—
  that is to say, that though the amount voted by Parliament for this particular service was not only expended, but a considerable amount of money over and above that was also disbursed, yet there was a concurrent depletion of the stores. The Comptroller and Auditor General, who is the officer appointed by this House for the express purpose of investigating the condition of the accounts of the Spending Departments in every branch of administration, admits himself utterly unable to give an account to the House of the condition of these naval stores. Sir, I think I have said enough to direct the attention of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) to the particular point in regard to which I desire to elicit, if possible, some information. I am not desirous of detaining the Committee longer than is absolutely necessary for my purpose, which is to impress upon the Committee that although the Votes are exceeded the stores are depleted. What is the condition of the naval stores at this moment? Are they in a state of depletion, or are the Government in a position to assure the Committee that in case of a sudden emer-
  1680
  gency—and we know one may arise in the East of Europe at any moment—our Naval Authorities are in a position to equip and send out a Fleet the roughly complete in all respects; and are they also able to tell us that they have a reserve from which to fill up depleted stores?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD): In the short time during which I have had an opportunity of looking into matters connected with the Admiralty the question of the depletion of stores has occupied my attention; and I am happy to be able to inform the hon. Member that although at the end of this year there will be a less amount of naval stores than there was at the commencement of the year, that depletion will, as I think I shall be able to show, be rather an advantage to the Service than otherwise. The depletion arises from the fact that a change has been made in the material used by our ships of war, our modern ships requiring very different material to that used by the ships of some years ago. The value of the stores in stock at the end of this financial year is estimated at £2,000,000. I think that affords a very large margin, and is amply sufficient to meet any emergency that may arise. In addition to that we have the country, which is, in fact, a great store-house, to draw upon in case of an emergency. I think the hon. Member will agree with me that it is undesirable to pile up stores which in time, of course, become obsolete or decayed. The diminution in the value of stores this year will amount to £250,000, and that arises not from a diminution of the stores that are at present useable, but largely from a diminution of the stores that are not in use in the Fleet—that are, in fact, useless. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that now, when any stores are ordered for a specific ship in course of construction, they are not carried into the store-house, but are taken direct to the ship. This reduces, apparently, the value of the stores in stock. The new system is a very great improvement in administration, for which we have to thank the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert), who at the time it was introduced occupied the position I have now the honour to hold. I have no doubt it will be satisfactory to the Committee to learn

  1681
  that we are arranging for the appointment of a Committee to examine into the system of contracting for the Admiralty. That Committee will, no doubt, have to take into its cognizance the question of the value and extent of stores it is desirable to have in hand.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the detailed and careful answer he has given to my question; but I should like to ask one or two supplementary questions arising out of his statement. He has told us that there will be at the end of this financial year naval stores to the value of £2,000,000; and he seems to think that is a sufficient quantity for the requirements of the country even in case of an emergency. But I must point out that the amount taken on the Estimates last year for this particular service was £1,500,000; so that, even assuming that all the stores you have in hand are brand new, you have very little more than a year's production. Is it not a fact, I will ask the hon. Gentleman, that a great many of the stores now in stock are in reality very far from being new; that a considerable amount of them are really unsaleable? With regard to the estimate of value—£2,000,000—which the hon. Member has given us, is it not a fact that if a good portion of these stores were sold, as from time to time they are, they would realize only about one-fourth, possibly even less than that, of the nominal value according to the official price list of the Admiralty? It is all very well to say that, according to our official list, we have stores valued at £2,000,000; but if you find that a large portion of them are no longer serviceable, that they are out of date, that they are deteriorated or obsolete, you have to get rid of them, and you get a very small sum for them. The official valuation of £2,000,000 would be very materially reduced. The question I ask is, whether, as a matter of fact, many of the stores represented by the valuation of £2,000,000 are not in reality stores which are, to a certain extent at any rate, obsolete, and which the Admiralty would not think of issuing to the Fleet?
  MR. FORWOOD: The figure which I gave—£2,000,000—represents the cost of the stores, and not their present value. We have special articles required by the Navy, and very probably their value in
  1682
  the market would be very much less than we attach to them. As regards the question what amount of these £2,000,000 worth are obsolete stores, I am only able at present to give a general answer. I have made inquiries in the Dockyards upon the subject; and I am assured that in recent years there has been a considerable clearing out of obsolete stores, and that the proportion of useful stores now in stock is very much larger than at any former time.
  DR. TANNER: I see that the proceeds of the sale of unserviceable stores is only £40,000 this year, whereas last year it was £45,000. That in itself shows there is a falling-off in the system of depletion of stores; that stores are not got rid of to the extent we were led to understand. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forwood) said that modern vessels do not require the class of stores with which former ships of the Royal Navy were furnished. Am I to understand that modern vessels do not require the great mass of the same articles? Under Sub-head B provision is made for—
  "Metals and metal articles, including iron, copper, and steel, armour-plates, teams, rivets, masts, &c."
  Surely, Sir, it is absurd to say that modern ships of war do not require the mass of these articles. Again, we find in one of the large items especially—"coals and patent fuel"—that there is a diminution in the charge; this year it is £231,000, while last year it was £261,000. In point of fact, there is a general falling-off in these Estimates. Under Sub-head A, "timber, masts, deals, &c," the charge for "Fleet and Coast Guard" is £159,200, as against £233,500 last year. Again, under the heading "metal and metal articles," we have also a falling-off nearly in the same proportion. In "coals and patent fuel" there is also a considerable falling-off. Again, under the next heading, "hemp, canvas, &c." there is one point to which I should like to direct the attention of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) and Her Majesty's Government. It has relation to a small item; but in connection with a very large Service like the Naval Service, taken in the aggregate, it means a very considerable expenditure in the year—the item is that for coal sacks. We find that under the heading "hemp, canvas, &c," the total

  1683
  expenditure this year is £122,000. At the present time, owing to several causes, notably owing to the depreciation of silver and to the advantages which India possesses in connection with the rate of exchange, you find that the jute trade in these countries has suffered a considerable amount of depression; and we are also aware that the people of the town of Dundee in Scotland principally live by the manufacture of jute. Now, what I have to ask is whether in this time of great distress in that part of Scotland the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) will, as far as possible, try to keep the manufacture of coal sacks in the hands of home manufacturers; whether he will strive to keep the work at home, and to give the industrious Scotch people a chance of living in this period of depression? I sincerely hope he may do so. Again, we find that there is a falling-off under Sub-head E—
  "Paint materials, oils, pitch, tar, tallow, furniture, and other miscellaneous articles."
  I am perfectly certain that modern ships require paint quite as much as any old ships did. Modern ships may be made of iron or steel; but if they are not protested by paint they will rust and decay, just as the old wooden walls of ancient and bygone days. I find that, as a rule, under all these headings, be they metals, coals, hemp, or paint, there is a general falling-off; and I should like to hear from the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), or from some other Member of Her Majesty's Government, what is the reason for this great falling-off which we notice in the Estimates?
  MR. FORWOOD: In reply to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Tanner) I have to say that the falling-off in the demands in the case of most of the articles covered by this Vote arises from the fact that very large purchases were made out of the Vote of Credit 18 months' ago. Our stores were made up out of the Vote of Credit, and there was no occasion to duplicate them at the present time. We have now metal, paint, and other articles, in sufficient quantity to meet the requirements of our modern ships.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: There is one other point in connection with this Vote I desire to raise. If I am in Order in referring to the appropriation in aid "for proceeds of sale of ships," I would like to say
  1684
  that for some years past, when ships have been condemned as no longer serviceable, the system has been to obtain an offer from a private firm. When the matter came before the Public Accounts Committee two years ago, they reported rather emphatically in favour of a system of advertising and of bonâ fide competition; but, in spite of the representations of the Public Accounts Committee, the Admiralty continued the old system, and a considerable number of ships were sold in that very year to a private firm without the least chance of competition from outsiders. The Admiralty justified their proceedings by saying that—
  "Past experience has led them to believe that bettor prices are obtained by private negotiations with this particular firm than can be obtained from anyone else, and that to advertise ships intended to be sold will, therefore, be useless."
  The Public Accounts Committee did not accept the view of the Admiralty, and they recommended that a bonâ fide competition should be secured. After all, it is a rather serious matter, because many of these naval stores and old ships are worth a good deal of money; and if you have a system by which these stores of which you really do not obtain any proper account from year to year are to be condemned by a Board practically irresponsible in the matter, and sold to some private person who maybe utterly unknown either to this House or the public, there is very great danger of many of these stores being sold at a figure much below their real value. I believe there are many contractors in the City of London and other places who would be only too glad to know, when these naval stores are to be sold, when these old ships are to be obtained, because they have markets for them in certain parts of the world, and they would be glad to have an opportunity of buying them. The principle which is violated is an important one—namely, that there shall be no disposal of the public stores without public advertisement, and free competition amongst all those who desire to compete for their purchase. The intention is that there shall be no power on the part of the Admiralty Authorities of getting rid of their stores at a small nominal price, benefiting a few men who happen to be on a favoured list, or, as it happens in this case, benefiting one particular firm.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The practice with regard to the sale of ships is to have a contract with one firm. They are the only firm who do any business in the way of purchasing old vessels. Part of the system is that there shall be a scheduled price for ships so old, and that at any time the Admiralty have the right, if they wish to do so, to advertise a ship to be sold, and to accept a tender if it is in excess of the scheduled price. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: But they do not do it.] Yes; only a few days ago. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable to extend, as far as possible, competition for the purchase of old ships; but the present system is found to work advantageously to the Public Service.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the noble Lord undertake that in future there should be advertisements in every case?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I could have that done if it is necessary. There is a good reason against it, and that is that probably we should lose by it. I will look into the matter, and if there seems to be any likelihood of this one firm getting too good a bargain I will take care public advertisements are issued.
  DR. TANNER: I understood the noble Lord to say we should probably lose by it—in what way?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I remember that on several occasions attempts were made to obtain better prices through the means of advertisements than were obtained under the contract with Messrs. Castle, and in every case the offers received from outside contractors were very much lower than the prices of Messrs. Castle.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the noble Lord consent to lay on the Table a copy of the agreement with Messrs. Castle?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I do not think that would be advisable. I have stated to the Committee the exact nature of the agreement. Messrs. Castle do not care to tender publicly. They act on scheduled prices, and in every case we have
  1686
  tested we have found their prices higher than those offered by others. I think we ought to be satisfied that it is the best possible arrangement that can be made.
  DR. TANNER: In what way are the articles mentioned under Sub-head D., notably sacks, obtained? Are they obtained by tender?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes; by tender.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £2,370,300, to complete the sum for Machinery and Ships built by Contract, &c.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I rise to continue the remarks I was not permitted to make upon the last Vote. Upwards of £2,000,000 is covered by this Vote; and I hold that so large a sum should not be voted, whatever the purpose to which it is intended to be devoted, without adequate discussion. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) told us some days ago that he did not in any way wish to stifle discussion on the Estimates; I am glad of that, and I trust the Committee will bear with me while I endeavour to draw its attention to a matter which deeply concerns the welfare of the country. I pass by the case of the Impérieuse to direct attention to the breakdown of the machinery of the Phœton. I put a Question to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) on the subject not long ago; but it is impossible, in an answer to a Question, to state all the facts, as it is equally impossible to enumerate them in a Question. The machinery of the Phœton has broken down, and many beside me contend that it has broken down because the engines are badly designed. We maintain, also, that it is impossible so to repair the engines that they can do their duty for the next 10 years as they ought to do. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) were present I am sure he would endorse my statement. For instance, the cylinders have no double bearing to save the wearing out of the lower half of the cylinders. Naval men who understand anything about machinery believe that to be a defect in principle which cannot be remedied, and that, therefore, the engines ought not to have been accepted. The

  1687
  noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) admitted in his answer to the Question I put to him the other day that due caution was not observed by those responsible for accepting the engines from the contractors. That is a very grave admission for the noble Lord to make. This ship cost a large sum of money, and we believe the engines cannot be repaired without a considerable further expenditure. We believe that when repaired she will be continually liable to break down. Everything tended to a break-down. An engineer was retired just before her commission; all the men of the engine room were drafted to other ships; and when the ship was commissioned there was only one chief engineer on her who really knew anything about her, and he had only been six months in the ship. You know the result. She broke down. A Court of Inquiry was held, and the engineer was superseded. An entirely new man to the ship was appointed chief engineer, and a break-down worse than the previous one followed. The Admiralty appear to have acted upon the principle that somebody must be punished. I want to know who is responsible for these failures? There is at present no real naval responsibility for anything that happens. The noble Lord knows to what I refer, and I beg him seriously to consider the point. I do not ask the noble Lord to give me an answer to-day. I do not press for it, and I would rather not have it. What I and my brother officers want, and what we are determined to use all our exertions to obtain, is the restoration of the Naval Lords of the Admiralty to their proper position as Colleagues of the First Lord. I ask the noble Lord to consider carefully our views on this matter, and, if he can, remove this grievance, sentimental though it may be considered by some people.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: In this Vote there is an item for the building of ships by contract. There are three very large ships at present under construction by contract—namely, the Benbow, the Sanspariel, and the Renown, all vessels of over 10,000 tons—vessels which, when complete, will cost this country £1,000,000 a-piece, or something not very far short of that amount. As I said yesterday, these vessels really are nothing more or less than floating gun carriages. They appear to be constructed with a view of carrying into action certain guns; that
  1688
  is the sole duty, so to speak, they will be called upon to perform. Now, Sir, after the discussions we have had in the Press and in this House upon our guns, it is very necessary the Lords of the Admiralty should seriously consider whether we are really justified in going on with the building of these enormous and costly gun carriages. We really do not know whether we shall ever have reliable guns to put on board of them. I have always said in this House that I was in favour of building vessels of a more moderate size. I do not want to suggest that the vessels which are now under construction should not be proceeded with; but from time to time, as these Estimates come before us, we are expected to vote sums for the commencement of vessels of the same type and size. I hope the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) will tell us that before he asks this Committee to vote money for the commencement of vessels of the same size and type he will have satisfied himself that by the time they are completed he will have such guns to put on board them as this country may rely upon. At the present moment we are in a very peculiar position. We have some of these very large vessels, but we have no guns on board them upon which we can rely; and I do ask whether it would not be better, in view of this state of things, that we should commence at once to build by contract, or in our own Dockyards, some vessels of a much more moderate size which can be used as rams and for carrying torpedoes? I must say I believe that the naval battles of the future will be fought rather with rams and torpedoes than with guns. I do not know whether it is a very orthodox thing for a gunnery officer to say; but I have long been of that opinion. I do not believe so much in these enormous guns. In the first place, we have not got them, and if we had them I do not think they will do the duty which is expected of them. I should like to know whether some of the smaller armoured belted vessels which are being built by contract—vessels of the Orlando class—will be capable of ramming. They are belted cruisers; but whether they are strong enough to ram I do not know. Every vessel that pretends to be armour-plated should be the roughly capable of inflicting a blow upon vessels of any size, and I think that this quality might very

  1689
  easily be secured. At all events, of this I am quite sure—that in any future naval action the captain of a ship who does not ram a vessel when she shows her broadside ought to be hanged. I do not wish to detain the Committee; but whilst I am on my legs I should like to ask a question upon another item included in this section of the Vote. Under Sub-head K the sum of £51,500 is asked—
  "For torpedoes purchased under special circumstances by the Admiralty, instead of obtaining them through the War Department."
  Now, can the noble Lord assure us that the money he is asking for for the purpose of torpedoes is really sufficient, and that upon the expenditure of this money we really shall have a sufficient number of torpedoes with which to arm our vessels and to keep up the stock for future occasions? I do hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us a definite answer on this point, because I am informed by those who ought to know that we have not a sufficient stock of torpedoes, or anything like a sufficient stock. And I should like to know very much whether that is not the opinion of the Naval Authorities of the Admiralty. I should also like to ask, though I know I should not be answered, whether the late First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was not asked for more money for torpedoes, but refused to grant it? At all events, I trust the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty will tell us whether the stock of torpedoes we have is amply sufficient for all our purposes.
  ADMIRAL SIR JOHN COMMERELL: It is not my wish to take up the time of the Committee; but there is one point to which I desire to call attention. There is a very strong feeling amongst contractors generally that they are not all equally or fairly treated. I do not for one moment suppose that there is anything but perfectly fair play dealt out to the contractors; but I know that everyone is not of the same opinion. I think it would be very much better that when contracts, not only for ships but for machinery, are entered into it should be understood that the lowest tender was accepted; if the lowest tender was not accepted some good cause should be given for departing from the general practice. When the names of the successful firms are published the actual sum for which the
  1690
  engines or ships have been contracted for should be given; and I think, also, that when the ships or engines are received into the Dockyards and finally accepted the exact sum expended in extras should be given. I am sure that if this were done there would be a greater feeling of satisfaction amongst the contractors, and we should get more eminent persons to tender for our work. It has always been my belief, and I imagine that of the Committee, that the more we educate the general shipbuilding and engineering establishments of the country to our requirements the more fit they will be in time of war to undertake the tremendous responsibility which will rest upon them. I am not for taking away a single man or a single iota of work from our Naval Dockyards—God knows the time may not be far distant when we may require every man we have got—but, at the same time, I think we should now in time of peace educate as much as possible our great contractors. The reason why the contractors' prices are so high is that the contractors do not know what their responsibilities may be. The Inspector sent down to one private firm may be a very different kind of man to the man sent down to another yard, and his employment may mean a loss or gain of, perhaps, £30,000 to the contractors. I myself have seen Inspectors take very different estimates of work done. One Inspector will consider it his duty to cavil at every little thing that is done. What is the consequence? Reference has to be made to the Admiralty, and half-a-dozen, or it may be half-a-hundred, men lie idle for a long time waiting for the order for them to proceed with their work. I do not believe it is the intention of the Lords of the Admiralty that such should be the case. I believe what they want is to have good work done for them, and to pay a good, honest, fair mercantile price for it. But as long as you keep the contracts for naval work in one ring so sure you may be that the contracts will not be satisfactorily executed.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I should like to know whether the Admiralty intend to try the Nordenfelt submarine torpedo boat? I certainly think the Admiralty ought to get one one or two of these boats. I do not know Mr. Nordenfelt personally; but I know he

  1691
  has been very successful in mechanics. The boat he has produced appears to be completely safe, while it is capable of doing good work. The enormous advantage of submarine boats is admitted. Mr. Nordenfelt does not propose that his boat should always be under water. It can steam 600 or 700 yards under water, or duck into the water for a short distance. The principle seems so the roughly reasonable that I trust the Admiralty will acquire one or two of the boats. It is high time the Admiralty announced some policy in respect to submarine torpedo boats; they ought either to say they will order some or they will not. I can fancy that a number of these submarine boats which are capable of ducking under water for a short time frightening a whole fleet.
  CAPTAIN PEICE: I should like to ask if it is not true that Mr. Nordenfelt's submarine boat is at the present moment at the bottom of the sea?
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I do not propose to address myself to the general question of shipbuilding—that question has been very deliberately discussed this year—but I desire to direct the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) to one or two matters of more technical interest. Now, as to the coaling of our vessels. The great importance of the coal supply of our ships has been constantly pointed out in this House; but it is not generally known, perhaps, that the coaling of our ships takes an extremely long time. The methods now in operation have been in vogue for a great many years; they ought long ago to have been improved. Part of the difficulty that is experienced in coaling is due to the smallness of the aperture through which the coal is passed. I am not at liberty to refer to the other part of the coaling operation, because that would be more properly alluded to on the Dockyards Vote; but I think the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) may well give his attention to the matter, I pass to the question of electric lighting for our ships. I do not consider that the existing system of lighting is a very dangerous one. Undoubtedly there is a certain amount of danger surrounding it; but it is not worth taking into consideration. I believe, however, I am correct in saying
  1692
  that electric lighting can be more economically carried out in ships than anywhere else, and that it is more advantageous than any other system of lighting we have had. If that is true, everyone will, of course, recognize the great convenience which such a system will be in our ships. It is certainly no less than the fact that in the winter months the quarters of the men are in constant darkness. There is just enough light to make darkness visible, and the men have to get candles and things they ought not to have to light up their mess table. I think the electric light might be advantageously introduced. Nothing is of greater importance, and nothing has given us greater trouble, than the subject of bow lights. In small ships it is extremely difficult to keep them alight in bad weather; but, seeing what has been done on board merchant vessels since the introduction of the electric light, that difficulty has completely vanished. I would ask the attention of those responsible for these matters to this question of electric lighting. As to the repairing of vessels, when they come into the Dockyards, after, perhaps, having been in bad weather, there is a great deal they require to have done to them; but I believe I am correct in saying that before any repairs can be undertaken by the Dockyard, no matter how important or necessary they may be, it is necessary that an estimate should be first prepared, submitted to the Admiralty, and sent back by them to the Dockyard. Now, that seems to me to involve a great waste of time. It does not seem necessary to me that this form should be gone through. If the repairs are necessary they should be at once undertaken at the Dockyards, and the necessary documents should be forwarded to the Admiralty afterwards. I am told by those who have to do with these matters that great waste of time arises from this cause alone. Then I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will take steps to prevent Captains appointed to vessels being allowed to have great alterations made in their vessels when they are appointed? The Committee should understand that all Her Majesty's ships, before being placed in commission are carefully examined by naval officers. Post Captains and so forth, and are taken into the

  1693
  Service as fit for duty. After they are commissioned, they pass out of the hands of the naval Captains into those of the officers who are to take charge of them, and it sometimes happens that those officers do make any alterations they may consider necessary. I am inclined to think that that practice ought to be swept away altogether. Surely those naval officers who examine the vessels prior to their going into commission, and who are in a responsible position, should be able to decide whether a ship is or is not fit to be commissioned; and when they have passed a ship as fit she ought to be maintained in the condition she was in when passed. I think a great deal of unnecessary expense is occasioned by the system at present adopted, and perhaps the First Lord will take the matter into his consideration. A gallant Admiral said just now something about the desirability of officers being appointed to vessels during the period of their instruction. I think it is advantageous in many cases that certain officers should be appointed to our ships; but we have heard some little in this House, and a great deal out of this House, about the mistake of sending officers into iron-clads without previous experience of them. It is contended that now-a-days our ships of war are of such a complicated nature that it is impossible for a person to understand a particular vessel unless he has been in it a long time. To gentlemen outside the Profession, undoubtedly our ships are complicated things; but it is a mistake to suppose that an officer brought up to the Profession would experience a difficulty in making himself the roughly acquainted with any vessel afloat in Her Majesty's Service. It is absurd to suppose that you must be an officer an exceedingly long time in a ship in order to become acquainted with it, although I know the idea is one that is shared in by persons both in and out of this House. Those are the only observations I wish to make in regard to shipbuilding.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has called my attention to certain practical points; and he has asked if it is necessary, in cases where repairs are imperatively demanded, that the Ad-
  1694
  miralty should first be informed of the matter, and that nothing should be done until their sanction has been received. Well, in my judgment, and in that of the present Board, there is more time wasted in connection with the repairs and alterations of ships than in any other matter. We think that whilst it is right that a certain latitude should be allowed to responsible officers at the Dockyards to incur expenditure it is desirable that before any expenditure, beyond a certain limit is incurred, the consent of the Admiralty should be obtained. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that no alteration should be allowed to take place in ships immediately after being placed in commission and under the direction of the officer in command. We are looking into the matter very carefully. As to coaling facilities, or rather attempts to facilitate the placing of coals on board ships, the question is one of the first to which the Admiralty will turn their attention as soon as they have completed the greater portion of the ships in progress. We are quite in accord with the hon. and gallant Member as regards the utility, if not the necessity, of introducing the electric light as much as possible on board Her Majesty's ships. Not only do they find that it makes men's lives pleasanter during the dark winter months; but, so far as I can ascertain, the electric light is far more economical than the old system of oil lamps. I now come to the important question that the lion, and gallant Member for Southampton (Sir John Commerell) dealt with, and that is the method by which Her Majesty's Government advertise for tenders, and the manner in which they conduct their contract business for the building of ships and for the construction of machinery and engines. My hon. and gallant Friend is under the impression that the Admiralty adhere to a close ring in this matter; but lean assure him that that is not the case. This question of tenders, however, is about as difficult a matter as any Department can satisfactorily deal with. You must, on the one hand, extend as far as possible the area of competition. If you publicly advertise for tenders you ought, in the majority of cases, to accept the lowest tender; but unless you can place absolute reliance upon the excellence of the work it is dangerous

  1695
  do so. If the Admiralty could do as the proprietors of the Atlantic Liners do, and deal only with a few firms, trusting them to build a certain number of ships, they would find that the reputation of the firms would be inseparably associated with those ships, the necessity of keeping up their reputation would cause the firms to supply the best work. If, however, you give a contract here and a contract there, the reputation of the builders is not so much bound up in the reputation of the vessels after they become a part of Her Majesty's Navy. We have to walk very circumspectly therefore, and the practice which has hitherto been adopted has been to place on the list for tenders all firms of established reputation, and to get these firms to compete whenever there is work to be done. In the great majority of instances the lowest tender is accepted. It is only under very exceptional circumstances, when a good report is made of the offer, that the lowest tender is not accepted. I do not see how the system can, with advantage, be altered. If the Admiralty were to take three or four of the best firms in England and confine their orders to them, I believe that the work performed would be more enduring, and that we should have better results than we have at present. But that is not a system which the House of Commons would tolerate, because it would be immediately said that the Admiralty were in league with these firms. You must increase the area of competition, and all we can do is to take every precaution and trouble that we can to see that when the tenders are accepted good and reliable work is done. Sir, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Sussex (Admiral Field) drew attention to the break-down of the engines of the Phœton, and seemed to think that the chief engineer, who was dismissed from his ship, was very harshly dealt with. But that is not the fact, because he had allowed his boilers to get into an exceedingly bad condition, and because it was the strain that was put upon the engines which was the original cause of the break-down. We are now having contract ships delivered into our hands, and we are determined that these vessels shall be fully and the roughly tested as soon as possible, so that if there is any break-down or there are any defects in them the contractor may be held liable, and the de-
  1696
  fects made good at his expense. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) raised a very important question. He said—"You are building these large ships, two of which are in your own Dockyards, and two of which are under contract; they are no more nor less than floating gun carriages; but are you sure that you have reliable guns to place on board of them?" It is no use deploring the fact that we have had failures and disappointments with reference to our guns, failures and disappointments which prevent one from speaking in an over-sanguine spirit as to the future; but I have here a list of all guns which have failed in the Navy during the last few years, and all these guns, without an exception, are marked "One" or "Two." Neither of these is the pattern of heavy gun which will shortly be put on board the Colossus and the Collingwood, and which will replace the guns of the strength of which we are not satisfied. So far as I can ascertain, so far as experts can tell us, I believe these new guns are reliable. This question is one which must be carefully examined into, and I promise it shall have our unceasing attention. But I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that unless we have confidence in our great guns we ought not to build ships on board of which to place them. I think I have now answered all the questions that have been put to me.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: No; not as to torpedoes.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The belted cruisers will have power to ram. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me if we were satisfied at the Admiralty with regard to the number of torpedoes provided in the Vote. Well, this is not the total number of torpedoes that is provided for the service of the present year. It is only for the number of torpedoes which we obtained from a certain firm. We found that there was no manufactory which could make what we required, so that last year the Admiralty came to an arrangement with an English firm who undertook to set up plant and machinery to carry out an order, and it is to pay for that order that this Vote is put down. I quite feel the great responsibility that devolves upon us in spending this enormous sum of money in seeing that it makes us a good return. I can

  1697
  assure the Committee that we will do our best to insure that in every way good and efficient work is obtained from the contractors, and that if any defects are found in their work they shall be brought to light in time in order to make the contractors make them good. As to the Nordenfelt submarine boat, we sent a very experienced officer last year to examine it. No doubt, the Nordenfelt submarine boat is the best of the kind that has yet been invented; but I dare say the hon. and gallant Gentleman who referred to it (Colonel Nolan), from his technical knowledge, is aware that the boat is not a complete and the rough success. Until it has been more perfected I do not think it would be advisable to enter upon the purchase of one or more, even though the expenditure involved should not be a very large one.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Then, I take it that this is the policy of the Admiralty—not to spend any money upon submarine boats until they are convinced that they have got a perfect one? I do not suppose we shall ever have a submarine boat that is acknowledged to be perfect until two or throe have been tried, and it therefore comes to this, that this country will not have purchased a submarine boat until some other country has adopted and completed one. These boats are about the only things which can upset guns and rams and everything else, and it seems to me a most dangerous thing for the Admiralty to shut their eyes to this latest development of naval science. You fear that if you bought one of these boats you would lose £10,000, or thereabouts, as it would not be a success; but, whatever the loss, I think you ought to obtain some experience in regard to these vessels. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) put a question as to whether these boats are not likely to go to the bottom. Well, it seems a very natural thing that a submarine boat should go down; but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that one of these boats did go to the bottom three times and drowned the greater part of its crews, but at last it blew up one of the enemy's iron-clads. Even such a total failure as that vessel proved to be was, after all, much more expensive to the enemy than to its owners.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I had not intended to make any remarks, and should not have done so had it not been for what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Captain Price). I think it is not right that the public should be led to believe that the views of the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the vast importance of the torpedo are shared by the Naval Service generally. Having just returned from a cruise with the Channel Fleet, and from witnessing the manœuvres in Milford Haven, I believe I am correct in saying that, in the opinion of the officers commanding our ships, the value of torpedoes has been greatly overrated for many reasons of a technical nature. So confident are the officers of these ships of the protection afforded by torpedo nets, that the fact of the torpedo nets being down led the umpires at Milford to decide that a torpedo could not injure a ship. Ships are generally considered as being incapable of injury from torpedoes when the torpedo nets are down. I believe there would be found a general concensus of opinion in the Service that the power of a Whitehead torpedo is greatly overrated.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I wish to draw the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) to a very important question, and one which is very serious to those people who are the victims of naval manœuvres or experimental services. I wish to point out that the experiments which took place in Bantry Bay frequently resulted in inconvenience and loss to people living on shore. The playing of the electric light on shore caused cattle to stray, to destroy crops, and to fall over the cliffs, and the torpedo practice has had a very injurious effect on the fishing in Bantry Bay. At one time there were in that bay 12 sets of seines put out; but now, owing to the damage effected by the torpedoes, there are no fish to be had. Who is to recompense the fishing population for this loss? It is said that there is great recompense to the people through the circulation of so much Government money spent by the officers and seamen on shore; but in connection with that matter I should like to point out the significant circumstance that most frequently, when the Fleets leave these

  1699
  local waters, they sail on the day before the men are paid. The men are paid at sea or in England. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether in future, when these experiments are carried out, if it can be shown that injury has been done to the property in the neighbourhood the authorities will not consider it morally incumbent upon them to recognize their responsibility and make the damage good in some way or other? I will point out how they could recompense the sea-going population. In this very bay, where these experiments are carried on, and where so much naval knowledge is acquired, it is the fact—and attention has been directed to this matter by the hon. Gentleman who sits just below me, and who has frequently put Questions to Her Majesty's Ministers on the matter—that old anchors which are believed to have belonged to the French ships which once entered the bay, still lie there, and when fishing is carried on seriously injure the nets. The commanders of Her Majesty's ships would not undertake the experimental service—although it would have been a valuable exercise to them—of endeavouring to get these anchors out of the way of the fishermen. Then there is another useful work which they might have undertaken. Near the landing place, alongside of which the steam launches from the Meet used to lie, there is an old sunken trawler which has been there for about two and a-half years. The steam launches of the ships of war used to pass this trawler, which is, of course, a great impediment to navigation. In fact, whilst the Meet was there, 25 launches a-day would pass and repass this wreck, and yet no effort was made to get it out of the way. In connection with an experimental cruise, surely it would be well to teach the sailors of Her Majesty's Navy to experiment in some useful direction. If they had taken a few of the boys out of their ships and put them to the work of clearing away this wreck, it would have been a matter of education and training to them which, in future years, might have proved of service, because, some of these days, it may be absolutely needful for them to engage in work of this kind. I think that in return for the injury done to property in the neighbourhood—injury done to the fishing industry by the explosion of torpedoes
  1700
  and submarine mines, and to farmers and owners of cattle by the electric light—some labour should be expended by the Admiralty in making slips and quays which would be useful to the seagoing population on shore. I know I am rather out of Order in entering upon these matters, but I trust they will receive the favourable consideration of the Admiralty.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I also desire to direct the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the fact that numerous complaints have been made by my constituents as to the injury done to their interests by Her Majesty's ships in Bantry Bay.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That subject has no connection with this Vote.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I thought that experimental practice was included under this Vote.
  MR. CONWAY: I would draw attention to item E—£25,000 odd. £16,600 is for electric lighting purposes. I would wish to emphasize the point referred to by the hon. Gentleman who lately addressed the Committee (Mr. E. Harrington). I do not wish to allude particularly to pecuniary loss occasioned by experiments made by ships of war, but to loss of life occasioned by those experiments. Without going to Ireland, I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Forwood) on the subject of the experiments carried on at the mouth of the Mersey, near Liverpool. The electric light intensifies the darkness outside its radius; the light with which the experiments are made is not a fixed light, but a fugitive one, and ships sailing beneath it cannot discern each other, and it is complained that serious accidents are likely to occur. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Harrington) has referred to pecuniary loss; but as there is a chance of danger to human life I think it only right to urge the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to take such precautions as will prevent the occurrence of the calamities feared.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Am I right in supposing that this Vote is in reference to the construction of vessels? If so, I wish to call attention to the claim of Irish firms for work of this kind. I am under the impression that a contract was given to the Belfast

  1701
  firm of Messrs. Harland and Wolff for the construction of some small vessel. I presume that vessel has been finished—that it has been constructed and delivered over to the Admiralty. I am curious to know whether the work of this Irish firm has turned out to the satisfaction of the Department? I also wish to make an inquiry of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) as to the particulars of his visit to Cork Harbour and the Victoria Docks at Passage, where he entered into a minute inspection of the capacity of the docks for building small vessels, and where he expressed his satisfaction at the capabilities of the place, and the excellence of the machinery he found there. I believe I am right in saying that the First Lord, and those who accompanied him, led the people in that place to believe that they might expect an order for some such vessels as those constructed by Messrs. Harland and Wolf. That intimation, if such were given, has not been carried out; and I desire to know from the First Lord what his feelings on the question are at the present moment? I have no doubt that the Belfast people have given satisfaction to the Admiralty equal to that given by the other private firms to whom has been entrusted the building of these swift and excellent vessels; and I wish to know how far the noble Lord is prepared to go in giving out contracts for similar vessels to firms in Ireland capable of turning them out satisfactorily? Work of this kind would be a great boon to Passage, where there are a number of skilled artizans unemployed, and where, according to the noble Lord's own admission, there are docks of good capacity supplied with machinery which met with his warm approval. I would point out that it would be a gracious act if he could see his way in future to giving more contracts to Ireland, whether it be in the North or South—whether it be to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, or to the Victoria Docks at Passage. Such an act on the part of the noble Lord would be accepted in a good spirit; and I have no doubt that if the noble Lord would act in that sympathetic manner he manifested on the occasion to which I refer, he would be doing that which would be as much to his own credit as to the advantage of Ireland.
  DR. TANNER: In connection with the subject which has been so ably brought before the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor), I would call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that not only are there ample opportunities afforded by the Yard at Passage for the construction of ships, but that moreover there is a point to which he might easily pay attention which comes under this very heading—"Repairs and Alteration of Ships, Machinery, and Stores." There are a great many of Her Majesty's ships which enter Cork waters which might be very easily repaired at these docks, but which are not repaired there. To my certain knowledge, even the small gunboats which could be easily docked and repaired at Passage, where there are great facilities, and where the work of repairing would be attended with a lowering of expense and a saving to the country, are sent across to one or other of the large docks on the South Coast of England. I maintain that these boats could obtain at Passage all the necessary repairing which they are now sent across the water to obtain. By the present system the country must incur unnecessary expense, for these ships must be sent to Plymouth or Devonport; and I feel sure that if the noble Lord would look into the item, and see how the work can be done, he will agree with the force of this observation. He has seen the Passage Establishment himself, and he will shortly have an opportunity of revisiting it. Last year he expressed himself as the roughly satisfied with the establishment and staff, and with the low prices—so satisfied that he gave a contract there. It was only a small contract; but knowing the establishment, and having been on the spot—knowing thus in the most certain manner what this firm is capable of doing—I sincerely hope the noble Lord will be able to increase the trade of this establishment by giving a still larger contract in the course of the ensuing year. I was rather struck by the few observations which fell from the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Admiral Mayne), who had only just come into the House, and who stated that he had only just arrived from Milford Haven. His remarks on the subject of torpedoes are remarks in which we must all have felt the deepest

  1703
  interest. I feel sorry that we did not have the result of this torpedo practice sooner, for the torpedoes for which we are asked to pay this special sum before the House will be used, or are intended to be used, in the defence of our commercial harbours, which subject was under the consideration of the Committee yesterday. If this is the case, and if torpedoes are now practically found to be useless against first or second class ships, it is nothing more nor less than a waste of money to pass the item for torpedoes. I sincerely hope the noble Lord will be able, in process of time, to lay on the Table of the House some practical results which have been obtained by these experiments. Again, dealing with the electric light, I think that, as far as we can see, everyone who does not happen to belong to the Service whose Estimates are at the present moment under consideration, has come to the conclusion that this method of illumination, as at present applied in Her Majesty's Navy, has been not altogether satisfactory. I think more attention ought to be paid to this particular subject, because we have seen that in the past the electric light has been stated to to altogether useless. If the light can be made useful at all, it would be, I should think, as a head light on ships, because anyone who has ever been to sea knows that unfortunately in foggy weather the lights displayed by Her Majesty's ships of war are not at all times visible. Owing to the fact that the system of lighting on board Her Majesty's ships is not what it should be on many occasions collisions have occurred. I feel perfectly certain that if the noble Lord and the Admiralty could take cognizance of this subject, and would really cause more attention to be paid to this electrical department, and particularly to the head lights on board ship, that they would be doing a work of material benefit, and one which, I feel sure, the country would only be too glad to endorse. As to the Nordenfelt submarine boats which were referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), there is no doubt that in the first series of experiments the boats went to the bottom. We were told by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty that because
  1704
  the boats went to the bottom no further experiments were to be tried by Her Majesty's Government. But that principle has not been adopted in the Navy hitherto. We have not ceased to build ships because those which we have constructed have gone to the bottom. Many of our largest vessels have gone down, notably Her Majesty's ship Captain, and I sincerely hope that, looking at the many failures we have experienced in connection with large items of expenditure when our large ships have again and again gone to the bottom—[Laughter]—that in small matters like the construction of experimental submarine boats we shall not be afraid of spending a little money. Hon. Gentlemen may laugh; but supposing a war breaks out to-morrow and you send a Fleet into the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, or the Levant, and supposing Russia has one of these Nordenfelt boats which she has improved and made workable, Her Majesty's Government may very uncomfortably awake to the fact that another Power has been before her. Unfortunately, in the annals of the British Navy we have usually acquired wisdom by bitter experience dearly bought—we have purchased the knowledge of the fact that we are behindhand, and have not taken sufficient advantage of the inventions of foreigners. You may take it from the beginning to the end of the book, from the first page to the last, that the annals of the British Navy are studded with records of our incapacity in the scientific branch of the Service. I hope, however, that in this matter the House will take time by the forelock and will not be caught napping again.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I propose to move the reduction of the Vote by £23,000, unless I get an undertaking from the First Lord of the Admiralty that where damage shall be done in future by Her Majesty's ships in Bantry Bay in the course of their experiments—and I refer to damage both in regard to the killing of fish, the trampling down of crops on the farms adjacent to the bay, and knocking down the fences—compensation will be paid to the poor people whose fish or crops are destroyed, or whose fences are knocked down. I also ask for an undertaking that the system of "Boycotting" which has

  1705
  been practised by Her Majesty's ships in Irish ports will not be allowed to continue. It is believed that the sailors are paid in English ports—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The subject the hon. Member is now referring to, I must point out, is not quite pertinent to the Vote under discussion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that where damage is done it will be made good. I must point out, however, that the explosion of torpedoes or submarine mines, though they may destroy fish for a time, will not absolutely clear them out of the place for ever. The fish will return. Under any circumstances, I think the officers in command of ships should be instructed not to interfere with the rights of property.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that compensation will be paid?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: As to the appeal made to me on behalf of the Shipbuilding Company at Passage, it is quite true that I paid a visit to the establishment last year; but I cannot have expressed myself there as I thought I had if I left behind me the impression which has been put before the Committee. The claims of this place, however, will be fairly considered in conjunction with those of other private Dockyards.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £8,400, to complete the sum for Martial Law, &c.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: How about the Vote for Medical Stores? Is it passed over?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is postponed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Till when?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Tomorrow.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £134,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887."
  MR. R. W. DUFF: On this Vote I believe I shall be in Order in asking if the noble Lord has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Committee on the Education of Naval Executive Officers? It is a matter of considerable importance to the Service; and I know that in the opinion of the late First Lord of the Admiralty it would strengthen the hands of the Admiralty to have this information laid before the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I should like the hon. Gentleman to put that Question to me in a few days. I should like to have time to consider what the precedents are. It is a matter that I think ought to be made public, and I shall consider it with the view, if possible, of laying the Report on the Table.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: There is an item with regard to depreciation of pay on the India and China Station that I should like to have an explanation of.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: If it is allowable to regret a diminution of expenditure in any case, I think, perhaps, it might be allowed to regret the diminution of expenditure in aid of religious and charitable institutions. I notice that this year there is a decrease to the extent of £250 in this item. The whole amount which the Admiralty pays towards these institutions is very small indeed. I do not wish to argue that it should be largely increased; but there are some of these institutions which I think are very well worth the consideration of the Admiralty—notably the Female Orphan Asylum at Devonport. That is a very old and a very useful Institution, well known throughout the country as having done good work for many years. At that Institution are supported a large number of female orphans of soldiers and sailors. It is the case that a certain amount was granted in aid of that establishment out of the Greenwich Hospital Fund; but, after all, the money that is taken from the Greenwich Hospital Fund is money that is really taken out of the pockets of the men, and is not a sum granted from the Imperial Exchequer. I do not for a moment say that it is wrong to appropriate a certain amount of money from the

  1707
  Greenwich Hospital Fund for that purpose; I think it is quite right, but I think this money should be supplemented to a greater extent than it is at present out of the Imperial Fund. The establishment at Devonport is, as I say, one that is well known and understood, and everyone will allow that it is a most useful establishment. With regard to the item for medals I should like to know from the authorities whether the medals have been given out to the Marines for their services in Egypt? They were not given out a few months ago, and I should like to know whether they have been given out since? As to Sub-head W, I should have liked to make some remarks upon it, but I find the time is running very short. I would remind hon. Gentlemen that I have only alluded incidentally to the subject of that Vote. I think it is a great pity that our Naval Service is so badly represented on the Continent. I believe there is only one naval officer to do all the work there—to get up all the information as to what is going on. It is perfectly impossible that one man can make himself the roughly acquainted with what is going on in all the Naval Dockyards of the Continent. I hope that attention will be paid to this matter, and that, if possible, the Intelligence Department of the Navy will be increased.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I perfectly agree that if our Navy intelligence is insufficient, that immediate steps ought to be taken to increase it; but we have confidence in the gallant captain who is now discharging that duty. Still, he has a large amount of work to do, and we have instructed him that the first and most important of his duties is that of the extension of the Department so as to provide us with the intelligence as to the condition of Foreign Navies and Foreign Services. With regard to charitable institutions, the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Price) has drawn attention to an institution which is somewhere in Devonshire. Well, there are similar institutions elsewhere, in the neighbourhood of our Dockyard towns, and, of course, we have to share between them whatever sum we have to give. I can, however, assure him that the subject will receive every attention. The hon. and gallant Member for the East Riding
  1708
  of Yorkshire (Commander Bethell) asked me for an explanation with regard to a loss made on the exchange in India and China. It makes up the balance of payments which the accountants are compelled to make, and also losses on coins which come to their hands, and which they have to hand over to the officers and men at a certain value. It is not a question of rate of exchange; but we are going to look into it, and put the thing on a more satisfactory footing, if we can.
  MR. JORDAN: I wish to put a Question to the noble Lord with regard to allowances to ministers of religion. Yesterday I put a Question on this subject on the Army Estimates. Ministers of three denominations are provided for—Catholic, Protestant, and Presbyterian; but it seems to me that there is a tendency, officially, to ignore all other minor sects. It may be satisfactory to the official denominations that the minor sects should be ignored; but there is no satisfaction to be derived from this by those who, like myself, belong to these minor sects. In connection with this item I would ask the noble Lord whether there are any Methodist seamen on shore, at home, or abroad; and, if there are, whether they receive the religious ministrations of clergymen of their own denomination? If they do, I should like to know is it at the cost of the State, and whether the amount is included in the present Vote? I would also ask the noble Lord whether, in the future, he will give public recognition to Methodist and other sects that receive public money? I think that if the ministers of these other sects do not receive public money for their ministrations amongst the seamen and troops they ought to do so, and that where public money is paid these clergymen should receive public recognition by name of denomination in Estimates and public records.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The number of men in the Service who belong to the denominations referred to by the hon. Member is about 7 per cent, and an arrangement is made in regard to those men, whereby a capitation grant is made to the clergymen according to the number who attend their chapels. That arrangement, so far, has worked very well. These clergymen have no official position in the Navy, but naval

  1709
  officers always recognize them in their ministrations amongst the men.
  MR. JORDAN: There are Methodist chaplains in Dublin, the Curragh, and elsewhere in Ireland, and my observations referred to the future official recognition of the clergymen attached to these naval and military stations.
  MR. GILHOOLY: It will be remembered that a gunboat called the Seahorse ran ashore some time ago whilst engaged in conveying soldiers and a Sheriff to Tory Island for the purpose of carrying out evictions. An undertaking was given by a Member of Her Majesty's late Government that no gunboats would be used for the purpose of carrying troops and Sheriffs to the Isle of Skye. I want to impress on the Committee that it is cruel in the extreme to allow the use of gunboats for these expeditions in Ireland when it is not permitted in Scotland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That subject has nothing whatever to do with the Vote.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I should like to know why £10,000 is included in the account for the construction of docks in Hong Kong, and why it is not included in the ordinary Estimates?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is a subsidy from the Government.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: There is a sub-head showing losses to the country by shipwreck, and I think that on this a discussion has been very fairly raised by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Gilhooly). The Seahorse was lost—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is entering into a discussion that is entirely wide of the Vote.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask whether the gunboat which started from Westport the other day on a similar errand will, if she should get wrecked whilst on that dangerous cruise, and in the discharge of such reprehensible duty, be brought formally under the notice of this House—
  It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [7th September] reported.
  First Resolution postponed.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.
  Postponed Resolution to be considered To-morrow.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.