Sitting of 7 March 1889

COMMONS.
Ordered:—"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Report made by the

1115
Land Commissioners of England, certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the enclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order.
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, in respect of each such Provisional Order, to inquire and Report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament; and, if so, whether with or without modification, and, in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Land Commissioners.
"That the Committee do consist of Twelve Members, Seven to be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection.
"That Sir Walter Barttelot, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Elton, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Story-Maskelyne, Mr. Richard Power, and Mr. Wroughton be Members of the said Committee.
"Power to send for persons, papers, and records.
"Five to be the quorum."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH LACE.
  MR. JUSTIN M'OARTHY MR. JUSTIN M'OARTHY (Londonderry) asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether repeated representations have lately been made by Convent Lace Schools and Schools of Art in Ireland as to the advantages of a regular continuance of Mr. Alan Cole's lectures and instructions upon designs for Irish lace; whether Mr. Cole has been, or will be, directed to renew his visits and lectures to those schools and convents in March and October of the present year; and, whether similar appeals have been made by convents and schools of art in Ireland for the renewal of Mrs. Power Lalor's inspection of the materials and methods of making the laces in Ireland?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I understand that some representations of the character referred to in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question have been received by the Irish Government, and I have seen testimony from other quarters as to the good work that has been effected by Mr. Alan Cole's visits. Some provision has been made for continuing these visits, but I am not aware that any dates have been fixed for them. The convenience of the Science and Art Department, to which Mr. Cole is attached, will have to be
  1116
  considered as well as the question of expense. So far as I know, no applications have been made by convents and schools of art for the renewal of Mrs. Power Lalor's inspection.

  LAND TAX REVENUE.
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is usual for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to handover the balance, so long as it does not exceed £5, over and above She amount due to the Revenue for Land Tax to the collector, as a perquisite, in addition to the 3d. in the pound he is paid for collecting this tax; and, whether he will take steps in the future that the balance should be carried forward to meet future charges?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The power to make the allowance referred to is in the hands of the Land Tax Commissioners. I am precluded from making any alteration with regard to this allowance, as it is made by Statute (section 114 of 43 and 44 Vic., c. 17).
  COLONEL DAWNAY: I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity I will call the attention of the House to this subject.

  DERRY GAOL.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Rev. Daniel Stephens, an untried prisoner detained on remand in Derry Gaol, asked to have his dinner supplied from Roddy's Hotel on his arrival after his long journey from Falcarragh to Derry; whether the order was carried out by the hotel keeper, and the dinner duly received by a warder in the prison; whether the dinner was shortly afterwards returned by order of the Governor, or other superior official acting for him; and, whether he can state the grounds on which this refusal was based?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The General Prisons Board report that it is the case that the Governor of Londonderry Prison refused to allow the dinner sent from the hotel named to be supplied on the occasion in question.

  1117
  The further supply of provisions from this hotel had been prohibited by the Visiting Committee in August last, in the case of the Rev. James McFadden, in consequence of there having been collusion between him and those sent with his meals from the hotel, whereby he was enabled to evade the Prison Rules in sending out surreptitiously communications from the Prison. The Governor in the exercise of his discretion extended the prohibition to this case.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government approve of the action of the Governor, and whether they will give the hotel keeper any opportunity of rebutting the charge made against him, which I understand that the hotel keeper indignantly denies? I would also like to know what course will be pursued in similar cases hereafter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt that the Governor will exercise the discretion given to him.
  MR. T. M. HEALYintimated that he would call attention to the matter upon the Estimates.

  THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. HUBBARDasked the Postmaster General if his attention has been drawn to the following facts: that a man, 21 years old next birthday, can assure £10 at his death in the Post Office Savings Bank, by an annual premium of 4s. 2d., that the Prudential Assurance Company only offer to a man, 21 years old next birthday, £8 9s. at death, in return for a weekly premium of 1d.; that, despite the apparent advantage to insurers at this age, and at any age, of an insurance in the Post Office, only 6,859 contracts for £447,300, payable at death, "entered into by Her Majesty's Postmaster General," were in existence on December 31st, 1887, while the Prudential Assurance Company (Industrial Branch) acknowledged 6,904,000 policies for £64,200,000, as existing on December 31st, 1886; whether he will consider the best means of helping the saving public to avail themselves more of the larger benefits offered by Her Majesty's Government; and, whether, to assist them, he would re-issue a Departmental handbook on the lines of "The Post Office Aids to
  1118
  Thrift," published by Mr. Fawcett in 1881?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): Without making myself responsible for the accuracy of all the figures quoted by my hon. Friend, I would point out that the Post Office has brought its system of insurance and annuity into almost every village in the Kingdom, and has spared no means at its disposal of making known the advantages which it offers; and it rests with the public to avail itself of them. I can only hope that the attention which the hon. Member is now calling to the matter will promote the object which he has in view—an object with which I entirely sympathize. The Post Office handbook, incorporating the essential points contained in Mr. Fawcett's edition, entitled, "The Post Office Aids to Thrift," is published every six months, and may he obtained at any post office. I shall, however, be glad to consult the Treasury as to the practicability of circulating further information on this most important subject.

  THE EDLINGHAM BURGLARY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to make any further inquiry into the Edlingham burglary cage; whether the prosecutors in the late trial of the policemen were instructed to produce all the evidence which could throw any light on the case; and, if so, why some important witnesses were not examined, especially the Reverend Mr. Perry and Mr. Percy, the principal actors in the proceedings by which the case was re-opened, and who were present ready and willing to give evidence; whether the money to give compensation to Murphy and Brannagan has been voted, or when, or in what shape, Parliament will be asked to vote it; and, whether, in case there is to be no further inquiry, he will, before asking for the money, produce to the House a Copy of the proceedings on the inquiry by an agent of his own, or other evidence, by which he was satisfied of the innocence of the two men, and of their right to compensation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have

  1119
  carefully considered this intricate and difficult case, and I am unable to see that any further inquiry can be made which will throw more light upon it, or elicit any new facts. The Director of Public Prosecutions was requested to produce at the late trial all the evidence that could be given. It was necessarily left to the counsel conducting the prosecution what particular witnesses should be called. Mr. Perry and Mr. Percy were not called, because the statements made to them by Edgell or Richardson were not evidence against the constables then on trial; but they were subpoenaed by the prosecution in order to insure their attendance in case the defendants wished to examine them. Mr. Perry was called as a witness before the magistrate in the case against Edgell and Richardson, and there was then an opportunity of cross-examining him. The compensation lodged with trustees for Braunagan and Murphy has been paid from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and Parliament will be asked to vote it in the Supplementary Estimate for the repayment of advances from that fund. I do not propose to produce to the House a copy of the proceedings and report of the Treasury Solicitor. That is a document containing a great deal of confidential matter; and it is impossible for the House to form a judicial opinion upon a mass of evidence of an intricate character. But I may say that I did not act on that report, and took no step for the pardon of Brannagan and Murphy, or for compensating them, until Edgell and Richardson had not only confessed their guilt after warning that they would be punished, but had been sentenced to five years' penal servitude,
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I want to know whether the counsel for the prosecution were instructed merely to produce such evidence as was likely to secure a conviction, or to produce all the evidence that would throw light on the case; and, if so, why the prosecution did not call Mr. Perry and Mr. Percy, and any evidence that might affect the credibility of Edgell and Richardson?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have already stated that the prosecution was instructed to lay the whole of the case, both for and against the policemen, before the Court.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to give notice that when the Vote for Compen-
  1120
  sation comes before the House, I will call attention to the unsatisfactory position of this matter, the extreme barbarity of the English law, and the great difficulty of eliciting the truth.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it true that the prosecution was conducted by a new Conservative Member of this House?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The prosecution was entrusted to a gentleman who has a large practice before the tribunal by which it was tried. The choice was not in any way made by the Government, but by the Director of Public Prosecutions on his own responsibility.

  SMALL ARMS—MAJOR HARSTON'S INVENTION.
  CAPTAIN SELWYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether the estimated cost of converting the Martini-Henry into a repeating rifle is about 8s. at the Government Factory and 12s. 6d. by contract; and, whether, in view of the great economy which Major Harston's invention might produce, and in order to secure fair play to inventors, he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Small Arms Committee on this invention?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE, Lincolnshire, Horncastle): The conversion of the Martini into a repeating rifle could be made in the Government factory at a cost of 16s. per arm. But it is represented to me that this invention, while remarkable for its ingenuity, is altogether unfit for service. The Reports of the Small Arms Committee are confidential documents, which, I am afraid, I cannot undertake to produce.
  CAPTAIN SELWYN: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say when this unfortunate officer is likely to receive payment for his invention?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The question of the payment of Major Harston is under consideration.
  MR. HANBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to fulfil the promise given to me by the Financial Secretary, that Members of this House should see the Report of the Small Arms Committee to the War Office?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I do not understand that my hon. Friend made such a promise. I certainly cannot undertake to produce a confidential document.

  NAVAL GUNS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty at what dates the Howe, Camperdown, Anson, Undaunted, Australia, Immortalité, Narcissus, and Galatea, which would have been completed by 1st December, 1888, if their guns had been delivered (Parliamentary Paper, 20th December, 1888) were or could have been ready for their guns; when the guns in each case had been originally promised which are "now promised" for May and June of this whether the guns quoted in the Return as "now promised" for delivery to the Anson, Undaunted, and Immortalité in February, 1889, were so delivered; what other vessels are being delayed in completion by the non-delivery of their guns, or are ready and waiting for them; and whether the Admiralty has yet received from the War Office a clear statement of (1) how the money voted (say) during the last six years for naval ordnance has been expended; and (2) what supply of naval ordnance the War Office has in hand?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The four ships referred to in the first part of the Question are now ready for their guns. These are to be delivered on board by April 30 for the Victoria, the end of May for the Camperdown, by the end of June for the Sans Pareil and Howe. The Trafalgar will be ready for her guns by June next, which are to be delivered by the end of August. It is intended to re-arm the Thunderer this year and the Rupert next year; it is anticipated that the guns will be delivered by the time the ships are ready for them. With reference to the guns for the belted cruisers, those for the Undaunted and Immortalité are expected at the end of this month, those for the Australia at the end of May, and for the Narcissus at the end of June. Those for the Galatea and Aurora are expected in November, but there are at Chatham 9·2-inch guns of an earlier pattern which would be available in an emergency. The Medea and Medusa are now ready for their guns, which it is expected will be delivered by April 1 and May 15 respectively. It is anticipated that the guns for the Magicienne and Melpomene will be delivered by the time that the ships are ready for
  1122
  them. The Admiralty have not received from the War Office a complete statement of money spent for naval service, as the War Office state that it is impossible to furnish such a statement, no separate accounts having been kept of expenditure on naval ordnance stores as distinguished from those for land service. Separate store ledgers were, however, opened by the War Office, 1887–88, for naval ordnance, and a statement was last year furnished to the Admiralty by the War Office, showing the stock of naval ordnance stores, on April 1, 1888, made up partly of stores which the War Office transferred from the general existing stock to the naval service, and partly of stores which were expressly made or purchased for the Navy during the year 1887–8, when the separate accounts for the Navy were first started. The details of the division of the general existing stock between sea and land service as made by the War Office is now the subject of inquiry and consideration between the two Departments.

  SAMOA.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government had any information as to a truce alleged to have been concluded between the German Consul and Mataafa, King of Samoa; whether they have any information as to the present place of detention of the ex-King Malietoa; and whether they have ever asked from the German Government any undertaking that he should be well treated while detained by them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): We have no information of the conclusion of a truce between the German Consul in Samoa and the Chief Mataafa. We have heard that the ex-King Malietoa has been conveyed to the Marshall Islands. Her Majesty's Government have never asked the German Government that Malietoa should be well treated while detained by them. We have no reason to doubt his fair treatment, but we have no special right to interfere on his behalf. We have heard indirectly that while in Germany he received very handsome entertainment.

  RATHDRUM PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention had been drawn to a case, decided at Rathdrum Petty Sessions on Thursday last, which arose from some road scrapings claimed, on the one hand by a man named Edward Pierce, under the authority of the road contractor, and on the other by Mr. W. P. Littledale, J.P., of Whaley Abbey, county Wicklow, whose son instructed William Hamilton, an emergency man, to draw the stuff into the farmyard of a holding from which the tenant had been evicted; whether it is true that, when the dispute arose, Hamilton went back to his house, and returned with a revolver, which he, as sworn, presented at Pierce, threatening to blow his brains out; whether Constable Flood swore that Hamilton admitted using the threat; whether Mr. Macleod, R.M., commented on the audacity of the defendant Hamilton in drawing a revolver under the circumstances; and, whether it was true that the defendant was merely bound over in the sum of £10 to keep the peace?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I had no previous knowledge of this case, but have inquired into it, and learn that the dispute arose from the conflicting claims referred to in the Question. The question which the magistrates had to decide was whether Hamilton presented this revolver, loaded, at the complainant, whose name, I am informed, was Price, not Pierce. Had he done so this would have constituted an indictable offence. There was, however, no evidence to show that the revolver was loaded, and Hamilton's daughter contradicted the statement that it was aimed at Price. The R.M. condemned the production of arms under such circumstances. Hamilton was old and infirm, with a wooden leg. He was bound over to keep the peace, or in default one month's imprisonment.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBETasked the right hon. Gentleman if there was any evidence that the revolver was not loaded?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had given the hon. Member all the information in his possession.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC SOLDIERS AT CLONMEL.
  MR. THEOBALD,asked the Secretary of State for War if, on Sunday last, in the Roman Catholic Church at Clonmel, the officiating priest, Father Byrne, from the altar commanded the soldiers to remain in their seats consequent on their having received orders from Lieutenant Geoghegan to leave the building, thus commanding them by priestly influence to disobey the orders of their commanding officer; and also that, before the officer left the church, the priest publicly rebuked the said officer; and if Lieutenant Geoghegan has in consequence been placed under arrest?
  MR. W. MACDONALD: I rise to a point of order. I want to know whether, having regard to the strict censorship exercised in respect of Questions put by hon. Members on this side of the House, a Question ought to be allowed to appear on the paper which is neither grammatical nor intelligible?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member insinuates that partiality is shown as between one side and the other in regard to Questions he is entirely wrong, and there is no justification for such an insinuation. I am not aware of any difference being made, and I have not thought it necessary to exercise any censorship in regard to this particular question.
  MR. SEXTON: On the same subject I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will communicate to the House the Report of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland on the conduct of Lieutenant Geoghegan in a Catholic Church in Clonmel, on Sunday last, and state what has been the result?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The principle which has hitherto been acted upon in such matters was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh, as follows, on March 29, 1881—
  "There is no printed regulation on the subject, but it is manifest that officers in command of soldiers at church or chapel must be allowed to exercise some discretion as to permitting them to remain there when language is used in sermons to which soldiers would not be allowed to listen if spoken in public meeting."

  1125
  I entirely adopt the principle so laid down. Applying it to the circumstances of the present case, I have read the language addressed to the congregation on the occasion in question in the Lenten Pastoral, and I am of opinion that it held up duly constituted authorities to contempt, and as such ought not to have been addressed to soldiers. The lieutenant in charge, in the exercise of his discretion, ordered the troops to withdraw. He stated further in evidence that in doing so he intended no disrespect either to the Roman Catholic Church or to the officiating priest. I cannot, therefore, condemn the exercise of the discretion vested in this officer.
  MR. SEXTON: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has not answered my Question as to any Report on the subject by the Commander in-Chief in Ireland.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I thought the hon. Gentleman knew quite well that Reports of this description are quite confidential, and are not communicated to the House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to state the facts of the case.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: That was not the question put to me.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to state himself what the facts of the case were, because the answer which he has given to us is a sort of argumentative statement upon a state of facts which is not before us. Will the right hon. Gentleman prefer to make a statement now or to-morrow?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: A statement, of facts ought to be made with the utmost care in such a case and I should prefer that notice should be given.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to lay on the Table a copy of the Lenten Pastoral which he says he has read, and which contains language that justified the order?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I will consider that question also, and will state to-morrow what course I will take.

  THE WITNESSES BEFORE THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it be true that
  1126
  the Lord Lieutenant has granted a free pardon to Delany, one of the men convicted of the Phoenix Park murders, and who was lately examined before the Judicial Commission; and, if so, on what date was the pardon signed; if pardoned, why is Delany retained in London in charge of the Governor of Maryborough Gaol and two warders; at whose expense are the Governor and the two warders kept in London; is it a fact that Delany, while in Mountjoy Prison, was allowed to see his wife weekly, while at the same time he was allowed tobacco and other special privileges in the way of dietary, &c.; and from what fund did the cost of this exceptional treatment come?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not true that Delany has been pardoned. He is in London by order of the Special Commission. The General Prisons Board report that there is no ground whatever for the allegation that he received any exceptional privilege or indulgence.

  CANADIAN APPLES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Customs authorities at Liverpool recently seized a large consignment of Canadian apples, addressed to Messrs. L. Connolly and Co., one of the principal firms of fruit brokers in Great Britain, and refused to deliver same even on the production of the bills of lading issued at Port Hope, Ontario, for shipment per Grand Trunk Railway and Portland Maine, and thence per steamer to the port of Liverpool, until the day following that on which the fruit was sold, and then only on condition that the brand "Canadian Apples" was obliterated from the packages, with consequent injury to the commercial value of the goods; and, whether he can say if it was under the Trades Mark Act, or what other Statute the Customs authorities acted in this matter; and, if so, whether, considering the perishable nature of the goods and the necessity for prompt delivery in this trade, he will make such arrangements as will prevent the recurrence of such loss and inconvenience in future?
  MR. JACKSON: The consignment in question arrived on February 26, and was detained by the Customs officers at Liverpool under Sections 16

  1127
  and 3 of the Merchandize Marks Act, 1887, and with reference to Sub-section 2 of Section 10 of that Act, the Board of Customs telegraphed permission to deliver the goods on obliteration of the marks, and the goods were released from detention on February 27. On the first instance, the collector received authority from the Board to allow delivery of future importations under similar circumstances without reference to them and without obliteration of the marks.

  RAILWAY BYE-LAWS.
  MR. COGHILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had his attention called to the fact that Railway Companies continue to publish amongst their bye-laws one to the effect that any passenger travelling without a ticket, or failing or refusing to show and deliver up his ticket to any duly authorized servant of the Company when required so to do, shall be required to pay the fare from the station whence the train originally started to the end of his journey; whether this bye-law was held by the Judges of the Common Pleas Division in the London and Brighton Railway Company v. Watson to be "unreasonable and void"; and, whether the Board of Trade will, from time to time, so revise the bye-laws of the Railway Companies as to prevent the insertion in them, as valid, of bye-laws which have been previously held to be invalid by the Judges of the Superior Courts of Law?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH): Yes, Sir, I believe the law is as stated by the hon. Member. The matter has been under my attention, but the question of the revision of bye-laws is a very difficult one, and looking to the pressure thrown on the Department by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of last year, I cannot definitely undertake to say when the matter will be dealt with, but I will promise that it shall not be lost sight of.

  SUB-COMMISSION COURT AT DOWN-PATRICK.
  MR. PINKERTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if Mr. McElvaine, who acted as landlord's valuator at the Sub-Commission Court recently held at
  1128
  Downpatrick, is the gentleman appointed as Court valuer for County Down; and, if, in order that both sides should be represented, he will authorize the appointment of a tenant's valuer to assist the County Court Judge in the discharge of his arduous duties?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners inform me that they are not aware whether the County Court Judge of the County Down has referred any questions to Mr. McElvaine for report, pursuant to section 32 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887. The power of selection of such valuers rests with the County Court Judges, who, in making their appointments, act with a full Sense of their responsibility in the matter.

  THE RIFLE BRIGADE.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention to remove the place of training of the 8th Battalion of the Rifle Brigade from Carrick-on-Shannon, the head-quarters for many years; and, if so, whether he will give any reason for the change?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: This is a very small Militia battalion, and it is much below its established strength. It has, therefore, been decided, after very careful consideration, to disband it after its next training, and to absorb the County of Leitrim into the recruiting area of the 5th Battalion of the Connaught Rangers. It will train this year at Boyle, because that is the head-quarters of the latter regiment, which it is hoped that many of the Leitrim men will join.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN LEITRIM.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Postmaster General whether representations have been made to him on behalf of the inhabitants of Garadice, Glebe, Coromahon, Breskil, Lisloughy, Brunnreilly, and several other townlands situate between Newtowngore and Ballinamore, county Leitrim, showing the need for a post-office in the district; whether a large number of letters are daily left at a single house in the district; and whether there is any reason why the request of the inhabitants should not be acceded to?
  MR. RAIKES: The facts are as stated by the hon. Member, and I have had

  1129
  pleasure in sanctioning a post office at Garadice.

  SCOTCH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. DUFFasked the Lord Advocate whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Local Government Bill for Scotland in time to enable the Commissioners of Supply to consider it at their statutory meeting on the 30th of April?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,)replied in the affirmative.

  CAPPOQUIN PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether cases entered for hearing at Cappoquin Petty Sessions on 24th January, and requiring the attendance of two magistrates, were adjourned to 7th February, as only one magistrate attended; whether, on 7th February, such cases were again adjourned to 21st February, as only one magistrate attended; whether, on 21st February, another adjournment again took place for the same reason; what prevented the Resident Magistrate attending Cappoquin Ordinary Petty Sessions on the days in question; and whether any steps can be taken to prevent the inconveniences to professional gentlemen and their clients that follow such adjournments?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the hon. Member to defer the Question.

  THE NORTH DUBLIN UNION.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that the Bank of Ireland, as treasurer of the North Dublin Union, has refused to allow the North Dublin Board of Guardians to overdraw its account to the extent of £4,000, for a limited period, on the security of the rates, although that security has been practically admitted by the Local Government Board to be ample; whether the Munster and Leinster Bank has offered to make the required advance, free of interest, on condition of the Union account being transferred to it from the Bank of Ireland; whether the Guardians resolved to transfer their account to the Munster and Leinster Bank, and whether
  1130
  they have been prevented from acting on this resolution by the Local Government Board; whether there is any statutable provision against such a transfer of the account of the North Dublin Board as has been suggested; and, if not, why the Local Government Board insist on dealing exclusively with the Bank of Ireland; and, since the Local Government Board have prevented the North Dublin Board of Guardians from obtaining money on good terms from the Munster and Leinster Bank, what does the Government propose to do to enable the Board to carry on its work for the relief of the poor?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is the fact that the Bank of Ireland, as treasurer of the North Dublin Union, declined to advance to the Guardians of that Union so large a sum as £4,000, but the Bank offered to allow them to overdraw their account to the amount of £2,000, and this offer the Guardians accepted on the 16th of January last. From the Guardians' minutes of proceedings on the 23rd of January it appears that the Munster and Leinster Bank offered to lend £4,000, free of interest, for three months, or until such time as moneys would come in, provided that the account of the Union was changed to that Bank. The Guardians did adopt a resolution to the effect that their account be changed to the Munster and Leinster Bank, but the Local Government Board declined to sanction such transfer, on the ground that a treasurer who refused to advance large sums of money to the Guardians could not thereby be deemed to have failed to comply with the Board's general regulations defining his duties as an officer of the Union. Besides, the Bank of Ireland during past years frequently allowed the Guardians of the North Dublin Union to overdraw their account, and in the present instance lent them a sum of £2,000, so that it could not fairly be contended that the action of the Bank towards the Guardians had been illiberal. The treasurer of a union is appointed under the 24th article of the Board's general regulations, and his tenure of office is governed by the 39th article of the same Order, which provides that every officer appointed to or holding any office under the Order shall, subject to the provisions of Article 40, continue to hold the same until he die, or resign

  1131
  or be removed, by the Local Government Board. It is not the practice of the Board to allow a treasurer to be removed from office unless reasonable and sufficient grounds can be assigned for dispensing with his services; and the fact that a bank acts in that capacity does not alter the position which the treasurer of the Union occupies under the Order referred to. The Guardians have recently received £3,137 in lieu of rates on Government property, as well as a considerable amount in respect of rates collected, and it appears that last week they had a sum of £2,553 to their credit at the foot of their treasurer's account, so that they do not now want funds for the relief of the poor.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Bank of Ireland did advance money to the Guardians of the Dublin Union until the Union agreed to transfer their account to the Munster Bank; and whether the course pursued by the Bank of Ireland has not thrown grave inconvenience upon the ratepayers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a Question of which notice must be given.

  WELSH COUNTY COUNCILS,
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the President of the Board of Trade how many members of the County Councils of Merioneth, Denbigh, Flint, and Chester respectively, will be entitled to elect on the Dee Conservancy Board, and how many the County Councils of Merioneth, Montgomery, Carnarvon, and Cardigan respectively on the Dovey Conservancy Board?
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The County Councils named by the hon. Member will respectively appoint the same number of members as the Quarter Sessions have hitherto been entitled to appoint, the powers of the Quarter Sessions in this respect having been transferred to the County Councils. The Clerks of the Peace could state what the numbers are.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: The Councils themselves do not know the number they are entitled to elect, and in some cases the clerks of the parishes themselves are unable to give the necessary information.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I think that the application in this matter should be made to the Clerk of the Peace.

  IRELAND—COLONEL SAUNDERSON.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he had yet received from the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) the names of the leading men in the Army upon whose authority the hon. and gallant Gentleman declared, in a recent speech at Portadown, that, in a certain event, they would refuse to do their duty in maintenance of the law; and whether he would communicate the correspondence to the House?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I have not, nor do I propose to call upon my hon. and gallant Friend to furnish me with the names of the officers in question. From the only report of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech that I have seen, it appears that his words were incorrectly quoted by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. But, be that as it may, I do not conceive it to be my duty to ask for the names of officers who may, in private conversation, have made use of loose and hasty expressions with regard to a hypothetical ease. It will be time enough for me to take notice of them when they are publicly used by the officers themselves.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the House to understand that an officer in the British Army is entitled to pledge himself to violate his oath if he does it in private conversation? Has the right hon. Gentleman received any report of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech which the hon. and gallant Gentleman admits to be correct?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: My answer to both these Questions is, no. I have seen the report in the Irish Times.

  CULLINANE THE INFORMER.
  MR. J. R. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will undertake that an officer of the Government, to be named by him, will serve a subpoena, on the part of the Irish Members, on Cullinane, the informer, to appear before the Special Commission?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be convenient that all requests for assistance in connection with the inquiry pending before the Royal Commission should be made in the regular

  1133
  manner by the solicitors of those concerned, and not by way of Question across the floor of the House. As a matter of fact, the Irish Government are unacquainted with Cullinane's whereabouts.
  MR. COX: To whom is our solicitor to apply?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Solicitors have already applied to the Government. It must be done in the usual way, by writing to the Irish Government.
  MR. COX: Has Caron left the country since the opening of the Commission?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think so.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the same way as reports of the evidence of Major Le Caron, the informer of the Government, were given to Mr. Houston, the secretary of the Loyal and Patriotic League, the reports of Cullinane's evidence shall be given to Mr. Schnadhorst, the secretary of the National Liberal Federation?
  The Question was not answered?
  MR. SEXTON: Is Cullinane now outside the jurisdiction of the Courts of the Queen; has he left this country since the Commission commenced, and where did he obtain funds to enable him to go away?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the slightest knowledge on the subject.

  SUBURBAN BURGLARIES.
  MR. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the increase of burglaries in the suburban districts; and if any and, if so, what further means can be taken to deter attempts of this description?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioners of Police that there has been no increase in the number of burglaries in the suburban districts during the last four months; on the contrary, there have been fewer than in the corresponding periods of 1887 and 1888. The police are using their best efforts to check this class of crime; but its effectual prevention depends as much on the vigilance and care of the householders themselves as on the efforts of the police.

  ARTILLERY RE-ORGANIZATION.
  LORD HENRY BRUCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to give effect to the proposals of Lord Harris' Artillery Committee, four members of which, including the Chairman, recommended the separation of the mounted from the dismounted branches of the Royal Regiment of Artillery?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is difficult to state our proposals on this subject in answer to a Question, but full information will be given when the Army Estimates are brought in.

  IRELAND—FATHER STEPHENS.
  MR. GILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Rev. D. Stephens, of Falrarragh, was arrested more than a week ago on a charge of conspiracy; and whether bail was refused; and, if so, why it was refused?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. Bail was refused by the Magistrates, in the exercise of their discretion.
  MR. GILL: But why did the Magistrates refuse Father Stephens the ordinary privileges?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know on what ground they acted.

  PALLISER GUNS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many guns have been converted on the Palliser system; and what is the approximate gross weight of shot or shell which have been cast on the Palliser system?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will move for a Return, I will grant it.

  THE BARROW DRAINAGE.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received the copy of a resolution passed by what is described as a large and representative meeting of the people of Portarlington, disapproving of a scheme proposed by the Government for the drainage of the Barrow by means of embankments, and

  1135
  advocating the adoption of the plan embodied in the Report of Lord Castletown's Commission, which recommended the widening and deepening of the bed of the river and the removal of obstructions; and whether, after this expression of local opinion, the Government still intend to persevere with their scheme?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; and the proposals of the Government will be communicated to the memorialists. The hon. Member may be able to get information from the engineer, Mr. Gamble.

  OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.
  Mr. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Mr. H. Evans, the writer of the article in the Contemporary Review on "The London County Council and the Police," is Mr. H. K. Evans, one of the first-class clerks in the Receivers' Office; and, if he is the same gentleman, does he come within the Rule made in 1879, by which officers attached to a Department were precluded from publishing works relating to the Department without permission, and had he obtained the necessary permission?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. H. Evans was formerly employed in the Receivers' Office, but retired in June last, and therefore he is no longer amenable to the rules.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Had he access to the official documents and to the statistics used in this House on the Metropolitan Police Vote last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch?
  MR. MATTHEWS: He had access to no official documents.

  THE AGHABOY POST OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has yet filled the recently vacated office of Sub-Postmaster of Aghaboy, county Monaghan; and, whether he will consult local feeling in the matter, and defer making the appointment until he can have the advantage of the opinion of the majority of the people of the district as to the claims and fitness of the person most acceptable to them for the office to guide him in making the appointment?
  MR. RAIKES: The vacancy for a Sub-Postmaster at Aghaboy has not yet been officially reported to me. I can, therefore, only assure the hon. Member that, when it is so reported, I shall select for appointment the candidate whom I may ascertain to be best qualified to perform the duties of the office to the satisfaction of the Department and the public generally.

  IRELAND-THE SPECIAL COMMISSION—THE CONVICT NALLY.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits have been made by any person or persons on behalf of the Times to P. W. Nally, during his detention at Millbank Prison, from 20th November, 1888, to this date; did one or more of the visits take place in the presence and in the hearing of a warder or warders; at what dates were the visits made; has the application of a friend of P. W. Nally's family for a visit been refused, on the ground that the prisoner had forfeited his right to a visit by misconduct; what misconduct is alleged against P. W. Nally, and in what prison; was it at Millbank; what is the date of the report against him; will visits from persons acting on behalf of the Times to P. W. Nally, and other similarly circumstanced prisoners, continue to be permitted, regardless of the wishes or without the consent of such prisoners; and, are such visits counted against the very limited number of visits due to the prisoners?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The prisoner Nally has received one visit. It was in view of a warder, but not in his hearing. It took place on the 4th of February last. A visit has been refused on the ground that the Prisons Board in Ireland reported that Nally had forfeited by misconduct the right to receive a visit at present. This report was communicated from Dublin Castle to the Home Office on the 18th of January. The misconduct did not take place at Millbank, but in Ireland, and was reported to the Governor of Downpatrick Prison on the 27th of November last. Prisoners are not and will not be compelled to receive these visits if they object. Such visits are not counted against the ordinary visits due to a prisoner.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to know whether before the visit is made the pri-

  1137
  soner is warned and has an opportunity of objecting?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The practice is to announce the visit to the prisoner, who then has an opportunity of objection.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Was there any conversation in the hearing of the warder?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; the practice in English prisons is to have the warder in sight, but not within hearing distance.
  MR. J. E. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Governor of Downpatrick Prison in any way whatever gave P. W. Nally, being a prisoner in his charge, reason to think that if he, P. W. Nally, would give evidence before the Special Commission in support of the Times case, he should soon be released from prison; and, has P. W. Nally been reported for misconduct during his detention at Downpatrick Prison; if so, what was the misconduct, and the date of the report?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the allegation in the first paragraph is absolutely without foundation. The prisoner was reported for misconduct, which consisted of shouting in a loud and disorderly manner, and calculated to create a disturbance on the 19th of November last, when being conveyed to the railway station at Downpatrick. The report was made by the officer of the escort on the 27th of the same month, after his return from London.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give notice that on the Prison Votes I will call attention to the persecution of this particular prisoner because he refused to make himself an informer for the Times.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Prison Commissioners, before giving permission to the agent of the Times to visit P. W. Nally in Millbank, secured the assent of the Secretary of State in this particular case; and, whether it is the rule of the Prison Commissioners to allow every solicitor who may choose to apply to visit any prisoner in Millbank; if not, what principle governed their assent in this instance; and I should also like to know whether permission to visit Nally
  1138
  has been refused to everyone excepting the agent to the Times?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The permission which was refused to Nally was to receive a private visit coming under the ordinary prison rules, which he was not entitled to receive. In answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say the assent of the Secretary of State was not asked for the visit referred to. It is the practice of the Commissioners to satisfy themselves that the applicant is a solicitor, and that the application is made bonâ fide for some stated business in which the prisoner is concerned, before they give their assent. They acted in accordance with this practice in the instance referred to. Nally had been brought over from Ireland under an order of the Special Commission issued at the instance of Mr. Soames, and the object of the interview sought by Mr. Soames was to take his proof.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Are we not to understand that the rule that the prisoner is entitled to receive a visit from a solicitor in a matter in which he is concerned means "concerned in his own defence;" and in what sense was Nally concerned with the Commission and the Times?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have made inquiries to-day on that very point, and I am informed that the practice has not been confined to cases in which the solicitor interviewing the prisoner was acting in his defence. I think, however, it is a matter worthy of consideration. There is a good deal to be said on both sides—whether the privilege of a visit not in the hearing of a warder may not properly be confined to cases in which what passes between the prisoner and his visitor would be privileged from being in evidence in a Court of Law. Nally was concerned in this visit, inasmuch as he was under the orders of the Court to give evidence. The person calling a witness before a Court of Justice invariably obtains beforehand information of what the witness is about to say—in other words, he takes his proof.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Is there any means of ascertaining whether it is true that the agent of the Times on his visit produced a letter purporting to be written by Nally's brother?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have made inquiries on this subject, and the informa-

  1139
  tion given to me is that the warder saw no letter produced.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: At what date did the practice first commence of the Prison Commissioners allowing solicitors in a hostile position to foist themselves on prisoners without those prisoners' wish or assent?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The right hon. Gentleman is importing into my answer what I never said. If the prisoner objects, he is not compelled to receive the visit.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What opportunity had this particular prisoner accorded to him of objecting?
  MR. MATTHEWS: He had the opportunity afforded him by the announcement of the visit?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask whether the announcement that the Times' case would close on Tuesday was known to the right hon. Gentleman before he made the announcement that the rule was to be changed; and whether that altered rule is to be applied to the "defence" of hon. Members of this House?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I know nothing about the closing of the Times' case, and I have not made any announcement that the rule would be altered.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I should like to ask how the right hon. Gentleman himself construes the rule that any solicitor is entitled to visit a prisoner.
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is no "rule" on the subject. I have said so more than once. It has been the practice of the Prison Commissioners for many years. That practice, although it is liable to abuse, does not appear to me to be in itself objectionable.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if, when Nally was informed that the representative of the Times intended to visit him, he was also informed that he might, if he wished, refuse to see the visitor?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Will Nally be afforded an opportunity of proving that attempts were made to tamper with him by the Governor of Downpatrick Prison since it has been denied?
  MR. MATTHEWS: When Nally appears before the Special Commission
  1140
  those questions can be put to him in cross-examination.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he intends to call Nally?
  The Question was not answered.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT—PROSECUTIONS IN LIMERICK.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost incurred by this country on account of recent prosecutions at Ballyneety and Castleconnell, County Limerick, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, particularizing the expenditure, as follows: the amount paid to special magistrates and police at the meetings in the first instance; the amount paid to the Law Officers who advised the prosecutions; the amount paid to policemen who came to London to serve the summonses; the amount paid to Resident Magistrates, Crown Counsel, shorthand writers, police, soldiers, and cavalry who attended the Courts until convictions were obtained?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The information asked for would require a vast amount of labour before it could be prepared, even if it could possibly be prepared. Under the circumstances I cannot give the hon. Member the information.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: Then I will refer to the matter on the Estimates.

  THE BAYONET CONTRACT.
  MR. KENRICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what progress had been made by Messrs. Wilkinson in the delivery of bayonets under their contract; whether the time specified for the completion of the contract for 150,000 bayonets was three years from the date of signing the same; and whether Government would insist on this condition being strictly observed?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I explained on the 6th of December last that Messrs. Wilkinson's work was retarded by changes of pattern and delay in the supply of gauges. They have already supplied 21,288 blades, and the condition which will be insisted on is that 1,000 sword bayonets, on the average, shall be supplied weekly.

  DOVEY FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a resolution unanimously passed at a meeting of the Dovey Fishery Board in June last, in favour of amending the bye-laws so as to extend the time for net-fishing within the district of their jurisdiction by a fortnight; whether he is aware that, at the meeting of the Board held on the 22nd February, it was announced that Mr. Barrington, Chief Inspector of Fisheries, had, in an interview with the fishermen on 3rd January, expressed a decided opinion that the Board of Trade would not grant the extension of time, and that it was urged that, as the decision of the Board of Trade was almost a foregone conclusion, it would be throwing money away to go through the necessary forms of applying for sanction; and whether it is a fact that the Board of Trade is opposed to such an extension of time for net-fishing; and, if so, why?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: In reply to the first paragraph in the Question, I have to say that my attention has not been called to any such resolution. Mr. Berrington would have no authority to express any opinion on the part of the Board of Trade, and assures me that he did not do so. Mr. Berrington was interviewed by some fishermen at Machynlleth Railway Station on the 3rd January last, and promised to report their views to his Department in the event of any bye-law being sent in for confirmation. In reply to questions he declined to say what view the Board of Trade might take, adding that the proposal would receive full consideration. In answer to one or two of the deputation he advised not being too sanguine of success, looking to the possibilities of opposition from various interests. The Board of Trade will be quite prepared to deal with any question upon its merits.

  GRAND JURY PANELS.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland, having regard to the persistent exclusion of Roman Catholics and large land occupiers, duly qualified, from grand juries at present assizes in Ireland, as
  1142

  particularly exemplified by the constitution of the counties Clare and Limerick Grand Juries, if he will consider the advisability of devising a means to intimate to the High Sheriffs the Government's disapproval of such selections?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have already pointed out in answer to a former Question, the Government have no power whatever to interfere with the discharge by a High Sheriff of his duty in summoning a Grand Jury. If he is guilty of any illegality the matter can be brought before a Judge of Assize, who has power to fine him for any breach of duty. The Government have in no case the power.

  LICENSING AUTHORITIES.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Government has any intention this Session of introducing proposals for transferring the licensing of public-houses from a nominated to an elected body?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. RITCHIE,): No, Sir.

  IRELAND—MR. J. FITZGIBBON.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the practice in Ireland, as has been stated to be the case in England, to accede to the application of a solicitor to see a prisoner even though no application should have been received from the prisoner himself; and, whether, if so, he will state the grounds on which the application of Mr. Farrall M'Dormell, solicitor, Roscommon, on the 22nd December last, to see his client, Mr. John Fitzgibbon, in Castlebar Prison, was refused, Mr. Fitzgibbon himself not having made any application, as he had no means of knowing anything about legal matters affecting him which were occurring during his imprisonment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the practice in Ireland is that when a prisoner makes the application to see a solicitor on bonâ fide legal business the visit is permitted; also, if the prisoner's solicitor seeks to see the prisoner in regard

  1143
  to bonâ fide pending legal proceedings for or against the prisoner the visit is permitted, provided the prisoner is willing to seethe solicitor. In this case it was reported by the Governor that the prisoner Fitzgibbon was asked whether he wished to see Mr. Farrell M'Donnell, solicitor, on business. His reply was that he had "no legal business to transact with anyone," and the Governor reports that he informed the solicitor accordingly.

  THE STORNOWAY TRIALS.
  DR. M'DONALD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a recent criminal trial at Stornoway, against Mr. Donald MacRae, schoolmaster, of Balallan, and others, for the expulsion of intruders from a meeting of the Highland Land League, after notice had been given to the said intruders to retire; whether the Sheriff dismissed the complaint as unfounded, and characterized the alleged offence as unknown to the law of Scotland; whether the Procurator Fiscal, or his deputy, at whose instance the complaint was raised, are agents fur Lady Matheson, the proprietrix of the island; whether, in view of the fact that the complaint was instituted either from ignorance of the law or otherwise, any notice has been taken of the conduct of the Procurator Fiscal or his deputy; and, whether, as the machinery of the Criminal Court has been improperly set in motion, it is intended to make any compensation or redress to Mr. MacRae and the other defendants?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question, as there has not been time to make the necessary inquiries.

  HAMPTON COURT GARDENS.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if it is a fact that Richard Holland, a man of good character, and appointed by the First Commissioner of Works as foreman in Hampton Court Gardens, has been deprived of the pension he was entitled to under the system in force when he entered the service 36 years ago; whether he is aware that Richard Holland after such long service, and relying on such pension, is now penniless
  1144
  and depending on public charity; what is the cause of the inequality which exists in still giving park and gate keepers pensions, whilst the foreman, who is their superior officer, and requires an amount of technical knowledge, is from no fault of his own, deprived of one; and whether it is a fact that had Richard Holland retired a year ago he would have been entitled to a pension of at least £20 per annum; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take any and what steps to rectify a manifest injustice?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The foremen in the Royal Parks have never been legally entitled to pensions, as they do not hold Civil Service certificates. In practice they have, as a rule, received pensions under the title of compassionate allowances; and, if Foreman Holland had retired before 1887 he might no doubt have been awarded such an allowance; but the power of the Treasury to giant these compassionate allowances was taken away by the Superannuation Act of 1887, and consequently Holland was awarded only a gratuity. Park and gate keepers are entitled to superannuation because they are appointed with Civil Service certificates.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything in this very sad case?
  MR. PLUNKET: I am not officially aware of the circumstances, but I am afraid it is a case in which it would be very difficult to get over the Rules.

  IRELAND—THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he give a Return of the names, rank, and pay of the Irish officials absent from duty in Ireland to attend the Special Commission, distinguishing the examined and the dates of the examinations from those not called, with the period and dates of their stay in London, and stating in each case if any steps were taken to ascertain approximately when such witnesses would be called, so that the public service might not be dislocated by a prolonged or unnecessary absence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have more than once stated to the House that I do not think it advisable to print any such

  1145
  Return, at any rate until the labours of the Commission are concluded. I repeat that the Government of Ireland have done their very best to diminish the inconvenience caused by keeping the witnesses in London so long, in obedience to an order of the Court.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain by whose instructions Head Constable Preston visited in Millbank certain Irish prisoners; what were the dates and objects of his visits; was it at the request of the prisoners; and what duty was Preston doing in England?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Head Constable Preston visited Thomas Tracy in Millbank on December 5, 1888, and January 24, 1889. He did not visit any other prisoner. He did not visit Tracy by orders of anyone. He obtained an order to do so through Mr. Soames. The object of his visit was to ascertain by whom Tracy had been tampered with. It was at the request of the prisoner that he visited him. Head Constable Preston was not doing duty in England. He has been here on subpoena as a witness before the Special Commission.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that it was sworn by one informer that Head Constable Preston communicated with him in Canada and brought him to Mr. Soames's office in London?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see what connection that has with the matter.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is it alleged the witness was not tampered with?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather that the tampering has not been on the part of the police.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department was it by subpoena, or habeas corpus, or under the Prisons Act, that Irish prisoners were brought over to England for the Times Commission; and was Delaney produced in Court without a subpoena ad testificandum; and, if so, is there any power or precedent for a gaoler producing a prisoner in his custody on a mere subpoena addressed to a prisoner while that
  1146
  prisoner is, by reason of his imprisonment, debarred from obeying or incurring penalties for disobedience thereto?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Special Commission have issued summonses and addressed orders to the governors of Irish prisons to bring over to England prisoners confined in Irish prisons, for the purpose of giving evidence before the Commission. By 51 and 52 Vic, c. 35, s. 2, these summonses are equivalent to any form of process, capable of being issued in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses. Delaney was produced before the Special Commission under such a summons and order. I may refer the hon. Member to 44 Geo. III., c. 102.

  IRELAND—IMPRISONMENT OF FATHER CLARKE.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it true, as stated in the public Press, that the Rev. Father Clarke, of Avoca, now undergoing sentence of six weeks' imprisonment in Wexford Gaol for a speech made by him at a public meeting, has been put on bread and water for two terms of 24 hours each; and if he can state why such punishment has been inflicted on the reverend gentleman, and by what authority?
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Rev. J. Clarke, C.C., now a prisoner in Wexford Gaol, has been ordered to pick oakum in his cell, and to associate with criminals at exercise, and has been sentenced by the prison officials to two terms of 24 hours each on bread and water; whether these proceedings are sanctioned by the Government; and whether it is determined that ecclesiastics, though not called upon to wear the prison clothes, are to be required to pick oakum and to associate with criminals?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the Rev. J. Clarke was, in accordance with the prison rules, assigned the task of picking oakum, but that neither he nor any other prisoner is permitted to associate with or her convicted prisoners. He was ordered by the governor to be placed on punishment diet as indicated in the Question, by reason of his neglect to perform the task assigned. The proceedings

  1147
  were not sanctioned by the Government, but under the requirements of the prison rules.
  MR. SEXTON: I should like to know whether the rev. gentleman is actually suffering two terms of imprisonment; whether he has to wear prison clothes, and whether, if not, he is to exercise in company with those wearing convict garb?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The phrase constantly used by hon. Gentlemen that prisoners are exercised with other prisoners is a misleading one, as no communication is allowed between them and they are not allowed to walk close together. As to whether I will use such authority as I possess to make further mitigation of prison rules in the case of priests, it appears to me that enough has been done in that direction; and for what I have already done I have not received any great amount of gratitude.

  FLOGGING IN THE BAHAMAS.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the Papers relating to the flogging inflicted by order of the Chief Justice of the Bahamas?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): If the right hon. Gentleman presses for the presentation of these Papers they can be given; but I should be glad if he would first consult with me, for I think that after seeing the Papers he will agree that, in view of the explanations I have already given in the House, they are not worth the expense of printing.

  EXAMINATION OF CONVICTS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Inspector Littlechild, of Scotland Yard, has recently visited Chatham Prison and interviewed prisoners convicted in connection with the dynamite and other conspiracies; if so, was this visit paid at the request of the prisoners; and, if not, at whose instance, and with what object; and what communication was Littlechild authorized to make to these men, and who authorized him?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The visit was not at the request of the prisoners, but was for police purposes, under the instructions of the Chief Commissioner of Police. I must decline to make public any instructions given by the police authorities to a police officer for police purposes.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are we to understand, in addition to the solicitors who may visit prisoners, that a further enlargement of powers to visit prisoners is extended to the police; and have the prisoners an opportunity of declining to receive these visits?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The visits are of constant occurrence. Prisoners have no notice of them, and they have no opportunity of declining them.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give notice that I shall in Committee of Supply call attention to the constant visits made on behalf of Mr. Soames and the Times to prisoners, and offers made to them of their liberty if they would give evidence, and to the general connivance between the Government and the Times.

  THE TESTING OF CAVALRY SWORDS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is or is not at the War Office a military official definitely charged with and paid for the duty (amongst other things) of providing proper swords for British troops; if so, under what rules of the War Office this official devolved his responsibility for recommending the pattern and tests of the 1885 swords upon a Committee, and did he also devolve any portion of his pay; what was the amount paid to the Committee which proposed the defective pattern and tests; who were the Members of the Committee; and will they or any of them be Members of the Committee for selecting the new pattern and tests; and did the Director of Artillery examine and endorse the proposals of the Committee of 1885; and, if not, upon the recommendation of which responsible official known to Parliament were the defective pattern and tests adopted into the Service?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The Director of Artillery is primarily responsible that the Army is provided with proper weapons of all torts; but it is not to be

  1149
  supposed that any one official could be held personally responsible for the pattern to be adopted for every description of arm. The duty of selecting a pattern is frequently of necessity devolved on a Committee of experts, and the responsibility of the Director of Artillery would not go beyond reviewing the recommendations of such a Committee, and submitting them for approval if he is satisfied with them. The Special Committee on Cavalry Swords of 1885 comprised Sir Drury Lowe, Sir Frederick Abei, the hon. Member for the Hallamshire Division, Colonel Arbuthnot, Colonel Wood, Major Call, and Mr. Latham—which may be described as about the strongest Committee which could have been selected. It was a paid Committee to the extent that most of the members were Army officers receiving military pay. The civilian members were not paid. I am not aware of any intention to appoint a new Committee on Cavalry Swords, as the utmost alteration likely to be made is a slight addition of metal to the blade. The Secretary of State was responsible for the acceptance of the proposals of the Committee of 1885; and, from the evidence and scientific facts laid before him, I hold that he could have adopted no other course. I have no reason to doubt that the sword in the hands of the troops is a fairly good and efficient weapon.
  SIR FREDERICK MAPPIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, who is responsible for the proper testing of Cavalry swords, in accordance with the tests recommended by the Special Committee in 1885, and adopted by the War Office; whether the Chief Inspector of Small Arms saw personally any of the swords, referred to in the Report issued in February last, tested in accordance with it; what authority, or by whose instruction, did this official have the swords in the possession of the 5th Dragoon Guards, the 2nd Dragoons, the 12th Lancers, the 14th Hussars, and the 19th Hussars subjected to a less stringent test than it is stated they had previously passed, and which had not yet been decided upon by the War Office; and, what is the object of testing Cavalry swords less severely than they had been previously subjected to, as stated in the Report signed by the Director of Artillery?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Up to the 31st of March, 1888, the Superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield was responsible, under the Director of Artillery, for testing swords. Since that date the Chief Inspector of Small Arms, likewise under the Director of Artillery, has been the responsible officer. I cannot say whether the latter officer personally saw the swords referred to tested when passed into the service. Experience had proved that the tests under which swords of the 1885 pattern had been passed into the service were too severe for that pattern of arm; and it was considered that their repetition would only lead to injury to the swords. On the recommendation, therefore, of the Chief Inspector of Small Arms a test which was considered sufficient to determine whether the swords were serviceable was decided on.

  NEWS TELEGRAMS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can now say what steps have been taken to secure for the Members of the House of Commons a continuance of the news telegrams formerly supplied; and whether he is aware that the discontinuance of this supply of news from the beginning of the present Session has caused much dissatisfaction among Members of the House?
  MR. PLUNKET: Mr. Speaker, no time has been lost, since we became aware that the supply of news telegrams to the House of Commons had been discontinued, in endeavouring to remove the inconvenience thus caused to hon. Members, and I am in hopes that the supply will be again provided by the beginning of next week.
  MR. HUNTER: Who is responsible for the supply of newspapers to the House?
  MR. PLUNKET: I have nothing to do with the supply of newspapers; the matter is in the hands of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

  IRELAND—THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Times witness Tracy, who was removed some months ago from Belfast Gaol to Millbank, whether he can state on what

  1151
  grounds the Irish Prisons Board refused the application made on his behalf to have an interview with his solicitor without the presence of a warder, though officers of the Constabulary were allowed to visit him alone; whether directions have been given to the authorities at Millbank Prison to supply him with dinners, drink, and newspapers, same as were provided him in Belfast Gaol at the expense of the police authorities there; and, whether, considering the serious nature of the allegations made by Tracy as to threats and promises of reward held out to him by the polite officers who visited him at Belfast, in the event of his refusing or consenting to swear as instructed at the Special Commission, he will grant an independent inquiry into all the circumstances in connection with these visits, and as to the communications made to him by the police at and since his removal from Castlebar Gaol?
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: As to the first and third paragraphs I have not been able to get the information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address the Question in the second paragraph to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  MR. M'CARTAN: When will the right hon. Gentleman have the information?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose tomorrow. It may be necessary to make local inquiry.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No drink or newspapers are supplied to Tracy. He is on a scale of prison diet, prepared by the Prisons Board, corresponding as nearly as possible with the dietary of Irish prisons, which is more liberal than the English dietary.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is this in consequence of a certain statement made by him?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; it is not in consequence of anything he said or did. A dietary was introduced to assimilate the food to that given to Irish prisoners when in Irish prisons.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how long Captain Plunkett and Mr. Stack have been in London during the sitting of the Parnell Commission; and whether he is in a position to state that none of the divisional or resident magistrates have communicated in Ireland or in England
  1152
  with witnesses to be called by the Times newspaper, and that such magistrates have held no communication with the agents and counsel for that newspaper, except in regard to the evidence to be given by themselves?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that Captains Plunkett and Stack were detained in London for 54 and 60 days respectively. I have no grounds for thinking that any communications of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman seems to object have been held by Irish magistrates. I conceive, however, that it would be the plain duty of any person, whether a magistrate or not, to do what he legitimately could to elucidate the truth concerning any question bearing on the investigation now going on before the Commission, about which he either had special knowledge or knew where to obtain such.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Do I understand the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to be that he is to communicate that knowledge to the Government or to the Times newspaper?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I laid down on Tuesday last the general principle which I thought ought to regulate the action of the Government in this matter. I have nothing to add to what I then said.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to state that none of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been employed to collect evidence, to see or to watch witnesses, or pay money to, or to take proofs of witnesses for the Times newspaper before the Parnell Commission; and whether he is in a position to state that none of the Irish Constabulary have been detained in London since the commencement of the Commission for any longer period than was necessary to give their evidence, and that they had been employed on no services connected with the case of the Times newspaper except such as were directly necessary for the giving of their own evidence upon their subpœnas?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the Royal Irish Constabulary have not been employed in collecting evidence except in relation to the evidence they were prepared to give before the Special Commission, nor have they paid money or taken proofs of witnesses. I

  1153
  believe they have, in certain cases, kept an eye on witnesses when there was ground for thinking that they might be molested or tampered with.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the Question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that none of the Irish Constabulary have been detained for any longer time than was necessary, nor have they been employed on services connected with the Times newspaper. But I am not sure that that is quite correct. At any rate, they have undoubtedly kept some kind of watch upon witnesses.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg to give notice that I shall put a further Question, founded on specific instances sworn to before the Commission.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to know whether constables have in no ease taken proofs or got up evidence for the Times?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that they have not taken proofs.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman communicated with a constable named Irwin, or his superiors, or with Preston, and will he say how Preston came to be in communication with Coleman, and how Mr. Soames came to be in possession of Coleman's letters?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never heard of Coleman.

  IRON AND COPPER TELEGRAPH WIRES.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he still proposes to replace the present iron telegraph wires by copper wires; and, if so, when?
  MR. RAIKES: So long as the difference in the price between copper and iron wire is so large, the Post Office, in erecting new wires, must make use of iron. There has been no intention of generally replacing iron wire by copper.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT—THE LAMBCOTE TENANT RIGHT CASE.
  MR. WALTER M'LAREN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the Lambcote Grange Tenant Right Case, recently decided by Judge
  1154
  Bristowe in the Doncaster County Court, under the Agricultural Holdings Act; whether the tenant, Mr. Fawcett, entered into possession in 1880, and paid the outgoing tenant £1,500 for the tenant right, in the usual way, according to the custom; whether he received an assurance from the landlord that there was no mortgage on the farm; whether, in 1887, he gave notice to leave the farm, and, on a valuation being made under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the sum assessed as due to Mr. Fawcett was £1,018; whether the farm proved to have been mortgaged in 1874, and the mortgagees stepped in, took possession of the farm, growing crops, manure, corn stacks, and everything belonging to the tenant, and turned him out without any compensation at all, either under the Agricultural Holdings Act or of any kind whatever; whether Judge Bristowe ultimately ruled that the mortgagees were acting within their rights, and that Mr. Fawcett had no claim to the tenant right he had bought owing to the mortgage being in existence before his tenancy began; whether both parties now admit that this ruling is quite in accordance with the law; and, whether, inasmuch as under these circumstances the security of a vast number of tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act is practically destroyed, he will bring in a Bill to remedy this injustice, and render the tenants' just claims secure by making them a first charge on the land he occupies?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I have communicated with the learned County Court Judge. I believe that the facts are correctly stated in the hon. Member's Question, except as to the third paragraph, as to which I have no information. The fact therein referred to was not material to the case raised before the learned County Court Judge, as the sole question was whether a relation of landlord and tenant had been created between the tenant and the mortgagees, and the learned Judge, upon the evidence, held that it had not. I am informed that the petitioner, Mr. Fawcett, has been advised by eminent counsel that the decision of the learned Judge is right. I cannot undertake to bring in a Bill upon the matter, as the case depended upon its special facts, and the hardship

  1155
  upon the tenant was due to the circumstances under which he had entered upon the tenancy.

  PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS IN WELSH.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he is aware that Coroners and Official Receivers in bankruptcy in Welsh-speaking districts carry on their proceedings in Welsh, notwithstanding the pain of forfeiture of office enacted in the Statute of Wales; and, whether he will introduce a Bill to repeal or modify the Section of the Statute thus rendered obsolete?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am not aware of what is the practice of Coroners, or Official Receivers in Bankruptcy, but upon the information before me I doubt whether there is any necessity for an amendment of the law in this matter.
  MR. T. ELLIS: I desire to know whether members of representative bodies, or Coroners and other officials in Welsh speaking districts, cannot carry on proceedings in the language of the district, not merely as a matter of courtesy, but as a matter of right.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I think the hon. Gentleman had better put his Question on the paper.
  MR. G. O. MORGAN: Would not such persons so acting be liable to very severe penalties?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I doubt whether any of these persons could become liable to a penalty.
  MR. G. O. MORGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the provisions of the 20th Section of the 27th Henry VIII, c. 26, that—
  "No person or persons that used the Welsh speech or language shall have or enjoy any manor, office, or fees within the Kings dominions upon pain of forfeiting the same offices and fees, unless he or they use and exercise the English speech or language,"
  are admittedly obsolete, he will take steps to have this antiquated enactment repealed?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to 50 and 51 Vic, c. 59, he will find that the Section of 27th Henry VIII., c. 26, to which he takes exception, is already repealed.

  IRELAND—THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. Summers, in whose name Question No. 61 stood.
  MR. SUMMERS: I wish to postpone this Question.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Why? I think I can claim that the Question shall be put.
  MR. SUMMERS: Then I put it.
  [The Question was as follows:—To ask Mr. Attorney General whether he is correctly reported as having said, on 16th July, 1888, with reference to the case of O'Donnell v. Walter and another—
  "I have received not the slightest communication from the Government of any sort or kind, direct or indirect, in order to assist me in the performance of my duties as counsel for the defendants;"
  and, whether he is able to give the House a similar assurance with regard to the proceedings before the Parnell Commission Court?]
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The quotation of my words of the 16th of July last is, I think, correct- When I was instructed to act for the Times after the Commission Bill was passed, and from that date to the present, Mr. Soames has, from time to time at my request, applied to the officials both in Ireland and England for information as to specific facts and parsons bearing upon the charges and allegations. Mr. Soames has communicated to me the result of such applications, which I have used for the purposes of the Commission. I desire to add that Mr. Soames, on the 14th of February, 1889, stated in examination-in-chief that he was prepared to give the Court every information as to the source from which and the way in which he had obtained the evidence laid before the Court, and that no question whatever was put to him in cross-examination by any of the learned counsel, excepting in connection with the unfortunate man Pigott.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not the case that when I attempted to cross-examine Mr. Soames on this point I was immediately stopped by the Court?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was treated by the Court with great courtesy; but I recollect that when the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to ask a question, he was requested to

  1157
  state on what point of relevance he proposed to ask it, and, not being able to say, he did not put it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg leave to say that my recollection does not accord with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I was not treated with courtesy by the Court.

  CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the legislation referred to in Her Most Gracious Majesty's Speech in respect of the Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments will cover the whole question of civil establishments or deal only with the question of superannuation?
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state when the legislation referred to in the Royal Speech in respect to the Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments will be submitted to the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope to lay on the table very shortly a Bill dealing with that part of the report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments which relates to pensions, and I propose also shortly to lay on the table a Minute of the Treasury stating our views upon the questions of organization which have received the consideration of the Commissions.

  IRELAND—CASEY AND KELLIHER.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that at the Killarney Petty Sessions, held on Tuesday, 26th February, two young men of the peasant class were sentenced by Mr. A. J. M'Dermot, R. M., and Captain Massey, E. M., to find bail each in £40 and two sureties of £20 each, or to be imprisoned for six months and kept to hard labour, for being among a group of persons who cheered for Mr. William O'Brien; whether these young men are now in prison and undergoing hard labour; whether there is any precedent for sentencing a prisoner to hard labour in default of bail; and whether it is true that, in the case of one of these prisoners at east, the policeman who brought the
  1158
  charge swore that he did not hear the accused cheer, but saw him among the crowd that had cheered?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Two men, named Casey and Kelliher, were tried under the ordinary law before a Bench of Magistrates on which, in addition to the two Resident Magistrates named in the Question, there were two other Magistrates belonging to the district. They were tried for booing and abusing the constabulary under circumstances which made the charge a serious one. They were bound to be of good behaviour for six months or in default to be imprisoned, though not with hard labour, as is alleged in the Question. One of them was at once bailed out; the other was bailed out on the 1st inst.

  "PARNELLISM AND CRIME."
  MR. BRUNNER: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whom I can ask without offence, as to the circulation of false, foul, infamous libels contained in "Parnellism and Crime" through an agency I will not mention. [Cries of "Order, order," and interruption.] By way of personal explanation, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that these libels were on sale on the day after I asked my Question last week ["Order, order"], and I do not consider it a private and personal matter. ["Order, order."]
  No answer was returned to the Question.

  THE IMPRISONMENT OF DR. TANNER.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if it is true that Dr. Tanner, M. P., on the night of his arrest was obliged to sit in a chair all night, as no bed had been provided for him by the authorities at Scotland Yard?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Before the right hon Gentleman answers that Question, perhaps he will be kind enough to inform the House whether every arrangement was not made at Scotland Yard for the comfort of Dr. Tanner, and whether he was not supplied with cigars, whisky and water, and other refreshments?
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is no bed at Scotland Yard, and accordingly an armchair in the Inspector's

  1159
  room was placed at the disposal of the hon. Member for Mid-Cork. In the ordinary course the hon. Gentleman would have been lodged for the night in the cells in King Street Police Station; but the police authorities, with the intention of showing the hon. Member every consideration, brought him to Scotland Yard and administered as far as possible to his comfort. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes particulars, Dr. Tanner was supplied with sandwiches, whisky, and cigars. I understand that Dr. Tanner acknowledged the courtesy which was shown him.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Arising out of his answer, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh that whisky and cigars are a sufficient substitute for a bed?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  THE MORPETH SHOOTING CASE.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the following:—"Sheffield, March 4.—John Hardwick and a man named Coalman were sentenced to penal servitude in 1879 for shooting a farmer and his son near Morpeth. The real culprits confessed, and Hardwich and Coalman were released on a ticket-of. leave;" and why these men were not "pardoned?"
  MR. MATTHEWS: I presume the hon. Member refers to the case of Hardwicke and Walford, who were released on licence in 1882. The then Secretary of State decided that while there was sufficient doubt as to the guilt of the prisoners to make it impossible to keep them in prison, it would not be right, in view of the extraordinary conflict of evidence in the case, to grant them a free pardon. This decision was reviewed and confirmed by the two succeeding Secretaries of State. I have also most carefully examined the whole of the facts, and find it impossible to come to any other conclusion than that arrived at by my three predecessors.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is it not the fact that the real culprit confessed, and if it is, why were these men not pardoned?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The facts are not as the hon. Gentleman says.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I believe it would be convenient to the right hon. Gentleman and the House if he would state what re the views of the Government with regard to the future business of the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity of stating the course which we recommend for the conduct of business during the next fortnight. The right hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that we are under a necessity of obtaining Votes for the Army, Navy, and Civil Service, Supplementary Votes for the present year, and the excess Votes, in time to get a Bill passed the Houses of Parliament by the 28th or 29th of March. It is our intention, therefore, to ask the House to listen to the statements of the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) with reference to the proposals of the Government for strengthening the Navy. I do not ask the House to come to any decision or to express any judgment at once on these proposals. It would not be reasonable or fair to ask the House to do so. It would be also unreasonable and unfair that the Government should ask the House to vote on the proposals until the Navy Estimates are considered. I would suggest, therefore, that when the statements have been made by my right hon. Friends, and questions in elucidation of their statements have been answered, it would be for the convenience of the House and the progress of business that we should at once report progress on the Resolution without taking any division until the Navy Estimates are considered. In that case we should propose to take the Supplementary Estimates to-night. On Monday next we shall ask the House to give us the first Vote for the Navy. On Monday week we shall ask for a Vote on Account, and take the Excels Votes, if there should be any, reported from the Committee on Public Accounts. Hon. Gentlemen are aware that we must have the Vote? to which I have referred before the end of the financial year; otherwise we should have to ask the House for a Supplementary Vote. To-morrow I propose to ask

  1161
  the House to pass a Resolution with regard to the arrangements indicated last Session for providing practically two days in the week for the consideration of Supply. I trust that the House will accept that proposal as one intended to remedy some inconvenience.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will not express any opinion on the last point, as I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian will be here to-morrow, and say something upon it. I understand that the Vote on Account will be taken on Monday week.
  MR. H. FOWLER: I would like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to one item in the Supplementary Estimates, namely, the large increase on the Pension Vote There is an addition upon the Vote of something like £8,000, and no names are given of persons who are to receive the extra grants. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not proceed with the Vote to-night,
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that the Supplementary Estimates were only circulated this morning, and whether, therefore, he thinks it fair to take them to-night?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is not in our power to circulate them before the debate on the Address is ended. The information which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) desires is never given, as I understand, on the Supplementary Estimates, but I shall be exceedingly happy to satisfy him on the subject.
  MR. DUFF: Are we to understand that the light hon. Gentleman asks the House to give up the right of general discussion on going into the Estimates?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I did not ask the House to give up any right, but what I stated implied that the prolongation of the discussion on the Address has forced us into a corner, and as the hon. Gentleman himself is aware, there is no alternative but to ask the House to give us a Vote.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury notice that the Attorney General has put down on the paper
  1162
  a Bill of a most obnoxious character to a large part of the House—I refer to the Criminal Evidence Bill. Will he give us an assurance that, unless that Bill appears as a First Order on the Paper, there will be no attempt to snap a Second Reading? Will he promise that a measure of such importance will be made the First Order before being taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Ample notice will be given of the date on which it is intended to take the Second Reading of this Bill.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury how many days the House will have between the date when the Government intend to lay the Navy Estimates before the House, and the time when the Government must get the money? Many hon. Members who feel strongly on certain questions have, on previous occasions, been obliged to curtail their observations, or not make them at all, through unwillingness to hamper the Government or prevent them from getting the money by a certain date. I wish to know if we are to have an opportunity of discussing the Wages Vote, on which I have two very important points to raise?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid I cannot give many days for the discussion of the Wages Vote. Unless the money is obtained before the 18th or 19th of March, as the noble Lord is aware, the wages of the men will not be paid on the 1st of April. The prolongation of the Debate on the Address has left the Government no more time than stated to the House. If the House desires longer consideration for the Estimates before the end of the Financial year, the only result will be that we shall be compelled to ask for more of the time now belonging to Private Members, much as I wish to avoid such a request. But I assure my noble Friend that ample opportunity will be given to hon. Members to raise any question relating either to the Naval and Military Services or the Civil Service.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to give notice that on the Vote on Account I shall oppose it generally and particularly, having no sort of confidence in Her Majesty's present Government.
  SIR J. PULESTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury give us a pledge that the discussion of the Navy Estimates will not be deferred until the end of the Session, and that if there are any points in connection with them that we consider of the first importance we shall have an opportunity of discussing them?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have indicated the days on which it is proposed to take the Estimates. We shall take the Army Estimates on Monday, and those of the Navy on Thursday, and the Vote on Account for the Civil Service on the following Monday.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question on a subject of great importance. I think the right hon. Gentleman stated that we should have vote No. I. (Vote A)—the first Vote in the Army Estimates—on Monday. Well, on more than one occasion we have been obliged to put off the discussion of the Vote, and what I wish to know, and what many military men in this House wish to know, is whether, assuming that the Vote must be passed on Monday, the right hon. Gentleman will on that day announce his intention of giving us another early opportunity for the discussion of these Estimates?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I thought I had already explained my full desire and intention to give every opportunity for the fullest discussion of every question which hon. Gentlemen wish to raise.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: We have sometimes been put off for two, three, and even more months, until it has been impossible to discuss the questions at all. I desire that the right hon. Gentleman should give us an assurance that we shall have full opportunity for the discussion of these matters in reasonable time.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I quite hope that I shall be able to give that full opportunity. To say that I will do so, or can do so, would be to enter into an engagement which, I am sure, the hon. and gallant Baronet, knowing the difficulties of the position of the Leader of the House, would not expect me to enter into. We propose to give hon. Members as early an opportunity as possible for the discussion of all the Estimates.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  "To nominate the Select Committee on Public Accounts:—Sir John Lubbock, Sir Walter Barttelot, Mr. Salt, Mr. Barran, Sir Richard Temple, Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttle-worth, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Arthur O. Connor, and Mr. Wodehouse."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: Before this Committee is appointed I should like to express my regret and surprise that no Members from Scotland are on the list. The requirements of Scotland as to the expenditure of public money are not quite identical with those of England, and there are many Scotch Members in the House who would like to be represented on the Committee. I have communicated with the authorities who have charge of these matters on this side of the House, and I think I am right in saying that they regard it as a strange thing that it is not proposed to put Scotch Members on this Committee.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Personally I should be very glad if arrangements could be made to include one or two Scotch Members on the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NAVAL DEFENCE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Resolution which I shall have to propose as to the building of ships, clearly brings to the mind of the Committee the object with which it is made. It is made for the purpose of giving effect to repeated declarations made by different Members of the Government that the time has now arrived, in their judgment, for a survey of our Naval establishments with a view of materially increasing their strength. Four years ago an almost similar motion was made by the First Lord of the Admiralty under the Administration of the right hon Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). Lord Northbrook then proposed largely to augment the normal shipbuilding pro-

  1165
  gramme and to add to the number of guns, and large additional ways and means were added for a period of years to the ordinary Naval Estimates. That programme, which has been known as the Northbrook programme, is practically complete. I wish to say nothing about it, except from an administrative point of view. The peculiarity attending its execution has been that ships have been built much more rapidly than it was anticipated they would be, and they have been kept waiting in some cases for months, and in other cases for years for guns which alone could make them efficient fighting machines. Now, I think, we shall all agree that one of the first duties of any one connected with naval administration is to try and reduce to the smallest limits the amount of money locked up in incomplete and useless ships. There can be no object in accelerating the shipbuilding process if the ships whose construction has been so expedited are to be kept waiting for long periods of time for their guns. Therefore, early last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War (Mr. Stanhope) gave very close attention to the subject, with a view of ascertaining how far the existing block was capable of being removed, and how far the causes which tended to produce it were preventible for the future. If the Naval progress during the last two years has not been so rapid as some of my hon. Friends would wish, it was due to a block on the road, through the road being too narrow, and the widening of the road to accommodate the increase of traffic was clearly the duty to be undertaken. We have now widened the road, and I believe I may with confidence say we are able to push on our work with regularity and expedition. Now, in addition to these vessels, which are comprised in the Northbrook programme, a considerable number of other vessels have been laid down and completed during the last three years. But there is one particular class of vessels to which I must allude. I may almost say the magnitude and ubiquity of our commerce force us to perform on the high seas almost single-handed many police duties, and for the purpose of performing them and protecting the smaller currents of our trade along the coast vessels have in the past been employed of small capacity and slow speed; and these
  1166
  vessels were, from their want of tonnage and slow speed, useless for effective war purposes. To replace these obsolete vessels by a limited number of efficient gunboats has been one of the duties performed during the last three years; and we have built sufficient to supply that branch of the service for several years to come. Therefore the money to be devoted to the increase of shipbuilding in the construction of new ships for years to come will be solely devoted to vessels which are designed for war purposes alone. On the 1st of April, 1889, we shall have in process of building in our dockyards and by contract about 30 vessels, and on the 1st of April, 1890, we shall have completed all those vessels except four, and those four will be in a final stage of their construction. Therefore it was evident early last year that it would be our duty to submit a new shipbuilding programme, to this House to take the place of the Northbrook programme, which is practically complete. Early last summer Her Majesty's Government took into consideration the bases and the principles upon which the new shipbuilding programme was to be founded. It had been admitted, I think, on all hands, that although we had made considerable progress during the last three years, yet our Naval establishments had not attained the strength at which they should be permanently maintained. I have endeavoured in the past to give effect to the Northbrook programme by concentrating our attention on the ships and work which we had in hand, adding to them the vessels which were most urgently required, but taking care every year that the new ships completed and ready for commission were largely in excess of the old vessels which became obsolete—that is, to put into the Navy a good deal more than we took out of it, and so to build it up towards the level at which we thought it ought to be maintained. Her Majesty's Government had to consider whether this should be the principle on which the new programme should be based. There was an alternative on which to base our programme, and that was, after a full survey had been made of the requirements of the Navy and of the country, and having ascertained what the deficiencies were, to do our best to make them good, with all the rapidity which was consistent

  1167
  with good construction. Her Majesty's Government determined to adopt that principle, and our new shipbuilding programme is based upon it. Undoubtedly it is an advance—at least I think I may say it is a departure from the principle on which, or the methods by which preceding shipbuilding programmes have been calculated. It is frequently maintained in certain quarters that the Army and Navy expenditure of the country should be regulated by the opinions of experts whose services are at the disposal of the Government. That is a doctrine in which Her Majesty's Government cannot acquiesce. The Executive Government of this country are entrusted with the duty of managing the whole of the policy of the country, and one essential portion of the responsibility of the Executive Government is the making of the needful provision for our naval and military requirements. The responsibility of initiating increase of expenditure upon those services must rest upon the Government, and upon the Government alone. I do not believe it would be possible, and certainly it would be most improper for any Government to attempt to shirk that responsibility by endeavouring to shelter themselves behind the opinion of their professional advisers. But when the principle of future expenditure has been settled, it is clearly the duty of the Government to take the advice of their professional officers, in order that the increase of expenditure may be so formulated as to be of the utmost use in increasing the efficiency of the services to which it is to be appropriated. Therefore, so soon as we had settled the principle on which the shipbuilding policy was to be based directions were given to our naval advisers that they were to prepare, in accordance with the principles laid down, some scheme of shipbuilding. Since then a good deal has happened; but the scheme which was then drawn out on the foundation I have mentioned is in many respects practically the scheme which I am about to lay before the House. In the interval Her Majesty's Government have given their constant attention to this question and in many particulars, and in some important items, the scheme has been modified during the past six or eight months. And, Sir, before I leave this part of the subject I
  1168
  should like to acknowledge publicly the very great assistance which we have received from our naval advisers in the preparation and elaboration of the scheme I am about to unfold. The first and foremost of these advisers is Admiral Sir Arthur Hood, whose immense technical knowledge, calm judgment, and intuitive administrative capacity have not only in this instance, but ever since I had the honour to be associated with him, been of enormous benefit to the Naval Service. It is rather a curious coincidence that there was another body, quite independent of Her Majesty's Ministers, considering the principles upon which the shipbuilding programme should be based. Last year the House appointed a Select Committee, over which the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs has presided with his characteristic common sense, impartiality, and ability. That Committee was composed of men of every section of political opinion in this House. We differed on a good many matters, but there was a proposition to which that Committee gave a unanimous assent, and it was to this effect—that any new shipbuilding programme should be based upon a full survey and knowledge of the whole requirements of the Naval Service of the country. That decision, or rather that recommendation of the Select Committee, was arrived at some months after the decision of the Government, and it is a curious coincidence, because it shows that so far from, this increase of naval expenditure which we advocate being necessarily associated, as some think it is, with the traditions, training, and predilections of the Tory Party, we have indisputable evidence to the contrary, a body of men specially appointed to consider questions of naval expenditure and temporarily dissociated from their politital prejudices having arrived at identically the same conclusions as Her Majesty's Government. I should like to lay before the House some considerations which influenced us in arriving at the conclusion that an increase of naval strength was necessary. Our commerce has greatly increased during the past few years, and it will continue to increase, but the mere development of our commerce is not in my judgment a conclusive argument for a proportionate increase in naval expenditure. The examination

  1169
  of a few figures will show that the increase in tonnage is greatly due to the enlargement of the size of vessels rather than to an increase in their number. This increased tonnage therefore means increased strength and greater steaming power; and it therefore follows that every year a large proportion of our mercantile marine has become more and more capable of taking care of itself, and of evading hostile depredation. So much is this the case that the actual amount of new tonnage added to the English mercantile marine during the past ten years is very nearly equal to the total of the steam tonnage of the rest of the world. While submitting', therefore, the magnitude of the interests we have to protect is one factor in the calculation, that which should primarily govern us in considering the strength of naval establishments is the amount of force which is available to attack or injure our commercial interests. In Her Majesty's gracious Speech allusion is made to the fact that there has been in recent years unceasing expenditure on naval armaments by European nations. It is quite true that this is not altogether applicable to the last two or three years with regard to the leading Naval Powers of Europe; but, taking the last 15 years and dividing them into quinquennial periods, it is found that each live years show an increase on the previous five years. This is true of every European nation that has any considerable seaboard. It must always be remembered that naval expenditure diners in this respect from military expenditure—that the actual returns are not available so soon. If any one wants to examine into a Naval Budget, he must not merely have regard to the expenditure in any one particular year as conclusive proof that in that year no addition was made to that particular Navy; he must go behind this to the expenditure of some of the years before, and this will not infrequently disclose the fact that in a year when the expenditure has apparently fallen there has been the greatest increase of naval force, owing to ships, the expense of which has been met in previous years, being completed in this year. In this very year, when to the mere naval statistician the naval expenditure appeared to be lowered, there may have been the greatest aug-
  1170
  mentation of naval force. Now we have had one great advantage during the last few years in our shipbuilding policy; we have adjusted the work we have taken in hand with our finances, and we have been able to make most rapid progress with all the vessels we have had in hand. Foreign nations, however, have acted on another principle. They have allowed their shipbuilding programme to outrun the compass of their annual finance, and have not made the same progress we have. There is a great amount of incomplete work on which expenditure in the past has been incurred; therefore, in looking to the future we must take cognizance of not only prospective expenditure, but add that to the expenditure already incurred in reference to unfinished ships to estimate the addition made to the naval force of foreign countries. If we apply this test, we find that during the next five years there will be a large addition to the war fleets of Europe, especially in the matter of battle-ships. I had hoped some two years ago that the Nile and Trafalgar would be the last battle-ships laid down in this country. It then appeared as if there was to be a general cessation of armour-clad building, and that for reasons not far to seek, torpedo boats had come into use, and naval officers were inclined greatly to exaggerate the effect of the change. The result was that the second European Naval Power, France, practically suspended her armour clad building, and other nations followed her example; but since then, owing in part to the development of quick firing guns, and partly to the invention of new explosives, a great impetus has been given to battle-ship building. Therefore, it is our duty, as we find our neighbours are pushing forward the building of this class of ships, to make similar efforts. We cannot fail to take cognizance of the fact. We may talk of our supremacy on the sea, but that supremacy is measured by the number of battle ships we can put into line. In the observations I have made I am re-echoing the view expressed in the gracious Speech that our relations are friendly and cordial with all nations. Still, it requires no very deep student of history to know that there are certain sections of opinion and of influence in foreign countries which are unfriendly to this country, owing to jealousy of our

  1171
  prosperity and envy of our great colonial expansion, with our immunity from conscription and all its attendant evils and the like; and if any one of these influences, these cycles of opinion, happen temporarily to become predominant, we cannot ignore the fact that increased naval armaments may he available for our annoyance and injury. I have endeavoured during the past year to study the speeches of those who in previous years have held my position and that of Prime Minister, so as to ascertain what was the paramount idea underlying their utterances when they spoke of the standard of strength on which our naval establishment should be maintained. I think I am correct in saying that the leading idea has been that our establishment should be on such a scale that it should at least be equal to the naval strength of any two other countries. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) has given expression to that view. The right hon. Gentleman was noted as an advocate of vigorous economy at the Admiralty, but he has stated that he felt certain that when he left the Admiralty the British fleet was equal to the combined naval forces of any two other countries. That may have been the case; but it must be borne in mind that at the time of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks there was only one considerable Naval Power in Europe, while the feature of the present situation is that there are now not one or two, but four or five nations which are spending largely on their naval armaments. When, then, there is this simultaneous development of naval force going on, it is quite clear that the strength of the combination of any two other countries must be regarded as considerably increased in the aggregate. This is a fact that we cannot ignore, and we must therefore either be content with a less measure of precaution than that which in past years was supposed to regulate our Naval Estimates, or we must be prepared, to face an increased expenditure, or those Estimates I have always endeavoured to speak with reserve upon the question of what would be the effect of a naval war upon our commerce. I do not believe that ten cruisers or twenty cruisers would annihilate that commerce or cut off our food supplies; but, on the other hand, it
  1172
  is quite clear that any system of commerce and mercantile marine must be based on the security and price of freight, or, on the outbreak or danger of war, there might be a rude shock or a great disturbance to a branch of some trade, which might go altogether, leading to a total cessation of other branches of the same trade. No doubt, at the moment, it would be the apprehension of what might occur rather than the occurrences themselves, and it would be most necessary that there should, at the outbreak of a war, be a feeling of perfect confidence in our naval strength. I have sufficient confidence in the energy and capabilities of our merchant seamen, and believe that they would soon adjust themselves to the requirements of such conditions; but in order to sustain that confidence the supremacy of our Fleet is a necessary preliminary. This is a view that not only I, but naval officers, hold. The changes that have been effected in naval matters during the last few years have certainly increased the difficulty of maintaining a close blockade, and here the recent Naval Manoeuvres have given us useful lessons. A military strategist, in conducting a campaign, requires information on two points—he wishes to know the amount of the force that can be brought against him, and he also wishes to know the uses to which it can be put. On land the number of military movements or combinations is limited by many conditions—the frontier of the territory—the geographical lie of the country, the course of rivers, the means of transport, even the conditions of weather; these and other matters must enter into his consideration, and impose limitations upon his movements. But this is not so in regard to naval combinations. A ship is self-supporting, carrying her own stores and commissariat, and without any warning can proceed to join any combination that may take place at any rendezvous in any part of the world. No amount of foresight or calculation can anticipate naval combinations and naval movements; therefore, it seems to me essential that, for the purpose of meeting such unexpected blows, we should have a considerable margin of reserve; and if this is to be utilized in the way I have indicated it must be equipped, and armed, and ready for sea at a few days' notice.

  1173
  I venture to lay these arguments before the Committee, because I think they are worthy of attention, and are incontrovertible conclusions for the premises from which Her Majesty's Government started or which they accepted, that there should be no declination from the assumed standard of strength in the past. I am no alarmist, and much dislike the waste of public money, and in the controversies that have taken place during the last few years I have frequently combated exaggerated and sensational statements, for I have always considered it mean for a Government to take an advantage of an ephemeral phase of public excitement to incur unnecessary expenditure. Nothing is more foolish than to enforce demands for increased expenditure by arguments based on facts which will not stand discussion or the test of experience. But there seems to me to be no alternatives but those I have stated; we must either be content with a lower standard of precaution than in the past, or we must be prepared to face increased expenditure. Her Majesty's Government, in the present state of European politics, cannot recommend the former course; on the contrary, we shall use all our influence and authority to endeavour to induce the House of Commons to meet this necessity for increased naval expenditure. Having stated, therefore, the nature and scope of the scheme which I am about to propose, I should like to turn to some other conditions to which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, that scheme should conform. We considered that it should be entire in itself, and adequate, not only to our immediate, but also to our future wants. We considered that every vessel should be an effective war vessel of the newest type and most approved design, and that every vessel, when once laid down, should be pushed on with all the rapidity compatible with sound construction, and that as these vessels approach completion preparations should be made for the necessary accumulation of men and stores and guns which would enable a ship to become an efficient fighting machine. To associate with that scheme of expenditure those business-like conditions necessitated a good deal of previous investigation and work. Upon that work we have been engaged for
  1174
  the past three years; and, although there may seem at first sight to be little connection between the proposals I now have to make and the work we have done, in reality that work is the foundation on which we base our scheme. We considered it to be essential that before we asked the House for additional money for naval purposes we should be able to show that the national shipbuilding yards were well administered, that the scandal of ships waiting for guns should not be repeated, and that the designs for new ships should be in accordance with the view of naval officers and naval scientists. Upon the questions of the administrations of the Dockyards, the supply of guns, and the preparations of designs I will therefore say a few words. In the comparison too frequently made between our Dockyards and private yards sufficient allowance is not made for the variety and multiplicity of those duties which the former have to perform, and from which private yards are free. Everything that relates to a great fleet of warships has to be done in the Dockyards. Almost all the officering, manning, victualling, storing, coaling, and lighting—these and many other services, which in a great commercial port are performed by various public and private agencies, are performed by the Dockyards. In addition to this, it is necessary to have a great accumulation of stores and men ready for action at a moment's notice. Moreover, we have so to arrange our machinery that every branch of it may be capable of great expansion in case of emergency. Naval mobilization is just the reverse of military mobilization. The former is decentralization and localization, while the latter is concentration and centralization. If we were unfortunate enough to get into any war, every man, every officer, every store, and every gun, as well as ammunition, would have to pass through the Dockyards in order to be put on board the ships commissioned in those Dockyards. Therefore, though it is necessary to keep a tight hand on these subsidiary and incidental services, it would be most unadvisable to cut them down beyond a certain limit, because in case of emergency it would be impossible to expand or extend them. In the past three years we have dissociated these incidental services

  1175
  from shipbuilding and repairing. We have brought them to account and have largely reduced their amount. We have made regulations by which, men once put on shipbuilding are kept there and not taken for other purposes, and we have established a form of account which is working admirably. There was a little difference of opinion between the Admiralty and the Treasury which came into prominence before the Committee last year; but since then the Treasury have sent a high official, Mr. Waterhouse, to make an examination, and he has expressed himself as highly satisfied with the system, and suggested its further extension. These alterations have effected a perfect revolution in the Dockyards. Ships are now built with a rapidity rivalling that of private yards. The Trafalgar, which is the largest ship of war ever built in this country, was completed in the unprecedentedly short time of three years and three months. It is conclusively proved in this instance that rapidity of construction is a convertible term for economy of construction, for not only has the ship been built with this great expedition, but the saving on the original Estimate is £100,000, of which £85,000 is on labour alone. The last ironclad built is the Anson, which is of much less tonnage than the Trafalgar. Six years were occupied in her construction, and the cost of labour alone on the lesser ship was £30,000 more than on the Trafalgar. Therefore a cardinal point of our new proposals is that we should establish in our Dockyards a system by which there should be a statutory enactment that ships should be pushed on with all possible rapidity, for it is better for this House to limit the number of ships than to assent to a larger number and then to reduce and curtail the money necessary for their completion. And now I turn to the question of guns. The knowledge that a considerable number of very powerful ships had so long been waiting for their guns has resulted in somewhat exaggerated statements being made as to the gun-producing power and condition of our Ordnance Department. A very short recital of the circumstances under which breech-loading guns were introduced into the Service will at once make clear to the Committee what is the nature of
  1176
  the block from which we are now suffering. In the earlier days of heavy Ordnance English guns were muzzle-loaders, and the muzzle loading system was brought to great perfection, so much so that naval officers declined to part with their guns, which were in every way equal to the breech-loaders of foreign nations. About 12 or 13 years ago a new kind of powder was discovered, known as the cocoa or slow-burning powder, from which by long chasing in the guns much better results were obtained than from the old powder. Nevertheless, expert opinions clung to the muzzle-loaders, and declined to sanction the introduction of a breech-loading system. Experiments went on, till at last it became clear that we should be hopelessly left behind by foreign nations unless we adopted breech-loaders, because the length of the gun necessary to fully utilize the slow-burning powder prevented the guns being loaded from the muzzle. We then took to breech-loaders in 1880, and we have had in the last seven years to concentrate an amount of labour which in other nations has been spread over three times that period. In dealing with questions of so experimental a character as those relating to the manufacture of big ordnance there must be a certain number of failures and mistakes. Our failures and mistakes were not greater nor more numerous than those of other nations, but they have been compressed within a much shorter period of time. At that time the gun factories were working under desperate pressure, in consequence of shipbuilding having been carried on with great rapidity. If the system of breech-loading ordnance had been introduced into the Navy earlier, more time would have been given to perfecting experiments; but, as it was, the result of incomplete experiments were precipitately embodied in the manufacture, and thus we have the cause of delay—vessels waiting for their guns now. Then the use of "liners" was introduced in the construction of a considerable number of guns. That answered very well for a certain time, and then there was a failure, and the whole of those guns had to be re-manufactured. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for War and I had to inquire during the past year in order to ascertain how this block could be re-

  1177
  moved, and, if it were removed, whether the resources and producing power of this country are so large as to enable us to say with confidence no great number of ships would be detained for want of guns. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston I showed that by the end of the financial year 1889–90 all our ships requiring heavy ordnance would be supplied with their guns. The vessels of this year will be supplied with their guns, though there will be a delay of two months in the date of delivery. After that the block will be entirely removed. I speak as to the user, while my right hon. Friend speaks as to the manufacture, and we are both quite confident that for the future no block of the same character will occur, and that if orders are given in time, and if no change takes place in the designs during construction, the sources of production will hereafter be quite equal to our naval wants. I will undertake that the orders are given in time, and my right hon. Friend will undertake that there is no change in the designs after the guns have been ordered. Now, I wish to say a word on the subject of designs. We have a large number of ships which are coming on, and we wish to impose a test more effective than that of the measured mile and the ordinary experimental cruise, because we have formed certain opinions regarding their merits and defects, and are anxious that they should be thoroughly tested. We have had the advantage of the Naval Manœuvres, and that has fully confirmed the opinion we have formed, and all the vessels which we propose to build will be characterized by a high freeboard, more length, more engine room, and we shall avoid the error of endeavouring to cram too much accommodation into a small space. We have designed a new ship of war which shall not only be capable of fighting, but shall also give decent accommodation for the officers and men on board and in all weathers. So far as the question of design, construction, or armament is concerned, we can give every assurance that any increase of expenditure which may be sanctioned shall be given effect to in a prompt and business-like manner. I now turn to the exact number of ships which we propose to build, and the expenditure associated with them; but I do not propose to give the individual
  1178
  cost of each vessel, following the precedent set by Lord Northbrook in 1885, because, if we are to derive the benefit of the competing contractors, it is not advisable to give them too close a line as to their tenders. The number of ships which we consider should be added to Her Majesty's Navy in our new shipbuilding programme is 70, and their estimated cost, including armament, is £21,500,000. We propose to build eight first-class battle-ships, with a displacement of 14,000 tons; two second-class battle-ships, with a displacement of 9,000 tons; nine first-class protected cruisers, with a displacement of 7,300 tons; 29 second-class protected cruisers, of the Medea class, with a displacement of 3,400 tons; four smaller cruisers, of the Pandora class, with a displacement of 2,600 tons; and 18 torpedo gunboats, of the Sharpshooter type, with a displacement of 735 tons—making a total aggregate tonnage of 318,000 tons. As to the time each of these vessels will take to complete, the first-class battle-ships will be finished in from three and a-half to four years; the second-class battle ships in three years; the first-class cruisers in two and a-half years; the smaller cruisers in two years or somewhat less; and the gun vessels in one and a half year. Of the aggregate cost of £21,50,000 for these 70 vessels, the sum of £16,150,000 will be for engines and hulls, and £5,350,000 for the armaments. Dividing the sum of £21,500,000 into two portions, one of £11,500,000, and another of £10,000,000, the sum of £10,000,000 represents the work which we propose to put out to contract, and the £11,500,000 is the amount of work which we propose to assign to the Dockyards, and to absorb the charge for Ordnance included in the ordinary annual Estimates. The first sum of £10,000,000 will enable us to build, arm, and equip the following vessels:—Four battle-ships, five first-class cruisers, 17 second-class cruisers, and six torpedo gunboats—making a total of 32 vessels; and I propose to put the whole of these 32 vessels out to contract in the course of the present financial year. Funds for this expenditure will be raised by methods and under conditions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will subsequently explain. If I find there is any tendency to run up prices against

  1179
  the Admiralty, we may have to alter our decision as to the amount to be so expended; but, with that one reservation, we intend to put this amount of work out. For the purpose of building and completing the remaining 38 vessels and their armament there is £11,500,000. This sum, which is to be included in the ordinary Estimates, can be divided into two heads—£8,650,000 for construction of engines and hulls, and £2,850,000 for armament. We propose to lay down in the Dockyards this year 20 vessels, as follows:—Four battle-ships of the first class, one of the second class, three first-class cruisers, six second-class cruisers, and six torpedo gunboats. Adding these 20 to the 32 put out to contract, we have 52, leaving 18 out of the 70 still to be accounted for. They will be disposed as follows:—A second-class battle-ship will be laid down early in the financial year 1890–1, and the other vessels will take their places on the slips in the Dockyards, as soon as they become vacant by the launch of the vessels laid down in the first year. The whole of the programme, including both Dockyard and contract work, is to be finished in four and a-half years from the date of the commencement of the first vessel. There is a naval and an administrative advantage in this distribution of work, to which I should like to call attention. Taking the programme as a whole, it consists of 70 ships, 10 of which are battle-ships and 60 cruisers of different types. A battle-ship takes very much longer to build than a cruiser—three and a-half or four years—and if they are to be finished within four and a-half years they must all be commenced in the first year. But a battle-ship when completed is not entirely efficient unless she has certain small vessels attached to her as scouts, and we consider that out of the 70 vessels 20 are the satellites of the battle-ships. The remaining 40 cruisers will be effective whether used in squadrons or individually. We propose to commence the construction of the whole of these this year, and thus make an immediate addition to the Navy of what it most requires. Later on, when an increase is made to our battle-ships, each battle-ship will be accompanied by two smaller vessels, and thus there will be no drain upon our force of independent cruisers. This
  1180
  enables us to carry out effectively the whole of our shipbuilding programme, and it also enables us to give continuous employment in the Dockyards, thus avoiding the great evils of a sudden expansion of business. In order to absorb the amount represented by this sum of £11,500,000, we raise the Shipbuilding Vote in the ordinary Estimates by £615,000, and reduce the Ordnance-Vote by £400,000, because we intend to purchase all the Ordnance for the contract ships out of the £10,000,000 to which I have referred. If the Shipbuilding Vote be kept at the level at which we propose to put it, and the Ordnance Vote at the same level, there will be sufficient to provide for the whole of this work, as well as for all the work we have in hand and to complete in the period of four and a-half years. The Committee will observe the extreme rapidity with which we propose to build these ships. In France a battle-ship takes nearly ten years to complete. In this country, previous to 1885, ironclads took six years and large cruisers four years. We propose to lay down 70 vessels, including ten battleships, in four and a-half years. It is in the interests of economy that we make this proposal.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Are the 70 vessels to be the total shipbuilding production of four years, or in addition to the ordinary estimated production, whatever takes place?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No; perhaps I may explain. When Lord Northbrook made his proposals there were a large number of ships in the Dockyards which were in process of building, and what he did was to increase the existing shipbuilding programme by making certain additions to it. I stated that on April 1, 1890, there would only be four ships in Her Majesty's Dockyards and under contract, independent of this programme, which would not be complete. These four ships would be in the last stage of construction. After this year, therefore, the whole of the Naval Estimates are available to carry out this part of the programme.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: On the four years' Estimate?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: On the four years' Estimate. Rapidity of construction means economy, because delay occasions twofold waste—not only does

  1181
  the ship cost more in construction, but the longer it is on the stocks the less is its life as an effective ship, and, therefore, the lees use you get out of it. In order to insure rapidity of construction for the whole of these ships, contract as well as Dockyard ships, we propose to put them in an Act of Parliament in two Schedules, enacting that they shall be completed within the period I have mentioned—namely, by April, 1894. A special account will be kept of each of these vessels, and those accounts will be subject to the ordinary control of the Treasury and the Comptroller and Auditor General. In order that the Dockyards may not be subject to certain impediments which prevent the ships from being completed as rapidly as possible, we propose slightly to adjust the financial machinery in two essentials as regards excesses and balances of Votes. There is, perhaps, no practice, however laudable its pretensions, which results more in extravagance than the practice of surrendering to the Exchequer balances because the contractors have failed to deliver within a certain period. The liability remains, but the money goes back into the Exchequer, and goes to the reduction of the National Debt. It is practically a misappropriation of funds. The taxpayer is taxed one year for certain work, but because the contractor, through some unforeseen circumstances, is unable to deliver the work a day in advance of March 81, the money so raised goes back into the Exchequer, and next year the taxpayer is taxed again for the same purpose. That is not only unfair, but most prejudicial to economy. The unquestioned tendency in the Departments is to surrender as little as possible, and there are a number of devices by which attempts are made to reduce expenditure which would come into the next year by anticipating it, in order that in a subsequent year this deferred liability may be met without up setting the departmental finance or the Estimates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, the proposal we make is that balances in reference to shipbuilding should be retained. But we go further. There are certain articles and certain stores, such as armour plates and steel castings, which only a limited number of firms pro-
  1182
  duce, and we must take these goods when we can get them. It is very likely that in dealing with transactions of this magnitude armour plates may be delivered sooner than anticipated, and heavy payments have to be made which would disorganize arrangements, and, therefore, provision is made for a temporary advance for the purpose of meeting any such payments, the advance being immediately repaid as soon as there was a surplus to the credit of the Department. We propose to allocate to new construction in the present financial year, 1889–90, £2,645,000; but only £1,360,000 is available for the new programme, the remainder goes to the completion of those ships still in hand. Next year, 1890–91, we propose to allocate £2,590,000 for new shipbuilding, and of that £2,340,000 will go to the new programme.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: Does that include contracts?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No. In 1891–2 we propose to allocate £2,560,000 to new construction, and the whole of that will go towards the new programme. Next year, 1892–3, we estimate that only £1,650,000 will be required, and in 1893–4, £740,000. These sums, in the aggregate, amount to £8,650,000. We propose in the same way to distribute the money necessary to arm these ships, and to make provision for it out of the ordinary Ordnance Vote. Adding that sum of £8,650,000 to the amount required for ordnance, which is £2,850,000, we get £11,500,000, which is the whole of the work we propose to put upon the Estimates. Therefore, summing up our scheme, it comprises the building of 70 vessels; it involves the expenditure of £10,000,000 out of the Special Fund, the nature of which my right hon. Friend will explain; and it involves an increase of £615,000 in the Shipbuilding Vote; but there will be a reduction of £400,000 in the Ordnance Vote, making a total increase of £215,000. I do not wish to anticipate the discussion on the ordinary Estimates, but there is certain work which we propose to take in hand, and which forms so essential a part of our shipbuilding policy that I must allude to it. There is a considerable number of our ironclads whose boilers are much worn. We propose to take all these vessels in hand and spread their

  1183
  repairs over a number of years, on this principle—that as few vessels as possible should be laid up at one time. Certain of these vessels are worth re-engining, others are worth re-arming, so that in certain cases these vessels, re-boiler-ed, re-engined, and re-armed, will be more efficient and powerful than on the day they were first commissioned. The vessels we propose to take in hand are the Minatour, Achilles, Superb, Thunderer, Devastation, and Rupert—they will all be taken in hand this year. Next year we shall deal with the Hercules, Monarch, Sultan, and Invincible. We propose also to thoroughly refit the Nelson, Audacious, and Triumph.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: This year?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, this year. That is included in the ordinary Shipbuilding Vote, which has been increased by £615,000. By taking these vessels in hand and repairing them we are enabled to do that which many sailors have long advocated. We shall be able to substitute in the next eight months four efficient amd sea-going ironclads for the four hulks which now carry the flags of the Commanders-in-Chief at Sheerness, Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Queenstown. These vessels will have all their stores and all their coal on board, and they will be prepared at a moment's notice to go anywhere. This means a great addition to our reserves in the home waters. The only other increase in the ordinary Estimates worthy of note is in regard to the provision we make for improving the coaling facilities for our Fleet in the Channel. We also propose to dredge the Medway, so as to allow first class ironclads with all their weights on board to pass down with the ordinary tide, which they cannot do now. We also propose to increase the Votes 1 and 2 by the sum of £275,000 for the purpose of adding 3,000 men besides those voted last year. These 8,000 men would comprise 1,100 marines, 1,000 stokers, and about 900 bluejackets. Including all these sums, they will show for the year commencing 1888–9 a total increase of £602,000 over the Naval Estimates of the preceding year. The Committee will naturally ask, does this increase on shipbuilding carry with it great progressive increases in future, so far as the expenditure on stores and men is concerned?—because I think it would be
  1184
  very unfair to get the Committee by a side wind to assent to an increase of one branch of expenditure without placing clearly before hon. Members the increase which that sanction entails in other branches of expenditure. On that point I can give satisfactory assurances to the Committee. We at present have sufficient men to man every available vessel, but when all these ships are completed we shall want a considerable additional number. While I think it most desirable to accumulate a large reserve of war vessels for an emergency, I do not think it would be reasonable to ask the Committee to vote all the money necessary to maintain sufficient men on the continuous service system to man all those vessels. A certain increase will be necessary, but that increase, spread over the next five years, will, I think, not amount to more than £250,000 in the aggregate. I propose, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to turn attention to the development of the Naval Reserve. In the Naval Reserve you have most admirable material, and as our deficiencies are mainly under the heads of lieutenants and stokers, I have no doubt we shall be able to make some arrangements by which a very large proportion of those deficiencies can be supplied without a great addition to the Estimates. On the other hand, there will be a substantial contribution next year from Australia as an appropriation in aid; there would be, as the Committee will recollect, a decrease in the Shipbuilding Vote two or three years hence if the House were satisfied with the strength at which the Navy was maintained; and there would also be two or three years hence a considerable decrease in the Ordnance Votes. I am looking closely into the question of the reserves of ammunition. The proportion of reserves was fixed many years ago, when production was limited and slow. Now that production has rapidly increased, I do not think it advisable to keep large stores of perishable material. I hope I shall be able to make emergency contracts with the great firms who manufacture these articles, and, if so, we shall be able ultimately to accomplish a substantial reduction in our Ordnance Vote. Therefore, putting together all

  1185
  these decreases, and putting against them the only prospective increase, I think I may say our scheme carries with it, as it approaches completion, a reduction rather than an increase of expenditure. I hope the Committee will now allow me to say a word or two upon that part of our work upon which we have bestowed most trouble and anxiety—namely, the preparation of designs of the respective types. Now, in preparing those designs, we were all very much impressed with the great difference between the requirements of the British Navy and those of foreign navies. The great mass of European navies are kept in peace time within inland seas, such as the Baltic, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean; with the exception of France, they have, outside Europe, few bases of operation. Now, vessels intended for short cruises require neither the sea-going qualities nor the coaling capacity which English ships must have. Therefore, if these qualities are to be obtained, our ships must be larger and larger; and if they are to be equal in armament and superior in speed, the coal-carrying capacity must necessarily be larger. The Committee will have noted the large dimensions of many of the ships we propose to build. We have ascertained that increase of size does not carry with it corresponding increase of expenditure; but it does carry with it a proportionate increase in the length of life of the vessel as an efficient fighting machine. We have, therefore, prepared our designs on that principle; and I will just very roughly state what they are. The torpedo-gunboat will be a vessel of 735 tons, with a raised deck forward, a speed of 21 knots, as against a tonnage of 550 and a speed of 18 knots of its predecessor, the Rattlesnake. The Pandoras are an exact reproduction of the vessels building for the Australian Colonies, which have given satisfaction to all who have examined their design. The improved Medeas are an enlargement upon the original Medeas. Their speed is the same, 20 knots; their armament is somewhat heavier; but they are 35 feet longer, and have 600 tons greater displacement. The first-class cruisers are vessels of 7,350 tons, as against 4,050 tons of the original Mersey, on which they may be regarded as an
  1186
  improvement. Their speed is three knots greater—namely, 20 knots. Every one of the above types represents a design which has either given satisfaction or is an improvement upon a well-known and satisfactory ship. I propose to-morrow to lay on the Table a Paper giving full particulars of our whole procedure. In the meantime, I will roughly summarize this Paper. The Select Committee on the Navy Estimates last year suggested that as regards the distribution of armour of battleships outside opinion should be called in. I very soon found out that the outside opinion wanted was not that of designers, but of naval officers, and especially of gunnery officers. I am fortunate enough to have at the Admiralty four officers, three of whom have held the post of Director of Naval Ordnance, and one now ably discharges the duties of that office, and in these four gentlemen I believe I have more technical knowledge as to Ordnance than can be found in any Admiralty in the world. We discussed the subject at very considerable length—what should be the distinctive features and qualities of the new battle ships, and we had a considerable number of alternative designs prepared, with their weights, showing what could be done, because the difficulty is not what is put in, but what you leave ont. These were all worked out. I was anxious to get the best outside naval opinion I could get; and, therefore, I sent the designs to the three Admirals appointed to report on the Naval Manœuvres and to the two Commanders-in-Chief. Afterwards we met at the Admiralty and had a full discussion on the subject, a report of which will be found in a Parliamentary Paper; and I am glad to say we were almost unanimous in the decision at which we arrived. Roughly speaking, the disposition of armament is that of the Admiral class, though the number of guns is considerably greater, while the disposition of armour much more resembles that of the Trafalgar or the Nile. They are vessels of great coal and steaming capacity, with a high freeboard and a speed of 17½knots. I believe they will give almost universal satisfaction to the Service, while as regards seagoing qualities they will be capable of being sent to any part of the world and in any weather. Just before I sit down there is one other

  1187
  subject on which I should like to touch. Our scheme is naturally based on the nature of the work which in an emergency our Navy will have to do. The area to be covered and the duties to be performed are so great and various that I should like roughly to indicate to the Committee the distribution of that work and the means by which we hope to carry it out. Our first duty will be so to dispose of our Fleets that our coasts should be defended from invasion and our naval stations from bombardment, and this disposition should be carried out on wide and general lines for the protection of commerce. These duties must be exclusively performed by the regular ships of Her Majesty's Navy. The second branch of the subject is the protection of our commerce on certain trade routes. The great bulk of this work also must be done by the Navy, but the armed cruisers of the mercantile marine can be associated with the Navy in the discharge of that duty. I am sorry to see in quarters where I least expected them depreciatory observations made as to the inferiority of the merchant cruiser, on the ground that it would not be a match for a war vessel of the same size. Of course they are not a match for a war vessel of the same size; if they were there would be no object in having war cruisers. But they will be more than a match for any cruiser of the same character, and in all those movements of dogging the footsteps of a foreign cruiser embarrassing a foe, and keeping touch with a squadron that has broken blockade, they will be absolutely invaluable. I advocate the extension of the system on still higher grounds. The discipline of the mercantile marine is every year improving, and I believe it is very much to the advantage alike of the mercantile marine and of the Navy that they should be brought together, and I trust the House will always insist on that being one of the primary features of Admiralty policy. I turn now to the third question, on which there has been a great deal of agitation, and particularly in the neighbourhood of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), namely, the question of local defence, and I will only deal with that portion of it which is known as the floating defence, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War
  1188
  will be able to give an explanation in regard to the land defences. Now, we asked the commercial ports to co-operate with us in the discharge of this duty, and they willingly complied. The primary duty of the Navy, in my judgment, is to prevent attacks being made upon the commercial ports. Their secondary duty is to co-operate with the land forces in the event of an attack. Now the gentlemen we asked to co-operate in that secondary duty attached to that co-operation conditions which would have fettered us in the discharge of our primary duty. They wished us to station certain war vessels at different ports and leave them there in time of war. We could not assent to such an arrangement, because if we made it in time of peace it would not be worth anything in time of war. There is some limit to the amount of money for naval purposes which Parliament can vote, and the more that money is locked up in vessel's stationed at different ports of the coast, the less remains for the general defence of the country and the Empire. If our naval supremacy were seriously impaired no system of local defence, however efficient, would give protection to the country. On the other hand, if our supremacy is maintained, no serious attack will be made upon these ports. We were asked to provide material in the shape of ships and guns fur those ports, which were to be manned by Naval Volunteers. Now, ships and gunscosta great deal of money, and being complicated machines they require a complete training on the part of the personnel before they can be properly handled, and in my judgment, it would be a sheer waste of money and power to spend large sums in supplying these ships to be manned by comparatively untrained men. The Volunteer system has worked well so far as the land forces are concerned; it has become a fairly effective Reserve at a small cost, bat I cannot say quite the same of the Naval Volunteer system. I admire the self-sacrifice and the patriotism which animate the members of that force in going through the tests which the Admiralty imposes. But the great bulk of the Naval Volunteers are not seafaring men. They know little or nothing of gunnery; they have also to get their sea legs on and become seamen. It is impossible for any volunteer to sustain the strain and

  1189
  test of such a training. I do not want to have any force which is merely a force upon paper and which has no assigned duties to perform in our system of national and naval defence; and at present our Naval Volunteers are not available for land purposes; they are not under the Secretary of State for War, and from their inability to go through the necessary training they are not available for sea purposes. I have a proposal to make, and take this opportunity of mentioning it. There is in all these commercial ports a considerable number of small vessels—tugs, passenger steamers, and others—which are quite strong enough to carry a modern gun of considerable size. These are manned by captains and men who know every inch of the coast and the water in the neighbourhood. You have there the very material you want in time of war. I am quite ready to consider a proposition if the ports would co-operate, by which the Admiralty would discuss with them the terms of a capitation grant for men and some assistance towards the hire of vessels which may be passed as efficient, the Admiralty supplying the inspection and instruction, and the guns and material. I believe in this way that we should get in each locality a good nucleus of small vessels—an effective and respectable flotilla manned by seafaring men. I make the suggestion, because I do not want to shut the door to any self-sacrificing patriotism developed in the Naval Volunteers; but I do want to get some better return for our money than we now get. Well now, Sir, I have completed my Statement and I have only one more word to say. The House, I think, will gather from the nature of the details, as well as from the principles which I have enunciated, that our scheme is the result of a somewhat slow and laborious investigation. We have been many months at work on this scheme. In one sense we had to embody all the requirements of the Navy. We had then so to adjust them and to spread them over a series of years that we might not make too great a demand on any particular class of article which is difficult of production and might arrest our progress and prevent our shipbuilding from proceeding with rapidity. We have turned this scheme over and over again, and looked at it from different points of view. We
  1190
  believe that if the House assents to our proposals and the provisions contained in this Bill founded on the resolution which will shortly be read from the Chair—we believe that we can complete this scheme at the cost we have given and in the given time. There is no branch of the Service or any want of the Service which, we believe, has been overlooked. Therefore our scheme must stand or fall as a whole. A portion of it cannot be cut out without affecting the efficiency of the scheme as an entire scheme. In asking the Committee to give impartial consideration to these proposals, I am afraid I shall appeal in vain to one portion of this House. There is a powerful section of public opinion in the country, ably represented in this House, which objects to all expenditure on the Army and Navy. I so far sympathize with the object of these hon. Gentlemen as to assure them that, if ever they can get Foreign Governments to adopt their principles, no body of men will rejoice more at their success than the Government for the time-being of Her Majesty. But until they do so succeed, they cannot expect that this country should be the only country to ignore the first instincts of self-preservation. The late Prime Minister on the first night of this Session somewhat cavilled at our definition of our scheme of increased expenditure as coming under the head of precaution rather than of warlike preparation. I think the word "precaution" is a just one, and is capable of being sustained. What do we ask this increase of naval force for? It is for the protection of home and domestic interests alone. Our commerce and our shipbuilding are among the oldest of the hereditary industries of this country. It is through them that many industries have been brought into existence and fostered, and it is by the maintenance of that commerce alone that that huge industrial system of employment, which exists in this country, can be sustained, and which alone enables 35 millions of people to live within these islands. Then, will this scheme lead to increased expenditure on the part of foreign nations? I think not. We do not attempt in any way to vie with foreign nations in the magnitude of their land forces. Our whole social and constitutional system and policy are utterly opposed to any

  1191
  such competition. But if, on the other hand, there should be any foreign nation which should wish to encroach upon us, or to invade our naval supremacy, we have so framed our scheme as to bring into world-wide prominence the incomparable power of this country and its enormous resources. The scheme which I have laid before the House is one which I do not think all the Dockyards of Europe would complete in he time we propose; and if there are any nations abroad who do wish to compete with us in naval armaments, the mere enunciation of this scheme will show to them the utter futility of their desire. I am aware that in one instance I stand at a great disadvantage, compared with nay predecessor, Lord Northbrook, when he made similar proposals to Parliament. In that year, 1885, a great constitutional question had been settled, and the leaders of both parties of the State were then in conference, in order to give effect to that great change. Now a wide constitutional difference irreconcilably separates on one particular question the two great parties of the State. Still, I have noticed with great satisfaction that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, while admitting their differences with us so far as the methods of the internal government of the Empire are concerned, have over and over again asserted that if any external question should arise affecting either the safety or integrity of the Empire, all these differences would to a large extent be diminished if they did not vanish altogether. Therefore, while I do not ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to in any way abandon their legitimate rights of criticism which their administrative knowledge and political position fully entitle them to make on a scheme of this great magnitude, I feel sure I can rely upon their approaching this question of national defence from a broad and patriotic standpoint, and that they will discuss our scheme upon its merits in a fair and impartial manner. It is in that sense I have endeavoured to explain the scheme, and it is in that sense, I trust, the discussion will be continued and the proposals of Her Majesty's Government considered.
  Motion made and Question proposed:
  "That it is expedient that a sum not exceeding £21,600,000 be granted for the purpose of building, arming, equipping, and completing
  1192
  for sea, vessels for Her Majesty's Navy; and that it is expedient that a sum not exceeding £10,000,000 be issued out of the Consolidated Fund in seven years ending the 31st of March, 1896; and that a sum not exceeding £11,500,000 be issued out of the moneys to be provided by Parliament for the Naval Service during the five financial years ending the 31st of March, 1894."
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer rises to speak, there are one or two Questions which I should like to address to him as representing the Government, and which it might be of material benefit to the Government should be answered categorically. I rise rather in the interests of the Government than of the House. I have no doubt it has been telegraphed all over Europe by this time, and that every General and Admiral of every foreign Power is informed that Great Britain is about to spend £21,000,000 on its Navy. That no' doubt is an announcement which may cause some surprise, and in some foreign quarters some consternation. I also think it is an announcement calculated to startle the public mind of this country. But it is for the purpose of preventing the public mind from being over-startled, and of preventing Foreign Powers from being over alarmed, that I rise to make a few interrogatory remarks, addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty has spoken at great length; and the result of the speech and of all the noble sentiments which it contains, and the eloquent appeal which the noble Lord made to the patriotism of both sides of the House to spend money on the defences of the country—the result of it all is, and I think I can prove it, subject to the correction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that for the next four years a sum rather under £1,000,000 is to be added to the Navy Estimates. I will explain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what I mean. The noble Lord stated that he was going to ask the House to consent to an expenditure in the Dockyards in the next four years on shipbuilding and armaments of £11,500,000. The House will recollect that last year the vote for shipbuilding amounted to £1,250,000, so that, if the noble Lord had stated that he was going to ask the House to pledge itself to maintain the expenditure of last year on

  1193
  shipbuilding for the next four years, he would have committed the House to an expenditure of £17,000,000.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I am afraid that the noble Lord does not follow me. I say that if he had asked the House to pledge itself to spend for the next four years the same amount which it spent last year on shipbuilding, the amount which the House would have been committed to would have been £17,000,000.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I make these remarks for the purpose of eliciting information, and for the sake of correction, if necessary. The sum voted last year under the three heads of the Shipbuilding Vote was £4,250,000. Multiply that by four, and we get £17,000,000. But the noble Lord only proposes to spend upon the Shipbuilding Vote in the next four years £11,500,000. Therefore, as far as the Shipbuilding Vote is concerned, there is a reduction of expenditure made by the noble Lord of the difference between £11,500,000 and £17,000,000—that is to say, a difference of £5,500,000, and consequently a reduction of expenditure upon the Navy to that amount. But to the £11,500,000 we must add the £10,000,000 which the noble Lord proposes to commit the House to at once, making a total expenditure of £21,500,000 as against the £17,000,000, which the Estimates would have shown if the amount of the Shipbuilding Vote for last year had been maintained for four years. So that the actual difference between the expenditure entailed by the proposals of the noble Lord, and the expenditure that would have been entailed if the Estimates of last year had been maintained for four years, is a sum of £4,500,000. The noble Lord, I see, dissents from that view. Well, if it is not the case, it is not owing to any mistake in my figures; it must be owing to some inadequacy of explanation on the part of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to set right. Therefore, I say the difference made by the noble Lord's proposal is a little over a million a year added to the Navy Estimates for the next four years. Against that must be set the appropriation in aid from Australia, and possibly some other appropriations,
  1194
  which will probably bring the sum to a little under £1,000,000 a year, as far as I gather from the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty. Then, as I understand it, contracts are to be entered into by the Government to the extent of £10,000,000, and future Parliaments will not be able to get out of those contracts. As to the £11,500,000 which is to be expended in the Dock-yards, it seems to me that it is quite unnecessary for the House to consider that at all. All the House has to consider out of it is the Shipbuilding: Vote this year, and it is utterly impossible for the noble Lord to pledge the House to expend in the future £7,500,000 on shipbuilding. Even if it is done by Statute it has not the smallest binding effect on Parliament; and all discussion now on future expenditure on the Navy under the head of shipbuilding will be entirely supererogatory. I venture to submit to the noble Lord and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be a great waste of time. There seems to me to be nothing whatever in the scheme of the noble Lord propounded to-night—interesting though it was in parts—which ought not to have been said in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the Naval Estimates-last year. I can see nothing whatever in what has been laid before the House which in any way differs from the usual annual statement, except that this year we are to have two long speeches instead of one. What I want to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this. Is the resolution which has just been read a resolution which is to be embodied in legislation? Obviously if it is, we are committing the House to a series of stages on a matter which is practically beyond our power; we are trying to pledge the House to spend money this year, next year, and the year after, by which time another Parliament may have come into existence, and which may not agree to it. What is the practical use of passing a Bill through its Committee and Third Reading stages which cannot have a binding effect upon future Parliaments? Therefore, Sir, in the interests of the Government, having regard to the effect which this announcement of the expenditure of £21,000,000 may have upon foreign Powers, as well as upon this country, and to reduce that sum to what is its

  1195
  right proportion for the present year, and in the interests of this House to prevent its time being wasted on a resolution which can have no binding power whatever beyond the actual Session in which the resolution is passed—in these two interests, I do make an appeal to the Government to explain fully: first, the exact amount by which the Naval Estimates for the next four years will be increased; and, second, what possible necessity there is for exceptional legislation on the subject, and whether it cannot be dealt with on the ordinary votes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not sorry that the noble Lord has risen, because I perfectly agree with him that it is most important that there should be no misconception whatever either as regards the amounts or as regards the policy of Her Majesty's Government in these proposals. The proposals are no doubt extremely important; but we do not wish them to be alarming. We have no desire that it should go forth all over Europe that there is any disposition on the part of this country to take exaggerated action. But we do desire that it should go forth to all parts of the world that we have the power and the intention of adding during the next four year 70 ships to Her Majesty's Navy. I will deal in the first place with the second part of the remarks which were made by the noble Lord. He says—and of course there is some truth in the view—that we have no binding power over other Parliaments. We do not claim it; but what we desire to do is this—and it is a new departure—we desire to take the House of Commons into our confidence not as regards bits of ships or parts of guns, but so that the House shall have the whole plan before it, and with its eyes open, shall commit itself or not commit itself to the programme which Her Majesty's Government submit. Now I will illustrate for the noble Lord what is our view by pointing out to him what we wish to avoid. We desire to avoid this, that when these ships are once begun, no change of plan on the part of the Admiralty or on the part of a succeeding Government or Parliament should cause the programme to be stopped or delayed unless a decision to alter it were deliberately arrived at by Parliament. We do
  1196
  not wish to see again what we have seen before—ships being built without their guns being made, and ships being built which take six years to complete, and which, therefore, are not ready when they are wanted, or only when the emergency is past. The Bill will enact that a certain sum of money shall be allocated to this programme year by year. Of course, if in future Parliaments or future Sessions you choose to revoke the programme, you can do so; but it is a different thing to revoke a decision to which the majority of the House will be parties, and to revoke an ordinary decision of Government. It has happened over and over again that in one Session of Parliament a certain amount of money has been voted for ships that were wanted with the intention that they should be completed in a certain time; and that a new House of Commons, or a new Board of Admiralty or the same Board has changed its views, and has delayed the progress of the ships, and therefore put out the whole of the programme which the House had desired to be completed. That is the view which we take. We wish to insure a regular naval programme for years to come. I heard the noble Lord use the phrase, during the speech of my noble Friend, "It is a four years naval programme."
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: A four year's Estimate?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, it is; but in this shape, that the House commits itself to the plan as a whole. It is our desire—though it is open to right hon. Gentlemen opposite and to the noble Lord to object—not to leave the programme subject to the whims of inventors and to the different exigencies of successive Governments, so that we may not see, what we have seen before, the programme finally not carried out. I wish to insure, as Chancellor of the Exchequer no less than as a Member of the Government, that these ships shall be built straightway, according as they are ordered; that they shall not be changed during the process of their construction; that the Ordnance shall not be revised as every step goes on, as often has been the case; but that we may have the authority of Parliament for insisting that this programme as submitted to the Committee of the House shall be carried out. The noble Lord noticed, I

  1197
  presume, the passage in the speech of my noble Friend, in which he pointed out that what we wanted to secure was regularity of expenditure over a number of years. If you have no settled programme you cannot do the work so economically. We do not wish that if money is not spent in one year it should be surrendered to the Exchequer, or that the First Lord of the Admiralty should be driven to force the pace of contracts, often at a great waste of money, in order to spend a given sum in a particular year; but we desire that there should be a regularity of expenditure over the whole time. I now come to the other point in the speech of the noble Lord, in which he made a mistake, which he will be glad to have pointed out to him. The noble Lord made a division between the whole of the Shipbuilding Vote and that part of the Vote which is devoted to new construction. He spoke of the addition, made to the Shipbuilding Vote, and he said that the total the Government was going to spend on new ships was £11,500,000.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: What I said was this—that the expenditure last year in the Estimates on the Shipbuilding Vote was £4,280,000. If the noble Lord had proposed to maintain that amount for four years he would have committed the House to spend a sum of £17,000,000, instead of which he proposed that a Committee of this House should vote an expenditure of £11,500,000.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, but the Vote for shipbuilding will go on as heretofore. The sum devoted to new construction will be £11,500,000, and the whole of the rest will go on precisely as before. The noble Lord multiplied the whole of the Vote by four, instead of multiplying only that portion which is devoted to new construction. The noble Lord says "No." I wish to make this thoroughly clear to the House. The Shipbuilding Vote will continue to be £4,500,000. Of that a portion has been hitherto devoted to the repairs and the business of the yards, and a similar portion will continue to be so devoted; the remainder will be £2,600,000, devoted to new construction. The new construction spread over the four or five years would amount to £11,500,000.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Speaking in
  1198
  round numbers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, as I understand, said that Vote 8 this year will be nearly £7,000,000.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am sorry I am unable to make it clear to the noble Lord. Well, I must try again. The Shipbuilding Vote is divided practically into two parts. One part is for the ordinary repairs of ships, and for the thousand duties which are performed in the yards independently of new construction. The £4,500,000 which the noble Lord referred to includes those ordinary duties. The sum thus spent is the difference between £2,600,000 and the £4,500,000.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us in round figures the amount of Vote 8 this year? Then we shall understand it.
  MR. GOSCHEN: £4,500,000?
  LORD E. CHURCHILL: That is the amount of Vote 8, including contracts.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Including contracts for engines for the Dockyards. It includes £2,600,000 for new construction, and that £2,600,000 annually for between four and five years gives 11½ millions. The noble Lord has really introduced an obscurity into this Question which was unnecessary. I must say that a clearer statement than that which the First Lord of the Admiralty made I have seldom listened to. But I rose, not only for the purpose of answering the Questions which were put by the noble Lord, but to explain to the House the general financial proposals of Her Majesty's Government. This conversation, I hope, has cleared up the question of shipbuilding in the yards. The £11,500,000 includes Ordnance, which is to be placed in the Dockyards. It remains to deal with the £10,000,000 which are to stand outside the annual Estimates and which we would call the Naval Defence Fund. It will be extremely interesting, I expect, to the House to know how we propose to raise this money. I will say at once that we do not propose to raise it by a loan. We do not think it would be right to spread the cost of this special effort, which is being made for four or five years, over very many years, and over different generations of taxpayers. We think that if it is the duty of the country to make this effort, the present taxpayers must take upon themselves the burden of carrying through the proposals laid before the House. The House will see that

  1199
  one of our aims is to have regularity of expenditure. Those ships which are to be paid for out of the £10,000,000 are to be put out to contract, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been at the Admiralty may know how difficult it is to ascertain the precise sum to be spent annually by contractors. We wish to equalize the payment, which should be made every year over a certain number of years. It would be most inconvenient for the purpose of taxation if one year we had to put on a tax in order to meet the large demands which the contractors might make, and immediately afterwards to reduce the taxation and have again to raise it. We, therefore, are anxious to secure a regular payment over a certain number of years to meet this £10,000,000 of expenditure, and the conclusion at which we have arrived—I trust it will not alarm the Committee—is to divide the sum of £10,000,000 by seven, and to pay £1,430,000 annually out of taxation in order to complete the £10,000,000 for which we ask. I will acknowledge that this is a considerable demand that we make on the taxpayers of the country. I think it will be admitted that we have gone very far in endeavouring to meet this large sum in a manner which will show that we do not shrink from appealing to the taxpayers for a purpose which they have so much at heart. The taxpayers of seven years hence will have the whole of those 30 ships which are to be built by contract paid for and ready without having to contribute anything towards them. I hope it will commend itself to the sense of the Committee that seven years is a fair range over which to spread this expenditure. We propose to arrange that £1,430,000 should be paid every year into this fund. If and when the demands of the contractors in a given year exceed the sum of £1,430,000 we propose to borrow on Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills the amount necessary to meet the demands of the contractors, and to endeavour in that way to equalize the expenditure year after year. The interest on such temporary loans will be put on the Navy Estimates of the year. In no case would it be a very large sum. It is generally not in the first and second years that the demands are largest, but rather in the third or fourth year; and I do not think there will be any con-
  1200
  siderable burden thrown on the Estimates in respect of interest. I can assure the House that when the proper time comes to defend our proposals, from whatever quarter they are attacked, I shall not shrink from doing so, because I have not assented lightly to this expenditure. I feel that it is a very heavy responsibility, which, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have taken in assenting to so large a burden being placed on the people. The Navy Estimates will be increased by £600,000 a year, and there will be paid annually towards the £10,000,000 £1,430,000. We shall ask the taxpayers of the country to pay £1,400,000 extra for the next seven years over and above the sum of £600,000 extra for the next four years for the Shipbuilding Vote. The House will see that we have not shrunk from trying to meet the demands made upon us by an appeal to the patriotism and the self-sacrificing spirit of those in whose interest we believe this large outlay is necessary.
  MR. CHILDERS: I think, Sir, after the two statements we have now heard that we see exactly where we are. If I understand correctly we shall have to raise additional taxation for the purposes of the Navy to the extent of rather more than £2,000,000 a year for the next four or five years, to be reduced, if the Navy Estimates allow, by £600,000 for two years more. I think, therefore, that when the First Lord of the Admiralty said that the scheme looked rather to a reduction than to an increase in the naval charge he was a little sanguine as to what would come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few minutes afterwards. I assume to-night that we shall not express any opinion whatever in reference to this scheme. It has been customary on these occasions to ask information from the Government as to details which have not been clearly or carefully expressed; but I think now we understand the proposal perfectly clearly, and that there is no misconception as to its main outlines. I wish to ask one or two questions without any opinion on the merits of the proposal. I should like to understand this. The noble Lord said that 70 ships are proposed to be added to the Navy within the next four-and-a-half years. How many ships per contra will become

  1201
  obsolete in all probability, or will for other reasons pass out of the service of the Navy during the time? The number in some years has been 10, 12, and even 13, and, therefore, it will be well to know what will be the net addition to the Navy under the scheme of the noble Lord. Then I also think it would be well if the House could have the two statements of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in print.
  MR. GOSCHEN: You will have the Bill.
  MR. CHILDERS: The Bill will not give the House the amount of information needed; and, therefore, I hope, in accordance with almost invariable custom, there will be no objection on the part of the Government to put before the House a Memorandum showing in detail the plan of the noble Lord I think that that is absolutely necessary for purposes of effective discussion. Then there is another subject on which perhaps a Return is desirable. The noble Lord has described the general effect of Lord Northbrook's scheme. I think it would expedite the general discussion if we could have the outcome of that scheme before us. The House ought to have a Return laid before it showing precisely the whole of Lord. Northbrook's scheme as worked out by the Government, so that we may be able to compare the working of that scheme with the working of the scheme of the present First Lord of the Admiralty. The two plans follow each other as proposals for bringing the strength of the Navy up to a certain point, and without some such Returns as I have indicated, it will be impossible for us thoroughly to understand the effect of the scheme. It would be of no use going into the details of the noble Lord's plan at present, but as soon as any Questions have been asked and answered on this occasion which may be necessary to elucidate the proposals of the noble Lord, a future day should be fixed for the discussion of the scheme as a whole, when the House may be thoroughly prepared to deal with it. I will only say that the proposal of the noble Lord is an extremely important one, and I trust that every hon. Member will satisfy himself thoroughly about it and understand all its details. For these reasons I forbear
  1202
  to offer the smallest piece of criticism upon it on the present occasion.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: Mr. Chairman, as I have taken a somewhat prominent part in the country on the Question of the Naval Defences, I wish to say that I am not now going to discuss the noble Lord's scheme, but rather to state my own position as to these matters. I have often endeavoured to bring before the country the state of the Fleet and given my opinion of what addition to it is necessary, basing my opinion on statistics, facts, and arguments. But in every statement that I have made I have always put this point before the House and the country—that whatever addition, large or small, we make to the Fleet, it should be done in a business-like way and upon a definite principle. Now I am sorry to say that the noble Lord has not brought forward any clear and definite reason for what is proposed by the Government. I cannot for a moment object to an addition to the Fleet, but I think what is proposed is very much of a phantom addition. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that he is going to add 70 ships to the Fleet, but he must put down what is the waste of the Fleet and what ships are obsolete. He ought to tell us what is the reason that the Government come down and asked for this extension of the Fleet. I have always held that the requirements of the country should be made out by the Cabinet. They should call on the experts to say how our trade and commerce and our import of raw material is to be defended, and the experts should give their reasons for what they recommend. I do not say that the First Lord of the Admiralty should go by what the experts say, but the First Lord ought to be directly responsible for why he does not do so. In my humble opinion this addition to the Fleet will be like that under Lord Northbrook, unless there is somebody made responsible for the ships not being as they ought to be. At this moment there is nobody responsible for the proposed addition to the Fleet being enough to bring the Navy up to the proper standard. I wish to get a definite basis to work upon. The House ought to be responsible. At present it is not. Take the case of the Estimates On certain Votes coming on the Government say, "We must have these Votes

  1203
  to-night, because the men are waiting for their money." That is very hard on the supporters of the Government; we are obliged to curtail our debate, and not make our views public. I wish to make the House responsible for the standard of the Fleet, so that we may avoid these periodical scares and panics. In order, therefore, to get a definite basis to work upon I shall on some future occasion move—
  "That in the opinion of this House the Fleet of England should be able to defend its coasts, its commerce, and its trade, to insure the punctual and certain delivery of its supply of food and raw material, as well as to secure the safety of the Colonies against the fleets of two Powers combined."
  I would go so far as to say that one of those Powers should be France. Let us disabuse our minds of the idea that this is an aggressive step. I have lately had a very interesting cruise about Europe, and have seen some of the most distinguished men in Europe, both soldiers and sailors, and their opinion is that the intention of our Government to increase the Fleet is a friendly idea, showing that we are at least going to look after our own interests. Parties in the House are much divided on the question of Home Rule, but they are not divided on the question that the country ought to be properly defended. But in my opinion it is not a wise method—it is a method which the Government will wreck themselves upon if they bring proposals of this sort forward without giving definite reasons why they do it. I do not care whether it is a question of a hundred millions or two millions, or of 70 ships or of four ships. So little do I wish to aggravate the panic or scare that I would honestly prefer to wait another year and do the thing in a proper, business-like manner, and let the people understand how the defences stand, than to proceed in a haphazard way, without any definite reason being given to the public why these proposals are made.
  SIR E. REED: It is not my intention to discuss the proposal of the Government to-night, but I desire to ask a Question on a point which I consider to be one of very considerable importance. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty have pointed out the great importance of having a settled pro-
  1204
  gramme with regard to ships. The First Lord of the Admiralty has said that the whole of the ships to be built by contract are to be at once, or as soon as practicable, contracted for. Is that statement to apply to the Ordnance for the ships? It certainly would be most extraordinary if, when the character of Ordnance is changing almost daily, we were to commit ourselves to the armament, at any rate to the minor armament, of all these vessels. I am at a loss to understand why we should do it. With regard to the general question, it appears to me that we are in a most favourable position for discussion. A Resolution has been proposed tonight, the debate on which, I understand, is to be adjourned. Then it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill which, of course, will have to be read a First, Second, and Third time. In addition, the Navy Estimates are to be presented, so that there will be ample opportunity offered for discussion of the programme of the Government.
  MR. ATKINSON: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to find that the criticism of this scheme has come from the Government side of the House—from the two noble Lords who have just preceded me. That presages the fact that this Question is to be taken out of the rut of party politics in the same way as the Temperance Question was a short time ago. I feel there will be no fear of any Government wrecking itself upon this Question because "none will be for Party, but all be for the State." Personally, having no Party ties at all, having been for more than 40 years connected with the shipping of this country, I feel justified in expressing an opinion on the plan which has been so plainly and ably explained to the House by the First Lord of the Admiralty. Some of the Hon. Members who have spoken have complained that they are unable to understand the Government's scheme. Now, I think it is perfectly clear, and I believe that the public and the nation generally will understand what is proposed, and will look upon the scheme as a very moderate one under the circumstances and one deserving approval. It is no answer to complain that past First Lords of the Admiralty have made bad bargains. It is only the duty of

  1205
  the Ministry in power to place the Navy on a proper footing. If we had annual Parliaments, as some hon. Members opposite desired, the First Lord of the Admiralty would be continually rearranging his Estimates in order that he might appeal to the public for support, on the ground of economy, on the Administration going out and wishing to come in again. But the present First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chancellor of the Exechequer have done nothing of the kind. They have proposed a plan which they believe it is absolutely necessary to carry into effect in the interests of the nation, and I am sure that their conduct will meet with universal approval. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am proud to say, has nothing to lose by his proposal; he is not likely to lose in popularity, and even if he does, he can afford to do so, seeing what a great success he had last year with his Stock Conversion Scheme. I am thoroughly satisfied with the proposal, and I believe the country also will be satisfied with it. There are however, one or two points, to which I wish to call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the readiness of merchants and ship-owners to organize themselves as volunteers for coast defences. Some of these men who have proved ready to give their time, money and labour in this cause are very dissatisfied with the manner in which they have been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by those who have charge of the public purse. I hope that the Government in connection with this matter will see what additional assistance they can give these men. The other point to which I wish to refer is the recruiting for the Navy. I have for 40 years been connected with Industrial Schools, and I have often found that some of the boys are anxious to go into the Navy after they have for a time been in training ships, but the Admiralty fail to appreciate the difference between boys committed to the Industrial Schools, and boys committed to Reformatory Schools. They do not seem to realize the fact that boys might be sent to an Industrial School without ever having associated with criminals, or without ever having been in prison. I hold that the Admiralty ought to give such boys an opportunity of passing into
  1206
  the Navy, especially as we know from experience in connection with the Southampton training ship at Hull that better boys can not be got anywhere. On behalf of the mercantile and shipping community, with which I have been connected for 30 or 40 years, and for which I have done public work during the whole of that time, I wish again to say that I hope the Government scheme will meet with great success. It is the duty of hon. Members to strengthen the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the First Lord of the Admiralty, so as to enable them to perform their duties without Party bias and to place the Navy in such a position as to fit it to defend the privileges of this great nation. I hope that more will be done in the future than has been done in the past in the direction of safe-guarding our commerce. I think the Government deserve credit for the arrangements they made for subsidising the Cunarders and the P. and O. boats. The First Lord of the Admiralty has expressed surprise that he has not received the support in some quarters which he might have expected. I think, however, the mistake has been in not subsidizing more of the private shipowners. Employment is quite as acceptable to a private shipowner as to a Company, and many of them have vessels most suitable for the work. I shall support the scheme from one end to the other, and whenever it is brought before the House I trust that it will be carried by a great majority.
  MR. CREMER: The object with which I rise is not for the present to criticise the proposals of the Government, but, if possible, to obtain a little more information in regard to them. Personally, I feel greatly indebted to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord E. Churchill) for the questions he has put to the First Lord of the Admiralty; but I wish to know whether we are really to understand that the taxpayers will be called upon to expend £1,430,000 for seven years, and £600,000 for another four years?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Let me clear up the point at once. The taxpayers are to be called upon to pay towards the £10,000,000 £1,430,000 annually for the next seven years, and on the ordinary Naval Estimates our pro-

  1207
  posals will involve an increase of £600,000 for the next four years—not for a further four years beyond the seven, but for the next four years. Therefore, in the next four years, there will be an increase of expenditure amounting to about £2,000,000, and in the three years succeeding an increase of £1,430,000.
  MR. CREMER: One other Question I desire to address to the Government. We have had statements made on many hands as to the relative strength of the Navies of foreign countries. I presume the Government are in possession of the actual facts, and I feel that it would greatly simplify matters if the Government would favour the House with the facts at their disposal. Within the last few weeks an important statement from the Marine Department in France has been laid before the Chamber of Deputies. This, for instance, might very properly be laid before the House.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will refer to a Return granted last year upon the motion of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford) he will there obtain all the information he desires.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I desire to ask one or two Questions, because I do not feel quite clear as to the statement made this evening. I want it to be made out exactly to what extent we are going to spend the money of the taxpayers in addition to the ordinary expenditure under the Naval Estimates. I do not think we have exactly got that as yet. We have got it very clearly as far as the Dockyards are concerned, but not with regard to contract work. I understand £10,000,000 is to be spent, and that the repayment of that money is to be spread over seven years. But is that £10,000,000 to be spent on contract ships in addition to what is ordinarily spent upon the Contract Vote? If that is not so, how are we to guarantee that any money will be asked for by the Admiralty under the Contract Vote? If nothing is asked for by them we shall be only spending £10,000,000 in seven years, which would not amount to anything more than we have been spending hitherto. Now when the noble Lord at the commencement of his speech laid down the
  1208
  standard he did—which I think is a very fair standard, and one generally accepted in the country and in this House as a fair one—I came to the conclusion that it was not an extravagant proposal. Indeed, I should rather say it is a very moderate one. I mean, that the Fleet of this country ought to be equal at the very least to two of the largest fleets in Europe. I thought he was then going to tell the House to what extent it was necessary to add to our Fleet to put it in that condition. I understood him—and I think the Committee must have understood him when he first spoke—to be of opinion that we require 70 ships to put us in that position. There is not one of the experts who have been putting their views before the country lately who have taken even such a moderate estimate as that. Are we to understand from the noble Lord that it is necessary for us to have 70 ships of the kind he describes to put us in the position of being equal to the fleets of two other Powers? But these 70 ships are to be built in four years, and meanwhile other Governments are going on with their shipbuilding. I should like to know this. If the Government had not come down with this programme, how many ships would be built in these four years under the ordinary Estimates? The extra expenditure is to be £600,000 for four years on contract work. What is that in excess of the ordinary Contract Vote? We have not got the figures yet. We are told that the sum of 10 millions is to be spent in four years; but are we to go on spending each year the ordinary amount of late years, on building ships by contract? Let us have it stated clearly; it is a point that has been omitted. Will the Government, so far as they can, pledge themselves—give an assurance—that the ordinary expenditure on the Contract Vote shall go on for the next four years in addition to the 10 millions on extraordinary contract shipbuilding?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Will the noble Lord say what increase his proposals will make under the head of Dockyard artificers?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: £13,000.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It appears to me from the figures that it will involve a much larger increase, for I understand 10 millions are to be given

  1209
  for contract work and 11 millions for 38 ships to be built in the Dockyards. It appears to me this will involve a large increase in the number of artificers, and if this is to go on for four years and then cease, it will involve a great displacement of labour that will not be advantageous to the Dockyards or the Admiralty.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am asked if the 10 millions is to be an addition to the certain sum annually voted under sub-head of Votes 8, relating to contract work. The Shipbuilding Vote is under three heads—personal, material and stores, and contract. Contract work means hulls, or engines, that are put out for contract or manufacture. The Dockyards do not make their own engines—they are put out to contract. Under this programme no fresh hulls are to be put out to contract, except those within the sum of 10 millions. But vessels which are built in the Dockyards will require engines, and these will be put out to contract under this sub-head of the Navy Estimates, a larger amount of construction going on in the Dockyards. All the rest of the work to be put out to contract will be included in the 10 millions. Of course, as to how much we shall gain under the ordinary course of Estimates depends upon the height of the Estimates; but, assuming we keep the Estimates where they are now, the amount of contract work will be £620,000. The increase will be twofold—that upon the engines for the Dockyard-built vessels and that included in the 10 millions.
  MR. CHILDERS: There is also a deduction to be made for wastage.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: That is a matter of opinion. Of course, there will be a certain amount of wastage, but, as the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, it is much less in our ironclads owing to the nature of the metal than in those of other countries.
  MR. CHILDERS: I think the noble Lord has estimated that 30 or 40 vessels may be expected to become obsolete in four years.
  LORD. G. HAMILTON: Small vessels; not big ships, but gun boats, sloops, &c. As to a vessel being obsolete, of course, it is matter of opinion.
  MR. E. W. DUFF: I understand that the regular Navy Estimates will be taken on Thursday. When will they be presented to the House?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: To-morrow morning.
  MR. PICTON: I do not think this conversation should be allowed to close without a protest from those of us who object to any increased expenditure whatever. Whatever may be the merits of the arithmetical calculation we have listened to, it is clear there is to be a considerable increase in the charges for the Navy, and against this some of us will hereafter take the opportunity of protesting, because we think that amply sufficient money has been spent on the Navy, if it had been expended honestly, fairly, and practically, to give us a Navy equal to those of any two nations in the world. We find by experience that the more money is given the more it is wasted. Over and over again there have been special grants of 10 or 12 millions, and we have never had anything to show for them but what are called Fleets on paper. I never hear the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) speaking without being prompted by considerations of personal sympathy; and I would agree with all he says, if it were only possible. There was one thing he said this evening that I can quite agree with—that the Government have not given sufficient reason for the expenditure they demand. But I will not enlarge on that now. I only rose to give a distinct intimation that we shall protest against any increased expenditure whatever—and that, not because we wish to see the country in danger, not because we are less patriotic than hon. Members opposite, but because we have worked out—in our own mind, at any rate—a policy of our own, which would ensure the safety of the country, and ensure, at the same time, that all this money wasted in armaments, which I hope to God will prove utterly useless, would go into the mouths, the pockets, the homes of the people.
  MR. HUNTER: As I understand the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he contemplates an addition of taxation of £1,400,000 a year for seven years, and of £600,000 for four years; and these two sums

  1211
  together come to something under £12,500,000. Now, as I understand, this is the whole of the additional burden the Government contemplate over their scheme. I think that it is somewhat unfortunate that the noble Lord should speak about £21,500,000, as if it were in addition to the ordinary expenditure. Had this been made clear, there would not have been the difficulty that arose between the noble Lord the Member for Paddington and the First Lord of the Admiralty. Am I right in supposing that the addition to the ordinary expenditure will be £12,400,000?
  MR. GOSCHENassented.
  SIR W. LAWSON: This is not the time to go fully into the subject, and all I will do is to cordially say "ditto" to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). I listened very attentively to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty—a very able statement it was—expounding his intentions, though some of us did not seem quite to understand it, and there was one point the noble Lord altogether omitted. He did not give any reason why the country should be in such a position that it now requires all this increase of expenditure upon the Navy, nor did he give us any statement leading to the belief that any threatened danger called for this vast expenditure. I think the increase in itself is a much greater danger than anything that is likely to come to us from abroad. I can assure the noble Lord that when the right opportunity comes—when the next stage of the Bill comes forward, or when the legitimate and proper time comes, he shall receive the most determined opposition to his proposal from below the Gangway.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: Can the noble Lord give us an approximate estimate of how many ironclads will go out of commission during the interval? I think he said 40 ships; that will leave only 30 as additions.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: My answer was given off-hand. I was speaking from memory only. Of course whether an ironclad is obsolete or not is very much a matter of opinion. Certainly a number will be considered obsolete, but if there is any desire for it, I will see if I can provide the information.
  SIR EDWARD REED: The noble Lord enumerated a number of ships which would require new boilers and new expansion engines; will the noble Lord say whether the ships, the names of which he read out as about to receive new boilers this year or next, are all or any of them going to receive new engines this year?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Minotaur, the Achilles, and the Superb are about to receive new boilers, the Thunderer, Devastation, and Rupert new boilers and engines.
  MR. CREMER: May I ask when it is intended that the Question will be submitted for our decision, because I may say that it is intended by some of us below the Gangway—unless the initiative is taken above the Gangway, to meet the proposal with distinct opposition in the form of an Amendment.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I said earlier in the evening that we could not ask the House to take it into consideration before this day fortnight. Ample notice shall be given.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Are there any arrangements for putting new boilers in the coast defence vessels of the Hydra class?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes.
  MR. CHILDERS: In reference to the question as to vessels becoming obsolete, I have Returns here for the four years 1884 to 1887, and there I find the number of vessels struck off, small and great, are 80, a larger number than the additions under the noble Lord's scheme.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): Of course ships are struck off after they have been inefficient for a long time, and meanwhile many others have been added.
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes; but many more are in the same condition.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday, March 21.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1888–89.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

  1213
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £909, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Officers of the House of Lords."
  MR. MOLLOY: It will be remembered that last Session the introduction of these Supplementary Estimates gave rise to considerable debate, and it was then stated on behalf of the Government that in future this course would be avoided as far as possible. But the case is worse now, for neither the Navy nor the Civil Service Estimates have yet been issued, and we are in the position of being asked to vote money without having the Estimates before us that we might examine the items and form our opinion. Last Session, in reply to a complaint of the practice of bringing forward Supplementary Estimates, and so depriving the Committee of a fair opportunity of considering the expenditure, a promise was made that, if possible, it should be avoided. But here we have the Supplementary Estimates sprung upon us again. I do not want to move any reduction or raise any particular objection to this Vote, but I wish to get some expression of opinion—some promise that this continual introduction of Supplementary Estimates—this taking of money in little bits—shall be avoided in future, and that the money shall be asked for in the ordinary Estimates, when the items can be properly examined.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I do not quite follow the hon. Member. These Supplementary Estimates now introduced have no connection with the Estimates about to be introduced for the coming year. These Supplementary Estimates are to make good deficiencies that would otherwise arise in the amounts which have already been voted for the current year. I entirely sympathize with the hon. Member in his desire to avoid Supplementary Estimates, and I can assure him there is nobody to whom they cause greater inconvenience than the Secretary to the Treasury for the time being. But circumstances arise that make them necessary. I may point out that the Estimates for the present financial year were framed fifteen months ago, and it is impossible
  1214
  to foresee all that may happen in respect to a particular Vote during fifteen months. This particular Vote arises in consequence of several Committees appointed to inquire into important subjects, such, as the "Sweating Committee," the Committee on "Private Bill Legislation," the Committees on the "Pharmacy Acts," and "High Sheriffs," having prolonged their sittings into the Autumn Session far beyond the usual period; and so there arises extra expenditure for witnesses, for reporters, shorthand writers, and so on. These extra expenses could not be foreseen when the original Estimates were framed. In framing the Estimates a margin is always allowed, and everything which can be foreseen is provided for; and these comparatively few Supplementary Estimates are due to circumstances over which we have no control. I had hoped that the Committee would have congratulated the Government on these Supplementary Estimates being so small in number and amount, and I trust they will not be considered as requiring a long discussion.
  MR. MOLLOY: Of course, I quite understand these Supplementary Estimates are to meet deficiencies in the current year's accounts, but they have also a great deal to do with the Estimates for the coming year, just as the balance sheet of one year has relation to that of another year. Are we to have this year's Supplementary Estimates presented from time to time, or shall we take them in the ordinary course and consider them as a whole? These constant little petty discussions might be avoided, and in that sense they are an obstruction to ordinary business.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member has in his mind, I think, what is known as the Vote on Account. The Estimates themselves will be in the hands of the House in a few days. It is the intention of the Government, and has been announced by the Leader of the House, that every facility will be afforded to hon. Gentlemen for the discussion of the Estimates.
  MR. MOLLOY: At what time?
  MR. JACKSON: Immediately. The Vote on Account of the Civil Service will be taken on Monday week.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This discussion is quite irregular. The Vote is £909 for the House of Lords.
  MR. SEXTON: Mr. Courtney, the hon. Gentleman expects a little too much when he looks for congratulations with reference to these Estimates from this side of the House—
  An hon. MEMBER called attention to the fact that there was not a quorum present.
  The House was counted, and a quorum was found to be present.
  MR. SEXTON: The explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to this Vote is not sufficient and not satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman has himself pointed out that the item is for Select Committees of the House of Lords, and that the increase is under the special head of shorthand writers. The Solicitor to the Treasury should have been able to forecast the expenditure. The hon. Gentleman, has remarked that it was for the Sweating Committee. Now the Sweating Committee was appointed in February of last year.
  MR. JACKSON: It succeeded the presentation of the Estimates.
  MR. SEXTON: Certainly the expenditure must have been foreseen. I am the more moved to call attention to this matter seeing that the Irish Board of Guardians gets into difficulties by not being able accurately at the beginning of the year to forecast what its expenditure will be by the end of the year. With the experience of the officials of the Treasury, I wish to know how this Estimate has been increased by 50 per cent.?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the beginning of the evening that he was going to increase our taxation by a very large amount on account of our naval defences. I am opposed to the whole scheme, though I have no doubt the House will accept it. Under the circumstances, I think these are expensive and pernicious institutions which ought to be cut off. I have come to the conclusion that we might make a considerable economy, and with advantage to the country, if we never voted another shilling for the House of Lords.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to enter into the question of the House of Lords. He must confine himself to the items of the Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, I object to those items on general principles because they are applied to an institution I disapprove of. I shall feel it my, duty, whenever they are proposed, to divide the House. Here we have £43,731, and we are asked to spend another £900 on shorthand writers and, law reporters. I think they are not needed, and I therefore oppose the expenditure as needless and pernicious.
  MR. CREMER: The Secretary to the. Treasury said that it was an exceedingly small sum we are asked to vote. Small as it is, I propose to reduce it by £500, and unless an assurance is given to the House that the system against which I protest will be discontinued, I shall redeem my promise of December last, and, divide the House on every Vote where the principle to which I am about to refer is involved. The Sweating Committee, to which the Secretary to the Treasury, is no doubt a very important body, but it is a very remarkable thing; that the Government appointed a Committee to inquire into the evils of sweating, which—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The only Question the hon. Member can discuss is the propriety of the additional charges to complete the work of the Committee.
  MR. CREMER: The reason I rose was with reference to the workmen engaged in the House of Lords. It will be within the recollection of the Chairman and of the Committee that I called attention to the course which is pursued by the Government in not paying the employés—
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is quite out of Order.
  MR. CREMER: I will then move, without any further comment, that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £500, reserving to myself the right, at the proper moment, to discuss the details.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That a sum, not exceeding £409, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Cremer.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am exceedingly reluctant to vote against this Estimate, but I am afraid I must unless I get some information from the Government as to what this increase of salaries refers to. The details given were as to £138 in respect of Select Committees, and not as to

  1217
  £686, which is the principal part, apparently, of the whole Vote. I think we ought to know what this unusual number of Select Committees have been doing, and what are to be the beneficial results from their cogitations. If the Government can satisfy me on these two points, I shall certainly not be disposed to vote against the Estimate.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know whether it is possible to satisfy the hon. Member for Camborne—[Mr. CONYBEARE: I doubt it.] Quite so. The Vote states clearly and specifically what it is for. I have stated that there was an unusual number of Committees sitting for an unusual length of time, and the item is for the payment of reporters who took the shorthand notes. A very large proportion of the expenditure is due to the Sweating Committee, to which I should have thought there would have been no objection.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have no confidence in that Committee; I go against the whole thing; and I shall object to every single Vote which appears in the Estimates for the House of Lords.
  MR. SEXTON: The question I put to the hon. Gentleman was, why the expenditure in respect of a Committee which had been so long contemplated could not have been included in the ordinary Estimate for the year. With regard to the other Committees, I can see no reason why they should not be stated on the face of the Vote, and why the Minister should hesitate to name them to the Committee.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Are we to understand that this charge is only for the taking of evidence and calling witnesses in the course of the proceedings of a Committee of the House of Lords?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes; the system pursued in the other House is precisely the same as is pursued in this. Every Committee that sits upstairs has its shorthand writer, in exactly the same way as in another place. I thought I had already sufficiently explained the circumstances connected with this Vote. The Estimates are prepared in December or early in January, at the very latest, and at that time it was impossible to know how long the Lords' Committee would sit, or how much would be expended on witnesses and shorthand writers; so that it is only now, when we
  1218
  are coming to the end of the financial year, that we can put forward anything like an accurate Estimate, or anything likely to come in course of payment. Had there been any saving on any of the other subjects that were dealt with by Committees, it might have been applied to meet the excess here; but it was impossible at the end of the Autumn Session to determine the amount that would come in course of payment up to the 31st March in this instance.
  MR. SEXTON: What were the other Committees?
  MR. JACKSON: There were four—namely, the Sweating Committee, the High Sheriffs' Committee, the Committee on Private Legislation, and the Pharmacy Committee.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think it would be more business-like to over-estimate rather than under-estimate, as there is nothing that wastes the time of the Committee more than the practice of bringing in these Supplementary Estimates. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury speaks of four Committees, three of which strike me as most ridiculous—I allude to the Pharmacy Committee, the High Sheriffs Committee, and the Private Legislation Committee. The High Sheriffs, we all know, are a very ridiculous institution, and I should like to know what, in the cases I have mentioned, we are to get for our money? What legislation do the Government intend to propose in regard to the Sweating System? Are they prepared to propose any legislation at all? If not—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order The hon. and gallant Member is wandering from the strict subject of the Vote, and I think he must be aware that the Committee on the Sweating System is still sitting.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I have not seen any evidence in the papers for the last two or three days, although I have read that previously given; but I think it would be well, as the Committee has been sitting so long, to send it some strong expression of opinion from this House. As to the proposal to reduce the Vote by £500, I should prefer the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to reduce it by £900. I think it would expedite the work of the Committee if the whole of the Opposition were to go

  1219
  into the Lobby against the Vote, so as to mark its sense of the unbusiness-like conduct of the Government in this matter.
  MR. BIGGAR: I have not a very extensive experience of Select Committees; but I think, from what I have seen, that, in a general way, there is an enormous amount of unnecessary evidence taken, a good deal of this evidence being the personal opinions of a set of partizans. If the evidence were confined to the elucidation of the facts it is desirable to get at, there might be some advantage in the expenditure incurred; but, as it is, there is usually no real value in the action of a Select Committee. In the latest Tory Governments it has been their policy to have a large number of Select Committees, probably because they afford the opportunity for a good deal of amusement to hon. Gentlemen who do not make much show in the House, but who can be elaborate enough on these Committees, and thus have it said of them—"Oh, he is a very good man on Committees." I think that under these circumstances it is the duty of this House to curtail this system of Select Committees, and the most effective way of doing this is to refuse to pay for these records of the senseless opinions of a lot of people whose views are not worth anything.
  MR. G. HOWELL: I am sorry the Government have had to ask for a Supplementary Vote; but, at the same time, under all the circumstances, I feel bound to support the Government. However much we may sneer at these Committees in general, it will, at any rate, be admitted that this Sweating Committee is bringing out a great deal of very valuable evidence, which amounts to something far more important than the opinions of experts—though, to my mind, the opinions of experts have their value. We do not as yet know what will be the outcome of this inquiry. The Committee have before them exceedingly valuable evidence on a very important question, which has formed a subject of debate in this House for a period of more than 50 years. I am sorry the question raised by my hon. Friends has been brought forward on this Vote, because, although I am strongly in favour of retrenchment in every possible shape, I, nevertheless, feel it my duty on this matter to vote with the Government.
  MR. BIGGAR: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken thinks that the opinions of experts are valuable; but in my view the opinions of experts are of no value at all; and, indeed, it is a recognized fact that there is no kind of evidence which is of so little value as that which is given by experts. I do not think the remarks of the hon. Member have added to the reasons for passing this Vote.
  MR. CREMER: I would merely point out that if the proposal I have made to reduce the Vote by £500 were carried, there would still be £409 left, which would be ample to meet the cost incurred by the Sweating Committee.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 90. Majority, 45. (Division list, No. 8.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2) Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,290, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1889, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Land Commissioners for England."
  MR. SEXTON: This is a vote which has reference to a disgracefully bad Estimate. (A laugh.) I am glad to hear the Attorney General laugh. The right hon. Gentleman has not had much opportunity for laughing of late. If hon. Members will examine the Estimate they will find that there ought to be a surplus; but, whereas certain receipts for the year ought to have amounted to £15,000, as a matter of fact they only reached £8,000. I ask the Financial Secretary to explain how so gross an error has been committed by the Department. I have also to complain that in connection with a Vote of this kind the information supplied by the Treasury is far too meagre, seeing that they have long had the necessary information to guide them in framing the Estimate. I think we have a right to be told what the nature of the receipts is, and what is the amount of each separate item.
  MR. JACKSON: I shall be glad to give the hon. Member the explanation for which he asks. I quite admit that if the proposition of the hon. Member could be laid down with accuracy, this Estimate would deserve the epithet he

  1221
  has applied to it. But the hon. Member is not correct in saying that the Treasury have had for many months the materials to guide them in framing the Estimate. In this particular case the Supplementary Estimate has been rendered necessary in consequence, as the hon. Member has pointed out, of a deficiency in the estimated receipts. The reason is, that the Land Commissioners had imposed upon them by an Act of Parliament passed two years ago certain duties in connection with ascertaining the value of extraordinary tithes. The costs of this work were to be paid by the tithe owners, who are the persons for whom the work is done. The work had been done, or nearly done, when certain draft certificates were issued by the Land Commissioners, to which an objection was taken by the tithe owners concerned, who were of opinion that the Commissioners were not construing the Act in accordance with the law. A request was made that time should be given—first to enable them to take counsel's opinion, and secondly to enable them to decide whether they should take further action in the matter. That occupied some time, and of course the tithes could not be collected. After taking time to consider the matter, the tithe owners came to the conclusion that they would not take the case to a Court of Law. Owing to the delay, the collection of the charges which fall upon the tithe owners has been postponed. I hope that the collection will be made complete next year, but the hon. Member will see that the delay is one which the Treasury could not possibly have foreseen when the Estimate was framed. I must say that I incline to the opinion that some pressure should be put upon the Department to make the collection promptly.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the question been settled up to date?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not think that the Secretary to the Treasury has given a very satisfactory explanation of this Vote; but I hope the Exchequer will profit in the coming year by what it has lost last year. I regret to say that the Estimate has been placed before the Committee in such a way that it is impossible to understand it. I think it would have been better if the Secretary to the Treasury had com-
  1222
  menced by explaining what the Vote is, instead of leaving the Committee to find it out for themselves.
  MR. MOLLOY: This matter was discussed four months ago, and the Secretary to the Treasury gave then the explanation which he has given now. He told the House that there had been dispute with the tithe owners, who in the end declined to go into a Court of Law, and agreed to pay the demands made upon them. Having agreed to pay, I do not know why there should have been any further delay in the collection of the money. I think it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has not some little further explanation to give.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: This seems to me to be a somewhat serious matter. It is notorious that the tithe owners throughout the country are gentlemen who exact the last penny of what is due to them, and now we have these gentlemen putting off payment when it is due from themselves. They said in the first instance that they must appeal to a Court of Law. That is an old trick. They had not the most remote intention of going to a Court of Law. They said they must take counsel's opinion, but counsel would at once advise them that they had no case. The next step upon the part of the Treasury should have been to insist upon immediate payment. The hon. Gentleman says he hopes the money will be collected by next year; but why should it not be paid at once? Why should not these gentlemen be dealt with as they deal with those who owe them tithes? What would happen to those who have to pay tithes if they said in the first instance that they would go to a Court of Law, next, that they had changed their mind, and then that they hoped to pay next year? No doubt it was right to give time to enable the tithe owners to take the case to a Court of Law, but when they refused to do so the Secretary to the Treasury, instead of coming on the public Exchequer, should have made the tithe owners pay up at once. I altogether object to make any kind of concession to the tithe owners.
  MR. JACKSON: May I point out to the hon. Member that these circumstances arose under a special Act dealing with what is called Extraordinary Tithe, and had nothing to do with the general tithe arrangements?
  In reply to MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)—
  MR. JACKSONsaid the charge was for work done by the Land Commissioners in connection with the Extraordinary Tithe.
  MR. CALDWELL: Is there any deficiency under the head of Appropriations in Aid? You estimate your receipts at £15,000, whereas your actual receipts have only been £8,000. I want to know if a mistake was made in the Estimate?
  MR. JACKSON: No; the sum will be ultimately realized.
  MR. CALDWELL: When?
  MR. JACKSON: I regret that I am unable to say, but under the Act the whole of the expense in connection with this particular work is recoverable from the persons for whom the work has been done. Therefore, whatever the expenditure may have been, it must be recovered.
  MR. BIGGAR: I do not know whether I rightly understand the hon. Gentleman's explanation as to the reason why the money was not paid in the financial year, and why the Government have not taken proceedings to recover it. It must be remembered that these people are owners of property, and not paupers. As far as I understand the matter, certain work has been done by the Commissioners, for which the tithe owners have received full value, and are they the sort of men who should be allowed to make appeals for consideration in formâ pauperis? They are men who can pay, and they ought to be made to pay. Unless the Government can give some better explanation of the reason why they have not collected this money, I think the Committee ought to reject the Vote.
  MR. CONYBEARE: If the tithe owners find that this House is prepared to vote £3,000 in order to relieve them from embarrassment, I am afraid we shall have to whistle for any further payment from them. We know that when an Irish tenant is unable to pay his rent, the whole force of the law is put in motion to compel him. What I would suggest is, that there should be a little practical coercion in this country, in order to compel the landlords to pay their liabilities to the uttermost farthing. I hall, therefore, oppose the Vote, unless
  1224
  the Secretary to the Treasury gives an assurance that certain stringent clauses of the Irish Coercion Act shall be applied to English landlords. Let me call the attention of the Committee to the fact that what we are discussing now relates to circumstances which occurred in 1887, and not last year. The Commissioners report that, in accordance with the provisions of the Tithe Commutation Act, meetings were held in 266 parishes for the purpose of hearing the parties-interested on both sides; that valuers were selected and appointed assistant Commissioners who, from their experience and knowledge, were likely to inspire confidence and to supply accurate information; that these assistant Commissioners had conducted numerous inquiries with marked ability and success; and that they had personally inspected the land, and deposited maps giving full particulars of the estates in respect of which extraordinary tithe was charged. In the end, the Commissioners issued draft certificates in relation to a number of representative parishes, in order to afford an opportunity to the tithe owners of carrying the case to the superior Courts. The Report of the Commissioners corroborates the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury to the letter; but it is dated January 31st, 1888. Yet we are told, more than a year afterwards, that perhaps some time next year the Treasury may be able to get in the money owing by the landlords. I think it is quite time that proceedings were taken; against them to compel them to pay at once. I would suggest to the Government that they should, at any rate, require interest to be paid on money which has taken all this time to collects The Commissioners say that they have been indebted to the Director General of the Ordnance Survey for the assistance he has lent; and they add that the work has been quickly and efficiently done, at a very moderate charge to the landowners. In their tenderness to the landlords, the Government have taken every measure to enable them to get the work done in the cheapest possible way. I think that, under all the circumstances, we have a right to press for some more satisfactory answer than we have yet received from the Government as to when they intend to make these people pay. I wish to make clear this

  1225
  point—that the business transacted by this Office ought to cover all the expenses.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member is entirely out of order in discussing the Vote on general grounds.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the Committee should bear in mind that the Question whether or not the House should vote this money depends on whether time enough has been allowed to these landowners to pay the very moderate charges. The House has already voted more than enough for the expenses of the Department for the year, providing that the debts owing to it had been paid, as they should have been. We must be satisfied that reasonable diligence has been used in getting in the debts. Will the Secretary to the Treasury lay on the Table an account showing how long this money has been due, and when it ought to have been paid?
  MR. JACKSON: I will make inquiries into the matter. I do not think it is possible to give the hon. Member what he asks. I am not sure it is quite correct to say that the money has been long due. The arrangements made for collecting the money are, I believe, as satisfactory as possible. It is collected by the Inland Revenue collectors, and is done in the cheapest possible way.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has made such arrangements, as he promised in the debates last year, as will obviate the necessity for asking for another such Vote?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss the Vote generally.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I shall feel it my duty to divide against that Vote, unless I have an assurance that this is the last time we shall be asked to pass such a Vote.
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to divide the Committee then. I am not in a position to give such an assurance, and I am not prepared to say that it is either possible, desirable, or practicable to make, at a moment's notice, such an alteration in the charges as will defray the whole cost of the establishment.
  MR. BIGGAR: Have proceedings been taken against these people to recover the money?
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 70; Majority 34. (Division List No. 9.)
  (3.) Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for Stationery, Printing, and Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the two Houses of Parliament, and for a Grant in Aid of the publication of Parliamentary Debates."
  COLONEL NOLAN: This seems to be a very extravagant vote, and although I am not frightened at the amount, I must say I am astonished at the explanation which is given of it. We are told that the increase is due to the extra length of last Session. Well, all I can say is that if the Government had only arranged their business properly last Session, we should not have had to sit for so long a period, and we should not have been called upon to pay this heavy bill. Now I really think that the Government are not anxious to cut down the expenses of printing. A case occurred to-day in which I put a question and with a verbal answer to which I should have been perfectly content, but the Minister to whom it was addressed suggested that I should move for a Return, and consequently this necessitates the expenditure of £5 or £10, which might have been avoided. But to return to the long Session. Ministers muddled the time of the House, and I hope it will be a lesson to them. In the future I trust that they will give us short Sessions, and arrange their business properly. Meanwhile, in order to mark the sense of the House of their conduct, I move to reduce the Vote by £4,000. I think if we allow them one half of the sum they apply for, they ought to be satisfied.
  Motion made, and Question, put "That a sum not exceeding £4,000 be granted for the said service."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  DR. CLARK: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why we are called upon to pay £1,000 for two extra volumes of Hansard?
  MR. W. L. JACKSON: The explanation is that until the present Session the arrangement with Mr. Hansard was that he should be paid £500 per volume,

  1227
  and, owing to the necessity of an Autumn Session, there were two extra volumes, for which we have to pay £1,000.
  MR. MOLLOY: I understand that there is now a new Hansard, and there has been some difference made in the order of indexing. I think it would be of advantage to hon. Members if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would give Messrs. MacRae, Curtice & Co. a hint that it would be most convenient if they adhered to the old style of indexing. I am sure hon. Members would much prefer it.
  MR. SEXTON: I share the astonishment of my hon. and gallant Friend, although I know he is not easily astonished; but my astonishment arises from a different cause. Instead of a heavy deficiency, I should have expected a surplus on this Vote, because last year the Government were very chary in granting Returns, especially affecting Ireland. I remember many cases in which we asked for Returns, such as lists of prisoners, depositions in magisterial proceedings and correspondence, which were refused. And they were refused on one of two grounds: either that they would take too much trouble to prepare, or that they were too long to print. The consequence was that the Irish Members were driven to the newspapers and to private correspondence for material for debate, instead of being supplied, as they ought to be, with printed Parliamentary Papers. And now I intend to ask the Government for an undertaking to treat us more liberally in this matter in the future if we pass this Vote on this magnificent scale. With regard to the extra volumes of Hansard, these are partly due to the prolongation of the Session, and partly to the undue prolixity of Ministers, which developed in a singular way last year. Undue prolixity is an incurable vice; but, in regard to the question as to how far the extra volumes of Hansard were necessary, I must point out that the prolongation of the Session was entirely due to the mismanagement and incompetence of Ministers, who persisted in taking votes on account, and deprived the House of Commons of its opportunities of criticizing the Estimates. Therefore, instead of asking the House of Commons to pay the £1,000, I think that the
  1228
  Ministers ought to pay the money themselves.
  MR. F. W. ISAACSON: I wish to ask how many houses of business are invited to tender for stationery. We all remember the iniquity—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Vote generally.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I oppose this Vote on slightly different grounds to those advanced by my hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin. He objects to the Vote because Ministers have been too chary in giving us Parliamentary Papers. I oppose it because, in some respects, they have been too lavish. They have given us Returns in a form which we did not require. Take, for instance, the Blue Book containing what purported to be an official Report of the Mandeville trial—a most shameful and garbled Report—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the character of a report.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I would not do that. I think I have characterised it in sufficiently strong terms—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order! The hon. Member must not persist in thus speaking when called to order.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have not the slightest desire to be disorderly, neither will I be a toady. I was objecting to this Vote on certain grounds, but as I do not wish to disobey your ruling, I will resume my seat.
  MR. F. W. ISAACSON: This Vote is described as for Stationery for the Houses of Parliament. I presume Stationery is required for this House, and therefore is it not in order to ask if proper estimates are obtained?
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is a Supplementary Vote. The question which the hon. Member wishes to ask would be quite pertinent on the original Vote, but it is not on the Supplementary Vote.
  MR. J. G. BIGGAR: I wish to know if the Stationery Committee are going to meet this year or not.
  COLONEL NOLAN: As it appears the Printing Vote was under-estimated, I should like to know if the only Committee which has control of this matter ever met last year.
  MR. JACKSON: There has been an alteration in the constitution of the

  1229
  Printing Committee. I believe the Committee did not meet last year, but my hon. Friend the Chairman gave a large amount of time to these matters, and I hope that this year there will be some real control exercised.
  COLONEL NOLAN: As the Committee do not appear to have met, I think this Committee should mark its displeasure at the excess of the Vote—which arises from the lack of control—by making a substantial reduction.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: Can the Secretary to the Treasury give us any details of the Vote? The explanation in the Estimate is simply that the Vote is unprecedentedly large. Why have we not a Return she wing the number of Papers printed, and a comparison with previous years?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I suppose the excess in the Vote is due to the fact that the Session was exceptionally long. But whose fault was it that Ministers muddled away the time of the House and necessitated this expenditure? I shall certainly divide against the Vote. A promise was made to us last Session that we should not have so many papers sent us, that instead we should have a list every morning of the papers printed, so that we might be able to ask for what we required. I thought it was perfectly understood—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That is a matter affecting the General Vote and not the Supplementary one.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 129: Majority 57.—(Divivision List, No. 10.)
  Original Question put and agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope I shall be in order in expressing the hope which was expressed last year that Hansard will in future contain a table showing the number of times the Closure is applied in each Session.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That does not come within the scope of the Supplementary Estimates.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £292, Supplementary, for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: This is a small vote but a remarkable one. The Treasury
  1230
  estimated the expenditure at £25, but they now come for an additional sum of £292. I am anxious to know whether the Board are allowed to institute actions on their own discretion, and whether the Returns so untested are paid out of the purse of the State.
  MR. JACKSON: I believe the Board have full and complete power to take action when they think it is necessary for the protection of the funds.
  MR. SEXTON: At the cost of the State?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, at the cost of the State. Bnt I understand that there has been paid into the Exchequer rather more than has been paid out.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to know how much was left by the Francis Murray's Charity, because I see that £235 of the State's money was spent in seeing that the trustee paid over the money.
  MR. JACKSON: I don't know the amount of the Charity.
  MR. CONYBEARE: It surely would prevent much discussion on matters of this kind if all the facts were clearly set forth in the Estimate—if, for instance, it was shown that there is really no charge upon the public purse.
  MR. BIGGAR: I cannot altogether admit that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman is perfectly satisfactory. As I understand, this Board in Dublin have power to spend money in law costs at their own discretion, whether or not they are likely to recover the debt or the costs either. I do not think that these people in Dublin should have the power to involve the Treasury in the expenses of litigation without first of all obtaining the consent of the Treasury. The Board are on more or less friendly terms with their Solicitor, and, of course, it is an extremely pleasant thing for him to run up a bill of costs when he knows that the British taxpayer is to bear the burden.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5) £12,000 Supplementary for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.
  MR. JACKSON: Perhaps I may explain that owing to the passing of the Local Government Act last year a larger number of Sheriffs' claims will come in course of payment during this financial year than was anticipated. This, however is likely to be the last occasion on

  1231
  which this Vote will be taken in its present form.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I presume that upon this Vote I shall be in order in referring to the Edlingham burglary case. I am inclined to think that in this case there was a Treasury prosecution, and I am anxious to know whether the cost is included in this Vote.
  MR. JACKSON: It is not.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a supplementary sum not exceeding £123 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."
  MR. JACKSON: I should like to explain that there is a slight error in the explanatory note—1887 having been printed for 1889. Under an Act passed last year and an Order made by the Lord Chancellor, certain changes have been made which came into operation on February 1, 1889, and it is to provide for the expense caused by these changes between February 1 and March 31 that this Vote is required. The increased cost will be covered by fees, so that no ultimate expense will be incurred.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: This is a very small amount, but it raises a very great principle. This is an office which I venture to say is one of the most useless in the whole range of the Administration of this country, and is one against which the House of Commons has protested year after year, and which the last Government endeavoured to abolish so far as they could. At all events, they brought to an end a sinecure at the head of the office of something like £2,500 a year, and the intention was to bring the office itself to an end as soon as possible. The Secretary to the Treasury has alluded to an Act which was passed last Session. When that Bill was put from the Chair the Member who had the Bill under his care assured me that no additional expense would be thrown on the public by the Bill. To make assurance doubly sure, I asked, before I assented to the Third Reading, the Secretary to the Treasury to state that no additional expense would be incurred. The hon. Gentleman then stated that he had made such arrangements that no additional expense would
  1232
  be put upon the country. Now this is an office which has absolutely nothing to do. I believe that a Return presented to Parliament last year showed that only eight titles had been submitted to this office which has cost us in the year £2,796. I object to vote one single shilling to this Land Registry Office. If changes should be made in the office let them be made by Act of Parliament. I know that we shall be told that the fees will cover this additional expenditure. But what I say is, let expenditure be incurred when the fees come in and do not let expenditure be incurred until the fees do come in. I shall certainly divide without a moment's hesitation against this Vote, and I hope the Government will not persist in committing the House to this foolish expenditure.
  MR. MOLLOY: This office has been under discussion for several years, and I rise especially for the purpose of saying that last year when the vote was under consideration, a distinct promise was given that no furthur expenditure would be incurred in the office. Now, however, additional expense has been incurred in consequence of the introduction of new arrangements under an Order from the Lord Chancellor. That these arrangements have been made under an Order of the Lord Chanchellor is, in my opinion, sufficient reason why hon. Members on both sides of the House should vote against this expenditure.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am exceedingly glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has taken a stand upon this matter. On what ground does the Secretary to the Treasury anticipate that the costs will be more than covered by the increase of fees? What alterations have taken place to induce us to suppose that the fees will be increased? I should also like hon. Members to observe that under Sub-Head A. we are asked to vote £50 for two ordnance surveyors and civil assistants. Now it has transpired in the course of the discussion on the Vote of the Land Commissioners, that some of these very surveyors had been lent by the Government to the land owners at an exceedingly moderate charge. While that is the case, we are asked to pay additional sums to similar officers under this Vote. It appears to

  1233
  me that if the Government had been more chary in lending Government employés to land owners, there would not have been any necessity to ask for the £50 shown under the Sub-Head A.
  MR. JACKSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton says I gave some promise in regard to the Bill referred to. I confess I cannot recall it to my recollection, but I will not question the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division has referred to the money set down for ordnance surveyors and civil assistants. These gentlemen, however, will not be paid unless they are employed, and they will not be employed unless there is work for them to do.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I hope that the Committee will not vote this extra money, because the Land Registry Office is a complete sham. In my own opinion, the office is simply kept up at large expense, and is really a blind to prevent reforms in the land system.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I will not go into the question of whether this office ought to be abolished; but I should like to point out that we already pay for this office the sum of £2,796 a year. The work is infinitesimal, and yet, when a little extra work is thrown upon the office, it seems that, according to the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, the country is to be saddled with additional expense in consequence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR R. WEBSTER,): I may remind the House that some two years ago when an appointment carrying a salary of £2,500 a year became vacant it was not filled up by the Lord Chancellor, who then stated that some slight clerical assistance would probably be necessary to do the work of the office in relation to transfer of titles. That was mentioned at the time, and as I understand this extra clerk is required in consequence of the larger reduction previously made. I believe the hon. Gentleman opposite who took a considerable part in the passing of the Bill last year, is aware the office does more work now than in years gone by.
  MR. HALDANE: I was not present at the commencement of this discussion, but certainly it is a source of surprise to me that there
  1234
  should be an increase in the estimate for the expenses of the Land Registry Office. It will be remembered that in the form in which I introduced the Bill of last Session, it was proposed to include bankruptcy in the encumbrances with which the Bill has to deal, but this was dropped out because we found that to include it would add materially to the expense. Certainly we were under a strong conviction that the expenses of the office should not be increased. Speaking as one who has had some little experience of it, I may express the opinion that the Land Registry Act of 1875 has been a complete failure. I remember one transaction in which I was concerned when the cost of transferring an estate of £3,000 from the vendor to purchaser was run up to £600. That ought not to be. I am glad to think that in a Bill introduced in "another place," and which was before this House last year, there is evidence that the difficulties of the situation are realised; and I believe that when that Bill comes again before us, the repetition of such a scandal—for it is nothing less—will be prevented in future. But, meanwhile, is it expedient to add to the expense of the maintenance of this office? So far as the little Act with which I was connected last year is concerned, upon which all parties were agreed, as an addition to security of title, all we did was to give to a useless staff something to do to justify their existence so as to enable them to while away the hours public officials sometimes spend in their office, and to prevent the tedium of official life pressing too heavily upon them. Assuredly, I would have been no party to adding to the charge on the taxpayer for the expenses of this office. I can, of course, only speak from outside knowledge; but I cannot believe it is necessary to add to the staff in order to transact the very simple duties imposed upon it by the Act of last year; and it is certainly a source of considerable disappointment to me to find that a Bill, which passed with the approval of all parties and on the understanding that no additional burden should be imposed, should now be made the—I will not say pretext—the reason for this increase. Of course, I understand that the Secretary to the Treasury cannot help him self.
  MR. JACKSON: I thought I had explained that this is merely a transfer of a clerk from the Supreme Court, not an additional burden put upon the taxpayers for his salary. He was transferred because of his competency for the work—technical work only to be done by a man specially trained, for it. He will be paid according to the extent of his services.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The answer to that is that if the clerk has been transferred from the Supreme Court his salary has already been voted in the Estimates for the year, and, therefore there is no necessity at all for this additional Estimate. We know by experience what these transfers mean, and how they work out. I trust the hon. Member for Stockport, who has had considerable experience in these scandals of the Supreme Court, will give us his assistance in this matter, and show what the staff of this Land Registry Office is. The Attorney General says this is owing to a reduction made when the late Government was in office. What we did was to strike out a sinecure office, which had been often so called, of £2,500 a year. What was left behind for this office, the character of which my hon. Friend adequately described? There is a Vice-Registrar with £1,500; a Chief Clerk with £400; a Second Clerk with £350; and a third with £250. With all this staff they, in addition, charge for copying, engrossing, and extra business £220. There is also a porter, a housekeeper, and an allowance for assistance. Under the circumstances, I am not disposed to vote even £6 additional to the office. The hon. Member for Haddington has confirmed my statement and repeated it. I should have opposed the Third Reading if—the Secretary of the Treasury says he does not recollect it, but it was some responsible Member of the Government—if the Government had not said that there should be no increase in the cost of working this
  1236
  office. It was on the faith of this pledge that the Bill passed. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not carry the Vote to a Division now, but will allow it to be raised in a proper form on the Estimates.
  MR. JACKSON: I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience, would have known that, although the sum might be voted in the Vote for the Supreme Court, it is not possible to pay the charge for the Land Registry Vote under that for the Supreme Court.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: He is now a Clerk of the Supreme Court.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg pardon, he is not; he is transferred to the Land Registry. The right hon. Gentleman says the salary has been voted and the clerk is paid, but he is in error, it is absolutely impossible that he could be paid for one purpose out of money voted for another.
  SIR W. BARTTELOT: I am loathe to intervene in this discussion, but I remember how strongly, on a former occasion, protest was made against additional expenditure on this account. On many grounds, into which I will not now enter, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend not to proceed with the Vote for this additional sum. We have been told over and over again that this Vote was not to be increased, but decreased. Though the increase is small, I must object to it. Once get this extra clerk there, and you cannot get rid of him. It is an unwise thing to propose any addition, and I certainly cannot support such an increase.
  MR. CHILDERS: I hope the Government will yield to this advice. The effect of the Vote appears to be simply adding another clerk to the three or four who have nothing to do. I hope the Government will give way.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The fact is this clerk has been borne on the Supreme Court Staff and he has been transferred.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Why?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: To discharge this duty and carry out the provisions of the Statute passed last year. He has been transferred, and it is not possible to pay this clerk under the Vote for the Supreme Court. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler) shakes his head—if he can be paid out of the Supreme Court Vote I would not ask the House for this Vote. But he cannot be so paid, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to deprive the clerk of the salary he would have received had he remained on the staff of the Supreme Court. However, I will inquire into the circumstances. No one desires more than I do to diminish the expenditure on Land Registry, or that it should disappear altogether; but the House will see that in our desire for economy we should not be justified in depriving a clerk who has been doing work for the public service—whether the work is good or bad—we are not justified in depriving him of his salary. But I will inquire into the circumstances, and if it is possible to make the payment under the Supreme Court Vote then that shall be done. Meantime, we withdraw the Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (6) £20,000, Supplementary, Police—Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain.
  MR. SEXTON: This is for the purpose of discharging the contributions for pay and clothing of police up to September 29 last year. That date is six months past, and I should have thought that if the Treasury had been brisk in their business they might have closed this account. Why is it not closed? When is it likely to be? Will it be on the regular Estimates, or afford matter for another Supplementary Estimate?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The hon. Member will observe this is for money under the Accounts of 1888. The 1888–9 Estimates brought this matter up to the end of 1887; and of course, at that time, the Local Government Bill was
  1238
  only in preparation, and it is not the rule in the Estimates to anticipate the effect of proposed legislation.
  MR. SEXTON: I did not say or suppose so.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: It was not possible at that time to close the Accounts, or ask the authorities to present their Accounts in a new form.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman misapprehends my point, which is this—that the Accounts are for 1888, and we are now advanced in 1889. Why has the Treasury not been able to close the account and settle this in the Estimates?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The original Accounts go up to the end of 1887, and these are the amounts by which they fall short up to the date given. I may explain that under the old system some local authorities send in accounts for payments for which they are actually liable on September 29, while others claim in anticipation of payments becoming due. This £20,000 is necessary to close the old account.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman says the practice varies; but surely this is a matter on which the Treasury should have given notice to the local authorities?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Correspondence has taken place, but necessarily after the preparation of the Estimates. This Supplementary Estimate is the consequence.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7) £600, Supplementary, Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: When we are asked to spend more money on Reformatory and Industrial Schools it seems a fair opportunity for putting the question whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to extend to Scotland the power of establishing day Industrial Schools, such as exist in England?

  1239
  When the point was raised last Session, we were led to suppose that the power would he extended to the School Boards in Scotland; but we found that a Bill introduced in another place, having reference to Industrial Schools, excluded Scotland. My statement that it did so was controverted by the Home Secretary, and at the time I had not a copy of the Bill for reference, as I naturally thought he would have known the contents of the Bill, which issued from his own Department. However, an assurance was ultimately given that Scotland was to be put on the same footing with England. I hope that assurance still holds good.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: So far as I am able to answer for the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, it is intended to place Scotland in reference to day Industrial Schools on an equality with England. It is our policy to make the system uniform as far as possible, and it was by inadvertence that this was not effected as regards Day Industrial Schools in the Bill referred to.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think this supports the contention of Scotch Members that this Department should be placed under the control of the Secretary for Scotland, and I hope at an early day that transfer will be carried into effect.
  DR. CLARK: Constant complaint is made of the very high standard taught in these schools. You give children from the lowest ranks high class teaching, especially in arithmetic.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Vote refers exclusively to Industrial Schools.
  DR. CLARK: To that I was speaking.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which Will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day
  1240
  of March, 1889, for certain Expenses of the Law Agent in Scotland for Government Departments."
  DR. CAMERON: I rise, Sir, to oppo se the grant of this money, and the Government know that they have no right to make this demand upon us for this sum. They tell us now what we could not get from them last Session; it was merely by chance that a Question elicited the information we now have, that these are not expenses altogether for Peterhead Harbour Works, but that the legal expenses of the Sheriff of Inverness have very much more to do with it. The Vote is asked for to pay the expenses incurred, by Sheriff Ivory in a Civil action for libel raised against him for publishing, in violation of his duty, the contents of a confidential report. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was present at the time this subject was raised on a former occasion, and he, seeing that the item would give rise to considerable debate, suggested that the Vote should be put off, and that, in the meantime, the House should have the papers giving the information asked for. Well, we now have the papers, and nothing can be more conclusive than the evidence they give that the Government have no justification whatever in making this demand. If hon. Members have read the papers, they will find that Sheriff Ivory is not only guilty of a libel, but that his whole writings are a series of libels, and his official documents one long string of libels against many persons, including myself. He cannot even allow the late Lord Advocate to escape, because he thinks that the right hon. Gentleman's influence with the Treasury was used against him. Sheriff Ivory, as the House will remember, was in charge of military expeditions, which were sent to Skye a couple of years ago, and he carried out those operations in a

  1241
  manner which appeared to myself, to other Scotch Members, and to a very large portion of the Scotch people, to be an illegal, brutal, and unjustifiable manner. This matter has been brought before the House repeatedly. We have shown how he broke the law in the matter of the secrecy of Postal Telegraph; how he went to a Post Office and bullied the postmaster and the telegraph clerk until he obtained the information he sought from a telegram. He denied that, but he has published a Report containing a number of private telegrams which he obtained illegally, and he made that publication in an utterly illegal and unjustifiable manner. Whoever has happened to cross the path of Sheriff Ivory has been crushed in the most vindictive manner. Such was the case with the Sheriff's Clerk Depute of Portree. He had the misfortune to come across Sheriff Ivory, and has been hounded out of his post. A telegraphist, from whom he obtained information illegally, was so persecuted that she was unable to remain at Portree, and applied to be transferred to Glasgow. That is a matter within my personal knowledge. He quarrelled even with the Chief Constable of the Police. Well, in the course of this expedition searches were made; but these searches were conducted with no regard to moderation. Whole villages were ransacked; troops surrounded houses, and every room was invaded, no distinction being made, though invalids and females were therein. Now, it seemed to us that this was a matter of Constitutional right; that the sanctity of these crofters homes should not be allowed to be violated without trying to obtain redress in a Court of Law. A subscription was raised, a considerable amount of money was subscribed, and an action was commenced. Three actions were raised, one against the Prosecutor Fiscal and two against Mr. Sheriff Ivory, one of these actions being taken by a cow-herd. It seems that a detachment of military was sent into a district to capture a certain individuals who had deforced a sheriff's officer on the previous day, and a man being espied on the top of a hill, in spite of there being no presumption of guilt against him, and though no warrant had been taken out for his capture, he was siezed and imprisoned by Sheriff Ivory.
  1242
  Subsequently, however, there being no evidence against the man, he was liberated, and an action was brought against Sheriff Ivory for the part he had taken in the matter. The Court, however, held that, under the circumstances, the action of the Sheriff was privileged, and a verdict was given in his favour. The second case—that of Stewart—sprung out of a Report which Sheriff Ivory wrote to the Lord Advocate, and this Report was, of course, in itself a confidential and a privileged document. Sheriff Ivory, however, appears to have been aggrieved by something said against him by a clergyman in Skye, and, instead of availing himself of the ordinary means that the law or the newspapers put in his power to vindicate himself against the assertions of this clergyman, he thought it would be more dignified to devote a large portion of his Report to the vindication of his action, and to publish that Report in the newspapers. If the Home Secretary had thought it desirable to make this Report public, Sheriff Ivory must have known that the right hon. Gentleman would have done so by laying it on the Table of the House. But Sheriff Ivory did not consult the Home Secretary, and, as a matter of fact, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, was dead against the publication of it, and positively refused to put the document on the Table of the House. Sheriff Ivory alleged that in a conversation with the Lord Advocate of that time he had received permission to publish the Report; but that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) denied. Sheriff Ivory, in his Report, spoke of Stewart as being the ringleader of the mob, an accusation which the result of Stewart's trial proved to have been entirely unfounded. Actions having been brought against him, the Sheriff applied to the Crown to undertake his defence, on the ground that the action which formed the subject of the cases was taken by him as servant of the Crown. The Lord Advocate replied that if the Sheriff had acted properly, he would be able to defend his character, in which case, if he found himself unable to recover his costs, it would be for the Crown to say whether they would not hold him free from the loss of his expenses. Here a

  1243
  question arose as to whether the Treasury had taken any steps to see that Sheriff Ivory had asked that his expenses from the pursuer in one of the cases where his defence was sustained before the indemnity was paid him by the Government. The fact was that, although there was sufficient money in the hands of the pursuer to pay the expenses, they were never asked for payment. Sheriff Ivory did not consider it a dignified course to ask for his expenses, and in spite of this the Secretary to the Treasury was prepared to pay the money. In Stewart's case, the Lord Advocate refused to recommend the Treasury to pay the expenses, asserting that the action of the Sheriff had been most imprudent, and it was utterly unusual, and opposed to official precedent, to publish a Report such as that supplied by the Sheriff without official sanction in writing. In the course of the correspondence which ensued it was stated that Sheriff Ivory was acting in bona fides, and believed he had the sanction of the Lord Advocate for what he had done. Well, one circumstance threw great doubt upon Sheriff Ivory's feeling in the matter—namely, that when he published it he prefaced it with a lie—with a statement to the effect that it had been placed before a meeting of the Commissioners of Supply of Inverness-shire. I asked a Question about this, and was told that Sheriff Ivory had never laid the Report before the Commissioners of Supply of Inverness. This piece of duplicity on the Sheriff's part seems to me to be matched by the way that the matter was brought under our notice last Session, this Vote being put down as "Peterhead Harbour, Woods and Forests," and so on. I hold that to pass this Vote would be a gross insult to the people of Scotland. There is not a man in the whole of that country who has been so severely criticized as Sheriff Ivory, and there is not a man there who has given anything like the occasion for censure that he has given. After in vain approaching this House to seek redress, and being repulsed by Parliament—or the Parliament House element that has control in this House of Scotch affairs—we took the only means to have questions of important Constitutional rights settled. We—a large section of the Scotch people—were determined to put an end to these high-handed pro-
  1244
  ceedings on Sheriff Ivory's part, so we took the only course in our power. We subscribed to a fund to enable the question to be tried in the Law Courts, and there, forsooth, because Sheriff Ivory is found to have been wrong, or because it does not suit Sheriff Ivory to send in his bill of costs, the Treasury magnanimously come forward and make him a present of the whole sum out of the public money. That, I say, is an insult to the people of Scotland, and I defy the Lord Advocate to get up and defend it without putting a deliberate slight upon his Predecessor. In Beaton's case the agents for the pursuer were prepared to pay Sheriff Ivory's expenses, but he did not apply for them. The Treasury paid them, and in recommending their payment, the late Lord Advocate, I contend, showed the Sheriff too much favour. In the second case the then Lord Advocate went dead against the whole affair, being unable to see any reason whatever to recommend a grant of money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan said nothing to justify Sheriff Ivory; and I should like to know why that right hon. Gentleman's letter, which was laid before the Lords of the Treasury, is not included in the papers which have been supplied to the House? I ask the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the fact of the omission of this letter. The calumnious and mendacious attacks of Sheriff Ivory upon myself and others have been put in the papers—why could not the Government have spared a page for the letter of the late Lord Advocate, especially in view of the fact that they found their whole defence on that letter? I suppose it did not suit their purpose.
  MR. JACKSON: It was private.
  DR. CAMERON: Then why did the Government go out of their way to act on this private document in the teeth of the official advice of their own Legal Adviser? Now, I have laid before the House as briefly as I can the facts of this case. We shall require to have a full explanation. I shall probably have to recur to the matter again, as I am certain we shall have a good deal of shuffling, and that it will be necessary to put the facts very clearly

  1245
  ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I can only judge by what has already taken place. The matter is a small one from a monetary point of view, but it is a large one in point of principle; and I venture to say that if the Treasury officials had principle at heart, as the amount in question is so small, they would rather have made a present of this £200 to Sheriff Ivory in payment of his expenses, as private subscribers have been content to do on the other side, than allow the case to be discussed in the House. I shall move the reduction of the Vote by the whole sum—that is to say, I shall oppose the Vote.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has certainly imported a tone of acrimony into the discussion of this sum of £200, which has already been amply explained, because he has explained that while his speech purports to criticize the action of the Government in refunding this money to a public servant, yes he personally has this complaint to make against Sheriff Ivory—namely, that Sheriff Ivory has defamed him (Dr. Cameron).
  DR. CAMERON: I made no complaint. I merely mentioned it as a matter of fact. It does not concern me.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: He mentioned that as a matter of fact incidentally, and then, anxious that persons in a responsible position should not defame others, proceeds to use against Sheriff Ivory language which, if used outside this House, would be distinctly held to be defamatory. The question is, how far are public officers to be defended by their superiors in this House, when Members of Parliament use language against them here which, if used elsewhere, would be clearly actionable? This matter is a very clear one. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the libel alleged to have been uttered by Sheriff Ivory. What Sheriff Ivory said was that a certain person was the ringleader of a mob and the chief promoter of lawlessness in the
  1246
  district. But under what circumstances was this written? Why, Sheriff Ivory, with the approval of the Government, went down on an expedition to arrest those who were the ringleaders in what were unquestionably lawless proceedings. He went down and executed a most difficult, delicate, and invidious duty, and on his return it became necessary for him to write a Report of the result of his proceedings. That Report was presented to the Lord Advocate. The document he prepared contained a full report of what had taken place, and incidentally a person was named as one of the ringleaders of the mob. That was not an opinion of Sheriff Ivory's; but he founded his statement upon the distinct information of those accountable to him upon the subject; and therefore, in making his statement to the Lord Advocate, Sheriff Ivory was doing no more than his duty. But the matter did not end there. He came to town and saw the Lord Advocate, and the result of that interview was that Sheriff Ivory carried away the impression that the Lord Advocate recommended or told him to send his Report to the newspapers. The reason why that was a plausible step was very obvious. It was because defamatory statements had been made against this learned Sheriff, and because every attempt was being made by agitators to bring him into disrepute, and it was only just that in some form or other the public should have brought before them the lines of his defence. That was Sheriff Ivory's opinion, and the opinion of the Lord Advocate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) allows that if Sheriff Ivory, instead of sending his Report to the papers, had placed it before the Government, and the Government had laid it upon the Table of the House, it could then have been published.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg pardon. I distinctly said that the Home Secretary refused to lay it upon the Table.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: But he pointed out that it was in the power of the Government to publish it. Clearly

  1247
  Sheriff Ivory could have obtained it publication. He could have sent his Report to the Police Committee of Inverness, and they would have been at liberty to publish it in one way or another. If that were all, there would have been no difficulty in getting the document published under the shelter of privilege, and then there could have been no action in respect of it. The sole technical point was this—that Sheriff Ivory sent the Report direct to the newspapers instead of to the authorities. Accordingly Sheriff Ivory's error lies not in the fact of publication, but merely in the mode of publication. The only point attempted to be made against Sheriff Ivory is the frankness and directness with which the publication was made-Sheriff Ivory was under the belief that the Lord Advocate had authorized the publication of the Report. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan is not here, because I have reason to know that he would have completely confirmed what is now stated. If any of his Colleagues sitting on the bench opposite are going to take part in the discussion, I presume they have been made acquainted with his views. There can be no doubt that Sheriff Ivory acted in the bonâ fide belief that the Lord Advocate had approved of the publication of the Report in the newspapers; and what the Government-had to consider was whether an error—which was merely a misconception of what took place at an interview—was one which should be visited with liability for the payment of this £200? As a matter of fact, Sheriff Ivory had been discharging the duty of a public servant under great difficulties; and I trust that this House will affirm that it is the duty of the Government to sustain the action of public officers, even when they err, if they act in good faith. That is a point on which I hope the Committee will not give an undecided opinion, and
  1248
  it is the only question raised in the present discussion.
  MR. CALDWELL: I think if the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate had referred to the circumstances of the action, he would have seen that it was one which altogether precluded the idea of privilege. I cannot agree that, when an officer takes a certain action in the execution of his duty, he is invariably entitled to the protection of the Treasury. The ground of action in this particular case was that Sheriff Ivory was acting altogether outside his judicial functions. There could have been no action whatever based on the footing that Sheriff Ivory had acted according to the duty that devolved on him; but the sole ground of action was that he published this Report without authority, acting, in so doing, altogether outside his proper functions, and, therefore, having no title to protection. How was the matter decided? The then Lord Advocate stated very clearly that Sheriff Ivory, in publishing a confidential document, had not acted prudently.
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Progress reported.
  House resumed.

MOTIONS.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Mr. James Stuart be discharged from the Select Committee on Friendly Societies.
  Ordered, That Mr. Cremer he added to the Committee.—(Mr. Arnold Morley.)

  TRIAL BY JURY (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Sexton, Bill to amend the law relating to Trial by Jury in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sexton, Mr. Hunter, Mr. T. M. Healy, and Mr. Edmuud Robertson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 150.]
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord Clarina, Took the Oath.
LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT (LIGHT) RAILWAY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): I will state to your Lordships briefly the ground on which it has been thought necessary to take the somewhat unusual course with regard to a Private Bill of opposing its Second Reading. The course is unusual for this reason—that, as a rule, when the Government thinks it necessary to oppose a Bill on the ground that it would interfere with the national defences, the promoters withdraw it. On this occasion there was no intimation of intention to withdraw the Bill, and the Secretary of State and his military advisers considered that this line, as proposed in the Bill, would be a standing menace to the Gosport Forts, and, therefore, felt bound to oppose it. I am happy to say that clauses have been agreed to which, to a great extent, remove these military objections; but the Secretary of State also agrees to an adjournment on the understanding that consideration will be given to the possibility of the line taking another route. It is not necessary now to state what the direction is, but, if your Lordships look at the map which has been circulated, it is obvious that it will
  1106
  be possible to construct a line which will reach Fareham by such a route that the danger I have indicated will be obviated.
  Second Reading put off to Thursday, the 14th inst.

SERVIA—THE ABDICATION OF KING MILAN.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CAENAEVON: My Lords, as I see my noble Friend the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in his place, I would ask permission to put to him a question on a matter of considerable public interest, and of which I have given him private notice. We have been startled within the last twenty-four hours by the news of what has occurred in Servia—a very strange and dramatic proceeding. I think that probably my noble Friend will not really be in a position to give this House any very detailed information on the subject, looking to the very recent character of the events. At the same time, it is a case where, both as Foreign Secretary and as Prime Minister, he may be in a position to tell us something which will be of advantage. I look upon this matter as one of importance, not that Servia in herself is an important country, and not that the past career of the Sovereign of that country has been a very distinguished one, but, as my noble Friend knows well, she is the centre, we may say, of Eastern Europe; she is the country which is a nucleus of political ambition and intrigue; and it is hardly possible that anything that occurs there will not, at a moment like this, react, and possibly react upon the stability of the whole European fabric. For these reasons I think it would be very satisfactory that my noble Friend

1107
should give us any information, however slight, on this serious and important question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand the desire of my noble Friend, and I should be very glad to give him any information if I had any. But the only knowledge I have is that which is possessed by all your Lordships. It is not a subject upon which, in the absence of facts, I could allow myself to satisfy my noble Friend by speculation, and I can give him very little explanation of what has occurred. I can only say that, as far as I can judge, it belongs rather to the domain of domestic character than to that of political change.

IRELAND—PROCEEDINGS OF THE CORK TOWN COUNCIL.
THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS, in rising to call attention to the payment of car hire, printing, and posting bills calling a meeting to protest against Mr. O'Brien's prison treatment, out of public rates, by the Cork Town Council on the 8th February, and to inquire whether such a proceeding was legal, and, if not, whether any means exist to prevent such an illegal expenditure of public money, and whether the Law Officers of the Crown are prepared to put the remedy in force, said: My Lords, I hope I may not be considered unduly pressing in drawing your Lordships' attention to this matter. I would have brought it forward at an earlier period of our proceedings, but that I fell into an error which may be excusable—namely, that I thought the matter to which the question refers would be rectified on the Government audit. It seems however, that the cities of Cork and Waterford and the town of Kilkenny are for some reason exempt from any legal or Government audit of their municipal accounts. True, an appeal is allowed to the Irish Court of Queen's Bench, but in the present state of Ireland it is obvious that no private individual would incur the odium and expense of such an appeal. I think, therefore, that in justice to the ratepayers and in the interests of those who wish that public bodies in Ireland should properly perform their duties, the Government may fairly be asked to express their opinion on this case, and to say whether there are any means in their
1108
power by which this illegal application of public rates can be rectified.
LORD FITZ GERALD: My Lords, The subject which has been brought to our attention by the noble Lord is very wide and very important, and deserves serious consideration. This act of the Cork Town Council, in applying the funds of the ratepayers to purposes for which they were not applicable, is an act done in open defiance and contempt of the law. The order made by the corporation was illegal, and the parties who made the order would be personally responsible for the money illegally applied. It is necessary that such practices should not be allowed to continue with impunity. Any ratepayer injured by the Act can go to the Court of Queen's Bench and ask for an order quashing the order of the Town Council by summary process, under the Municipal Corporation Act. But there are great difficulties in the way. The process is slow and expensive, and it is impossible to conceal the fact that the ratepayer who entered upon it would be subject to all the terrors of exclusive dealing. The Government has in every county in Ireland a Crown Prosecutor, and surely the Crown Prosecutor could, at the suit of any ratepayer, bring up the illegal order and have it quashed. If that is not done, the only alternative is for the Government to repeal the statutory powers by which the City of Cork, among others, is exempted from the Government audit. Then the Government Auditor can determine whether the expenditure is legal or not, and if it is held to be illegal, and he refuses to pass the accounts, the money would have to be refunded by those who had illegally expended it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): I have just been put in possession of the answer sent by the Local Government Board in Ireland to a request for the information necessary to give a reply to the Question of my noble Friend, and I think I cannot do better than read it—
"The Local Government Board have no information on the matter referred to. The Board have no power over the expenditure of the Cork Town Council, and the Corporation accounts are not audited by auditors of the Board, but by auditors appointed by the burgesses under Section 70 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1840. Under Section 23 of the

1109
Cork Improvement Act, 1852, any person interested in the accounts, either as a creditor or a ratepayer, may object to any part of the accounts, and the auditors may make such abatements as to them shall seem just, subject to an appeal to the Recorder by a certain number of the Council. It appears, therefore, that any ratepayer aggrieved by the expenditure referred to in the question may object thereto at the audit."
That is all the information which I have at present; but I have no doubt the matter will be further inquired into.

FIREARMS.
Information as to what laws are in force in the various States of Europe with regard to the carrying of firearms by private persons in populous places—Address for.—(The Earl of Milltown.)

NAVAL DEFENCE.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to ask what opportunity will be given to this House for considering the proposals which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, are necessary for "an increase in the precautions which have hitherto been taken for the safety of our shores and our commerce," said: My Lords, I do not know that the Question which I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government may not be somewhat unusual; but, at the same time, it certainly is not singular, and, even if it be unusual, I venture to think that the circumstances that lead to it are also unusual. Your Lordships will well remember that there is a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne of very great—I might almost say supreme—importance; I mean that paragraph which alluded to the defensive condition of the Empire. In that paragraph Parliament was informed that, in view of the potential strength for offence of other European countries, the defensive strength of the Empire was insufficient. My Lords, I do not think it is possible to conceive an announcement of much greater importance than that. In some ways it is more important than if Parliament had been told that an increase in Her Majesty's forces was required either because war was imminent or to protect British interests in some distant portions of the globe; because what we are told is that our own shores, the integrity of these islands—the heart of the Empire—and
1110
the safety of our commerce, which is the blood and the life of the Empire, are not secure against the ordinary vicissitudes of war. And more than that even—that the defensive condition of the Empire is not such as can be considered satisfactory in view of our position and our circumstances even in a time of profound peace. My Lords, I apprehend that whatever the proposals of Her Majesty's Government are, they will be proposals of a permanent character; that is to say, I presume that the paragraph in the Queen's Speech announces that Her Majesty's Government have arrived at a new estimate of the defensive requirements of the Empire; and that, therefore, whatever the proposals may be, whether they affect the Army or Navy, or both, or whether they include the armament of the Coaling Stations, and so on, they will be of a permanent character. Now, it appears to me that in a case of that kind it will be a great misfortune if your Lordships' House have not ample opportunity of expressing its opinion. I do not know, of course, in what shape the proposals of Her Majesty's Government will be made in another place; but I should imagine that they will come before this House in one of two ways—either in the Appropriation Bill on the last day of the Session, which I need hardly say would give this House no opportunity whatever for discussing this matter, or they will come before the House in the shape of a Money Bill. Of course, the right of this House to deal with a Money Bill is not disputed, but your Lordships I am sure will agree with me that it is the universal practice of this House not to reject or amend Money Bills unless in matters of the most supreme and vital importance; and, therefore, I should be right in saying that this question of the defence of the Empire and of the adequacy or inadequacy of the proposals of the Government could not be discussed by this House in a proper manner on a Money Bill. I cannot of my own recollection go very far back, but I remember two cases somewhat similar to this. I remember when a Vote for six millions was asked for; and on that occasion the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) asked a Question somewhat similar to mine; that is to say, he asked whether a statement would be made

1111
by the Government in this House, or something to that effect. The then Prime Minister (Lord Beacons-field) said that the ordinary and proper course was to wait until the statement had been made in the other House; and the result was, that when the Bill came up to this House there was no discussion upon it at all. I think the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) said at the time that after the Vote of the House of Commons he would advise this House not to discuss the Bill. But, my Lords, the case is not entirely on all fours with the present, because at that time the causes which made the Vote of six millions necessary were perfectly well known to Parliament and to the country. The situation which involved that Vote had been debated over and over again in this House, and there had been Ministerial statements made about it; and in consequence the Vote was merely the carrying into effect of decisions which had been come to by both Houses of Parliament. Then, my Lords, I remember also the occasion when a much larger Vote was asked for by Mr. Gladstone, the Vote for 11 millions. On that occasion the noble Earl (Lord Carnarvon) asked whether a statement would be made in this House before any statement was made in the Other House of Parliament, and the noble Earl opposite (Lord Granville) replied that he would make a simultaneous statement, and that was the course which was adopted. But in that ease also, my Lords, this House knew perfectly well the reasons why the Vote for 11 millions was asked for. We had had it debated; we knew all about the Penjdeh incident, and had had frequent debates about the operations in the Soudan; so that the House had practically expressed its opinion, and there was no very urgent necessity for any further debate or any farther expression of opinion upon the Vote of Credit itself. But in the present case we are in almost complete ignorance as to the necessity for these additional precautions which are to be placed before Parliament, and we are in absolute ignorance as to what the proposals of the Government are to consist of. We have had no discussions—no full discussions at any rate—in this House as to the defensive condition of the Empire. I do not think that Parliament has any full information as to
1112
the Report of the Royal Commission that was appointed to inquire into the subject. I do not think we have any knowledge in this House of what has been done with the £2,900,000 that were voted for the defence of the Empire. Therefore, my Lords, it appears to me that on the present occasion there is great necessity for a full debate and understanding of this matter. I venture to say that this question of the defence of the Empire is one with which your Lordships' House is pre-eminently capable of dealing. It is often said that one of the great functions of this House is to deal with large Imperial questions. An immense number of Members of this House have served in Her Majesty's forces—a considerable number in the Army and a considerable number in the Navy. There is the noble Earl to whom I have already alluded (Lord Carnarvon) and other noble Lords who sat on the Commission, and a great many of your Lordships have on various occasions occupied places of great importance, that would render their opinion on a subject of this kind of the greatest value to the country. It would be matter of regret for this House itself if it had not an opportunity of expressing its opinion on such a subject. That, perhaps, is comparatively a small matter, but it would be a matter for the very deepest regret if the country should be deprived of the advice and opinion of this House on a question about which it is so well qualified to judge. If I am mistaken in the notion that there will be no ample opportunity for this House to express an opinion, I can only apologize for taking up your Lordships' time, but I do not myself see how it can be done. I sincerely hope that some opportunity will be given us to discuss this question of the defence of the Empire, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the proposals that Her Majesty's Government intend to make, and that that opportunity will be given at such time and in such a manner that the opinion and decision of this House, whatever it may be, may have some practical effect upon the issue in hand. My Lords, I wish to guard myself by suggesting that I not only do not disapprove in the smallest degree of what Her Majesty's Government have said in the Queen's Speech; on the contrary, I approve of it. I think it is a matter on

1113
which the country may congratulate itself that Her Majesty's Government understand the situation, and that they have the courage to grapple with it, and have not hesitated to come forward and tell the people of this country that the defence of the Empire is inadequate, and to ask for money for the purpose of making it adequate, and I have not the faintest doubt in the world that the people of this country will back up Her Majesty's Government in anything that they do in that way, provided always that they feel sure that the proposals are sufficient, that the work is to be thoroughly done, and that the money voted is to be laid out to the best and greatest advantage. My Lords, as I said before, if I have troubled your Lordships unnecessarily in this matter, I am sorry for it, but at the same time, as I think it is only right that this House should have a proper opportunity of discharging and expressing its opinion on this point, I put the Question on the paper which I now beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think my noble Friend, in reading the debates of the other House, has allowed himself to be affected by the language which naturally prevails there. We know that in the other House of Parliament Members are anxious to obtain opportunities for discussing various public questions, and the reason of that anxiety is that the time of the other House is all taken beforehand, either by the Government or by private Members. But I do not think that a noble Lord, even of the most despairing frame of mind, need be at all fearful that there will be want of opportunity for discussion owing to the scarcity of time here. There is abundance of leisure, and my noble Friend is certainly not a man of that timorous order that he would shrink from bringing forward any question in which he might feel an interest. My first answer, then, is that the time of the House is abundant; that the subject is eminently congenial to your Lordships; and there is no person fitter to make the opportunity than my noble Friend. But with respect to the other portion of the noble Lord's speech, I do not quite understand what he expected us to have done. He called attention to the passage which occurred in the Queen's Speech; but I wonder whether my noble Friend
1114
has noticed that the passage is addressed to the House of Commons, and that therefore it was quite natural that the House of Commons should first give it its consideration. My noble Friend complains that he does not know what we are going to do; but does he seriously expect me to give a small rehearsal of Lord George Hamilton's speech this evening? Does he really expect that I should make here the very statement which the First Lord is probably giving in the other House at this very moment? I think I must refer my noble Friend to the ordinary sources of information to-morrow morning, when he will receive ample information. With respect to the suggestion that there has not been any discussion in this House on the subject of the defences of the Empire, I think that the memory of my noble Friend must have betrayed him. I remember three nights last Session on which the subject occupied a very prominent position in our debates, and on one of them, when Lord Wolseley spoke, I do not remember ever seeing the House, either on the Benches or in the Galleries, so full as it was on that occasion. I am sure the subject was very fully debated on that occasion, and it received great attention from various Members of your Lordships' House. I do not in the least doubt that an opportunity can be found for my noble Friend, if he wants one, but I may add that I believe that the proposals of Lord George Hamilton will take the shape of a Bill, which will not be purely a Money Bill. That Bill will come up here, and, according to all Parliamentary precedent, will be subject to as much discussion and criticism, excepton the mere point of money, as any measure which is introduced to this House.
House adjourned at Fire o'clock, till To-morrow, aquarter past Ten o'clock.