Sitting of 14 March 1889

COLONIZATION.
Ordered, That an Address be presented for Copy of the Correspondence from Colonial Governments in answer to the Memorandum by the Parliamentary Colonization Committee of the 1st day of May, 1888, be sent to Colonial Governments for their consideration and opinion, through Lord Knutsford, during the Session of 1888.—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)
QUESTIONS.

  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of John Mackinnon, of Barra, a prisoner on bail, who had to undertake a difficult and dangerous journey, occupying four days, in order to record a formal plea of "not guilty" at Lochmaddy; whether he has received representations as to the great inconvenience to which inhabitants of the Outer Hebrides are exposed through the arrangements of Pleading Diets under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act; and, whether he will consider the propriety of modifying present arrangements?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. ROBERTSON,): My attention has been called to the case of John Mackinnon, and a representation has been made to me of the inconvenience to which he was subjected. With reference to the second part of the question, I must remind the hon. Member that Pleading Diets in Sheriff Court cases
  1626
  not tried summarily (of which this was one) have existed for many years; the only change under the recent Statute being, that now the plea can be taken by the nearest Sheriff Substitute, instead of by the Sheriff of the Court where the case would eventually be tried. In the representation made to me this change is stated to be a great improvement—which it certainly is. It is, however, undoubtedly a hardship that such long distances should have to be traversed if it can possibly be avoided, and I shall consider whether any modification of the existing arrangements can be made.

  THE LONDON POLICE COURTS.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to a portion of his answer of 7th December last, to the effect that the employment and payment of female officers for finale prisoners at the London Police Courts had been already sanctioned, and that steps wore being taken to appoint competent attendants; at how many of the 16 London Police Courts have such attendants been appointed; whether there were in each of these cases not merely a searcher but a female attendant, or police matron, in charge throughout the day and night of all female prisoners; if not, will Recommendation No. 10 of the Committee which was presided over by Mr. Justice Wills, and which reported in April, 1888, to the effect that "besides the male officer in charge of the prisoners, there should be a female officer in charge, under him of the female prisoners," be effectually carried out without further delay; also, whether he will call for Reports from the Metropolitan and City Police Courts and the other Petty Sessional Courts showing in detail how far each recommendation of Sir Alfred Will's Committee has been adopted and carried into effect; and, whether he will lay a Return, tabulating the contents of such Reports, upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HUME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): In answer to the question of the right hon. Baronet I have to say that at the following six out of the 14 Metropolitan Police Courts—namely, Bow Street, Worship Street, Clerken-

  1627
  well, Westminster, Marylebone, and the Thames—female attendants have been appointed. Appointments will be very shortly completed at Southwark, Hammersmith, Wandsworth, Greenwich, Woolwich, Dalston, and Lambeth. With regard to Marlborough Street the Secretary of State is still in communication with the learned chief magistrate with a view to overcome certain structural difficulties in the way of accommodation which have hitherto existed at that Court. I may remind the right hon. Baronet that the services of these female attendants are only required during the day, as no prisoners are detained in the Court cells after the rising of the Court at 5 in the afternoon. Prisoners who are remanded from the Police Courts are taken to prison for the night. With regard to the second question I may say that no useful purpose at this moment would be gained by the production of such a Return as is there described. Correspondence with the authorities of local courts outside the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State is still proceeding. In several cases the requirements of the Committee, which were communicated by Home Office circular, have been satisfactorily carried out and have been approved. In others correspondence aimed at securing improved accommodation is still pending, which the Secretary of State has every reason to hope will in like measure be successful.

  BALLYCOTTON PIER.
  MR. LANEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, what had been the cost of the inspection and report upon the Ballycotton Pier; what was the probable cost of the alterations and repairs recommended therein; and, when would those repairs be executed?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The total cost of inspection and report will be £330 3s. 10d. I have not yet received an estimate for the works recommended by Mr. Barry, but if the hon. Member desires I will inquire and get the information.
  COLONEL WARING: Arising out of the answer of the hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether it is proposed that the money required for these repairs and alterations is to be provided
  1628
  by a Special Vote or economized out of the funds already pledged to other piers, and notably that of Ballyhalbert, in County Down?
  MR. LANE: Is it not possible to make the contractors who have been paid £20,500 for the erection of this pier responsible for any expense incurred in consequence of the contract not having been properly performed?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think the contractors will admit that there has been any fault on their part, and I should not like to express an opinion on the subject. In answer to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I think I may assure him that the money will not be found at the expense of the harbour he is interested in.
  MR. SEXTON: How soon will the Report of the inspection be circulated?
  MR. JACKSON: That is a question for the printers.

  EXCESSIVE HOURS OF LABOUR.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the inquest on the death of Stephen Gurr, a platelayer, in the employ of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, whilst fog-signalling, on the evening of 1st of January, at Norwood Junction; whether the evidence showed that Gurr went on duty at 7 a.m. on Monday, 31st December, went off at 5 p.m., was sent on duty again at 7.30 p.m., remained on duty till 7 a.m. on Tuesday, 1st January, went on duty again at 1 p.m., having only had 6 hours off duty after having been on duty 21 ½ hours out of the preceding 24; and, whether any inquiry has been held by the Board of Trade, or any representation made to the Company by the Board of Trade, that such excessive hours of labour involve the greatest danger to the fog-men, and also to the trains, and that it is their duty to provide a larger staff for fog-signalling, and relieve the fog-men more frequently?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): My attention has been called to the accident to Stephen Gurr, referred to, and the hours for which the unfortunate man had been on duty are undoubtedly very long. A correspondence

  1629
  has taken place between the Board of Trade and the Company.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the correspondence on the subject between the Board of Trade and the Railway Company?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes.
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to lay on the Table any assurances which may have been given by the railway company as to their future action on the subject?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That hardly arises out of my answer, but I will consider the matter.

  EMIGRATION TO THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether he was aware that large numbers of emigrants are leaving Portsmouth for the Argentine Republic; and whether it was possible for the Emigrants' Information Office to circulate, for the guidance of intending emigrants to South America, accurate information as to soil, climate, probabilities of employment, wages, and cost of living in the Argentine Republic?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): The increase of emigration to South America is referred to in the last Report on Emigration, and has been continued during the present year, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his reply to a question in the House on the 28th of February. Large numbers of inquiries with regard to the Argentine Republic are received at the Emigrants' Information Office, and are usually referred to the London Information Office of the Argentine Government, unless they can be answered from such Consular and other Reports as are received through the Foreign Office. The instructions given to the Committee of the Emigrants' Information Office confine them to the British Colonies, and their staff is so limited that their present work, to be done thoroughly, gives full occupation. It is undoubtedly most desirable that accurate information should be given as to foreign countries to which British emigrants go, notably at the
  1630
  present time the Argentine Republic; but if the office is to undertake to do so, it must be strengthened and enlarged. The Committee do what they can at present in inviting and utilizing for individual inquirers any information bearing on emigration to any part of the world, while not issuing pamphlets as to any but British Colonies.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I believe that the information already given by the Office has been of great advantage to emigrants, and prevented many of them from going to places where they could not get employment. Will the Government recommend some additional outlay, for the purpose of extending this information?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I should be glad to do it, but I am afraid it is a question for the Treasury. We have no money.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: As the Secretary to the Treasury is in his place, and has heard the answer of the Under Secretary, may I ask whether an application to the Treasury for money for this purpose by the Colonial Office would receive his support?
  MR. JACKSON: I am quite sure that the Treasury will give the most respectful and earnest consideration to any application that may be made to it.

  THE SHERIFF DEPUTE OF CAITHNESS.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that Mr. Thorns, Sheriff Depute of Caithness, while sitting on the bench at Wick and dealing with a case, Weir against Weir, which had been appealed to him from the Sheriff Substitute, abstracted 18 pages or there-by of the written evidence taken before the Sheriff Substitute in the case; whether Mr. Thoms cast said pages aside and destroyed them, stitching up the remaining evidence; if so, was Mr. Thorns entitled to act in such a way; and, if he was not so entitled to act, what steps does the Lord Advocate intend taking in the circumstances?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONrequested the hon. Member to put down the Question for another day.
  MR. CALDWELL: I will repeat it on Monday.

  FAIR RENTS.
  MR. LEAasked the Solicitor General for Ireland if applications for the fixing of fair rents in the union of Londonderry have been waiting since January, 1888; and when will a Sub-Commission sit in Londonderry to hear these cases?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Land Commissioners inform me that it has not yet been found possible, owing to the number of cases pending, to list any cases in the Union of Londonderry where the applications have been received since January, 1888. A Sub-Commission sat in that part of the Union which is situated in the County of Donegal last January, and for that part of the Union situated in the County of Londonderry last November. The Land Commissioners are not at present in a position to state when there will be another sitting in the Union.

  BOYCOTTING A BANK.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the Dublin Mail of the 9th inst:—
  "It is stated that the Ballyshannon people are desirous of boycotting the Provincial Bank in that town for accepting, as treasurer, subscriptions to the Martin Memorial Fund. The manager has been warned that if the directors support him in this it will be at 'a considerable sacrifice.'"
  If there is any truth in the statement; and, what steps the Government intend to take to protect the Bank thus threatened?
  MR. MADDEN: I understand that Nationalists in Ballyshannon objected to a list of subscribers to the Martin Memorial Fund being exhibited in the bank, and that an article on the subject which appeared in the local Nationalist paper stated that it was a political matter, and that unless the placard were immediately withdrawn steps would be taken to prove that partizan displays are not remunerative to banking establishments. I am informed that the list was subsequently removed at the request of the gentleman who inaugurated the movement. The manager of the bank continues to act as treasurer, and no
  1632
  objection appears to be raised by any person to his so acting.

  FATHER M'FADDEN.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether, at the trial of Father M'Fadden and others at Letterkenny on Thursday, the 7th instant, the accused were passed to their places in Court before a number of constables who were placed in Court, one of them having a note-book in hand which he was using; whether, on the attention of the magistrates being drawn to this by the counsel for the accused, Mr. Hamilton, R.M., asked District Inspector Stevenson whether the constables so placed and acting were witnesses proposed to be examined by the Crown for the purpose of indentifying any of the accused, and that this was admitted to be so by District Inspector Stevenson; whether Mr. Hamilton thereupon ordered that the constables should be sent out of Court, whereupon about 30 of them left it; whether, some time subsequently, one of these men, Constable Boyle, was again in Court, and was again ordered by the magistrate to leave it, which he did; and, whether he will give such instructions to those in charge of the Constabulary as will prevent similar proceedings in future?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary authorities report that owing to the large number of prisoners who were being brought up before the magistrates on the occasion in question, four constables were placed for the purpose of noting the prisoners, with a view to prevent subsequent confusion as regards those who might be discharged by the Court and those retained in custody. On the application of counsel for the defence that all witnesses should be put out of Court being acceded to, these constables at once left with about 20 others who were also witnesses. Afterwards Constable Boyle having been sent for came back into Court, but upon counsel objecting to his presence he at once left, having been there for a few moments only.

  IRELAND-POLICE PASSES.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  1633
  land, whether a number of "passes" have been issued, in the following form, by a Sergeant of Constabulary in the Gweedore district: "Please let bearer—pass. Owen Mahoney, Sergeant R. I. C. Date—," in default of possession of one of which the people of the district are unable to pass along the roads or through the country at their pleasure; and, by whose authority this Police Sergeant is thus acting?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that when the search for Mr. Martin's murderers was progressing Sergeant Mahoney gave passes as described to a few persons against whom he knew there was no suspicion, so that the inconvenience of stopping and examining them might be saved. It is, however, not the case that without these passes persons are unable to pass along the roads, or through the country, at their pleasure. The Sergeant acted on his own responsibility in giving the passes.
  MR. WOODALL: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is aware that on the following day police constables were placed in a position to overhear what was going on between the accused persons?
  MR. MADDEN: The hon. Member will observe that that is not a question arising out of my answer.
  MR. WOODALL: I ventured to ask the question, because the Government have invited attention to the matter. I hope they will supply the information.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Did Mr. Hamilton, the resident magistrate, express his disapproval of this method of Government identification?
  MR. MADDEN: I have no information on that point.

  IRELAND—THE MURDER OF INSPECTOR MARTIN.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, what number of houses have been forcibly entered by the constabulary in the district of Gweedore since the arrest of Father M'Fadden and the murder of District Inspector Martin on the 3rd February, and in how many cases was this done without warrant; what number of persons have been arrested in connection with these occurrences, how many of them have since been released, on whose direction
  1634
  was this done, how long had they been in confinement, and against how many of them had there been sworn information; and, how many persons have been placed on their trial for complicity in the murder of Martin, and against how many of these has any information been sworn?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask for notice of this question.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of how many prisoners have been arrested?
  MR. MADDEN: I cannot state the exact number, but I will inquire.
  MR. MAC NEILL: They filled a special train consisting of five carriages.

  COLONEL FORBES, R.M.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether Colonel Forbes, R. M. (Belfast) has received notice of his removal from Belfast; whether he is to be succeeded by a barrister; and whether this is with the view of carrying out one of the recommendations of the Belfast Riots Commission; and, if so, whether the other recommendations of the Commission will be adopted?
  MR. MADDEN: I believe Col. Forbes has either left or is about to leave Belfast. The gentleman who succeeds him is a barrister. This step was not taken with the view of carrying out one of the recommendations of the Belfast Riots Commission, though it is in accordance with the spirit of that recommendation.
  MR. SEXTON: Was Colonel Forbes removed by his own desire or against his will.
  MR. MADDEN: The hon. Member must give me notice of the question.

  FORTIFICATION OF MILITARY PORTS.
  VISCOUNT CURZONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give a Return showing the amount of money voted since 1885 for the defence, including fortifications and armament, of military ports, commercial ports, and coaling stations at home and abroad, the application of the money to the various localities, and the amount still required to be expended?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): If my noble Friend will look at

  1635
  the Memorandum attached to last year's Estimates, of which a copy shall be sent him, I think he will find all the information he requires. But, if not, perhaps he will tell me what further information he desires.

  THE PRIME MINISTER OF CASHMERE.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether it was a fact that letters of Lachmandus, late Prime Minister of Cashmere, have been discovered, showing a course of treason on the part of the Maharajah towards the Indian Government; whether these letters, amongst other things, reveal a design set on foot by the Maharajah of Cashmere to poison the British Resident; and whether, if this information is accurate, he is in a position to inform the House what steps the Indian Government propose to take under the circumstances?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Secretary of State is advised that the Government of India attach very little importance to the intercepted letters.

  THE DISTURBANCES AT SULYMAH.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government had now received official information respecting the Coroner's inquest held at Free Town, Sierra Leone, on the 1st February last, on the body of the Chief Gbanna Gombo, and other Papers showing what action, if any, has been taken by the local authorities with a view to investigation of the charges against the police officer, whose treatment of the Chief is alleged to have conduced to his death; and, whether he would furnish the House with further information as to the grounds of the Chief's arrest; also with copies of the official report of the Coroner's inquest of the 1st February; of the Governor's report on the subject; and of the order which has been issued to the Sierra Leone police respecting the use of hand-cuffs and avoidance of undue harshness in the conveyance of prisoners?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the Government have not received any fur-
  1636
  ther information beyond what I gave to She House on the 8th instant. The Secretary of State has, however, called for a full Report as to the circumstances alluded to, and the Papers will be included in the correspondence respecting the disturbances at Sulymah, which I intend to lay on the Table as soon as possible.
  SIR R. FOWLER: When do the Government expect to receive the information?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I am unable to say precisely.

  SHEERNESS DOCKYARD.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the total estimated cost of the proposed dredging of the Medway, to allow of the largest men-of-war passing down the river at any high tide; and whether, when this work was completed, and Chatham Dockyard thus made more readily accessible, it will be practicable to close Sheerness Dockyard, thereby saving the establishment charges of the latter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The estimated cost of dredging the Medway is £10,000. As the work carried on at Sheerness Dockyard is on the smaller classes of ships, the deepening of the Medway does not affect its present purpose. It is not considered desirable in Imperial interests to close Sheerness Dockyard.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked whether arrangements could not be made in connection with Sheerness Dockyard at a less cost than the proposed dredging of the Medway would involve by merely obviating the necessity for the undertaking?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The cost of dredging the Medway will, as I have stated, come to £10,000, but I am quite clear that no large dock accommodation at Sheerness could be obtained for that money.

  ZULULAND-DINUZULU.
  MR. WALTER M'LARENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies under what warrant, and issued by whom, is Dinuzulu now being detained in custody at Etshowe;

  1637
  and whether Dinuzulu was removed from Natal to Etshowe under a warrant, the validity of which is under appeal?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Dinuzulu was removed to the borders of Natal under a warrant which the Supreme Court of that Colony had held to be valid, but the validity of which is now under appeal. On Dinuzulu reaching the borders of Natal, he was handed over to the Zululand Police, who doubtless were armed with a proper warrant from the Zululand authorities to enable the police to receive him. He is no doubt detained in custody under a proper warrant from those authorities, but the Secretary of State is not aware by what magistrates or other persons these warrants were issued.

  ZULULAND-ZIBEBU.
  MR. WALTER M'LARENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office will insist that the Zulu Chief Zibebu shall be put upon his trial for the murder of Umsutshwana; and, whether Mr. Richard Addison, who has been appointed a magistrate in Northern Zululand, and who is at present assisting in the prosecution of the Usutu Chiefs at Etshowe, formerly acted as one of Zibebu's lieutenants or "whitemen" during the conflicts between that chief and Cetshawayo's people?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: It is proposed to proceed against Usibebu in respect of the transaction in question; but the proceedings have been delayed by reason of Usibebu having met with a serious accident, and by the fact that he is now attending as a witness before the Special Commission at Etshowe. I am assured that Mr. Richard Addison has at no time been with Usibebu.

  IRISH EXTRA POLICE.
  MR. LANEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland for what purpose a large body of extra police were marched into the town of Youghal on Friday the 8th instant; whether a similar force of extra police was sent there on the 8th March 1888; whether, when a similar force of extra police was marched into the town on the 8th March 1887, a riot took place, in which a civilian was killed by the police; and, whether in future steps
  1638
  would be taken to prevent the exasperation of the people?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary authorities report that an extra force of police was drafted into Youghal in 1888, and again in 1889, with a view to preventing a demonstration which there was reason to believe it was contemplated holding to commemorate the anniversary of the death of a civilian during the riot referred to in the third paragraph of the question. The authorities were of opinion that the holding of such a demonstration might lead to serious public disturbance, and possibly loss of life.
  MR. LANE: Upon what grounds did the authorities anticipate such a demonstration when there had been no placard or advertisement issued in connection with it? As far as I am informed there never was any intention of holding a demonstration.
  MR. MADDEN: The authorities acted upon the information before them. It is not customary, in drafting police into a town where a disturbance is apprehended, to notify the fact by advertisements or placards.
  MR. SEXTON: Did the authorities act on sworn information? If so, will the hon. Gentleman let me have a copy of it?
  MR. MADDEN: The right hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  THE MERTHYR TYDVIL POLICE.
  MR. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if it is true that Captain Lionel Lindsay, son of the present Chief Constable for Glamorganshire, has been appointed Superintendent of the Police at Merthyr Tydvil; whether the invariable practice hitherto has been to appoint the Superintendent of Police at Merthyr by promotion and seniority; and, whether he is aware that the report of the appointment of Captain Lindsay, a man of twenty-eight years of age, and having no connection with the police force of the county, over the heads of those who have spent their lives in the force has given rise to great dissatisfaction in the district?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Captain Lindsay has been appointed as a third class Superintendent. The Chief Constable states that hitherto he has been

  1639
  able to select Superintendents from the county force, but not always by seniority. With regard to the third paragraph, my information is to the contrary. I am told that the appointment is popular in the force, and generally approved in the district.
  MR. DILLWYN: May I ask whether this sort of family arrangement meets with the approval of the Government?
  MR. T. ELLIS: Has this gentleman had any experience whatever in regard to the Police Force of the county? Does he understand the Welsh language, and is there any power of revising the appointment?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I believe that Capt. Lindsay has had police experience in an adjoining county, but, speaking from memory and without notice, I cannot answer the Question positively. I know that he has had considerable experience in Egypt.
  MR. T. ELLIS: How about the language?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I must have notice of that Question.

  SHORT HOURS OF LABOUR.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, owing to the great loss the present short hours entail on carmen and others, he will cause to be altered the time of opening and keeping open of the customs and other bonded warehouses from eight o'clock a.m. until six o'clock p.m. in summer, and from nine o'clock a.m. until six o'clock p.m. in winter?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not sure that the Government has power to order the opening of bonded warehouses. They are opened at eight in the morning and close at four in the summer. In, winter they open at nine and close at four. There are strong objections to warehouses remaining open after dark, and if there were a general extention of the hours, increased coat would be entailed. I am not aware that there has been any general demand on the part of traders for an extension of the hours during which warehouses are kept open. I am informed, however, that in cases of special emergency an extension of time is granted on application, and I think this meets the necessities of the case.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: What I alluded to was the Government bonded warehouses, and not private property, The closing of them at an early hour has been the cause of great loss to carriers and carmen.

  THE SUGAR CONVENTION.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, considering that by Article X. of the Sugar Convention it is provided that, in case a Colony should wish to retire separately from the Convention, a notification to that effect will be made to the contracting Powers by the Government of the Mother Country with the consequences shown in Article IX., it is intended that the withdrawal of a Colony from the Convention shall have the effect of entitling one of the Signatory Powers to notify its intention of retiring from the 1st of August of the following year; and, whether, in fact, the withdrawal of a Colony is to be treated as equivalent to the withdrawal of a signatory Power, except as regards the mode of notification?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Articles IX. and X. are capable of the interpretation suggested in the hon. Member's question. The question as to whether the withdrawal of a Colony is to be treated as equivalent to the withdrawal of a Signatory Power except as regards the mode of notification, is, in my view, one which would have to be decided by all the Signatory Powers, should the case arise, and is not one on which I should feel justified in expressing an opinion in anticipation.

  THE NAVAL PROGRAMME.
  MR. CHILDERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the Memorandum just published, explanatory of the financial proposals of the new programme, whether the House is to understand that, while the plan provides £3,054,000 more than is required for the programme of new construction in the Dockyards, an excess which, in the words of the Memorandum, "can be utilized in reducing the Estimates for 1892–3 and 1893–4," on the other hand it leaves almost the same amount, £2,864,000, to be provided by

  1641
  Parliament during the two subsequent years 1894–5 and 1895–6, in respect of contract work already fully completed and paid for?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: My Memorandum was as follows:—
  "This sum can either be utilized in laying down new vessels or in reducing the Estimates for 1892–3, 1893–4."
  That new vessels will in those years be commenced is certain, and the amount available under our scheme for that purpose is sufficient to provide for the maintenance of the Fleet at the strength at which it will then stand. Unless, therefore, in the years 1892 to 1894 it is decided to abolish the Dockyards and to stop all shipbuilding, the supposition in the latter part of the Question is inaccurate.

  IRELAND—FATHER BYRNE AND LIEUTENANT GEOHEGAN.
  MR. THEOBALDasked the Solicitor General for Ireland if it is true that Father Byrne has issued a summons against Leutenant Geohegan for creating a disturbance by leaving the church during service after Father Byrne had directed the soldiers to disobey the commands of their officer; and, if so, on what grounds he can do so?
  MR. MADDEN: I am informed that it is the case that a summons has been served on Lieutenant Geohegan at the suit of the Rev. Patrick Byrne, the grounds alleged being that the defendant had created a disturbance during the celebration of Divine service.
  MR. SEXTON: In view of the danger involved in the offensive disturbance of a congregation in a place of religious worship may I ask if it is not expedient that orders to the troops to withdraw from a church should not be allowed to be given by every man or boy who happens to hold a commission in the Army?
  MR. JOHNSTONasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would represent to the military authorities that it was inexpedient to send troops to a chapel where the priest, under pretence of religion, encouraged to acts of mutiny.
  MR. MADDEN: I believe the military authorities are able to attend to their
  1642
  own affairs without advice or assistance from me.

  THE EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, when the new Code will be laid upon the Table, and what time he proposes to give for its consideration?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir W. HART DYKE,)said he hoped to lay the new Education Code on the Table on Tuesday or Wednesday next, and to give two months' time for its consideration.

  COUNTY COUNCILS AND HIGHWAY BOARDS.
  MR. JASPER MOREasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in cases of County Councils contracting with highway boards for the maintenance of main roads, County Councils can make Votes on Account to such highway boards?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: It appears to me that the County Councils may make reasonable payments on account to the highway boards with whom they contract for the maintenance of main roads, provided that before they make such payments they have the report of their surveyor, which is required by subsection 5 of section 11 of the Local Government Act, as to the roads having been properly maintained.

  CITY OF LONDON VOLUNTEERS.
  COLONEL LAURIEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the opinion of a late Attorney General on the subject of the use of the Honourable Artillery Ground by the City of London Volunteers was given in his capacity as Law Officer of the Crown, or in an unofficial capacity, on the case as submitted by the Honourable Artillery Company?
  MR. BRODRICK: The opinion referred to was given, I believe, in an unofficial capacity.

  ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY AT WOOLWICH.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the revised Code for the examination of candidates for entrance to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich has yet been adopted; and, if not, whether he can give any information as to the cause of the delay, and as to the date at which such revised Code will be made known and come into force?
  MR. BRODRICK: These Regulations are now completed, and will be issued immediately.

  WIRE GUNS—THE LONGRIDGE SYSTEM.
  CAPTAIN SELWYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that. General Maitland, Director of Ordnance Factories, stated on the 6th of October, 1888, at the annual dinner of the Royal Arsenal Foremen's Association—
  "That a wire gun had been made by them on Mr. Longridge's plan which had beaten everything before it, having attained the extra, ordinary range of twelve and a-half miles."
  Whether wire guns are made by Russia, France, and Germany on Mr. Longridge's plan, with great economy of time and money; whether he is aware that such wire guns are much stronger and more durable than the type of hooped gun now in use; whether such guns can be made in much shorter time (say one-third), and at much less cost (say one-eighth), than those in use at present; whether he is aware that Krupp, of Essen, have made several wire guns which have given brilliant results; but that they are not brought forward so long as orders are forthcoming for guns on the old system, in order that the enormous plant, which would be of no use for wire guns, may continue to be utilized; whether the same consideration influences the War Office; and, whether any, and, if so, what further trials or investigations of the Longridge system of making wire guns are in progress or contemplation?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am informed that the report of General Maitland's statement is not quite accurate. He said that a gun made in the Arsenal on a design of his own, but embodying Mr. Longridge's principle of using wire
  1644
  as an auxiliary to give strength, had produced the results described. I believe a gun has been made in Russia on some modification of Mr. Longridge's plans; and a few years ago some were made in France, but failed. I know of no others. Weight for weight the wire guns are stronger; but they are not more durable than hooped guns, as the bores wear out equally in either case. At present it is uncertain whether there is any gain either in time or cost from the use of wire; but it is hoped that some little saving may result. It will not, however, as regards either time or money, be in anything like the proportion suggested in the question. I am not aware that Mr. Krupp has made any wire guns, and certainly no consideration for existing plant would prevent the War Office from adopting them if otherwise found desirable. Several wire guns are being made for trial.
  MR. HANBURY: May I ask whether any gun on Mr. Longridge's own plan has been tried?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir; one was tested and burst on the first round.
  CAPTAIN SELWYN: Was not that due to a flaw in the material, and not to any defect in the design.
  MR. BRODRICK: The information I have does not bear out the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member, but if he had seen the gun after it had burst, I do not think he would have wished any further experiments made in that direction.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many railway companies have recently very considerably increased their rates and are now actually charging these increased rates; and, whether there are any means by which traders may be protected from the injury thus inflicted upon them?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH said: In consequence of the statements which have been publicly made in many parts of the country on this question, I communicated with the Chairman of the Railway Companies Association, who informs me that the railway companies made considerable alterations in rates at the end of last year in view of the operation of the

  1645
  Railway and Canal Traffic Act; that these alterations were generally in the direction of cancelling obsolete through rates, and also rates which appeared open to objection on the ground of undue preference; that the cancelling of these special rates had the effect of raising the charges made for carriage, as the ordinary rates would then apply instead of the special rates; that since the 1st of January the railway companies have made no advances in their rates, and have no intention of doing so without complying with the provisions of the Act; and that if, by inadvertence, any rates have been charged in any district above those in force on the 1st January, the railway companies ask that the person so charged will communicate with the General Manager of the company making the increased charge, when the matter shall be put right.

  AUSTRALIAN POSTAL RATES.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General how the penny charge for newspapers to Australia is distributed—that is, how much to the British Post Office for transit in Britain and sea passage to Australia; how much to the Continental countries for transit to Brindisi, and how much to the Australian Colonies for transit and delivery there; whether the postage from this country to India, both countries being in the Postal Union, is not dependent on the doctrine that Postal Union rates are not obligatory on services between one part of the British dominions and another; if so, why Australia is treated more favourably than India; and whether, now that he has arranged for a cheaper postage to Australia wholly by sea, he will arrange for a similar service to India?
  MR. RAIKES: Out of the penny charged on a newspaper for Australia the Post Office pays a halfpenny for transit through France and Italy, and about 1–12th of a penny to each intermediate Colony for such newspapers as have to be conveyed from Adelaide through one Colony or more to the Colony of destination. For mere delivery nothing is credited to the Colonies. I am not sure that I rightly apprehend the hon. Member's second question; but I may say that no such doctrine as he mentions
  1646
  has been admitted in fixing the rates of postage to British Colonies belonging to the Postal Union. As at present advised, and in view of the large sacrifice of revenue even at the present rates, I am not prepared to recommend a cheaper postage rate to India by the long sea route.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to give Notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of drawing attention to the unfairness of treating Australia so much more favourably than India.

  PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the objects of the Bill which has passed a Second Reading in Western Australia; whether it was introduced and promoted by the representatives of the British Government in that Crown Colony; and whether the Secretary of State proposes to ask the assent of the Legislative Council of Western Australia to a Bill for giving responsible government to the Colony, and transferring to the Colony the control of the lands of the temperate zone, before he consults the British Parliament in the matter?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The objects of the Bill, which has passed a Second Reading in Australia, are to provide the Colony with Parliamentary or "responsible" government in place of its present Constitution, which is not that of a Crown Colony, inasmuch as two-thirds of its Legislative Council are elected Members entirely independent of the Government. In accordance with the precedents in other Colonies, the Bill was introduced by the Colonial Secretary, and supported by the officers of the Government in the Legislative Council. The ordinary and constitutional course has been followed by legislation in the Colony in the first instance, and reserving to the Imperial Parliament the power of amending or rejecting the Colonial legislation.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to give notice that in consequence of the answer just given, I shall propose in the Vote on Account to strike out that portion of the Vote which provides for the salary of the Colonial Secretary.

  COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION REGISTERS.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, in the precepts just issued by the Local Government Board to the Clerks of the Peace, the 20th October is fixed as the date on which the registers, both of County Electors and of Parliamentary Voters, are to be ready; that this only allows seven days from the 13th day of October, the date fixed by law for the completion of the revision of the Lists; that in these seven days the Clerks of the Peace will have to prepare for the Press, and get printed, corrected, indexed, and bound, sets of registers containing in many counties 100,000 names and upwards; and whether, in view of the great additional pressure, expense, and risk of errors that will be caused by such an arrangement, he will consider the advisability of further postponing the time for the publication of the registers?
  MR. RITCHIE: The period within which the revision of the Lists of Voters is to take place, and the date on which the Registers of County Electors and Parliamentary Voters are to be completed, are prescribed by sections 6 and 7 of the County Electors Act of last year. As the Order in Council to which reference is made merely refers to the dates prescribed by Statute, no alteration of the dates could be made without an alteration of the law. As the County Council Elections will be held on the same day as the Muncipal Elections—namely, the 1st of November—no longer time can be given except by altering the preliminary stages of registration, and I am advised that to alter the dates of those stages of registration, which under the existing system are conducted by overseers, would lead to great confusion and inaccuracy. I must, at the same time, point out that the revision of the Lists by the Revising Barristers is to commence as soon as possible after the 7th of September, and that the Clerks of the Peace are furnished with the Revised Lists as the revision proceeds, and that consequently the interval between the last day within which the revision must take place and the date of the completion of the Registers does not represent
  1648
  the period allowed for the printing of the Register. I may add that I hope to be able to arrange that the revision shall be promptly proceeded with by the Revising Barristers, so as to secure the completion of the revision at an earlier date than the latest period permitted by the Act.

  IRELAND—THE PORTUMNA EVICTIONS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any communication has been made on the part of the Irish Executive to the Most Rev. Dr. Healy, Coadjutor Bishop of Clonfert, or to Mr. Tener, Lord Clanricarde's agent, to the effect that the forces of the Crown will not be supplied for the purpose of certain evictions in the Portumna district, because the Government are not satisfied that the decrees obtained by the landlords are legal; whether the agent suggested that the constables guarding the emergency men in the several huts should accompany them to the proposed evictions; whether this suggestion was rejected; why evictions are facilitated by the Government in the Woodford district of Lord Clanricarde's estates, and are hindered in the Portumna district of that estate; what are the "particular circumstances" which led to the refusal to lend the forces of the Crown for evictions in the Portumna district; whether the correspondence between the Irish Executive, Lord Clanricarde, and Mr. Tener will be communicated to the House; and whether, as the Coadjutor Bishop has no objection to the publication of the correspondence between himself and the right hon. Gentleman, and as the right hon. Gentleman has drawn from the correspondence an inference affecting the Bishop which the Bishop does not accept, a copy of that correspondence will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the first and sixth paragraphs of the question, there is no official correspondence of the kind, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suppose. The Divisional Commissioner reports that he told Mr. Tener, in reference to his application for protection in carrying out certain warrants both in Woodford and Portumna, that, as there was a doubt about the validity of the orders on which the

  1649
  warrant was granted, it was not advisable to afford protection in the execution of them. The agent did make the suggestion contained in the second paragraph, but the Divisional Commissioner refused to accede to it. There is no ground for supposing that a distinction has been drawn in the action of the Government between Woodford and Portumna. The "particular circumstances" referred to in the fifth paragraph related partly to the extreme difficulty of assembling the necessary protection previous to the expiration of the decrees, partly to the doubt about the legality of the decrees. I do not know upon what grounds the hon. Gentleman expresses the opinions attributed in the last paragraph to Dr. Healy?
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statements have appeared in the public Press to the effect that the Bishop has no objection to the publication of the correspondence between himself and the right hon. Gentleman; and is the objection on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to the publication of the letters due to his unwillingness to disclose his share in the correspondence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one that I think came out in a leading article in the Freeman's Journal. I do not think it requires any answering.

  THE PRISONER TRACY.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the statement that the prisoner Tracy, when in Castlebar Gaol, was denounced as an informer in the local Roman Catholic church, whether he is aware that there is but one Catholic church in the town of Castlebar, and that the parish priest, the Rev. Patrick Lyons, who is also chaplain to the prison, has declared the statement in question to be wholly untrue, and has challenged proof of it; whether, in consequence of the course pursued by him in regard to the public statement of Father Lyons, the reverend gentleman has indicated his intention of resigning the chaplaincy of Castlebar Prison; and whether, in view of subsequent information, he is now prepared to make any further statement on the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My statement was that it was publicly announced in a local Roman Catholic chapel that the prisoner Tracy had turned informer. The chapel alluded to was Cappaduff, which is one of the localities in which there is evidence of the man having been actively engaged in the commission of crime.

  RODDY'S HOTEL AND DERRY PRISON.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the statement that Father Stephens, a prisoner in Derry Gaol, has been prevented from obtaining his food from Roddy's Hotel, on the ground that the hotel people had entered into collusion to defeat the prison rules, whether it is true, as stated by Mr. William Roddy in the press, that the hotel messengers never saw any prisoner, and never went further than the outer hall of the prison where the food was delivered to a warder to be taken by him to the prisoner; and, if this be so, what is the explanation of the charge of collusion; and whether the order of exclusive dealing against this hotel will be further enforced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Prisons Board inform me that they have no knowledge of what Mr. Roddy's statement in the Press is, but the Visiting Committee, after careful inquiry into surreptitious communications between Father M'Fadden and the managers of Roddy's Hotel, were fully satisfied that collusion existed of a sufficiently serious nature to oblige them to direct that the provisions for prisoners should not in future be received through that establishment. It is a matter of prison discipline that messengers from the establishment which provides prisoners with food are not admitted to the prisoners, but hand the supplies to a prison officer, whose duty it is to bring them to the prisoners. The Prisons Board have no intention whatever under the circumstances of allowing the proprietors of Roddy's Hotel to supply any of the prisoners in Londonderry Prison with food, having regard to the order of the Visiting Committee in this matter.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask if the prison authorities have stated or indicated the grounds upon which they came to the conclusion referred to? Does the

  1651
  right hon. Gentleman not think that the owner of this hotel has been sufficiently punished already by being boycotted by all the Unionists in the district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the decision has been arrived at by the Visiting Committee.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask whether, in order to avoid all possibility of collusion, Father Stephens was in charge of and constantly attended by one warder, who was responsible for everything that occurred?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not answer.
  MR. SWIFT MAC NEILL: I press for an answer.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not think the hon. Member is referring to the question which was asked from the notice paper.
  MR. SWIFT MAC NEILL: Yes, Sir, with all respect, my question does relate to that which has been already asked; I ask it in order to show that there was no possibility of collusion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of the Question.

  DUMBLANE CATHEDRAL.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether it is true, as stated in the Glasgow Evening News, that the Board of Works has sanctioned a scheme for the restoration of Dumblane Cathedral, that "the Cathedral has been, or is to be, conveyed from the Board of Works to the Board of Manufactures" in Edinburgh, and that the Board has been entrusted with the selection of plans, and is to undertake, after the restoration, to maintain the fabric in all time coming, in consideration of a cash payment of £3,000; if the statement be true, under what Act do the Commissioners of Works propose to hand over the control of an important National Monument to the Board of Manufactures; whether, considering that the interior of the ruined Cathedral has been used as a burial ground for more than a century, he has made any arrangement for safeguarding the burial rights of families interested in connection with the proposed restoration; and whether an opportunity will be given the House of discussing the proposed transfer of this national monument to
  1652
  the Board of Manufactures, a body which many consider not at all a proper body to be entrusted with this work?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The transaction is completed. It was completed because the matter had been gone into very fully, and I have received a very influential deputation, representing as far as I could ascertain all political parties and the peoples of the different religious persuasions. While it may seem a strange body to be entrusted with such work, I believe the Board of Manufactures is really as good a body for the purpose as can be found.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to give notice that, as there is no other way of raising the question, I will do so by moving a reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary.

  THE PONSONBY ESTATE.
  MR. LANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as the purchase of the Ponsonby estate by a London syndicate is now acknowledged by them, he will cause the local authorities in Cork to inquire into the alleged intention to evict 300 tenants on the estate, and to report to him upon the probable effect such evictions will have upon the peace and good order of a wide district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that there are any circumstances connected with the Ponsonby estate which require special inquiry on the part of the Government. I am aware that the Plan of Campaign has been in operation for two years upon the property, and it requires no profound knowledge of Ireland to be aware that under such circumstances evictions often become necessary, and that the peace and good order of the district may be seriously disturbed.
  MR. LANE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the unjust eviction of 300 families, and the peace of the whole of the South of Ireland, ought to be a matter of perfect indifference to ths Irish Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: An unjust eviction must always be a matter of regret to everybody; but I have no ground for believing that any unjust eviction is about to take place.
  MR. CHANNING: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a letter in the Freeman's Journal, in which Mr. Townsend, the agent of the syndicate who have bought the Ponsonby estate, declares that it is the intention of the syndicate to evict all tenants who do not purchase or otherwise settle on the terms proposed by the syndicate?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen that.
  MR. LANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, while negotiations were being carried on to arrange a scheme of purchase under Lord Ashbourne's Act between Mr. Ponsonby and his tenants, the hon. Member for South Huntingdonshire (Mr. Smith-Barry) publicly declared that "Mr. Ponsonby would not settle with his tenants"; whether Mr. Brunker, acting for Mr. Ponsonby, telegraphed to Canon Keller two days subsequently that "Mr. Smith Barry's statement was utterly unauthorized;" and whether Mr. Brunker wrote on the following day that he regretted he could no longer continue the negotiations which he had hoped he could have satisfactorily concluded?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no special knowledge of the matters referred to in the question. But from what I know of my hon. Friend the Member for South Huntingdonshire I feel perfectly certain he would never give the advice to any Irish landlord not to settle with his tenants upon reasonable terms.
  MR. LANE: That is not an answer to my question. The question I have on the Paper is whether the hon. Member for South Huntingdonshire, in the midst of a settlement between this landlord and his tenants, declared publicly that Mr. Ponsonby would never settle with his tenants; and, whether, in a few days afterwards, it was ascertained that the hon. Member for South Huntingdonshire and some friends had combined and conspired to prevent Mr. Ponsonby settling with his tenants?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I told the hon. Member I had no special knowledge of the circumstances; but I took care to guard against the inference he appears to draw, that my hon. Friend would ever recommend any Irish landlord not to settle with his tenants.
  MR. LANE: As this is a matter of great importance to the whole of the South of Ireland, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will cause some authority, say in Cork or in Dublin, to inquire into the circumstances under which this syndicate intervened between landlord and tenants, and bought the property over the heads of the tenants just as they were about to purchase from the landlord?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already stated that, as far as I understand the transaction, the position of the tenants is in no wise altered; they will now be in the same position relatively as before.
  MR. LANE: I am sorry to press the matter, but it is so vitally important that I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not think the position of the tenants very much altered when, instead of being on the point of settling with their landlord—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That is clearly a matter of opinion, which cannot form the subject of a question.
  MR. LANE: I beg to give notice that I will ask the question to-morrow.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, before he gave such a character to the hon. Member for South Huntingdonshire, he was aware that the hon. Gentleman was Chairman of a Committee, the principle of whose operations was to prevent settlements between landlords and their tenants.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no ground for thinking that at all. I believe my hon Friend is connected with a Committee, the object of which is to prevent the Plan of Campaign succeeding. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has given an accurate description of the Committee.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not a fact that is the City of Cork the hon. Member for South Huntingdonshire made use of the language ascribed to him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am a very inadequate reader of the newspapers, and have not seen the report.

  THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the solicitor for the defence of the Irish Members

  1655
  before the Special Commission has made an application to the Irish Office for information as to the whereabouts of the informer Cullinane, for the purpose of having him served with a subpoena to appear before the Special Commission; and what reply has been sent?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am given to understand that the letter from Messrs. Lewis on the subject referred to in the question was received at the Irish Office in Queen Street, and has been forwarded to Dublin, where it will no doubt be dealt with without unnecessary delay.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to his statement that the Government would allow facilities to both the parties before the Special Commission, whether it is true that the police at Quin and Clooney, county Clare, tore down placards announcing a public collection in aid of the fund for the defence of the Irish Members before the Commission; and, if so, by what authority?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary authorities report that it appears that four copies of the placard in question were taken down. The collection was announced as being made under the auspices of a suppressed branch of the League.
  MR. COX: May I ask whether the placards had not been issued by the central branch in Dublin, which is not suppressed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that question, but the placard was torn down as being an attempt to revive the League in that district.
  MR. SEXTON: Is this attempt to prevent the defendants from raising funds for their defence to be taken as an instance of equal facilities to both parties.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No attempt has been made, or can, or will be made to prevent the raising of such funds.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the written applications of the solicitors of the prisoner Tracy for leave to visit him in Belfast Gaol?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Prison Board inform me that it would be inexpedient to establish a precedent of the kind suggested in the question. They
  1656
  add that the grounds on which the solicitors made their request to see the prisoner were chiefly owing to alleged injustice of sentence. This is a matter upon which every prisoner has a right to memorialize the Lord Lieutenant at any time, and this course was pointed out to the solicitors as the proper one. The Board saw no reason to relax their rules in this case, as they had strong reason for believing that the alleged purpose of the interview was not bonâ fide.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it would be advisable for every prisoner wishing to memorialize the Lord Lieutenant to have the assistance of a solicitor?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not reply.

  THE ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is a fact that under the Regulations of the Royal Military Academy and Royal Military College the contribution payable for a cadet whose father is serving in the Army or Navy varies from £80 for the son of a General or Admiral to £40 for the son of a junior commissioned officer, but that a warrant officer whose son gains admission into Woolwich or Sandhurst is required to pay £150 a year, the sum required for the son of a private gentleman; and, if this be true, whether tie will reconsider the decision which thus excludes non-commissioned officers from the privileges allowed to commissioned members of both Services, of paying proportionately graduated contributions for their sons who may be cadets?
  MR. BRODRICK: Provision has not been made in the Regulations for the admission of the sons of warrant and non-commissioned officers to the Royal Military Academy or Royal Military College at a reduced rate, because it has been considered that the great expense of the preliminary education would deter such candidates from presenting themselves. Should, however, such a case occur in practice, my right hon. Friend would be quite ready to consider the advisability of amending the warrant.

  DOVER CONVICT PRISON.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary

  1657
  of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of the Convict Prison at Dover; how many prisoners are at present confined in that prison; and on what public works are convicts sentenced to penal servitude now employed?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The expenditure on the prison up to date, including about £13,000 for the purchase of the land, has been £61,807, 15s. 4d.; 102 prisoners are at present confined there. At Chatham, Portland, and Portsmouth convicts are now being employed on various works for the War Office and Admiralty Departments, such as quarrying stone, defences, field-works, harbour extension works, dockyard buildings, and torpedo buildings. At Portsmouth the Victoria Barracks are being built by convict labour.

  EDUCATION IN THE BLACK COUNTRY.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Star newspaper, that Miss Caroline Cox, a nailmaker of Halesowen, now 15 years of age, is unable to say her alphabet; that she left school at 12 without passing any examination; and, that she is still without the opportunity of acquiring the most rudimentary education; whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into this statement; and whether there is an ample provision of night schools in the Dudley district?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I know nothing of the case to which the hon. Member refers. If he can procure some more definite information as to the residence and antecedents of this young lady, I will endeavour to obtain some information from the local authorities. Meanwhile I find the place mentioned in the question is not in the Dudley district.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the village of Halesowen, where this young lady came from, is only a mile and a half outside the Dudley district?
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: As I know something of Dudley, I am able to say that Halesowen is in no way under the control of the local authorities of Dudley.

  IRISH TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is the fact that landed proprietors in Ireland, whose incomes have been largely reduced, in numerous cases by one-half, by the Land Commission, are still required to pay the full tithe rent-charge fixed on their unreduced rentals; and, if so, whether the Government intend taking measures to regulate this charge to the reduced rentals?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): It is a fact that landed proprietors in Ireland are still required to pay the full tithe rent-charge on their estates. The Government cannot admit that tithe rent charge, which is a first charge on the land having priority over all others, should be regulated in proportion to rent. The question of charges on Irish land generally is one of much delicacy and complexity, but it is one on which I could express no opinion until I felt sure that such opinion could be followed by legislation.

  EVICTION OF CARETAKERS.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on the estate of Mr. George Moore, of Ballintubber, County Mayo, four caretakers were, on the 8th inst., illegally evicted by the Sheriff on a chairman's decree, without summons or warrant from a magistrate; and, three of the parties having retaken possession, will the police be restrained from interfering in the matter, leaving the landlord to his legal remedy?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that three, not four, caretakers were evicted on the property referred to. I understand that the evictions were fully carried out in accordance with the law. The persons have gone back into possession, and the agent proposes taking his legal remedy forthwith.

  CLASSIFICATION OF IRISH PRISONERS.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether

  1659
  it is true that prisoners in Ireland are "classed" for exercise, and that first offenders are not required to exercise with those who have been convicted more than once; and whether this rule is put in force in regard to prisoners under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the instructions to Governors of Irish Prisons are as stated in the question, and, unless on medical grounds, no exception is recognized in regard to convicted criminal prisoners.

  GRANTS IN AID TO PROVINCIAL COLLEGES.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to state the names of the gentlemen who are to serve on the Committee to consider the distribution of the grants in aid to provincial Colleges; and if he can state the aggregate amount of the proposed grants?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Committee will consist of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, the hon. Member for South, Manchester, the hon. Member for the Prestwich Division of Lancashire, Dr. Percival, headmaster of Rugby, and the Rev. G. F. Browne (hon. Fellow of St. Catherine's College, Cambridge). The Vote, which will appear in the Estimates of this year, for "University Colleges in Great Britain," amounts to £15,000.

  THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, as representing the Metropolitan Board of Works, whether the Board will postpone the consideration of any further grants of pensions to officers of the Board, and leave the question to be decided by the London County Council?
  Mr. TATTON EGERTON was not present, and
  MR. PICKERSGILL said: As the representative of the Metropolitan Board is not here, may I ask the President of the Local Government Board whether Her Majesty's Government will not
  1660
  attempt, by means of legislation, to prevent this Board in its last hours of existence granting exorbitant pensions to a number of its officers?
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member can scarcely be serious in inviting the Government to attempt to legislate in regard to matters which must occur, if at all, between now and the 31st of the month.

  THE CONVEYANCE OF THE AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cause of the delay in submitting to the House the contract for the conveyance of the Australian mails; and, at what date were the terms, of the contract arranged?
  MR. RAIKES: The terms of the Australian Mail Contracts were arranged in 1887. The Governments of New-South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia have formally confirmed them, but a question is still pending respecting the time tables framed under these Contracts, and I have found it necessary to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown before I can submit the contracts for the approval of the House.

  LAKE NYASSA.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that a Portuguese Military Expedition under Lieutenant Cardoso has reached Lake Nyassa, and has occupied the territory near Maponda, on the borders of that lake; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will inform the Portuguese Government that they refuse to recognize any assertion of territorial sovereignty by Portugal in the Nyassa region, and demand the withdrawal of the expedition?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): We have received no fresh information regarding the expedition since, in the debate on the Address, I stated the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject. We have no positive information that it has reached Lake Nyassa, but there is little doubt that it has. Her Majesty's Government are watching with

  1661
  some anxiety the progress of an armed expedition into the neighbourhood of British settlements, and they have warned the Portuguese Government of the existence of British interests on the lake which they cannot suffer to be disturbed or imperilled, but the object of the expedition has been stated by the Portuguese Government to be peaceful, and as it has not as yet touched any territory under British sovereignty or protectorate we have no right to demand its withdrawal.

  RICHMOND BARRACKS.
  CAPTAIN SELWYN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact, as stated in Dr. Barr's letter to the Times of 9th March, that
  "There was a great deal of sickness in the Richmond Prison. The General Prisons Board of Ireland, to whom the health of the prisoners is a matter of the deepest concern, have recently closed this prison;"
  and whether a detachment of the Queen's Regiment, now quartered in the Royal Barracks, Dublin, is being moved this week into the same unhealthy building?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot answer for the sanitary condition of the Richmond Prison while under the Prisons Board; but since it has been occupied by troops the military authorities in Ireland report that they have been very healthy. The detachment now in Wellington Barracks (the building referred to) is to be moved to-day to Linen Hall Barracks to make room for a detachment of the West Surrey Regiment from the Royal Barracks, who had to be moved while certain demolitions are taking place there, which are regarded as of essential importance to the general sanitary condition of the Royal Barracks.
  MR. SWIFT MAC NEILL: Was any alteration made in the sanitary condition of Richmond Barracks at the time of its conversion from a prison into barracks?
  MR. BRODRICK: No structural alterations have been made, but some are in contemplation.
  MR. MAC NEILL: In fact, troops are to be sent to a place which was discontinued as a prison because of the bad drainage?

  ARABI PASHA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that Arabi Pasha, who is detained at Colombo, has complained that the climate there is injuring his health; and, whether the Government will consider the advisability of removing Arabi to a more suitable country, or of letting him go home to Egypt?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have not received any complaint from Arabi Pasha that the climate is injuring his health. Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to press the Government of Egypt to allow him to return there, as they believe that his presence in Egypt would be inconsistent with the public interests.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Might I ask whether the Government intended that this unfortunate gentleman should be in exile for the whole of his life?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not in a position to give an answer to that question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is not a feeling widely prevalent in Egypt that it would tend greatly to the restoration of good order and good government in that country if Arabi were allowed to return?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE FRENCH PROTESTANT CHURCH.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General what steps have been taken pending the approval of a new scheme by the Court of Chancery to ensure the safe custody of the library of the French Protestant Church, and whether it has been removed to Guildhall; and whether, in view of the death of the Pasteur Daugars, and the doubts which have arisen as to the legal constitution of the present Consistorie, any steps will be taken to prevent the election of another pasteur until the legal powers of the Consistorie have been ascertained?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. E. WEBSTER,): Pending the approval of a new scheme by the Chancery Division, the hooks referred to by the hon. Member have been kept in

  1663
  the same room in the neighbourhood of Tottenham Court Road, near the place in which the services are temporarily conducted, and they are, I believe, in safe custody. Careful inquiries are from time to time made. Under my direction an application was made some months ago to the Chancery Division to determine whether a legal consistory now exists. That case already stands for argument. In consequence of the death of M. Daugars I have directed an application to be made to expedite the hearing of the case. The acting consistory have only appointed a pastor temporarily. From communications received I believe that they will not proceed to fill the office permanently until the question has been determined whether they are a legally constituted consistory or not.

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Returns relating to Joint Stock Companies, for which an Address was agreed to on 18th June 1888, and which were promised by him on the 11th December, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I regret that delay has taken place in the issue of these Returns, but I am assured that they will be circulated on Wednesday next.

  THE AUSTRALIAN SQUADRON.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is true that the Colony of Queensland has refused to contribute its share towards the cost of building the cruisers for the Australian Squadron; whether this refusal of one of the Australian Colonies to be a party to the agreement relieves the other Colonies from their obligations; whether these other Colonies have agreed to contribute in spite of the refusal of Queensland; and whether the share of the contribution of Queensland will fall upon the Imperial Government?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Colony of Queensland has not yet passed the necessary Act for securing its contribution towards the cost of the building of
  1664
  the cruisers for the Australian Squadron, but it is confidently anticipated that before the first payment becomes due she will have joined the other Colonies. As to the second and third paragraphs of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, all the Colonies with the exception of Queensland have already bound themselves to carry out the agreement by passing the necessary Acts, and I may add that the greater number of them have specially urged Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the construction of the ships, notwithstanding the fact that Queensland has not yet signified her adherence. As regards the last paragraph of the question, as already stated, it is not anticipated that this question will arise. It would, therefore, be premature to express any opinion on the subject at present.

  IRELAND—TREATMENT OF PRISONERS UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE ACT—TREATMENT OF MR. O'BRIEN.
  MR. CRAIG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the prison treatment of persons committed under "The Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887"?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir. The Government, while seeing no grounds for any investigation of the kind, would have no objection to it so far as they are personally concerned; but they do not think a Committee of the House of Commons consisting of political partizans would be a satisfactory tribunal for determining a question with regard to which there has been and is much envenomed controversy.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any objection to allowing us any means of finally determining questions as to matters of fact with regard to the prison treatment of Mr. W. O'Brien, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland has questioned the accuracy of the statements which I made in the House yesterday, and the accuracy of which I am prepared to prove?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to know what the investigation suggested by the hon. Member is to be. I think there would be a great advantage

  1665
  in having an investigation into many things in Ireland. For example, I should like to have an investigation in regard to the intimidation exercised on Irish prison officials. I should like to know what sort of inquiry the hon. Gentleman desires.
  MR. SEXTON: As the right hon. Gentleman has questioned my veracity, and as I am prepared to maintain it, I will accept either a Committee of the House or a public inquiry on oath.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I never questioned the veracity of the hon. Gentleman; but I did question the prudence of the hon. Gentleman in relying upon the statement in the Freeman's Journal.
  MR. SEXTON: The question has not been answered. I said that I would accept a Committee of the House or any public inquiry on oath. Which of them will the right hon. Gentleman give?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Leader of the House has said that he does not think a Committee of the House is a proper tribunal, and I agree with him in that respect; and the constitution of any other tribunal is not an easy matter.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury, who has said that a Committee of the House is not an expedient tribunal. I understand that there is an issue of fact on a very important matter between the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the hon. Member. The hon. Member has made a statement, and the only answer which the right hon. Gentleman makes is that he has taken it from the Freeman's Journal, which happens to be the authority on which the right hon. Gentleman himself drew up a memorandum. What I wish to ask is whether a Minister of the Crown is entitled to say—[Cries of "Order!"] I am entirely in order. I would ask whether a Minister of the Crown is entitled to give that sort of denial which the right hon. Gentleman has given? [Cries of "Order."] Perhaps the noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne) will allow the Speaker to call me to order, and not do it himself. I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give any method whatever of ascertaining whether the point-blank denials of the
  1666
  Chief Secretary for Ireland are or are not well founded?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it has been the unhappy lot, not only of myself but of most of my predecessors, often to make statements in this House at variance with those made by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I think he will admit that if every time such a collision of opinion occured a public inquiry had been granted, the kingdom would not have sufficed to supply the tribunals. I should like to know what tribunal the hon. Gentleman would suggest before I give any answer.
  MR. SEXTON: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. The contention is not one as to matters of opinion, but as to matters of fact determinable by evidence. And the right hon. Gentleman having stated yesterday that the declaration I made to the House is untrue, I, being prepared to prove it, ask you, Sir, whether I am not entitled to claim from him some means of proving the statement I made?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a question of order upon which I can be called in. The matter at issue must be decided as the House thinks proper.
  MR. CONDON: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House; but if the hon. Member desires to make a personal statement on the point that he informed me yesterday he wished to make he may do so by the indulgence of the House.
  MR. CONDON: That was just what I am asking. I desire the indulgence of the House to make a personal explanation. The Chief Secretary, referring to Mr. Sexton's version of the O'Brien incident yesterday, said, "As he had repeated that calumny, he (Mr. Balfour) took this opportunity of again giving the most emphatic contradiction to every syllable of it." Now, Sir, it is a matter of public notoriety that I, in my capacity of Mayor of Clonmel, have sent reports similar to that which appeared in the Freeman's Journal to hundreds of persons in this country and in Ireland, in reply to inquiries as to Mr. O'Brien's condition and his treatment in Clonmel Gaol. I may also inform the Chief Secretary and

  1667
  the House that it was I who furnished the report to the representative of the Freeman's Journal at Clonmel as to the treatment received by Mr. O'Brien in that prison, and that that report was taken down by myself in writing from Mr. O'Brien, in the presence of Mr. Alderman Hackett, a visiting justice, appointed by the Grand Jury to look after prisoners in Clonmel Gaol, and also in the presence of the chief warder Gough. If the right hon. Gentleman grants the inquiry now asked for, and which I asked for over a month ago in replying to the letter addressed by the Chief Secretary to "My dear Mr. Armytage," and to which the right hon. Gentleman did not deign or dare to reply, I am prepared to prove every syllable that appeared in the report in the Freeman's Journal. I would then show to the country whether the Chief Secretary was more accurate in his denial yesterday than he was in his statement to the Dublin banqueters, when he said that Mr. O'Brien not only threw all obstacles in the way of allowing himself to be medically examined, but absolutely refused to allow himself to be examined.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears to me that the personal explanation of the hon. Gentleman is of a somewhat aggressive and argumentative character. I can only repeat to the House what I said before—namely, that, as far as I am concerned, I see a great advantage in having an adequate and independent inquiry which should not merely embrace the particular allegations over which this conversation has spread, but which should also investigate the whole question of the extent and method in which intimidation has been practised upon prison officials in Ireland. There is, however, a great difficulty in constituting a tribunal of such a kind as would meet with confidence on all sides. I have myself given great attention to the subject, and I have always given up the attempt in despair. But if hon. Members opposite make a suggestion that will command the favour of the House, no difficulty will be placed in the way.
  MR. BIGGAR: Perhaps I may ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will propose a Bill for the appointment of a Commission of Judges?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, as a direct issue of fact has been raised between the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin upon a matter of great consequence concerning the treatment of an hon. Member of this House now in prison, and as a mode of inquiry by a Committee of this House has been proposed by the Lord Mayor of Dublin and has been declined by Her Majesty's. Government, not on the ground that the inquiry is an improper thing, but on the ground that in their opinion that is not a fit organ for the inquiry, I will ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having declined to accept the mode suggested, they are prepared to propose any other mode of inquiry.

  H.M.S. "SULTAN."
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty for the latest news with regard to H.M.S Sultan?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I received a telegram last night from the Commander-in-Chief as follows:—
  "Work on Sultan has been delayed by breaking down of pumps and heavy swell. Hope, however, to make an attempt to float ship to-morrow morning."
  This morning I received a further telegram—
  "Heavy north-east gale. High sea forced Sultan off the rook. Sank 11.45. Upper works visible above water. No loss of life. Ships returning into harbour."
  I have directed the Commander-in-Chief to ascertain the extent and position of the damage, and then, if practicable, we hope to raise her.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Is the Sultan the ship in connection with which a Supplementary Estimate of £45,000 was issued this morning?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSON: I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Board of Works will to-morrow open tenders for several hundred thousand pounds for the Black wall Tunnel scheme, and whether the Local Government Board can do anything to postpone that step until the County

  1669
  Council are able to consider whether that great expenditure is necessary or desirable?
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member for Dundee informed me last night that the Metropolitan Board of Works proposed to take this step, which was the first information I had on this subject. The Local Government Board have no authority or power to interfere if the Metropolitan Board of Works should act in the way suggested by the hon. Member; but I cannot help saying that in my opinion, if the Metropolitan Board of Works do proceed to enter on contracts of the nature mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, they would be taking a course which is much to be regretted.
  MR. LAWSON: If the Metropolitan Board of Works conclude the contract in question, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation rendering it null and void?
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot undertake to introduce retrospective legislation of the character suggested, inasmuch as the Board of Works would only have been acting in the exercise of their statutory powers. I propose to take a course which I am not usually anxious to do in cases where the Local Government Board have no power of interference. I propose to address a communication to the Metropolitan Board of Works suggesting that they had better defer the action proposed to be taken until the County Council have had time to consider the matter.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: With reference to the announcement just made by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask whether, in his proposed communication to the Metropolitan Board of Works, he will also refer to the question of pensions?
  MR. RITCHIE: I think, in the interests of the larger question of the proposed contract, it would be advisable to confine the communication of the Local Government Board to that subject, and not to enter upon the subject of pensions.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CHILDERS: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty with reference to the business of this evening, whether he proposes to take that part of the Estimates which has
  1670
  reference to shipbuilding; and whether he will take Votes as to which we have been promised but have not yet received details?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for putting the question. It is not our fault that the details have not been issued for they have been a long time in the hands of the printers. It would I think be convenient to confine the discussion to-night on the Votes which have no connection with shipbuilding or dockyard administration.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any legal necessity that the Vote on Account of the Civil Service should be included in the Money Bill which must be passed before March 31?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman's experience at the Treasury has no doubt informed him that it is necessary in order to comply with the law that the Supplementary Estimates and the Vote for the pay of the Army and Navy should be included in a Money Bill, which must receive the Royal Assent in sufficient time to allow of issues to be made from the Exchequer before the end of the current financial year; but his question suggests that the same absolute legal necessity does not extend to the Vote on Account for Civil Services, and that issues may be made from the Exchequer for those services before they are authorized by statute. There is precedent for not including in the March Money Bill, Ways and Means voted in respect of Civil Votes on Account. I am doubtful as to the strict legality of that course; but if it be not unlawful it is certainly not in accordance with the financial regularity which it is the duty of the Government to observe, if it is at all possible to do so.
  DR. CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman stated yesterday that the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates are not to be gone into to-night. I see they had been put down on the Paper. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to adhere to the arrangement?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think I said last night that I did not propose to take Civil Service Supplementary Estimates after 12 o'clock to-night. The last day

  1671
  on which they can be taken, unless the time of private Members is encroached upon, is Monday next. I believe it is the desire of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the debate on the Vote on Account should be taken on Monday. Under these circumstances I hope the Supplementary Estimates will be agreed to to-night, in order that it will not be necessary for us to make any proposal to the House for further facilities.
  DR. CAMERON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not most distinctly say yesterday he would not take them, and is it fair, now that hon. Members have made their arrangements accordingly, that we should have sprung upon us a very important debate?
  MR. HUNTER: Would not the best way out of the difficulty be to withdraw the remainder of the Vote to Sheriff Ivory?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not in our power to do that. The Supplementary Estimate is asked for expenses incurred, and we must take the judgment of the House on it. I have endeavoured to be frank with the hon. Gentleman. I have explained the circumstances in which we are placed, and if the hon. Gentleman is of opinion, that, instead of meeting for an hour or half an hour after 12 o'clock, it is better that the time of private Members should be taken, that course can be taken. But then the responsibility will rest with him.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask whether, supposing an hon. Member moved to report Progress after 12 o'clock, if the Naval Estimates had been taken before 12, the right hon. Gentleman will assent to the Motion.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am compelled to take this course by the exigencies of the public service. It has been considered better that the House should sit for half-an-hour after 12 than encroach upon the time of private Members.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: If any hon. Member moves to report Progress after 12 o'clock in the event of the Navy Estimates having been taken, will the right hon. Gentleman assent to the Motion?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it would be undesirable, if the majority desire to go on with public business, that Progress should be reported at the instance of some three orfour Members.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I will only ask what becomes of the pledge that was given by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am adhering to that pledge.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  William George Spencer Scott Compton (commonly called Earl Compton), for the Southern Part of the West Riding of the County of York (Barnsley Division).
MOTION.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply, if the Committee be sitting at 12 o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House.'"—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 215; Noes 143.—(Division List, No. 18.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  The Report of Committee of Supply was brought up and agreed to.

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

  GUNS AND ORDNANCE STORES FOR THE NAVAL SERVICE.
  MR. DUFF: At the present moment the attention of the country is more directed to the new Naval Defence programme than it is to the details of administration. As that programme will be fully discussed on future occasions I shall not refer to it, except incidentally so far as it affects the Motion I have to submit to the House. But, Sir, the question involved in the subject I desire to bring forward is one of such vital importance, that I make no apology for raising it, and I am glad of an opportunity of doing so when naval affairs are receiving a more than usual amount of public attention. Sir, everyone at all conversant with naval affairs has

  1673
  known for several years that the delay in procuring guns and Naval Ordnance Stores has been the weakest part of our administrative system. Were it necessary, I could give the Committee endless statistics to prove that vessels, otherwise complete, have been kept waiting for their guns, but after the admission of the First Lord, on Thursday, "that ships have been kept waiting for months, and in some cases for years, for their guns," I will not inflict figures on the Committee in support of what I regard as the complete collapse of our present system. In reference to the delay attending the delivery of guns, the First Lord told us that there had been a block in the road, and that he and the Secretary for War had determined to widen the road. What we want, in my opinion, is not to widen the old road, but to make an entirely new one. Sir, dealing with the Motion I am submitting to the House, I desire to remind hon. Members what our present system is. The money for Naval Ordnance, since last year, has been taken in Naval Votes. But the contract for guns, and most Naval Ordnance Stores, continue to be made by the War Office. This creates a dual control, and a divided responsibility, fatal to efficiency, and most detrimental, in my opinion, to the public interest. If I am asked how this is to be remedied, I reply at once by saying the Admiralty ought to adopt the conclusions arrived at by the Conference between the Admiralty and the War Office, held in June, 1886, whereby the Admiralty undertook to take the entire responsibility of providing themselves with guns and Ordnance stores. Although they were only a short time in office, Lord Ripon's Board of Admiralty, with the full concurrence of the Director of Naval Ordnance, came to the conclusion that that was the only way out of our present difficulty. And although the change was not effected when the late Board went out of office, yet the principle, as I will presently show, had been adopted, and the change was in a fair way of being accomplished. But the present Board would not undertake the responsibility, at the same time they fully admit the weakness of the existing system. Here is what the First Lord said in introducing the Estimates last year—
  1674
  "Our difficulty, and I will be quite frank with the House, is not one of want of funds, or of want of shipbuilding power, it is one of gun-producing power."
  That we all know, but what I complain of is that the noble Lord's energy is not equal to his frankness. He takes no effective steps to improve our gun-producing power. Then, on the same occasion, the Secretary to the Admiralty, in reply to some remarks of mine, said—
  "The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should take more money for guns and less for ships. They (the Admiralty) had taken as much money for guns as the manufactories could turn out, and in proof of that the War Office would have to return to the Treasury a very large amount of money which they had taken for naval armaments this year, and which they had been unable to spend. It would, therefore, be idle for the Admiralty to take an excessive amount, knowing the difficulty there would be in expending the money asked for last year."
  So here we have the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary to the Admiralty, coming down to the House, and telling us, while they are scandalously short of guns, and at a time when they have never turned out more than 15 guns above 9 inches in diameter in any one year, that although they have plenty of money, yet they do not know how to increase our gun-producing power. Sir, I must say, to me this is a pitiable, I might say a humiliating, admission. Here are we, the greatest mechanical and manufacturing country in the world, turning out guns for half the Foreign Navies in the world, yet when we want guns for our own Navy, the authorities of the Admiralty quietly fold their arms, and say, "Though we have plenty of money, yet we can't get the guns." This is what the administrative capacity of the First Lord and the commercial genius of the Secretary of the Admiralty have brought us to! Sir, there used to be a saying in my day in the Navy that there was no such word as "can't" on board a man-of-war. I fear the determination to overcome difficulties which that saying implies, though still retained in the Navy, is not to be found controlling the policy of the present Board of Admiralty. Now, Sir, the difficulties the Admiralty have to overcome are not, in my opinion, insurmountable—they involve some responsibility and require some administrative capacity, such as we have a right to

  1675
  expect in a First Lord of the Admiralty. All you have to do is to go into the market for your guns, make your own contract for them, just as you do for your ships and your engines. I do not suggest this on my own responsibility; it was the system which, as I have said, the late Board had agreed to adopt in accordance with the recommendation of the Conference to which I have referred, confirmed in its main principles by an Interdepartmental Committee on which the War Office, Admiralty, and Treasury were represented. The whole departmental correspondence which led to the Naval Ordnance Vote being taken in the Navy Estimates is contained in the Appendix to the 5th Report of the Army Estimates Committee of 1887. It is full of valuable information on this subject; and I do not think any work which the Committee so ably presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington has done will be more useful in exposing, as this correspondence does, the hopeless confusion which prevails under the existing dual system. Whoever peruses these Papers impartially will understand the cause of the delay in the delivery of our guns and the disaster the present system would inevitably bring about in time of war. I must also say that, in my opinion, the War Office comes very well out of the existing muddle, as the Papers show that the entire responsibility for not adopting the Committee recommendation is due to the timidity of the present Board of Admiralty. The reasons for adopting the Resolution I am submitting to the House are so amply sustained in the Papers I have alluded to that I must briefly refer to them, and will, in doing so, give a short statement of what occurred. In December, 1884, the Director of Artillery, General Alderson, revives an old discussion as to the desirability of the Admiralty taking the responsibility of providing their own guns and warlike stores. He says—
  "The great changes which have taken place since 1868, amounting to almost a revolution in our armaments, have tended to accentuate the importance of making the Admiralty entirely responsible (as indeed they are at this moment partially so) for the provision of all warlike material required for the Navy…It is high time that the system detrimental to both Services should be brought to an end, especially now the completion of naval armaments is becoming more and more urgent. The responsi-
  1676
  bility heretofore has been dangerously divided, and I can only repeat that such a division of responsibility is certain to lead to great inconvenience in any case, and to absolute disaster in case of war."
  General Alderson explains further on—
  "That if the Admiralty take their own money they will of course make their own contracts."
  After this date there is a long correspondence between Admiralty and War Office, and partly on account of changes of Government the contemplated alteration in the system is delayed. In the spring of 1886 the Collingwood's guns burst, and that led to the revival of the subject. The matter was fully discussed at Lord Ripon's Board of Admiralty, of which I was then a member; a decision was arrived at that a radical change was required in the then existing system. This led to a conference between the Admiralty and War Office which recommended the change, only effected last year, of the transfer of the Naval Ordnance Vote from Army to Navy Estimates They further said they approved the views of General Alderson, I which have just quoted, that the Admiralty should make their own contracts. These views were approved by Lord Ripon and his colleagues. I should, perhaps, mention that my right hon. Friend, Mr. Hibbert, presided at the Conference—he is a gentleman well known in the House, and his approval of the scheme will I am sure be accepted by many hon. Members as an assurance that it was financially and administratively sound. Admiral Hopkins, then Director of Naval Ordnance, was prepared to take the responsibility of ordering guns directly from the trade. No doubt in sanctioning this change the Board did undertake a serious responsibility. But what was felt by Lord Ripon and his colleagues, was that there would be a still greater responsibility in continuing a system which had so conspicuously failed. The Conference I have referred to was followed by an Interdepartmental Committee, in which the Treasury was represented. They confirm the views adopted at the Conference. I will read the paragraph in their Report which to the Resolution refers—
  "In regard to the provision of future supplies, it is agreed that the Admiralty shall annually furnish to the War Office notice of their probable requirements for warlike stores of all kinds, in time for the preparation of the Esti-

  1677
  mates, in order that the War Office may state the extent to which the requirements of the Navy can be met from the Government establishments at the date to be settled between the two departments for delivery; but it will be understood that the private trade may be resorted to by the Admiralty, not merely for articles which the War Office cannot supply within the required time, but on due notice to the office, for any articles which may be obtained by the requisite dates more cheaply from the private trade."
  So far as heavy guns are concerned the present Admiralty have paid no attention to that recommendation. In the correspondence every possible objection is raised by the Admiralty to carrying out the Committee's recommendation. It is quite clear to me that the present Board never realized the intention of their predecessors. What the late Board contemplated was this. They would go to the War Office in the first instance and say, we want so many guns by the end of the next two years, say 100 guns, how many can you let us have? Woolwich might reply. "We can let you have 20." These would be ordered by the Admiralty direct from Woolwich; but regarding the other 80 guns, the Admiralty would go into the market for them. Take in tenders for so many, not only from Armstrong and Whit worth, but from any firm in the Kingdom that was willing to compete and could satisfy the Director of Naval Ordnance that they were prepared to ful-ful the conditions of the contract. If it was found by experience that guns could be obtained cheaper and quicker from private firms than from Woolwich, then the latter, so far as naval ordnance is concerned, would be gradually dropped. I ventured to say something to this effect last year; the idea was received with ridicule on the bench opposite. I was told that if I understood the subject I would know that no private firm would go to the expense of laying down plant unless they received a continuous order. But what has happened since then? You have employed Messrs. Vickers, of Sheffield. Are you satisfied that there are no other firms that would undertake orders on the same conditions as Messrs. Vickers? I believe, from reliable information that has reached me, that there are many firms in the country that are equally capable and willing to undertake Government work. In my opinion, the country ought to have
  1678
  the full benefit of competition in the open market. Instead of that, your policy seems to be to create and perpetuate a monopoly. By going to the market, you keep a check on Woolwich and other Government establishments, just as by building ships by contract you keep a check on your Dockyards. But there is a far more important advantage than this. You develop the resources of the country, and you have an enormous and powerful reserve to fall back on in case of an emergency. In the correspondence between the Departments, the War Office are constantly urging the Admiralty to adopt the recommendations of the Committee; but the only letter which seems to have produced any effect is that of the 13th June, 1887, when the War Office remind the Admiralty that the Government have given pledges in Parliament that the existing system will be changed. This appeal to the Admiralty is of course irresistible, and consequently a change to a certain extent is made. The money required for naval ordnance is taken in the Naval Estimates in 1888, but the system of divided responsibility and dual control remains exactly where it was. The Admiralty will not make their own contracts. They decline to adopt the recommendations of the Committee which I have quoted to the House. In case anything goes wrong, they prefer to shelter themselves behind the War Office to taking the responsibility which really belongs to them. I alluded just now to the pledge given in Parliament, as the lever by which the Admiralty had to a certain extent been moved. It is contained in a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, when he was War Minister in September, 1886. It must be remembered that he speaks with the authority of an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty. He says—
  "I agree with all that has been said about making the Navy alone responsible for its own munition of war. I have urged that in and out of office for a very long time. For the future the responsibility will rest with the Navy for the supply of all materials of every kind which is required for its own branch of the service. They may go to Woolwich for such guns as Woolwich may supply, or to Whitworth Co., they will have a perfectly free hand."
  From this statement I at once came to the conclusion that the Admiralty were

  1679
  going to adopt the policy which Lord Ripon's Board had sanctioned, but which they did not remain long enough in office to carry out. I got up at once, and expressed my satisfaction that there was to be a continuity of policy in this important branch of naval administration. But the hope I entertained was soon doomed to disappointment, as the present Board, as soon as they got comfortably settled in office, continued the old custom of ordering their guns through the War Office, the results we know having proved the complete failure of the present system. Now I have quoted military authorities I am advocating, let me refer to a naval authority. Admiral Hopkins, the present Controller of the Navy, was examined before Sir James Stephen's Commission. He had been three years Director of Naval Ordnance. He is asked by the Chairman of the Commission—
  "(2) Do you think it would be a better plan to have the supply of the two services separately provided for?—I think it is the only plan; I think in the event of war the amount of work that the Commissary General at Woolwich would have to do would be excessive."
  Then the Chairman says—
  "He has in fact to do duties of a very different kind: he may be called upon at one and the same moment to send all sorts of stores to an army in the field, and also to a naval squadron in the Pacific Ocean?
  Quite so.
  "They require very different things?—Yes, I may say that it is all in process of alteration. I was a Member of that Committee at the War Office lately which put before the Treasury very strongly that really the only way to insure what may be considered a respectacle system is for the Naval Authorities to take money in Naval Votes, and provide their own naval material, and then it would be in their own hands."
  My noble Friend opposite the Member for Marylebone has expressed himself in favour of that system. Admiral Sir J. Commerell, a very distinguished and experienced officer, lately a Member of this House, expressed himself very decidedly from the Benches opposite in favour of what he termed "Home Rule" at the Admiralty; and he gave an instance of the absurdity of the present system, by telling us of a vessel which had been sent to the West Indies, while her Ordnance stores were all despatched to the
  1680
  Mediteranean. Now, Sir, in this matter the Admiralty have taken up an isolated position. They are opposed to naval opinions; they are opposed to the recommendation of the Inter departmental Committee; they are opposed to the War Office as represented by the Director of Artillery; and they are opposed to the views expressed by the First Lord of the Treasury in the House. In some of their letters the Admiralty have put forward an alternative policy, and suggested the revival of the old Ordnance Department, common to both services. But this system has already been tried and failed. There was constant friction between the Admiralty and the Ordnance Department. The naval men and the Secretary of the Admiralty of the day, Sir John Barrow, were all opposed to it, as the Papers I have referred to will show. Now, I may be asked why I bring forward this Motion. My reply is, because I regard the failure of the Government to supply us with guns as one of the grossest administrative blunders of modern times, and because I entertain a sincere conviction that, if the policy I am advocating had been adopted in 1886, we should not be in the weak position we are in to-day. I may be told that this is a mere speculative opinion; but in support of that opinion I am able to appeal to the experience of a neighbouring country. Before the Franco-German War, France had a system analogous to ours. It completely broke down. They have now a system which works admirably. The naval authorities and the military are thoroughly independent. They each apply directly to the market for tenders when material is wanted, get supplied either with guns, or with the blocks of steel or finished material, as they think best. The Navy have an establishment at Rueil, the Army at Bourges, where material is taken and guns are finished. The Marine Department have Artillery officers attached, for testing the guns and material; but these officers are directly under the Marine Department. As open competition prevails, there is no limit to the number of firms that compete. I can give the names of the five principal ones—Le Creuzot, St. Chamond, Chatillon, Fives Lille, Forges et Chantiers

  1681
  de la Meditteranée. These are in addition to the two Government establishments. Contrast this with the three sources of supply we have hitherto relied on—viz., Woolwich. Whitworth, and Armstrong, and bear in mind that the two private firms make largely for foreign countries, and it is not surprising that France has less difficulty in getting guns than we experience. The encouragement given to the trade, as opposed to our system of practically subsidizing two firms, has largely developed the steel trade in France. The American Commission, sent to Europe by U.S. Foundry Board to report on the different systems, speak with unqualified approval of the French system. They remind us that France has been forced into the system of relying mainly on private firms, by the complete collapse of the Government establishments during the Franco-German War. The First Lord of the Admiralty is never tired of telling us how infinitely superior we are to France regarding the rapidity with which we can build our ships. He made an eloquent speech on the subject at Glasgow; when I read it I could not help thinking that our boasted superiority was entirely neutralized by our inability to supply the ships with guns. I believe in this respect France is three or four years ahead of us. Now, let me turn to the "statement" of the First Lord. It is almost superfluous to say that when I come to the Ordnance Department, I find he has to tell us that there has been a very great delay in the delivery of guns; of course, this statement, as usual, is accompanied by a hope—no; it was a hope last season—but that perennial spring is nearly dried up at the Admiralty; it is a "belief" that guns will be delivered more punctually in the future. We are then told that much of this delay is due to faulty liners. This may be the case to a certain extent, but when we have guns delayed for two years, as in the case of the Collingwoods, and the gun only takes one year to make, it is absurd to attribute the delay to the "liner." Now, let me ask the House to consider for a moment how we stand according to the Estimates with the promised gun programme and its fulfilment. On the 6th August last the First Lord told me in the House that we
  1682
  then required 81 guns over nine inches diameter, and that 45 of these would be delivered by the end of the financial year. According to the First Lord's statement, only 22 guns of the description I am speaking of were delivered in the course of last year. What our exact deficiency is at this moment is it is impossible for me to say, as I have no means of knowing the number of guns delivered since 31st December, and I do not know how many of the older armour clads it is proposed to rearm this year; but so far as I can form an opinion, our arrears of large guns, dealing with the old programme, must be somewhere about 70, and we are making that up at the rate of 22 a year. Now, from the statement of the Secretary of State for War on Monday, I am willing to believe that the rate of delivery will be accelerated; but as he did not distinguish between land and naval service, and I think included the 8-inch gun in his calculations, it is difficult to arrive at any definite conclusion as to when, even on paper, the lee way will be made up. But the Committee will bear in mind that the Secretary for War has to provide a very large number of guns for military ports and coaling stations; the heavy guns required for this programme cannot be less than 100, and these are drawn from the same source as the naval ordnance. If the new naval programme is carried out, we shall require, with reserves, 70 large guns for naval service, above the 70 I have already referred to; but even if it is not adopted in its entirety, we shall still require a considerable number of guns to arm the ships that would be required under the ordinary programme. I urge these considerations on the Committee, as a reason for taking advantage of the present moment, when a large supply of guns is required by both Services, to improve our system, and increase our gun-producing power. The mere addition of Messrs. Vickers to the firms who are to enjoy the monopoly of Government employment, which is all the Secretary for War promises us, is not a sufficient remedy for a deficient supply of guns, and a defective system of administration. I should like some information regarding the Ordnance Vote. In his statement the First Lord says there is a

  1683
  "serious deficiency" in ordnance stores this is accompanied by a reduction of £400,000 in the Vote, £288,712 of which occurs under the head of projectiles and ammunition. I think this requires some explanation, because even if we get the promised guns, it seems to me we shall be very short of ammunition for them. I have said I would not allude to the new programme, except in so far as it is referred to in the Ordnance Vote. The attitude I take up is this. Whatever the strength of our Navy is, and I desire to see it strong, let it be efficient all round. We ought so to frame our programme that the money granted by Parliament should be expended on all the requirements of the Service. There should be adequate proportion maintained between the outlay on men, on ships, and on guns. But we know we are short of guns, and, as I have said, deficient in ammunition. Would it not be more practical to make our existing Navy efficient before embarking, at any rate to the extent proposed, in the new shipbuilding programme. The cost of armaments has gone up enormously—far more rapidly even than the cost of ships. The armament and fittings of the Benbow, with her 12 guns, cost £207,000, the hull and machinery £617,000. Thirty years ago the Duke of Wellington's131 guns, including all their fittings, only cost £17,000. Looking to the enormous increase in the cost of armaments, and they are likely with the development of quick-firing guns to go on increasing, I think it would be a wise course to arm properly the ships we have and lay in a stock of ammunition, before we build more ships to join the large "expectant" squadron, now waiting for their guns, which the present Admiralty have so thoughtfully provided for the protection of our shores. On this matter I think the patience of the country is getting a little exhausted, and before the House grants the present Board of Admiralty a single sixpence, we ought to have definite information on three points—namely, what our calculated output of guns is in the year, the sources from whence the guns are to come, and the penalties to be inflicted on contractors for non-fulfilment of their contracts; and, above all, we ought to insist on a radical change in our Ordnance system. I believe so long as you
  1684
  continue this plan of divided responsibility in spite of the warnings of the ablest officers of both Services, you will be liable to the delays and failures of which you have already had so large an experience; and in addition to that, the Naval Service will be deprived the advantage it ought to possess, of being enabled in its hour of need to rely on the endless mechanical and manufacturing resources of this country.
  COLONEL NOLAN: In seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. E. W. Duff), I would point out that his Motion naturally divides itself into two sections, and I am surprised that the Government do not accept the first of these at once, and declare themselves under an obligation to the hon. Member for bringing it forward in such a clear and simple form. The proposition that the First Lord, as representing the Admiralty, should be responsible for all the naval guns has very often been put before the House, and it has always been accepted by the Government in theory, but it seems that it is not acted upon in practice. This House and the country like to know who to hang in case anything goes wrong, and I am sure the First Lord would not object to the responsibility for supplying naval ordnance being definitely fixed upon the Admiralty. At present the responsibility is divided and complicated between the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Ordnance Committee, of whom the great majority are military officers, and when anything goes wrong you have to hunt all the way down, attacking first the First Lord of the Admiralty, who falls back upon the Secretary for War, who again retires upon the Ordnance Committee, who will endeavour to cast the responsibility on the Director General of Ordnance, then there will be an intermediate dispute between naval and military advisers as to who recommended the gun, and by the time responsibility is fixed—if it ever is—the country is tired of the whole question. There is truth in Solomon's maxim that there is safety in a multitude of counsellors, but it is safety for the counsellors, not for those who receive the counsel, for, of course, the counsellors can shift about the responsibility from one to the other. If he consults the safety of the country, I think the noble Lord should accept the

  1685
  first part of this Resolution. The difficulty with the First Lord is to know to whom to go for advice as to pattern and class of guns. You may say there are very few people capable of giving advice on the subject. Certainly an engineer, if he has studied the subject for eight or ten years and is an able man, may give an opinion and know more about the manufacture of a gun than the man whose business it is to fight the gun. There are very few of these men, and they are mostly connected with the trade, and so are not available to give advice to the First Lord. Then he must rely on military or naval officers. But the ordinary Naval or Artillery officer knows very little indeed about manufacturing guns; his business is to work the guns; and of the Artillery officer, I should say that he knows a great deal more about how a horse is groomed than he does of how a gun is made. In the Navy there is no great opportunity to obtain experience, but there are some officers who have gathered much experience and information from Shoeburyness and on board the Excellent. I may mention that the present Director General of Ordnance, quoted by the hon. Member for Banffshire, derived much of his information from Shoeburyness. There is another quarter where the knowledge can be obtained, and that is at the Gun Factory, Woolwich. There are only a limited number of officers employed there, not more than two or three at a time, I think, and probably there are not more than six or eight who have passed through the Factory, and are capable of giving advice as to manufacture. I do not know that there are any Naval officers who have been so employed, but until the First Lord can avail himself of the service of Naval officers, let him attach to his Department Artillery officers, who have the necessary knowledge acquired by experience on the Excellent at Shoeburyness and at Woolwich. It would be much better so than that the responsibility of the Admiralty should be weakened by passing through the War Office. As to carriages, Naval officers ought to be far better advisers than Artillery officers, because the naval gun-carriages are of an elaborate character, and worked by steam machinery, whereas there is nothing of the kind with land artillery. The supply of shot and shell is a much
  1686
  simpler matter, and hardly requires elaborate manufacturing knowledge. As to the first part of the Resolution, I have no doubt that all difficulties could be met. It is well to notice that, on any question between good guns and moderately good guns, the best must always go to the Navy. The reasons are obvious, the gun-carriages and arrangements on board ship are elaborate, and calculated to make the best use of the conditions existing on the ship, and it is not possible—as it is, as a rule, on land fortifications—to substitute, say, six moderately good guns for four first-class guns. The Navy must have the precedence in the supply of guns; but under the present system, if naval guns turn out badly, I defy you to say whose fault it is. The Admiralty, the War Office, the Director of Artillery, the Ordnance Committee, would have the blame amongst them; but such an elaborate correspondence would result from an attempt to apportion the blame, that it would require legal training to say where actual responsibility should rest. The second part of the hon. Member's Resolution, I am afraid, the Government will not adopt, for I pressed something of the same kind upon their attention quite lately. There are, no doubt, few firms now who are ready to produce guns, but I imagine if you tell them you are going to lay out a million or two on gun contracts, thrown open to general competition, there would be no difficulty about raising the capital to set up the necessary machinery, and anyone accustomed to working steel would, in a short time, produce good guns, though not perhaps equal to those of Krupp. I need hardly enlarge upon the advantages of open competition—how you would at once get rid of the suspicions and innuendos that it was influence brought to bear on officials that secured this or that contract; and how you would sometimes get guns even below market price, because there are times when it would pay a manufacturer, in order to keep his plant going and his staff together, to work at cost price. Of course the manufacturer will look forward to recoup himself when a large or sudden demand arises. But the idea of the manufacturer under the system of restricted competition seems to be that he is always to get his 15 or 20 per cent from a Government order, and when the

  1687
  pressure comes he may get over 100 per cent. This is not the usual practice of large manufacturers, who are content sometimes to forego their profits, seeing their gain in the long run from transactions over a long period. I hope the Government will even accept the second part of the Resolution, perhaps in a modified form, but as to the first part I do not see why they should not at once adopt it.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "in the opinion of this House, the Admiralty ought to assume the entire responsibility of providing guns and ordnance stores for the Naval Service, and that the delivery of guns would be accelerated, and the gun-producing power of the Country developed, if the private trade, as recommended by the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, dated 11th November 1886, were more largely resorted to than at present for the supply of guns and ordnance stores,"—(Mr. Duff,)
  —instead thereof.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion used some very strong language about the present Board of Admiralty, while he used some complimentary epithets in reference to the Board to which he belonged. Now it struck me that although the hon. Gentleman used this strong language he did not display intimate knowledge of his subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Motion does know his subject; he is a thorough artillerist and knows what the difficulties are. Let me state those difficulties in a few words. There have been many Committees, Commissions, and Conferences on this question of supplying warlike stores, but although there have been many different recommendations and much diversity of opinion displayed as to the administration of the Ordnance Department, they have been absolutely unanimous on this point, that all guns or stores, whether for the Army or Navy, should be uniform in pattern and interchangeable. That is the guiding principle that the hon. Gentleman ignores. He asks us to imitate France, where they have guns differing in design and not interchangeable between Army and Navy, and separate stocks of stores and ammunition for each
  1688
  service. This is what I think the House would never tolerate, that we, with our possessions and interests scattered all over the world, should have at our different stations two supplies of stores, one for our naval and the other for our land forces. No one disputes the fact that guns should be interchangeable, and it follows that there can be only one Designing Department, not one for the War Office and one for the Admiralty. The hon. Member, in moving his Motion, has censured the Admiralty because they have not adopted the decision of the Conference. Now, the decision of the Conference was to refer the matter of stores to a Committee.
  MR. E. W. DUFF: I must take exception to that statement. The Conference adopted the principle laid down by General Alderson that the Admiralty should make their own contracts for naval stores.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: A Conference was appointed, and the Conference recommended that a Committee should be appointed, and the Committee arrived at the conclusion that the Admiralty should not make separate contracts so far as guns, gunpowder, projectiles, and other stores were concerned. In paragraph 10, page 4, the Committee distinctly recommends the very system now in force. The hon. Member laughs. Has he the smallest estimation of the quantity of stores which are not interchangeable. It is infinitesimal. What I have quoted is the result of the Conference appointed by the Board of Admiralty, to which the hon. Member belonged, and it is that at which the hon. Member laughs. I contend that the present Board has done identically what, if the hon. Member had been in office, he would have been compelled to do. The hon. Member went further and said there were certain members on the Board of Admiralty, notably Admiral Hopkins, who agreed in his view. The hon. Member is utterly in error. Admiral Hopkins is Controller of the Navy, and he entirely dissents from the hon. Member.
  MR. DUFF: I read his evidence in support of my views before Sir James Stephen's Commission.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member may have referred to his evidence, but as against that I had

  1689
  myself the advantage of a conversation with the Controller of the Navy this morning, and he said he entirely dissented from the view advanced by the hon. Gentleman, and for the reason I have stated, that the Admiralty would not undertake to order guns unless they had a special department for designs. The fact is, there are very few persons in this country who can design heavy guns. The hon. Member has so little idea of the difficulties attending the manufacture of guns that he proposes to put them on the same footing as the hulls of ships and machinery but there is all the difference in the world between the cases. If your engines do not come up to test, you can make a reduction in the amount of money paid to the contractor, and you still have ships which will be able to drive at a certain speed. If a hull is not satisfactory, the result probably will be that the vessel will go a knot or two less. But if a gun does not work it will in all probability burst, and then what is to be done?
  MR. DUFF: Reject it.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, but the rejection of the gun affects all the guns made on this principle, and the hon. Member does not appear to understand that. There is an insuperable difficulty in the way of establishing two designing Departments, one for the Army and one for the Navy, and, as a matter of fact, there is no alternative between the present system and the establishment of a separate Ordnance Department. It seems to be a great reflection upon this country that there should be a considerable number of ships waiting for their guns, and I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to make some practical suggestion by which the difficulties can be obviated, but it is quite clear his recommendation would aggravate the evil. There is not much difficulty in obtaining small guns, but we cannot entrust firms, who have had no experience, with the making of the heaviest ordnance. They must learn their business gradually. To go into the market for great guns might be to put into the hands of inexperienced firms the manufacture of guns which it is almost impossible to assume they could produce. As to the second part of the proposition, I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member that we ought to
  1690
  do everything in our power to increase the sources of supply; but that is a work which must be done gradually. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has been very successful in getting existing firms to extend their works, and also in getting fresh firms to undertake the business, and by distributing the work amongst different firms he has been able to get a considerably larger amount of work done during the past year than previously. It may interest the House to know what has been the delivery of guns during the past three years. There have been delivered to the Naval Service during the three years ending 1st April, 1889, 594 guns above 4-inch calibre; of the guns required to be delivered in the year 1889–90 there are 235 over 4-inch, all of which have been ordered. In addition to that, there are 269 guns which will be required before 1st April, 1891, if the shipbuilding proposals of the Government are assented to. It is estimated that all will be practically completed within two years, leaving only 48 incomplete at the end of that time. Past experience, however, should not make us over-sanguine that they will be delivered to the exact date named. I can assure the Committee that the Board of Admiralty are not in the slightest degree inclined to shirk the responsibility which legitimately attaches to them of supplying the Navy with guns; but they could not undertake the responsibility of designing them. If we had gone into the open market, there would have been two of us—ourselves and the War Department—competing against each other, and, in all probability, driving up prices. Many of the difficulties which have hitherto attended the manufacture and delivery of these guns are being solved, and I believe that, if we continued on the lines we are pursuing, we shall gradually surmount these difficulties, and, at the same time, improve our guns. I dope the House will, by a large majority, reject the proposals of the hon. Member, which would only aggravate the trouble we wish to cure.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: I quite agree with the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the immense difficulty of the question, but I do not see why the difficulty should

  1691
  not be faced. I think the remarks of my noble Friend have wandered away from the question. This state of things undoubtedly does exist—that we have many ships without guns—and the noble Lord is not over-sanguine that the demand which will be made for guns in time to come will be readily met. We want to know whether that demand will be met, and that is a point the country also wants to know. We ought to have, first of all, a sufficient number of guns for immediate use; then we want enough to re-arm the Fleet; and we want to know how many guns there are in the Reserve. The life of a heavy gun, nowadays, is very short, owing, probably, to the enormous explosive power of the new powder, and we have frequently to relieve the guns, which renders it necessary that we shall have an efficient Reserve. From a Return of the ships waiting for their guns, as at May of last year, I find that there are eight ships which, in the aggregate, are short of 78 guns. I wish to know how many of those ships are still waiting for their guns? On another point I will ask the First Lord if he has now any orders out to supply the place of the obsolete guns—the wrought-iron guns with steel linings. The new gun manufactured in this country since 1885 is a good gun—as good a gun as is to be found in Europe; but before 1885 the guns were neither good in material nor manufacture. In the matter of reserve of guns, the present system is wrong. For instance, when the Amiral Duperré burst a gun, its place was supplied in a few weeks; but when the Colossus burst a gun many months elapsed before she got another, simply because there is no reserve guns. Why is this? The right hon. Gentleman does as his Predecessors did—the best he can do under the present system; which is nothing. On the question of liners there is a generally wrong impression. The French, German, and Italian Governments do not use them—why I do not know, as the result will be that they will have to get rid of their guns before they are very old, which will cost an enormous amount of money; but the British Government do use liners, and, by putting them into guns to some extent disabled by erosion, we make the guns as good as new. This is a good system; and I do not understand
  1692
  the statement of the First Lord in regard to it—namely,
  "The delay (in the production of guns) is due to the faulty principle adopted with regard to a number of the guns in replacing liners."
  That rather implies that he does not approve of liners; but we must have liners in the guns when they are eroded. I have seen recently at Woolwich a gun which is to have a new liner shipped with it; so that at sea the old liner can be blown out and a new one put in its place. This is a new system, and only shows what a great deal has to be learnt by our sailors nowadays. At one time our seamen were supposed to be useful to us on account of the smartness with which they could reef topsails, but in the present day they are to be distinguished for their ability in taking out old liners and putting in new ones. The present system of gun manufacture is very unfair to the manufacturer, largely on account of the financial year system. Guns, as well as ships, ought to be carried straight through to completion and paid for at once, thus assisting the manufacturer, and enabling the country to get what it wants. The manufacturer at present has to wait for orders, and then has to complete them within a certain date; and when the workmanship is hurried the result is apt not to be good. They cannot get continuity of orders, and accordingly, with such plant as they have, they cannot afford to take all the orders that the Government can give them. They are compelled either to discharge men or to work for foreign Governments. This brings about the condition of things in which British manufacturers are working very largely for foreign Governments, while the British Government is itself waiting for guns. This matter requires to be looked into; and I also think the matter of delivery should be worked out better. Krupp always guarantees to turn out his heavy guns, rnnning up to 14 in., at the rate of one month for every inch of calibre. That is not what we do in this country or anything near it. Probably remarks will be made on the opposite side of the House about the great expenditure on guns. But in reply I will ask, first, whether the country is to be defended or not? And next, I will point out that the steel gun manufactured since 1885 is a cheaper gun than any other

  1693
  heavy gun in Europe. The French guns of over 9-in. calibre cost £320 per ton; the Krupp guns cost £240 per ton; and the English guns since 1885 cost only £200 per ton. If the services are to have guns at all, the country cannot afford to supply such as will be inferior to those brought against them. As to the Committees to which the noble Lord referred, there have been no actual practical results from them, although, no doubt, a great many things have been inquired into. My noble Friend, I see, dissents from this statement, but if we have not sufficient guns for our ships, surely I am justified in saying that there have been no practical results. What I ask is, will the supply in future equal the demand? The noble Lord said he was not sanguine that he would be able to get guns up to date. That is all nonsense. We must get the guns up to date. If it takes longer to make them put the date further back; but have the guns up to that date. Every Committee which has sat to consider this question has come to the sound common-sense conclusion that we must have one pattern for the Army and Navy. That is necessary in order that we can transfer guns from ships to fortresses and vice versâ where necessary. The Committee of 1887 forming the subject of Paper 259 reported that
  "The funds allotted by Parliament from time to time for the production of ordnance for the Navy have been diverted to other purposes;"
  that,
  "No organization has existed or yet exists by which the gun-producing resources of the country can be developed so as to meet the requirements;"
  that the Admiralty
  "Have no information as to the number of rounds of ammunition in store for the various guns or as to the available stock of tubes, &c., or how much the stock of warlike material has been increased or diminished from year to year;"
  and that
  "The Admiralty receives no account of the money spend on guns for the Navy."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): That has been altered.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: I am glad to hear that. It came out most distinctly the other day in debate that the Admiralty ordered a large number of
  1694
  quick firing guns and refused to allow ammunition for them. This is the sort of thing that must be continually brought before the public if any alteration in the system is to be effected. Will the noble Lord kindly make a note of the point, as I should like to have an answer? Another remark made was that the late Financial Secretary to the War Office pointed out that either the Admiralty asked a great deal too much, or the War Department gave too little. Fancy such a thing as that taking place with regard to the supply of guns. The Committee in their Report also say that:
  "The Administration as it now exists has been pronounced by most competent authorities to be one of 'dangerous divided responsibility,' which will probably lead to disaster in the event of war,"
  and
  "in the interest of the public service a radical change is imperatively demanded."
  I think the French system is the best that can be adopted, but I would be the last to recommend it to the House, because it would involve a very large expenditure, and I think it better to utilize what we have got; but on the other hand the system does not work well. There is a great deal of irritation between the two services, and I believe the thing will never work well until we get for the supply of guns a Department independent both of the War Office and the Admiralty. I would have the Department formed of soldiers, sailors, engineers, and others, but presided over by a civilian. Such a Department would see in a moment where the guns ought to be supplied, whether to the Army or the Navy, and somebody would always be responsible, whereas under the present system it is impossible to bring responsibility home to anybody. As far as the hon. Gentleman's Resolution goes I cannot agree with the first part of it, but I entirely agree with the second part, and I think the hon. Member has rendered a most valuable service in bringing the matter before the House.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: I cannot help thinking that the Resolution of my hon. Friend (Mr. Duff) has been productive of an extremely useful discussion. My hon. Friend expressed a desire that the Admiralty should assume the entire respon-

  1695
  sibility of providing guns and stores for the Naval Service, and upon that point we have received a very happy, practical suggestion from the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford). It is admitted that at present our supply of guns is insufficient. According to the Secretary of State's Memorandum, the amount of deficiencies of Ordnance Stores in the Naval service has been ascertained. The deficiencies are said to be serious, but it is hoped by the right hon. Gentleman they may be made up gradually in the course of the next three years. But, if we are to have the same system in force as hitherto, which is very likely, we shall be landed in a still worse dilemma. Dealing with this particular point, the Army Estimates Committee say in their Report,—
  "The evidence as to the responsibility of the various officials for the design and manufacture of guns is somewhat conflicting, nor can it be positively asserted that there would be much more facility in the future for fixing the responsibility far the failure of the guns on any officials than has been the case in the past."
  Now that, I understand, is the system to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has just referred as having been the result of an alteration which has taken place. It is not a satisfactory system, and the sooner it is done away with the better. The proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone would meet the difficulty. We find there, at all events, an independent department which would meet the requirements of both the Services, and which would be responsible to the country for any deficiencies which existed in its work. The noble Lord observed that interchangeability was at the bottom of the present difficulty. The noble Lord forgets, I think, that if you once obtain a good design there should be no reasonable difficulty in securing interchangeability. It is essential that the design should be uniform, and then interchangeability must follow. If you once allow that your independent department shall be a department of design as well as of construction your interchangeability ought to be secure. The noble Lord also said that one of the great difficulties in the preparation and construction of great guns by private firms was that if one of the guns supplied was found to be
  1696
  faulty, the whole of the guns of that pattern would have to be rejected. Surely that is not the case. Each gun would depend upon its own test. Now, I should like to obtain from the First Lord of the Admiralty some definite information as to the question of deficiencies of Ordnance Stores. What is the amount of the deficiency; and when can the deficiency be made good? Further, is the noble Lord really satisfied that he can obtain the guns for the Navy by the time they will be required? If he is not satisfied on this point, would it not be well to make other arrangements than those he contemplates?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Mr. Speaker, I think the last two speeches show how inconvenient it is to discuss these matters on the Motion to go into Committee. It is perfectly obvious that the proper time to discuss these questions is when the Gun Vote is brought forward, but, nevertheless, I will endeavour to answer the remarks which have been made. The real question to solve is who is to be the authority responsible for providing guns for the Navy. It must be either one of the two Departments concerned, or the War Office acting as agent for the Admiralty, or a totally separate Department such as the noble Lord has suggested, and has often before been suggested, and as often rejected. The noble Lord said something with regard to the establishment of a separate Ordnance Department; but the mere description given of this Department by my noble Friend proves at once that it will involve an enormous increase of cost. If such a Department is desired the country will have first to consider whether it will be prepared to bear that large increase of cost; and, secondly, whether it will get better results than under the existing system. A good deal of difficulty will arise with reference to the relations of a separate Ordnance Department with the War Office and the Admiralty. Both of these Departments will have the privilege of ordering their stores from the Ordnance Department, and both Departments will in turn squeeze it. The Secretary for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty will be certain to find fault with what the head of the Ordnance Department does, and the position of the last-named official, whom the noble Lord says should

  1697
  be a civilian, will be an extremely difficult one if he is not a Member either of the House of Lords or the House of Commons, and able to defend himself whenever occasion arises. The establishment of such a Department will certainly not meet one of the greatest difficulties connected with the Department—namely, that the work supplied should be such as to receive the approval of the Service using it. It seems to me, therefore, that the House will be incurring a great risk if it attempts to establish such a Department as this, because it will not be a remedy for the difficulty in which we are at present placed. We must either have the Admiralty ordering its own guns or the War Office acting as the agent of the Admiralty ordering the guns for the Navy as well as for itself. The Committee of 1886 in their Report condemned the system under which the whole Vote for the warlike stores of the Army and the Navy was placed in the Army Votes, so that the demands put forward by the Government as necessary for the proper armament of the Fleet were afterwards cut down by someone who was not responsible. All the points against which the recommendations of the Committee were urged are now things of the past, and last year a system was substituted under which the responsibility for the Naval Vote has been shifted to the Admiralty. Something has been said as to the desirableness of fixing the responsibility for the failures of warlike stores. I think the Government have made themselves clear to the House on that point. There are several things which have to be thought of with regard to guns. First of all, there is the design, the pattern, the manufacture and the proof. The responsibility for the design of the gun now rests absolutely with the Ordnance Committee, a body of experts composed of military, naval, and civilian elements. When the pattern of the gun is decided upon the gun is put out to manufacture either at the gun factory or by a private firm. It is then inspected by the War Office, partly on its own account and partly on behalf of the Admiralty, before it is passed into the service; and if the gun does not pass the examination it is rejected and sent back to the manufacturer. The question has also been raised of giving to the

  1698
  trade more orders for warlike stores than hitherto. It is true that in 1880 the trade was exceedingly little employed for the manufacture of heavy guns and warlike stores. In 1880–1 the value of big guns given out to the private manufacturer was £4,812: in 1883–4, £23,000; in 1886–7, £67,000, and this all went to Elswick. I am not surprised that the Committee has recommended that it was exceedingly desirable steps should be taken to utilize more the gun-producing powers of the country. What has happened since? On the 13th of March last the value of the guns entrusted to Messrs. Armstrong is £387,000, to Whitworths £258,000, and to Messrs. Vickers £114,000. These figures shows that the Government have called upon the trade to an enormous extent for the manufacture of big guns. [An hon. MEMBER: It was not open competition.] Messrs. Vickers's contract was obtained by open competition. There are several other firms which supply the forgings of the guns, as distinct from the building and completing of them; and there are a large number of firms in the country which supply other warlike stores for the Army and the Navy. The orders for warlike stores in 1888–9 given to the private trade for the sea service alone amounted to £1,063,000. The House will, therefore, see that we have advanced enormously in the direction of entrusting this work to the trade; and, so far from desiring to give existing firms a monopoly of the work at present being done, I, for my part, say at once that the War Office are determined to get the guns made in the time in which they are required. Whether we give orders to those firms or to other firms, we are equally determined that the orders shall be carried out. I hope that in a year or two we may even be able to talk about guns waiting for ships; but I am, at all events, satisfied that we shall be able to make arrangements by which, with a reasonable amount of certainty, we shall be able to insure that all the guns now required for the service of the Fleet will be obtained within the specified time. I speak with full responsibility on this subject, because I am the person who has to take the full responsibility for putting out the orders, and taking care that they are placed in such a manner

  1699
  that they will be completed in due time. Passing from these special points, the noble Lord spoke of foreign and of English guns, and asked one or two questions concerning Messrs. Krupp's method and the time required in turning out a completed gun. Well, I have hope that we shall be able to better it here. We have every reason to believe that in our gun factories we can produce some guns, for instance the 9·2 inch, at a quicker rate than that mentioned by my noble Friend. My noble Friend asks several special questions about gun construction. He spoke of the erosion that occurs in our guns, and from which foreign guns are free.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: I beg pardon; I never said anything of the kind. There must always be erosion, no matter where manufactured. What I said was, we relieve our guns, which Foreign Governments did not do.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Then I need not refer to erosion, as to which I have several facts that show that it occurs often more largely in foreign-made guns than in our own. I have given much attention to a comparison between the guns in our service and those of France and Germany, and I have had caused a most careful comparison to be made between the guns of similar calibres in different services, their power of penetration by projectiles, and the general power of the guns; and the conclusion to which I venture to come after very close examination is that our guns are distinctly better than those of the French Service, and equal at least to the guns of the German Service. The noble Lord has asked me a question with respect to the ships which have unfortunately been without their guns in the past, and I am perfectly ready to give my noble Friend the information I possess with respect to the ships which were waiting for their guns as presented to Parliament last year. The first ship was the Collingwood, which now has four 12-inch guns on board. I am glad to say that in the case of the Howe, her four 13·5-inch guns will be in course of proof next month, and, therefore, ought to be on board at the end of April or the beginning of May. The guns of the Camperdown will be all delivered this month. The Anson has all her guns on board. The Undaunted has her two 9·2-inch guns complete.
  1700
  The Australia has ten 6-inch guns on board, and two 9·2-inch guns have been received and are now probably on board. The Narcissus has ten 6-inch guns on board, and two 9·2-inch guns will be completed this month. In the case of the Galatea. I am sorry to say there has been a block. The 9·2-inch guns due from the Messrs. Whitworth and Cain have not been delivered, and I am afraid that they cannot be relied on till the 31st of August next; but ten 6-inch guns are on board. The Immortalité has all her guns on board. Therefore, all the ships which I have enumerated, with the exception of the Galatea, either have all their guns on board or will have them in a very short period. In addition to that, the Admiralty have brought forward two ships that were not on the above list—namely, the Victoria and the Sanspareil. In both of those cases we have had expedited the guns of the largest description—namely, the 16·25-inch. The Victoria's guns are ready and at proof; while those of the Sanspareil are mostly ready, and the biggest will be ready in April. I think I have now answered my noble Friend fully and satisfactorily as to all the ships which he has mentioned. If any additional questions are put I shall be glad to answer them also; but there is some difficulty in doing so until we get into Committee.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 51.—(Division List, No. 19.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have not much to say in reference to my Motion, which I am precluded from moving because I put forward my views at some length the other day on the Military Vote. The principle I then laid down and desire to press upon the House is, that we should have wholly in view the entire proposals of the Government and the expenditure the country will be called upon to incur for the whole system of defence proposed. I did not, on the last occasion, obtain that satisfactory answer I hoped for from Her Majesty's Government, and it seems to me all the more clear, since the debate the other night, that the Government are pro-

  1701
  ceeding, by way of increasing the Services, bit by hit, without showing all their hand. Take, for instance, the question of barrack accommodation. It seems it is absolutely necessary there should be a complete review of barrack accommodation, and a re-organization at great expense will have to be undertaken. But this has not been included in the Estimates laid before us. There also ought to be a better organization of the Auxiliary Land and Marine Forces, and these might reasonably claim the funds that are necessary to make them thoroughly efficient. We are called upon by a few Votes to increase the Regular Forces of the Army and Navy; but the Government have not taken the nation into full confidence. As regards the Naval Estimates, the immediate subject of our consideration, we know that in the ordinary Votes there is a large increase, and we also know that a special Vote will be submitted for contracts for a large addition to the Navy, but we have not yet learned from the statement of the First Lord how that Navy is to be employed. I know that it is a large subject, the protection of our Colonies and commerce all over the world, and this will involve a large dispersion of our Naval Force. Then we have not heard what is to be the expenditure incurred on coast defence to meet danger at home. Some suggestions, it is true, have been dropped; for instance, that we are to rely a good deal upon sub-marine batteries. This is all very well as one of the incidents of coast defence, but I do not believe that this will afford security. When the Government come to tackle this question of coast defence, rely upon it, we shall find ourselves involved in grave additional expenditure. I want to know, if we agree to this great addition to the Navy, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to rely on the Navy alone as a means of defence for the British coasts, or whether it is to be only the first line of defence, and that further expenditure will be necessary on coast defences? The other day, when I referred to this subject, the exposure of our shores to naval attack, the Under Secretary taunted me with having the desire to make Kirkcaldy a first-class military port. Now, I suggested nothing of the kind. But this I do believe—
  1702
  that if our coasts are to be made secure, it is absolutely necessary that we should incur considerable additional expense in each locality, and for ports all round the coast, by placing guns in position to protect those ports against occasional marauding attacks of hostile vessels. Guns, men, and matériel are required to meet such an unfortunate contingency; and I am forced to the conclusion that this naval expenditure is but the first line of defence, and I am unwilling to vote this large increase until we know what is the whole of the Government plan of defence. An important question is to be raised by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), which very much dovetails with the remarks I would make. The Motion of which the right hon. Gentleman has given notice, and upon which he is not here just now to speak, has relation to what took place in the course of the Naval Manœuvres last year. What I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know is, do Her Majesty's Government, by the series of sham attacks on defenceless towns, mean to recognize that it is part of the system of legitimate warfare that towns should be attacked, bombarded, burned, and sacked, or laid under contribution? It seems very like it. We remember how the town of Greenock was subjected to a sham attack during the hours of Divine Service on a Sunday morning. I think, in relation to the subject of coast defence, we should know what are the views of Her Majesty's Government on this matter, and I think it is a little unfortunate that the Naval Authorities should by their action have suggested that this is the kind of thing to be done. If Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that, in the opinion of civilized Europe, these attacks on unprotected towns are within the rights of a belligerent, I do not see how large additional expenditure on coast defence is to be avoided, and I claim from the Government a complete exposé of the defensive scheme they would propose.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Supply—considered in the Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  (1.) £45,000, Miscellaneous Services.

  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  (2.) 65,400 Men and Boys, including 14,000 Marines, for Sea and Coast Guard Services.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,201,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Wages, &c to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890."
  LORD C. BERESFORD: I desire to bring to the notice of the Committee a case in which I myself take great interest, and in which the whole Service takes great interest—that is to say, the case of the engineers of the Royal Navy. In the Naval Service it is very hard for any class of officers and men to get their grievances brought before the country and the Admiralty, as an instance of which I need only refer to the question as to the pay of lieutenants which occurred whilst I was at the Admiralty. The lieutenants in the Service knew that there was no way of getting their grievances brought before the Admiralty except by getting it mentioned in Parliament. No doubt these officers for a large number of years were suffering under a considerable grievance, and they had a right to expect that those whose duty it was to watch their interests at the Admiralty should take their case in hand. But years went on and nothing at all was done. I draw attention to this matter, because it is very likely that the same thing will happen with regard to the engineers, who merely ask that they shall receive the same pay as others of the same rank in the Service—as paymasters and doctors. No doubt the doctors are a very able body of officers, and no doubt also the paymasters perform a very useful function, but there is no parallel between these classes and the engineers. Every officer who takes his ship into action wants to win, and if there is one man more than another who can help him in his desire, it is the man in charge of the engine-room. In the old days it was the seaman that did the most for you, but now it is the engineer who has charge of the
  1704
  engines and in some cases who has charge of the heavy machinery which enables you to fire and load your guns. I certainly think the time has come when the case of these officers should be carefully thought out at the Admiralty. I am satisfied that those who belong to the medical and Paymaster's branches will be the first to acknowledge that their branches are not such as to enable a commander to win an action, and are not of the same importance as the duties of the engineer. Now the engineers in this matter have done nothing contrary to the regulations of the Service. They have awakened to the fact that their position is not what it should be, and I trust that their case will receive attention to-night, as it is one of great merit. I trust the time will soon arrive when ships' companies will be constituted in such a manner as to be adapted to modern requirements, and one of the first things to be done it seems to me is to put the engineers in their proper place—to pay them and give them rank according to their duties. If I do not receive a satisfactory answer from my noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty, I shall be obliged to take other measures to secure one.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg very cordially to support what has fallen from the noble Lord as to the engineers, and I must say I am very much surprised at no answer having been given the other day by the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty to a question asked by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, who asked if he would grant a Committee to consider the case of the engineer officers. The noble Lord is reported to have said—
  "I am not aware that great dissatisfaction exists among the officers of the engineer's branch of the Royal Navy as regards their rank and emolument, neither has any representation to that effect been made to me through the proper channels of communication."
  I am surprised at that answer, as I myself put a question of the same nature last Session. In regard to the statement that no representation has been made to the Admiralty through the proper channels of communication I am at a loss to know what more proper channel of communication there could be for the grievances of these

  1705
  gentlemen than that of bringing them to the attention of the Government through their representatives in this House. It cannot be to the interest of the Service that a large body of officers of this kind should have any grievance unredressed and uninquired into. The duties and responsibilities of these men have enormously increased during the last 20 years, and there is now scarcely anything connected with the management of a man-of-war in which their services are not absolutely indispensable. No doubt the duties of doctors and paymasters are important, but when you compare these gentlemen with the engineers it must be admitted that the latter have every right to equality as to rank and pay. I am informed that the maximum pay of an engineer officer of the Royal Navy afloat is 22s. a-day as against 33s. in the case of a medical officer of the same rank. If that is so, I think it is an inequality which should be redressed. As to rank there were certainly some concessions made in 1886, but I believe that the engineers feel it rather a worthless and invidious distinction, being allowed to rank with, but after, officers of the Medical Service.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I think, looking at the numberless engines we now put into our ships, everyone must admit the immense importance of the functions of the engineers. Their case, and that also of the engine room artificers, should be considered by the Government, and I hope now that Her Majesty's Fleet is about to be so largely increased, that attention will be paid to these classes. Then with regard to another most valuable part of the Service—I mean the signal men—I am glad to see that some notice has been taken of them. The signal men of the present day may be said to be second only in importance to the engineers in so far as taking the ship into action is concerned. The Admiral and the Captain of each ship must depend upon the signalman, and nowadays the signalman has, for his class, to be a highly-educated man. I trust that when the school for the training of signalmen is established it will be started on a liberal scale, and that not only signalling, but telegraphy, will be taught, as it is extremely important that some of these
  1706
  men should be able to read off messages and transmit messages on shore—say in an enemy's country.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: No doubt the noble Lord knows enough about the Naval Service to appreciate the importance of this subject of signalling. The method of signalling in the Navy at the present time is precisely that which was in use a century and a-half ago. It was an admirable method, no doubt, in former times, when fleets moved comparatively slowly, but I believe it is altogether inadequate to carry out the wishes and views of Naval Commanders at the present time when ships are in action. It may be said that it is little use pointing out a difficulty unless at the same time a method is suggested for getting over it. Well, my view is that semaphores placed at the mast-head might be very advantageously employed. Some attention was given to this matter in 1887, and I think the matter is worthy of closer investigation, and probably the noble Lord will be good enough to broach the subject to his naval advisers. Another point of some importance is that of the steaming lights carried to mark the ship's position at night. I am informed that in the merchant service the electric light is used with very good results, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that experiments should be tried in Her Majesty's Navy to see whether electricity could not with advantage replace the miserable oil lamps at present in use. Another matter I should like to mention is that collisions are often caused by the reluctance of young officers to alter the course of the vessel in good time, because altering the course is looked upon with great dislike by the captain, and is extremely inconvenient for the purpose of navigation. Therefore a young officer is very apt to maintain his course to the last possible moment. When I first took charge of a ship as first officer of the watch I did not know the simplest rule of the road, but as I happened by accident to answer correctly the simplest question in the whole code, which was the one put to me by the captain, I was allowed to take charge of the ship. That which occurred in my own case, I know, from my experience in examining young officers, happens now, and young officers are often extraordinarily

  1707
  ignorant of the rules of the road. I would strongly recommend the First Lord of the Admiralty to insist upon a stricter inquiry being made into their fitness to undertake responsible and important duties. It would be worth while, I think, to inquire also whether corrosion has taken place in the condensers of other ships beside the Thunderer. With regard to the personnel of the Navy, I would draw attention to the fact that a very large number of boys, who bear an excellent character up to the time of their reaching the age of 18, lapsed during the next four or five years, into the most indifferent character, and create in that time a very considerable percentage of the "crime," or rather offences in the Navy. They could be kept in better discipline if they were for a time rated as "second-class ordinary seamen." Boys in the Navy are kept under strict discipline, but men in the Navy are not, and I think it would be of great advantage both to men and boys if stricter discipline were maintained amongst the second-class ordinary seamen. That is one of the greatest blots on our system, as it is at the ages of from 18 to 22 or 23 that our young seamen stand most in need of strict discipline, and when a large percentage of the offences committed by our sailors are perpetrated. I have begun with the lowest class of our blue jackets—the boys—and will now turn to the highest. The difficulty we have experienced for many years is the difficulty of getting suitable men to rate as petty officers. During recent years I have not unfrequently seen men made petty officers who were not at all suited to the position, simply because there was no one else to take. In my opinion the real character of the petty officer comes out better when you see him discharging the disagreeable, slow, and monotonous duties he has to perform on board a man-of-war. It is that that tries the character of the man, and shows whether he is worth much or little; and not when he is under the exceptional excitement and advantages of active service. I must say that I think it greatly to be regretted that we cannot get, upon the whole, better men than we now have for such positions. In my opinion the advantages now held out are not sufficient, I will not say, to
  1708
  secure the best men, but to persuade the men to keep up to the standard required in those who are made petty officers. I would suggest to my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty that it would, at any rate, he worth his while to take into consideration whether he cannot decrease the number of grades amongst the petty officers and at the same time increase the advantages held out to them. One of the attractions offered is a rating which is now totally useless. It was originally given to men who were specially superior in matters of seamanship; but there is no advantage in maintaining it now. They were not originally intended to be made petty officers, but owing to a certain superiority they exhibited they were called on to do duty as petty officers. My idea is that it would better if the grades were reduced to two, and the advantages were made more substantial than they now are Under existing circumstances, if we rate a man as a petty officer and he is found to be unsuitable, we cannot disrate him and put him back into his original rank without blasting his career; and this I regard as very unsatisfactory. It is always difficult to tell how a man will turn out, and captains are very slow to ruin a man's prospects by taking away a rating to which he has been promoted. There ought to be some method of trying a man before he is put into a higher grade, and I shall be very glad if my noble Friend can see his way, at any rate, to make inquiry into the matter. I scarcely know whether I should be in order in passing from this general survey to the question of rations. I think I notice that you, Sir, hesitate to permit this, and, therefore, I will reserve what I have to say on that subject for a future occasion. I will merely add that the four subjects I have brought under the attention of the Committee, and which I am afraid must be regarded as of a somewhat technical character, are matters which I trust will receive the consideration of my noble Friend.
  MR. E. W. DUFF: I have only one or two questions to ask upon this Vote. I am glad to see from the statement that the First Lord of the Admiralty proposes to increase the number of stokers. The personnel of the Navy is apparently weak in stokers, and, therefore, it is well there should be

  1709
  an increase in that class. I see it is also proposed to add another 1,100 Marines, but I notice in the Estimate that only £18,000 represents the increase in the Marine Vote, and I wish to know if that amount will cover the cost of the proposed increase in the force? I also should like to know whether any of these Marines are to be added to the artillery branch?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No.
  MR. DUFF: Then we are told in the noble Lord's statement that the number of seamen has been increased, but I see that there is to be a decrease of 555 in the number of boys. I dare say that that is quite capable of explanation, but on the face of it, it hardly seems natural, for one would expect to find, with an increase in the number of men, a proportionate increase in the number of boys. I do not want to offer any opposition to this Vote, but I should be glad to have some information on these point.
  MR. DE LISLE: I would like to say a few words in support of the request put forward by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, that the Admiralty should give serious consideration to the claims of engineer officers. It seems difficult, I admit, for men having no practical experience or knowledge of the Navy to speak on this matter, but I take it that owing to the development of scientific warfare, the responsibilities of this branch of the service have greatly increased, and it is curious to note that the number of engineers has been diminished, while their pay is apparently not at all commensurate with the importance of their duties. I would like to ask how it is that there are 178 engineers down in the Effective Vote, and 220 on retired pay? I cannot understand that at all. I do not think it is a wise move on the part of the Government to reduce the number of engineers, and I have a shrewd suspicion that if the whole truth concerning the Navy could be placed before us—if we could have the evidence of responsible officers such as is placed before the Board of Admiralty, we should see that there is a very different state of things in the Navy, especially so far as its personnel is con-
  1710
  cerned, from that which is now laid before us, and we should see also that the condition of things is far from satisfactory. I have heard from a good many officers that the number of officers for Service in the Navy is far from adequate, and scarcely sufficient for its proper working; that, if some of our ships should be engaged in action, and there should be a considerable loss of officers, many of our vessels would, as a consequence, be hopelessly undermanned. In regard to the engineers, I think that the number should not only be ample, but that the pay should be sufficiently remunerative, and I hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty will give us an assurance that something will be done, not only to increase the pay, but to place the status of these officers on a satisfactory basis. At present, so far as I can understand, the seniority which they are supposed to possess is more fictitious than real, and, seeing that these officers practically have the working of the ships in their hands, it is time that this matter was attended to. In the mercantile marine these officers are especially well paid. I should like to know whether it is a fact that when the Russian scare of 1878 occurred, and it was found necessary to increase the number of our engineer officers, we were obliged to pay them higher rates than were received by the engineers already in the service of the Navy? If so, I think that is a most unsatisfactory state of things. I hope the time will shortly arrive when the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to state to the country the actual opinions of his advisers, not only with regard to the Navy, but with regard to the number of ships and the necessary ordnance to make them effective. Comparing the statements which we have had from the Front Bench during the last three years with that which we had presented to us the other night, it seems to me impossible to believe that we have had before us an adequate representation of the knowledge as to the Navy which is in the possession of the representatives of the Admiralty. The statements of those three years are glaringly inconsistent with the one made this year. I desire, of course, to acknowledge to the fullest degree the admirable advances which have been made under the present administration of the Admiralty; but,

  1711
  bearing in mind the assurances we received a year ago, that the country was safely defended by the existing Navy, and comparing that statement with this year's, I think there is cause for the gravest suspicion that, if we knew the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, instead of our being asked to vote an extra eleven millions, which it really comes to and which we shall willingly do, we should probably find it necessary to vote an even larger sum, perhaps 20 millions besides the ordinary average yearly expenditure, to meet the requirements of complete and, humanly speaking, adequate national defence.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I can assure my hon. Friend that I and my colleagues do give the House the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and if my hon. Friend had reserved his charge as to this until we have the full discussion of the naval programme. I think he would have arrived at the conclusion that there is no discrepancy between what I propose now and the statement I made last year. An observation, which all who have ever been entrusted with naval administration will endorse, is, "do not attach too much importance to the outlay of individual years, but look rather to the results." It is not the expenditure on ships which are incomplete, or upon men not trained, which has an effect. When war breaks out, it is the number of ships that are complete, and the number of men ready for service, and if my hon. Friend will rear that little maxim in mind, I think he will find hereafter that there is no discrepancy between the statements I have made in the past, and those I hope the House will accept in the future. Now, there have been a number of questions put to me with reference to matter of detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Holderness made a very able speech on a highly technical point, and I have derived considerable information from the suggestions he has made. They shall have my very careful consideration. Almost every naval officer who has studied the subject of tactics attaches supreme importance to having an adequate and thoroughly efficient signalling staff, for in these days of rapid motion the great difficulty will be to obtain accurate information concerning the enemy, and to keep in touch with his movements.
  1712
  Therefore, anything that can improve our system of signalling and telegraphing is worthy of our closest attention. As to several other questions on smaller points, I am not prepared with the necessary information to enable me to answer them now. I may say, there is no doubt that a considerable proportion of what is called naval crime occurs among men between the ages of 18 and 23, and if we are able to substitute barracks for floating ships, I believe there will be a great improvement in discipline among these men. The main question, which has been raised to-night, has related to the status and pay of engineer officers. I quite agree with my noble Friend the Member for Marylebone in his estimate of the value of the services of these officers, and in his opinion as to the necessity of having a thoroughly efficient body of them, but my hon. Friends must recollect that I have to look at this question from two points of view. I am bound to see that the men are adequately remunerated; and I am equally bound to see if the Navy can be well supplied at existing rates, that an undue charge is not put on the taxpayer by more highly remunerating any one particular class of men. There is no question but that we can obtain any number of young engineer officers, and a remarkable feature about the supply is that a large, if not by far the larger, proportion of those who wish to enter the Service are sons of engineer officers, and that is sufficient, in my opinion, to justify our refusal to increase the pay. I have looked carefully into the matter of their emolument, and I must say it compares favourably with the case of those who occupy similar positions of responsibility in the Mercantile Marine; and while purely combative officers in the Royal Navy are not paid better than those in the Navies of France and Germany, the rate of pay of engineer officers is higher than that received by the engineer branches in these foreign Navies. With these facts before me, I feel justified in not assenting to this proposal for an increased rate of pay, and, in saying this, I am expressing the views of the Board of Admiralty. My hon. Friend who spoke last seemed to think that there were serious deficiencies in the personnel of the Navy. May I remind him of one fact, that at the time of the manœuvres every available

  1713
  ship was engaged, and all the vessels in the Navy which were commissioned at the time had their full complement, or ought to have had their full complement of men as in time of war. Therefore, whatever deficiencies there were during the manœuvres, they represented deficiencies which would exist in time of war, and so far as our ships were concerned, those deficiencies were not at all serious except as regards the stokers. We were somewhat short of them, and not only that, but many of them were badly trained. This is a matter we are looking into. A large number of men were brought in of somewhat indifferent physique and with but little knowledge of the duties they were called upon to perform. They were put on board new ships with complicated machinery, and under very trying circumstances had to perform their duties for the first time. I have not the slightest doubt that to this fact may be attributed the circumstances that during the first few days of the manœuvres many of our ships failed to reach the estimated speed which was expected from them. I propose to take on a considerable additional number of stokers this year, and if every year we have manœuvres on a large scale, it is clear that each year a large proportion of these stokers will have the best of training, because training in sea-going vessels is incomparably superior to training on board vessels in harbour. I hope in this way gradually to surmount the difficulty, and I hope also to be able, in the course of the next year or two, to largely augment the number of stokers belonging to the Naval Reserve. They are a class different from the stokers of Mercantile Marine, but they have the best of training, and if we can by the payment of a small maintenance fee get several hundreds, or perhaps two or three thousand upon our lists, we shall then have a valuable reserve of men, a large proportion of whom we should always be able to lay our hands upon in the case of emergency. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Banffshire asked me two or three questions. The first was with regard to the proposed increase of 1,100 in the marine force, and as to what he thinks is an insufficient provision in the Estimates for them, but I may explain that all these men are not to be added at once, and this fact will account
  1714
  for the small amount of money asked for for their pay. I think I have now answered all the questions which have been put to me.
  MR. DE LISLE: There is the pay of the engineer officers.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I think my right hon. Friend will admit that there are conclusive reasons against increasing the pay.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: I am sorry to obtrude myself upon the Committee again, but there are a great number of important questions connected with the officers and men of the Fleet, and this is the only opportunity I shall have of discussing them. If the claims of the officers and men are not discussed now they will be put off for another year. Therefore I hope I shall not be considered obstructive if I call attention to some important points somewhat in detail. I think it is very hard for hon. Gentlemen who have been sent here as supporters of Her Majesty's Government—and for my own part I do support Her Majesty's Government—to be told at the last moment "There is no time to consider these matters; we want the money." I say that that sort of thing cannot go on. I do not care which Government is in power [Ministerial Cries of "Oh!"] Well, I do care which Government is in power, but for the sake of my argument it is a matter of indifference. Unfortunately it is the usual practice to slur these questions over, and to keep out of sight everything connected with the Navy. The mind of the public has been tremendously exercised upon the question of guns, but the strength and safety of the Fleet and the training of the men composing it are now intangible matters, and are, therefore, likely to be overlooked, although far more important questions. In the same way, the Secretary of State for War brings forward the question of barracks. We can see them, and know that they are unhealthy, but we cannot see the strength of the Army. It is necessary that they should say something about these matters, and I always like to say, in this House, what I think—not that I mean to maintain that I am always right. In the first place, there is the case of the signalmen. What we want are the very best signalmen, and the best arrangement for signalling we can

  1715
  possibly get. All nations, I am glad to say, are badly off in this respect, but other nations pay more attention to signalling than we do, devote a good deal more time to experiments and practice in signalling than this country. Signalmen form the line of communication, and upon the way in which they discharge their work the fate of a naval engagement may often depend. When I was at the Admiralty, the Board objected to everything. One member of the old Board is there yet, and I have no doubt that he still continues to object. The question of signalling is one which ought to be put to the fleet at sea, so that you should get their ideas. A signalman ought to be attached to every coastguard station, and he ought to be taught telegraphy, and placed, by means of the telegraph, in contact with the head of the Intelligence Department in Whitehall. More attention should be paid to the training of these signalmen, and they ought to be better paid and granted better rank.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: That has been done.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: My noble Friend says that has been done. What I want is, that men at sea should be instructed to send home their ideas. Prevention is better than cure, and you ought to have signalmen who will know exactly what to do whatever may occur. Then, again, there is the case of the stokers. I am sorry that I am compelled to bring these questions forward, and I can assure the Committee it is not with any desire of being obstructive. The whole of the engine-room department, in my opinion, wants reforming altogether. My noble Friend says, "You can get plenty of men; why, then, should you give more wages?" No doubt that is a fair argument; but what did the doctors do? They closed the whole of their schools against the Navy, and the result was that the Medical Service of the Navy was smashed up by the ring thus created. My noble Friend now proposes to do with the engineers what he did with the lieutenants. He says there is no necessity for paying these men according to the value of their work, because you can get plenty of them. I do not think that is a good argument. What is wanted is fair play, and the engineers should be put in position whether the supply is plenty-
  1716
  ful or not. I am sorry to think that the Government should unnecessarily invite the formation of a ring or a combination of discontented men in the Service. The stokers in the Navy have not been adequately trained. That was made manifest in the recent manœuvres, and my noble Friend has confessed that last year the Fleet could not do what it was expected to do, because stokers were not ready. It is necessary in this country that we should be ready for any emergency at a moment's notice. We may lose our Empire unless every little detail is attended so. Instead of the stokers being trained in other and less important matters, they ought in time of peace to be thoroughly taught to do what would be their work in time of war. The whole system of training both bluejackets and stokers requires to be entirely altered. While at the Admiralty I was continually pointing out the extravagance and inutility of training men in a time of peace to do what they would not be required to do in a time of war. The men you get are no fools. You have only to teach them what they have to do, and they will do their level best to do it. I do not know how my noble Friend will get over that argument. Then there is the question of the Marines. My noble Friend says that he is going to increase the strength of the Marines. I am glad to hear it. Our coaling stations ought to be under the Admiralty and garrisoned by Marines. This would be done more efficiently than by ordinary soldiers, and Marines being long-service men, it would also be more economical, saving the expense of chartering ships for the purpose of bringing home detachments of ordinary Line regiments. I should like to see a Committee appointed to inquire into this subject of the garrisons. I am afraid you would soon find out that things are not as you think they are. The hon. and gallant Member for the Holderness Division (Commander Bethell) has spoken of the trouble into which the seamen get who were between boyhood and manhood. I think he was a Little too hard upon them.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I did not blame them.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: There was a time in my life when I was fond of a row. I would not give a fig for a

  1717
  man who has not the pluck to get into a row. The boys who had the pluck to be always in a pickle were the best in the school. I sincerely hope that the House will not regard the bluejacket as a bad character. If I was asked to pick out a gentleman I should select a bluejacket. He is one of the best men I can imagine. He may not wear fine clothes, but he has all the qualities that make a gentleman, and I am sure the First Lord will support me in saying that the personnel of the British Navy is better now than it has ever been in its history. No doubt there are bad characters on board ship as well as good, and the greatest trouble we have on the lower deck is in dealing with these bad characters. When we can get the services of bluejackets at an early age, and insure them a pension of £30 or more when they retire at the age of 48, we are able to secure the very best men in the country; and I do not see why we should burden such men in their messes with bad characters. Send all the bad characters out of the Service; or do as the German Army does. The Germans have a really splendid Army; but in Germany a man who has been in prison is not allowed to join the Army, but in case of war he is compelled to cart food about, and to do the dirty work of the Army. When I was in command of the Thunderer there were 18 habitual "break-leaves," who were nothing but a burden to their messmates, and were perpetually grumbling. I called them up and addressed them. They were treated kindly but firmly; and in the course of eight mouths there were only seven left out of the 18. That shows that the men will always support you if you show that you have their interest at heart. As to the seven men, I am bound to say that they were a curse to the ship; and no kindness or civility would do them any good. The best thing is to turn such men out of the Navy altogether. If my noble Friend will get rid of the bad men in the Navy, he will do a great deal to aid the officers in their work, and at the same time confer an enormous benefit on the men. I hope my noble Friend will be able to show that he is prepared to add to the Fleet the necessary number of officers, for, at the present time, there is a deficiency of
  1718
  something like 300 lieutenants. The present system of educating officers is very faulty. Both the German and the French systems are better than our own. In these days of steam and exact accuracy of the gun the first aim is to knock off the head of the captain you are fighting. [A Laugh.] That may sound somewhat laughable; but what will win an action is first, speed, then the helm, and third the head of the enemy's captain. The head of the enemy's captain is the most important; and in all foreign Navies that is recognized. It certainly ought to be the object. Consequently it is important that young officers should be thoroughly trained so that, if such a thing happens, they may be prepared at a moment's notice to take command of the ship. That ought to be one of the principal points in the education of a naval officer. I hope the noble Lord will think of the matters I have mentioned. I am certain they will have to be done eventually, and why should they not be done now, when the noble Lord is proposing this most necessary addition to the Fleet, of which I hope the House of Commons will approve?
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I only propose to trespass upon the attention of the Committee fur a very few moments, and I regret that I was unable to offer a few observations before the First Lord replied to, the first speakers. I should like, in the first place, to refer to the question of the pay of the engineers which has been alluded to. I think there is great inconvenience in bringing forward questions affecting the pay of individual classes in the Service. I do not regard it as part of my duty in this House to advocate increase of pay for any class. That responsibility belongs to the Admiralty. All that I can hope to do is to draw attention to the subject, and ask the Admiralty to consider it, and take the advice of some Departmental or outside Committee upon it. I regret that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) drew a comparison between the case of the doctors and that of the engineers. My own object in rising is to draw attention to another class—the lieutenants. I feel strongly that their case is a very hard one. Their claim has been met with one hand, but taken away with the other.

  1719
  The pay of the lieutenants has been increased, for lieutenants of eight and 12 years' standing on condition, that the first named should have had three years' service in a ship of war at sea, and the latter six years. The Admiralty do not appear to have taken into account that it is hardly fair to double the sea service for four years' seniority only. If three years are sufficient for lieutenants of eight years' service, six years must be wrong for 12 years' service. Four or four and a-half years ought to be quite sufficient. I hope that the Admiralty will take the matter into consideration, and any relaxation of the conditions would be regarded by the older officers as a great boon. I really think it is worth while to make some attempt to satisfy this most deserving class of officers who are serving now as lieutenants, and in all probability will obtain no higher rank. There is another question which earnestly demands attention. Lieutenants are deeply distressed at the way in which they are treated in respect of leave. Many of them complain of the gross breach of faith committed towards them by those in authority. When a lieutenant comes home he is entitled, in the ordinary course of things, to six weeks' leave; but frequently, owing to the dearth of lieutenants, he is ordered off again in a fortnight. Leave is looked upon by lieutenants as of the greatest importance, even of as much importance as pay and rank. Certainly, if men are deprived of leave, as lieutenants are, they ought to be given consideration in the form of pay. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Holderness Division (Commander Bethell) has spoken of the rating of leading seamen. I look upon leading seamen, especially for small vessels, as most valuable men, and I do not agree with his proposal to abolish the rating. As to the question of signalling, I heartily concur in the remarks made by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone. I believe that the question of connecting all the coastguard stations of the country with the Admiralty is now ripe for settlement. I trust that some effort will be made to bring about the connection. My attention has been called elsewhere to the importance of raising the status of engine-room artificers
  1720
  when in charge of torpedo or gun boats. I think there is something in their contention that when they are in charge of vessels, and absolutely doing the duty of engineers, warrant rank should be conceded to them. As to stokers, I think that it is extremely desirable that their training should be improved. You have already a school at hand. Why not double the number of stokers on the Indian troopers? That would be about the very best training ground you could; possibly have. Then, again, I share my noble Friend's view as to the garrisoning of certain coaling stations with Marines. I advocated this in the House last year, and I still think that there would be a great advantage in having Marines there under the orders of the Admiral in charge of the station. My noble Friend referred to the education of naval officers, and advocated a change in that education. I am fully in accord with my noble Friend when he says that the education of naval officers is a most important matter, but I cannot agree with him as to the advisability of changing it.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: The Committee recommended it.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: If my noble Friend is in accord with the recommendation of the Committee, then I withdraw my remarks. I will not trespass further upon the attention of the Committee, but will only, in conclusion, again draw the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the grievances, especially, of the lieutenants of the Navy.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a few observations as to the steam branch of the Navy, and am glad that the subject has been raised already by a civilian, inasmuch as we who are connected with Dockyard constituencies are often accused of partiality when we deal with these topics. My hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field) has taken the highly Constitutional view that the grievances of naval men ought to be examined by Departmental Committees. That is perfectly true, and that is exactly what has been done; but, unfortunately, the recommendations of Committees are not acted upon by the Admiralty. An hon. and gallant Friend who sits opposite asked a question the other day, and the answer he got was that various Committees had been ap-

  1721
  pointed to report as to the steam branch of the Navy, and that effect has been given to their recommendations. I traverse that statement entirely. I complain that the recommendations of these Committees have not been given effect to in many ways which I might mention. Now, I have known the engineer branch of the Service since 1855. I have seen its growth and development, and I have no hesitation in saying that its duties and responsibilities have increased enormously. Undoubtedly there have been improvements made in the position of the men; but neither the pay nor the position is by any means proportionate to the increase and development of the duties and responsibilities of this branch of the Navy. The engineers are greatly aggrieved that the recommendations of the various Committees have not been carried out in respect to their rank. Then there is the question of messing. The late Mr. Ward Hunt, when First Lord of the Admiralty, took the matter into consideration, and promised great improvement. Certainly great improvement has been effected, but as yet the engineers are not allowed the right of messing with the other officers of a ship at the Naval College at Greenwich. This is felt to be a great hardship. Allusion has been made to the rating of the engine-room artificers. The word "rating" conveys very little idea to the House of what is meant by it. Artificers are really not so much assistants to the engineer officers, but to a great extent substitutes for them. Some years ago we very largely reduced the number of engineer officers and introduced the rating of engine-room artificers, who do actually the very duties performed by engineer officers. For that reason artificers are in a position of great responsibility. My hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field) thinks that in some cases they might be rated as warrant officers. I go farther than he has gone, and think that after a certain term of service the rating of warrant officers ought to be granted to all these men. Now, with regard to stokers. It has been said that we are very short indeed of stokers, a most important branch of the Service. I think there is one way in which the number of stokers might be increased, and increased at
  1722
  very little expense to the Service. It has been remarked that there is a great difficulty found in forming a reserve of stokers; but I do not know the reason for it at all. Some years ago I had the temerity to suggest in the House a way of strengthening the Navy generally. I think, if it could be done, an interchangeability so to speak, between the Navy and the merchant service ought to be encouraged. The way in which we do that at present is to form a reserve consisting of men in the merchant service, who, when called for, are obliged to come for service in the Navy. The suggestion I made some time ago was that a certain number of bluejackets in the Navy should be allowed to go on leave into the merchant service, receiving, of course, their pay from that service. I do not wish to go into that matter now, because there are certain objections raised to it, but I do not think the same objections could be raised in the case of stokers. The stokers would be paid by the merchant service, and the only expense borne by the Naval Vote would be the prospective portion of pension, because it is necessary that the time the men spent in the merchant service should count in the fixing of the men's pensions. The result would be that we would have at least 500 men in the merchant service always available to be called upon in time of need. There is another matter connected with the discipline of the service which I desire to mention. It is a small matter, but nevertheless a sore one—namely, the question of saluting warrant officers. There are certain men in the Service who cannot attain to the rank of warrant officers—men in the position of ships' stewards and others—and it is considered rather hard that these men should be obliged to salute warrant officers when they meet them on shore. Practically warrant officers spring from the same rank in society as ships' stewards, and it is not the latter's fault that they cannot attain to the rank of warrant officers.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I should like to say I hope the Admiralty will press the Treasury to give them what is really necessary to establish a proper system of barrack accommodation for the Royal Navy. The very defect pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

  1723
  the Holderness Division (Commander Bethell) with regard to petty officers is due, I think, to the fact that, as the Navy is at present situated and organized, the chain of discipline cannot be maintained as efficiently and as well as it is in the Army, owing to the want of proper barrack accommodation in which to train young men and petty officers. There is another matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty—that is the great cost of the personnel of the Navy. I need give, I think, only one illustration. We are about to sanction the employment of 308 commissioned officers of the accountant branch—men whose simple duty it is to keep the books of the ships in commission. To these 308 men the country pays as much as £87,000 a-year. Now, that is due to the fact that the Navy has never been organized upon the basis of a continuous service system. We are struggling on with a system adapted to an exploded state of things. To emphasize the fact of the costliness of this accountant branch of the Service, let me point out that these 308 accountant officers cost £3,000 a-year more than the whole twelve companies corps of Royal Marine Artillery, numbering 2,500 officers and men. I entirely and most cordially support the views that have been expressed with regard to the garrisoning of the coaling stations. I am sure that anyone who has studied the whole question of the work to be done in time of war must come to the conclusion that the whole of the forces at a distant naval station should be under the command of the Admiral of that station. By such a plan we should save a considerable amount of money in the matter of Transport and Staff. We would get real efficiency and economy, and we would not have dual control on our foreign naval stations. I also desire to say it is not right in these days to misapply, or rather not to employ, the Marine Artillery Force created at the cost of the country. I can speak from experience and personal knowledge, and am quite certain of this—that no other country in the world would tolerate that you should, at the cost of the country, educate, train, and turn out a Marine Artillery Force which you do not know what to do with when you have got it. We have Artillery officers who cost this country large sums of money
  1724
  to train, not one of whom is employed in artillery work, while at present we have to break up the Horse Artillery to find artillerymen for our coaling stations. I am persuaded that the more this matter is looked into the more it will appear that the organization of the Navy needs amendment, and adapting to the requirements of modern times.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): The discussion has ranged over a very large number of topics, mainly of a very technical character, into which I will not attempt to enter. It might be supposed, from certain observations made in debate, that the Board of Admiralty is a body of laymen who have not the advantage of the advice of some of the most eminent naval officers as to the discipline and the general arrangements of the Service. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford) has again brought up the question of signalling, and has led the Committee to suppose that the Admiralty has not paid the necessary attention to that important work of the Service. But when I remind the noble Lord that seamen of the large sea-going experience of Admiral Bosanquet, Captain Clark, Captain Durrant, and Admiral Dowell, have been the advisers of the Board in this matter, and that the recommendations of the Bating Committee have also been concurred in by the Committee on Signalling, I think the noble Lord will admit that those gallant officers are qualfied to give such advice as my noble Friend the First Lord can follow. With regard, again, to the stokers, great attention has been paid in the past year or two to the object of obtaining in times of emergency the best-trained stokers in the world. The stokers in the merchant steamers are constantly at work; they have to keep their boilers at high pressure for the long voyages to the East and to America, and they are really the best men we can have as reserve stokers. Relaxations have been made in the regulations affecting the joining of reserve stokers which we hope will lead to a large accession of numbers. The question raised in regard to the engineers and their rank has been fully dealt with by my noble Friend the First Lord; but I wish just to say this—that in regard to the pay which engineers

  1725
  and others in the Service should receive, we must have some regard to the rates at which men in similar positions are paid in other employ—say, in the Mercantile Service. The highest pay in mercantile vessels for engineers and in ships that are continually crossing the Atlantic is £300 a-year, while engineers in the Royal Navy can rise in pay—including emoluments—to £600; so I think it must be said that the engineers in the Navy are reasonably and fairly dealt with. As regards rank there is a difficulty. At present engineers rank with, but after, lieutenants. If they were accorded equal rank absolutely with lieutenants a difficulty might arise which naval men will appreciate. It might so happen that a lieutenant might be called upon, through the death of a superior officer, to take command of a ship, yet if the suggestion of putting engineers upon an equality with lieutenants were followed out, we might find that the engineer, was the senior officer of the ship. That might be the ridiculous position in which the ship would be placed if the question of relative rank were pushed to its extreme limit as suggested. We are perfectly alive to the necessity of increasing the number of officers, and if my noble Friend will refer to the Estimates he will find that subordinate officers have been increased in number by 141, namely, 65 midshipmen, 18 clerks, and 58 Naval cadets. This increase will go in the subordinate ranks until they are sufficient. Then my hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field) has referred to the question of lieutenants. It will be observed that for the past 12 months the position and pay of lieutenants have been improved at the cost of something like £18,300 a year to the nation, and that I think is fair testimony to the consideration shown by the Board to lieutenants in the Service. I do not know that there are any other matters to deal with. I may just mention that communication between coastguard stations has been carried out to a considerable extent, and that considerable sums of money have been taken for putting up the necessary semaphores.
  DR. CAMERON: The noble Lord opposite (Lord Charles Beresford), to whom we all listen with so much interest on naval affairs, resigned his position in the Admiralty
  1726
  because in his opinion sufficient attention was not paid to the Intelligence Department of the Navy, and I wish to call attention to a point which illustrates the position he took. In other countries, I understand, and especially in Germany, there is to be found at the Admiralty, as at the War Office, an elaborate Intelligence Department, and in this Intelligence Department there are plans of campaign adapted to every variety of circumstances, and the consequence is, that if war breaks out, say between Germany and another Power, every captain of a German war ship sails with sealed orders giving him directions what to do under these or those circumstances, and it is possible for those at the head of affairs by simply telegraphing a single cipher word to all their stations to direct what steps should be taken, where vessels should rendezvous, and what they are to do. Nothing of the kind exists at our Admiralty. We are absolutely without any plans of campaign, and if war were to suddenly break out, we should rind our Fleet scattered over the face of the globe, and probably be unable to utilize it before the war would be over. This is what the noble Lord complained of. A question which I put the other day will illustrate the great importance of this to the honour and interest of the country, and it arises out of occurrences in Samoa. I called attention the other day by question to an account given by Mr. Stevenson, the well-known writer of events in that Island. I asked, among other things, if it was true that a British subject—an artist—had been forcibly seized on board a British vessel by German authorities, and taken on board a German war steamer, and had only been released after the commander of a British man-of-war in the neighbourhood had emphasized his demand by clearing his decks for action. I was told by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that it was quite true that a British subject had been so seized, but the right hon. Gentleman said he did not know whether if was a fact that the British commander had cleared his decks for action. Since I received that answer, I have been supplied with some further information, from which it appears that H.M.S. Lizard was at Samoa, and the captain in consequence

  1727
  of the adoption of certain high-handed proceedings by German authorities there, invited British residents to hoist the British flag as a protection for their property, but it appears that afterwards another British ship—the Royalist I think—arrived, and her captain refused to endorse the instructions of the captain of the Lizard, thereby snowing that the two captains had no instructions how to act in such cases. But the other matter to which I have alluded is of still greater importance. If a British man-of-war clears her decks for action preparatory to engaging with a German man of-war, under circumstances in which, I must say, I think her captain was right, I should imagine that is a matter of sufficient gravity to demand an immediate report to the Government of this country; and I think the representatives of the Government here, in the face of such a grave event, should be prepared to give us some information on the subject. But we have nothing of the sort. I have drawn attention to this lack of information in relation to other matters. We have had bombardments of native settlements all round the Pacific. Now and again we see in the Press a report that H.M.S. so-and-so has bombarded such and such an island, and whenever I have seen such accounts I have asked for Papers giving information on the subject, and I must say the noble Lord has admitted the reasonableness of the request, has consented without cavil, and sooner or later we have had the Papers, but not until long after the event has been chronicled in the newspapers. Now I do not wish to underrate the responsibilities of captains on far away stations. I know it is necessary to allow much freedom of action to them, but surely in regard to an occurrence which, if the account is correct, approached very near the verge of an act of war, the Commander should forthwith report all the circumstances to the Government, so that at the first available opportunity the Government might communicate its views on the subject. Now in regard to this seizure of a British subject at Samoa, it appears to me to be a matter of great international importance of which notice should be taken, and taken emphatically, in this House. It appears that this British subject—an artist—happened to have been sketching (among other places) in the camp of the
  1728
  chief whom the Germans are pleased to call the "rebel" chief, and he had gone on board the British ship Richmond. He was accused by the German authorities of being a spy. Well, it appears to me that according to International law, even if he had been a spy, he having got out of the territory where the Germans were carrying on warlike operations, and being within British jurisdiction on board a British ship, which is equivalent to British territory, the German authorities had no earthly right to drag him from the ship Richmond.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the discussion of the action of the German authorities is relevant to the Vote.
  DR. CAMERON: I do not propose to discuss the consent of the German authorities. What I did mean to discuss is the manner in which the Admiralty, or the Government, as we were told the day before yesterday, had received no information whatever regarding an action of one of their naval commanders under circumstances of the utmost gravity—which might have involved a question of peace or war between this country and a friendly Power. So far from saying anything invidious against the German Government, I am a great admirer of Germany.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This is not relevant to the Vote. The hon. Member is in order in discussing the conduct of an officer whose pay is concerned in this Vote, but he should not go outside that question.
  DR. CAMERON: I at once submit to your ruling, Sir. What I would comment on is this—the want of definite instructions, which, as I have said, exist in other countries as to how naval officers should act under certain contingencies, and the want of any arrangements which should compel an officer engaged in naval command at a distant station at once to communicate with the Admiralty in case a belligerent action should be imposed upon him. In connection with the Pacific Islands, there have been numerous instances illustrating what I mean, and when we have founded a question on information derived from the Press, invariably we have found that the noble Lord knew nothing about the matter, or he could not give the information off-hand. In many cases what have proved to be very highhanded actions have been performed in

  1729
  attacking these Islands, and what I complain of is that the Admiralty does not command all its naval officers on foreign stations at once to communicate any serious action on their part in order that they may receive instructions how to act. I am certain if that were done aborigines in different parts of the world would be spared a considerable amount of bombardment, and officers would think twice before they undertook actions which undoubtedly in some few instances have been conducted with considerable disregard to what calmer people would consider international rights. I have referred to Samoa because it illustrates the danger that exists not merely to poor islanders who never do us any harm, but to our relations with a great and powerful nation with whom we are on friendly terms, in not having an immediate Report submitted in order that the Government may take action. I think it is a matter which concerns the honour of this country that any Report of this sort should be at once made known to the nation. I believe it would greatly tend to lessen the danger of complications with any friendly Power if it were known that this House is jealous of the rights of British subjects abroad and determined that no insult should be offered without calling it in question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR: I would just like to say a word or two with reference to Samoa and to the Pacific generally, and first I would point out to the Committee that getting information regarding events that take place in the Pacific—events which may at any time bring us in conflict with Germany and some other Power—does not depend altogether upon Consular information to the Foreign Office, because in most of the small islands which are sought to be grabbed, if I may use the expression, by various European Powers, there are no English Consuls, and the only information we can receive comes through the commanders of men-of-war, who call at these various small ports. At the end of last Session the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) gave me a very courteous answer with reference to a man-of-war being sent to
  1730
  Samoa, and he said the Royalist would proceed there for the protection of British subjects. That is all very well, and I do not wish now to enter upon any discussion as to how the commander of the Royalist discharged his duties; but I am entitled to think, and I believe also that the Australian Colonies will think, that there is a very singular want of information received by the Government as to the state of affairs at Samoa and other places in the Pacific, and as to the means by which, as it appears to me, English influence has been suffered to relax and to be degraded. I may point out that this is a matter upon which Australians naturally feel extremely jealous. It is English influence in the Pacific, after all, that is responsible for any civilization that is there. All civilization there has been due to Englishmen, to English ships, and to English missionaries, and not a single Power besides has done anything in that direction. I think, therefore, that the people of Australia have a right to complain of this want of information, and also that there do not appear to be sufficient instructions given as to what is to be done in case of certain eventualities in the Pacific. I would venture to say there is hardly a commander of a man-of-war on the station who has distinct instructions what he should do. In my short experience, and since I have interested myself in the affairs of the Pacific, I have known a number of instances where conflicts have arisen, and where there was no Report sent to England except by the commander of an English man-of-war, and I may say that I have never known an instance where the commander had a single definite instruction, or the faintest notion what he ought to do under a given state of circumstances. The result has generally been that the commander has done nothing, fearing to do something which would be contrary to the policy of the Government and so get rapped over the knuckles. I do not say he is to blame; probably I should act the same way myself under similar circumstances. However, English subjects have been left very much to their own devices, without any protection at all from their Government. I most strongly second the appeal of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), that in all cases the

  1731
  Admiralty should instruct their commanders to make a definite and immediate Report upon circumstances which come under their notice, and seem to tend against British interests. It could hardly do much to embarrass the Government, and it might be of enormous importance to all our commerce there, not only with Australia, but the whole Pacific, and British subjects should be able to feel themselves in the position of being sure of the protection of those from whom they might naturally claim it. I am quite sure that the noble Lord himself is most desirous that British interests should be protected.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: After your ruling, Sir, to the effect that it is competent for any hon. Member to bring on any question affecting the conduct of any officer whose pay comes out of this Vote, I would ask whether I am entitled to bring on a subject, of which I have given notice in a Motion, but which I was not able to move? It affects the conduct of several officers employed in the Naval Manœuvres last year, and whose pay comes within the Vote now before the House. What I desire to bring under notice is the conduct of officers who went about executing pretended raids upon unprotected towns, and levying pretended requisitions upon the inhabitants of those towns.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question is relevant to the Vote; it appears to me to be a question of policy, and the right hon. Gentleman's remarks should be directed to the Admiralty Vote.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Then I will take the opportunity to bring the question forward upon the Admiralty Vote, No. 13.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I will only detain the House a few minutes with the Motion of which I have given notice. A Conservative paper, a few days ago, challenged any Radical Member of Parliament to point out how a single sixpence might be saved in the Estimates for the Services. I am not unwilling to take up that challenge. I hold in my hand the Naval List for the current month. There I find the Royal yacht Osborne, 1,850 tons, has the following complement of superior
  1732
  officers—namely, a commander, 2 lieutenants, a staff commander, a staff surgeon, a staff engineer, and an assistant paymaster in charge. I find also that the Victoria and Albert, another Royal yacht, 2,470 tons, has the following complement of superior officers—viz., a captain, a commander, two lieutenants, a staff commander, a fleet surgeon, a fleet paymaster, a fleet engineer, an assistant paymaster, and an assistant engineer. This yacht has also two tenders, the Alberta, and the Elfin. The Alberta has, I find, for superior officers, a staff captain and a fleet engineer, and the other tender, the Elfin, has a staff commander and an engineer. In other words, these yachts have as large a complement of officers as a battle-ship of the first line. What the actual cost may be at the present time, of course, it is very difficult, if not impossible, precisely to ascertain; but I have referred to the last Return we have on the subject, presented in 1883, and I find there that the total annual cost of pay, allowance, and victualling for officers and crew of this fleet of Royal yachts was £34,480. Now, I think I should be perfectly justified if I moved to reduce the total cost by one-half; but I am anxious not to leave to hon. Members opposite any reasonable excuse for declining to vote with me. I have, therefore, selected two items, two especial and specific items, relating to these yachts, amounting together to £80—the allowances to the navigating lieutenant of the Osborne, and the staff commander of the Victoria and Albert for a charge for state furniture. Now, I submit this is absolutely indefensible in the first place, for it is ridiculous that a charge for state furniture should be put down especially for the Naval Service; and if it were necessary to establish an expenditure of this kind, it is clear that the navigating lieutenant and commander are not the proper persons to be trusted with it. When a proposition of this kind is brought forward, vested interests are generally urged against it. In this case, however, no vested interest can possibly arise; you cannot have a vested interest in a mere allowance. Of course, when the service is discontinued, the allowance ceases, and with it all claims for compensation. For these reasons I beg to

  1733
  move the Motion which stands in my name on the paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,201,620, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  LORD G. HAMILTON: All the officers serving in Her Majesty's ships who are in charge of valuable stores receive additional remuneration and are liable for any deficiencies. The emoluments attached to those particular duties are—in the Victoria and Albert £25, and in the Osborne £30. These payments are made in accordance with the general practice in the service.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Does the noble Lord consider "state furniture" naval stores?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, certainly; and far more valuable than most stores.
  DR. CAMERON: Will the noble Lord reply to the points I raised a few moments ago?
  DR. TANNER: Before this subject is disposed of, there is another matter I should like to mention as requiring consideration. It is in connection with the appointment of a certain foreign nobleman to a certain post in the Navy. Of course, having been recently imprisoned—["Hear, hear!"]—yes; it is a circumstance of which I am proud—I do not know whether this foreign nobleman still holds his appointment in Her Majesty's Navy, but I presume he does. I should like to know how it comes to pass that, with such a patriotic Government in existence, we have these foreign noblemen placed in these positions—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member evidently does not appreciate the fact that there is a specific Amendment before the Committee which must be dealt with.
  DR. TANNER: I understood that the Amendment had reference to the Royal yachts generally, and not merely to the furniture in them. If, however, the Amendment deals only with furniture, I would point out that the furniture of Prince Leiningen—who is neither ornamental or useful—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER: If I am not in order in going into this now, Sir, I will raise the point at a future stage.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66 Noes 160.—(Div. List, No. 20.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  DR. CAMERON: I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now say whether any progress has been made with the construction of am effective Intelligence Department in connection with the Admiralty? The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone has rendered immense service to the country by pressing upon the Government the formation of such a Department, and I had hoped that the noble Lord's resignation would have secured the serious attention of the Government to the matter. I would ask the noble Lord to reply on that point, and also to tell us whether any information has been received from the Commander in Samoa as to the action he took against the German war-ships in connection with the forcible abduction of a British subject from a British vessel?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Naval Intelligence Department is in a most efficient working condition. Every single officer in the Service has definite instructions what to do in these cases. The reason why the Government has not received such late intelligence from Samoa as has been received by private agencies is because the captain of the man-of-war there observed the well-known and universal rule of communicating all particulars to his Commander-in-Chief.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: We really must take these two Votes together—the Army as well as the Navy. We find that there is to be an increase in the number of men for the Army, and the First Lord of the Admiralty told us the other day that when the new ships are built we shall have an increase of 3,000 men in the Navy. Now, I do object to all these extensions of our armaments. Everybody who raises such objections, I know perfectly well, is told that he is unpatriotic; but I do not favour the patriotism which is considered to be proved by the reckless voting of any proposal for increased expenditure. I am determined, always and invariably, to divide the House

  1735
  whenever I see these 30 millions sterling per annum, which we expend on the two Services, exceeded. Although I desire to see the country in possession of a strong and efficient Navy, I think 30 millions a-year is quite enough to spend on this species of insurance. If, at any time, you want more, take it from the amount spent on the Army, which, I think, will easily bear reduction. I think the country is determined that there shall be reasonable economy in our defences, and that these perpetual increases shall not continue. In 1848 the amount spent on the Army and Navy was only 18 millions. Have we been invaded since then—have we been conquered since that time? Not at all. We have been attacking other people, but have remained secure ourselves. I always distrust those gentlemen who "ask for more" in connection with the Army and Navy. When I heard the big Jingo drum being beat before Parliament met I knew what the game was. I knew we should have demands for more money, more men, more marines, more stokers. Things are not going well with the Government at home, and they want to draw a red herring across the trail. I am opposed to the whole thing, and I move that the Vote be reduced by £89,500, being the cost of wages, &c., for the extra 3,000 men.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,112,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. PICTON: I rise cordially to support the Amendment, of the hon. Member for Northampton, and do so on the ground that no reason whatever has been given for any increase of expenditure such as should justify a man of common sense increasing his household expenses. There ought to be some reason given. We have increased the expenses of the Navy enormously, and that in a year which we have been assured by Her Majesty in the Speech from the Throne is one of profound peace. Unless some cause is shown—some threatened danger to the country—I do contend that we ought not to allow a single shilling of increased expenditure to be paid for increased armaments. Hon. Members do not, I think, appreciate the enormous waste which goes on
  1736
  in matters of this kind. Were it not for the terrible drain on our industries necessitated by the immense expenditure upon our Army and Navy, I am pursuaded that the workers in the country would be far better off than they are. Our imports and exports are continually increasing; capitalists are making money still—perhaps not so fast as they desire, for they never do that—but still they are making money, whilst complaints are heard on every hand on the part of the industrial population. No one would grudge spending money on the Army and Navy if there were a common-sense probability of danger to the country; but what the working classes complain of is that money should be extracted from them on dreamy grounds of remote and improbable, and almost impossible, contingencies, which no man in his senses expects to happen. On these grounds I cordially support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
  DR. CLARK: I have much pleasure in supporting the reduction, because I do not want to see any of that insane rivalry in fleets of which we see so much in regard to armies on the Continent. The expenditure on the Army and Navy in all countries is becoming heavier and heavier, because every one is trying to have more powerful forces than his neighbour. If we now increase our Navy, there will be some Jingo or other in Prance who will want to increase the French Navy; and when an increase is effected in the French Navy, there will be a demand made by the Jingoes in this country for a further increase of our Navy, and so on. As H.M.S. Sultan has gone to the bottom the Government will have the Navy strengthened by her full complement of men, so that the number of men and marines now asked for will not be required.
  MR. COSSHAM: We have heard a great many conflicting opinions on this subject, but one thing is clear—namely, that all gentlemen connected with the naval services want to get hold of more money. Though they cannot agree as to how it is to be expended, they all agree in this, that they must have more from the National purse. We are wasting to a large extent the National resources. Depend

  1737
  upon it that sooner or later these extravagant expenditure will come home to us. The poverty of this country—notwithstanding its wealth on the one hand—is increasing. [Laughter.] Yes; I say that the wealth is increasing amongst certain men, but poverty is increasing in larger numbers. [Renewed laughter.] I am speaking of what I know. The poverty of the country is becoming a sad scene of trouble to us, and a sad scene of danger to us, and I am sure that unless we look at the question carefully, before long it will become a matter of great danger to us. I hear our right hon. Gentleman very much exercised as to an increase of the Navy. Another is exercised as to the expenditure on the Navy; but there is far more danger from this increase of armaments than from anything else. The rivalry is continually going on, and the result is, we are bringing the whole of Europe into such a condition that there is danger for us all. If we increase our Navy on the one hand, another Power increases its Navy, so that the relative position is unchanged. I do ask the House to put a stop to this rivalry that is going on. I support with all my heart and might the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I hope he will press it to a division. [Laughter.] Those who laugh to-day will have to appear before their constituents, and when they do—and my impression is that it will be much sooner than many of them expect—this effort to increase the national expenditure will be one of the things they will have to face. I believe the time is not far distant when the rule that is applied to those who are on the business of the House will also be applied to Members of this House who receive pay in the Services to which they vote money. There are so many Members of this House interested in this expenditure that when persons like myself, representing those on whom taxation bears heavily, try to call attention to it, they are laughed at by the very men who receive pay in the Military and Naval Services.
  DR. TANNER, who rose amidst laughter from below the Ministerial Gangway: I like to treat that laughter with the contempt it deserves.
  1738
  Excuse me if I refer to the more important point which has been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman who sits on this Front Bench beneath me. I think that there are many questions connected with the Navy, and with the men who are employed in the Navy, that deserve some consideration from Members of this House. There is one point that I should like to get a specific answer upon from the First Lord of the Admiralty. I should like to know how it comes to pass that Catholics—and I speak as an Irish Protestant—are boycotted when they endeavour to enter the Navy. I should like hon. Members to look into this question, and ascertain how it comes to pass that in the South of Ireland, where we possess a body of fishermen, of men who are trained to the sea and to seafaring work, when these men come forward and try to get into the Royal Navy their services are rejected. I can tell the First Lord of the Admiralty that I have received information, not from any gentleman who sits on this side of the House, but from officers of the Royal Navy who belong to the same Party as the noble Lord, which is of a character such as to justify me in asking him to look into this matter. Let him see how many Irishmen or Irish fishermen—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member's observations are not relevant to the proposed reduction of the Vote.
  DR. TANNER: I thought, Sir, that this Vote was attacked by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, who moved a reduction of the Vote in consequence of there being already sufficient men in the Navy, and I wanted, if I might be permitted, to point out how it was that really we want a recruiting ground to make the Navy efficient and effective, if we want to continue true union—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must again point out that the hon. Member's remarks are not relevant.
  DR. TANNER: Mr. Courtney, I always accept your ruling, and, Sir, as long as I remain in this House I shall always do the same. Well, Sir, that point may not be pressed, but I shall take an opportunity of bringing it to the attention of the noble Lord. Of course, we can easily understand why

  1739
  Her Majesty's Government at a time like the present, when they have got their coercion and intimidation in force in England as well as in Ireland, come forward and try to promote, not the welfare of the men of the Royal Navy, not of the able seamen or the privates—no, no, Sir, it is not for that reason that money is to be spent—but in order to swell the salaries of the younger sons of aristocratic houses. Everybody knows that the major portion of the officers of the Royal Navy is composed of these sons of aristocratic houses—aristocratic to a degree. I sincerely hope this money will not be voted, and I trust hon. Members will inquire into the facts and endeavour by every means in their power to prevent money being spent in order to swell the purses of an impoverished aristocracy and a discredited Pigottist faction.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 186.—(Div. List, No. 21).
  Original Question again proposed.
  DR. CAMERON: There is a rather, important question arising on this Vote in connection with Scotland, and that is the frequent employment of Naval Forces and Marines on expeditions to the Highlands. On several occasions I have protested against the men being thus employed, and on one occasion I obtained from the then Secretary to the Admiralty an undertaking that greater care should be exercised in sanctioning the use of the Naval Forces in this way than had previously been displayed. Now, Sir, I wish to point out to the noble Lord that the employment of the Naval Forces in that part of the country has a most injurious effect in rendering the Naval Service of Her Majesty unpopular, on a ground which, above all others, is eminently adapted for the purposes of a recruiting ground. In the Western Highlands there is a race of hardy seafaring men, who are only too anxious to join Her Majesty's Naval Service, and who do, at the present time, largely serve Her Majesty as Naval Volunteers. It is suggested that emigration should be promoted among these people, but they might, with more advantage, be employed in the Mercantile Navy, so as to take the places now filled by thousands of foreigners in our
  1740
  merchant ships. Among the recommendations made in the Report of the Crofters Commission was one that naval training ships should be established along the shores of the Western Highlands; but for some reason or other Her Majesty's Government have not paid any attention to that recommendation. I must, however, protest against the employment of naval forces in connection with matters which ought only to come within the functions of the civil authorities and the police. The question of the employment of the military in connection with such things was ably dealt with in the admirable memorandum issued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) when he was Home Secretary; but, unfortunately, since he left office the position he laid down has not been adhered to. I trust the noble Lord will be able to give us some assurance that none of the large increase which is proposed in the force of marines shall be employed in carrying out martial law and striking terror into the hearts of the Crofters in the Western Highlands; and that among his projects for strengthening the Navy he will avail himself of the recommendation made by the Crofters Commission for the establishment off the coasts of the Hebrides of training ships which would have the advantage of being fed by a population admirably fitted for Her Majesty's naval service, and who, as seafaring men, as soldiers, and as fighting men, are unsurpassed by any class of people in this kingdom.
  DR. CLARK: I would also ask the noble Lord whether he will give us the assurance requested by my hon. Friend? If not, I shall be prepared to move a reduction of the Vote.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) has expressed a wish that a certain number of Highland Crofters should go into the merchant service, and for my part I think it would be a good thing if they did, because if they would only undertake that kind of service there would be no reason for sending the Marines into the Highlands to ensure the execution of the law. But I am unable to give the assurance asked for, because when the necessity arises the

  1741
  military force must be used in support of the civil power.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask a question with reference to the gunboat stationed in Bantry Bay. Is it the intention of the Admiralty in future to utilize that gunboat as a sort of steam packet for the conveyance of the forces of the Crown on particular occasions, instead of making use of the existing steam packet service?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I believe it is true that the gunboat referred to is occasionally employed in the manner stated, and I do not see any objection to that arrangement.
  DR. CAMERON: Before the Vote is passed I should like to ask what will be the next Vote?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have succeeded in protracting the discussion of this Vote until midnight, and therefore, in accordance with the promise made by the First Lord of the Treasury, the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates cannot now be taken. But there is now an end of the matter. In consequence of the discussion which has gone on for the last hour, the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates cannot now be taken. It was distinctly understood that the Supplementary Civil Service Votes would be brought on at an earlier hour; and if any inconvenience is now caused, owing to the days for which they are put down, the responsibility will not rest with the Government. The Civil Service Estimates will be put down for to-morrow.
  DR. CAMERON: I wish to point out, in reply to the lecture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if the Leader of the House had adhered to the pledge he gave on Wednesday night this difficulty would not have occurred.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) £1,061,100, Victualling and Clothing for the Navy.
  MR. W. J. LANE: I wish to call attention to a matter connected with this Vote. I have just received three letters from gentlemen in the City of Cork who are staunch supporters of Her Majesty's Government. They have for many years been contractors to the Government for the supply of pork to the Admiralty, and they complain that the contracts have
  1742
  now been given to Danish firms. I need not say that such contracts are of the greatest importance to the whole community in the South of Ireland. They are important to the landlord because they enable him to get his rent from the tenant; they are of importance to the shopkeeper because they give the farmers more money to spend; and they are of moment to mercantile communities such as the City of Cork because they afford employment for so many people. I believe, in fact, that in Cork City, these contracts gave constant employment to fully 500 people. One of my correspondents writes—
  "It is a great shame that the Government should give the best part of the Navy contract to the Danes. Up to the present time we in Cork have provided the supply for Haulbow-line—which was about one-third of the whole contract—but this year all the contracts have teen given to Copenhagen."
  The loss to Cork is about 3,930 casks, or, in cash, £25,000, and this all goes to a foreign shore. Surely the Admiralty ought to have very strong grounds for giving preference to the foreigner, and I believe that taxpayers and the community at large have great and just reasons for finding fault with the Admiralty Department in this matter. Another gentleman writes—
  "The difference in price, is I believe, about 5 per cent, and, taking into account the quality, I think our pork would be cheaper in the end to the Navy."
  The third gentleman writes—
  "I hope that your action may, in some measure, redress the wrong under which the South of Ireland is suffering."
  This shows what the loyal supporters of the present Government think of the action of the Admiralty in this matter. If it be true that the saving is only equal to 5 per cent, and that the quality of the Danish pork is inferior, I say there is no justification for taking £25,000 out of Irish trade channels and giving it to a foreigner. We hear a great deal about protection of home industries and of the desirability of encouraging the farmers of this country; but what is the use of all this talk on the Conservative benches if, when there is an opportunity of practically benefiting the agricultural community, the Government neglect it, and instead get their supplies from a foreign source?

  1743
  I have no desire, Mr. Courtney, to trespass unduly on the time of the Committee, but I think this is a case of great hardship and injustice, and I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will see if it is in his power to give us some assistance and some share of the Navy patronage. I believe the Admiralty have never complained of the class of goods supplied by the Cork contractors, and I hope that in future our claims will have fuller consideration.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I agree that it is desirable, where possible, to foster our home industries. It has been the practice of the Admiralty to give a slight preference to home growers, but it was impossible for them to put aside the lowest tenders in favour of those which were higher. The difference in the price embodied in the tenders influenced the Department in refusing the Irish tenders. These are the main grounds for which the alteration has been made; but if the hon. Gentleman will get the merchants of Cork to take a little more trouble to improve the quality of their goods, I do not think they need fear competition from the Danes or from any country in the world.
  MR. LANE: I cannot take any exception to the tone of the noble Lord's reply, but I do wish he had given us some idea as to the difference in price between the successful and unsuccessful contractors, which, he says, justified the Department in refusing the Irish tenders. I should be glad if he will also state if there has been a specific case of complaint against the Irish contractors which would justify the Government taking the contracts from them? We ought certainly to be allowed to supply the stores at Haulbowline.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am afraid I cannot give those particulars to-night; but if the hon. Member will hand me the correspondence I will inquire further into the matter.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I wish to call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to a small matter connected with rations issued to the Navy. I am not going to pass any general criticisms on the general rations served to the
  1744
  men; but occasionally we have to make exceptional demands on the men, and to turn them out at an early hour for very hard labour. Now, it has always been found that the work is done better if the men get some additional rations on these special occasions, and that it is better too for the men. The power to issue these extra rations is one we used to possess, and it was greatly appreciated by the men, as well as immensely beneficial to the work, and I think that it is an indulgence which might now be granted, under proper control.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I will look into the matter. It was before the Board of Admiralty some time ago, but somehow it has escaped attention.
  Vote agreed to.
  Progress reported.
  House resumed.

  TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL.
    SECOND READING.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 25th March.
MOTIONS.

  BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES) PREVENTION BILL.
  On Motion of Lord Randolph Churchill, Bill for the more effectual Prevention and Punishment of Bribery and Corruption of and by Members, Officers, or Servants of Corporations, Councils, Boards, Commissions, or other Public Bodies, ordered to be brought in by Lord Randolph Churchill, Sir Henry James, Sir Robert Fowler, Mr. Jennings, and Mr. Richard Power.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 158.]

  DEATHS FROM STARVATION (METROPOLIS)
  Address for "Return of the number of al Deaths in the Metropolitan District in the year 1888, upon which a coroner's jury have returned a verdict of Death from Starvation, or Death accelerated by Privation (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 185, of Session 1888)."—(Mr. John Talbot.)
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

EARL OF LUCAN'S CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl of Lucan to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such Report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland: And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford—Took the Oath for the first time.

LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT (LIGHT) RAILWAY BILL.
The Second Reading, which stood appointed for this day, was put off to Thursday, the 28th inst.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON, &C.) BILL. (NO. 19.)
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Act, 1870, to enable the School Boards for Acton, Chiswick, and Liverpool to put in force the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same—Presented by The Lord President (V. Cranbrook); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

H.M.S. "SULTAN."
LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Seeing the noble Lord who represents
1618
the Admiralty in his place, I wish to ask whether he can give the House any information as to the condition of Her Majesty's ship Sultan?
LORD ELPHINSTONE: We received the following telegram at the Admiralty this afternoon:—

"Malta, 1.30.—Heavy north-east gale, with high sea, forced Sultan off rock. She sank at 11·45. Upper works visible above water. No loss of life. Ships returning into harbour."
That is really, my Lords, all the information we have. We are anxiously waiting despatches, but at present we have no fresh information.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BILLS—STANDING ORDER, NO. 128.—OBSERVATIONS.
EARL BEAUCHAMP, in rising to call attention to the Return presented to the House last September, relating to the Payment of Interest out of Capital* said: My Lords, this Return, although small in size, is, I think, very instructive, and I should be very sorry indeed, if it were consigned to that insatiable gulf of oblivion to which so many Parliamentary papers find their way. My Lords, the question of the payment of interest out of capital is not a new one. In the year 1847, after the panic which followed the great extension of our Rail way system and the Railway Legislation which took place just before that time, a Standing Order was passed by your Lordships, which remained in force for a great number of years, providing that
* RETURN (ordered 2nd August, 1888) of the cases in which Payment of Interest out of Capital has been sanctioned under Standing Order 128, as altered 27th May, 1886, with the amounts of Capital authorized by the several Acts, and stating the result as far as known (No. 247).

1619
in every Bill dealing with Railways a clause should be inserted prohibiting the payment of interest out of capital. I will not now argue that question, because I think it will be generally admitted, even by those who a few years ago persuaded your Lordships to alter the practice and to accommodate it to the altered Standing Orders of the House of Commons, that the Standing Order in question was wise and sound, and that it had a beneficial effect upon Railway legislation. What was contended was that the acceptance of the Standing Order which prohibited the payment of interest out of capital hampered and crippled Railway enterprize and prevented the carrying out of many useful undertakings, undertakings which were useful in a public sense, and also useful as a means of affording employment, and that in consequence it was in some way a restraint upon labour. Various Railway Companies endeavoured in the September of 1882 to obtain from Parliament a relaxation of that Standing Order, but in that year the attempt was unsuccessful. The question was allowed to slumber for some time, but after various phases of agitation, your Lordships, in the year 1886, sanctioned the alteration, and brought your practice into conformity with what had been adopted by the House of Commons and recommended by a small Committee of your Lordships' House. That variation did not go to the extent of sweeping away the restriction upon payment of interest out of capital, but it gave power to the Committees, under certain stringent conditions, to allow such payment. My Lords, it has proved to have been a mistake to suppose that this alteration would enable Railway Companies who had been struggling with financial difficulties to triumph over them, and to embark on a successful career, which would be profitable to themselves, and also afford occupation to deserving men who were unemployed. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to this fact—that it was contended that the alteration of the Standing Order would stimulate enterprize, and provide employment for labour; and, therefore, I will ask your Lordships to consider what has been the result. Have the results been commensurate with the expectations prophesied by those who came to
1620
your Lordships? Have the results been large or small? Now, the Return submitted to your Lordships is a
"Return of cases in which Payment of Interest out of Capital has been sanctioned under Standing Order 128, as altered 27 May, 1886, with the amounts of capital authorized by the several Acts, and stating the result as far as known."
I invite your Lordships to consider what have been the consequences of this alteration as tested by experience. Has it produced financial ease in the case of Railway Companies who found it difficult to raise their capital? Has it afforded employment to the unemployed, or has there been no such effect? The first railway I find mentioned here is the Regent's Canal, City, and Docks Railway. The Bill for that undertaking was passed in 1882, when the old Standing Order was in force, and the power to pay interest out of capital was not granted to this Company till 1885. Their authorized capital was £8,100,000, and after deducting £1,500,000 for the capital applicable to the Canal part of the undertaking, there was left for the Railway £6,600,000. The amount of capital which they were authorized under the Standing Order to apply to payment and interest was £660,000. The Return is "nothing done as yet"; so that in that case the alteration has had no result at all. The next is the Bridgewater Railway, which obtained this power in 1886. The capital authorized was £135,000; and the amount of interest capital sanctioned was £10,000 at 4 per cent. The note is, "No capital raised as yet." A similar remark is appended to the next two instances, the Brighton, Rottingdean, and Newhaven Direct Railway (share capital £180,000, interest capital £20,000), and the Burnley, Clitheroe, and Sabden Railway (share capital £168,000, interest capital £15,000). The next case is the Dore and Chinley Railway, in which £70,000 was authorized to be paid as interest out of capital, and the note is: "Company unable to raise capital. Powers for construction transferred to Midland Railway Company by Midland Railway Act of this Session." Then, with regard to the Halifax, High Level, and North and South Junction Railway, with a share capital of £320,000, and £16,000 al-

1621
lowed for interest capital, the vote is: "All capital required for construction of line has been raised as ordinary capital on payment of interest during construction, at 3½ per cent on the amount from time to time paid up on the shares. As regards this Railway there is an agreement with a larger Company to work the line, and under this agreement a certain income is secured, and there is no doubt that the fact of the existence of the agreement in the case of this Railway had considerable influence in causing the capital to be raised." In the next two cases (the Harrow and Stanmore Railway, share capital £60,000, interest capital £6,000; and the Lynton Railway, share capital £83,000, interest capital £5,000) the note is "No capital raised as yet." The Return as to the Manchester Ship Canal, with the large share capital of £8,000,000, of which £752,000 was allowed to be treated as interest capital, is, "Capital in course of being raised." As your Lordships know, that is a very large and important undertaking. It went through a very severe sifting both in your Lordships' House and in the House of Commons, and it only passed at the end of the third investigation, when Parliament had thoroughly satisfied itself of the soundness of the undertaking. There was, no doubt, some difficulty at first in raising the capital; but I am bold enough to say that, whether the Standing Order had been altered or not, the money would have been forthcoming. With regard to almost all the other cases, we find that the alteration has been unavailing. The Return as to the Nottingham Suburban Railway is—"The promoters state that, in consequence of the power to pay interest out of capital, the directors were able to place the whole of the amount on favourable terms, and it is probable that, without power to pay interest out of capital, greater expense than the outlay for interest would have had to be incurred in issuing the capital, and there would still have remained room for doubt as to the success of the efforts to place it." In the case of the Portsmouth and Hayling Railway, "No capital yet raised." In that of the Rotherham and Bawtry Railway, "Company unable to raise capital; applying this Session for power to abandon;" the South Hampshire Railway and Pier,
1622
"No capital has been raided, and the powers have lapsed;" the Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Railway, "No capital has been raised under the Act of 1887. What little capital has been raised has been raised under the Act of 1881, which did not contain power to pay interest out of capital during construction;" the Barry Dock and Railways, "Capital raised. Half had been raised without the power to pay interest. The promoters state that the power has enabled them to raise the further capital at a less cost for interest than the probable loss on discount without it." Then, as to the Brighton, Rottingdean, and Newhaven Direct Railway, and the Clyde, Ardrishaig, and Crinan Railway, "No capital raised as yet." I need not go into the other cases; but I think it is abundantly clear that the alteration of the Standing Order has not produced that beneficent effect which was expected, and, so far from having tended to induce investors to put their money in these undertakings, it has not had that effect. If this experiment had fulfilled the predictions with which it was ushered into existence, my criticism would have taken a very different form, but I think your Lordships will see that we have abandoned a very strong and very sound position with regard to paying interest out of capital, without having derived any corresponding advantage. We have not stimulated railway enterprize; we have not afforded employment to the unemployed, and the visions which were dangled before the eyes of the Legislature have in no sense been fulfilled.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS: My Lords, the question to which the noble Lord has drawn attention is one, undoubtedly, of very considerable importance. Carrying the Return to which the noble Lord has referred up to the present time, I am afraid it would not disclose any circumstances which would go to confirm the idea that the modification of the Standing Order would have any large influence upon the construction and development of railway and similar work. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that the three prominent Bills which were before the House when the Standing Order was modified were the Regent's Canal Bill, the Dore and Chinley Railway Bill, and the Manchester Ship Canal Bill. So

1623
far as I can ascertain, the Regent's Canal scheme remains exactly where it was, and nothing whatever has been done to pay interest out of capital. In the case of the Dore and Chinley Railway, the power to pay interest has been abandoned, and the line has been transferred to one of the large existing companies to make with their own money. In the case of the Manchester Ship Canal Bill the capital has been raised. How far that may be due to the prevalence of an opinion that this large undertaking would pay in itself, or how far it may have been influenced by a concession of the payment of interest out of capital, it is impossible for me to give any opinion; but, looking through all the cases mentioned in the Return and to others which have since occurred, it does not appear to me that the public are more inclined to invest in companies which have the power to pay interest out of capital than they are to invest in similar companies which do not possess that power. In fact, unless the public are satisfied that the line or the scheme has a good prospect in itself, they will not be tempted to make an investment by the circumstance that interest may be paid to them out of capital. During last Session a considerable number of applications were made before Committees for power to pay interest. That power was conceded in the case of seven companies, and yet I believe I am right in saying that the power has not been exercised in a single instance. In the present Session applications for similar powers is made in the case of 18 companies, most of them minor concerns. In two or three cases these companies have been before Parliament more than once for variations of their lines, extension of time, or similar applications. In one or two cases the parties are again before Parliament for further changes of their lines or extension of time, having in the meantime raised no capital whatever. Whether or not the alteration of your Lordships' Standing Orders will tend to the good of the country by further development of undertakings giving large employment in their construction, I think no opinion can yet be formed. In the working of the Standing Order two questions have arisen—one, whether the concession of the power to pay interest out of capital
1624
should be granted at all; and, secondly, the rate at which it should be granted. As regards the first, it will be seen from the number of cases granted that the matter has been carefully watched by Committees of both Houses, and as regards the rate of interest, the principle adopted has generally been this:—the Committees have allowed the maximum of 4 per cent, practically 1 per cent above the interest on Government Stock, but they have only conceded that rate where the Company seeking the power have in its Acts agreements or arrangements with other existing companies which give a reasonable prospect of a somewhat similar rate being a permanent rate, so that when the construction is finished investors shall not be subjected to any great fall of their rate of interest. In cases where there have been no such agreements the interest has been fixed at 3½ or 3 per cent. One curious feature in the Returns is that the rate of interest does not appear to have materially acted on the question of raising or not raising the capital. One question, no doubt, will present itself to the Committees this Session with regard to the rate of interest. The rate of interest of the Government funds has been reduced, and the question may arise whether the maximum rate of interest should still be given—whether, in fact, 4 per cent is not too high a rate to continue? Having regard, however, to the care that has been shown by the Committees in investigating the cases and limiting the cases in which the power should be given, I think your Lordships may safely leave the matter where it is until the completion of the works and the expiry of the powers of the Acts which were sanctioned in 1886 and in 1887. When that time has expired, then, and not before, a fair opinion may be formed as to the effect which this power of payment of interest out of capital has had. Judging from the cases which have come before me, there is no doubt that very great care will have to be exercised in selecting and sifting out cases this Session, to avoid giving that power to mere speculative schemes which have no real basis except the possible hopes of speculators of some financial gain from the operation, irrespective of the real earnings of the particular scheme, and on the other hand not to avoid giving, where the im-

1625
portance of the scheme, not merely to particular localities, but to a large district of the country, was undoubted, every facility consistent with the Standing Orders of their Lordships' House to encourage the development and construction of such undertakings.
House adjourned at Fire o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.