Sitting of 17 March 1890

QUESTIONS.

  THE IRISH DEMOCRATIC LABOUR FEDERATION.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that a branch of the Irish Democratic Labour Federation, with Patrick J. Bourke as president, is established at Kildysart, County Clare, and that the local police, against the remonstrance of the president and members, attend the weekly meetings, and whether they so attended the meeting of the 16th February, 1890; whether the said Association is, or has been, declared to be illegal; if not, by what authority do the police attend the meetings; and will he give instructions to prevent further interference?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question, but on no occasion has there been any interference on the part of the police.

  POLICE WATCHING IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in view of the repeated and public complaints of the Rev. T. O'Keefe, P.P., Meelin, County Cork, the constabulary authorities will issue instructions to the local police to discontinue the system of constant following of and watching Reverend Father Kennedy, C.C., and whether they will order that policemen shall not follow the reverend gentleman
  982
  when engaged in visiting the sick and the dying, and other similar duties of a sacred character?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is necessary to watch Father Kennedy, of Meelin, County Cork, as he is actively engaged in endeavouring to revive the local branch of the National League, which has been, suppressed in the district as an unlawful association. The police, of course, will not follow him on any occasion where they have reason to believe that he is engaged in the discharge of duties of a, sacred character.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether complaints have reached him that at Meelin, County Cork, Sergeant Hyde called on Father O'Keefe, P.P., to tell him from Colonel Turner that additional police will be quartered on the people of the district in the event of any outrage occurring in the parish; if so, was the policeman authorised by Colonel Turner to make the communication; and whether he is aware that Father Kennedy, senior curate to Father O'Keefe, has been twice taken to prison from this district for offences under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and, under the circumstances, can he give an explanation why a communication of this kind was made to the parish priest?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the sergeant met the parish priest in the village and made the communication to him indicated in the first paragraph. He was authorised to do so by the Divisional Commissioner. Father Kennedy has been convicted under the Crimes Act.

  THE IRISH LAND ACT.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in spite of the words of the Eviction Section of the Land Act of 1887, that "Every person served with the writ or process in ejectment, who, at the time of the service of the notice shall be in possession of the land," should receive a copy of the eviction notice, the Judges made a rule that a copy should only be served on the tenant, and that, in consequence of this rule, the Queen's Bench held in the

  983
  case of "Webb v. Cronin," that where the nominal tenant was in Australia the real tenant who had previously redeemed the land and paid rent need not be served with the eviction notice, which decision is unappealable, and do the Government intend to allow the law to remain in this condition, when the Act itself plainly provides for service on every person in possession who was served with the writ as Cronin was?
  MR. MADDEN: I have only seen a newspaper report of this case. I will inquire into the matter, and, if necessary, will communicate with the Lord Chancellor and answer the question on a future day.

  RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland how many Resident Magistrates, before the present Government took office, were commissioned to act in more than one county; how many were so commissioned before 1881; and will he give a Return showing the practice in this matter of successive Administrations since the original creation of Resident Magistrates, and the number of counties in which such gentlemen can now adjudicate?
  MR. MADDEN: The Resident Magistrates are commissioned to act in more than one county, but they only act in their own district unless their services are required elsewhere by the public necessities.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Where is the difficulty? If we can extort the information, I think we shall be able to show that, under the present Government, there are Resident Magistrates commissioned to act in half a dozen counties, and that the practice is growing. If Thom's Directory were taken for a series of years, I presume it would show the whole thing?
  MR. MADDEN: As far as my knowledge goes I feel very great difficulty, because it would be necessary to go back to the Act of 1831. I am not aware that materials exist for giving the information, and if the hon. and learned Member will move for a Return in a tangible shape I will ascertain if the materials exist for supplying it.
  COLONEL WARING: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a Resident Magistrate is
  984
  always commissioned to act in counties coterminous with those in which he is stationed?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes, that is quite correct.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a Return for the 10 years before 1881, and the 10 years since?
  MR. MADDEN: I will inquire.

  THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are two constables, named Jarvis and Shaw, in the employment of the British Government; and, if so, of what force are they members; whether it is the fact that they were employed by the Times for the purpose of procuring evidence or the attendance of Sheridan or other witnesses before the Special Commission; whether, if so employed, they were at Kansas City during the month of December, 1888; and whether they, or either of them, were at any time in communication with Sheridan?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Jarvis and Shaw are inspectors in the Metropolitan Police Force. It is not the fact that they were employed at any time, directly or indirectly, by or for the Times, in procuring evidence or the attendance of any witnesses. The answer to my hon. Friend's remaining questions is in the negative.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether until the question of the hon. Member appeared on the Paper anyone ever suggested that Jarvis and Shaw wore so employed?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of the source of the suggestion.

  DISSOLVED IRISH BOARDS OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will give the names of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland which have been dissolved during the last 10 years, with the localities in which they were situated?
  MR. MADDEN: The following are the names of the Boards of Guardians which have been dissolved during the past 10 years, and the counties in which they are situated:—Belmullet and Swineford,

  985
  County Mayo, dissolved twice each; Newport, County Mayo, dissolved once; Carrick-on-Suir, Tipperary, once; New Ross, Wexford, once; Ballinasloe, Galway, once; Athy, Kildare, once; Dungarvan, Waterford, once; Ballyvaughan, Clare, once; Portumna, Galway, once; and Cork, County Cork, once.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state for what reason these Boards of Guardians were dissolved?
  MR. MADDEN: They were not all dissolved for the same reason. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question down upon the Paper.

  THE IRISH SCOIETIES AND LONDON COMPANIES.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, since the Select Committee appointed last year upon his Motion to inquire into the charters of the estates in Ireland of the Irish Societies and the City Companies as to their trusts and obligations, unanimously "recommended that a Committee on the same subject should be appointed the next Session of Parliament," that Committee will, in accordance with usual practice, be reappointed; and if the Government will move for its appointment at a sufficiently early date to allow time for the Committee to arrive at an effective Report?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question for a few days.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I had intended to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to reappoint the Select Committee to inquire into the dealings of the London Companies with their Irish estates in County Deny; and, if so, when will the Motion be made; but at the request of the right hon. and learned Gentleman I will postpone the question until the Government have had time to make up their minds upon the matter.

  EXTRA POLICE IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what amount is at present chargeable on the North Riding of the County of Tipperary for maintenance of extra police; whether
  986
  his attention has been called to the proceedings at the recent Spring Assizes at Nenagh, which go to show an entire absence of crime in the district, the presiding Judge having complimented the Grand Jury on the fact, and pointing out that there were only four cases of a trivial nature to go before them; and whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the propriety of relieving the ratepayers of the district from the charge for extra police?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary authorities report that the amount charged for extra police in the North Riding was for the year ended September 30, 1889, the last completed account, £1,143 7s. 11d. The possibility of reducing the extra force in this county was very carefully considered last January; but the authorities could not then recommend its immediate reduction, but decided to again consider the question in a few months' time.

  THE POSTMASTERSHIP OF O'BRIENS BRIDGE.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that on the death of James Walker, postmaster, O'Briens Bridge, County Clare, his daughter was appointed temporarily to his place, and that she performed the duties of the office long previous to her father's death; whether during' her father's tenure of office, and during her temporary appointment, she discharged her duties satisfactorily; and whether she has, or will be, permanently appointed to the position; and, if not, can he state for what reason?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The hon. Member seems to have been imperfectly informed as to the circumstances. I understand that on James Walker's death his widow, Mrs. Walker, not his daughter, Miss Walker, was allowed to take temporary charge of the O'Briens Bridge Post Office. Mrs. Walker, owing to bad health and old age, did not offer herself as a candidate for the permanent position. The main cause of the non-recommendation of Miss Walker was that at the time when the Surveyor had to report on the candidates for the office she had made application for a license to carry on a publican's business.

  IRISH RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the loss and inconvenience inflicted on the travelling public in Ireland by the conduct of rival Railway Companies in the timing of their trains at the following junctions: Cookstown (County Tyrone), Clones (County Monaghan), Limerick Junction (County Tipperary), and Bally-william (County Wexford); is he aware that the arrangements are such at Cookstown that, although the towns of Moneymore and Stewartstown are only six or seven miles apart, it takes two days for a passenger to go and return by rail between either place (i.e., the return journey cannot be accomplished on the day of departure); that there is a delay of hours at the Limerick Junction caused to passengers from the South going in the Waterford direction, which a few minutes difference in the timing of the trains would obviate; and that there is a similar failure of connections at Clones and Ballywilliam; and have the Board of Trade any power to compel the companies to give reasonable facilities to the public?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): My attention has not been directed to the circumstances stated in the hon. Member's question. The whole responsibility for the conduct of traffic upon railways rests with the companies. It is possible that in the case mentioned an appeal might be made by the Local Authority to the Railway Commissioners under the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts; but the Board of Trade have no statutory authority in the matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the facts stated in the question are correct?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir; but from my own experience of cross country travelling in Ireland I can well believe it.

  SHERIFF SUBSTITUTE OF SKYE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to the observations of the Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Young, in the High Court of Justiciary, in which they
  988
  severely criticise a case stated for appeal by the acting sheriff substitute of the Skye district of Inverness-shire at Portree; whether the regularly appointed sheriff substitute has been absent from the Skye district for the greater portion of the last two years; and whether he will take steps to remedy the present anomalous state of matters at Portree?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I have read a report of the judgments referred to. The criticism of the Judges was intended to discourage what they described as a practice, which had crept in rather too much, of detailing in special cases the particulars of the evidence, rather than stating the conclusion of facts upon which the questions of law arose. It is fair to the gentleman in question to say that I have reason to believe that he has done his work attentively and well while acting at Portree. The sheriff substitute has been absent from ill-health since October, 1888, his duty being performed in the meantime by a qualified advocate. I am happy to learn that Mr. Hamilton's health is sufficiently improved to enable him, from next month, to reside at Portree; and he will, with assistance approved by the sheriff, gradually resume the personal discharge of his duties.

  SOUTH UIST CROFTERS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the crofers on the South Uist estates are by their contracts compelled to sell all their kelp to the proprietrix; and whether such contract is by the Law of Scotland obligatory on the people; and, if so, whether he will introduce a measure providing absolute freedom of sale of the products of sea and land?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: There is, I am informed, no such contract between the crofters on South Uist and the proprietrix, as is referred to in the question. The proprietrix follows the practice of previous proprietors by employing crofters to gather the weed which is made into kelp. Formerly this was a source of profit to the landlord, but in 1879 the price fell so low that the manufacture was discontinued. The want of this outlet for remunerative labour was so much felt by the crofters that a few years after 1879 the manufacture was resumed, and the whole proceeds, under

  989
  some small deductions for necessary expenses, have been expended in remunerating the crofters for their labour.

  INSPECTION OF SCOTCH SCHOOLS.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the system of inspection and examination of endowed and middle-class schools by the Scotch Education Department is now generally in force in Scotland, and whether the leaving certificates granted in such examinations are recognised by academic and professional authorities; and if he can state the names of the authorities who accept these certificates in lieu of entrance examinations?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The system of inspection and examination of endowed and higher class schools by the Scotch Education Department is now generally in force in Scotland, and the leaving certificate, granted in connection therewith by the Scotch Education Department, is accepted in lieu of other examinations by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow and St. Andrews; the Lords of Council and Session for the purposes of the Law Agents Act; the War Office; the General Medical Council; the College of Surgeons in Edinburgh; the Pharmaceutical Society; the Society of Solicitors before the Supreme Courts; and other Public Bodies.

  DESTRUCTION OF A HINDOO TEMPLE.
  MR. KEAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the destruction of a Hindoo Temple at Durbhunga, under the Bengal Government, by direction of Mr. Beadon, the Chairman of the Durbhunga Municipality, on 8th January last, under circumstances which have caused some stir in Hindoo society; whether he is aware that Mr. Beadon alleged, as his reason for ordering the demolition of the temple, that it was one for which the sanction of the Municipality was required, under Section 237 of Act 3 of the Bengal Council of 1884, and that such sanction had not been obtained; whether he is aware that, on the day before the demolition was commenced, four of the Municipal Commissioners had sent a requisition to the Vice Chairman that a
  990
  special meeting should be called to consider the matter, with the object of the requisite sanction being passed; whether he is aware that the Vice Chairman, in direct contravention of Section 39 of the above-mentioned Act, which binds him to call a meeting, did not call the same as required, but proceeded at once with the demolition of the temple, employing Mahomedans for the purpose, supported by Government police with firearms, and arresting the Brahmin priests on the spot; and when he expects to be in possession of the decision of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in regard to this matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERCUSSON,): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India I have to say that no information upon this subject has reached the Secretary of State.

  POSTAL RATES BETWEEN ENGLAND AND INDIA.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to a letter, dated the 16th of April 1889, and sent by the Secretary of State for India in Council to the honourable Member for Canterbury, which contains the following words:—
  "Viscount Cross would view with much satisfaction any reduction in the postal rates between England and India." "Such a reduction, if made, would be made mainly, though not exclusively, in the interests of England, and of the English community in India";
  and, whether he intends to take action so as to reduce the postal rates to India?
  MR. RAIKES: I have seen in the Press the letter referred to by the hon. Member; but I have not received any official communication from the India Office on the subject.

  INCOME TAX ON INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, N.E.,): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the fact that, under the provisions of the Act passed in 1855, surveyors of taxes are justified in refusing to allow a deduction from the payment of Income Tax in respect of

  991
  insurance premiums which are paid at shorter periods than every three months; and if, considering the number of persons in humble circumstances who effect their life insurances on the condition of weekly premiums, he will consider whether there is any good reason for maintaining this disability, and insisting on quarterly, half-yearly, or yearly payments of premiums as a condition of their deduction from Income Tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Surveyors of Income Tax are justified by law in refusing deductions in respect of insurance premiums paid at shorter periods than every three months. It is doubtful whether persons in "humble circumstances" are affected by this restriction at all, as the hon. Member will recollect that no Income Tax is paid on incomes under £150 per annum. I am informed, moreover, that it would be very difficult to check claims for allowances in respect of "weekly premiums."

  IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Mr. Price's line in Galway, where Mr. Barton acted as a Commissioner representing the Board of Works, under the Light Railways Act of 1889, and Mr. Barton's line in Donegal, where Mr. Price acted in a similar capacity, have been respectively approved by the Board of Works, in preference to other lines in the same districts, and large sums of money recommended for their construction; and what are the amounts so recommended; whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction is felt in the locality at those decisions; and whether the Treasury will withhold their sanction from fresh projects until they are inquired into by a Commission, which shall not include persons with a pecuniary interest in any of those schemes?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I answered this question to the hon. Member for North Dublin a few days ago. I am not aware of any local discontent with the decisions of the Board of Works, nor of any further contemplated schemes into which it will be necessary to inquire.

  WEST KERRY LIGHT RAILWAY.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works have recommended a large grant of money, and if so, how much, for the West Kerry Light Railway, under the Act of last Session; whether an Order in Council, having the effect of an Act of Parliament, is now in force, sanctioning the construction of this same Railway and the imposition of a baronial guarantee of dividends on £112,000 of capital, the entire estimated cost, and what is the estimate now; whether a contract was entered into by the Company with a solvent contractor to carry out and complete the undertaking for the guaranteed capital, and whether this contract was cancelled on the passing of the Light Railways Act; whether, under these circumstances, this line comes under the provisions of the Light Railways Act and the special circumstances of the case that demand State aid for such a Railway; and whether the Treasury have yet sanctioned the recommendation of the Board of Works in this case, or whether they have any intention of doing so?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that in 1885 a presentment was made for a baronial guarantee of 4 per cent, on a capital of £112,000 for a line between Killorglin and Valentia, somewhat similar to the line that has recently been inquired into under the Light Railways Act, 1889, but the Order in Council authorising the line was not taken out till 1889. The coat of construction, &c., for the line contemplated in 1885 was estimated by the promoters at £120,156, but by the Board of Works at £147,000. I have no knowledge of any contract having been made or cancelled for the completion of the undertaking for a sum of £112,000. As regards the proceedings under the Light Railways Act of last Session, I am informed that a line from Killorglin to Valentia was scheduled by the Lord Lieutenant in Council under that Act. A promotion company calling themselves the West Kerry Light Railway Company took the necessary steps under the Tramways Acts to have their scheme inquired into; and the Board of Works, in obedience to statute, held an inquiry and reported on the proposals submitted to them. The cost of the line

  993
  is estimated by the Board at £155,000. The Treasury have come to no decision as regards the recommendation of the Board of Works.

  THE HERRING FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to a decision of the Lord Justice Clerk, presiding in the Justiciary Appeal Court, in the case of "Lewis v. Ronton," as reported in the Scotsman of the 6th March; and whether the effect of the decision of the learned Judge (as so reported) is to annul the proviso of the 6th section of the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1889, which provides that nothing therein contained shall affect the powers of the Fishery Board under the 4th section of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1885; and, if so, whether he will draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to the necessity of amending the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1889, so that it may not seem to affect the powers of punishment for offences against the Sea Fisheries Acts, and against bye-laws of the Fishery Board, conferred by the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1885?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My attention has been called to the decision mentioned by my hon. Friend. According to the construction adopted by the Court the combined effect of the Act of 1885 and the Act of last year in the matter of penalties is that the penalties prescribed by the later Act are now alone in force, even in the case of offences under the earlier Act. There does not seem to be any reason to consider that the former penalties were heavier than is necessary to be effective; and I hope that means may be found during the present Session to reinstate them in legislative force.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER: I shall ask leave, on Thursday, to bring in a Bill to amend the Scotch Fisheries Act of 1889.

  THE LEITH INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, owing to the Leith Industrial School having become too small, a new school was erected for 60 girls at a cost of £5,000, the plans being approved by
  994
  the Government; whether there has been a recommendation to reduce the certificate of the old school from 150 to 120, thus rendering nugatory the expenditure of £5,000, and impeding the magistrates in the administration of the Industrial Schools Act, 1866; and whether the certificate of the old school for 150 will be renewed?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is not correct to say that the school was ever certificated for 150 inmates, for which number there is no accommodation. The certificate was for 80 boys and 40 girls, though of late years this limit has not always been strictly observed. The new girls' school was built mainly to put an end to the system of having boys and girls in the same building, and partly to increase the total accommodation. The certificate for this new school is for 60 girls, and that for the old school, henceforth to be exclusively used for boys, authorises the reception of 120 boys. The existing accommodation is not sufficient to admit of a larger number with due regard to the health of the inmates.

  DESTRUCTION OF CONTRABAND TOBACCO.
  MR. HULSE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the seizure, and subsequent destruction, of large quantities of contraband tobacco and cigars; and whether any steps could be taken whereby all such tobacco so forfeited to the Crown might in future be distributed among the inmates of the Naval and Military Hospitals, instead of being absolutely wasted, as heretofore?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Attention has been frequently called to the seizure and destruction of contraband tobacco and cigars, and it was formerly the practice to sell them. But this practice was abandoned owing to representations that the smuggled tobacco thus sold displaced a corresponding amount entered for home consumption and injured the honest trader. A similar objection would apply to distributing seized tobacco to the inmates of the Naval and Military Hospitals. But I am bound to say it is a matter not entirely unworthy of consideration.

  THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the fishermen of the East Coast of Scotland are enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve; whether the naval officers retired in the prime of age are required to earn their retiring annuities by service in the reserve; and how many such officers now serve in the reserve forces apart from the full-pay officers serving in the Coast Guard?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G.): The number of fishermen so enrolled is 2,571. Pensions are given for past and not prospective service. All retired officers are liable to servo if called out by Her Majesty in the event of war or emergency. They, however, do not form part of the so-called Naval Reserve, nor is it advisable that they should.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Are none of the naval officers in the Naval Reserve?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No; the Naval Reserve is altogether composed of officers and men in the Mercantile Marine of fishermen.

  THE POSTAL UNION.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, as the Australian Colonies are not in the Postal Union, ocean penny postage could be established to Australia without interfering with the Postal Union; whether, under the Postal Union regulations, any two Powers signing it may make a special arrangement concerning themselves only; whether there is a special clause in the said regulations which would enable England to establish ocean penny postage with the United States, by and with the consent of the United States Government; and whether Great Britain could withdraw, if necessary, from the Postal Union by giving six months' notice.
  MR. RAIKES: As the Australian Colonies are not in the Postal Union it would presumably be within the competence of Her Majesty's Government to establish a penny postage to Australia without interfering with the Postal Union. It is not likely that any Government in this country would take such a
  996
  step without duo consideration of the wishes and interests of the Australian Colonies. Under the Postal Union regulations no two Powers, parties to the convention, could make special arrangements concerning themselves only, at variance with the fundamental principles of the Union. The only latitude allowed is to neighbouring countries, which, within a radius of 30 kilometers, are permitted to come to mutual arrangements for the adoption of lower rates of postage. There is no special clause in the convention which would enable this country to establish ocean penny postage with the United States with the consent of the United States Government. Great Britain could certainly withdraw from the Postal Union by giving a notice of 12 months, if Her Majesty's Government thought it wise to incur the risk of cutting off its postal arrangements with the rest of the civilised world.

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the duty of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies at Somerset House to exercise reasonable care and judgment, in order to prevent new companies being registered with names so closely resembling those by which subsisting companies are already registered, as to be calculated to cause complication and confusion in the transaction of business, and even to mislead the public as to the identity of the companies; whether his attention has been called to the fact that a company designated the Alliance Trust Company, Limited, was registered on the 21st April, 1888, that the Alliance Trust and Investment Company, Limited, and the Alliance Investment Company, Limited, were registered in 1888, and the Alliance Mortgage and Investment. Company, Limited, in 1890; and whether he will call the attention of the Registrar to the similarity of these titles, with the view of preventing for the future the registration of companies with almost identical designations?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir, by Section 20 of "The Companies' Act, 1862," it is enacted that—
  "No company shall be registered under a name identical with that by which a subsisting company is already registered, or so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive."

  997
  My attention has not been called to the companies mentioned by the hon. Member. The Registrar decides the matter, unless he is in doubt or unless some appeal is made to the Board of Trade. In the cases to which the hon. Member refers the Registrar did not think that the names resembled each other so closely as to be calculated to deceive, the two most nearly alike, namely: the "Alliance Trust," and the "Alliance Trust and Investment," carried on business in London and in the North of Scotland respectively, and the Registrar thought that the introduction of the word Investment and the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to prevent confusion.

  INCOME TAX ON LICENSED HOUSES.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchquer what is the estimated difference, if any, made by the District Commissioners of Income Tax in the value of assessment for Schedule A between houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors and other houses similarly situated, but not so licensed; and whether it is the fact that a house so licensed is taken into consideration by the Inland Revenue Commissioners in assessing values under any of the Death Duty Acts?
  MR. GOSCHEN: From certain inquiries made in typical cases in the Metropolis and other towns I find the difference is roughly estimated to amount to an increase of about 70 per cent, on licensed over unlicensed houses, but I am unable to commit myself to these figures being general throughout the country. The answer to the second question is, Yes. The Succession Duty would follow the higher assessment under Schedule A in the case of a freehold property, and if it were leasehold property the saleable value would be increased for purposes of probate, and the goodwill would also be subject to Probate and Legacy Duties.

  THE LUNACY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has observed at pp. 106–7 of the Lunacy Commissioners' last Report, that the number of single private patients
  998
  registered in their office on 1st January 1889, is stated to be 442; can he say if this includes all the single patients known to the Commissioners; and do the Commissioners take any special steps to discover the existence of unlicensed houses in which one or more persons alleged to be mentally affected are detained; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of issuing some instructions on the subject?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Lunacy Commissioners that the number of single patients mentioned in the Report for 1889 included all the single patients at that date known to the Commissioners. The Commissioners have no power to visit a house suspected of containing a lunatic in illegal charge—i.e., of whom charge is taken for payment. When they receive information which leads them to suppose that a person is being detained as a lunatic illegally, they cause inquiry to be made through the police, by means of an Order to visit issued by the Lord Chancellor or otherwise, and if evidence can be obtained establishing an infringement of the law they prosecute the offender. The Commissioners have also published in the medical and other journals-cautions against breaches of the Lunacy Laws.

  EMIGRANTS.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large and increasing number of persons described in the monthly Emigration Returns as proceeding to countries "other than the United States, British North America, and Australasia," it would be possible in these Returns to particularise the places to which such emigrants go, especially in the case of persons emigrating to our South African Colonies?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have given directions that the information suggested by the right hon. Gentleman shall in future be given in the monthly Emigration Returns.

  THE WELSH SUNDAY CLOSING ACT.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state when the Report of the Royal Commission on the operation of "The

  999
  Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881 "will be issued?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Report of the Commission on Sunday Closing in Wales has been signed by the Chairman, and is now being signed by the other Commissioners, some of whom are in the country. It will be in the printers' hands in about a week, and its issue may be expected shortly afterwards.

  THE LLANEDI NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that, in consequence of the unhealthy and dilapidated condition of the Llanedi National Schools, they have been repeatedly condemned by Her Majesty's Inspectors; that the inhabitants convened a meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Act of 1870, and subsequently confirmed by a poll their desire for the formation of a School Board; whether, on the 23rd of January last, the Education Department issued an Order for the formation of a School Board, but subsequently recalled it by a telegram, so that up to this date nothing has been done to comply with the wishes of the ratepayers; what further steps the Department propose to take in this matter; and whether there are any precedents for its action in this case?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The result of careful inquiry has been to show that there is no reason for any further delay, and the Order for the formation of a School Board for Llanedi has been issued accordingly. There are many precedents for the action of the Department in suspending it temporarily.

  THE ASSIZES BELIEF ACT.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the repeated observations of Mr. Justice Hawkins and other learned Judges, in their addresses to Grand Juries, on the great hardship to prisoners by the operation of "The Assizes Relief Act, 1889," in having to remain in prison until the holding of the next Quarter Sessions, notwithstanding that an Assize is held in the interval;
  1000
  whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the number of prisoners whose trials have been thus delayed, and the length of such delay; and, should the result of the inquiry prove that such hardship exists, will he take steps to secure an amendment of the law in that respect?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My attention has been called to the observations made by Mr. Justice Hawkins. I have not been informed that other learned Judges have made similar criticisms on the principle of the Assizes Relief Act. I will collect information, as suggested, to ascertain what number of prisoners have had their trials delayed and the length of such delay; should it appear that the advantages of this recent legislation are purchased at the cost of undue hardship to prisoners I will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the subject. It was a necessary result of the legislation of last year that there should be some delay.

  SEVERE PUNISHMENTS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the observations made at the Central Criminal Court on the 6th instant by the Lord Chief Justice of England, relative to a sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour imposed by Sir William Hardman at the Surrey Sessions, for the offence of passing fictitious cheques, that he "was sure that no Judge could have passed such a sentence," and that two years' imprisonment with hard labour was a punishment of "terrible severity;" whether it is the fact that whilst this punishment of "terrible severity" is rarely, if ever, given by the superior Judges, it is frequently imposed by Courts of Quarter Sessions; in how many cases has this sentence been imposed during the last five years at the old Surrey Sessions (now County of London, south side); and whether he will take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to secure conformity by Courts of Quarter Sessions to the practice of the superior Judges in this matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the observations referred to; but I do not find

  1001
  that the Lord Chief Justice said he "was sure that no Judge could have passed such a sentence." The judicial statistics do not discriminate between sentences passed at Assizes and Quarter Sessions, nor between sentences of two years and one year and upwards; and I am not in possession of the necessary information to enable me to give an accurate reply to the second paragraph. I have no facts before me to justify the suggestion that the sentences of Courts of Quarter Sessions are more severe or vary more than those of superior Judges, and it is not the intention of the Government to propose legislation on the subject. I am informed that out of more than 2,800 prisoners tried at the Surrey Sessions, during the last five years, 33 have been sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, and of these, 10 were gross cases of indecent assault on children, boys, and women.

  SCOTCH CROFTER EMIGRANTS.
  DR. M'DONALD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to a letter, published in the Scottish Highlander newspaper a fortnight ago, signed by four of the crofters sent out by the Government to Canada in the spring of last year; if so, whether he can inform the House as to the truth of the following statements contained in the said letter, namely:—
  "We were left (alter landing) at Halifax for 27 hours en one slice of bread and a small bit of cheese, which told on the health of the women after sea sickness with suckling children.
  "Of every thing which Mr. MacNeil promised us before we left, not a single word was fulfilled.
  "Some of us were obliged to stop in cars for three weeks, some six and seven families in each during that time.
  "They (the Canadian officials) would tell us Mr. MacNeil had not the least authority from the Board to make such promises.
  "Families came to a very unhealthy state for the want of accommodation";
  whether he will inquire into the truth of these and the other allegations in the said letter, as to the men being compelled to work for nothing till they protested and got 1·80 dollars a day, but most of them nothing, that half of the food given them was eaten up by vermin and destroyed by wind and rain, that all the money granted to them was now spent
  1002
  and that they are on the verge of starvation, and that funds and clothing were collected for them at Winnipeg; and whether he will take care that for the future any promises made to crofter emigrants are fulfilled?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: My attention has been directed to the letter referred to. I am informed that there was some unavoidable delay at Halifax; but there is no reason to believe that there was any scarcity of food, as the agent who met the crofters was provided with funds for their support until their destination was reached. Printed particulars of the emigration scheme were supplied to the crofters, and the Colonisation Board are not aware of any promise made by Mr. MacNeil which has not been fulfilled. As some of the emigrants were dissatisfied with the land allotted to them they lived in the cars until they had selected allotments for themselves. There was, unfortunately, an insufficient supply of car accommodation, and this, combined with the very long journey, may have to some extent temporarily affected the health of some of the crofters. The only work the emigrants were asked to undertake was moving the timber for their own houses and other small matters connected with the settlement; some refused to do this without payment, and money was advanced to them which was deducted from the grants. There is no reason to believe the allegations in the latter part of the question as to the food, and it is not the case that they are on the verge of starvation. It is the case that the original advance of £120 has been expended, and I have already stated in the House that some extra clothing had been supplied to them from Winnipeg. As regards the last paragraph of the question, I have no information to lead me to believe that the promises made to these crofters have not been fulfilled.

  NAVAL ACCIDENTS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that Monsieur Barbey, French Minister of Marine, replying to Admiral Vallon in the French Chamber, said that accidents in the French Navy are much fewer than in those of other countries, and

  1003
  added, referring to the English Navy, that, in the last 36 months, there had been 39 accidents, which had cost the lives of 80 men killed without counting the wounded, and of several million of francs; and whether this statement is correct; and, if so, what steps are being taken to prevent in future so heavy a loss of life and public money?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member has contrived in his question to thoroughly misunderstand the purport of the speech made by M. Barbey, the French Minister of Marine, on March 8. M. Barbey did not say that accidents in the French Navy were much fewer than in those of other countries, nor did he use any words capable of that meaning. His speech was made in reply to an attack upon French naval administration in consequence of the machinery of a French cruiser (recently commissioned for a distant station) having so broken down as to necessitate its recall and the substitution of another vessel in its place. After having fully explained the cause of the breakdown and the instructions issued to prevent a repetition of similar accidents, he proceeded, to point out the delicacy and complexity of the machinery on board modern war vessels, and how subject such machinery must be to accident, not only in the French Navy, but in other Navies. By way of illustration, he referred to the British Navy, and said that he had a list of 39 accidents which had occurred during 38 months (not 36 months, as stated in the question), and which cost 80 lives and entailed certain expenditure. As is self-evident from the context, the object of referring to our Navy was not to depreciate it, but to show that such accidents occurred even in the best regulated and managed Navies. I cannot say if this list is correct unless I know what is the definition of an "accident," whether it refers to machinery alone or includes gun accidents, collisions, and the ordinary casualties of a hazardous profession. I may, however, state, looking to the number of British ships permanently in commission, to the number temporarily engaged in the manœuvres of the last three years, to the work and duties upon which they are employed, that the accidents (using that word in its broadest sense) which occur are small in
  1004
  number and contrast most favourably with those of any other Navy.

  BLIND, DEAF, AND DUMB IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in consideration of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the subject, the Government propose to proceed this Session with legislation in regard to the education of the blind and the deaf and dumb in Scotland?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Report of the Royal Commission and other representations on the subject have been under the careful consideration of the Government, and they hope, if time permits, to introduce legislation dealing with the education of blind and deaf and dumb children in Scotland.

  STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT WRITERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether so long ago as March, 1888, the Board of Customs recommended that certain writers engaged in the Statistical Department should be promoted to the Lower Division; and, having regard to his reply given on the 13th March, 1888. to the Member for South-West Bethnal Green, that "the question how best to deal with them is now before the Treasury," what is the explanation of the protracted delay which has occurred, and when will the Treasury arrive at a decision in the matter?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that the Board of Customs did not, in March, 1888, recommend that any writers engaged in the Statistical Office of Customs should be promoted to the Lower Division. They did recommend some writers in other Departments for promotion. I understand that the writers in the Statistical Office, who are doing work a little better than that generally done by writers, are being paid a special rate for the special work.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it not the fact that the special rate of pay was represented as a mere temporary and provisional arrangement?
  MR. JACKSON: Not that I am aware of.

  THE FORTH FISHERMEN.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is

  1005
  aware that great dissatisfaction prevails amongst the Forth fishermen because of the insufficiency of the safeguards afforded to them by the fishery cruiser Vigilant within the protected waters; that this vessel not only lies for many consecutive days in port, but is habitually there at night when she should be on the fishing grounds; that she has no practical fisherman on board who could indicate when the depredations of the trawlers can be watched, and is therefore on this account alone almost useless; and whether he will take stops to secure the efficient discharge of the duties for which the Vigilant was supplied?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The information upon this subject has not come to hand. I must therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question.

  AFRICAN LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
  Mr. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the widespread feeling that the importation of spirits into Africa should be as much as possible curtailed and limited, he can inform the House what has been the policy of the Royal Niger Company on this question, and what has been the increase or diminution in the amount of spirits imported into the territories controlled by the Company since it was constituted?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The policy of the Niger Company has been to limit the spirit trade in the Lower Niger, and as far as possible to check altogether the importation of spirits into the Mussulman territories on the Central Niger and Benué. With this view a duty of 2s. a gallon has been imposed on imports into the river, which is doubled above the confluence of the Benué. As far as can be ascertained, the imports—which amounted in 1884 to 420,000 gallons, and in 1886, when the Charter was granted, to about 250,000 gallons, exclusive of trade in native canoes—have fallen steadily, till in 1889 they amounted to under 70,000 gallons.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) if he will explain the reason of the practice of the Charity Commissioners never to entertain auy appli-
  1006
  cations for a scheme from the trustees or governors of any Charity which is not an open application, leaving the Charity, its funds, and administration wholly at the mercy of the Commissioners; whether, in all new schemes, the Commissioners make a practice of inserting clauses rendering all fresh appointments of trustees void until confirmed by them; and whether the Commissioners are legally empowered, in framing new schemes, to confer upon themselves powers of appointing auditors, examiners, and other officers at the expense of the Charity without consulting the trustees or governors?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: It is conceived that the Commissioners would not conform to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts as to dealing with objections and suggestions made on the publication of draft schemes if the applications are made in a restricted form. It has not been the practice in new schemes to insert clauses rendering all fresh appointments of trustees void until confirmed by the Commissioners; but in the case of co-optative trustees it has been the practice to do so where publicity of appointment is riot likely to be otherwise secured. The Commissioners apprehend that they have power to insert in their schemes all powers and provisions that may be thought by them expedient for carrying the objects of the schemes into effect.

  THE EASTERN SOUDAN.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the attention of the Government has been directed to the statement in the Daily Telegraph as to the great distress and starvation in the Eastern Soudan; and if Her Majesty's Government propose to take any action; and, if so, in what manner?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have been informed that great distress and destitution exist in the Eastern Soudan. With a view to the relief of the destitute in the neighbourhood of Suakin, a Committee has been formed, and many persons are daily fed. The Egyptian Government have contributed to the funds. The importation of grain is now permitted through certain ports, and the unhappy condition

  1007
  of the people has largely influenced this relaxation in spite of manifest military objections.

  MAHOMMEDAN IMMIGRATION INTO TURKEY.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the statement in the Times of Saturday, the 9th instant, that the Turkish Government was making preparations to receive and settle in its territories 40,000 Mahommedans, who were about to quit their homes in the Caucasus; whether he can inform the House from what part of the Caucasus these intending emigrants come, and in what part of the Sultan's dominions it is intended to place them; and whether Her Majesty's Government, bearing in mind the lamentable consequences which have followed the intrusion of Circassians in various parts of European and Asiatic Turkey, will represent to the Ottoman Government the impolicy of planting settlements of Mahommedan mountaineers in districts inhabited by an agricultural Christian population?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: In reply to inquiries which were addressed by telegraph to Her Majesty's Ambassador at the Porte, His Excellency reports that many thousand Mussulman inhabitants of the Caucasus, having some years ago been moved from the mountains to the plains, and being dissatisfied there, have applied to the Turkish Government to permit them to establish themselves in Ottoman territory. Sir W. White states that the matter is under consideration, that the Porte is favourably disposed, but arrangements are not completed; that 20,000 of the intending emigrants are males, and the Russian Government are said to be willing to let them go under certain conditions, but before they move localities will have to be selected by delegates probably in provinces of Adana and Konich. Her Majesty's Government have no ground of objection to the migration of a Mussulman community to Ottoman territory on conditions agreeable to the two Powers concerned, and to the community itself.
  MR. BRYCE: Have Her Majesty's Government any objection to make a representation in order to prevent
  1008
  troubles and disorders, which might eventually lead to insurrections and war?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Gentleman will see that that question involves an hypothesis. I have no reason to say that there will be any trouble of the kind.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to give notice that I will take the first available opportunity for calling attention to the matter, which is one of great gravity.

  ARREST AND HANDCUFFING FOR NON-PAYMENT OF COSTS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on Sunday, 2nd March, one Hoyle, a bailiff of the Wakefield County Court, assisted by other bailiffs,, arrested Henry Ward on a commitment order for non-payment of 13s. 10d. costs, and handcuffed the said Henry Ward, and convoyed him thus handcuffed through the streets to Wakefield gaol; and whether such arresting and handcuffing is in accordance with law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): In answer to the question of the hon. Member I have to state that the high bailiff of the Wakefield County Court informs me that on August 8, 1889, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Henry Ward for disobedience to an order made on a judgment summons for the payment of 14s. 7d. debt and costs. On November 25 a bailiff of the County Court arrested Ward, who asked to be allowed to fetch his coat, and, being permitted to do so, took the opportunity of escaping from custody. Search was made, but without success, until Sunday, March 2, 1890, when two bailiffs entered Ward's house and told him they had come to re-arrest him. Ward threatened the bailiffs with violence, and attempted to seize a poker in the room. The bailiff warned him that if violence was attempted he would have to use handcuffs. Ward then assaulted the bailiff, who handcuffed him and took him to the police office, where, he was temporarily detained in order to give his wife time to get the money, so that it might not be necessary to lodge him in gaol. Upon the above facts the arrest was, in my opinion, in accordance with law, inasmuch as a person who has, wrongfully escaped from the custody of

  1009
  the law may be re-taken at any time, as well on a Sunday as on a week day. The bailiffs were also justified in handcuffing Ward, having regard to his previous escape and the violence he had shown. I should add that when, subsequently, the money not having been paid, it was necessary to remove the prisoner to gaol, the handcuffs were not used, as the prisoner no longer showed signs of violence.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill to carry into effect the recommendation of the Select Committee on Endowed Schools (1887)—
  "That the examination of Endowed Schools and inspection of the state of buildings and apparatus, and of the discipline and general working, are subjects of urgent importance,"
  a recommendation which he, speaking on behalf of the Government on 27th April, 1888, stated it was their intention to carry out, "and that the system which prevailed in Scotland should be extended to England?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): A similar system was, so far as was applicable, extended to Wales by the legislation of last Session, and the Report of the Charity Commissioners for last year shows at length (pages 25–35) what has been done in the same direction in England. A Bill has now been prepared giving further effect to the same policy, and will be introduced as soon as the state of public business renders it possible to proceed with it.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now able to name the day on which the Second Reading of the Tithes Bill will be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not yet able to name the day.
  MR. S. RENDEL: Will it be before Easter?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, certainly.
  In further answer to Mr. G. O. MORGAN and Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling),
  MR. W. H. SMITH said: The introduction of the Irish Land Bill will precede
  1010
  the Second Reading of the Tithes Bill, and both will be taken before Easter.
  In answer to Mr. PICTON (Leicester) and Mr. DILLWYN (Swansea),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: If we are so fortunate as to get a Vote on Account without discussion the Bills may be on the Paper on Thursday; and the Tithes Bill will be taken at an early hour.

  COMMITTEE ON COLONISATION.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, when the Committee on Colonisation will be re-appointed?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will be in a position to put it on the Paper in the course of this week.

  FIARS PRICES.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what is the legal method of ascertaining the true value of grain in the Fiars Courts in Scotland; whether by taking evidence of the average prices of grain purchased direct from the producer, or the average prices of grain purchased through the middleman; and if the Government intend to propose any legislation this Session for amending the procedure of the Fiars Courts, and placing them on a more uniform and satisfactory basis?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The striking of Fiars prices is regulated by an Act of Sederunt passed in 1723. I have made inquiry in eight different counties in Scotland, and find that though the usual practice is only to take evidence of the prices paid to the producer, in some localities evidence is also taken of the prices paid to the middleman. I cannot hold out hope of any legislation this Session on this subject.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when copies of the Employers' Liability Bill are likely to be circulated?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not able to say precisely, but they will be in the hands of Members two days before I move the Second Reading.

  AN ABSENT MEMBER.
  MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E.,): I wish to ask whether the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury has been called to the injustice that has resulted to the electors of Aston Manor in consequence of the 18 months' absence of the Member for that constituency? I also wish to know whether the Government has taken, or will take, steps to bring pressure to bear upon the hon. Member?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My attention has been called to the subject by the question of the hon. Member himself. I regret the prolonged absence of any supporter of the Government. Such absence is not, however, unusual on cither side of the House, and there are at present other Members who have been absent for a considerable time. I have reason to believe that the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. Kynoch) will shortly return. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb) will then have an opportunity of imparting to the hon. Member for Aston his regret at his long absence. It is not my duty to interfere between a Member and his constituency, and I decline to interfere.

  H. M.S. CALLIOPE.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any extra leave or indulgence will be given to the officers and crew of Her Majesty's ship Calliope on her arrival home?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. and gallant Member must be aware that it is not desirable that questions affecting naval discipline or seeking exceptional privileges for any particular ship should be put in this House to any representative of the Admiralty.

COMMONS.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Report made by the Board of Agriculture, certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the enclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, in respect of each such Provisional Order, to inquire and Report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament; and, if so, whether with or without modification, and, in the event
1012
of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Board of Agriculture.
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twelve Members, Seven to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That Sir Walter Barttelot, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Elton, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Story-Maskelyne, Mr. Richard Power, and Mr. Wroughton be Members of the said Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to County Councils Association Expenses Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act for the further Security of the persons of Her Majesty's subjects from Personal Violence." [Larceny Act, 1861, Amendment (Use of Firearms) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to consolidate certain of the, Enactments respecting Lunatics." [Lunacy Consolidation Bill [Lords.]

LARCENY ACT, 1861, AMENDMENT (USE OF FIREARMS) BILL [LORDS.]
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]
LUNACY CONSOLIDATION BILL [LORDS.]
Bill road the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS].—(No. 179.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This Bill differs materially in many respects from the Bill which the House was asked to pass last Session. No Victorian statute is included in the present measure, and there were many pre-Victorian Acts in last Session's Bill which

  1013
  no longer appear. Last year the House of Lords passed a bulky measure proposing to repeal a great number of ancient Statutes which we were asked to agree to practically on the assurance that all was right. We now find that the present measure materially differs from its predecessor, and the House, I think, has some reason to complain of being asked to pass a Bill like this without one word of warning. It is remarkable that the Statute Law Revision Committee should have practically receded from their position in regard to the pre-Victorian Statutes. It will be somewhat startling to the historically-minded to find that one of the Acts which we were asked to repeal last year was Magna Charta. There is great confusion in this matter, especially as regards Lord Campbell's Act and other Acts affecting newspapers. For example, an English newspaper is obliged to give the name of the publisher and place of publication. It requires great research and trouble to find out whether this and other enactments apply to Ireland as well as to England, and after all this labour one finds that this particular provision did not apply to Ireland. I would urge the necessity of the Committee's compiling an index of local and personal Acts.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I very much doubt the wisdom of giving the Local Government Board power such as this Bill will give them in the matter of Turnpike Trusts, namely, to say when they shall become inoperative or be altogether wound up. The Bill provides for the repeal of certain Acts in the 2nd schedule, but I submit that such a power should be reserved to Parliament itself and not carried out by a Certificate issued by the Local Government Board. I do not think that such important matters as these should be delegated to the Statute Law Revision Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Longford, I think they have been directed to points which are well worthy the attention of the House. The reason that there are now two Bills dealing with the subject is because it is desired to facilitate the early publication of another volume of the Revised Statutes; and it is hoped that the first
  1014
  Bill may be rapidly passed, it having been fully considered last year and containing no debatable matter. It only applies to Bills which it is absolutely necessary to repeal. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that if it is so desired this Bill shall go before a Committee upstairs. The second Bill will also go before the Select Committee, which will have the assistance of experts in its deliberations. The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Longford, which deals with the desirability of having an index to the Local and Personal Acts prepared, shall receive my attention. I was under the impression that there was an index down to a recent date; but I have no doubt the hon. Member has inquired into the matter, and I will promise to draw the attention of the Statute Law Revision Committee to it. In reply to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Monmouth, I think it is rather late in the day to complain of the delegation of this work by the House to a Committee. Neither do I think that his objection to the power proposed to be given to the Local Government Board to wind up certain Turnpike Trusts is well-founded. Many of these Trusts became practically obsolete 20 or 30 years ago, and I think the matter can best be dealt with by the Local Government Board, which will be in a position to make local inquiries and decide when the Trusts shall come to an end.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the Committee will consider the desirability of repealing certain Acts in Ireland which have already been repealed in England.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I did not quite understand the Attorney General to say that both Bills would be referred to a Select Committee.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Yes.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I desire to express my objection to the practice of allowing any Body such as the Statute Law Revision Committee to deal with so important a matter as that of repealing Acts of Parliament, the effect of which may in some cases be to materially alter the general law. This is really the work of Parliament, and should be undertaken by Parliament. No doubt, as a result

  1015
  of the labours of the Statute Law Revision Committee, we shall get a cheap edition of the Statutes; but not even to gain that end ought we to run the risk of repealing legislation in this way. Upon the understanding that this Bill will go before a Select Committee and that its provisions will be thoroughly investigated by the Committee, aided by experts and by the Law Officers of the Crown, I am willing to consent to the Second Reading.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

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

  VESSELS OF WAR.
  MR. GOURLEY: In moving the Resolution which I have laid on the Table, I may say that I think the time has come when it is highly desirable that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire how far the plans of the present shipbuilding programme are in harmony with the requirements of modern warfare or with the wants of the Empire. It is perfectly true that we have had at times Committees to inquire into and discuss these matters, but these Committees have invariably been Departmental Committees. So far back as the year 1859 Lord Derby's Government appointed a Committee to inquire into the alterations necessary consequent upon the experience gained during the Crimean War, and also into the respective merits of sailing and steaming vessels. That Departmental Committee unfortunately recommended the conversion of 19 ships of the line into screw vessels. We all know the result of that recommendation. It was that the money was literally thrown into the sea. The Committee unfortunately neglected to take heed of the experience gained during the Crimean War, and they also neglected to notice what had been done by the French Government, which at that time had commenced to build four ironclad ships. Then followed a new departure in the building of ironclad vessels, and the
  1016
  Admiralty built the Warrior. Another Committee was appointed—and that also was a Departmental Committee—in the year 1867. Another Committee, too, was appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into and sit in judgment upon the acts of the first Committee. A number of private shipbuilding firms in the country were asked to send in designs for ironclad ships; but only one of the designs sent in met with even partial approval, that design having been sent in by Mr. Land, of Liverpool. In the long run, the Admiralty adopted none of the designs, but rejected them all, and, as a result of that proceeding, the Comptroller of the Admiralty made a record in the books of the Department to the effect that he thought the Admiralty had acted with partiality, and that, instead of rejecting the designs and tenders of the private firms, which had been invited to send them in, they ought to have nominated an impartial Committee for the purpose of deciding how far and in what respect those designs should be adopted. The next inquiry was conducted by a Royal Commission, the appointment of which was not the outcome of Admiralty wishes for such an inquiry, but arose from the terrible disaster caused by the capsizing of the Captain and the loss of many hundreds of lives. The outcry which arose throughout the country in consequence of that terrible disaster compelled the Admiralty and the Government of the day to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the designs upon which the Admiralty were then building ships of war for the defence of the Empire. But even this Commission in 1871 was limited in its scope. It was limited with regard to its inquiries; it was directed to examine only as to the types of ship then being built and then on service in the Navy, but it was debarred from making inquiry into new types or designs of ships or new inventions. The first type of vessel as to which they inquired was of the Monarch class, which included the Sultan, the Achilles, and the Devastation. Then there was the ocean cruising class, including the Invincible, the Iron Duke, and the Vanguard. Another type of vessels was of the Inconstant and Alabama class, intended for the protection of the commerce of the country; and,

  1017
  finally, there was the class of vessels intended for coast defence, which were of the Cyclops type. These, practically, were the only classes of vessels into which the Commission were allowed to inquire. They were, as I have said before, debarred from making inquiries into all new types or designs, with regard to ships or with reference to floating batteries or torpedoes, or any other kind of new invention. What did the Commissioners report with regard to these several types of ship? I do not propose to trouble the House at any length, but I will state as briefly as I possibly can the gist of their Report. It was that while approving of one class of ship—the Devastation class—they condemned the whole of the other classes. With regard to the Monarch, they said that it represented both in men and money a larger proportion of the British Navy than it was desirable, in their opinion, permanently to set up as a fighting machine. They also condemned the Invincible class. It is not necessary for me to quote their remarks as to that class, because we all remember that the first time two of the vessels came into collision in the Irish Channel, one of them, the Vanguard, sank immediately. One point they stated in regard to this type of vessel was, that it was too weak in structure; that the strength of the lower structure ought to be increased; and yet, although 20 years have passed since that recommendation was made, none of these vessels have been improved in that respect; and should they come into collision, or get grounded, the chances are that they will immediately founder. Then, again, the Inconstant or Alabama class was condemned because of want of speed and coal capacity, and also on the ground that the vessels were too big for the work for which they were required. I may add that the Inconstant class is now represented by the protected and unprotected cruisers. The Royal Commission condemned in toto the vessels of the Cyclops class, which were intended for coast defence, in consequence of their want of speed. There was also a complaint against them as to the imperfect arrangement of the watertight compartments; and, further, it was found that they were weak in the lower structure, and when employed in shallow waters they would be apt to go aground,
  1018
  so that it would be impossible to navigate them in such waters with anything like safety. I have read these extracts from the Report of the Royal Commission in 1871, and now the question naturally arises: What is our position with regard to the ships and designs which are being prepared by the Admiralty at the present time for the defence of the Empire? For many years after 1871, notwithstanding the recommendations of this Royal Com mission, very little was done either by one Board of Admiralty or another to carry out those recommendations and to place the Navy in a proper condition. Up till about five or six years ago the only thing we used to hear from successive First Lord of the Admiralty was that so many tons of shipping had been produced during the year just concluded, and the First Lords for the time being would tell the House and the country that he had built so much more than his predecessor. In fact, there was a duel between the two sides as to the number of tons produced, and nothing whatever was said or done as to new designs of ships or guns. It was not until five or six years ago that, through the action of the Press, the rottenness of our Navy as compared with the Navy of France was exposed, and what was the consequence of that? It was that the Admiralty of the day immediately, without any objective plan, began to design and to build ships at haphazard, with the result that we now have a large number of battle ships and cruisers, as to the utility of which there is a considerable divergence of opinion among experts. Is the administration of the Admiralty as to designs better now than it was five or six years ago, or than it was in 1871? I shall be told that the system of control at the Admiralty is better than it was. But you must judge of a Department by its fruits. What is it that the Admiralty have given us in ships during the last few years? I must call the attention of the hon. Members to the results with regard to the few designs which have been completed. The Impérieuse and the Warspite, with all their stores on board, were to have 18 inches of armour above the water-line. But in their construction 430 tons more iron was used than was originally intended, and when the two vessels went to sea their armour was actually 18 inches below the water-line. The consequence was that these vessels,

  1019
  instead of being armoured, were so far unarmoured, inasmuch as the armour was 18 inches below the water-line. Two other vessels—the Ajax and the Agamemnon—were built to steam 14 or 15 knots; but, when they were completed, it was found that, unless they deviated from the direct "compass" course, they could not be propelled more than nine knots. I come now to the Colossus and the Collingwood. We all know what occurred in the case of the Collingwood. In consequence of the defects which were found in her guns, she lay at Spithead for nine months as a monument of the failure of the Admiralty. Then, again, take the case of some cruisers of the Scout and Mersey class, which, after being brought from the private yards, were nearly all pulled to pieces. In consequence of the alterations which were required from the original designs, ships of the Mersey class cost nearly £50,000 for alterations. I consider that this condition of things is a disgrace to the Admiralty. I will pass from this to another point. I find that the condition of the Navy, with respect to guns, is scarcely credible. The great bulk of the ships in the Navy are still armed with the old muzzle-loading guns. There were 26 ships in the manœuvres last autumn which were still armed with the muzzle-loading guns. To have ships appearing on the Navy List as first and second-class ships armed with this gun is misleading not only Parliament, but the country also. I do urge that these guns should be replaced with guns of a modern type. The latest illustration with regard to Admiralty administration is the Victoria. This vessel was commissioned eight or nine months ago with a great flourish of trumpets, but, owing to defects discovered in the large guns, the vessel has only just been sent, or just made ready, for sea. Several questions have been asked in this House with regard to the guns of the Victoria. If the reports with regard to the trials of the guns be correct, they amount to this—that the guns, when tested at the full charge, "wobbled." [Lord G. HAMILTON: What reports?] The reports in the Press. Those are the only reports which the House has to guide it in such matters. As to the Anson, it was reported at the Naval Manœuvres that the electric
  1020
  apparatus required for firing the large guns got out of order, and the consequence was that for some time the vessel lay upon the water as useless for fighting purposes as a log of wood. I was at Gibraltar at the beginning of January, and the Benbow was also there at that time. It is notorious that one of the guns of the Benbow was said to have the same defect as was found in the guns of the Victoria. The Trafalgar was tried the other day, and in the Times' report it was stated that in firing one of the guns with a full charge right ahead, one of the beams, stanchion, and bow plates were damaged. This proves that the Trafalgar has not been finished with that structural strength which is needed in a huge ship which fires large guns. I maintain that the huge ironclads which are still being provided by the Admiralty are an utter waste of money. Before the eight ships mentioned in the Naval Defence Bill were laid down, they were condemned by such experts as Admiral Commerell and Lord Armstrong, Admiral Commerell said he had always been averse to these large vessels being built. It was like putting too many eggs in one basket, and smaller vessels would equally well serve our purpose. This is the opinion of one of our most able Admirals. Then Lord Armstrong speaking at the launch of a vessel of the cruiser class which had been built for the Italian Navy, said that at the steam trials it had obtained the highest speed ever obtained by any sea-going ship, and he had always held that that new class of ironclad would be more serviceable to the nation than armoured battleships such as were now being built. I think these opinions will satisfy the House that in laying down such vessels the Admiralty have made a grievous mistake. Indeed, the Department has been too much in the habit of providing ships of war without any, what I may call, objective grouping. The time has come when the House ought to have a Committee to supervise and ascertain what the Admiralty are really doing. We have learned one thing from the Naval Manœuvres, and it is that blockading an enemy's ports and convoy are things of the past. How, then, do the Admiralty intend in future to protect the country against attacks in our different channels, against our commercial, naval, and

  1021
  military ports around the coast? How do they intend to provide protection against stray cruisers which might creep around points for the purpose of attacking unprotected harbours? One part of the Admiralty policy is to blockade an enemy; another part of their policy is to convoy ships in time of war. I hold, however, that they can do neither one nor the other, inasmuch as blockading is a thing of the past. Should it be intended to have naval manœuvres in the autumn, I hope that all the dodging witnessed about Bantry Bay last year will be abandoned, and that more modern tactics in the game of war will be practised. How do the Admiralty intend in their new programme to protect our channels, ports, trade routes, and colonies? One of the Admirals engaged in last year's manéuvres reported that lie had shelled the City of Newcastle from a distance of nine miles. We might just as well be told that Calais had been shelled from Dover. Believing as I do that the Admiralty in the matter of all these designs, both of ships and of guns, are going on without any objective point in view, and without system with regard to grouping, or any plan of campaign, I hope the House will grant the Select Committee I am asking for.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
  "A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the designs under which Vessels of War are being built and equipped for the Navy,—(Mr Gourley.)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I do not propose to occupy the time of the House at any length, but I should like to express my sincere hope that the House will not grant the Committee. Indeed, it would appear from the speech of the hon. Member that he really wants three Committees to inquire into the three matters he has brought before the House—the proper protection of our trade and commerce, the question of the guns, and the question of the design of our ships. Last year when a similar Committee was proposed by the hon. Member for Brad-
  1022
  ford, I asked who were to form such a Committee—who are the Members of the House competent to judge whether the ironclad vessels proposed by the Admiralty are of the right kind or not. I repeat the question now. We have already had a Committee of Naval Officers altogether outside the Admiralty, combined with the Chief Constructor and other experts. And as to the opinions of the two distinguished men whom the hon. Member for Sunderland has quoted, I think it will be found that Admiral Commerell, although in favour of smaller ships, never proposed to put large guns into little cockle-boats which would bob up and down in the sea in such a way that no steady aim could be taken with them. Then, with regard to the ship which Lord Armstrong built for the Italian Navy, it was not intended to put large guns in such a ship. She was not meant for a battleship at all. The hon. Member says that this type of ship is rapidly becoming more popular. Undoubtedly it is, lint neither Lord Armstrong nor anybody else has even suggested it could take the place of a battleship; and so long as foreign nations have these ships, so long must we have them. The hon. Member has found fault with the limitations of Lord Dufierin's Committee. As a matter of fact, he will find, if he reads the evidence and the Report carefully, that, although, the scope of Committee was to a certain extent limited, they by no means limited themselves in their Report, but that they expressed very distinct views as to what should be the character of our battleship. One of the results of their recommendations was the Inflexible, which is, at the same time, one of the most costly and the least effective of our battleships. Indeed, it is not a matter for wonder that these gentlemen, able as they were, did get into some sort of confusion after having so many persons before them, each recommending the adoption of different kinds of vessels. It was enough to puzzle any one, and I believe any such Committee of this House as is proposed would be still less able to avoid confusion. Besides, the opinions of experts have changed, even since Lord Dufferin's Committee sat, as to both the armour and the design of battleships. I believe the hon. Member for Cardiff, who is an expert in these matters, has

  1023
  considerably changed his opinions as to the class of vessel which should be built. If we have arms of precision we must get the steadiest possible platform in order to secure the full advantage of these costly weapons. I am not going to follow the hon. Member into the question of the muzzle-loader and of the "wobbling" of the gun, for it seems to me that anybody who could describe the action of a gun in that way must have been himself somewhat in the condition the word expressed. I am altogether unaware how the muzzle of a gun could "wobble," in the ordinary acceptation of the term. The history of the guns, however, is no new one, nor is it to be remedied in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The facts have been published in every newspaper in the country for the last year or more. There is no concealment, and over and over again we have been told that the most strenuous efforts are being made to remedy what we all know has been a great fault, and to provide the guns more quickly. Nobody, of course, doubts that our battleships should be most carefully designed, and no persons could have half the interest in urging this which the officers and men have, who have to go afloat in them. I will again say that such a Committee as is proposed could not possibly do any good; the responsibility must rest with the Admiralty, who, of course, before deciding on any particular design consult experts and officers.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I think there are conclusive reasons why the House should not assent to this Motion. Three years ago the hon. Member for Sunderland made a similar Motion, and it was not then favourably received by the House. Last year we had a most exhaustive discussion on the question, and the House then decided to place in the hands of the Admiralty the responsibility of carrying out the designs, the full details of which were laid before it. The designs which are being carried out at the present moment, in fact, have been more thoroughly discussed than the designs of any other ships ever built by the country. Last year I undertook before any battleships were built to appoint a number of naval officers to confer with the Lords of
  1024
  the Admiralty as to the designs of our warships, and a practically unanimous opinion was come to on the matter. The hon. Member for Cardiff challenged the decisions arrived at, and there was a further examination before the Society of Naval Architects, with the result that the designs of the Admiralty were almost unanimously approved. Subsequently a statutory obligation was placed on the Admiralty by Act of Parliament to complete the ships ordered. Contracts were then entered into, the ships were laid down, and they are now in course of construction. It would be absolutely impossible, therefore, in these circumstances, to appoint such a Committee as that proposed. I will go further, and say that if we want to get satisfactory designs I do not think we shall ever get them from the Select Committee of the House. I should like to remind the House that last year, when I spoke on the question of the designs of our ships, I said, speaking on behalf of the Admiralty, that the Board would do their best to meet the general wishes expressed both by the Service and the House; and in regard to all the matters particularly referred to, including higher free board, guns of greater elevation, more engine power, and other points, those wishes have been met. It is very easy to criticise the armament of the Navy; but it is essential that those who do so should bring a little knowledge to bear on the subject. The hon. Member has found great fault with the Admiralty because a large number of British ships are armed with muzzle-loaders; but our latest typo of muzzle-loader is not inferior to the great majority of the breech-loading guns of foreign nations. It is not so easy to re-arm a ship as the hon. Member seems to believe. Such a work involves much more than the substitution of one gun for another, it necessitates the placing of new gun platforms, the re-arrangement of the magazines, and sometimes it requires almost the re-construction of the interior of a vessel. Some of our ironclads could not be re-armed at a less cost than £100,000. With regard to the 110-ton gun, a great many inaccurate and absurd statements have been made about it. If only the gun had an individuality, it could get an enormous amount of compensation in the Law Courts for the

  1025
  damage done to its reputation. The hon. Member seems to think it wobbled at the muzzle whenever it was fired. Let me remind him that when these guns are officially tested they are fired, not merely with a full charge, but with a charge 25 per cent. in excess of a full charge. During the past year these guns have been subjected to the most exhaustive trials, and no gun was ever more severely tested than the one intended for the Victoria, which has been sent back to the contractors in consequence of some defects it showed. It will probably surprise the hon. Member to know that, in the opinion of Sir B. Baker, probably one of the foremost engineers of the day, who, in conjunction with Sir J. Fowler, designed the Forth Bridge, a gun of the length and weight of the 110-ton gun must, from its own weight, show some depression. The hon. Gentleman went on to speak of the Trafalgar; but, in reference to that vessel, it should be borne in mind that on all these turret ships of low freeboard it is anticipated that the whole of the deck will be shot away in action. Having given us his opinion of the ships of which he does not approve, the hon. Gentleman also gave his opinion of the ships of which he does approve, and in this category he mentioned the Piemonte. For my part, I do not wish to detract in any way from the performances of that vessel. The Piemonte has certainly exhibited a speed never before attained by a ship of that size, and carries an enormous number of guns; but I do not think she will be found to be a very comfortable sea-going vessel; and it is certain that no vessel of her construction can carry a sufficient number of men to man all her guns and a sufficient quantity of ammunition to meet the demands which might be made upon her for any length of time. It may be that she would prove useful to the Italian Government for the purpose of making a rush out of port upon some hostile cruiser; but, in my opinion, she would be entirely unsuited to the purposes of the British Navy, in which ships are wanted that are able to keep at sea and tight their guns in all weathers. After having examined very carefully into this subject with the assistance of my professional advisers, I have arrived at the conclusion that vessels of that character would not
  1026
  be suitable to the British Navy. I think I have now given sufficient reasons why the Committee should reject the proposal to refer the matter to a Select Committee, and I hope the majority of the House will accept the views I have stated.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I merely rise to say that I cannot support the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland to refer this question relating to our ships to a Select Committee. I do not believe that this House could form a Committee that would carry sufficient authority or weight with the country generally on so difficult a subject. I have myself long been of opinion that it would be desirable to appoint a Royal Commission, composed of the highest scientific and professional knowledge outside this House, with a view of considering the designs of ships of a larger class; in 1887 I made a proposal of that kind to the House. The noble Lord on that occasion said he did not propose to lay down any more ironclads of the larger type. But only two years had elapsed when last year the noble Lord made a great change in his policy and proposed to lay down eight battleships of the largest kind. If at that time my hon. Friend behind me had proposed that we should appoint a Royal Commission, such as I have suggested, I should have been ready to have given him my support; but this House has, after full consideration and discussion, agreed to adopt the proposals made by the present Board of Admiralty, and I believe that those eight vessels have already been laid down and advanced to a certain stage; I think, therefore, it would be useless for us at the present moment to ask the House even to appoint a Royal Commission. Much, therefore, as I regret the loss of an opportunity of appointing such a Commission, I think it would be useless at this moment to make the proposal. Should it, however, be intended to add any number of ironclads of the largest type to our fleet, I should be inclined to ask this House to consider whether it would not be advisable to appoint a Royal Commission. Looking back to the Royal Commission of 1871, presided over by Lord Dufferin, I have always considered that was a body of a very important character, and that it made a very valuable. The noble Lord

  1027
  has told us that he has taken the advice of some 8 or 10 of the best professional advisers, and I am sorry he did not also call in some of the best scientific anthorities, such, for instance, as Sir William Armstrong and other eminent men of that character. With regard to our Naval officers, I do not think that any advance which has been made in naval construction is attributable to them so much as to the scientific men of the day in and outside the Admiralty. I therefore think it would have been better if the noble Lord had taken into consultation some of those eminent scientists in addition to the professional advice he has sought. However, the thing is now done. The vessels have been commenced, and are somewhat advanced, and any fresh Commission or further advice on the subject would be useless. Under these circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but will content himself with the speech he has made, and the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that has dealt with a number of interesting topics.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUNDS.
  SIR J. PULESTON: As I find it would not be in order for me to move the Motion I have placed upon the Paper, namely—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject of the Greenwich Hospital Funds and the payment of Greenwich pensions."
  I will merely ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government are prepared to put the charges now made upon Greenwich Hospital Funds for Seamen's Reserved Pensions upon the Consolidated Fund? I hope the noble Lord will be able to give a satisfactory answer to this question.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I can only speak again with permission of the House. This is rather an involved and complicated question. There has been a difference of opinion between the Treasury and the Admiralty for years as to whether certain charges should or should not be paid out of the funds of the
  1028
  Greenwich Hospital; the Treasury taking one view and the Admiralty another. We have to meet certain obligations and to make certain pensions to which certain pensioners are entitled, and to do this these are the only funds at our disposal; but I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject, and I think it will perhaps be better if the right hon. Gentleman will briefly state his view of the question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The matter is one which involves somewhat ancient history, because it goes back as far as the year 1876. At that time the Treasury informed the Admiralty that they must still place those pensions on the Greenwich Funds. They said they could see no reason for the transfer of those pensions to the Consolidated Fund so long as the Greenwich Hospital funds were not insufficient to meet the charge. I have examined into the funds of the Hospital to see how far they are sufficient to meet those charges; but through the reduction in the interest in Consols, and other matters, I see that the balance of income over expenditure is now extremely small. If it should appear, as I think it possible, in looking into the matter, that the charges on the Fund are such as almost to exceed the income, looking at the liabilities which may be placed upon them, in that case the Treasury would consent to transfer some of the pensions, namely, those payable to men between 50 and 55 to the Naval Fund, and so far to relieve the Hospital from that charge.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1889–90.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. £350,000, Supplementary, Naval Armaments.
  MR. ROBERT W. DUFF: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what course he intends to pursue—whether we are to have a discussion on Vote 1, and a discussion on the Supplementary Estimates?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I think it we aid be for the convenience of the Committee if we had a general discussion on Vote 1. I thought it would be more convenient if the Supplementary Estimates were discussed as usual.
  MR. DUFF: A discussion of the Supplementary Estimates will not be precluded?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No.
  MR. HANBURY: Sir, I have one or two general remarks to make on this Estimate, which it is very clear was made by the Admiralty at the last moment. We have the statement issued by the First Lord in regard to the Estimates for the coming year, and it is clear that at that time the Department had no idea whatever that this specific Estimate would have to be presented. He begins his statement by saying that the expenditure for the coming year would exceed the Estimate for last year by £110,000. Well, if he knew at that time that a £350,000 Supplementary Estimate was to be asked for, clearly that was not accurate. Therefore, it is clear that it came to the knowledge even of the First Lord so late as the first week in March, that this extra amount would have to be asked for this Ordnance Vote. That points to one or two conclusions in my mind. In the first place it shows pretty clearly that the way in which the Admiralty give these orders to the Ordnance factories is not very satisfactory. It shows that the Admiralty does not at the beginning of the year make a definite statement of what guns it requires. It trusts merely to chance, and takes what the War Office, which has control of this Vote, may give it. Only at the last moment is it found that the War Office is able to find guns and ammunition to the extent of £350,000 more than anticipated. That is not a satisfactory way of doing business as between the Admiralty and the War Office. Another thing is this—and it is what ought to be complained of—it shows that the Admiralty knows nothing of how its guns are to be supplied; it simply has to take from time to time what the War Office may give it. It is a point to which the Treasury have called attention, and I did hope that by this time, at any rate, they would have got things on a more satisfactory footing. There has been a very
  1030
  curious correspondence between the Admiralty and the Treasury; and the Secretary to the Admiralty, writing on the 18th May, 1889, said there was great distrust of the figures respecting the expenditure by the War Office, of which no account had yet been received. Have they had any account now of this money for which they are asking the Supplementary Estimate? They are asking for this extra money in March, 1890; and yet last year, even in May, they did not know what had been the expenditure by the War Office, or how it was to be accounted for, up till March of the preceding year. The Treasury says the Admiralty ought to insist on having every information from the War Office, mouth after month, week after week, of how the Navy is being supplied by the Ordnance factories. The Treasury says the Ordnance factories stand in the same relation to the Admiralty as ordinary contractors, and there should be no difficulty in obtaining the requisite information as to the progress of the work being done. The Admiralty ought to treat the War Office and the Ordnance factories exactly as it would any private contractor, and ascertain exactly whether its orders are being supplied or are not. The wording of the Supplementary Estimate is rather peculiar. It says the War Office "expects" that during the year they will exceed the Estimate. When is it expected? Only three weeks before the end of the year. Surely the War Office ought to be able to say exactly bow much they can supply the Admiralty. Although it only "expects" to exceed the Estimates, yet the amount of the Supplementary Estimate, £350,000, is almost a fourth of the original Estimate. It is a very loose way of doing business, and we have some right to ask how the War Office and the Admiralty really do carry on the public business. Again, are the Admiralty satisfied that they are going to get value for this £350,000 during the current year? We do not think they got it last year. These March payments are always very suspicious, and they always are larger than the payments for the preceding quarters of the year. A great deal more work is turned out that more money may be claimed in the last quarter than in the three previous quarters. Last year, for instance, the charge for work done in the first three quarters was

  1031
  £213,000; and during the last quarter it was £103,000. What is the Admiralty actually to receive in return for this £350,000? What guarantee is there that this ordnance will actually be supplied during the current financial year? I have some doubts whether this is not really to meet another difficulty. The Ordnance Factories' Vote is entirely distinct, I understand, from the Army Estimates. Inasmuch as the Ordnance Factory Vote has not been proposed, they have, of course, to got money to carry on the Ordnance Factories. I am afraid that this £350,000 is not actually being taken to pay for matériel supplied to the Admiralty, but that it is, practically, a sort of Vote on Account to carry on the Ordnance Factories during a portion of the coming year. If that be so, we ought to have it told us very distinctly. I am sure that just as confusion arose in the past so it will arise in the future if the Admiralty and the War Office are allowed to muddle up their accounts in this way. I should like to have an explanation of the very large increase under the heading "Small Arms and Miscellaneous." I find that the Supplementary Vote is almost as large as the original Vote. I should like a little more information on that point. Another question I wish to ask is whether out of the special fund set aside for ordnance, the contractors have supplied sufficient guns and matériel for the amount taken out of the fund? I want to know whether it is the fact that the special fund is being starved in order that this additional amount may be found. I have no further remarks to make upon this point. I am simply trying to get these accounts between the War Office and the Admiralty placed on a more business-like footing than they occupy at present, and in trying to do that I am sure I have the support of the Treasury.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Sir, my hon. Friend is quite right in calling attention to the large amount of the Supplementary Estimate, and in asking for additional information. When we took over the Vote for naval ordnance from, the War Office two years ago we were informed that at the commencement of the financial year we would be responsible for all the liabilities as to naval ordnance.
  1032
  We had to commence with half a million of liabilities more than we anticipated. I watched the expenditure closely, feeling it to be of primary importance that the ships should not be kept waiting for guns or ammunition. Little by little, as the year went on, the prospect of requiring a Supplementary Estimate diminished until ultimately there was an actual surrender of £100,000. So that, in addition to the half million of liabilities we had taken over from the preceding year, we had another liability of £100,000, on account of the surrender in a subsequent year. In framing my Estimate, I had great difficulties to face. Some of the contractors have only recently increased their plant, and cannot say how it will work, consequently they are unable to give anything like a reliable forecast as to the amount of their output. And in the second place, their business is peculiarly liable to strikes. There have been during the past two years a number of strikes. We have a large order with the Maxim Nordenfelt Company, but owing to the difficulties they have had with their workmen, they are very much behind hand with the contract. We have not all the information to hand with regard to these matters that we could desire, but there has been a marked improvement this year over last year, and I hope that after further consultation with the War Office, and, if necessary, by the appointment of a Committee to go into these questions, we shall get upon a more satisfactory footing. The nation in one sense is better off, owing to the arrangements which have been made, because we have saved the interest on the £600,000 to which I have referred, and are only now called upon to pay for ordnance, which, if the contractors had only been up to time, we should have had to pay for some months ago. The hon. Member (Mr. Hanbury) asked if we should get value for our money this year. Well, we only pay on receiving certificates that the goods have been, passed, and we are informed that there is no doubt whatever that the contractors will earn the whole of the £350,000 before the close of the present financial year. I have shown that this large Supplementary Estimate is caused by the surrender of two years' back, and if the Committee will consider that the

  1033
  two Departments had to undertake a large, difficult, and complicated business it will admit that we have succeeded better than could have been anticipated; and though we shall have to face difficulties from time to time until the contractors have mastered the processes of manufacture, I am sure we have broken the backbone of our difficulties. I believe that in the future we shall have reliable information, and shall not be obliged to ask the House for a large Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. HANBURY: The noble Lord has spoken a great deal about contractors, but they were not so much in my mind's eye as the Ordnance Factory itself. We want to have a check upon the officials there. We want to know distinctly what chock the Admiralty has on the work of the Ordnance Factory, so as to know that it is being done—and done up to date.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Last year a special Naval officer was appointed to inspect, on behalf of the Admiralty, the materials supplied by the Ordnance Department. In that way, independently of the information the War Office gives, we have reliable information of everything the Ordnance Factory has in hand.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: With regard to the question just put—as to our getting full value for the money laid out—I wish to say that I have been reading the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I find it there stated that a large claim was made by the War Office for guns and warlike stores, and was not supported by any certificate from the Commissary General. Possibly a change may have been made in the method of arranging these things since the accounts were presented, but the Comptroller and Auditor General certainly draws attention here to the fact that payment should be made on production of certificate. A letter was addressed by him to the Admiralty on the 19th December, 1889, but no reply was received.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): The course of practice between the War Office and the Admiralty in reference to payments for work done by the War Office for the Admiralty is that the Admiralty are satisfied with a cer-
  1034
  tificate that the work has been done, and it is not the province or the duty of the Admiralty to examine the books of the War Office. That is done by the Comptroller and Auditor General in duo course. We have no option but to take the certificate from those responsible that they have received the goods or expended the money on account of the Admiralty.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: Perhaps I have not made myself sufficiently clear. I can understand that these certificates are required; but in the case I have referred to, the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor General is that no certificate was given.
  MR. HANBURY: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the War Office being a responsible Department, and its word being taken without a certificate, is it to be understood that that is to be the definite policy in the future? The Treasury have laid it down as their opinion that the War Office and the Ordnance Department should be treated like private contractors, and should have their accounts scrutinised as carefully. Is the Admiralty in its dealings with the War Office going to treat the War Office as a privileged Department, whose accounts ire not to be looked into as thoroughly as those of private contractors?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: We pay on certificates which are given by officers of the War Office as in the case of other contractors. We require to see the certificates relating to work in the Ordnance Factory as we do certificates from other contractors. That seems to mo the only possible course to take. As my hon. Friend (Mr. Forwood) has pointed out we do not inspect or audit the accounts. That is done by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN&c): Are the War Office certificates given by the officers of the Ordnance Department, or by the Inspector's Department in the War Office?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): By those who pass the goods.
  MR. DUFF: I have not heard an answer given to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who has referred to a ease where money was paid for guns

  1035
  without a certificate. It will be found on page 168 of the Appropriation Account, £10,000 was paid before the contract was entered into. That seems to me a bad principle, and it is one which the Public Accounts' Committee has frequently reported against. According to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, no one seems to know what has become of this £10,000. It is in dispute between Messrs. Armstrong and the Admiralty at the present moment, I believe. We ought to have some understanding from the War Office or the Admiralty that before money is advanced in this way the contract shall be signed, and that money will not be advanced except on the certificate of a responsible officer.
  MR. FORWOOD: There are special circumstances connected with this £10,000 which I think I can explain to the satisfaction of hon. Members. An arrangement was entered into with Messrs. Armstrong to construct certain 4·7 guns. At the time the arrangement was made the 4·7 guns were a new weapon just introduced into the service, and the precise form it would take before it was completed could not be determined at the time. It could only be determined by experience, and, therefore, the final specification was not drawn up at the time. Meanwhile, Messrs. Armstrong were entitled to advances when they had in their works steel or material equal to a larger amount than the amount advanced. The £10,000 was advanced on account of material in the hands of Messrs. Armstrong.
  Vote agreed to.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1890–91.
  2. 68,800 men and boys.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: On this Vote it will be in order to raise a general discussion on the Navy. I have received a large number of letters respecting the operations of last year, and some of my correspondents tell me that during those operations the newer vessels showed grave signs of weakness in construction. I am afraid that in some of these ships the tendency to lighten the hull has been carried too far. My noble Friend will see that a grave error has been committed if ironclads have been built so lightly that
  1036
  they are unable to use their full power. I am glad to see the Admiralty have recognised that it is a very essential matter to have large boilers, and boilers of very considerable weight. With regard to trials of speed, the noble Lord has very properly decided that he will have trials at sea extending over a considerable period. It is quite manifest that unless you have these extended trials you cannot have satisfactory information about your ships. At the same time, it is essential that the measured mile trials should be continued, because by that means alone can you obtain a common denominator by which to compare all the ships. One cannot, help observing that the noble Lord is not able to say for certain whether the amount of money voted last year will be sufficient to meet all the charges in connection with the additions to the fleet. Of course, one can understand the difficulties there are in estimating how much money will be required, but I think too small a value has been attached to the probable cost of materials if the large sums voted turn out to be, after all, insufficient for the purpose intended. Something will, no doubt, be said about the big guns. I have, year after year, pointed out that none of these big guns have ever yet been truly tested, and the noble Lord and his officers do not know what is the duration of the life of those large guns under the conditions of rapid firing. When a gun is fired as rapidly as possible time after time a great amount of heat is developed and the condition of the metal is altered. There is a theory on the subject, no doubt, but that theory is based on a very old experiment made with guns of completely different construction and of completely different metal. I am very strongly of opinion that we ought to test the duration of the life of one of our big guns. Let us know, once for all, whether these enormous weapons can be trusted to fire a good many consecutive rounds without playing false to those who use them. My noble Friend has always urged that the cost would be too great. But is it not worth while considering whether we might not advantageously risk something in connection with one of these guns in order to get valuable information with regard to the lines to be followed in making guns in the future. I would

  1037
  urge those who are interested in the subject to support me in this protest against the construction of enormous guns, as to the value of which under the conditions of actual warfare we know nothing, and can know nothing until these experiments are undertaken. I notice that my noble Friend is very fond of introducing little theories into his statements. He very justly remarks in connection with these great guns, that we do not really know very much about their destructive effect. He tells us it is generally assumed that the destructive effect of shells varies as the squares multiply. What he means is, that 20 tons of powder will have 400 times the destructive effect of one ton. Well, everybody knows that there are really no means of estimating what is the destructive effect of great shells, and, I am certain, there is no ratio which can be established as satisfactory. I would like to make now an observation or two upon torpedoes. Very little information is given in the noble Lord's statement about torpedoes. I am one of those who have always had great faith in the future of torpedoes, and I would like my noble Friend, if he speaks later on, to tell us what advance has been made in torpedo manufacture, what is their speed and their range, for example—what alteration has been made in the charge they carry? I believe in torpedoes, for the reason that they seem to me to be the answer that science has given to the ever expressed wish to be found right through history, that some means should be found of wounding our adversary below the water. I believe the torpedo is a weapon that must be improved, and become more dangerous as years go by. We have all heard of certain sub-marine guns. Whether they will ultimately be a success it is impossible to say; but I think we ought to spend some money in experiments in improving torpedoes. I have said before I do not believe that a torpedo school is a place where we got much invention: invention comes from other quarters; and I am desirous of seeing invention in submarine guns or torpedoes cherished and nursed by a wise system of expenditure. I very much regret the tendency there has been, both in the Admiralty and in the House, and in the Press, to substitute guns of a very large calibre for those of
  1038
  a moderate calibre, and, on the other hand, to attach too little importance to the most effective weapon—the torpedo. I pass from matters connected with ships, and guns to what is known by the hybrid word of personnel. Why my noble Friend has departed from the use of the good old Saxon word for the word personnel, which is certainly not Saxon, but a sort of bastard French, I do not know. One would suppose from the noble Lord's Memorandum that there are no blots in the manning of the Fleet to be removed. Speaking from many years experience, I assure the-First Lord that the great blot in the manning of the Fleet is, that while we educate boys for the Service there comes a period when the country loses a large percentage of the boys it has educated. This is owing to the want of proper overlooking and proper discipline. From 18 to 24 years of age young follows whose discipline is relaxed are rather inclined to go wrong. In the boys up to 18 the country have some very valuable stuff; but at that age a great part of the discipline is removed, and numbers of the boys go rapidly to the bad, and become valueless in the Service. I am sure they might be improved if a little consideration were given to the subject. We might easily exercise stronger and hotter discipline on the youths when they are emancipated from the condition of boys, and thus save a good many of them from going to the bad. Some years ago I served in one of the training vessels, and I was much struck with the physique and the general behaviour of the large number of boys there. Year after year I have seen this excellent material destroyed, or, if not destroyed, at any rate lessened in value by the want of proper discipline and care when they are transferred to sea-going ships. I do not think it is, on the whole, quite the fault of the captain and officers of the sea-going ships, because they have no power to employ the means that are necessary to grapple with the evil. I wish I could urge more strongly and more usefully on my noble Friend the necessity of inquiring into this matter. Will he not consult his Naval advisers? I hope it is not disrespectful to my colleagues in the Service who hold higher positions than I do to say that they have not the same

  1039
  means of finding out defects in discipline as those who come in daily contact with the men. Officers who attain high rank are not drawn into contact with the men of the lower ranks: it would not be right they should be. Information comes to them second-hand; it has been passed through a sieve. Perhaps my noble Friend will be good enough when he replies to notice what I have said on this subject. I have only one other criticism to make, and that is in connection with signalling. It has been repeatedly urged in the House during the last three or four years—by Lord Charles Beresford and by other hon. and gallant Friends of mine—that it is above all essential in modern fleets that there should be a vary rapid system of signalling. At present our signalling is done entirely with flags, except at night, when the semaphore is used. When there is wind, signalling with flags occupies considerable time. I have tried it over and over again, and I have always found that in wind throe or four minutes is occupied in sending a message. In these days, when fleets move with great rapidity, it is certain that the commander of a fleet will require to make almost instantaneous signals; and it is equally certain that if he has no better means of signalling than are at present at hand, many a golden opportunity will be lost. I do not profess to have any special cure for this particular grievance; but I have always thought we might very easily establish a semaphore at the mast-head. That system has never been satisfactorily inquired into nor properly tried. It has been tried; but owing to the arrangements on the ships on which it was tried not being sufficient to enable mechanical contrivances to be fitted, the system was considered to be only a partial success. I do not pretend that this system is the best; but surely this is a matter for inquiry. Why does not my noble Friend appoint a Committee of Officers to inquire into the means of improving the signalling in the Fleet? I know there has been a Committee sitting in connection with signalling, but I understand that Committee had not this particular question under consideration. As you increase the rapidity of movement, so you increase the necessity for rapid signalling. No man can fail to
  1040
  see the enormous importance of this subject. I do not wish to detain the Committee longer, and I am grateful to hon. Members for the attention they have been good enough to give me.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I desire to make some observations on these Votes, and especially in connection with their financial aspect. In the first place, I must enter my protest at being called on to discuss the Estimates without having had the detailed information respecting ships under contract which is usually provided. It is true that the information has been placed in my hands since the House met this evening; but it is absolutely impossible for any hon. Member to have read through the enormously bulky volume in which it is contained, and to have formed any opinion upon it in the short time during which it has been available. I do not recollect the Navy Estimates having ever been discussed on any previous occasion without fuller information being in the hands of Members. It is especially necessary on this occasion that we should have all the details before us, because this year a large sum, which, under ordinary circumstances, would appear on the Estimates, has been provided for out of other funds. We contended last year, when the Naval Defence Bill was before us, that the effect of that measure would be entirely to destroy the responsibility of this House, and to make absolutely useless any comparison between the past, the present, and the future. Anyone who looks at the Main Votes which appear on the Estimates would suppose that the total amount now provided for, namely, £13,780,000, being an increase of £100,000 on that of the previous year, represented what may be called the normal Naval Estimates, apart from the sums provided for under the Naval Defence Act. But I believe I am right in saying that is not the case, and that if there had been no abnormal increase of ship-building by contract under the Naval Defence Act, the Estimates would be increased this year by a very much larger sum than appears on the Votes. Advantage has been taken of the Naval Defence Act to transfer that larger sum to the special fund under the Naval Defence Act. The real increase of what may be called the

  1041
  normal expenditure has, I believe, been £300,000 above what it appears to be. This is an illustration of the unfortunate effect the Naval Defence Act has had on the finance of the Navy. I have been at some trouble to ascertain what has been the real expenditure on the Navy in the coming year, and I think it will be about £5,000,000 more than is represented by the Votes. The total amount will be £18,780,000. The increase of £5,000,000 is almost wholly due to the ship-building by contract. The amount provided for in the Estimates for new ships and their armaments is about £3,500,000, which is about 40 per cent, more than the normal amount which the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) told us recently in a public speech would be sufficient to repair the waste of the Navy.
  MR. FORWOOD: What I said was the cost of the Fleet as it would be when completed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes, the cost of the Fleet as it would be when completed. Of the £5,000,000 I have referred to, £4,700,000 is provided for under the Naval Defence Act of last year, £128,000 is the amount not spent last year, but which will be spent this year without having to be re-voted, and the remainder will be spent on ships for the Australian station, under the Imperial Defence Act of 1888. These facts prove that the Navy Estimates are now in such a confused state that it is almost impossible for anyone to ascertain what the real expenditure on the Navy will be in the coming year. The expenditure provided for by the Naval Defence Act will be on about 55 vessels, of which 46 have been laid down under the Act of last year, within the present year, namely, 21 in the dockyards and 25 by contract, including eight first-class battleships, eight first-class cruisers, 23 second-class cruisers, and other smaller vessels. Last year several of us made a protest against laying down at the same time such a large number of vessels, and paying for them, to a large extent, out of borrowed money. The time has not yet come for appreciating the soundness or otherwise of this policy; but I must point out that some of the predictions which some hon. Members on this side of the House made have been already verified. Among the principal
  1042
  objections which. I raised to what the noble Lord at the head of Admiralty has himself described as the spasmodic policy was that it would give a great stimulus to other Powers, and especially to France, to follow our example and to add to the number of their war vessels, and that in the end we might find our relative positions much the same. I pointed out from the experience of the past 40 years, that it has been the settled policy of successive Governments in France to maintain their Navy in a certain definite proportion to our own, namely, in the proportion of about two to our three, and that any advance on our part is invariably followed by a relative advance on their part. We were told that this was most improbable in the future; that France was already overwhelmed by its great military and naval expenditure, and would find it impossible to make any further increase. As a matter of fact, within a few weeks after the passing of the Naval Defence Act the Minister of Marine in France went down to the French Assembly and asked for an immediate credit of over 70,000,000f., of which 58,000,000f. was to be expended on new ships, and he gave as a reason the immense increase of expenditure on new ships in this country.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Minister of Marine never mentioned England.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Well, I certainly understood ho did. At all events, it was generally understood in the Assembly that the real motive for this great expenditure was the correspondingly increased expenditure in England. The Assembly voted the credit demanded without a single objection, and the money was raised by loans. I believe I am right in saying that further large sums will be expended in the same direction in 1891, and that six new ironclads and several large cruisers have been laid down in order to keep pace with the efforts being made in this country. I need hardly point out, also, that across the Atlantic the Secretary to the Navy of the United States has submitted to Congress proposals for a large increase in the Navy of that country, and it is generally understood the reason for that large increase is the great increase in our naval expenditure last year. I am also informed that Russia has increased

  1043
  her naval expenditure, and that the Russian Government have laid down two additional ironclads of the largest type. These facts show that the effect of our entering on this large naval expenditure has been a great stimulus to other Powers to proceed in a similar course, and, probably, in a very short time our relative position to the Navies of other Powers will not differ from the position we were in before this great outlay. Another point which I brought under notice during the discussions on the Naval Defence Act was the inadvisability of putting on the ship-building market so many contracts for new ships at one time. I said the probable effect would be to raise prices in the ship-building market against ourselves. So far as I can ascertain, the total amount of contracts for new ships represent something like eight millions; but, in addition, large contracts have been placed on the market for armour plates for the ships building in the Dockyards, and also for steel, iron, and other materials. I think contracts for £3,000,000 have been entered into on this account in the financial year, making altogether contracts to the amount of about£11,000,000. Now, these contracts have been entered into at a time when the large ship-building yards on the Tyne and the Clyde are full of work. There has been an immense expansion in trade, and prices have gone up considerably, the increase being, I should think, from 25 to 30 per cent., or even more, in the mercantile ship-building trade; and it is certain that the vessels built under the Naval Defence Act have been already largely in excess of the amount anticipated at the end of last year. What the excess has been I cannot say, but there is an ominous passage in the statement laid before us by the noble Lord which bears on this—
  "During the financial year 1889–90 the extraordinary activity displayed in shipbuilding and other industries for the mercantile marine has caused a remarkable rise in the price of the materials employed in shipbuilding and of labour on contract-built ships. Under the Naval Defence Act the estimates of the cost of the work to be done were so framed as to allow a margin for rise in prices and other contingencies. This margin has, in many of the contracts made for hulls and machinery, been more than absorbed in consequence of the inflation of prices during the past year."
  I gather from this that the expenditure will be largely in excess of what was con-
  1044
  templated in the scheme in the Nava Defence Act, and we shall probably find that the £10,000,000 proposed for the building of new ships will not be anything like sufficient for the purpose, and further demands will be made upon Parliament for the completion of the vessels. To what extent that may be I do not know; but, at all events, it must bring home to us that we have not been very wise in throwing these large contracts on the shipbuilding trade all at once on the top of the market when prices are high. As it is matter of knowledge that ships built within the last few years have been built at much lower prices than those now contracted for, so we may assume that in a short time prices will fall again. In point of fact, the effect of the present prices in the shipbuilding trade has been to stop all new orders; and, although the shipbuilding yards are now full of work, and will continue so for a few months, the outlook for the trade afterwards is extremely bad, and we may an ticipate a great fall in prices and that many men will be thrown out of work. Present prices are not a little duo to these large contracts being put out all at once, and it is said they have had considerable effect on the prices of steel and iron as well as wages. Although it is matter for satisfaction that work is plentiful and wages good, yet it is probable that at no distant date this will be detrimental to the people, and may result in one of those violent alternations of work and want of work so much to be deprecated. Experience, I think, has shown that the course pursued was not a wise one, and that it would have been wiser to have spread these contracts over a longer period, both from the shipbuilding point of view and the financial point of view. Another objection is founded on the impolicy of laying down an immense number of vessels of the same type all at once. No one has ever stated the objections to such a policy more clearly, more soundly, or more fully than the noble Lord himself and the Secretary to the Admiralty in 1888, when defending the Admiralty against the pressure put upon them to enter upon such a policy. Speaking in a previous year in reply to Lord Charles Beresford, who we regret is no longer able to take part in these debates, the noble Lord said—

  1045
  "The Government was opposed to any wholesale building of ships at one time; so rapid was the change of designs and in the development of speed that they would probably be obsolete and useless in 10 years."
  He then deprecated any hasty and spasmodic expenditure, with the certain knowledge that a part of the expenditure would be wasted by the very haste required, and he added—
  "There is no single instance in which ships laid down by the score have not shown defects common to all, which would have been avoided if they had been laid down gradually and continuously over a term of years."
  The Secretary to the Admiralty, in many speeches in the House and outside, spoke in the same sense. These were words of wisdom and prudence; but the noble Lord threw them over the next year and gave way to the alarmists. The time has not yet come when it is possible to test the predictions they made in 1888; but already there are indications that two of the classes of ships, of which we have built many samples in the last three or four years, are unsatisfactory—the M class of second-class cruisers of the Medusa type and the Sharpshooter class. There is also of late a distinct change of professional opinion against the use of the largest guns; and if that is right, there seems reason to believe that the largest class of ironclads, of which we have laid down eight, will be of questionable value. It has always seemed to me that the wise course is to lay down a certain number of vessels in each year, availing ourselves of the best experience of the moment, and not committing ourselves to large numbers of the same type. Before sitting down I must remind the Committee that the Naval expenditure ought to be considered in connection with our expenditure on the Army. Taking the two together, it will be seen that there is a corresponding great and growing expenditure in both Departments. For the 10 years preceding 1884 the average of Naval and Military expenditure was £25,000,000. In 1884 it rose to £26,700,000. The total of the Estimates on the Army and Navy in 1888–89 was £29,790,000; for 1889–90, £31,024,000; and for 1890–91, £31,503,000—an increase of nearly two millions in three years, and of six and a half millions as compared with the average of 1874 to 1884. But the expenditure is not by any means repre-
  1046
  sented by the figures I have given. During the last three years there has been a large expenditure out of moneys raised by loan. Including the sum of £4,000,000 now proposed for the barracks, there were four different transactions of this kind. For the purpose of fortifications and coaling stations £2,600,000 was borrowed; for the building of the Australian squadron £800,000, spread over 12 years; under the Naval Defence Act of last year, £10,000,000, also spread over a number of years; and lastly, for building barracks, £4,000,000 in the present year. Thus £18,000,000 in all will have been raised during the last three years over the ordinary expenditure, which itself has been increased by the annual sum of £1,800,000. Taking the Army and Navy Estimates together for the coming year, and assuming the £4,000,000 to be raised for the barracks, the real expenditure will be £37,870,000, and of this only £31,503,000 appear on the Votes for the Services; £1,800,000 is borne by the Consolidated Fund, the remainder being raised by loans payable in future years. Well, I must say these facts raise matter for most serious consideration. In a time of profound peace not only are Estimates being raised but money is being borrowed to the extent of £18,000,000 in three years.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I cannot speak about the Army Estimates now, but I entirely dispute the right hon. Gentleman's figures.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have taken considerable pains to ascertain the amounts. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that £4,000,000 for barracks are to be raised by loan!
  MR, E. STANHOPE: I cannot discuss an Army Estimate on a Navy Vote.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I take the two Services, as I think I am justified in doing, and estimate the total expenditure. I believe these £4,000,000 are to be raised by loan, and we have four transactions in the last three years for raising an enormous sum by loan in addition to the large increase in the Army and Navy Estimates.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Not by loan.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In the case of the money for fortifications and coaling stations it was distinctly raised by borrowing, because it was not paid in the year. The money may be raised by annuities

  1047
  spread over a number of years, but that is essentially the same thing. You may not call it a loan in the ordinary sense, but, at all events, it is not expenditure paid within the year; it is spread over several years. It is, I say, a very serious state of things to throw this large expenditure on future years. If inquiry was made I believe that it would be found that in the European contest of military and naval expenditure Great Britain is not the least offender. The expenditure of this country for the coming year on the Army and Navy will be larger than the expenditure of any other European country.
  An hon. MEMBER: So much the better.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I do not think that, for I do not believe the necessity. While we are pretending to be economists and to set example to other nations we are encouraging others by our increasing and spasmodic expenditure. I have always understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a purist in these matters, but apparently he has given his assent to this practice of spreading payments over coming years. For my part, I believe the only real check upon extravagant naval and military expenditure is the principle that the expenditure for the year sdall be met within the year. Depart from that principle, and I see no limit to the expenditure. Three times within the last three years have we departed from that principle. Against this policy I make my protest and hope the day is not distant when we shall revert to the principle of true finance and a sound economic policy.
  MR. H. F. KNATCHEBULL-HUGESSEN: I wish to express my entire approval of the general statement of the noble Lord upon the naval administration for the year, and I wish also, on behalf of my constituents, to thank the Admiralty for having fulfilled their promises to supply sufficient work for the dockyards. I am glad to say there is not only plenty of work now but; the prospect of plenty of work in the immediate future. I think all those who are interested in dockyard work will agree we have nothing to complain of. I congratulate the noble Lord on the reductions made in some high salaries of officials, and I believe several more steps might be taken in
  1048
  that direction with good effect, and in this way I hope the Admiralty will find it in their power to afford some increase in the pay of labourers and skilled workmen in the dockyards, who perform most arduous duties and have great reason to be dissatisfied with their present rates of pay. But while I am generally able to congratulate the noble Lord on the success of his policy, I think, perhaps, it will conduce more to the furtherance of business, and I shall best discharge my duty, if I call attention to some of the grievances in the dockyards as the particular Votes come on, and especially to the cases of the shipwrights and smiths, their rates of pay, and also the system of payment by cheque on tonnage, which creates great dissatisfaction, and also to the question of pensions, about which there is great complaint. Then there are other grievances connected with dockyard work, and I hope the noble Lord will give some attention to the position of writers in dockyards. I mention these matters in the hope that when I raise these points the noble Lord will have given them consideration. But there are two points to which I wish to call attention at the moment, and to one of these I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to give his attention as a matter of urgency and of a serious nature, and this is as regards the hospital accommodation at Sheerness. I may connect this with the accident that recently happened on board the Barracouta. I am told that there is at Sheerness a large military hospital hardly ever used, and yet will the Committee believe that whenever an accident happens the injured men are absolutely carried to Chatham. When those poor fellows were so fearfully burned by the accident on the Barracouta, instead of proper hospital accommodation being found for them at Sheerness, when they came in, they were landed and taken to the hospital at Chatham—a state of thing's I think absolutely shocking. If there is not hospital accommodation at Sheerness, it ought at once to be provided. I had occasion also to refer to the case of a man suffering from influenza, who was conveyed to Chatham in a cold east wind; and the answer I got was that the ward was full, but, if my information is correct, there is the military hospital at Sheerness rarely used. I

  1049
  hope the noble Lord will make inquiry into this matter, and that, if it is as it is represented to me, he will make such arrangements as to make it impossible such things can occur again. One other point I wish to ask the attention of the Committee to, is a grievance to which attention has often been called, and which I hope may be adverted to by some of my hon. Friends who may follow me; and Naval men are more able to touch upon it than I am. I mean the position as to rank and pay of the engineers of the Royal Navy. It is a very great grievance, and, speaking generally, it is a matter of astonishment to me that the claims of these gentlemen have been so long ignored. All they ask, and all we urge, is that their rank and pay shall be equivalent to the duties they are called upon to discharge. I need not remind the Committee that the duties of an engineer officer are very different to what they used to be; they are very much more onerous and complex; in fact, there is scarcity anything in connection with the management of an ironclad with which engineer officers have not duties to perform. They have under their charge the engines and boilers, all the machinery used for various purposes, gun mountings, torpedo carriages, &c, and, in fact, on board a large ironclad there are over a hundred engines performing- every sort of function. The position of these officers is something very different to what it used to be when seamanship was everything and standing machinery nothing: that position is now reversed. When this question came before the Committee last year several reasons were given by the First Lord, or the Secretary to the Admiralty, against the consideration we asked for being- granted. One reason was that there were plenty of candidates from whom the ranks of engineer officers could be filled. No doubt this is the case, no doubt the supply always exceeds the demand in matters of this kind, but I do put it to the noble Lord—is that an answer quite worthy of a Minister of this great country? Surely if these gentlemen perform duties that are worthy of more consideration in regard to rank and pay, to allege competition as a reason for ignoring their claims comes very near to that much condemned and
  1050
  pernicious system of "sweating." We have been told also that the pay is higher than in the Mercantile Marine, and that may be the case. I have, however, been supplied with one instance to the contrary. I am informed that on the City of Paris, a vessel of 10,000 horse power, the pay of the engineer branch is £300 per month more than the pay for the same branch on H.M.S. Trafalgar, a vessel of 11,000 horse power.
  MR. FORWOOD: Surely that is not so.
  MR. H. KNATCHBULL HUGESSEN: So I am informed—that on the Atlantic liner City of Paris, £300 per month more is paid to the engineer branch than on the Trafalgar. Of course, if that is not so, my remark is beside the point. However that may be, can it be supposed there is a comparison between the duties of the engineers in the two cases? Where in the Mercantile Marine is an engineer officer called upon for such important and responsible duties as on board one of Her Majesty's ships? Upon the grievance in respect to rank I will not dwell, leaving that to hon. and gallant Members more conversant with the Service. I understand their special objection is to the rating which is called "with but after." It is unfair, and it is unwise, that these repeated representations should be ignored, for I do not think the best men will be attracted to the Service if this is the way they are treated.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: With reference to the point upon which the hon. Member has just addressed the Committee, I should like to point out that when last year the case of engineer officers and engine-room artificers was discussed, the noble Lord, answering Lord Charles Beresford, then Member for Marylebone, said the Admiralty could obtain any number of men for these branches, and that under the circumstances he was not justified in listening to what was urged by Lord Charles Beresford and other Members. But I think the noble Lord has had some experience during the past year that does not quite support the view he then took. I think the need for engine-room artificers has induced the noble Lord to send out a recruiting party to obtain men for this

  1051
  branch at a cost of something like £10 a day. I think it was so stated in one of the organs of the Government only a day or two ago, and that this recruiting party had only succeeded in getting one engine-room artificer, who could not pass the medical examination. Such is the statement that appeared in the Globe, and, if true, I think it requires a word of explanation from the Admiralty. One other matter I desire to mention, and it came under my personal experience. I travelled back from India on board the Britannia from Malta with a young gentleman who had only been sent out to join a ship there within the previous fortnight, and had been then ordered back to join another ship. Now, I cannot help thinking that with a little care the expense to the country of transport by P. & O. steamer both ways might have been saved to the country. I would also like to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the grievance urged by petty officers, who complain that they are liable after long service and just as they are becoming entitled to a pension to be disrated, even by lieutenants commanding, though the rating was conferred by higher officers; while in the Army officers of equivalent rank would be entitled to appeal to the judgment of a court martial from that of one who is at the same accuser and judge. There seems to me there is a real grievance in this, especially when we remember the extremely summary way in which commanding officers exercise their power, the exercise of which in one instance was attended with some cost. I mean in the case of the deserter Thompson. I do not feel that in reference to engineer officers I have sufficient knowledge to express myself with any degree of certainty upon the points urged, but I do think that seeing the development of machinery on board our ships has been such that the amount of skill and knowledge required in the Service—that some parts of the machinery are as delicate and complex as those of a watch and as liable to get out of order—implies technical instruction of a very high order, some consideration should be shown to the complaints of these men, at least to the extent of inquiry being promised into their representations. On these points I should be glad to have an answer, and especially I should like to
  1052
  know how it is that a young man can be sent to Malta and recalled in 10 days without it being known that he was to be transferred to another ship?
  SIR J. COLOMB&c): I think there has been some confusion between stokers and engine room artificers; there has been some want of stokers in the Navy, not of engineer artificers The engineer question must be looked at, not by itself, but as part and parcel of the whole organisation of the Navy. If approached from that point of view, the engineers have really not so very much to complain of. I think that is proved by their warmest advocate, the hon. Member for Faversham, for he said their strongest grievance, in point of fact, was that they are ranked" with but after. "Well, what do they want? Do they wish to be ranked "with but before?" The whole conditions of the Naval Service depends upon this—that the executive of the ship must have the command of all ranks in the ship. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bradford, the first part of it should have been delivered upon the Second Reading of the Naval Defence Bill. With regard to the second part, the right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee to understand that ho had made an extraordinary discovery—namely, that if the sums spent upon the Navy under the Naval Defence Act were on the Navy Estimates, these Estimates would have been heavier. That is a discovery which I do not think of any great importance. My own opinion is that the Navy Estimates laid upon the Table this year are the clearest the House has had for many a year. The last part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was as to the undesirability of increasing our Elect, because if we did increase it the result would be to stimulate other nations to increase theirs. The converse of that argument is that we should give up our Fleet altogether in the hope that other nations would give up theirs. The strength of our Fleet must be measured by our geographical necessities. It is owing to the fact that the Fleet had been so much neglected by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that it has fallen to the Government now in power to retrieve what has been so long mismanaged. It is perfectly natural, and was expected, that the United

  1053
  States should increase their Fleet in order to get rid of a great part of their surplus. Whatever other Powers do, the standard of our naval strength must be our geographical position and our commercial necessities. I will not dwell further upon the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would undertake almost anything, including the command of the Channel Fleet, but I am certain if ho hoists his flag on the good ship "Self Satisfaction" he will not find much of a crew. With regard to the proposal that guns should be tested, as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bethell), it is too late to make such an experiment as he proposes now, and there would be no advantage in doing it. As to torpedoes and the observation he made, I would remark that the autumn manœuvres are placing the torpedo at its true value; you cannot give the torpedo additional value by appeals to history. The argument my hon. and gallant Friend used, that torpedoes should be lifted into the position of the principal armament of the Navy, in order to give effect to an historic aspiration to make a hole in the bottom of an enemy's ship, is of no avail, for the gun is to give effect to the historic aspiration, descended from Cain, that you should give your enemy a blow on the head. But I would rather discuss these matters from a broader point of view. I must congratulate the First Lord upon the business-like character of his Memorandum, and the total absence from it of the claptrap which appeals only to outside ignorance. This Government will live in history for having inaugurated the policy of contributions to the maintenance of the Navy, not only from India but from the colonies; but at present the contribution is very small. The total annual value of British commerce is 1,100 millions sterling. Of that, 650 millions belong to the United Kingdom, and 450 millions to the remainder of the British Empire, consisting of independent colonial interchange or commerce direct with foreign countries. Under the present arrangement the United Kingdom pays for naval protection £1 for every £46 of her commerce, while the outlying parts of the Empire pay
  1054
  only £1 for every £4,000 of independent commerce. I cordially approve of giving dockyard built ships a suitable start over contract built ships, for, as the noble Lord says, the fact of experience being gained in the dockyard will save a large sum of money in fitting and altering ships of the same type built by contract. I entirely agree that the designs for boilers and engines must largely depend on the service for which a ship is intended, and neglect of this has been a weakness in our past policy. I should like to know, however, whether the boilers of the ships building for the Australian Squadron are adapted to the burning of Australasian coal? As to the rise in prices, I do not think that is a reason for carping criticism. Rather, I think, we should rejoice that the trade of the country is so good under the confidence produced by the present Government, and we are in a better position to bear the carrying out the Naval Defence Act. I am very glad indeed that the arming of the Fleet proceeds satisfactorily. The Committee need not debate the question of ordnance when they know that the naval officers using the guns are satisfied with them; but I do not think we should be satisfied until there is a sufficient reserve of guns, not merely at home, but on every foreign station. Our strength used to be in our reserve of stores and ordnance. I know that changes have made it difficult to keep up our old standard, but I hope the Admiralty will not relax its efforts in this direction and provide an ample reserve. My hon. and gallant Friend near mo has taken great interest in the question of a dock at Bombay, so I will not touch upon that beyond saying- that it is one more proof of our unsatisfactory arrangement for meeting a war that we have a great Imperial necessity like this which everybody admits, and yet there is no system of co-operation for carrying out the work. And now a few words on mobilisation and personnel. It is most creditable that the Naval Intelligence Department has rendered such great services at so small a cost; but it is not satisfactory that only £9,000 should be expended upon that Department and naval attaches, while the Military Intelligence Department and attachés

  1055
  cost £14,000 a year. I trust that the First Lord of the Admiralty will look into the question of the Naval Intelligence Department, and will not be afraid to press for an increase of that Department, even if it entails some diminution of the Vote for the Military Intelligence Department. I congratulate the Admiralty also on looking ahead, and on the increase of officers and men proved to be necessary by the actual experiments of the naval manœuvres. Practically, however, that increase will only meet the necessary requirements of the ships now building; and I cannot see where the reserve of officers and men is to be found sufficient to provide for the casualties of war. I do not think we have the margin we ought to have, and I beg the noble Lord to consider that when we have the full complement of officers and men for the additional ships, there is still wanting the number to make up for losses in war time. The defect of the existing organisation of the personnel is the want of power of rapid expansion. There is no reserve of officers and men on foreign stations. I think that on every foreign station there should be a reserve of officers and men. There ought to be on every station behind the Fleet, on shore or in harbour, a sufficient reserve of officers and men. But it may be said that there is the Royal Naval Reserve. I do not think it should be simply a question of changing from a peace establishment to a war establishment on the basis of calling in the Royal Naval Reserve. The Navy should have some expanding power of its own before calling, on the Royal Naval Reserve. Naval Reserve men, for the most part, belong to the best ships of the Mercantile Marine, and if you take them, you take away at the beginning of a war men from ships which are most wanted. In one instance you count your Naval Reserve men twice over, for you provide a subsidy for armed merchant steamers, and you couple this with a condition that these steamers shall have a certain number of Naval Reserve men, so then in the event of war you must deduct these from the number of Naval Reserve men available for service men of war ships. Then you may say there is the Royal Marine Forces, and there is a reserve. But half this force is serving on board ship as an integral portion
  1056
  of the complements of war ships. Therefore, the only possible reserve is the number of men on shore; but they will be absorbed by the increase of the Fleet by commissioning the ships in reserve, so that you have nothing left but untrained men. I do think, therefore, that the expansion of the arrangements for the Navy proper is a matter well deserving the serious attention of the Admiralty. There is another matter. If you take the Marine Forces as part and parcel of your Navy, you have there a number of officers who are not naval officers. And you have a corps of Marine artillery with highly trained officers, but you do not use them. Every Marine artillery officer of captain's rank has cost the country £4,000. I say, when you approach the question of the organisation of the personnel of the Navy, you certainly will have to deal with that branch of the Service. You have 3,000 artillery under the Admiralty of all ranks, and you are misapplying that force. You are keeping them on board ship; you do not use them as artillery; and my position is that these are the men to keep more in reserve at head quarters of naval stations. The Marine Force, if it is to be used as a reserve, should be placed under the Admirals at head quarters, and at naval stations; and that would provide your first reserve in war. Is it not possible to have a system of more naval training for Marine and Marine artillery officers, so that they might be usefully employed on board ships, and in naval service when they are wanted? In the exigencies of war, I, myself, would rather have Marine artillery and Marine officers able to handle boats than that they should, as many of them have done, take the highest places at the Staff College. In respect of the organisation of the personnel of the Navy—since 1852 when continuous service was established—you have gone on tinkering the machine, and you are tinkering at it now. Take the simple matter of keeping the men's accounts. You will find it a very expensive affair. If you refer to the Navy Estimates, and take the Accountant General's Department of the Admiralty, you will find that costs £51,000. I am dealing with nothing but the Accountants' branches of the Navy. If you take the pay,

  1057
  the half-pay, and the retired pay of the secretaries, paymasters, and clerks, for the service of the Fleet, you will find that this costs £162,000 a year, and thus actually for only 58,000 men the cost is £213,000. The cost of the Accountant services of the Fleet costs nearly a quarter of a million a year. I think that is a very serious matter indeed. The pay and retirement alone for the Accountant services absorbs nearly a quarter of a million of money for keeping the accounts of 58,000 men. The total number on the Estimate is 65,000, but 6,000 or 7,000 of these are marines on shore. If you take the pay and retirement of the officers charged with keeping the accounts of the 6,000 marines on shore, you will find it is under £9,000 a year. That is at the rate of £1 10s. per head of the men whose accounts are to be kept. But when you turn to the Navy proper, and add to that part the marines embarked, you will find that you are spending at the rate of £2 15s. per head, a difference of £1 5s., or 83 per cent., as compared with the cost in connection with the accounts of marines on shore. You are then spending £70,000 a year more than I think you need.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Does not that include the accounts of stores in all the ships and war matériel?
  SIR J. COLOMB: The figures apply only to the pay of the officers of the Accountant brandies of the Navy. Nothing more. I do not include the petty officers. It is merely a calculation of the pay, half-pay, and retirement for Accountant officers, commissioned and subordinate, on the one hand in the Navy, and on the other hand in the Marine Forces. But in the Marine Forces, I do include certain other officers engaged in the account keeping of stores; in the Navy I do not. I trust the First Lord will really look into this question of the organisation of the Navy, and that he will keep his thumb well down upon the Accountant-General's Department, and the accountant branches of the Royal Navy.
  MR. CUANNING: I do not intend to enter into the many details of the somewhat business-like speech of the lion, and gallant Member, but I wish to challenge one point on which he contradicted my
  1058
  right lion Friend the Member for Bradford, namely, as to the predicted results which would follow in other countries of our naval scheme launched last year. Our contention has always been that to launch the scheme in such an ostentatious way would be to provoke the competition of other countries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman entirely denies that. What are the facts? We have in America not a scheme to build 70 vessels at a cost of £21,000,000, but 227 vessels at, a cost of £70,000,000. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says this is simply due to the fact that the United States of America has a vast surplus to spend. That is true. But anyone acquainted with America will know that the result of our naval scheme has been to put a powerful weapon into the hands of the Protectionist Party in the United States by enabling them to use for 10 years to come the gigantic surplus of the United States in adding to their Navy. Our contention is, that we should have a Navy adequate to our Imperial necessities of defence and protection of our ever-spreading commerce. But we maintain that such a relative proportion of naval strength should always be maintained by the unostentatious policy of using our resources for rapid ship-building without challenging the competition of other countries—quietly stealing on and keeping ahead of the armaments of other countries. I venture to say that the weapon which we have placed in the hands of the Protectionist Party in America has enabled them to appropriate those surpluses, part of which might have gone to lowering the American tariff, and so have benefited the hard-working artisans of this country. I think everyone will be inclined to compliment the First Lord of the Admiralty on his exceedingly clear and impartial statement in explanation of the Navy Estimates. But in this statement we find the strongest confirmation of the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford last year, and again this year, as to the unwisdom of taking two or three types and building a large number of vessels according to each of those types at one time. Again and again we discover in this statement that even since last year the Admiralty have been obliged to

  1059
  modify, as a result of the manœuvres and to alter their proposals. For instance, they have introduced modifications with respect to coal transport, and the ventilation of engine-rooms beneath the protected decks. There is a still more important point, that the new cruisers are to have their speed increased to their full capacity. I ventured last year to draw attention to the defects in the speed and coal capacity of the new cruisers; and it cannot escape the observation of anyone interested in the matter that the alterations made in the designs of the cruisers of last year are mainly directed to the increase of boiler and coal capacity. At the bottom of page 7 of the statement issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty we are told that—
  "In the cruisers of the 1st and 2nd class now building under the Naval Defence Act, the weights of the boilers have been increased by from 16 to 25 per cent. This will give increased boiler capacity and admit of beneficial alteraations in design."
  Again, on the next page, we are told that—
  "The present policy is to increase the weights and the dimensions of the boilers, so that the higher powers occasionally required may be more readily developed and maintained."
  I have called attention to these points especially because I wish to express my satisfaction at the alterations that have been made in the cruisers. According to the view of many of the most experienced men in the Merchant Service, fast cruisers constitute, perhaps, the most important branch of the Naval Service at the disposal of the Admiralty for the defence and protection of our commerce. I call attention to these points in order to emphasise the fact that experience is coming in month by month and year by year, and that, therefore, the safest policy for our Naval Authorities to pursue is to utilise that experience as it is acquired; not to adopt at once and for all one particular type for the construction of a large number of vessels; but, having first constructed one or two, and having seen what are the advantages and defects of that type, to adapt the designs for the next vessel or two to the experience so gained. The enormous programme laid down by the United States Government, and the rumours we hear as to the proceedings of other Naval
  1060
  Powers on the one hand, and on the other the proofs we have in this very statement, that experience is necessary in deciding the designs of the Government, seem to me amply to justify the attitude which we on this side of the House assumed last year.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £3,312,500, Wages, &c. of Officers, Seamen, Boys, Coast Guard, and Marines.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: In reply to the various questions that have been put to me in the course of the discussion on the previous Vote, I may say that I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, as to the advantages that, would result from the increase in the boiler power and coal-carrying capacity that has been given to the new cruisers, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these advantages have not entailed any additional cost in the construction of the vessels, inasmuch as they formed part of the original designs. The discussion generally has, I think, been favourable to the policy of the Admiralty; but my hon. Friend the Member for Holderness (Commander Bethell), who spoke about the guns, must remember that I am not responsible for the 110-ton guns, which wore ordered at a time when I was not in office. When, however, an attack was made upon those guns, and I saw that they had been unfairly attacked, I thought it right to state the facts with regard to them. It is an undoubted fact that if the vessels, armed with these guns, get within certain range, and shot from the 110-ton guns strike a hostile ship, she will not be very likely to give much trouble afterwards. The Admiralty, however, have thought it advisable to limit the supply of these guns to certain ships. The hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that we should test one of these guns by firing it continuously for some hours in order to see what would be the effect of rapid firing upon the interior of the weapon; but the erosion which is caused by the gases acting on the back part of the gun while they are in a heated condition is so great, and the temperature caused by the explosion is so high, that I do not think any advantage would be derived from such a test. In designing these guns there were two considerations to which scientists specially

  1061
  applied themselves. They tested the temperature and pressure of the gases, and by these means ascertained the strength of metal required and the temperature it would stand. As far as the Admiralty know, our guns are as strong—I believe they are really stronger than any guns made by a Foreign Power, and they are also unequalled for accuracy, rapidity of firing, and endurance. As I have shown in my statement, the total number of heavy breech-loading guns of 8-inch calibre and upwards, mounted in English ships, is 88, 22 of those being 13 inches and upwards, while 66 are of from 8 to 13 inches, whereas the French have mounted only 20 of 13 inches and upwards, and 22 of from 8 to 13 inches. I have been asked questions with reference to the personnel of the Navy, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-Fast Kent has called special attention to the position of the Engineer Officers of the Fleet. I gave an answer on this subject last year, and have since most carefully considered the matter, with the result that I can see no reason for changing the opinion I then expressed. It is quite true that the Engineer Officers perform most responsible duties, but it must also be remembered that there is an almost unlimited supply of material for making such officers throughout the country. The Admiralty can obtain any number of candidates for the engineering branch of the Navy, the advantages of that service being exceptional. They receive a most expensive education, three-quarters of the cost of which is defrayed by the country, and when once they become commissioned officers they are almost always upon full pay, while their promotion is not retarded from one grade to another by an exceptional block. Therefore, I do not think the engineer officers have established a case that would justify me in increasing the pay at present attached to their rank in the Navy. I am, however, anxious, as far as I can fairly do so, to improve their status; but I believe that the profession of Naval Engineer is one to which people of any station in life would like to send their sons, and that when the advantages of this branch of the Service are known we shall get quite as good candidates as we have had for other branches of the Naval Service. Well, Sir, another hon. Gentleman has stated that during the
  1062
  recent Naval Manœuvres certain vessels-developed signs of weakness; and in reply to that charge I may say that every officer commanding a ship at those manœuvres had to send in a Report, and to answer a large number of categorical and searching questions which were sent round by the Admiralty. The result was that although a number of complaints were made of want of boiler power and engine power, and so forth, in no case did any officer state that his ship showed any signs of structural weakness. It is not for the Naval Board to interfere with the designs, the responsibility for which must be thrown upon the designers; but, at all events, no reduction has been made in the standard of constructive strength of our modern ships of war. Then the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Sir J. Colomb) suggested that officers and men of the Marines should be more utilised for the purpose of forming a Naval Reserve; and, while I quite agree with him—though I only express my owns opinion—as to the ability of these officers, and the desirability of giving so qualified a body greater chances of distinguishing themselves, I think we must rely for reserve in time of war upon our Mercantile Marine. We have the question of pensions to consider; and it is impossible to think that the people of this country would tolerate a large establishment of reserves in excess of our requirements for ships in existence simply in order that in time of war we might have a full supply of officers- and men. The cost of maintaining such a large number of men on the Active List would be considerable; and, in addition, there would be such heavy non-effective charges that I do not think the proposition one that any Government would1 care to make, or that the House of Commons would be likely to assent to. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford made to-night by no means his first speech against the Naval Defence Act of last year. I am bound to say he said nothing very new. Ho always maintained that the probable result of the measure would be to increase the Naval expenditure of other countries. Other countries, no doubt, have increased their Naval expenditure; but, having watched the matter very closely, I have not been able to trace any increase in the case of America or France in consequence of

  1063
  what we have done. For years past Americans have called for an increase of their Navy, and very naturally, looking at the extent of the seaboard of their country and the extent of their commerce. They have a large surplus in their treasury just now, and could not put it to better purpose than the development of shipbuilding and the rehabilitation of their Fleet. As to France, I read very carefully the speech of the French Minister, and what he pointed out was that Germany and Italy had largely increased their expenditure, and therefore he thought it necessary there should be some increase of the French Navy. The addition is not very alarming. It amounts to about £2,300,000, and this is to be spread over five or six years. The right hon. Member said that the French Navy, as compared with the British, stands in the ratio of two to three; but I have seen the French Estimates, and find a very slight increase—nothing to sustain the ratio upon which the right hon. Gentleman founded his argument. I do not want to re-state the many arguments that may be urged on behalf of the principles that are embodied in the Naval Defence Act of last Session. The House assented to the measure by a large majority. With regard to the question of Naval administration, I dismiss the financial objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman and put them aside; but when the complaint is made that the head of the Navy is a civilian, whose knowledge of Naval matters must necessarily be small, I must say that, though that fact may have something to do with Naval administration, my experience is that a civilian of common-sense and industry can, if he properly selects technical advisers, discharge the duties satisfactorily. The greatest difficulty a civilian has to contend with is that imposed by Parliamentary administration. He has to be in constant attendance in the House; day by day questions are put down; and I suppose there is hardly a day in which the Director of Naval Construction, the Engineer-in-Chief, or the Director of Dockyards is not taken away from most important work in order to devote half an hour or an hour to the answering of a question put to a Minister in this House. I do not dispute the right of Members to put questions to Ministers. So long as
  1064
  the present system continues it is only reasonable that full information should be given by Ministers.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  LORD G. HAMILTON: When I was interrupted I was about to point out that under the old system of preparing the Estimates the time of the officials was occupied continuously for about three months. Numbers of small questions crop up time after time—such as the type of ships to be built, the number of ships, and matters affecting stores. All these things have to be considered, and the permanent officials have no standard up to which to work. In the future it will be possible to compress the consideration of the annual Estimates into at least one-fourth of the time required under the old system. The time saved can be devoted to the consideration of great questions of principle, and to the establishment of a system under which the various departments of the Navy can work up to a fixed standard. As the advantages of this system became more and more apparent I am certain that everybody, including even the right hon. Gentleman, will prefer it, and will admit that it promotes economy, organisation, and method, whereas the old system undoubtedly led to waste and confusion.
  Vote agreed to.
  4. £1,103,200, Victualling and Clothing for the Navy.
  5. £125,200, Medical Establishments and Services.
  6. £11,900, Martial Law, &c.
  7. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £71,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891."
  MR. DUFF: I rise, Sir, to move that you report Progress. I do so for the purpose of asking the Government what course they intend to take with regard to the remaining Naval Votes? I think the Committee has been taken somewhat by surprise. I have been here myself the greater part of the evening; but at 10

  1065
  minutes past 8 o'clock I went away to have my dinner, under the impression that Vote 1 would continue to occupy the Committee, and that we should be able to discuss any questions we wished to raise on that Vote. I knew that two hon. Members intended to speak. When I came back I found that the House had voted £5,000,000 of money. It really looks as if the House took no interest in the Navy—that would be a false impression. Strictly speaking I ought to have been here, but one generally relies on someone to keep the debate going. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty does not propose to go on with the Shipbuilding Vote to-night, considering that the enormous volume dealing with it was not presented to the House until 4 o'clock this evening.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Duff.)
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I wish to say I thoroughly echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend opposite. I, like him, have been taken entirely by surprise. I do not desire to criticise the action of Ministers. Probably, they are perfectly justified in the course they have taken; but I think I may say that such a course is most unusual. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Admiral Mayne) and myself had given way with great good nature to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Sir J. Colomb), who had to take the chair at a meeting in the East End, and during the dinner hour a snatch-Vote was taken. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I will not call it a snatch-Vote; but it certainly is not usual to take a Vote of this kind during the dinner hour. There was no desire on the part of any of us to interfere with the Government in getting the Vote to-night. We are, however, not made of cast-iron, and cannot do without food. I hope no charge will be brought against us of having failed in our duty to the country in not having discussed these Votes.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There has been no snatch-Vote, and no attempt on the part of anyone to unduly push the Vote through. Very few Members were present in the House when the first Vote was put. A number of questions
  1066
  had been put to me, and I felt bound to answer them, although not one of the speakers was then present. I am sorry that the speech which my hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field) intended to make was not made, and I shall be very glad to assent to any reasonable proposition. What I propose is, not to take the Shipbuilding Vote, the Naval Armament Vote, or the Admiralty Vote.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think my noble Friend has proposed a very reasonable thing. I entirely acquit the noble Lord of any desire to snatch a Vote. I hope ho will also acquit me of any want of courtesy in not having been here when he answered the remarks I had made. I left the House at 10 minutes past 8 for the same purpose as my hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field), and I was surprised when at half-past 8 I returned and found that the noble Lord had finished his observations.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. DUFF: I should like to ask the noble Lord what policy the Board intend to pursue in regard to the Britannia? Some time ago a very important Commission concerning Naval Education held an inquiry, which was presided over by Admiral Luard and consisted of very able men. After the Commission had reported I took occasion to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the Report. Since then I do not think the Admiralty have given any attention whatever to the Report with the exception of having made some alterations with regard to age of entry of naval cadets. After the trouble that Commission took, I think it is due to them that some reasons should be given by the Admiralty for net having carried out their recommendations. At present, naval cadets, after going to the Britannia at a very early age, are sent to sea generally for four years. While on hoard a man-of-war they have no opportunity of pursuing the most scientific part of their education. It is quite impossible to teach the higher branches of mathematics on board a man-of-war, and the Commission lay down the general principle that you ought to separate the technical from the scientific

  1067
  education. When these young men pass into the College at Greenwich, after having been four years at sea, they are not able to pass the examination they passed when they left the Britannia; and consequently, for all scientific purposes, the four most valuable years of their life—those between 16 and 20—are absolutely thrown away. I do not think much can be said in defence of that system. In these days naval officers are required to have a far more scientific education than in former years. The Commissioners recommended that you ought to enter your cadets at a much later age. Your cadets ought to be entered at a later age, say between 16 and 17. At the present moment first-class boys from Greenwich do not go to sea until they are 17, and I do not see it is too late for officers to get their sea legs any more than for the men. For four months they should go to sea and learn the strictly nautical part of their profession, and after that they should proceed with their higher studies, mathematics and foreign languages, in some place where there is opportunity for acquiring them, which we know there is not on board ship. You do not find any foreign nation following our system, and it stands condemned from the fact that four years afterwards the lads cannot pass the examination they passed on entering. The present system deprives them of the opportunity they should have of acquiring a scientific education and knowledge of languages, which they cannot get with equal advantage from a professional crammer. After this mature consideration they have given to the subject I should like to know what steps the Admiralty propose to take with reference to the recommendations of the Commission? I am quite aware that naval men are not at one in their opinion of the Report, but I know no naval men are satisfied with the present system. Some of my late Colleagues at the Admiralty were not prepared to go so far as the Report; but the naval Lords admitted that the present system is unsatisfactory, and there is no remedy in simply raising the age by a year.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have looked very closely into the Report of the Commission which sat some four or five years ago, and I and my Colleagues
  1068
  are unanimous in our opinions of its recommendations. The proposition is that these cadets shall be selected at local Oxford and Cambridge examinations in the country at the age of 15, and that after that they shall be put through a special course of preparation for a further examination for another year, and at about the age of 16½ they should begin their professional duties. Now, as for entering the Service at a later age, if there is one thing clearer than another it is that there are considerable discomforts associated with a sea life, which boys do not feel, but which to a young man would be most disagreeable—
  MR. R. W. DUFF: At 17?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: A young man sent to sea and compelled to sling his hammock among scores of others, with no accommodation but his sea-chest, would find his lot so disagreeable, as compared with that of his brothers and relatives on shore, that he would not take kindly to it. Experience is conclusive against the proposal. At one stage of their lives boys are gregarious in their habits, and it is then that they should be sent to sea, when almost any surroundings will be enjoyable. But three years later, when the boy is dawning into early manhood and appreciates the advantages of privacy, this life without early training becomes intolerable. The age of entering for the Britannia has been raised to 14½ years, and the entrance examination is made as general as possible, so that any boy of ordinary ability and of good training can pass it. It may well be that a cadet cannot pass again the more difficult part of the examination which he passed four years before; but the same thing can be said of a senior wrangler. The cadets while at sea receive an excellent moral training, together with enough education to keep their minds open. Other nations would be ready enough to adopt this country's system if they could thereby obtain officers as good. To have the men well trained it is necessary to have them at an early age; and the present system has resulted in producing a number of highly-trained, scientific officers, while never were the lower grades of officers so good.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: The expense of training a cadet is to a very large extent at present borne on the

  1069
  Naval Votes, and I do not see why that training should not be supplied by the public schools. I am quite aware that the naval cadets are assisted by their parents, but the expense does to a very appreciable extent fall upon the Votes. The Commission recommended that boys should be selected at the age of 16, and then sent to a crammer for a year. I do not think that this is necessary, as any boy of good public-school education is quite capable of going to sea at once. When I entered the Navy (in 1856) boys were entered at the age of 16, and no difficulty was found in getting them. I entered very young, and, like most youngsters, I was mad to go to sea, but I very soon had the enthusiasm knocked out of me, and the first two years of my sea life were about as miserable as any period of my life. It is only about the age of 16 that a lad begins to understand the romance of the Service and to like the life. If a boy goes to sea at 16, he should not be called upon to go in for scientific subjects until entering the Naval College. Let him, from 16 to 19, add seamanship and navigation to his public school education, and then ho could spend at least two years in the Naval College, and thoroughly study all those scientific subjects which a Naval officer is expected to understand. I have no sympathy with the present system of training cadets, and I hope, in fact, that the Britannia may soon be done away with.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I do not share the views of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I am thoroughly in harmony with the view of the First Lord. I am not, however, opposed to raising the age for entering the service to 15 years as a maximum. If you abolish the Britannia, as my hon. and gallant Friend recommends, your choice will be between sending the lads to sea straight from school or having a college on shore. Well, I think there would be considerable difficulty in keeping good discipline among some 200 young men of the ages from 16 to 19 in a college on shore. It would be far better that they should go to sea straight, and be brought under strict naval discipline. But the answer of the hon. Gentleman opposite is that the system he proposes has been tried and has failed, the present
  1070
  system being established in lieu of it. The late Sir Alfred Ryder, when he was private secretary to the Duke of Somerset, prepared a Return for the Admiralty, showing what became of the lads who entered at the age of 16, in comparison with those who joined the Britannia at an earlier age. The result was remarkable. I will not quote it from memory, but the Returns showed that a much larger percentage of those who joined the Britannia, remained in the Service. I myself joined at the age of 16 and found the life a most disgusting one for the first six months. It was most difficult to acquire any knowledge of my profession except seamanship, because there was no one to teach it. I remember my experience very well, but I need not trouble the House with it, I am entirely opposed to any drastic change, and I think the noble Lord is quite right in resisting it. If there should be any change this is not the time for making it. While you have ships of the type you have at present, better adhere to the present system until you can invent a better. Have Foreign Navies got a better staff of officers? No, I am sure they have not. Ours is not a perfect system any more than any human system, but it has worked well; it has supplied us with talented young officers, and I do not think yon will readily find a better system.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: It is amusing to see how hon. and gallant Gentlemen will yield to the influence of myth. It would be well if attention were given to the explosion of some of the myths connected with the naval Service. I believe there is no greater mistake than to suppose a boy cannot become accustomed to sea life at a later age than 16. Some distinguished men have gone to sea long after 16. For instance, Captain Cook first went to sea at the age of 19. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Banff and Devonport in the main, but I concur with my hon. and gallant Friend near me that this is not a suitable occasion to raise a regular educational discussion. The system has been arranged by my noble; Friend, and whatever views we hold we have very little chance of impressing them on the present Board of Admiralty. I maintain, however, that of recent years the Admiralty have given

  1071
  undue value to what is called high mathematical and scientific training. Personally I never had any objection to these branches of study; they were never distasteful to me; but it is undoubtedly true of the officers who received high training on the Britannia and the Excellent that of a hundred not five could, six months after entrance, work out the problems they did when they passed their examination, without the assistance of books and formula. The simple reason is this, knowledge is not required in the profession. If my noble Friend believes, as I think he does, that the officers of our Naval Service are men of high scientific attainments, he is labouring under a complete delusion. No body of officers in the Service ever have been, and I might say ever will be, men of high scientific training, simply because it is not required, and a man will not fit himself with attainments not required in the course of his profession. For my part, I should like to see the whole system altered, and to see boys having had an ordinary education on shore proceed to sea. I believe they would readily accustom themselves to the hardships of sea life, for, after all, it is stuff and nonsense talked about this, there is no real hardship. There was in the days when my hon. and gallant Friend entered the Service, but I am quite sure that judging by the way in which young men crowd into the Navy, they are not considered hardships.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I feel very strongly on this subject, and I entirely agree with the last speaker. I happen to be one of the few examples of public schoolboys in the Navy, and I am convinced that it has been of the greatest advantage to me to have had two years at Eton before going to sea. I am opposed to the Britannia system from beginning to end. The necessity of entering boys at a very early age has been somewhat emphasised, but I believe if we entered boys in the Navy direct from the public schools they would turn out equally good officers as those we have now. As to what has been said about the disgust that arises at the discomforts of sea life, that applies as much to the age of 12 as it does to the age of 16, and all that a lad has to learn can be equally well learned if he joins the Service after receiving the
  1072
  ordinary education of a gentleman's son. It is probable that all the officers except those who join the torpedo service or special scientific branches know nothing about the subject they passed in two years before. In fact, when they leave college they close their books never to open them again. I would suggest that for any real advantage the education should be carried on for a much longer period. I should like them not to drop their books until, at any rate, they became captains. I do not see why you should not have some such system as the staff college, where officers may continue their education. It is my opinion that we learn little worth remembering until we are grown up.
  MR. DUFF: I think it must be pretty evident there is a difference of opinion on this point among Naval officers. We have what may be called the old school represented by the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Field) who think that the old system is perfect and incapable of improvement.
  ADMIEAL FIFLD: I condemned it.
  MR. DUFF: The preponderance of opinion certainly among Naval officers is in favour, if not exactly of the recommendations of the Commission, at any rate in favour of very great alterations in the system. I do not think the noble Lord quite remembers the recommendations of the Commission. There is nothing in those recommendations to prevent boys going back to a public school after the preliminary examination; it is not necessary that they should go to crammers. The proposal of the Commission was that we should do away with the rank of midshipman afloat; that the lads should go for a cruise for three or four months, and then return to a naval college on shore. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite has pointed out the falsity of the assumption that young men did not get on when they joined the Service late in life, and he mentioned the case of Captain Cook, who joined late. I can mention another case of a celebrated officer, Lord Dundonald, with whom I served, who, I believe, did not enter the Service until he was 18. Those familiar with the Autobiography of a Seaman will remember the description of Lord Dundonald when in the command of the

  1073
  Speedy, trying to shave himself, his legs in the cabin, his head on deck. He, as a young man, had to undergo considerable discomforts, but these in no way daunted his ardour for a sea life. The First Lord entertains a good John Bull opinion of British officers as the best in the world, and it is quite right that a First Lord should have that opinion, but as to the possession of scientific acquirements I should just like to mention the evidence of Captain Kane, of the Calliope, who says that unquestionably foreign naval officers have a better scientific education than ours, and he has also stated that he does not believe that one English officer in a hundred speaks any language but his own. I do not go as far as that, but I think you do not give your young officers the opportunity for learning that amount of science which is necessary in the Service, and which they ought to have in the same proportion as foreign officers have. I agree with a great deal that has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke. If you do not have special training the best thing is to have naval officers educated like anyone else up to a certain age, and then take them on board ship and let them get their professional education there.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  8. £57,900, Scientific Services.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I should like to know whether instructions have been sent out to specially survey that part of the Torres Straits where it is reported a rock has been discovered en which the Quetta was lost?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no information on that point, but I will make inquiries.
  Vote agreed to.
  9. £152,100, Royal Naval Reserves.
  MR. DUFF: I notice that some years ago the reserve number of stokers was 1,000. It was reduced to 600, and now the number is nominally 800; last year you only succeeded in obtaining about 600. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to get the number of men which he expects, because at the present moment the position of the naval stokers, as regards pay, is not so good as that of the stokers in the mercantile marine. It is quite true that a naval man can look forward to a pension,
  1074
  but I should like to ask the Admiralty whether they think what they are now offering is a sufficient inducement for men to enter the reserve Service?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: When I first came to the Admiralty the system in force was to offer a retainer of £5 a year; that is to say, a man of good character and of certain experience as stoker could increase his wages by £5 a year, simply by becoming a man of the Royal Naval Reserve. I thought we should be able to obtain any number we wished, but the anticipation has not been fulfilled. Whether it is from want of knowledge on the part of the men I do not know. If this system does not answer we shall have to try other means. Whether we shall get more this year than last I cannot say, but my impression is, judging from the state of the labour market, we shall not get them.
  Vote agreed to.
  10. £415,800, Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad.
  ADMLRAL FIELD: On this Vote I beg to call the noble Lord's attention to a very grave deficiency, which he knows exists and has existed for many years, and which I know he and his Colleagues, are anxious should be rectified—I allude to the want of a dock at Bombay. The want of a dock at Bombay is a public scandal. The noble Lord in his Memorandum very properly refers to it. He says—
  "Plans for the proposed naval dock at Bombay have been prepared by Sir J. Coode, under instructions from the India Office, but no funds have as yet been allotted for the purpose."
  Whose fault is it? I am told it is the fault of the Treasury. Everything, I believe, waits for the approval of the Treasury. But if the Treasury will not grant this money, surely Her Majesty's Government, which is all powerful in these times, can bring pressure on the Indian Government and make them do what they ought to do. The Indian Government spent close on £400,000 on a floating iron dock. That dock was sent across to Bombay, but I believe that not more than one man of war has ever been docked in it. The money has been entirely wasted. The dock has now been handed over to the Peninsula and Oriental Company at a nominal rent, and

  1075
  I do not suppose anything has been done to reserve the right to dock our ships in it. Another matter I wish to call attention to is the construction of the dock at Gibraltar. I am told that in his Memorandum the noble Lord speaks of a site having been selected. Are we to understand that plans are in course of preparation, and that the work will be undertaken before the summer passes? I should like to know, too, whether the lengthening of the dock at Malta, which was agreed upon by the Treasury, has been carried out? The work was approved of in May, 1888; it was to be undertaken in July, 1888, but I have not yet heard it has been finished. I earnestly trust the noble Lord will be able to give us an assurance that the dock at Bombay will be built—that if the Treasury will not make a grant, the Government, who have the power, will compel the Indian Government to do their duty in the matter.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I should like to know whether, in selecting the site of the dock at Gibraltar, regard has been had to its being placed out of the range of fire from the Spanish heights on the opposite side. I should like to know, also, the exact spot decided upon, its length, and general particulars, and whether it is to be a first-class dock, which will receive the largest ships of this country in the Mediterranean, and afford them the greatest amount of protection. Perhaps the First Lord will say whether the Mole is to be lengthened with the ground taken out of the excavations for the dock, and also whether the question of fitting up or rebuilding the stores at Gibraltar, so as to house the men who now live all over the town, has been considered by the Government. I quite agree with the observations of my gallant Friend about the dock at Bombay, but my hon. and gallant Friend suggests more drastic methods of dealing with Governments and others who do not find all the money required than I imagine could be carried out. I desire also to be informed whether anything is being done at Pembroke. If proper works were undertaken and completed, there would be an annual saving to the country of much more than the annual interest on the money expended, besides making the dockyard far more efficient. I believe the First Lord and all his
  1076
  Colleagues are strongly in favour of the work being undertaken. It is, I understand, merely a question of money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I see in his place, will, I am sure, raise no objection if it is properly put before him that the saving will be in excess of the interest of the money expended.
  MR. DUFF: I should like some information as to the item in the Vote for the coaling arrangements at Portsmouth and Portland. I presume the item is taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee as to the necessity of improved coaling facilities for the Fleet. I am certain I shall have all the Naval Authorities with me when I say that the coaling arrangements for the Fleet in cases of emergency are very unsatisfactory. My hon. and gallant Friends opposite (Admiral Field and Admiral Mayne) have alluded to the construction of a dock at Gibraltar. That is a very proper question to ask, because the noble Lord in his Memorandum says—
  "The Admiralty have been carefully considering the provision of a dock at Gibraltar, and have selected a site for it. They have every hope that the dock will soon be undertaken by private enterprise, with help and encouragement from the Imperial Governmet."
  I understand the Civil Lord has recently been to Gibralter, and I hope he will give the Committee the benefit of his investigation. The importance of the dock to the Navy it is impossible to overrate, and therefore I trust the Government will give every possible encouragement to private enterprise to carry out the object.
  A CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,): The Admiralty have recently had the question of a dock at Gibraltar under their close consideration, and it has been decided to make a dock at that very important station. It has practically been decided to make the dock on the New Mole Parade, and if the dock is made there it will enable the Mole to be lengthened as the Naval Authorities desire. Of course, if the Mole is lengthened it will be possible to devote a great portion of it to coaling. The site of the dock is protected from sea fire, but it is practically impossible to obtain a site which would be altogether sheltered from land fire.

  1077
  The question of the construction of the dock by a commercial company has not yet been settled. There is a consultation now going on between the Admiralty and the Colonial Office, and it is possible the two Departments may undertake the construction of the dock between them. As my hon. and gallant Friend will understand, there is some objection to a dock being constructed by a commercial company. I did not quite catch the object of my hon. and gallant Friend's (Admiral Mayne's) observations with regard to the stores at Gibraltar, but the stores houses are of a very superior character—very large and commodious. With regard to the dock at Bombay, I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field) that there has been an unfortunate delay in the construction of the dock. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has observed very truly that it is duo very largely to the difficulty of the allocation of funds, a difficulty which I hope will be removed before very long. I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend as to the importance of a dock. The hon. Member for Banffshire referred to the coaling arrangements at Portsmouth and Portland. The item in the Vote concerning Portsmouth is merely a re-vote for the completion of the coaling arrangements there. As to Portland, the coaling arrangements are unsatisfactory. An entirely new scheme has been adopted, which involves the construction of a jetty, so that the coaling may be carried out in deep water.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It was my intention to raise the whole question of Ascension Island under this Vote, but I did not imagine that the Vote would be taken to-night, and therefore I have not my notice with me. I hope some inquiry will be made before further expenditure is sanctioned with regard to Ascension Island. I believe I am right in saying that Ascension Island is rated as a ship; that it is not considered as an ordinary shore establishment, but that the officers and men who are there are rated as if on board ship, and are paid out of Vote 1. What is the cost of maintaining the island is extremely difficult to make out, in consequence of the expenditure appearing under various Votes.
  1078
  It is very questionable whether the island is of any real value to the Naval Service. No doubt, in former days, the position was an important one; but in these days of steam, the use of the island for any purpose is very small indeed. I know a very large number of Naval officers are of opinion that it is perfectly useless now, and that the Naval establishments there might be given up, or that only a very small force might be kept there. The island is nothing more than a cinder. The vegetation is not sufficient to support cattle or sheep, and the attempt at cultivation was made at very considerable cost. What I would like the noble Lord to do, is seriously to consider whether it is worth while retaining the establishments there any longer, or, at all events, whether the force should not be reduced?
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I wish to ask a question with regard to the item for storehouses and buildings for the reception of Naval ordnance stores, for which there is a charge of £49,000 for the coming year, and a further expenditure of £13,000 debited to the year 1888–89. I ask on what ground, without the consent of this House, the noble Lord has consented to the building of these storehouses? Surely there was already in existence sufficient accommodation for Naval stores. Is it due to the effect of placing stores under Navy control which were formerly under that of the War Office? At any rate, I see no reason why separate stores should be built for the Navy if the existing stores were sufficient.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: These storehouses were rendered necessary in con sequence of the increased quantities of stores provided for the Navy. One point, I may mention, has reference to the storage of powder. The existing accommodation for powder was not very good. The matter was discussed between the War Office and the Admiralty as to which branch should undertake the necessary buildings, and the Treasury, to whom the question was referred, decided that the cost should be borne by the Admiralty. With regard to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the Isle of Ascension, I can assure him that the expenditure referred to was not sanctioned until the Government were satisfied as to the desirability

  1079
  of retaining that island. It is deemed a most suitable place for a Naval station, and as the climate is salubrious it is regarded as an excellent sanatorium. Of all our Naval stations in the neighbourhood of North-West Africa that of Ascension is, perhaps, the most important.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I do not think many hon. Members are quite satisfied with the answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty in reference to the Bombay dock. We know that the Indian Government refuses to pay more than a moiety of the cost, and we ask that the Government should press the Indian Government to pay the whole. I therefore hope we shall receive a more assuring answer on this subject than has already been given by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I hope we may ere long be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion with the Indian Government as to the contribution they should make, but in the meantime a commercial company has undertaken to build a dock at Bombay.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I should like to ask a further question with regard to Ascension. The noble Lord has said it is a satisfactory Naval station and useful as a sanatorium. As a Naval station I would point out that it is not a coaling station, and, moreover, the sea is often so rough that it is difficult to land for Naval purposes. Moreover, I would ask whether, in point of fact, a considerable number of men are sent there for sanitary purposes? but as I have made some notes on the subject, and should like to go into the matter more fully than I can do to-night, I will endeavour to obtain another opportunity of raising the question in a more formal manner.
  Vote agreed to.
  11. £133,400, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
  12. £793,500, Half Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.
  13. £933,400, Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I wish to call attention to the great dissatisfaction, which is felt among the chief petty
  1080
  officers in the Service with regard to their pensions. It is a great hardship on the senior petty officers that they receive no extra retiring pensions in acknowledgment of their rank. The chief petty officer has no recognition in the way of extra pension when he retires from the Service, and that is a very serious grievance. The staff-sergeant in the Army, who occupies similar rank to the chief petty officer in the Navy, draws extra pension when he retires. The chief petty officer, selected because of his knowledge and seamanship, gets no extra recognition for extra rank. Such a faithful body of men as these chief petty officers are deserving of recognition, and I hope their grievance will receive prompt remedy.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I support my hon. and gallant Friend in drawing attention to this grievance, for it does seem wrong that the chief petty officers should get no more recognition on retiring than first class petty officers who are of lower rank and inferior position. I hope the noble Lord will give this matter his attention.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I add my voice in support of my hon. and gallant Friend, for it is a practical grievance which has been pointed out, that officers of similar rank to these chief petty officers should receive full pension while the latter do not.
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I rise for the purpose of supporting the appeal in favour of the chief petty officers.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The matter is well deserving consideration. The chief petty officers are an admirable body of men, and I am quite prepared to give the matter my consideration.
  Vote agreed to.
  14. £330,700, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
  15. £1,200, Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I understand the colony of Queensland has declined to make any contribution in aid of this particular Service. I wish to know whether, if that be the case, it will in any way affect the contributions of the other Australasian Colonies. I wish to know whether the £67,000 includes the

  1081
  proposed contribution of Queensland, or if it does not?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The original arrangement was that for certain services rendered the colonies should pay certain sums in return. Queensland has not sent a contribution: therefore, it only remains to distribute the expenditure amongst those who have assented to the scheme. The money is not payable until the ships are in commission in the autumn. Communications are being addressed to the colonial Governments in the meanwhile, so that there is reasonable prospect that before the close of the year some appropriation will be made.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: What will be the contribution of Queensland?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I do not know. The colonies will supply the money themselves. They will decide pro ratâ what they shall bear.
  Vote agreed to.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1889–90.
  16. £15,000, Supplementary, for Army Ordnance Factories.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.— (No. 142.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should allow the Bill to be read a second time to-night that we may put down our Amendments. Possibly, the Bill might go to a Grand Committee.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): If it is the desire of the House, I have no objection at all. My hon. Friend who has charge of the Bill was not present, and I thought it desirable to postpone it. It is a Bill which obviously requires amendment in Committee.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: A fair time will be allowed for putting down Amendments?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly.
  MR. J. R. KELLY: Sir, this is one of the strangest Bills that was ever brought before the House. The object of it is the protection of infant life, and we all know the worst cases are those in which a lump sum is paid by the mother to get rid of the child. Now, by the 1st clause, you find that no person shall take any infant under the age of five years for the purpose of maintaining or nursing it for a longer period than 24 hours, except in a house which has been registered. I want to know what poor people would do if that became the law. Why, Sir, if this Bill passed in anything like its present shape, the working-man who had a child stricken with fever could not hope to get some kind neighbour to take temporary charge of his other young children, so that they might be removed from the danger of infection; if his wife were in the greatest danger and his doctor told him that her condition was such that it was necessary that her young child should be sent away for the mother's sake for a few days, he would look in vain for some friend ready to take care of the child for him. The poor cannot afford to keep the children of their poor neighbours, and, if anything at all were paid in such cases, the payments, however small, would at once convert such neighbours into "baby-farmers." People must know little indeed of the feelings of our working classes, if they suppose for one moment that they would ever consent to having to choose between registering their humble homes as baby-farms, or being dragged before a magistrate, simply because they might be anxious to help some poor neighbour with a fever-stricken home. And what about our relatives in our Dependencies? We know what a tremendous wrench it is to parents to deprive themselves of the pleasure of being with their children, and that there is probably scarcely a parent in India who has not to leave some child with a friend or relative in this country. But no clergyman in the country would be able to take the child of an Anglo-Indian except his house was registered as a baby farm. Or take the case of a married servant whose husband dies. Is her former mistress to be able, as now, to come to her rescue and help her and keep her while her child is

  1083
  placed with a neighbour? Or is this to be made impossible because the neighbour is to be summoned before the magistrate if he has not his house registered as a baby farm. Are we to make it so impossible for parents to get their friendly neighbours to take charge of their children that they will be unable to earn their living as they now earn it? I venture to think that this clause is wrong from beginning to end. You want to prevent baby farming, but you do not want to prevent a poor girl who has slipped and had a child, from being able to put the child out with somebody who can take care of it. A married friend could not take care of the child for her without having her husband registered as a baby farmer. The one thing this House should wish to do is to make it impossible to carry on what is known as baby-farming; to do this we should seek to prevent lump sums being paid to people who will starve to death the children entrusted to them. The position of such wretches would not be altered in any way by this Bill. There never was a title which gave a worse idea of the contents of a Bill than that of the Infant Life Protection Bill. It is a Bill for the persecution of honest poor parents, and the greatest injustice will be done if the 1st clause passes. May I say that even the Foundling Hospital will, under this Bill, have to be registered as a baby farm? The Hospital puts a number of children out to nurse with respectable poor people, and every single one of these people will have to be registered as a baby farmer. The 2nd clause provides that where an infant is registered, the person by whom it is registered shall truly state the name and sex and age and place and time of birth in his or her own name and the place or places in which he or she has resided during the six months immediately preceding. Then a girl who has once tripped is to have no chance or hope of concealing her shame and leading a good life because the finger of shame can be pointed at her by anyone who knows anything about the register! That is the last thing which Christian people would wish to see. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) to postpone the Second Reading. I am sure there is scarcely anyone in the country who knows what the real
  1084
  operation of the Bill will be. I have seen but one notice of it, which appeared in the Times newspaper, and there was no attempt made to state there except in the words of the Bill what its object was. I invite the House to consider not what the object of the Bill is, but what its effects will inevitably be. I beg formally to move that the debate be adjourned.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does anyone second the Motion?
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to second it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. M'LAREN: This Bill will act so injuriously on those persons, who will undoubtedly be brought under its operation, that I think the Home Secretary or one of the other Members of the Government ought to make a distinct promise that it will be modified. Of course, I am anxious that the evils of baby farming should be checked; but I think that may be done very well without the stringent provisions of this measure. In regard to the 1st clause, it is perfectly clear that, as the Bill stands, if a working man who is a widower removes in search of work and leaves his child with his mother or married sister or some other relative, or even a friend, his relative must have his or her house registered as a baby farm. This is a provision which ought not to be enforced. There ought to be some exception in the Bill in favour of relatives and real friends. I can hardly imagine that the intention of the Home Office was to produce such a clause as this. I should imagine that the section has been drafted by some no doubt well-meaning person who is ignorant of the way in which it would operate, and who has had very little experience of the manner in which the poor live. The point is one on which I hope we shall have an explicit assurance from the Government. Then, under the 2nd clause if any unfortunate woman, who has had an illegitimate child, leaves her child with some other person to be maintained while she goes out to service, she must leave her name and address, and describe

  1085
  where she has been for the previous six months. If it is to be purely private information, there will probably be no great harm in it; but the poor woman, whose only hope is to conceal the misfortune that has fallen upon her, has to register the information, and I presume it will become the property of some public official. I should not object so much if the names of both the father and mother were to be registered; but I object to the name of merely the poor woman being given. If the Bill ever reaches Committee I shall try to amend it on this point. We all know that when a Bill has been road a second time and these general sweeping provisions have been endorsed by the House, it is impossible to remedy any defects of principle in Committee. When we roach the Committee stage we find the Members interested in such points as these a mere handful; and when Divisions are taken, Members who know nothing of the merits of the question, come in by the hundred and vote us down. I trust that the Government, as they are anxious to pass the Bill, will do what they can to render it a really good workable measure, and that they will give me an assurance in the direction I have indicated. There must be Members on both sides of the House who have not studied the Bill—probably few Members present read a word of it before to-night; therefore, it is desirable that the Government should not unduly force it upon us. I would urge the Government to give us an assurance that the Bill will not be pressed forward in its present form. I also specially urge that it should be referred to a Select Committee, as the only chance of its being put into a proper shape.
  SIR R. FOWLER: The points raised by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and my hon. Friend on this side of the House, are really matters for discussion in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House has admitted that the measure requires amendment in Committee; therefore I trust the House will take the Second Reading to-night, on the understanding that the Bill is to be thoroughly discussed either in the Grand Committee or by a Select Committee. The Bill is a good one, and I do
  1086
  not think time should be lost in passing it.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The Second Reading of this Bill came on rather unexpectedly, owing to the progress made with business. The Bill is aimed solely at cruelty to and the maltreatment of infants, and the necessity for it has been shown by a certain class of cases which have recently been before coroners' courts. The Act of 1872 has been evaded by baby-farmers not having more than one child at a time. The practice is to hand the children on to others, without giving names or any information as to parentage, on the payment of a lump sum and without asking any questions, and the policy of the Bill is to take away interest in the cruel treatment and death of a child. No doubt there is room for the amendment of the details of the Bill. The 13th section of the Act of 1872 excepts children left by parents with relatives and guardians and children received by institutions for the care of infants. These exceptions may be extended so as to meet the case of the Foundling Hospital and other institutions which not merely receive children but also place them out with foster-parents or nurses. The Government are by no means averse to the consideration of Amendments. If it is the wish of the House to send the Bill to a Standing Committee the Government will not offer any opposition to such a proposal. The Bill has been prepared by the Home Secretary after full consultation with some of the great Municipalities, which are the Local Authorities charged with the administration of the Act of 1872. These, except so far as they are neutral, have expressed their approval of it.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think that in this Bill the meshes of the net are much too narrow. The attempt is a clumsy one to meet a crying evil. The measure may operate fairly enough in London or in large towns in England, and even in Dublin and Belfast; but it would not in the country districts of Ireland, where many young children are left with parents and relatives by people who go to America. In cases where children are left behind

  1087
  in that way the people receiving them would be liable to prosecution under this Bill. And looking at the Bill from a financial point of view it is extremely pernicious, seeing that the Local Authorities in Ireland are not the Municipalities but the Poor Law Boards. The Poor Law Boards will have to pay relieving officers or somebody else to look after the working of the Act, and the people already have to pay so much in the shape of rates that they are unwilling to extend the functions of the officers of the Boards. The rates will be increased in this way, and they will also be increased by the fact that children will be put into the Union if they cannot be left with friends when the parents go to America, and when put into the Union they will be kept there until they are 11 or 14 years of age. We might have to maintain these children in the workhouses 8 or 10 years. This would be an artificial increase in the number of children in the Unions, which number ought to be kept down to the lowest possible point. I would ask hon. Members to strike Ireland out of the Bill when it gets into Committee.
  MR. TOMLINSONrose.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right by seconding the Motion for adjournment. He has thus spoken on the Main Question.
  MR. GRAY: Hon. Members must naturally sympathise with the objects of the measure; but whilst approving of the principle of the Bill many of us are bound to criticise its details. In the rural districts children are constantly left with respectable neighbours while their parents go haymaking and harvesting. Then in the summer numbers of children are sent from London and the large towns to live for a few days or weeks for the benefit of their health with cottagers living in the villages. I should be sorry to see unnecessary restrictions placed upon these things, and I hope nothing will be done to prevent such charities. If details such as these are attended to in the Bill I should see no objection to its passing.
  DR. CLARK: Now that we have had an explanation from the Under Secretary as to the reasons of the Government for introducing this
  1088
  Bill, I must at once say that I am not satisfied that his arguments are sufficient to justify the introduction of the measure. The Act of 1872, which provides for the registration of any person who took charge of more than one child, is a very wide one. But the present Bill proposes to carry the principle further, by requiring the registration of any person who takes charge of one child for any period beyond 24 hours. I am afraid that the only effect of such a provision in Scotland, at any rate, will be to manufacture criminals. I was at one time resident doctor at the Royal Maternity Hospital at Edinburgh, and I knew of many cases where people, by payment of £50 or £100, were relieved for ever of the charge of their illegitimate offspring. But, in future, if a person takes one of these children, she will require to be registered under the Act. Again, I say that if the Bill is passed in its present form, and the Local Authorities appoint officers to carry out its provisions, the result will be to manufacture criminals. I do not think that the Government have advanced any reasons for adopting this Bill, which will prevent poor people taking charge of illegitimate children—as they often do out of kindness—because they will look upon it as an indignity to have to register themselves as baby-farmers. I shall therefore vote against the measure.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHT: Are we to understand that the Bill will go before a Select Committee? In regard to Clause 5, which anthorises the appointment of officers to visit houses which they have reason to believe are used as baby farms, I think it is most objectionable, indeed a more objectionable proposal was never brought before this House. In order to remove one evil the Bill proposes to establish a still greater evil. What will be the result of insisting on the registration in all cases? In towns the system may not work so disadvantageously; but in rural districts a man whose wife suddenly dies may have to send his children to a registered house many miles distant, instead of being able to place them under the care of a neighbour. If such a Bill were proposed in an Assembly in which poor people were represented it would never pass.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I am strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill, subject to modification in detail; but I agree that it is one that could best be dealt with by a Select Committee of experts, or of those specially interested, as it may not perhaps be of sufficient magnitude or complexity to send to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. As a member of that Standing Committee I do not think it is as well qualified to deal with this Bill as a Select Committee would be.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I am constrained to interpose in this debate because of the silence of the Government on the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Galway, as to whether they will consent to exclude Ireland from the Bill if the majority of the Irish Members should object to the extension of its operations to that country. The measure may possibly be desirable in England, Scotland, and Wales; but the social conditions of Ireland are entirely different, and therefore it should not be made applicable to that country. There is in Ireland an old historic custom, in accordance with which the children of one class of people are often fostered by people belonging to another class. This Bill will strike at the very root of this custom, which results in establishing strong feelings of affection between persons belonging to different classes. We therefore think that if it is strongly opposed by Irish Members Ireland should be exempted from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. J. S. GATHORNE HARDY: If we are to understand that the Bill will be used only as the text for a Bill dealing with this subject I shall not oppose the Second Reading. I sympathise greatly with the object of the Bill; but I should not like to see it become law in its present form. The first clause will have just the opposite effect to that intended, as it would compel children to be sent to baby-farmers, instead of to relations or friends, and no amount of inspection would secure the proper treatment in all cases of these unfortunate children. I hope the Government will consent to send the Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I agree entirely that the intentions of those who introduced this Bill are admirable; but I am sure that if it were carried in its present form those intentions would be defeated; and I do not think that public opinion will support the clause which will make it necessary for all persons who take charge of children to register themselves, even though they may be related to the person handing the charge over to them. I think many Local Authorities would not like to carry out the provisions of the 5th clause. It is very desirable that the Bill should go before a Select Committee.
  MR. P. S. POWELL: I have carefully examined the provisions of this Bill, and am bound to say I do not think it should be allowed to pass in its present form. I agree that it should be referred either to a Grand Committee or to a Select Committee; the latter would be the more competent, I think, to deal with the matter, because it is one requiring special knowledge, and one on which evidence should be taken. On the one hand, it is desirable to prevent cruelty to children; but, on the other hand, you must not unduly interfere with the rights of parents.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Assuming that the Second Reading is to-day agreed to, Her Majesty's Government are quite prepared to refer the Bill to a Committee, and if the House prefers a Select Committee no objection will be raised. As to the exclusion of Ireland from the scope of the Bill, it ought to be borne in mind that this measure proposes to amend the Act of 1872, which already applies to Ireland; and if the original Act applies to Ireland surely the amending Act, which proposes to remove certain blemishes in the original Act, ought to apply to that country as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom. It may be that you cannot strike at the blots in the existing Bill without hitting some innocent persons; but the question is, whether the remedy provided by the Bill will not greatly outweigh the objections which may be raised in the interests of one section of the community affected by it.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: As a protest against

  1091
  the eminently unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Donal Sullivan.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 151,—(Div. List, No. 29.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY PURCHASE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise in the United Kingdom, on the securities of the Revenues of India, any sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of £5,267,366 11s. 2d., for the purchase of the South Indian Railway, and for the discharge and redemption of debentures thereon.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  CROWN OFFICE BILL [LORDS.] (NO. 173.) SECOND READING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): This Bill is a formal one, to enable the Government to carry out certain engagements entered into by the Lord Chancellor, with regard to a re-arrangement of Offices.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Can an Amendment be proposed to the Bill in Committee enabling Catholics to hold the Office of Lord Chancellor, and other Offices, in Ireland?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: No; that is outside the scope of the Bill.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I do not see much use in taking this Bill at this hour of the night.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL. (No 163).
  Considered in Committee.
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 80).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 3.
  MR. LAWSON: May I point out to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that as now drawn some of the clauses will be quite useless in the Metropolis. I believe he proposes to accept Amendments to apply the Bill to London?
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: There are certain Amendments having relation to the London County Council that require consideration. They will take some time, and perhaps the hon. Member will agree o their consideration on Report.
  Clauses 3, 4, and 5 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 6.
  MR. MCLAREN: At this point I must object. There are Amendments I wish to propose, but I have not yet framed them.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: Perhaps the hon. Member will, in order that we may save time, now agree to move the Amendments on Report. Or will he mention them now?
  MR. MCLAREN: I am sorry to object, but there are one or two clauses to which I wish to move Amendments; but as I had no idea the Bill was coming on to-night I am taken by surprise, and have not the Amendments ready.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  HARES PRESERVATION BILL [LORDS]. (No. 187.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
MOTIONS.

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENT (SCOTLAND) (FERGUSON BEQUEST FUND.)
  MR. HOZIER: I am extremely sorry to be compelled to

  1093
  trespass, even briefly, upon the time and attention of the House at such a late hour, but that is one of the disadvantages under which we all labour, when we find it to be our duty to bring up for revision or rejection any of the schemes of the Educational Commissioners. I wish that some more satisfactory arrangement were adopted for dealing with these questions by the appointment of a Select Committee, as has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Seconder of my Motion; but, in the meantime, this is the only course open to us. The facts connected with this scheme are well-known to the Government and to Scottish Members. Mr. Ferguson died as recently as 1856. He made a very handsome provision for his relations, and after leaving about £50,000 for general educational purposes, he bequeathed the residue of his estate as a permanent fund for specific purposes, little Wringing that Commissioners would ever be appointed to divert such, funds. This residue of the estate he bequeathed for the benefit of five special Churches, which he named. In order that these five Churches should have exclusive control of the fund, he arranged that there should be 13 Trustees, all of them to be communicants of one or other of the five Churches, according to the proportions in which the various Churches were to be beneficiaries under the Trust. Three of the Trustees were to be communicants of the Established Church, four of the Free Church, four of the United Presbyterian, one of the Reformed Presbyterian, and one of the Congregational or Independent Church. He specially laid down, as the Trust Deed shows, that his Trustees should have an entirely free hand as to the various proportions in which they were to allocate the fund to the various objects connected with these churches. The very keynote of his intention was that the fund should be a permanent supplement to voluntary effort connected with these five Churches. I emphatically say "voluntary effort," inasmuch as the old parish schools were excepted, because they were not voluntary, and the Established Church was only to be a beneficiary so far as quoad sacra Churches were concerned—
  1094
  that is to say, Churches without any regular endowment. No real complaint has ever been made by the people of Scotland in regard to the management of the Trustees; on the contrary, the greatest satisfaction prevails. The provisions of the scheme to which we strenuously object are that the Trustees of the fund should hand over £1,600 a year as well as the income of the Ferguson Scholarship Fund, which was founded by the Trustees out of an entirely separate fund, to an entirely new Governing Body, who need not necessarily be in any way connected with any of the five Churches; and that the annual amount, after paying the Ferguson Scholarships and the necessary expenses of management, should be devoted to making grants to assist schools in giving, not religious education, but higher instruction. Moreover, the scheme points to the largest centres of population and the richest districts as being those to which the grants should be allocated. Many objections may be urged against the scheme. One objection is with regard to the additional expense of the management of the fund if there is to be a new and distinct Governing Body. The present management of the permanent Fund would have to be continued at the same expense as hitherto, while I believe that the additional expense would amount to at least £300 a year. That would come out of the £1,600. But the great and insuperable objection to the scheme is that it traverses the expressed intentions of the founder, who, after leaving what he considered ample—namely, £50,000—for general educational purposes created by the Ferguson Bequest Fund what he hoped would be a permanent endowment of the five Churches for purposes directly connected with these five Churches. There has been no scheme of the Endowment Commissioners that has given such, general dissatisfaction throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. The vast majority of Scottish Members are opposed to the proposals contained in the scheme, as is clearly shown by the signatures to the Memorial promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Hugh Elliot) and myself. Let us most carefully bear in mind that the Founder of the Trust

  1095
  died as recently as 1856. Up to the year 1887 three of the original testamentary Trustees were still alive, and they entirely concurred in the present management of the Trust. One of these original testamentary Trustees—Dr. Paterson—is still with us, to record his most emphatic protest against the proposals of the Commissioners. I hope the Government may see their way to acquiesce in this Motion which I now beg leave to submit.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent to the Scheme of the Educational Endowment (Scotland Commissioners for the management of the Endowment known as the Ferguson Bequest Fund."—(Mr. Hozier.)
  MR. HUGH ELLIOT: In seconding the Motion, I may mention that I have more than once suggested that these schemes should be sent to a Select Commtttee of this House. I regret that the suggestion has not been accepted, because such a Committee would give them a far better consideration than a scheme can receive in this House at this time of night. I can hardly conceive a scheme which calls more for the intervention of the House than the present one. Here is a gentleman, a contemporary of our own, who died, leaving ample provision for all his relations, and who, in the exercise of his legal right, left a certain sum to Trustees, who were to be members of certain churches, for the use of those churches and the religious work of those churches. I admit that the word "education" occurs in the will, and is one of the objects of the legacy; but it is an education which is to be more or less religious—education controlled by religion. Mr. Ferguson's intention was that the people should be educated, but religious too. There is nothing objectionable in that. It is praiseworthy, and the endowment has worked very well. But the unfortunate word "education" induced the Commissioners to stop in, and they have disconnected education from the religious connection Mr. Ferguson intended to give it. They gave this money to useful objects, no doubt—to higher education; but if we want higher education, let us provide it from proper funds. Do not let us strip churches or anybody for the purpose
  1096
  of establishing higher education. Often and often since the passing of the Act of 1882 has Parliament been asked to step in and check these schemes; but the check that this appeal to Parliament was to provide has hitherto been useless, I think, and votes have always supported the Commissioners. To-night, however, I hope for better things. We have a strong case, which my hon. Friend has put very clearly, and I think we may look to the issue; with some confidence.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): As my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of this Motion must be aware, the House has been hitherto slow to interfere with the discretion vested by Statute in the Commissioners, and I hope it will retain that reserve in disposing of the remaining schemes which have to come before it. Most of these schemes are in a general sense local, and sometimes the interests involved are minute. I am quite certain of this: that whatever opinion may be entertained of the merits of this particular scheme, there can be but one estimate of the exceeding ability, attention, and pains bestowed by the Commissioners upon the several subjects which have come under their cognisance. Accordingly, in considering the present question, I am certain there is in no part of the House any intention to disparage the judgment or discretion of the Commissioners. But we cannot ignore the fact that the Act of Parliament leaves with the two Houses of Parliament the ultimate decision and responsibility. The question on the present occasion is whether there are adequate grounds for Parliament interposing in order to arrest the due action of the Commissioners in regard to this scheme? My hon. Friend has been able to present a case in which the interests at stake are considerable, the amount of the endowment is large, and, what is more, a large part of Scotland is directly interested. Several counties are beneficiaries, and almost all the larger religious denominations are amongst the custodiers or Trustees of this endowment. Accordingly, it is impossible to regard this as one of those purely local questions. Then my hon. Friend very justly dwelt upon some of the other salient features of the case. One, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark-

  1097
  shire commented on, was the very recent date of the will. I am quite aware that the Act of Parliament places within the review of the Commissioners all endowments founded as late as 1872; but, at the same time, the fact that this gentleman only died in 1856 raises a very striking peculiarity in this case. Another point is that some of the wills which have come under the cognisance of the Commissioners have indicated some obscurity, or want of complete following out of all the objects and means which the testator might be presumed to have contemplated. That is not the case here. There is most careful and minute attention to the following out of the scheme through all its various phases. There is also what was of immense importance—there is a very anxious choice of those who are to be the guardians of the interests under the Trust. Accordingly, I find in this case several large features standing out distinguishing it from those which have previously been under the attention of the House. But there is one which I think still more important It is said this is an educational endowment; but the bequest is so embedded in the other provisions of the will, and so closely connected with the provisions in favour of Religious agencies, that positively the amount to be given to education in any one year is to be determined by the Religious Bodies with reference to their religious requirements. Accordingly, it cannot be said that to separate and segregate the educational part of the fund from the rest is a very complete or effectual carrying out of the intention of the testator. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that this is a case open to Parliament to consider whether the scheme—assuming it to be the best possible—ought to be adopted, or whether the intention of the testator should be given effect to. I find that question prejudged by the opinion of Scotland. There is, unquestionably, a strong and warm feeling on this subject. Most useful and beneficent influence has been exercised by the existing administrators of this money. Under these circumstances, I am bound to say that it is the opinion of the Government that Parliament may well interpose. I wish the House to understand that we do so not to pass any censure or
  1098
  adverse judgment on the scheme of the Commissioners. The Commissioners, of necessity, took up and dealt with the case, inasmuch as it fell within the terms of the Act of Parliament. But we cannot divest ourselves of the responsibility of judging whether this is not one of those cases where Parliament ought to vindicate the endowment as being more usefully applied to its present purposes than to those projected. I have observed, from the opinions expressed in this debate, as well as in the Lobby, that that is the sentiment which generally prevails. I am quite certain, so far as I and my hon. Friends are concerned, that there is no reluctance to interfere in defence of what is practically a religious endowment, and not the less because that endowment is in the hands of Dissenters as well as of members of the Established Church.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I congratulate the Government on having in so handsome a manner given way on this matter, to what I may fairly call the general desire of Scotland. I believe it to be the general opinion throughout Scotland that had the Government insisted upon this scheme being carried into law, as they might easily have done with their strong majority, the feeling of dissatisfaction throughout the country would have been great. The administration of the Trust has been entirely satisfactory in the past, and I may add my conviction that the future administration of the charity, which this decision of the Government leaves unchanged, will be found as satisfactory in the future as it has been in the past.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I would remind the House that this is a very grave decision at which it appears it is likely to arrive. I am far from saying that strong grounds have not been made out by the Mover and Seconder in favour of their contention; but I believe that this is the very first time in a series of years on which a scheme of the Education Endowment Commissioners has been upset by this House. I regret that the suggestion which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire, in favour of further inquiry, has not been persisted in, and has not been acceded to by the Government. It is true that a great

  1099
  deal may be said in favour of the proposal for the rejection of this scheme; but I think if we had in this House a local guardian of higher education, the case might have been more adequately presented to us. I do not take upon myself to say that the decision which the House is about to come to is wrong; but it is with a feeling of very great reluctance that I join in upsetting a decision of the Commissioners, whose previous action has always stood the test of the most minute examination, and whose labours have always resulted in the utmost benefit to the country.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: As one of the Commissioners responsible for the scheme I may perhaps be allowed to say a word or two, not in opposition to what appears to be the general sense of the House, but in explanation of the action of the Commissioners. First, I should like to point out that Parliament imposed on the Education Endowment Commissioners the duty of re-organising the educational endowments of Scotland, and it therefore became incumbent on them to take cognisance not only of endowments which were wholly educational, but also of all charitable endowments which had an educational side. We were thus forced to deal with the Ferguson bequest. The Founder had named education as one of the objects which his residue fund was to assist, and his Trustees acted upon that instruction in a way which I will immediately mention. I must demur, however, to this bequest being described as one for the benefit of the churches named. It was not for the benefit of the churches, but for the prosecution of religious and educational work under the care of these churches. Well, the trustees of Mr. Ferguson for 16 years previous to the passing of the Education Act contributed a large sum every year in grants for the promotion of education. During those years the average amount of the grants for education from the bequest was £2,078 a year. On the passing of the Education Act of 1872, as hon. Members are aware, there was a great change in Scotland in the management of education. The churches named in Mr. Ferguson's will, which had maintained schools before, may be said to have discontinued them, or
  1100
  handed thorn over to be maintained by the School Boards. The Ferguson Trustees, having no longer the same applications from the churches for assistance to educational work, bestowed their grants on other useful objects, and so it came about that for 13 years after 1872 their grants for education averaged only £290 a year, instead of £2,078, as before. But I would ask hon. Members to look at the case from the point of view of the Commissioners. They will see that the Commissioners thought they had here an endowment with an educational side—one which was in part an educational endowment; and, guided by the action of the Trustees themselves before the Education Act was passed, they considered they were not asking too much in claiming £1,600 for education, as representing what the Trustees' estimate was of Mr. Ferguson's view in giving education a place in his will. As to applying the money to higher education, I would remind the House that it was part of the instruction from this House that the Commissioners were, as far as might be, to secure in educational endowments an adequate portion for the promotion of higher education. I hope that as the Government will not allow this money to go to the purposes of higher education, they will make up for the loss in some other way. I will add that although the scheme has been petitioned against there has been also many Petitions in its favour. I will also add that in claiming part of this endowment for education, the Commissioners do not dispute the good work done by the Trustees. Our scheme was not intended to cast any reflection on the proceedings of the Trustees.
  MR. MARK STEWART: At this late hour I rise only to say one word—I may conscientiously say that the Ferguson bequest is one of the best administered Trusts in Scotland, and I sincerely thank the Government for acting as they have done. I have had many representations made to me in favour of it, and only one—from the Educational Institute of Scotland—in support of the scheme now before the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock

Preamble
Viscount Lifford—Petition of James Wilfred Hewitt Viscount Lifford in the Peerage of Ireland claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
LUNACY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.— (No. 24.)
Order of Thursday last for printing as amended, discharged.
LUNACY (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.— (No. 24.)
  OPEN SPACES BILL.
  A Bill to amend the Open Spaces Acts—Was presented by the Lord Chaworth (E. Meath); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday, the 27th instant. (No. 41.)
TRUST COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 21.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have an Amendment to offer to your Lordships. It raises an important question, whether or not the Trust Companies, which are to be permitted to carry out this business under the sanction of Parliament are to be allowed to go outside Trust Companies' business, and to engage in any speculations which the directors of those companies may think would be profitable for the share-holders. At the time this alteration of the law was first proposed it was suggested to your Lordships, as I think upon very substantial and reasonable grounds, that there was a great want of Trustees, and that it was often very hard on people to be called upon by Friendly Societies, or otherwise, to undertake the burdensome, difficult, and responsible duties of Trustees, when, as a matter of fact, they had no interest whatever in carrying them out beyond care for relations and friends, and yet were frequently made liable for losses, and often incurred severe pecuniary expense. That want is admitted, and the Government has endeavoured to supply that want by the Bill by which it is
  962
  intended to create a public Trustee. But apparently the ground has, to some extent shifted, and the idea now is, that these companies may turn out to be preferred by many people, and that they will do so large a business as to become very profitable. I am told that some of the companies who now do business in this way, though restricted to their proper Trust business, actually divide as much as 40 per cent., which, I think, ought to be enough to satisfy any reasonable persons. But if this perfectly unlimited ambit of speculation is permitted, I cannot help fearing that one of these days a great crash may happen. It cannot but be within the knowledge of many of your Lordships that companies are sometimes brought out under such circumstances as that commercial success is not likely to follow, and it is the fact that many of them do undoubtedly engage in very speculative business. My noble and learned Friend has pointed out that people are not compelled to appoint these companies, and that the Bill only gives them the option of doing so. That is true of all companies; you do not force people to take shares in them; but I think the Government would, by legislation of this kind, be rather inviting people to take shares in companies of this description; and that, at all events, it ought not to allow this. Bill to pass without some kind of protest and provision being made against such companies going outside their proper functions, and engaging in every kind of speculation. I would put it to your Lordships that if you were selecting a Private Trustee you would not choose a person who was likely to go into all kinds of speculation; and if there is no limit placed to the speculations in which these Trust Companies may engage, it appears to me that you would be holding out a premium to every kind of company of this description, good and bad, sound and unsound, engaging in rash speculation; and they may, in that way, get many dupes to trust them. I, therefore, think it undesirable to alter the law in the way in which this Bill would alter it, without some safeguard; and the particular Amendment now proposed to your Lordships is, first, to leave out the word "include." If your Lordships negative that, I do not propose to go further with these Amendments, in

  963
  order to prevent the decision which the House may arrive at being final. I, therefore, ask your Lordships' judgment in the first place on the omission of the word "include," and if that is carried I shall then move the consequential Amendments which stand in my name.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 2, page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "include," and insert the word "are."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I hope your Lordships will not accede to the Amendment which has been proposed by my noble and learned Friend, because, in my judgment, it would go far to render the Bill altogether useless. I do not put this, of course, as in any way binding the House; but I would suggest that the matter was fully discussed before the Grand Committee the other day, and the Amendment proposed by my noble and learned Friend was rejected by a majority of 15 to 8, and I need hardly say that that large majority was not composed of noble Lords on the political side to which I belong, but of the Party to which my noble and learned Friend belongs. It was, therefore, as your Lordships see, in no way treated as a Party question in the Committee of this House, and I trust it may be treated as entirely distinct from Party feeling here as it was there. Now, my noble Friend has suggested, I think, that this proposal was a kind of afterthought, put forward to oust his proposal for the appointment of a public Trustee. Well, I think there is a little chronological defect in that argument, namely, that this Bill was before the House before my noble and learned Friend made any proposal about a public Trustee; and it was only when this Bill had been introduced, and as bearing upon the subject of this Bill, that he for the first time proposed to deal with this question, and satisfy the want to which he alludes by the appointment of a public Trustee. I am not indicating the slightest hostility to the proposal for a public Trustee. I said when my noble and learned Friend first proposed it that I should render him every assistance in endeavouring to pass it into law. There is no necessary rivalry that I can see between the two schemes. Some people would, perhaps, prefer to appoint a public Trustee, and there are others who have great dislike to and
  964
  distrust of what they call officialism, and of the delay and red-tapeism which is supposed to be characteristic of a public office. Those people will very likely prefer a Trust Company to a public Trustee, and my suggestion is simply to leave people perfect freedom in the matter. Why we should treat people as children or idiots, and incapable of managing their own affairs, I am entirely unable to understand. At the present time a man may choose whom he pleases as his Trustee. He may, if he pleases, choose the most speculative person in the world, the most worthless person in the world, or the most impecunious person in the world—it rests with himself. Why if a person desires to appoint a Trust Company as his Trustee are you to say to him, "You are only to appoint a company which does that kind of business, and nothing else," and why you are not to leave him to his choice, and if he thinks it best appoint a company which does not limit its business to undertaking the duties of Trusteeship, I cannot see. It is assumed that a company which limits its operations to Trusteeship will be a better and a safer company than others, but it does not follow at all that that will be the case. It is likely that there will be many strong companies which do not limit themselves to this kind of business, who would be much safer Trustees than the companies to which my noble and learned Friend proposes to limit the Bill. It seems to me it will not do at all to say that if you are going to have Trust Companies you must only have those to which my noble and learned Friend chooses to limit this measure, instead of leaving it open to probably much stronger companies, with much larger paid up and unpaid capital. What is the reason for it? Why should not you leave men to choose for themselves the companies which they think they can trust best? Where is the risk in doing that? My noble and learned Friend talks about companies speculating with their Trust Funds, but the truth really is that as they have not the right neither will they have the opportunity of speculating with the money entrusted to them. They are bound, just as any other Trustee is bound, and they would simply be going beyond their powers and duties as Trustees in so dealing with Trust money. Of course, a

  965
  Trust Company may be dishonest, as an individual Trustee may be dishonest, but I do not know why there should be any more reason for supposing dishonesty in the one case than in the other. Indeed, the contrary may be expected. One has had experience in numbers of cases in which Trustees have unfortunately proved to be dishonest, and you cannot prevent dishonesty do what you will. That is no ground of objection therefore, and if persons prefer a Trust Company of this description, I do not see why the Legislature should stand between them and their wish. It is not as though people were to be compelled to adopt one course. This Bill proposes that Trust Companies may be appointed in two ways; in one case it is left to the person's choice, just as now, and in the other case there may be a selection made among these companies. That is the selection the consequences of which my noble Friend so much fears. But is it the province of this House to teach people their business, and to prescribe for them whom they are to trust and whom they shall not? I am entirely against any interference which would prevent them from managing that matter for themselves. Then, there is one other great objection which I have to this proposed limitation, and it is this: If you limit the operation of this measure to companies which carry on the business of Trusteeship alone, it appears to me that they will be likely to make much heavier charges for the work they do than companies which do not limit their business in that way, because companies of that kind would be' able to distribute their charges over their general business, and they would have much less cause to charge heavily for this work than companies whose work is limited to Trust work only. This is one of my objections to this limitation: That you not only limit a man's choice, but you drive him to a company which may be undesirable for his beneficiaries and for the Trust Fund. My noble Friend says that some of these companies have divided 40 per cent. I should very much like to know where they are to be found, and how it can be done except by making tremendous charges for the work performed I am at a loss to understand. Suppose a company only does the work of Trusteeship, and that it divides the 40 per cent, profits. I will tell my noble
  966
  and learned Friend what I think the nature of that company will probably be. I believe that would be a company which invests a great deal of its money in land in one of the colonies, and that the profits are made by what I will call land speculation: that is to say, it invests its reserve funds, which are to stand against any of its liabilities under the Trust, upon land in situations where the company thinks it will improve in value, and will yield large profits, But that is a sort of speculative company which may one day invest its capital in land which may turn out to involve a loss, or to be unprosperous, and the company's dividends may disappear. I do not think a company which pays 40 per cent. in that way is a specially safe company. That tremendous percentage of profit cannot be made without risk in some way or other, and it would very soon cease if it were made, for it would probably be driven out of the field by rivals competing for such profitable business. I am, therefore, a little sceptical with regard to companies which make 40 per Cent, in this business. I ask your Lordships to pass this Bill, which was passed by the House last year, and sent down to the House of Commons without this limitation in it. If it was unobjectionable then without that limitation, it is surely unobjectionable now, and I cannot think there is sufficient reason for preventing people from applying to companies which deal with their funds in other ways, if they choose.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say one word, because one part of my noble and learned Friend's argument is a little technical, and, without explanation, may be liable to be misunderstood. He says that the guarantee can only be against actual breaches of trust. That is quite true; but assuming that shareholders have paid up all their liability upon shares, there will be no further capital available for speculation, or to meet losses made in that way, because those would not be companies with unlimited liability. But if there is a liability, and if there is uncalled-up capital, the result will be that the shareholders' liability may not be available, and the power of the company to pay or make good breaches of trust will be impaired upon the failure of any portion of this speculative business. If the company

  967
  should be dealing with shares, for instance, and by some sudden change in the market the company were called upon to supply some £200,000 or £300,000, although that would have nothing to do with the particular investments which the company had been making, the ability of the company to pay, which is all the cestui que trusts have to rely upon, is gone in face of another liability to perhaps the full extent of all their property and business. Then it seems to me there is no guarantee in those circumstances. The hypothesis in all these cases must be that Trustees shall be able to produce at any time the property entrusted to them, and if the property has not been misapplied there will be no doubt about it. But the property may, on the other hand, have been misapplied, and the company may have used the Trust Funds in a way they should not, and in that case all the unfortunate cestui que trusts have to look to is the unlucky shareholders, who are just as liable to be called upon in regard to outside speculations as for making good their Trust Funds.
  LOED HERSCHELL: No doubt such cases might arise, but that is true also of private Trustees, and in their case you do not provide for keeping a reserve fund. You would, therefore, certainly be no safer with a private Trustee than with a company. Suppose you have a Trust Company which is doing none but Trust business, you will naturally have but a very small capital called up and duly invested. My noble and learned Friend would leave the company to speculate with its reserve fund, which is all the cestui que trusts have to look to, just as it pleases. It may invest that in order to get its 40 per cent, in the most speculative schemes in the world, and it will be sure to do so, because that is the only way in which to make its business pay.
  LORD BRABOURNE: It is, I am afraid, very presumptuous in me to interfere in a discussion between a Lord Chancellor and ex-Lord Chancellor, but there are two points upon which I should desire to say a few words. One is, that I would invoke the interference of the head of the Government in favour of our Standing Committees; otherwise I fear that if the Government come down and ask your Lordships to reverse the decision of a Standing Com-
  968
  mittee after it has met and considered and taken a particular view, the attendance at Committee meetings will become rather scanty. We did consider this question fully, and decided by a majority of 15 against 8 in favour of the Bill as it stands; and I think to reverse such an opinion would weaken the authority of Standing Committees. I do not think the argument put forward by the Lord Chancellor is at all valid, because the greater the share capital which might be possessed by a company doing such other business as has been referred to the better security for the stability of the Trust Company. I may mention that I am acquainted with a Trust Company which is incorporated principally for that object, but which does a very extensive business, in another direction; and I would humbly submit that the stability and fitness of that company to be a Trust Company is increased by the fact of its carrying that other business, and that it is more likely therefore to be a solvent Trustee than if it had only the limited business appertaining to trusteeship. I sincerely hope, therefore, that this Amendment, put forward, no doubt, with the best possible motives, will be regarded as a direct restriction upon commercial enterprise, and that people may be supposed to be sufficiently wide-awake to their own interests not to choose an undesirable Trustee, I hope, therefore, this limitation will not be made.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CEANBROOK): I rather protest against the noble Lord's, view that nothing is to be reviewed in this House which has been decided in one of the Standing Committees. A Standing Committee may happen to have a majority one way or the other according to the attendance of noble Lords upon it; and to say that there should be no revision would be to reduce the House to an impotence which I am quite sure the noble Lord would not wish. I was one of those, I may say, who voted with the Lord Chancellor in the Committee, and I myself do feel strongly that a Bill of this description should guard the public in every possible way in reference to the operations of these Trust Companies. I cannot imagine that this is so simple a matter

  969
  as the noble and learned Lord opposite would submit to the House. We have such considerable experience of companies in these latter days, and of so many of them coming to grief, that we cannot be too careful. If it be, as it will be, supposed that they have received special Parliamentary authority to take up private Trusts for individuals, we may easily imagine, though that in itself is not any real security, yet it may tempt people to so appoint them, and to invest in them as in the case of Friendly Societies in which without any guarantee on the part of the State people have been induced to invest their funds, and often invest them in that which is not a good security. Here we have a Bill before us of a great many clauses, and I am quite sure my noble and learned Friend would not wish to bring in a Bill which would not offer every security. At the same time, the very fact that you require some provision of the sort for this purpose shows that you must deal with companies much more strictly than with individuals. In the case of these companies there will be supposed to be a Parliamentary security; and I can only say that if there be a Division, I shall be obliged to repeat the vote I gave in Committee.
  LORD THRING: As your Lordships know, the object of this Bill is to enable Trust Companies to occupy the place of Trustees and Executors. There are certain technical regulations imposed by law relating to Probate and executory dispositions, and no doubt it has been found necessary that safeguards should be introduced. But I do trust your Lordships will not accede to the proposal of the Lord Chancellor. Joint Stock Companies have now for more than 60 years been struggling to emancipate themselves from the fears of capitalists and the quibbles of lawyers; and now what is proposed to be done is that we shall introduced the thin edge of the wedge. It is proposed to limit the operation of these companies, and that would be, I think, merely a prelude to putting fetters on companies in general. I believe no greater benefit has been derived by mankind from anything than from the freedom which has been accorded to companies. Your Lordships are aware that many banks have become Limited Companies, like many other large commercial undertakings, and I trust your
  970
  Lordships will not accede in this particular case to a proposition to put companies in fetters, which will not only disable them from making money for their shareholders, but will diminish, instead of increasing, their security. Besides all that, what possible ground can there be for dry-nursing people? People select their own bank, which is rather an important matter, and surely they can be left to select a Trustee as well as a bank. In appointing an executor, they may just as well appoint a particular company as a particular man. In neither case can there be absolutely security against dishonesty, and I hope your Lordships will not sanction this most retrograde piece of legislation for the purpose of limiting the operations and business of companies, a provision which would reverse the whole policy of our legislation in these matters for the last 60 years.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it seems to me the argument has been very nearly on one side, and that the matter is viewed by the House in the same way as it appeared to the Committee after a great deal of discussion. But the point which I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention is this: I entirely agree with the Lord President of the Council that there can be no question as to the House abdicating its right to discuss and amend any arrangements made in the Committee. On the other hand, I think it is very much to be deprecated that when a legal detail of this sort has to be fairly considered the House should not be left entirely open to vote as it may think right, and that the Government should not be invited to use pressure or in any way assist in a particular course being taken. And I think so the more strongly here, for I believe I am rightly informed that in the large majority of 15 to 8 there were, except Members of the Government, only four of the noble Lords on the Committee who took the same view as the Lord Chancellor.
  LORD SUDELEY: There is one point in this Bill which your Lordships ought, I think, to bear in mind. It may be a good or a bad thing that Trustee Companies should exist, but I think your Lordships ought to remember the exact position in which we are placed as the law stands at present. I think the Lord Chancellor will agree with me that

  971
  you can have Trustee Companies to any extent. In fact, it is very well known that a large, number of Trust Companies do exist, and that Trustees' work is very much undertaken, especially for large Debenture issues. But what does this Bill do? The whole object of it was that if people are to be allowed to place funds in the care of Trustee Companies, they should be companies which are responsible concerns. Care should be taken that they are companies which have large reserves, that the Board of Trade shall occasionally look into their accounts and see that there is a proper reserve, and that the whole thing is properly done. Undoubtedly there are further conveniences afforded by this Bill which will enable existing Trusts to be undertaken by these companies; but as the law stands at present, there is nothing to prevent new trusts being created and put in charge of these Trustee Companies. As I believe, the great security is to make Trustee Companies as strong as possible, to allow them to do legitimate finance work and then establish large reserves. To limit their powers as proposed by the Lord Chancellor seems to me to cripple them and render them weak. You have no guarantee whatever at present that these Trustee Companies shall have proper reserves or that they are properly looked after. I apprehend, therefore, that if the view of the Lord Chancellor is right in this matter in not letting this Bill pass without such safeguards he ought to see that they are imposed by further legislation, and that companies engaging in business of that character shall possess large reserves, and are properly looked after.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One word in answer to what the noble Lord the leader of the Opposition has said. I hope nobody will vote for the Amendment simply because it is moved on the part of the Government, and that everybody will exercise his own discretion in the matter. Entertaining the strong view which I hold in this matter, I think it right to take the opinion of the House upon it.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," the House divided:—Contents 23; Not-Contents 38
  EARL GRANVILLE: I would only say that it is extremely kind of the Lord Chancellor to announce that the Government do not wish to influence the House, but leave them to exercise their individual judgment. I would point out however, that it is hardly consistent with that announcement that the Tellers opposed to my noble and learned Friend should both be Government Tellers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are some Consequential Amendments. I need not say anything about them.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Of course, I shall not oppose the Consequential Amendments; but I desire to say that as regards the Bill, now so absolutely worthless after the decision to which the House has come, I should not proceed further with it but for the hope that, the view now taken by a comparatively small majority may not be taken elsewhere. That is my only reason for proceeding with it.
  Other Amendments made.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I propose to omit Clause 17 in order to insert a new clause in consequence of a decision that was recently come to turning upon an old doctrine of law that a Corporation and an individual could not be as Trustees joint tenants, as there would be no question of survivorship between them. The proposed new clause enacts that they may be registered together, and are to be treated as joint tenants. I suppose the noble and learned Lord will have no objection to that. It is a somewhat elaborate clause, but that is the purport and intention of it.
  Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended.—(No. 42.)

  INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.—(No. 40.)
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received I wish to state that, as a matter of course, I telegraphed the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl Lord Northbrook, and which I accepted the other day, to the Viceroy. The Viceroy desires me to state to your Lordships that he entirely approves the Amendment which I then accepted.
  Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

DOCK ACCOMMODATION AT BOMBAY.

  QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, I hardly know whether the question which I am about to ask should be addressed to my noble Friend on the part of the Admiralty or to the Secretary of State for India; but I believe that the Government have made up their minds as to the necessity for a dock at Bombay, and therefore I will put the question to the Secretary of State for India, especially as he answered a similar question in a somewhat hopeful manner two years ago. The question was then put to him by my noble Friend Viscount Midleton, and he then intimated that the wishes of the country would be complied with. I suppose there must be some great reason for the delay, which the noble Viscount will state to us from the correspondence on the subject with the Bombay Government, for I understand that all persons who have considered the question are of opinion that a dock at Bombay is absolutely necessary. I do not wish to weary the House with any platitudes or remarks which have been made on several occasions with regard to our vast interests in the East, but it really does seem to me that the Government have scarcely estimated the very great importance to us of having a dock on the East Indian station. May I remind the House that that station is of very great extent. It comprises an expanse of water upwards of 5,000 miles from east to west, and almost of equal extent from north to south; and in the whole of the vast area of water there is not a single dock which would afford the means of repairing the first-class vessels of our Navy. And let me also remind your Lordships that the necessity for this dock accommodation has greatly increased since my noble Friend Viscount Midleton addressed his question to the Government. We have now great interests in the East of Africa, and during those two years the importance of Zanzibar has very considerably increased. As time goes on we shall no doubt have—in view of the increased interests which will come into play in the East Indian Station—to meet further demands for furnishing the means of repairing our ships out there. From Bombay, in the direction of the Isthmus of Suez,
  974
  there is a stretch of water upwards of 2,000 miles in extent; it is upwards of 2,000 miles again to Singapore, where there is only a very inferior dock, and it is about as much to the Mauritius, where there is another dock. There was one place where we formerly had a dock in one of the finest situations in the East for repairing vessels, Trincomalee, hut that no longer exists; or, if it does exist, it is now quite unadapted for repairing such vessels as we have at present on that station. Let mo remind my noble Friend, too, that our interests are increasing in the direction of the Persian Gulf, and it is quite possible that before many years pass we may see a Foreign Power in that neighbourhood. There are harbours there which are available for this purpose, and I think something ought to be done; for, as the noble Lord knows, a dock cannot be constructed in a very short time. Even supposing—which I believe is the case—that the Government could construct it much more rapidly than any private company could do it, it would be at least five or six years before a dock could be constructed. At this moment, I believe, there is not a single dock out there on which the Government could lay its hand for the purpose of repairing our first-class ironclads. Last year I pointed out to the House that it had actually happened that when two of our ships wanted repair they had to be taken to Nagasaki and Yeddo, simply because there was no dock on the China station capable of taking them for repairing purposes. These are very serious considerations for us, and I will remind the noble Lord that at the time of the French war, 50 or 60 years ago, the country was in a much better position for the protection of its commerce than it is now. In those days we actually were-able to build some of the finest line-of-battleships in the Navy at Bombay, and all our vessels could then be repaired without the slightest difficulty on the spot. Now, the ordinary docks are not only incapable of taking in our vessels, but we have not the staff or the means for repairing them, as could formerly be done in the case of the wooden ships of old. I hope the Government and my noble Friend will take some steps to push this matter forward, for I can assure them that all naval men are of one

  975
  opinion as to the absolute necessity of having docks there, and I would, if I may be allowed, add my own humble opinion that, on every large station, the Government ought to possess docks capable of taking for repairs our largest men-of-war. I beg to move for any Papers which are available.
  Moved,
  "That there be laid before this House any correspondence with the Bombay Government as to whether any progress has been made in the construction of Government docks at Bombay."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  VISCOUNT CROSS: This matter has been before your Lordships for some time, I am sorry to say. Speaking for the Indian Government, they are very anxious that this dock should be made; but at the same time it must be remembered that this dock is not required for Indian, but for Imperial purposes. Correspondence has gone on for some time in the matter between the Admiralty, the Indian Office, and the Treasury, and I am afraid the result has not been very satisfactory. The Admiralty have sent me this answer—
  "The Admiralty are strongly of opinion that a first class naval dock is required at Bombay, but under the pressure of other claims upon the Government, it is not possible at present to allot Imperial funds to cover the share of the cost of a dock of this nature, and they also think it undoubtedly inexpedient at the present time to lay any Papers on the subject before Parliament."
  With regard to what has been going on in India itself, for the information of the noble Viscount and that of the House, I may state that the Port Trust Dock at Bombay is rapidly proceeding, and although that is not a dock of the description required, its length is considerable. Its length is 500 feet, the floor is 62 feet across, the depth at ordinary spring tides is 27¼ feet, and the width at the coping 90 feet. I am told that this dock will be ready in the early part of 1891, if the present rate of progress goes on. So that, at all events, we may see that the people and Government of India are doing something themselves in the matter. I wish I could give an answer with regard to the construction of a larger dock, but I am afraid that is all I can do at present.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: I should like to ask whether the Government will have the power of using that dock—can
  976
  the Government lay hands upon it at any time?
  VISCOUNT CROSS: Inever like to answer questions finally without notice, but I think I may say that I have not the slightest doubt that would be so. The Government could obtain the absolute power of using that dock, if wanted.
  The Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

STARVATION AT SUAKIN.

  QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD,in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government if they can give any information as to the alleged state of starvation of the natives about Suakin; and, if it is as stated, whether they purpose taking steps to relieve the sufferers, said: I will only occupy a very few moments of your Lordships' time while I amplify the question which is put down on the notice Paper of your Lordships' House in my name. It appears that information has been received from Suakin stating that the natives at that place are in a state of semi-starvation. I cannot do better than read to your Lordships an extract from a letter written by Mr. Bennett Burleigh, whose name will be well-known to your Lordships as a war-correspondent, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph a few days ago. He writes on the 10th March—
  "I have to-day received communications from official and private friends at Suakin, which, in the interests of humanity and for the sake of our country, cannot be ignored."
  Mr. Naggia writes that—
  "There being a dearth of food in the country, the Arabs are seeking refuge in Suakin. By an Order issued by the Governor General there, 'no Arabs from the outside' are allowed to pass the night within the walls. The weather has recently been unusually inclement, and the Arabs prefer to lie still and die outright rather than venture back to wander over the plains or hills to die of cold or starvation."
  Mr. Burleigh also gives a short extract from a letter written by a naval officer at Suakin, who says—
  "We are in a miserable state of starvation; mothers are discarding their children—children killed and eaten here in the town. I hear that a man buried yesterday afternoon was dug up and eaten during the night."
  Now I do not quote those extracts for the purpose of finding fault with any regulations which may have been made by the Governor of Suakin. He is res-

  977
  ponsible, of course, for the regulations which lie thinks it right to make, and it rests with him to say whether he will allow natives from outside to sleep within the town or not, but I do think that, as this country by abandoning the Soudan has made it a sanguinary playground, I may call it, for savage tribes, it should take steps to avert the famine which generally follows upon bloodshed in such countries, and I hope Her Majesty's Government—for, if my information is correct, it is greatly needed—will place at the disposal of the Governor of Suakin supplies of grain for the unfortunate Hadendowahs, and also that they will, during the inclement weather, place at his disposal fuel so that they may make fires and warm themselves during the cold nights. Then, if we are not to have a recurrence of this state of things during next winter, grain ought to be provided for seeding purposes. I feel certain that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government will, at all events, lend his sympathy to the object of my question. I think all who are acquainted with Africa will endorse my statement that his administration has inaugurated measures which, I trust, will be of immense future advantage to the natives of a large portion of Africa, and I, therefore, feel that the noble Marquess will sympathise with me when I say that it would be a sad thing if our noble and gallant adversaries, the Hadendowahs, should, after escaping from our bullets, at length die of starvation in the desert.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): My Lords, I am sure that everyone will sympathise deeply with the sufferings of the unhappy natives of the Eastern Soudan. At the present moment, I do not think, from all the intelligence which we have received, that their sufferings have been exaggerated by the noble Lord. The famine is very severe, and the sufferings are very acute. That we all feel deeply, and when he appeals to those who listen to him for sympathy I am sure he will not appeal in vain. But when the noble Lord goes further and proposes, as I understand him, that we should put a Vote on the Estimates for the purpose of succouring those inhabi-
  978
  tants of the Eastern Soudan, I think he is proposing to us to take a perfectly new departure, and to take measures which have no precedent in our recent history, at all events, and which might lead us very far as a precedent in the future. The Egyptian Government, of course, feels a certain responsibility. A subscription has been opened, and I believe the Egyptian Government has largely subscribed to it, for the purpose of assisting these poor people, but the English Government, so far as I can remember, has never yet within recent times advanced the public money, that is to say the money of the taxpayer, for the purpose of relieving foreign distress of this kind, and feeding a foreign population. No doubt enormous contributions have been made by the private munificence and good feeling of Englishmen, but so far the unwillingness of the Government and the House of Commons has been very great in regard to sanctioning any gift for the relief of a foreign population. If my memory serves me right, even in the terrible misery of the Indian famine, which was far more terrible in its area and its magnitude, and its fearful consequences, than the famine to which the noble Lord has called attention—even in that crisis, all the public money spent was the public money belonging to India itself. Of course, I must guard myself in saying that, by adding that I do not forget the enormous supplies which the private munificence of Englishmen brought forward. The noble Lord will not imagine that I am depreciating the great suffering which prevails in the Eastern Soudan; but on the grounds I have stated, because the step he invites us to take would impose upon us a heavy and severe responsibility, which we have no right to impose on the British taxpayer, I cannot hold out any hope that his suggestion will be entertained.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL.—(No. 9.)
House in Committee (on re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Amendments made: Bill re-committed to Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.: and to be printed as amended. (No. 43.)
LUNACY CONSOLIDATION BILL.— (No. 24.)
Read 3a (according to order); amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
WELSH COLLIERY REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN,in rising to call attention to the statement of Thomas Jones Rowlands, an engineman, who, on 5th March, was charged at the Pontypridd Police Court, and fined £2 for a breach of the special rules of the National Colliery, Rhondda Each Valley; and to ask Her Majesty's Government what rules, if any, are observed in coal mines regulating the number of hours allowed to be worked by men in charge of steam machinery, said: My Lords, this matter to which I wish to allude is, in itself, a very small one, although the consequences might have been serious, but it involves considerations which may be of much danger to the population working underground. It appears that a man named Rowlands was, on the 5th March, charged at the Police Court at Pontypridd with a breach of his duty, and of the special rules of the National Colliery in the Rhondda Each Valley. This man was in charge of the engine which pumps air into the mine, and the ventilation of the mine, therefore, was in his hands. The charge was that he was found asleep at his post late on Sunday night. Owing to the neglect of his duty the strokes of the engine had naturally diminished, and the quantity of fresh air pumped into the mine had, in fact, very considerably decreased. Of course, your Lordships will understand the danger to the mine or to the men working in the mine if the supply of fresh air were allowed to fall off. The charge was proved, and the man was fined the full amount of £2, the Stipendiary Magistrate remarking that he had by his neglect imperilled the lives of 117 men, and that if it had not been for the casual visit of the manager to the engine-house the ventilation would have become still lower and weaker, and terrible disaster to the men in the colliery might have ensued. The excuse which Rowlands gave was that he was exhausted by overwork. He said that on that very day, the Sunday, he had worked 14½
  980
  hours; he said he had been on duty since 8 o'clock in the morning, and that during the day he had been assisting with the machinery, which required vary careful attention and manipulation. He also said he had worked very long hours during the week—all day during Wednesday, then on at night, and all day on Thursday; that he had been at the engine all day on Friday and looking after the machinery; then he was employed at the engine all day on Saturday and again on the Sunday, as I have told your Lordships, and that, being exhausted, he had gone to sleep. These facts I cannot guarantee as accurate. I merely quote them as they were given in the local journal. The only observation apparently made in the matter by the officials of the colliery was that the man was not compelled to work overtime, and that it was entirely his own doing. Without going into contentious matters, it will be obvious to your Lordships that whether the man exhausted himself by working overtime from his own wish, or not, and was incapable of exercising proper vigilance in his duties, makes no difference to the men in the mine in the event of an accident occurring. I think your Lordships will agree that where the safety of a number of persons is entrusted to a man in charge of machinery of that kind steps should be taken to ascertain that he is physically competent to exorcise the important duties entrusted to him, and that he is not in a state of physical exhaustion from overwork, even if that overwork was of his own seeking. Whether any rule of the kind exists at collieries I do not know, and therefore I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government what rules, if any, are observed in coal mines regulating the number of hour's work for men in charge of steam machinery.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: In answer to the noble Earl I have to state that neither by the general rules laid down in the Mines' Regulation Act of 1887, nor by the special rules established in the South Wales District, has any attempt been made to regulate the number of hours allowed to be worked by men in charge of steam machinery. I would only add, that without further information, we are not inclined to attach any blame to the managers of the colliery; but at

  981
  the same time there is sufficient evidence to make us consider whether some better arrangement could not be made than seems to have been followed in this case, when a man, after long hours of labour, voluntarily undertaken by himself, should at night be left in charge of machinery controlling 117 lives.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock till to-morrow at a quarter past Ten o'clock.