Sitting of 26 June 1893

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL (by Order)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. BRODIE HOARE*MR. BRODIE HOARE (Hampstead), in moving, as an Amendment, in page
    14
    30, to leave out Clause 41, said, in asking leave to move this Amendment, he had to explain that the clause was one which was commonly known as the Betterment Clause. The question of betterment has been brought forward on two occasions, but the proposal made had been rejected. For the third time the proposal was now before the House; and he asked the House to reject it, notwithstanding that the Committee upstairs bad passed the clause—a Committee though useful for looking into the circumstances and the results likely to be arrived at, was not to be regarded as a deciding authority in so important a matter. There were nine Members of the Committee, and five voted for and four against the clause, the Chairman of the Committee being decidedly against it. He could say, without disrespect, that an hon. Member opposite, who was deeply interested in the question, was disposed to have a natural partiality for a proposal of his own, but he did not expect any Member of the London County Council to vote against the clause. He wished, however, to direct the attention of the House to the narrow majority by which the Committee agreed. They had been favoured with a Memorandum giving the views of the County Council in support of the clause. In this Memorandum they were told that the Bill did not enter into the general law, but related only to particular improvements. He was quite willing to accept that position, and to base his argument upon the Bill as it stood. He had no intention of going into the wider field as to the principle of betterment. He simply wished to take the Bill as it was before him, and he would call witnesses of the London County Council to give reasons why the House should reject the clause. An abstract theory might be very plausible; but when it was found to be inconsistent with equity, there must be some flaw in the argument. He supposed it was incumbent upon him, in dealing with the matter, to explain the provisions of the Bill. It was a Bill providing for four improvements, to which there was no objection whatever—at all events, no objection was offered before the Committee. The first improvement was at Tower Bridge, and then there was the widening of Vauxhall Bridge, The

    15
    Tower Bridge Scheme would involve a cost of £436,000, and the Vauxhall Scheme £484,000. There were two smaller schemes, upon which this question did not arise, and upon which he need not trouble the House. They only came to £8,000 altogether. Upon the two larger schemes the betterment question arose. The County Council proposed to take powers to assess the improvement value of the property due to the making of the new street, and should the property-holder not agree to the assessment of the Council, he was to become entitled to have an arbitration, the arbitrator to be appointed by the Local Government Board. That seemed a fair and reasonable proposal; but it was a proposal that would not work in practice, and, therefore, he was justified on that ground in asking the House to reject the clause. He would lay it down as a proposition, with which, he believed, every Member of the House would agree, that it was not right for the House to inflict hardship on individuals unless there was some adequate benefit to be conferred on the community; and it was not right, in any circumstances, to do so without full and careful consideration. The property to be bettered was property within the lines of deviation. Within those lines any property not taken might be subject to a betterment charge. The position of the property-holders was that they were to hold their property for a period of years—say, seven years, as it would take about that time to carry out the improvements, subject to a charge which was at present unknown, but which would be, he supposed, 3 per cent. on the estimated capital value—
    One-half.
    MR. BRODIE HOAREsaid, he should say one-half. Well, there were 43 small properties at the Tower Bridge. The holders would hold during those years subject to a perfectly unknown liability, and they would have to secure an arbitrator. That he considered a hardship; it was a burden imposed upon the holder because of an improvement being made which he did not want, and because he would have to resist according to a process of law which was tedious and costly. Whatever the result to the holder, the gentlemen of the long robe would gain by the Bill were
    16
    it passed in this form. He thought the House would see that there was good reason why this hardship should not be inflicted upon the 43 persons holding in that district. He had a large body of evidence; but he would only trouble the House with a few elegant extracts. Mr. Charles Harrison, Vice Chairman of the Council, said before the Committee, in reply to the question whether the Council expected to get money out of these improvements—
    "Yes; they think it will be an equitable principle from which they will get substantial relief from those who get substantial improvements.
    "How much do they expect to get?—I cannot tell you, but I think a very substantial sum. It is impossible to work it out.
    "£100,000?—I should think not nearly so much.
    "£30,000?—More than that, I think.
    "£50,000?—I daresay."
    Then Mr. Young, a surveyor to the London County Council, said, they expected something approaching £20,000 as a capital sum—they would get it as a moiety, and upon it they would get 3 per cent.; but he admitted that, in an official report, he had mentioned £10,000. Mr. Young afterwards disobeyed what he (Mr. Hoare) believed was one of the first maxims in a Court of Justice. He explained, and attributed his mention of £20,000 to confusion of mind, saying that he meant to have said £10,000. Someone asked to see the official document, where the moiety would be found to be £5,000. So that Mr. Harrison had in his possession an official document from his own surveyor giving only £5,000. Mr. Young came back again, and produced a written Memorandum, with pencil marks, elaborating another estimate, in which he made out the moiety at £9,000. Which of all these were they to accept? Would the proper way not be to take the official document, and say £5,000? With that they could see that the net result to the ratepayers of London was that they were to get 3 per cent. on £5,000 after fighting 43 law suits seven years hence. A portion of the property was occupied by vinegar works, and this was not to be liable to betterment so long as these works were carried on—and there was a lease attached to them for 40 years. So that fully one-third of the estimated amount would not come for that period.

    17
    He could only say that this was the most contemptible way that had ever been adopted of getting the House to assent to a principle of such importance. Were there any Members enthusiastic about the rates of London 40 years hence? Very few, he thought. In regard to Vauxhall Bridge, he found that Mr. Cripps, Parliamentary Agent, did not look for any betterment; but Vauxhall Bridge had been left in order that the Council might run through their fad, which would have the effect of leaving the people there subject to this liability for the term of, he supposed, seven years, although the County Council admitted that they would not be bettered He was not desirous of detaining the House, but he thought he had shown that there was hardship in a proposal of this kind. He had proved his case from the evidence of the County Council. The London County Council gave them an example in order to prove their case, and cited, as an instance, the raising of the value of property from £1,000 to £1,200 by reason of certain improvements carried out at the public expense. In such a case the owner would become liable for an annual payment of £3. Of course, if the man bought for £1,000 and sold almost immediately for £1,200, the difference in value being solely due to the formation of a new street, it was quite conceivable—but he did not say it would be just or politic—that such a charge should be imposed on him. But, as a fact, he was not the man who would be subjected at all to the charge under the proposal of the London County Council. He would get his profit of £200, and go away and invest it probably out of London, while the unfortunate purchaser of the property at the enhanced price would be the victim, for within seven years a betterment charge might be assessed upon it. Again, how were they going to estimate the exact proportion of the enhanced value which was due to the formation of the new street? Might it not be the case that in the course of the seven years new trades might spring up in the locality? Might it not also be the case that the increased value would be attributable to the erection of the Tower Bridge? He believed that it was absolutely impossible for anyone to estimate the exact amount; and, giving all credit to the London
    18
    County Council witnesses for sincerity, he submitted that on their evidence the House was not justified in subjecting these 43 unfortunate people affected by this particular scheme to the chance of having this heavy burden thrust upon them at the sweet will of some future London County Council, without any hope of getting any return whatever or of benefiting anybody except the lawyers.
    MR. KIMBER, in seconding the Amendment, said, his hon. Friend had moved the excision of the clause because it was inapplicable to the proposed improvement, and even ridiculous in its nature. It was proved before the Committee that while the estimated increase on which the charge would be put amounted to only £5,300, the cost of the investigation involved in apportioning the charge would amount to much more, and it was, therefore, possible to gauge what would be the benefit to the general community by putting the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the 43 private properties to the alternative of either submitting to the assessment or of fighting the question out, with learned counsel, before an arbitrator. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the principle of betterment. The meaning of it was that a man should be taxed in respect of the benefit which his property received. There was some ground for that principle. He would not like to class himself among the opponents of the principle, for he held it was right that persons who had property improved in value by the expenditure of public money should contribute to the cost of the improvement. The great difficulty, however, was in finding the quantum, and also in finding the machinery by which the assessment was to be made. He submitted that our present system of local taxation was one which really adopted the principle of betterment. It was a system of taxation according to benefit, and was the product of experience of three or four centuries. This principle was, after all, elementary; his excuse for stating it was to be found in the fact that there was a great deal of darkness in regard to it, not only in the Metropolis, but in all Municipalities. Our Local Taxation had, almost without exception, proceeded upon the principle that the actual annual value of all property should bear the local burdens of the year in propor-

    19
    tion to that annual value. By the application of that principle every person interested in property was reached. There had been an idea on the part of the Progressive Party in the London County Council that owners of property under the existing system escaped scot-free. But that was an error, and an error which very generally prevailed, as had been proved before two Committees appointed by the House. The Committee on Town Holdings reported that, as a matter of fact, ground values were taxed. Yet the London County Council, in regard to this particular London improvement, were following up this erroneous idea; they were suggesting that this was not a proposal to impose a tax for the benefit of the general community, but that the idea was, to use their own euphonious phrase, the interception of increments. This was really the first step towards the Henry George principle of appropriation of all increment to the service of the public. By what machinery did the London County Council propose to enforce this tax or charge? They denied, in their Memorandum, that it was either a rate or a tax, and to a certain extent that was so. It was more than either, being really a perpetual charge or annuity upon a man's property which was supposed to have been enhanced in value by the improvement. It would remain in perpetuity unless he preferred to redeem it at 33⅓ years' purchase. He would take the example cited by the London County Council itself. A property valued at £1,000 was estimated to be bettered to the extent of £200. The half of that increased value was at once charged by way of mortgage on the property in the form of an annuity at the rate of 3 per cent., or, as might as well be said, at the rate of 1½ per cent. on the total enhanced value. The charge was registered. What was the effect? He would admit that the property might have been increased in value to the extent of £200; that was equivalent to an increased annual rental of £10. £3 rent charge on £10 represented 6s. in the £1, in addition to the ordinary increased ratal, which would be ascertained at the quinquennial valuation. Did not the fact that that charge would remain in perpetuity, unless the owner of the property chose to redeem it at 33⅓ years' purchase, violate the great principle to which he had alluded—that
    20
    the local burdens should be proportionate to the actual value proceeding from the property in the particular year in which they fell due? Let them realise what the position of the owner of the property would be. In many parishes the ordinary rates amounted to 6s. in the £1, so that the owner of the property on this enhanced value would, as a matter of fact, be paying double rates; and, in respect of one of such payments, there was no provision for an abatement of the burden in case the enhanced value, through diversions of trade or migration of population, passed away. Indeed, it might happen that the value of the property would so far disappear that the annual charge put upon it under this kind of betterment would eventually swamp the owner's interest. This proposal was really a red herring drawn under the noses of the ratepayers, for while pretending to be fair it utterly failed to tax everybody interested in the property. The annuity charge might be deferred by the arbitrator for a number of years. It was actually admitted, in the case of a firm of vinegar manufacturers, whose property would be affected by this improvement, that as they had a lease for 40 years, and as their interest could not be increased in annual value for that period, the Act as against that property would not be enforced until the landlord again came in possession of it. Another indication that the real object of the London County Council was to attack by a side wind the ground landlords was that it was only by great exertions it was found possible in Committee to induce them to recognise existing contracts, and that was even now not done in the most effectual manner, for the clause read thus—
    "Where the incidence of the annual charge as between any persons interested in the property is regulated or affected by any contract or covenant, the arbitrators shall have regard to such contract or covenant, and this Act shall not be taken to alter or affect such contract or covenant."
    What was the arbitrator empowered to do? He was empowered very properly to have regard to all the circumstances of the ease of any particular improvement, and to consider the several interests involved, and to have in mind when such interests expired, but he was to deal with them as he pleased without appeal; and that, in itself, showed the animus which

    21
    pervaded the Bill, and which sought to over-ride the existing system of taxation. The Town Hodings Committee of 1892 reported that existing contracts must be respected. And what, under the present Bill, would be the effect if people were to be free to contract between themselves? Obviously all future contracts would have regard to, and contract out of, this particular law. It was an erroneous notion that ground landlords were not taxed at present. They paid in this way: that they gave a consideration to the lessee for the covenant which he entered into, that consideration taking the form of a low ground rent in return for the lessee paying all the taxation which might be assessed upon the property. This Bill was an attempt, notwithstanding that covenant, to impose taxation on the ground landlord. Under the limits of deviation—the limits of betterment charge set forth in the Bill—property would, for seven years, be under the ban of uncertainty, liable at any time to have a mortgage charge placed upon it. This would amount to condemning the property unheard. Indeed, the improvement might not be completed under seven years, during which no one would be able to assess the enhanced value given to the property by the improvement. Then, although the enhancement might pass away, the betterment charge would remain in perpetuo, irrespective of the annual value. More than that, lands now vacant were being subjected to this liability, which was in direct contravention of the principle laid down by their forefathers in their wisdom, that local taxation should only be provided for out of the immediate rental production of property. Again, the Bill only proposed to tax one class of capital; it was following an example set in the United States, by which millionaires escaped taxation; and it would enable great mercantile incomes in this country to avoid contributing to these improvements. Again, the Bill constituted an attempt to introduce a new principle of exception to the general law—a principle in itself evil and dangerous. It was a proposal for the confiscation of increment; a proposal to take the increment for the Municipality, merely because the capital of the owner had not produced the increment. He would like to know how they were going to distinguish between increment arising
    22
    from a public improvement and that attachable to what was going on in the country generally, and what was due to a man's own industry and perseverance? Why should they not, in the same way, seize upon the increased value of a daily journal? That increment might be claimed as the result of the owner's talent; but he doubted if that alone would be admitted to account for the whole of the increased value. It would hardly be believed that, while the Bill provided for the raising by loan on a 60 years' term of all the money needed for the improvement, it did not appropriate to the improvement the money received by the County Council in respect of the increment. This was a great blot on the Bill. There was no provision to oblige the County Council to write off the cost of an improvement as the money came in, or to reduce the term of 60 years over which the Sinking Fund was spread. He was in conversation in the Lobby the other day with a distinguished member of the London County Council, and he (Mr. Kimber) drew attention to this point. The member of the Council replied very naively and very honestly, "Well, we must have money somehow, and I do not care how it comes." So the money obtained in respect of the increment would not go to pay the cost of the improvement, but would go into the pockets of the London County Council in such a way that it would escape the observation of the ratepayers; though it was, virtually, taxation wrung out of them. There were some other injustices in the Bill. It would hardly be believed that the London County Council, before they made their assessment, were not bound to hear anybody at all, or even to give people notice that they were going to be specially assessed. People might behind their backs have their names put into a document called an assessment, which, when registered, would have the effect of a land charge upon their property. When the County Council had by resolution adopted this precious assessment, then, and then only, were the persons affected to have notice. Even then it was only to be a month's notice. A man might be abroad, or sick, or in a lunatic asylum. To give him a month's notice of putting a mortgage upon his property in perpetuo was an absurdity amounting

    23
    almost to an abomination. If a man did not get the notice, or was not able within a month to consult his surveyor and his lawyer, and to give notice of objection to the County Council, he would be shut out for ever from objecting; but if he received the notice and objected within a month, he could go before an arbitrator. He would, however, be subject to the peril of costs. For the first time in the history of our legislation respecting a compulsory interference with the rights of property the House was asked to put a man who wished to defend his rights under peril of costs. There was still another injustice. The County Council of to-day would not be the County Council of seven years hence, and it was one of the many astonishing things in this Bill that the Body who, by their assessment or award, were to declare that Mr. A. B.'s property in the year 1900 was worth £200 more than in 1893, would consist of men who had probably only been elected one year previously. He confidently hoped the House would reject this clause, not only because it would be absurd to apply it to the case to which the Bill made it applicable, but because it was a deviation from those just principles which from centuries of experience we had arrived at in this country.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 41.—(Mr. Brodie Hoare.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 41 stand part of the Bill."
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, it would not be necessary for him, in supporting this clause, to trespass for more than a few minutes upon the time of the House, because he thought the House would feel that the admissions made by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment with regard to the principle of the proposal really cut away the ground from under their feet. The hon. Members had argued the question with all the fairness and all the candour that might have been expected from them; but, at the same time, he thought they had been a little unjust to the witnesses of the London County Council. He (Sir J. Lubbock) had been in conflict with Mr. Charles Harrison on many occasions, but he had always been bound to acknowledge the transparent sincerity
    24
    of his objects. As regarded Mr. Young, it was admitted that in his estimates he had mentioned, first one sum, and then a larger amount; but there was no doubt the reason was that when he came to look into the question, he found that the sum would be larger than he at first supposed. In fact, he actually said so before the Committee. It was quite true that this question of betterment had been twice before brought to the attention of the House; but in neither case had it been decided on its merits, the Committee having been of the opinion on each occasion that the principle of betterment was not applicable to the particular improvements to which it was sought to apply it. The Select Committee, however, had now taken a different view. The hon. Member opposite had spoken of the poor, unfortunate property owner, and the clause seemed to be opposed under the impression that in some mysterious way it was an attack upon property. That was not so. The only question was how, when expense was incurred, the funds were to be provided?—not whether property should pay, but only which property. Under previous Acts of Parliament the Metropolitan Board of Works, as the Central Authority of the Metropolis, carried out particular improvements, partly at the expense of the Metropolis at large, and partly at the expense of the parish in which the work happened to be situated; and—although in some special cases a similar course had been followed by the Council—it appeared to the Council that the arrangement proposed by the present Bill was more equitable than the system adopted in those cases. The adoption of a particular geographical area in those cases—such as a parish—to form a basis of special taxation for the purpose of an improvement led to obvious inconveniences and anomalies, for a contribution was required from all property within the parish in which the improvement was situated, irrespective of whether it was improved, injured, or not affected. In the case of a long, narrow parish, such as Lambeth, the ratepayers at one end of the parish might be specially contributing to an improvement at the other end, six miles distant, from which they would derive no special benefit, while the ratepayers in the other parishes immediately adjoining, and de-

    25
    riving special benefit from the improvement, would pay no special contribution. In the present case it was not proposed that any special contribution should be required from any parochial area—except in the case of one small and purely parochial improvement to which the provisions of Clause 41 did not apply—but that property within a defined area in the immediate neighbourhood of the improvement, specially and incidentally increased in value by the public expenditure, instead of taking the whole, should give up as a contribution part of the value of such increase. Some confusion had been imported into this matter by the suggestion that if persons who were specially benefited were to contribute, persons who are specially injured ought to be compensated, or, in other words, that worsement as well as betterment should be recognised. This suggestion—though specious—would not stand examination. Under the system which had hitherto prevailed, if it happened that a particular property received any special injury from an improvement, the unfortunate ratepayer was required to contribute, along with the other ratepayers, the full share of expenditure which, in making the improvement, specially benefited others, while it specially injured himself. It was one of the effects of the present scheme to lessen this unfairness. If the principle were generally applied in the future, a share of the cost of improvements would be provided out of the special enhancement in value which such improvements created in property; and the actual amount to be contributed by any of those ratepayers who might happen to be injured by the work would be, pro tanto, reduced. Then the House was told that if an improvement benefited a property it would pay more rates; and, consequently, the Council would profit to that extent. That was a complete fallacy. If a man improved his property himself, say to the extent of £1,000, he would pay more rates; if it was improved to the same extent by the money of the Council, his additional payment would be the same. Therefore, the contention of those who opposed the clause was that it made no difference, and that the increase of payment should be the same, whether a property was improved at the expense of the owner or at the expense of the
    26
    ratepayers. He submitted to the House that if a property had been benefited at the expense of the ratepayers, the ratepayers should derive some advantage from the effect of their own expenditure. It was said that the Council had submitted no exact estimate of the amount they expected to receive. Nor was it necessary. If the principle was right it was equally applicable whether the amount was £5,000, or £50,000, or £500,000. What the House had to decide was the principle. This would surely not be denied. If it had been a question of detail, he was sure that the decision of the Committee would not have been questioned. That being so, he hoped the House would not be led away into irrelevant points. The principle had been carefully considered by the Committee upstairs. It made no difference to the County Council how the point was decided, because they would in any case collect the same amount. The only question was how the amount should be collected. He submitted, on behalf of the County Council, that the plan in the Bill was right in itself and just to the ratepayers generally. On behalf of the ratepayers, therefore, he hoped the House would support the County Council and their own Committee, and pass a clause which had been drawn in accordance with the principles of equity and justice.
    MR. STUARTsaid, he thought the attention of the House ought to be drawn to the remarkable character of the course that "was being pursued by the minority of the Select Committee in debating over again the details of the Bill. It was, at least, unusual and it was certainly inconvenient—for the minority of a Committee to bring forward in the House of Commons the contentious which they had failed to establish in Committee. He did not think it was worth the House's while to devote attention to the amount of money involved in this particular clause. The amount was quite irrespective of the principle. The sum involved was of much less importance in the present case than it could be in almost any case, because no one was to be affected by any particular charge who had not been adjudged by the arbitrator to have incurred a corresponding benefit. The charge would be in proportion to the

    27
    amount of benefit conferred. The hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Kimber) had admitted the principle of betterment, as the minority of the Committee had done, by voting in favour of the Report, which was thrown out, such Report having conceded the principle of betterment. The principle of betterment, for which the London County Council contended, had been admitted over and over again. It existed in the latest Housing of the Poor Acts, because it was provided in those Acts that where obstructive buildings were removed, and neighbouring property was benefited by such removal, a specific charge made by an arbitrator should be put upon the owner or other person interested in the building to pay for the cost of removal. It was no argument against this clause that it was not a general clause, because most of the legislation affecting Private Bills had been built up through specific cases being dealt with in specific Bills. Most of the principles of the Lauds Clauses Act were built up in that way. The principle of betterment was admitted, not only in the Minority Report of the Committee on this Bill, but in the unsuccessful Report brought forward in 1890 by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. Fowler). In the Report the following passage occurs:—
    "That the Committee are of opinion that where it is clearly shown that property adjacent to or in the neighbourhood of a public improvement carried on at the public expense is substantially and permanently increased in value by such improvement, it is just that the proportionate contribution of the cost of such improvement should be equitably levied on the property so improved."
    The difficulty that attached to the Betterment Clause of 1892 lay principally in the proposal to establish a fixed sum, which was to be divided amongst the persons whose property was bettered. It was pointed out that it would be extremely important to show what would be the limit of the betterment area, because additional charges were thrown upon those who were included by every omission from the number. That difficulty did not exist in the present case, because if the area were not sufficiently extensive, whilst the town would not profit sufficiently, no individual would suffer by the fact that other property was left out of it. It had been said that there would be an uncertainty for seven years as to
    28
    whether the mortgaged charge would hang over the owners of property in the district. That was not, however, a fair way of putting it. The fair way of putting it was this—that there would be an uncertainty as to how much particular properties would be increased in value without any expenditure on the part of the owners; and whilst that uncertainty existed there would exist a corresponding uncertainty as to the proportion of the value that would have to be paid to the community. For many years, in London and elsewhere, it had been the endeavour of the House of Commons to make those who were specially benefited by public improvements bear part of the cost, and also to intercept the special benefit derived from individuals from the improvement, and to hand it over to the community. The rough-and-ready method of making the parish in which the improvement took place pay a special rate had no particular recommendation. He had previously referred to the much more specific method under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and he now came to another point wherein the State had for many years endeavoured to intercept this increment. By this method with which he was dealing a town, when it had reason to believe that property would be improved, could schedule it, purchase it, and sell it again. The object of that was that the town should become the inheritor of the particular benefit arising to the property from the improvement. But it was pointed out by the Committee that that plan had entirely failed from a financial point of view in securing the end at which it was aimed. It had resulted in the predecessors of the London County Council, when carrying out a great improvement scheme, purchasing a great deal more property than was absolutely necessary, and actually losing money by so doing. The transaction was destroyed in a pecuniary sense by the immense expenses attached and the immense compensation required. It was proved to the Committee that the heavy loss incurred in attempting to carry out this recoupment scheme had arisen largely from the necessity of having to purchase trade interests which the improvement annihilated and abolished. For that system the London County Council now wished to substitute the betterment

    29
    system, and they had in this case an opportunity of applying the principle, which did not possess in it any remarkable feature. The principle could be easily applied; it could be tried alongside the recoupment system; the Bill would enable a fair judgment to be formed upon its working, and upon the result of that experiment the Municipality of London would in the future have to decide whether or not to apply the principle to more extended cases. He denied that this proposal in any way touched the general law, other than to afford an opportunity in this particular instance of initiating one of these movements constantly made in Private Bills. He hoped the Government would consider the people of London in this matter, because many great improvements were at the present time being carried out at the expense of the occupying ratepayers. They had been labouring many years to realise in London a portion of the London programme, which contained as one of its principal features that taxation for the improvement of London should be borne by the property interests which directly benefited by it. This Bill was a small beginning, and he claimed from the Government support for a measure most urgently needed in Loudon, and most urgently supported, not only by the Progressive majority of the London County Council, but also by not a few of the Moderate Members who sat opposite to them both in the Council and in the House of Commons.
    SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid that, as Chairman of the Hybrid Committee which dealt with this Bill, he felt it incumbent upon him to say a few words, because, although the matter in itself was small, the principle involved was a very large and far-reaching one. He had always been in favour of supporting the decisions of Committees upstairs, and especially those of Committees on Private Bills. They all knew why the consideration of such Bills was taken out of the House. But the Committee on this Bill was a rather peculiar one. It was not like the Select Committee ordinarily appointed to deal with Private Bills. His experience was that such Committees heard the evidence and listened to the addresses of counsel before the opinions of individual Members could be ascertained. But this Committee was
    30
    avowedly formed on Party lines. Members of it—as could be seen from the printed papers—did not disguise their opinions; they acted as advocates of their respective principles; and the result, as far as they were concerned, was a foregone conclusion from the very beginning to the end, when it was seen that, omitting the Chairman, the majority was five to three. He felt it his duty to point out what a very unsatisfactory tribunal this Committee proved to be. Members of Committees on Private Bills were bound to attend the sittings, and if they absented themselves were reported to the House; but in the case of this Hybrid Committee Members were not so obliged, and one hon. Member was only present one day and a half, and did not hear the address of a single counsel. The Division Lists showed, too, that only a fraction of the Committee voted on several occasions. Therefore, he submitted that a Committee so constituted was not entitled to the same respect for its decisions as an ordinary Select Committee on Private Bills. It was said that this was only a small matter. So it was; but, as the Bill was originally read a second time, it included a very much larger improvement scheme, for making, at a cost of something like £3,000,000 sterling, a great central street north of the Strand. The London County Council, for reasons best known to itself, saw fit to withdraw that scheme, which also involved the adoption of the betterment principle, and to limit its fighting to the comparatively small and unimportant improvement now dealt with by the Bill. This was a proposal to make a street about a mile long from the southern end of Tower Bridge to the Old Kent Road, and passing through a large and populous parish, the industries of which were somewhat decayed. It might be hoped that these interests would be revived by being brought on to the flanks of a great arterial communication, and one witness for the London County Council expressed an opinion that all the industries of Bermondsey would benefit by being placed on a main thoroughfare. But surely that only increased the difficulty of judging where the betterment principle could properly be applied. One hon. Member had stated that this Bill differed from its predecessors, inasmuch as it did

    31
    not include a considerable area to which the principle should be applied, but clearly laid down the limits of deviation, and confined those limits practically to the properties abutting on the proposed street. The hon. Member for Hampstead, in moving the omission of the clause, said that he had expressed a decided opinion on the matter. He did not do so, however, until the evidence had been received and counsel had addressed the Committee. He certainly had a very decided opinion, and it was that the principle would be most unfairly applied in this case. The Committee of 1890 on the Strand Improvement Scheme—a Committee presided over by the President of the Local Government Board—reported in that case that the principle could not be properly applied. The hon. Member who had just spoken said that Committee came to the conclusion that that was not a proper case for the charge to be imposed. But the Committee set forth very much what he stated in his draft Report to the Hybrid Committee, that it was alleged a great improvement would be conferred on a very large area; but the Committee thought that only one side of the Strand would be improved, and that the adoption of the betterment principle was neither expedient nor justified on the evidence produced. Objection had been made to the principle of laying half the cost of the improvement on the parish. But that principle was precise and accurate compared with the betterment principle. Here they had a proposal to render property on each side of the new street liable to assessment, while persons living two or three doors up a side street immediately adjoining the new arterial road would not be liable to the charge. How could they say that a house 10 yards away from the new street would not be benefited by the improvement? This was a point on which it seemed impossible that the betterment principle could be fairly applied, except in the well-known way of the house being rated according to the quinquennial valuation. By the principle adopted in this Bill there was an arbitrary prophecy that a certain property would be benefited, while no allowance was made for any possible subsequent depreciation. It seemed altogether inequitable that a property should be charged increased assessment on account
    32
    of a problematical or perhaps temporary enhancement of value, while another property, which might be lessened in value by the proposed improvement, was to have no compensation. Evidence, indeed, was given in this particular case to the effect that properties in the present road would be lessened in value if the traffic was taken into the new street. On what ground of justice was a man to have his property peremptorily taxed on an estimated increase of value if his neighbour a few yards away was to be deprived of his custom through the diversion of traffic, and to have no compensation for his loss? Now, there was no way in which the principle of enhanced value or lessened value could be determined otherwise than by the old-established method of periodical assessment, by which rates were laid on according to the value of the house. The hon. Member for Shoreditch stated that the Lands Clauses Act provisions were built up by separate decisions, and on that ground the House might now come to a decision which would constitute a most important precedent, and enable other Bills of the same kind to be passed with greater ease. But the reference was, he thought, an unfortunate one, for under those clauses no man's property could be taken without his being afforded an opportunity of defending and maintaining his rights. But in the case of this Bill one of the parties to the bargain was to make an assessment, and that assessment was to be final unless the owner of the property assessed chose to go to law. The hon. Member for Shoreditch spoke of going before an arbitrator as a very light matter. But was it so simple a matter for a man owning property of the class mainly affected by this improvement? Take the case of a man owning a house rented at £20 or £30. An assessment of £3 on the betterment principle was placed on the property. Would it not be a serious thing for the owner to have to instruct counsel and go before an arbitrator simply to upset the assessment? Yet he would have to do that, or submit to the extra charge in silence. Reference was made earlier in the Debate to the Committee of 1887, which dealt in a very comprehensive manner with this principle. It was one of the strongest Lords' Committees

    33
    that could have been appointed. It was presided over by the Duke of Richmond, and included among its Members Lord Salisbury, Lord Ripon, Lord Cowper, Lord Stanhope, Lord Eversley, and other well-known Peers. It examined into this principle—that was to say, whether the benefit to be derived by individuals should be recouped by special rate—and it reported that the principle of rating exclusively according to the benefit received was difficult of application, and was frequently found to work unsatisfactorily in practice. He relied upon the very exhaustive Report of that Committee, and he submitted that the evidence in this case was totally insufficient to make out any case for the particular proposal brought before that Committee. The scheme seemed to him to be full of injustice, and most unlikely to result in any recoupment at all in comparison with the injustice that would be done to individuals. He hoped the House would consider the enormous hardship this would inflict on the owners of small properties by compelling them either to submit to an arbitrary assessment, or expose themselves to an expensive kind of litigation.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke in deprecating the appointment of Members to Committees of this House upon, I will not say Party, but interested, lines, and I also very much deprecate the view that Members of the Committee should be fairly chargeable with being advocates on one side or the other. The rule the House has laid down with reference to Private Bill Committees is that Members appointed thereon shall make a declaration that neither they nor their constituents are interested in questions coming before the Committee, and I think that is a very salutary provision. As far as these London Bills are concerned, I should be wanting in my duty if I did not express the opinion that Metropolitan Members, either on one side or the other, ought not to be put upon Committees in which they are called upon to consider questions promoted by the Metropolitan Authorities, and in reference to which strong feeling exists on both sides. Now, I do not propose to ask the House to deal with questions of detail;
    34
    indeed, nothing could be more ludicrous than the spectacle of an hon. Member reading disjointed passages of a witness's evidence without reference to his cross-examination or re-examination, or explanation, and then asking the House to express a judicial opinion on a question which had occupied the attention of a competent Committee presided over by a competent Chairman for many days. The House cannot decide such questions of detail, and I think I am justified in quoting the statement made by Sir Robert Peel many years ago with regard to Railway Committees—that it was the duty of the House to support the decisions of these Committees although they might not concur in them. If the House is dissatisfied with the decision of the Committee on this Bill in matters of detail, those difficulties can be dealt with in another place. Now, the House has been challenged to pronounce an opinion on the principle of betterment, and it is upon that I ask the House to support the maintenance of the Betterment Clause in the Bill. I am prepared to abide by certain carefully considered words which I submitted to the Committee to which reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—
    "Where it is clearly shown that property adjacent to or in the neighbourhood of a public improvement, carried out at the public expense, is substantially and permanently increased in value by such improvement, it is just that the proportionate contribution towards such cost should be equitably levied on the property so improved."
    That I believe to be a fair statement of the betterment principle, and I submit that there is nothing unjust in it. Hon. Members have suggested that the contribution is already made in the form of increased rating. But let us take a concrete illustration. A man owns some houses in a cul-de-sac. By public money and at the public expense that cul-de-sac is converted into a broad, wide, and much-frequented thoroughfare, and the property in it doubled in value at enormous cost to the general ratepayer. Is there anything unjust in asking the owner of the property to pay a legitimate share of the expense of the improvement that has doubled the value of his houses? The share proposed in the Bill is but one-half of the enhanced value given to his property, and it is not demanded in a lump sum, but is taken in the form of a

    35
    charge at 3 per cent. until the owner chooses to redeem. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke alluded to the Lands Clauses Act, and seemed to forget that under that Act there is a provision that where land is injuriously affected, but not taken, compensation should be paid to the owner.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The power of giving compensation is closely guarded, and is granted only in special cases.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think it should be closely guarded, and I do not object to any fair and reasonable restrictions in this case. The hon. Member who moved the rejection complained of what he called the slang parlance of betterment, and the hon. Member who seconded the rejection complained of the introduction of an entirely novel principle, and of a deviation from all the established rules relating to dealing with property. But "betterment" is not slang parlance. It is a very good phrase in the English language. In the Act of Parliament which was passed after London was burned down, to provide for the rebuilding of the City, I find on the margin the phrase "houses that should be bettered in value." Indeed, there can be found no better illustration of the principle than in this Act which was passed 250 years ago in the time of Charles II., for there is in it a provision that any house which received from the rebuilding of the City any advantage in the value of rents by reason of "free air, free intercourse for trade, and other convenience" should have a charge levied on it by the Corporation towards the expenses of rebuilding the City. Pepys, in his Diary, tells an anecdote of having met some man in the City who told him about a project for building a street from the Guildhall to Cheapside. It was said that a man was in possession of a piece of laud lying in the middle of the intended street, and that after it was cut through sufficient land would be left on each side to enable him to build houses on each side of King Street. He wanted £700 from the Corporation for the land taken, and to be excused from "melioration" on the remainder which he kept; but the Corporation declined the terms, and eventually the man accepted an agreement by which he received nothing in consequence of the improvement in his property. This principle has also been
    36
    adopted in America. It is part of the law of the State of New York.
    MR. KIMBER: That anecdote from Pepys was told at the Committee on behalf of the County Council, and they were asked to set worsement against betterment, but declined.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not see the relevancy of the hon. Gentleman's remark. The hon. Gentleman said this is a new principle. I say it is an old principle. It is a principle centuries old that property which has been improved by the expenditure of public money should pay something. I ask the House to accept that principle. It has been said that this is a small matter; that it involves the expenditure of only £5,000; but that, I think, strengthens the application of the principle in this case. The hon. Member for Shoreditch said that betterment and ground values contain the same principle: but I do not agree with him. I consider that the question of betterment does not in any way touch the question of ground rents. I think they are totally separate and distinct questions. The principle of betterment stands by itself. If improvements be carried out at the public expense, and private property thereby be enormously increased in value, that private property ought to be required to contribute towards defraying the cost of the improvement. I, therefore, beg to support the clause.
    MR. BIRRELLsaid, he heard with astonishment the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester refer to his conduct as a Member of the Committee in having voted, though his attendance at the meetings of the Committee was not regular. Before he voted he stated to the Committee the reasons for his absence from the meetings, and mentioned that he had made himself acquainted with everything that had taken place before the Committee. He stated also to the Committee that in voting he felt certain his conduct would be referred to in the House of Commons, whereupon the right hon. Gentleman said with some heat—"You may rely upon it will not be referred to by me," and yet the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to refer to the matter. He wished to inform the House that he was not an original Member of this Committee at

    37
    all. He was not added to the Committee till it had had two of its most important sittings, when the whole case for the County Council was opened, and when its principal witness, Mr. Charles Harrison, was examined, cross-examined, and re-examined. He accordingly found himself at a disadvantage; but having been supplied with a full verbatim account of everything that had taken place before the Committee—of every word uttered by counsel, witness, and the Members of the Committee, he read it as carefully as if he had been paid for reading it, and, consequently, made himself honestly acquainted with the proceedings of the Committee. On subsequent occasions he attended the Committee for the greater part of two days, and heard every witness except Sir John Whittaker Ellis; but he read that gentleman's evidence, and, having often seen him in the witness-box, he was perfectly acquainted with his demeanour, and he did not think there was any harm in saying that there was nothing whatever to be learnt from the demeanour in the witness-box of Sir John Whittaker Ellis. The Committee were satisfied with his explanation, and the general impression was that he was as well qualified to vote as if he had sat out the meetings of the Committee eating penny buns or writing letters during the progress of the proceedings. At all events, he gave a perfectly honest vote, and he thought he was as well qualified to do so as the Chairman himself.
    MR. MACDONAsaid, the whole of London would be benefited by the Bill, but the benefit that Rotherhithe would get from it would be very small; and he thought it would be very unfair and very unjust, whether they did it by betterment or by worsement, that Rotherhithe should have to pay for the benefit of London at large.
    MR. GOSCHEN: That this question is important is acknowledged by both sides of the House, and by no one more than by the hon. Member for Shoreditch. The fact is that into this Private Bill a principle of the very highest importance has been introduced; and I venture to say that if it had been introduced as a Resolution on a Tuesday or a Friday night, as to whether the principle of
    38
    betterment should be applied to the Metropolis, it would not be considered too much to spend half a night considering a matter which, both to ratepayers and County Council, is of the greatest moment. Therefore, I say that no apology is needed for the time we have devoted to this question. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has acknowledged that, so far as this particular case is concerned, there are reasons, partly due to the constitution of the Committee, which do not place us in a thoroughly satisfactory position. I will not allude to the non-attendance of the hon. Member opposite, except to warn the House not to be carried away by the example of the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman considers that if one is at all acquainted with the demeanour of a witness, it is just as well to save the time of attendance at the Committee when you can inform yourself by the printed evidence.
    MR. BIRRELL: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not say that. I said I regretted I was unable to be present, and I did the best to inform myself of the facts of the case.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman said more than that. I do not mean to attack him, but the principle is very important. The hon. Gentleman said that though he was not present at the meeting of the Committee he was as well qualified to pass an opinion as hon. Gentlemen who had attended the Committee from day to day. I venture to make what I trust will be accepted as a good-humoured protest against the idea that to read the proceedings of a Committee is sufficient if an hon. Gentleman cannot attend its meetings. As regards the principle of betterment, I frankly say, speaking for myself, that I accept in general terms the principle as laid down by the right hon. Gentleman in the words which he read out. But there was one very important word in it—the word "permanent"—that the improvement is to be considerable, and is to be permanent. To decide whether an improvement will be permanent is one of the great difficulties which surround this subject. Nothing has left a greater impression on my mind as against the application of the principle than the utter absence in all cases—and certainly in this—of a remedy in the future against any injustice that has been

    39
    inflicted on the owner of property by the decision of the arbitrator. The right hon. Gentleman gave an instance of property that might be improved by the removal of a cul-de-sac. But suppose a heavy charge was put upon the houses in that particular locality—a mortgage, as it has been described by my hon. Friend behind me—and suppose that in 10 years a new street which had not been thought of at the time was opened close to this particular street, down would go the value of the houses upon which—not owing to any act of the owners, but owing to a public act—a mortgage had been placed for all time. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that what is a permanent improvement to-day may not be the reverse 20 years hence? I draw from that the moral that in this scheme there shall be, at all events, some machinery for remedying any mistake that may be made. If a permanent charge is imposed on houses which afterwards turns out to be unjust, some machinery should be devised for remedying the injustice. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London said that these improvements should be paid for in part by the owner of property, because he was relieved of the cost of making the improvements himself. Perfectly true, if they are improvements from which he himself will derive distinct and permanent benefit. But what is a benefit to the owner of a house in one street may not be an improvement to other houses in the same street, and after some years it may turn out to be no improvement at all. The whole question is surrounded by difficulties in its application; but the principle itself has a great deal of force. When the Second Reading was debated the Leader of the Opposition said that when the Bill came again before the House it would be necessary to examine very carefully whether the principle was so applied as to relieve apparent injustice. The result of the discussion has been not to remove the doubts from my mind. Further than that, I think it is most inexpedient to try so big a principle on so small a scale. I think that is a legitimate reason for rejecting this clause. If the principle is to be applied, let it be applied not on this limited scale, which may blind us to the many defects which are inherent in
    40
    the matter, but on a scale which will enable the House to judge of the merits of the principle. The principle, as I have said, is just; but the House should see that there is proper machinery, and that proper precautions are taken to insure that the application of the principle shall not involve a greater injustice than its absence.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 118.—(Division List, No. 170.)
    Bill to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  BALLACHULISH PIER.
  MR. MACFAKLANE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a fence has been erected at Ballachulish Pier for the purposes of excluding the coaches of all but one coach owner; whether the terms upon which the erection of the pier upon the foreshore was granted justifies a proceeding which reduces the general accommodation of the public; if he will order the removal of the fence in question; and whether a charge of 3d. upon every passenger landing on the Ballachulish Pier is legal?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA, Sheffield, Brightside): I am now in possession of sufficient information to enable me to answer the hon. Member's question. The pier at Ballachulish was built about 30 years ago by the then owner of the estate for the service of the estate, without statutory powers or the knowledge of either the Board of Trade or the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who then had the management of the foreshores, and upon no terms or conditions. This unauthorised pier is no obstruction to navigation; and at this distance of time it would be useless to raise the question of the ownership of the tidal land upon which it was constructed. There is no authority for the charge made for landing, except the will of the owner of the pier. The fence which has been erected by the present owner is between the public road and the pier, and is on his own ground, which is now, and always has been, above high-water mark. I cannot interfere with it or order its removal.

  OBSOLETE SHIPS.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: At the request of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. Reed), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty for what reason obsolete ships of Her Majesty's Navy have been sold to foreign firms; whether they have been sold under guarantees that they will be broken up by the purchasers; how many such ships have been sold during the past 12 months to foreign purchasers; what are the amounts for which they have been respectively sold, and how much do these amounts exceed the prices offered at home; and what steps have been taken with respect to the brass, copper, and other valuable metal forming parts of such ships, and how it is proposed to insure the full return of these, or their full market value?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, Lancashire, Clitheroe): (1.) Obsolete ships are sold to the highest bidder, whether British or foreign. (2.) No guarantee is required that they shall be broken up; but that is usually their fate, as they are unsuitable for further use, except for special purposes, such as coal hulks. (3.) During the past 12 months only one ship has been sold direct to a foreign purchaser—namely, the old Victoria. (4.) She realised £9,804—a price greatly in excess of the highest offered by any British firm. (5.) All the brass, copper, and other metal contained in the ships are the property of the purchasers. For many years it has not been obligatory to return the metal.
  MR. TOMLINSON: What steps are taken to obtain tenders in such cases?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Advertisements are issued, and firms who are known to have any desire to tender for ships to be broken up are communicated with in writing. These firms now number about 100.

  CUSTOMS BOATMEN.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cardiff, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the present position of Customs boatmen in respect of an increase of their weekly or annual increment of pay, to put them on the same footing as the outdoor officers
  42
  who enter the Service at the same initial salary, and in respect of payment for Sunday labour and an increase of their maximum pay; and whether the recommendations of the Board of Customs respecting the boatmen, made about August last, have yet been carried out; if not, when they will be? I will also ask when the compensation due to certain Customs boatmen, consequent upon the abolition of classification, is to be fixed; what will be its amount; and when will it be paid?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham): I may say that the subject of my hon. Friend's two questions is one of great complexity; but the Treasury is examining the various points most carefully, and I hope will be able before long to announce a decision. With regard to the second question, however, I should observe that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished classification at the boatmen's own request; and they are, therefore, hardly entitled to ask for compensation for what has resulted from a compliance with their own wishes.

  THE PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) ACT 1891.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, with a view to showing the probable working and effect of Sub-section 6 of Clause 2 of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Bill, he can state what have been the expenses incurred under "The Public Health (London) Act, 1891," by the several Sanitary Authorities of London?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): Any such statement as is suggested in the question would fail to show the probable effect and working of Sub-section 6 of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Bill, as the receipts with which that sub-section deals are to be applied in defraying not merely the expenses incurred by Sanitary Authorities under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, but also their expenses in respect of public lighting and streets. The first financial year which has elapsed since the Act came into force expired on March 25 last, and the Returns for that year have not yet been received. Details as to the greater

  43
  part of the expenses of these authorities in respect of the main purposes of the Act, and also in respect of public lighting and streets, are contained in the Local Taxation Returns.

  THE FORTHCOMING NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  SIR C. CAMERON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the number and designs of vessels intended to be engaged in the forthcoming Naval Manœuvres; whether the operations are to be on the old stereotyped lines of Bantry Bay, or such as would be involved in attacking hostile fleets and coasts in the Channel and North Sea, and that of defending the United Kingdom and food supplies; whether the Mediterranean Squadron are to be manœuvred with a similar object and at the same time in the Mediterranean, or in such strategical positions as would be involved in actual war with a European Power; and whether any and what experiments are to be made in coaling the fleets away from their base?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: There will be about 50 ships and 20 torpedo boats employed. The operations will not be on old stereotyped lines, as suggested in the question, but are intended to aid in solving strategical questions which it is undesirable to divulge. The Mediterranean Squadron is exercised in manœuvres suitable to the Station without any relation to those carried out at home. The coaling arrangements are made in accordance with the requirements of squadrons detached from their ordinary bases.

  THE DISTURBANCES IN DOMINICA.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government has come to a final determination not to grant a special inquiry, by Commission or otherwise, into the shooting of people at La Plaina, Dominica; and, if the Government have determined not to allow an inquiry into the occurrence, if they will lay all the Correspondence relating to it upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar):
  44
  The Government do not consider it necessary to order an inquiry into the special occurrences connected with the late riot in Dominica. They are satisfied that, on that unfortunate occasion, the Government acted with patience, forbearance, and firmness; but they think that the state of things in the Island is unsatisfactory, and calls for impartial investigation; and the Secretary of State has, therefore, determined to send out Sir Robert Hamilton, late Governor of Tasmania, as a Commissioner to examine into and report upon the condition of affairs, the complaints of the people, the grievances under which they may labour, and the measures which should be taken to remove any evils which may be found to exist, and to thus improve the state of the Colony. The Legislative Assembly will be asked to provide for the expenses of the inquiry. Correspondence will be laid on the Table.

  ALLEGED PROSELYTISM IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to certain charges of attempted proselytism alleged against Sir J. B. Thurston, Governor of Fiji, and Her Majesty's High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, by The Catholic Times of New Zealand; whether he has any information to the effect that the official organ of the Government of Fiji has been used for the circulation of matter of an exceedingly objectionable character to the Catholics of that Colony; and whether he will take prompt steps with a view to ascertaining whether Sir J. B. Thurston has been using his official position for proselytising purposes?
  MR. S. BUXTON: My attention has been drawn to the article referred to, as well as to the original article in Na Mata. I am not aware how far this paper is in any sense an official organ of the Fiji Government; but I am making inquiries of the Governor on the subject. If the paper is, directly or indirectly, a Government organ, the insertion of an article such as the one referred to was highly improper.

  WEST INDIAN ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State

  45
  for the Colonies whether complaints of the maladministration, not only of the Leeward Islands, but of the West Indies generally, have been increasing greatly in frequency and gravity for several years past; whether these complaints have implicated the administration of justice in Demerara in the case of Mr. De Souza, and British Honduras in the case of the late S. Malony Dillett; and whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence relating to these cases?
  MR. S. BUXTON: (1.) With the exception of the complaints of the maladministration of justice in Trinidad, which were the subject of an inquiry by a Commission in 1892, the answer to this question is in the negative. (2.) Complaints were made of the administration of justice in Demerara by the late Mr. De Souza, and in British Honduras by the late Mr. Dillett. In the latter case, which occurred in 1884, Mr. Dillett succeeded in an appeal to the Privy Council. In the former case, which occurred in 1888, Mr. De Souza obtained leave to appeal, but his death prevented the appeal. (3.) Considering the time that has elapsed since the occurrence of these cases, the Secretary of State does not think it desirable to lay the Correspondence relating to them.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of a Despatch from Sir Andrew Clarke, Governor of the Straits Settlements in 1874, on a Special Mission to the Court of Siam at Bangkok, of which the effect was that France, together with England, assented to the independence of Siam, together with Sovereignty over its tributaries; and whether he will communicate the Despatch or any part of it to the House?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Despatch in question was received in April, 1875. Reference has been made to it, and it does not confirm the accuracy of the statement made in the concluding words of the question. The Despatch can be seen by the hon. Member if he will call at the Colonial Office; but it is not worth while to print it for Parliament.

  BENGAL GAOLS.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether Her Majesty's Govern-
  46
  ment will take measures to diminish the large number of punishments in the gaols of Bengal, seeing that the latest issued Returns of such punishments show that in 1891, out of a prison population of 17,122, more than half, or 10,873, were punished with handcuffs; still more than half, or 11,321, with fetters; and 1,661 with extra penal labour; such punishments being also greatly in excess of the punishments of prisoners in the previous year?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL, North Beds): My hon. Friend's question appears to refer to the year 1892, as the figures quoted do not occur in the Returns for 1891. As regards the year 1892, the number 17,122 is the average daily number of prisoners, whereas the other numbers quoted are those of the various punishments inflicted throughout the whole year. These two sets of figures have, therefore, no relation to each other. Proportionately to the number of prisoners, there was no material increase in the number of punishments for 1892. The question as to punishment by handcuffing is now under the consideration of the Government of India with a view to the modification of the existing law.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can give an explanation of the fact that, according to official Indian statistics, the death rate in the Bengal gaols in 1892 was at the extraordinary rate of 43 per 1,000 prisoners, as contrasted even with the previously high rate of 30 per 1,000 in 1891, and also as contrasted with an average rate of 23 per 1,000 amongst the free population of Bengal?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: The year 1892 was an unhealthy one in Bengal, the general death rate rising to 31·92, as against the average of 23 quoted by my hon. Friend. The proportionate increase was, therefore, much the same among the free population as it was in the prisons. In comparing the gaol mortality with the general mortality, it must be remembered that the gaol statistics are absolutely correct, while the death registration among the general population is still far from perfect.

  THE DISMISSAL FROM DEPTFORD DOCKYARD.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he has made further inquiry into the case of the men alleged to have been dismissed from the Deptford Dockyard for signing a Petition to the Admiralty; and, if so, whether he will state the result of his inquiries?
  THE CIVIL LORD or THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON, Dundee): I have already stated, as the result of inquiry, that the men referred to were not employed by the Admiralty, and had not been interfered with by that Department. Further inquiries have been made, and I have before me the statements of the foreman of works and the assistant civil engineer, the only Admiralty officials who are in charge of the works at Deptford. The statements are too long to read; but the foreman says—
  "I had taken no steps whatever to get rid of these men. I should have taken them on the works as usual the next morning if they had not been sent away."
  The assistant civil engineer, who has been specially accused of ordering the discharge, says—
  "I made no inspection of the men, nor did I speak to any of them on the subject. The first I heard of any men being taken off the works was through my foreman on Monday, the 8th May. The discharge was not brought about in any way at the instigation of the Works Department."
  This is confirmed by the foreman, who says he reported the discharge to the engineer on Monday the 8th, and that the engineer had not been in the Yard at all during the four preceding days. Since I received these statements, the contractor (Mr. Holloway) has written to the newspapers a letter, in which he says—
  "Being contractor for the works and supplying my own workmen, I was perfectly within my rights to retain them in my employ or discharge them if circumstances or necessity arose for my doing so."
  I hope the House will be of opinion that this evidence entirely exonerates the Admiralty officials concerned. In justice to the men who have thus been maligned, I think it right to say that any person might have discovered on slight inquiry that the allegations were untrue. It is
  48
  the known practice of the Admiralty to receive Petitions freely from its workmen; and this year we have received 251 such Petitions; and my right hon. Friend and myself have personally heard quite as many deputations in support of them. Although this Petition came from men who were not in our employment, particular attention has been given to it; and care will be taken that it shall not be prejudiced by misstatements for which, so far as we know, the Petitioners themselves are not responsible.

  THE CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN AT MALTA.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state why it is that the 13 Protestant chaplains to the Mediterranean Squadron, each of whom has only to attend an average of 540 men, are paid £273 a year each, while the Catholic chaplain, who has to attend 750 men and also the Malta Prison in addition, is only paid £80 a year; whether any provision exists for the ministrations of a Catholic chaplain while the ships are cruising either as regards Divine Service or the attendance on the sick or dying; and whether there is any reason why at least one Catholic chaplain should not be permanently attached to the Squadron?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Church of England chaplains serving in Her Majesty's ships form part of the regular Establishment of the Navy; and they, as in the case of all other branches of the Service, have to serve whenever and wherever required. The Roman Catholic chaplain appointed to minister to the needs of the seamen and marines of the ships when at Malta is a resident in the Island, and does not belong to the Service, nor does he accompany the Fleet to sea—he is, therefore, not paid at the same rate as the chaplains who form part of the regular complement of the ships. At Malta and Gibraltar arrangements for the requirements of the Roman Catholic men of the Fleet exist; in other ports where there is a Roman Catholic church the men are landed on Sundays for Mass. No other special provision has been made, except that the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean has instructions that when the Squadron is likely to be any length of time away from a port where the services of an English-speaking

  49
  priest can be obtained, one is to be embarked. The bearing of chaplains of other religions than the Church of England has never been in force in Her Majesty's ships. The conditions of the Service, together with the great difficulty that is experienced in finding accommodation in Her Majesty's ships, makes the permanent appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains undesirable and inconvenient.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN RURAL DISTRICTS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in reference to the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, he will give the following information to the House before the Second Reading: the number of parishes and of rural sanitary districts situate partly within and partly without a county; the number of parishes situate partly within and partly without a rural sanitary district; the number of parishes with a population of less than 300; an estimate of the number of electors under the Bill who, through the operation of the Compounding Acts, will pay no rates directly; and the amount of parochial endowments which will be transferred to the Parish Councils under the Bill, and the amount which will not be transferred under the exemption relating to ecclesiastical charities, according to counties?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: A Return will be immediately laid on the Table which will give the information asked for in the first three paragraphs of the question. I am not able to give any information as to the other matters referred to in the question.

  RED SEA LIGHTS.
  MR. CAYZER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the amount of profit the Egyptian Lighthouse Department has derived from lighting the northern portion of the Red Sea under their jurisdiction during the last 10 years; how this profit has been applied; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to obtain a reduction of these dues, which bear very heavily on vessels trading through the Red Sea?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): It is not possible to state the amount of profit which the Egyptian Lighthouse Department derives from the particular portion of their establishments referred to, because the receipts for the whole lighthouse system are presented in a lump sum. The total excess of the receipts of the Lighthouse Service over the expenditure is considerable; and this excess forms an asset in the general Revenues of Egypt, which goes to defray the general expenses of the Egyptian Government. In the Correspondence respecting a new Commercial Convention with Egypt, Parliamentary Paper Commercial No. 9 of 1890, it is explained that the Egyptian Lighthouse Dues will be reduced by £E40,000 a year when the new Egyptian Tariff comes into operation; but the negotiations between Egypt and other countries for this purpose are not yet completed.
  MR. CAYZER: Is it not a fact that there is a profit of something like £90,000 on these Egyptian lighthouses?
  SIR E. GREY: I cannot say whether that is so; the profit on them is considerable.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Will the Government use their influence with the Egyptian Government to get an increase in the number of lighthouses, which is very necessary?
  SIR E. GREY: We hope to induce the Egyptian Government to reduce the dues, and that would, of course, diminish the available profits proportionately.

  THE SUNDAY OPENING OF MUSEUMS.
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to a Report presented by the Joint Committees of both Houses of Convocation, which were appointed 12 months ago to consider and report on a Petition from the Sunday Society, urging upon the Upper House the desirability of the Sunday opening of Museums and Art Galleries, as a step towards reasonable and due Sunday observance, in which it is said that the cause of religion has nothing to fear from the reasonable and careful extension of the principle of Sunday opening; and whether, under

  51
  these circumstances, he can hold out any hope of being able to meet the wishes of the working classes of London for the opening of National Museums and Galleries under proper conditions as to the employment of the staff?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): I have seen and read extracts from the Report mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and I think the statement made and the Resolutions suggested by the Joint Committees are of considerable importance. I understand that the question has not yet come before the Houses of Convocation themselves. One of the chief barriers to undertaking the responsibility of opening Museums and Galleries on Sundays is the last vote in the House of Commons on the 20th March, 1891, when the Resolution moved by the hon. Member was defeated by 166 to 39. If that vote were reversed, the question would assume a very different position.
  MR. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report upon the Table?
  MR. ACLAND: I will inquire if that can be done.
  MR. BARTLEY: Did you not rule, Mr. Speaker, that no distinct statement of opinion ought to be embodied in a question, and do not these words constitute such an expression of opinion—"to meet the wishes of the working classes of London for the opening of National Museums," &c? Is it not a debateable point whether the working classes do wish it, and ought not these words, therefore, to have been omitted?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it is a debateable point, and that the words had better have been omitted.

  VOLUNTEER ADJUTANTS AND THEIR UNIFORMS.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why an officer appointed adjutant to a Volunteer battalion of his own regiment is required to go to the expense of having silver lace and ornaments substituted for the gold lace and ornaments which he is required to wear when doing duty with the Regular battalion to which he belongs (the distinctive regimental badges being otherwise identical), or whether para-
  52
  graph 839 of the Volunteer Regulations 1892, Part IV., Section 1, headed Adjutants, which at present extends only to Royal Artillery, Royal Marine Artillery, Royal Engineers, or Medical Staff, could not also be extended to Infantry?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): The adjutant of a Volunteer corps belongs, for the time being, to that corps, and not to his regiment in the Regular Army. The Military Authorities consider it essential that he should be identified with his Volunteer corps by wearing its uniform, which often differs from that of the Regular battalion of the same regiment, not only in lace, but also in colour. The Regulations are careful to explain that in the cases quoted by the hon. Member the difference of uniform is so slight as to render change unnecessary.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' MEETINGS IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. SPICER (Monmouth, &c.): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the wish expressed at the recent Druids' Conference at Newport that they should be allowed to hold their meetings at Board schools instead of being compelled to hold them at public-houses, the Education Department would issue a Circular to the managers of all elementary schools receiving public grants, urging that facilities should be rendered in the direction indicated to all Friendly Societies, provided, of course, such meetings do not interfere with the ordinary uses of school buildings?
  MR. ACLAND: I think it is very desirable that, where it can be conveniently arranged, schoolrooms should be lent to Friendly Societies for their meetings, so that they need not be obliged to go to public-houses. I do not feel that it is necessary to issue a Circular on this matter at the present moment; but I hope it will not be long before we may be able to carry a Bill providing for meetings of various kinds in those schools receiving a Parliamentary grant.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, when he stated that he had not received representations from different parts of the Metropolis that poor persons are now kept in their crowded homes suffering from infectious disease, in consequence of there being no room for them in the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, his attention had been called to a letter from the Board of Guardians of the St. George's Union, dated 14th June, in which the attention of the Board was called to this very condition of things, and which letter was acknowledged by the Secretary to the Local Government Board on the 15th instant; and, if not, whether he will give instructions that matters of such importance shall be brought to his personal attention?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: When I replied to the hon. Member, I was aware of the anxiety felt by the Guardians of the St. George's Union with respect to the question of hospital accommodation, although my attention had not been called to the letter to which the question alludes and which had been referred to one of the Board's Inspectors. I can only repeat what I stated in reply to the hon. Gentleman—that it is my desire in every way to assist the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District, and that I shall do everything in my power to facilitate the carrying out of any proposals which they may make for providing either temporary or permanent additional accommodation.
  MR. TALBOT: Although the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the initiative is with the Metropolitan Asylums Board, will he not admit that the final decision rests with the Local Government Board?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have decided every case brought before me, the last one having been decided to-day.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS FOR INDIA.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that there are now 53 Surgeon Lieutenants of the Army Medical Staff whose com-
  54
  missions date from 30th January, 1892, to 30th January, 1893, who have completed their courses of instruction at Netley and Aldershot, and are, therefore, eligible for foreign service, whether it is intended to send as many of these officers as are required for the reliefs to India during the next trooping season, or whether it is proposed to send back to that country Surgeon Captains who have returned home within the last two or three years after a tour of six years in India?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: About one-fourth of the full annual relief for India is composed of junior Surgeon Lieutenants. The Indian Government objects to a larger proportion, as these young officers have not sufficient experience for many of the duties required, and are, further, more susceptible to enteric fever than their seniors.

  FREE EDUCATION.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it has ever been laid down by the Education Department that, according to their interpretation of "The Education Act, 1891," the accommodation of an infants' school in which no fees whatever are charged is not to be considered available as supplying public school accommodation within the meaning of that Act, on the ground that the boys' and girls' schools connected therewith continue to charge a fee?
  MR. ACLAND: The Education Department have not laid down the doctrine that free places in an infant department of a school which the Education Department recognises as a separate school within the meaning of Section 3 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 are not to be reckoned as such in proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1891, because other Departments connected therewith are fee-charging. On the other hand, parents obtaining, after a representation to the Department, free places for their infant children, no doubt expect free places throughout the school-life of these children. It is obvious that many difficulties may appear in connection with this matter in the near future. They will receive the careful attention of the Department as they arise.

  DUBLIN SEWAGE WORKS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether satisfactory arrangements have yet been concluded with the Corporation of Dublin with regard to the commencement of sewage works to improve the present unhealthy condition of the Liffey?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As the hon. Member is aware, it was necessary to obtain the opinion of the Army Sanitary Committee upon the proposed scheme. Their Report has just been received, and has been referred to the Corporation of Dublin for their observations.
  MR. FIELD: Will there be any further delay in this matter?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There will be no further avoidable delay.

  BROWNDOWN RIFLE MEETING.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, on further inquiry, he has satisfied himself that the naval and military prize competition at Browndown rifle ranges is being carried on under the express patronage and approval of the Naval Commander-in-Chief and of the General commanding the Southern District, and under the management of a Committee of 17 representative Naval and Military Officers, with the Assistant Adjutant General as President; whether such a Committee comes under the official designation as a proper "organisation" for the management of such rifle prize competitions, to which ammunition could be issued free of charge as an encouragement to acquire proficiency in the art of shooting as on former occasions; whether the post of District Inspector of Musketry being abolished at Portsmouth in 1891 was the real cause of the prize meeting not being held last year; whether the shooting has since greatly suffered through inadequate supervision and imperfect instruction of troops, and whether he will consider the advisability of re-appointing an officer to the post, who would then be responsible for ammunition; and whether, seeing there was a balance of ammunition struck off charge in 1891, he will consider it an additional reason for directing free ammunition to be issued now, and in view of
  56
  the fact that the officers mainly provide the prizes for the good of the service?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have made further inquiry, and find that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph, and that it is usual that such meetings receive free ammunition up to certain limits, the limit in the case of Browndown having been 23,000 rounds. In 1891 the separate District Inspector of Musketry for the Southern District, who had managed the meeting up to that date, was withdrawn, one officer discharging the duties for the Aldershot and Southern Districts; and the General Officer thought it best to wind up the organisation, it being intended that for the future the meeting should be amalgamated with the Aldershot meeting. All surplus funds in 1891 were, therefore, spent in prizes; and in the result there was a large excess of expenditure of ammunition beyond the amount allowed, which became a charge against the public. Last year such men and teams as wished to compete took part in the Army Rifle Meeting at Aldershot. This year the General Officer commanding applied for leave to hold a separate meeting, and this was allowed; but free ammunition was refused, as the excess expenditure of 1891 had not been paid for. It is intended to revive the appointment of District Inspector of Musketry in this district. I am not aware that there has been a falling-off in shooting, and if there had it could hardly be due to the abolition of this officer, who, though the adviser of the General in musketry matters, has no immediate connection with regimental instruction.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Then the officers who spend their money liberally on prizes in order to encourage their own men are to be penalised and made to pay for the ammunition expended by the soldiers?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have said there are a great many such meetings, and the rules as to free ammunition are well understood. In the case of this meeting there was a very large over-expenditure of ammunition with a consequent heavy charge on the public, and for that reason the issue of free ammunition was refused this year.

  BOOKS FOR HOME LESSONS.
  MR. H. HOARE: I beg to ask the Vice President of

  57
  the Committee of Council on Education whether, when children are ordered by their teachers to do home lessons, the parents can properly be compelled to provide books or materials for this purpose; and whether, if such compulsion is irregular and improper, he will issue a Circular to this effect?
  MR. ACLAND: It is an evasion of the provisions of the Code on this subject to attempt to make any distinction between books for home lessons and books for use in school. No parent is bound to provide books or materials for either purpose. I hardly think a Circular on this point is necessary, but any case of attempted compulsion brought to the notice of the Department will at once be dealt with.

  LOSS OF THE "VICTORIA."
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how far the Greenwich Pension Fund is available for the widows and orphans of those who were lost in H.M.S. Victoria?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The funds of the Greenwich Hospital are bound to provide widows' pensions of from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. per week, and allowances to each child depending on the mother at the rate of 1s. 6d. per week. These rates were fixed as a result of the Report of the Pensions Committee, which expressly stated that the fixing of the rates was not intended to check the flow of public benevolence in this direction. Eventually, many of the orphans will be provided for in schools or homes at the expense of the Greenwich Hospital Fund.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Can the Secretary to the Admiralty give any further information in regard to the disaster?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am afraid there is very little further information to give to the House. We have some reason to hope, from a telegram from Colonel Trotter, the Consul at Tripoli, and from some other information that we have, that the number of men drowned is considerably less than was at first anticipated. It is thought that a considerable number of men did not happen to be on board the Victoria when she went down, but that they had been lent to other ships. Colonel Trotter telegraphs that 22 officers and
  58
  338 men were drowned and 29 officers and 281 men were saved. We have two telegrams from Admiral Markham, in one of which he corrects a name which has previously appeared—
  "With reference to ray telegram No. 22, for Osborne substitute Osmond. Written report sent to Port Said for mail."
  The last telegram is with respect to the condition of the Camperdown. It says—
  "All compartments dry abaft bulkhead A with exception of carpenters' store-room. Ship dry below armour."
  I am afraid that is all the information that we have.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: May I ask whether the Government intend to keep the sister ship of the Victoria, the Sanspareil, in commission, or whether they intend to have the vessel home, in order that a Committee of experts may consider the construction of the vessel to ascertain the causes of the disaster, so as to prevent anything of the kind recurring?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Perhaps the House will allow me strongly to deprecate such questions. I would repeat what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, said on Friday night, that the time has scarcely come when these matters can be discussed.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Is it the intention to keep the sister ship in commission?
  [No answer was given to the question.]
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I desire to ask whether, as the allotments fall due, they will be paid to the seamen's widows and families, as was done in the case of the Captain, so that none should suffer?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: That subject has already been before the Admiralty, and steps have been taken in that direction with the view to following, as far as possible, the precedent in the case of H.M.S. Serpent.
  MR. KEARLEY: May I ask whether it is not the fact that the Admiralty may exceed the rates which have been mentioned in cases needing special relief?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Yes; my hon. Friend is quite right.

  THE INDIAN CURRENCY.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, Edinburgh, Midlothian): It may be for the convenience of the House to learn the exact terms of a telegram received from the Viceroy of India to-day, communicating the steps taken with respect to the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee on the Indian Currency. The telegram is this—
  "Council has passed an Act, which takes effect at once, to carry out the plan recommended by Lord Herschell's Committee. Act provides for close of Indian Mints to free coinage of silver from and after date of passing. Arrangements will be made to issue rupees from the Mints in exchange for gold and sovereigns at the rate of 16d. per rupee [until further notice] and to receive sovereigns and half-sovereigns at Public Treasuries, in. payment of Government dues, at the same rate. It is intended to introduce a gold standard into India, but gold will not be made a legal tender at present."
  Then there has also been a consideration of the question of silver which was on the way to India, and which has, of course, been shipped in ignorance of this proceeding. The communication made on that subject from the Secretary of State in England is as follows:—
  "On the question whether silver now on its way to India will be admitted to free coinage, the Government of India have been instructed that it is open to them to admit it in any instance that they think fit, each case being considered upon its own merits."
  There is also the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee, and there is likewise a Correspondence between the India Office and the Indian Government, both of which are prepared for immediate circulation, and are at present in the Vote Office for those who may wish to refer to them.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am sure the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for communicating this information at the earliest possible moment. I gather from the statement that silver on the road to India shipped before the knowledge of the closing of the Mints may possibly still be admitted to free coinage.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Power is given to the Indian Government to consider each case.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Would not that establish a great difference between silver in the hands of Europeans and silver in the hands of natives of India? I do not
  60
  quite understand how it can be proposed that silver still in the hands of Europeans should be admitted on the old terms to the Mints, while the £100,000,000 of silver in the hands of natives would, as I gather, be excluded from any right to be presented for coinage. I am not alluding to the coined silver in the hands of the natives, but I am alluding to that which I always understood to be the great difficulty in the question—namely, the large amount of silver in bullion which is in the hands of the natives. I should like to ask whether that bullion will be excluded, whereas other bullion may possibly be included? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am correct in understanding that gold is not to be legal tender though it is to be the standard, but that the rupee is to be legal tender? In which case will the fact not be that the whole of the legal tender of the Indian Empire will practically be different from the inherent value of the silver in the coinage if there should be any further fall in silver? Will he practically not have a token coinage for the whole Indian Empire?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I must speak with caution and reserve, because I really have no positive information of any kind beyond what I have communicated to the House. What I understand—though this is matter for argument rather than reply to a question—is that at the present moment no step is taken with regard to legal tender in India. With respect to the previous question of the right hon. Gentleman, there, again, I have nothing to say absolutely except what I have read. The right hon. Gentleman will observe that this is not a wholesale resolution or announcement that all silver on its way to India is to be coined freely at the Mints. The right hon. Gentleman raises the point whether a distinction can be drawn between the silver shipped for India and the considerable amount of silver bullion in the hands of the natives. I can only answer that, conditionally. What I presume is that, if the Indian Government find cause to act in any of these cases, it will be because they are satisfied from the plea of the parties that they have taken a particular step in the faith which they reposed in a given state of public arrangements. With regard to the bullion in the hands of the native population, it does not

  61
  appear that any step has been taken or that they will be in any respect damaged in consequence.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is intended to place an Import Duty on silver?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is entirely a new idea to me. We have heard nothing on that subject, and I am not aware of any such intention.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I ask whether the Prime Minister or the India Office is in possession of any information which would lead to the conclusion that there is a large mass of bullion in the hands of the natives of India, or whether it is not the fact that the reserve of silver is almost entirely in the shape of ornaments worn by the women?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEwas understood to say he had no information on this point.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1893–4.
  1. £1,260,700, Victualling and Clothing for the Navy.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am sure everybody who takes part in this discussion will feel that we are speaking under the shadow of the heavy catastrophe of Thursday last. But I think that the consequence of that catastrophe, so far from releasing or exempting us from criticising the Estimates, imposes upon those who, like myself, think the Estimates insufficient, the extra duty of being somewhat critical of our analysis of these Votes, which we think fall short of the naval requirements of the year. On the discussion which took place on the Navy Estimates generally, I stated my opinion that the sum taken is insufficient to adequately cover the Services of the year, for it is proposed to increase the number of men by 2,600, to keep the shipbuilding programme to the same dimensions as last year, and yet to perform all this extra work at a reduction of £100 as compared
  62
  with the Estimates of the preceding year. If there is a suspicion in the minds of Members of this House of a tendency to vote insufficient funds for the Services of the year, there should be a careful examination made of these Votes which deal with stores, because they are in a some what different position to the other Votes. The Votes dealing with stores only provide a certain sum of money which is expended in stores which go into the storehouses. The purchase of stores for the service of the Navy for the year need not necessarily correspond with the issue of stores to the storehouses, and there is, undoubtedly, a tendency on the part of the Admiralty—sometimes with reason—to deplenish this cost of stores, and in proportion as they are deplenished so the Estimates of the year take relief. Vote 2, so far as the victualling is concerned, has two duties to perform: It has to provide the foods and provisions for all the men who are borne on Vote 1, and the number on Vote 1 is 2,600 more than last year. The first duty which this Vote has to perform is to feed 2,600 more persons than last year, and there is a second and equally important duty which the Victualling Vote has to perform. For every ship not in commission, but which is reserved and capable of being commissioned, there should be in the Victualling Yard provision and foods for three months' commission, because if it should be necessary to suddenly increase our Naval Force in time of emergency that can only be accomplished rapidly if the stores for each ship are available in the storehouses. But if those Members of the Committee who have Estimates in their hands would be kind enough to turn to page 244 they will there see a list of new ships and vessels which are estimated to be passed into the Fleet Reserve during the years 1893–4, and if they look down that list for 1893–4 they will see that seven first-class battle-ships will be passed into the Reserve; six first-class cruisers, three second-class cruisers, and 10 smaller vessels, and this total of 26 vessels represents in tons a displacement of 170,000. It is by far the largest addition ever made in times of peace to the Fleet, and is being carried out under the Naval Defence Act of 1889. The Committee will, therefore, see that this Victualling Vote, in addition to victual-

  63
  ling 2,600 extra men, has to provide stores for the three months commissioning of practically all these vessels which are to be added to the Reserve. That being the duty which this Vote has to perform, I would ask the attention of the Committee to two sub-heads under which the provisions and allowances are made to the seamen—namely, Sub-head "G," which deals with stock, and Sub-head "H," which deals with cash. Sub-head "H" provides cash by which those who do not take their full rations receive money compensation for the rations not so taken up, and the compensation thus paid is infinitesimally less in money value than the rations which are not taken up. If the Committee will look at these subheads they will see that, notwithstanding the greatly-increased amount of provisions which are required this year, the amount proposed to be taken is £14,800 less than last year, and I am sure the Financial Secretary will excuse me if I give my reasons for thinking this is a sum altogether inadequate. These two Sub-heads "G" and "H," as I have said, deal the one with stock and the other with cash. There is no cash balance which can supplement Sub-head "H," but there is a cash balance which can supplement Sub-head "G." If there is an increase in the sub-head which is to be made up by cash, there is then a reduction in the amount which has to be issued from the stores, and I assume that that deduction is made good by a corresponding deduction from the amount of stores in stock at the commencement of the year. I quite admit that there may be times when it is permissible to deplenish stores. I do not think it a wise or sound policy to accumulate enormous quantities of perishable materials, especially if we have reason to believe that in times of emergency a considerable amount of such stores could be rapidly provided for. But the stock when I left the Admiralty was certainly not too high. Two years ago we did reduce our Votes for all stocks. We bought considerably in advance of the close of the preceding financial year with the assent of the Treasury, and were able to raise these stocks to a high level, and at the end of the financial year we reduced them. But both my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury and
  64
  myself thought that at the close of the financial year 1890–91 the stocks were too low, and, consequently, we raised them last year. Last year, when we had to provide for an increase of 3,600 men, we took on this sub-head an increased sum of £78,000. This year the Admiralty, when they have to provide an increased number of 2,600, reduce the Vote by £14,800. I think that wants a full explanation. Last year, taking Sub-heads "G" and "H," the extra amount which we had to provide in order to adequately victual the extra number of 3,600 was £104,000; but this year the Admiralty, although providing 2,600 more men than last year, actually propose a less Vote by £8,000. One explanation is that there has been a fall in prices. I daresay there has been, but there was a fall in prices last year and the preceding year; and every man of business knows that from the year 1890 there has been an almost continuous fall in the price of provisions required for the Navy, and, therefore, it seems to be altogether unreasonable to suppose there has been any fall in prices which could justify a reduction of Sub-head "G." For the past five or six years we have given great attention to the rapid commissioning of ships and the speedy mobilisation of the Navy in times of emergency. Year by year we go through manœuvres and the preliminary steps connected with the manœuvres to test the adequacy of the various dockyards for commissioning ships. Some five or six years ago it was a matter of notoriety that we could not commission what ships we had in reserve because of the insufficient supplies of ammunition. That deficiency has been made good, and under the Naval Defence Act there are adequate supplies of ammunition and of guns for every ship likely to be ready for commission for some years to come. In the same way attention has been given to the necessity for supplying adequate numbers of men to fill up all the different ratings which may be required for ships to be rapidly commissioned. All this, which has been the work of years, and has taken an enormous amount of time and trouble, will be frustrated if the victualling and stores are not put upon the same level and made adequate to meet the same demands as are the Ordnance stores. We should

  65
  like to hear a full explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty on these points. There are one or two minor matters on which, perhaps, he will be kind enough to give me some information. There is a considerable increase in the Vote for seamen's clothing. That, I have no doubt, is due to the fact that a certain number of new patterns of uniform have to be issued and in stock. Last year we postponed this matter until the old stock of uniforms had been somewhat exhausted, and I have no doubt that the increase is due to the fact that the material thus bought is in stock, and will be in stock for the year, and the payments which are made by the seamen and marines for this material will not come into the Admiralty Exchequer until next year, and consequently there is this vast increase. A particular point on which I want some little information is as regards the dress of the Naval Reserve. Some two or three years ago a proposal was made to dress the Naval Reserve in a somewhat different uniform to that to which they had been accustomed, and to substitute jerseys for the costumes they wore. It seemed to me a reasonable proposal; but Sir George Tryon, who was well acquainted with the feelings of the Naval Reserve men, said that, whatever inconvenience the new dress might cause the Naval Reserve men, they would certainly resent not being dressed similar to seamen of the Royal Navy, and I am bound to say that I found that Sir George Tryon was perfectly accurate in this, as he was in other matters. The men have resented this proposed change; and I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether or not the uniform to be issued this year will be the same as before? There is another matter to which I would like to draw his attention, and that of the Committee. It has reference to the meat supply. The Committee is aware of the large quantities of cold meat supplied to this country. I took an interest in this question during the last three months I was in Office, and it did seem to me that we should consider the expediency of utilising refrigerated meat to a larger extent than we do at present on stations where our men are concentrated, or at Gibraltar, Malta, Singapore, and Hong Kong. There would be a saving of cost if this were done, and on tropical stations, where it
  66
  is very difficult to obtain good meat, the advantage to the men would be great. Several companies supply the meat, and, as their steamers pass Malta, the experiment might be tried. One other matter, the last I have to mention, is one that I might have raised on the general discussion, but I think it is better to raise it here—I mean the question as to India's contribution to the Admiralty for services rendered by the Navy. Two or three years ago the existing arrangements were disputed. The amount for the last three years would in no sense cover the expenditure, and I think it is desirable we should arrive at the general principle, and propose, as we did propose, to charge the Indian Government at the same rate as the Australian Government for work performed in their waters. I would like to know whether any satisfactory conclusion has been arrived at upon that question? I suppose the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us how the question stands. I know it was referred to arbitration, but I never heard whether any meeting of the arbitrators was held. There are many Members of the House interested in Indian finance. I am aware that there is a general desire to not press unduly upon the finances of that country, but to make arrangements favourable to India. I am sure, however, there is no desire to give relief to India at the expense of the Naval Votes. If India is to pay a less sum to the Admiralty than the actual cost to this Department of the services rendered by the Fleet to the Indian Government, the difference ought to be made good by an extra Vote. It would be most unwise to proceed in any other way. Those are the four questions I wish the Financial Secretary to deal with. I merely recapitulate them—the question as to stores, the question as to the uniforms of the men of the Royal Naval Reserve, the question as to the supply of refrigerated meat, and the question as to India's contribution to the Admiralty for services rendered.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I will reply to the last question of the noble Lord before dealing with the others. I regret to say that the arbitration between the India Office and the Admiralty has not made any progress. The Earl of Rosebery, who had consented to be the arbitrator, preferred not to act in that capacity

  67
  when he became Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He was succeeded by the Duke of Devonshire, who kindly consented to undertake the arbitration. Points of difference have arisen between the Treasury and the India Office, the result being that the arbitration has not yet commenced. The Admiralty are, of course, very anxious that a decision should be arrived at with as little further delay as possible, and repeated communications have been made to the India Office and the Treasury. I am glad the noble Lord has mentioned the matter here. The sums received in respect of these services are very unsatisfactory, amounting to only £50,000, while the sum anticipated by the Estimates is £117,000 each year. I hope the remarks that have been made will hasten the action of the Treasury. With regard to the use of refrigerated meat, that question has been under consideration, but we have not got very far. I may, however, tell the noble Lord that some experiments in the direction of his suggestion have been made at Malta at the instance of the late Sir George Tryon. A large experiment of the same kind is being made by the War Office, and we shall watch its development with great interest, in the hope that further steps may be taken. With respect to the Naval Reserve uniforms, a change will be introduced on October 1.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Will it be a partial change? Will the blue jumper be worn?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The present uniform is: Blue serge frock, No. 2 cloth trousers, check shirt, cap, ribbon, black silk handkerchief. The new uniform will be: Blue jumper, two flannels, two collars, black silk handkerchief, blue tartan trousers, cap, and ribbon. There is no increase in the Vote for the clothing of these men, although the value of the kit is increased. This absence of an increased Vote is due to the fact that the number of men who will be due to receive a new kit under the Regulations which come in force on the 1st October next will be less than the number who would have been entitled to a new kit during 1893–4, if the Regulations had remained unaltered. Some of the second-class men will not be entitled, getting only a suit twice in five years, instead of annually; while, on the other hand, the first-class men, on enrolment,
  68
  will get a suit, instead of a cap and ribbon as heretofore. The noble Lord has called attention to the striking fact that, although the Admiralty nave this year to provide for an increased number of men, the amount of money asked for in respect of provisions and allowances in lieu is less by £14,800 than the sum previously voted. The real cause of the decrease in the Vote is the very remarkable fall in prices coupled with the increase in savings taken up. By these causes the Subhead is diminished by £21,800. This sum, however, is reduced by an addition to be made to stocks in the present year of the value of £7,000, so that the sum of £14,800 is the amount by which the Vote is reduced. With regard to what are known as authorised stocks, when the present Board came into Office they found that the stocks were short of what the Regulations required. The noble Lord is aware that a proposal was before the Admiralty early last year to make a considerable addition to the stocks, but it was not made. After the present Board came into Office they resolved to augment them to the extent of £15,000, which was done; so that, instead of being in a worse position than last year, we have actually increased the stocks of provisions to the amount of £15,000, and as I have already intimated, the Admiralty propose in this year's Estimates to further increase them by £7,000. I think the Committee will acknowledge that I have answered the noble Lord's questions.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid, he desired to ask his right hon. Friend whether the official inquiry with regard to the wages paid in the various Public Departments was approaching a close? Under the present Vote there were large bodies of men in the service of the country whose wages were utterly inadequate. There were many labourers in the victualling yards who were in receipt of 16s. a week. These men did not participate in the general augmentation of pay made in 1891, and they were justified in asking that their case, a very hard one, should be taken into consideration by the Admiralty. There were many complaints in regard to the clothing of the men of certain ratings in the Coastguard. The sum of £5 was granted to chief petty officers of the Navy

  69
  towards the cost of their uniform, but the men of analogous rank in the Coastguard were not granted anything in similar circumstances. It was hardly fair they should have to provide an expensive uniform, and he thought they should be treated as were the men of a corresponding rating afloat. Again, warrant officers in the Navy received a gratuity of £25 towards the cost of uniform, but the officer of analogous rank in the Coastguard did not receive any allowance at all of the kind. Obviously that was very unfair. There was dissatisfaction among the mechanics in the Navy because they were not allowed to have a distinctive uniform, which, as skilled men, they contended they had a right to expect.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Why?
  MR. KEARLEYsaid, he would tell the gallant Admiral, if he would wait for a moment or two. In the first place, the uniform was of blue serge, and was entirely unsuitable to the work they had to do. It greatly impeded the work, as anyone would understand. How could they expect a man to work comfortably at bench, forge, or lathe in a loose jumper, with 'kerchief and lanyard? In the second place, the garb did not befit their rank, for it was to be remembered that these men joined as tradesmen or skilled mechanics, and the fact that their rank was not recognised as it ought to be prevented many from joining. The Government had already granted a concession to skilled shipwrights, who wore a blue cloth jacket uniform and white working suits. It was regarded as an anomaly that one mechanical branch should have a distinctive uniform, whilst others had to put up with serge. His remarks applied to painters and plumbers, torpedo artificers, and armourers' ratings and coopers and smiths. Again, the naval mechanics complained of the inadequacy of their present mess accommodation. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chief boatmen in charge since 1891, who went afloat on cruise drill or active service, had to mess with their own subordinates? That system tended to destroy discipline. There were complaints that the men had to mess in view of other men dressing and washing. This was disgusting, and should not be allowed to continue. He next wished to speak of a body of men
  70
  who were rarely mentioned in the House—the Royal Marines. He thought the Marines had strong and serious grounds for complaining of the manner in which they were treated. The men were first decoyed into the Service by false promises in regard to pay, free rations, and a free kit. To both their food and their clothing they had to contribute largely out of their scanty pay, and even then their food, especially when on shore, was insufficient. The meals consisted of: Breakfast, ½ lb. dry bread and pint of coffee; dinner, ¾ lb. meat, including bone; supper, ½ lb. dry bread and pint of tea or cocoa. The men were charged 4d. per day for bread and meat; l½d. for tea, coffee, and groceries; and 1½d. for vegetables with dinner—7d. per day, reducing their pay from about 8s. 9d. per week to 4s. 8d. Nor was this all. The "free kit" was a delusion, and the result was that the Marine was continually under stoppages for clothing. And then the supply was insufficient, and the result was that the pay was further diminished. A man got two pairs of boots when he joined—only one pair yearly after that; he got three pairs of socks, and no more for his 21 years, save at his own expense; two towels on joining, and no more; one forage cap, and no more. Even pipeclay and blacking had to be provided at the bidding of the superior officer, and the cost was deducted from his pay; while, for foreign service, white clothing had to be provided at each man's own expense. The married men were also badly treated. He believed the Royal Marines, notwithstanding their splendid services, were the worse treated body of men under the Service of the Crown. He earnestly hoped that this matter, and the other points to which he had drawn attention, would be early taken into consideration by the Admiralty, for the grievances of which he had complained were real and deeply felt.
  MR. FORWOODsaid, he had tried to follow the Financial Secretary to the Navy in the figures which he had given to the noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) in reply to his comments as to whether there was sufficient money provided for the Victualling Vote, having regard to the increased number of men and also to the increased number of ships that would be passed into the Reserve, and victuals for which

  71
  ought to be put away. He Lad understood the right hon. Baronet to account for the fact that this year a smaller sum was required than last year by two main causes—one that there was a net saving of £14,800 in prices.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that there was a saving of £14,800 this year under Sub-head "G;" but the increased savings due to decreased prices and savings taken up this year was altogether £21,800.
  MR. FORWOODsaid that, in addition to that, last year purchases were made to the extent of £15,000, making a total available sum of £36,000. The Government anticipated or extended their purchases last year by £15,000, and the stocks were greater by the 1st of April this year than they would otherwise have been. He could not, however, make the figures tally with the known cost of victualling seamen of the Fleet. The addition to the number of men had been 2,600; and as the men cost £20 per head per annum to victual, he should have expected that the addition to the Vote would have been £52,000. But in addition to that, as his noble Friend had pointed out, regard ought to be had to the large number of ships that were to be added to the Fleet in the course of the coming year. The right hon. Baronet had said that there were many stores which could be obtained at a moment's notice, and that there were other stores which it was undesirable to stock in large quantities. He (Mr. Forwood) agreed that there were some stores which deteriorated when stocked, and he thought it would have been of great advantage to the Committee if they could have had in connection with the Victualling Vote a stock account, prepared in the same way as the account under the Stores Vote. The late Board of Admiralty had initiated an entirely new scheme by which a statement was furnished to Parliament every year of the value of the naval stores as ascertained or estimated at the commencement of the year, the value of the stores to be purchased during the year, and the value of the stores to be used to enable them to see if due provision was made for the Service. He admitted that any argument founded upon this might have been urged against the late Board of Admiralty. Well, the late Board of
  72
  Admiralty did make many important changes in connection with the Estimates, and he believed they had carried that system of stock account and statement of expenditure as regarded naval stores to a very satisfactory conclusion. If they had had the advantage of remaining in Office for a longer period he believed they would have developed the system still further, and would have furnished a stock account in regard to provisions and victualling stores. He would recommend the matter, however, to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The rates of pay in connection with the Victualling Yard at Deptford had been referred to by the hon. Member who had last spoken. The Secretary of State for War, in reply to a question on June 8, had said they had found in certain Departments of the Admiralty and the War Office that the minimum rates of wages were too low; and, in a reply to a further question, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the decision of the Government had special reference to unskilled labour, and they intended to lift the standard of minimum rating. He should like to ask what changes had been made in accordance with that answer? According to the reply given to a statement by the hon. Member for Devonport, it appeared that the minimum rate of wages established by the late Board of Admiralty was raised from 15s. a week, at which they had found it, to 17s., or, after 12 months' probation, to 18s. There was another matter to which he wished to call the right hon. Baronet's attention. There was a considerable sum put down for the victualling of seamen employed on board the Indian and Imperial troopships. Sow, he held a very strong opinion as to the policy of continuing the system of employing our seamen on these troopers. He did not consider it a good and satisfactory training. Moreover, by 1894 every man in the Navy would be required. If they were to continue the system of allowing any of our seamen to be employed on Indian troopships, they would have by so many more to increase the number of men for whom the House had to make provision under the Victualling Vote. The policy of the present Board of Admiralty in this matter seemed to him different to that of the late Board. In

  73
  reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said that the present troopship system was neither dilatory, uncomfortable, nor expensive; that it compared favourably in all those respects with the hired transports; and that there was no intention of abandoning the use of Government vessels for the movement of troops, supplemented to a considerable extent by hired transports. He knew that the naval feeling as regarded expenditure in connection with any work not directly and immediately relating to the Navy was not altogether as friendly as he could wish it to be. He quite understood the origin of that feeling. Naval men believed that this House in voting money for Fleet purposes scrutinised the Votes closely, and they were anxious that the money should be devoted entirely to Fleet purposes. Now, his own feeling was that in times of emergency they would have to look to the Mercantile Marine as an important auxiliary for men and ships, and he was anxious to draw together the bands which bound the two Services as much as possible in time of peace. Of the seamen provided for in the present Vote, 1,100 were employed on Indian troopships and 700 were employed on Imperial troopships. And the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said that the service they were engaged in was neither dilatory, uncomfortable, nor expensive. With regard to dilatoriness, an Indian troopship took 27 days to go from Portsmouth to Bombay. Now, they all knew that a few days longer on board a vessel going down the Red Sea could not be called "comfortable." Whatever extent that voyage could be reduced added to the comfort of all concerned. Well, if the vessels, say, of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, were used, the voyage would be completed in 20 days, and our sailors could be learning their duty elsewhere. This afforded a sufficient answer to the argument of the non-dilatoriness of the present system. Then the troopships carried as many as 1,700 soldiers, whereas a vessel of similar size in the Mercantile Service would not be allowed to carry more than 1,150, and that was an argument against the assertion that the troopships were satisfactory from the point of view of comfort. They were overcrowded, and, of course, where
  74
  there was overcrowding there must be less comfort. As to the cost of conveying troops to and from Bombay, it was reckoned under the present system at £8 14s. 2d., and it was stated that in the future it would be £9—and this was exclusive of any calculation in regard to the large capital sum laid out in the purchase and depreciation of the vessels. One of these vessels, which some 25 or 30 years ago cost £211,000, was sold the other day for £8,500, which would give the Committee some idea of the depreciation of the ships. If this depreciation were added to the interest on capital and the ordinary cost of transport, it would bring up the expenditure to £12 10s. per head; whereas the Indian Government could get vessels of the Mercantile Marine to carry troops at from £6 10s. to £7 per head, in that way effecting a saving to the Indian Revenue of from £140,000 to £150,000 a year. But what was of more importance than the money saving was the fact that the adoption of the vessels of the Mercantile Marine for this service would set free 1,100 men who, if placed on men-of-war, could be rendered a much more efficient body of men than they were at present. Another element in connection with the matter was this: these 1,800 men employed on Indian and Imperial troopships had cost something like £128 per bead to train. To train what for? Surely not to sail about to and from India, but to work our vessels of war. The right hon. Baronet opposite questioned whether this was strictly in the Vote, but the victualling, and, to a certain extent, the pay, of the men was included in the Vote. The same remarks he had made applied to the Imperial troopships, but not to the same extent. Our seamen should not be called upon to perform service other than that for which they were enlisted and trained and kept up to the mark. He would not move any reduction in Sub-heads G and H; but he had been induced to call the attention of the Committee to the matter through the evident change of feeling which existed now in the Admiralty with regard to it, and because it would soon be necessary to spend some £200,000 in putting these troopships in order.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he did not know whether the Debate between the two Front Benches had been arranged. It looked very much

  75
  like it. So far as he could understand it, the Front Opposition Bench was asking for more money. It was difficult to say which Party was the worst so far as the spending of public money was concerned, and he did not regard either of them as bent upon pursuing an economical or saving policy. If the statements of the hon. Member for Devonport were accurate as to the food given to sailors, they revealed a scandalous state of things. He did not know whether there was any explanation to be offered—he hoped there was—but, certainly, the food and wages, as the hon. Member described them, were insufficient, and not what the defenders of the country had a right to expect. If this was the way the men were treated, he was not surprised at so many of our vessels being upset and lost. He wished to call attention generally to the Appropriation Account. In the last account furnished there was £31,000 recorded as having been spent in excess of the amount granted, and in another case £45,000. These items were met by savings in other directions, and that was what he wished to object to. The Department asked for a great deal more money than they wanted under the supposition that they would spend more in some cases than they had put down, and that there would be an excess in others; and, to his mind, that system was not fair to the House of Commons. The Departments ought only to ask them for the money they wanted; and if they found that more was needed, they should obtain it by means of Supplementary Votes. On going through the accounts he found that this money was spent on all sorts of extraordinary things. Some of it was spent on entertainments—on luncheons given by the late First Lord of the Admiralty at the launching of ships. The noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Hamilton) looked surprised.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Every dinner I gave I paid for myself.
  Several hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Certainly not.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Withdraw. That is a gross accusation against the late First Lord of the Admiralty.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he would specify the instances to which he alluded later on. He had seen attention drawn
  76
  to several matters by the Auditor General—and he was glad the country had such an official as he was; the only man who seemed to take an interest in economy.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Do I understand the hon. Member to say that he will produce figures to show that luncheons given by me at the launching of a ship were paid for out of public money?
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Yes; he would produce the Appropriation Account as to these luncheons.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I paid for every entertainment of every kind I ever gave.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid that, other entertainments were given to the French Fleet; he did not object to that, but the money ought to have been voted.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, the Chairman was quite right. This subject did not come under the present Vote; but he was going into this matter as an illustration of the way in which money was spent out of excesses saved under this very Vote, and spent without asking the House of Commons to vote it. He did not say that the objects—even the luncheons—were improper objects for the expenditure of public money; but he maintained that the House ought to have been asked to vote the sums required. Then there was a case in which a house and wine cellars had been done up in the most extraordinary way at Devonport. That might be very good, but Parliament ought to be asked to vote the money. It might not be very useful to criticise these matters at the present time; but the time was coming when Parliament would insist upon being consulted in regard to such expenditure, and upon having everything done by the Departments in a straightforward way. He desired also to be informed whether the increase of £45,000 in excess of the Vote of last year was owing to an increase in the number of men, or increased cost otherwise? He also wished for an explanation of the item "Tithes." He should like, further, to know what the chapel allowance meant, and why clerks with the maximum salary received allowances of £100, £50, £25,

  77
  and so on above the maximum? If the maximum salaries were not right, let them be put right. Then there was an item for "House Duty." What did that mean? How was it that gallant officers did not pay their own House Duty like other citizens? He did not wish to be offensive to the Secretary to the Admiralty. He made these inquiries and criticisms solely in the interests of economy, and trusted that the right hon. Baronet would favour him with an explanation. He quite understood that the difficulty did not lie with the right hon. Baronet, or with the First Lord of the Admiralty, but with the Department which was constantly asking for more money, and which, having got as much as it could, spent the excess on anything that happened to turn up. He hoped the Government would be able to give the Committee some information on these subjects, bearing in mind that he (Mr. Morton) was not opposing him, but assisting him in carrying out economies in regard to expenditure, which would be closely inquired into by the democracy of the future.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, that no naval man could rise to take part in the discussion of the Navy Estimates without expressing sympathy in regard to that terrible calamity which had just befallen our Navy and the country. He could not allow that opportunity to pass without making a few observations in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty had feelingly expressed the deep loss which the country had sustained through the untimely death of Sir George Tryon in the discharge of his duty; but no one could realise the extent of that loss so well as the naval men who knew him personally. He spoke on behalf of the Navy when he expressed the great grief which they felt at the loss of that distinguished Commander, who was esteemed and admired by every rank in the Service, who was one of the brightest ornaments of his profession, and whom it would be very difficult to replace. The Service also deplored the loss of so many gallant officers and men who had died in their country's service. Passing away from that painful topic, he desired to offer a few observations in regard to the Vote
  78
  before the Committee. Although a large sum was returned to the men in the Navy under the head of savings on provisions, still some £25,000 per annum, which properly belonged to the men under that head, had been for the past 40 or 50 years paid into the Treasury. It properly belonged to the men. Why was it not set apart for them? If it had been set apart for them from the first, there would by this time have been a fund accumulated amounting to £1,000,000 sterling which could have been applied to the benefit of the widows and orphans of seamen, and would have rendered it unnecessary to make so many appeals for outside help. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Devonport, the hon. Member would excuse him for saying that some of his remarks naval men would not at all thank him for. The hon. Member had raised a grievance of the mechanics of the Fleet who wished to be dressed in a different manner to the seamen. Were they too proud to wear the dress of the seamen? What did they want? Did they desire to have gold buttons on their coats and to wear Wellington boots and cocked hats? These men had to go aloft, and a costume such as that would hardly be the most convenient for the purpose. The complaint was all nonsense. What better costume could they want than the blue tunic? Had the hon. Member himself never worn it on board a yacht, and, if so, had he not found it a delightful piece of clothing? Then the hon. Member said the engine-room artificers wished to have better accommodation. Did they all want cabins? The complaint was ridiculous, and the hon. Member who made it did not at all gauge the feeling of the Naval Service in the matter. In the existing condition of things in the Navy, the difficulty of finding the necessary accommodation was enormous, and it was hardly desirable to complicate it by attending to the hon. Member's fancied grievance. Furthermore, as to the complaint about washing in the sight of other men, how could that be considered a grievance? The midshipmen did it, and he himself had for years washed in sight of the men of the lower deck. No sailor was ashamed of it. As a matter of fact, there was nothing in the complaint, and be hoped no attention

  79
  would be paid to it. To come to another subject, how was it that the pledge that had been given to him personally by the late Secretary to the Admiralty, that the position of the second-class stokers should be improved, had not been redeemed, and how was it that their complement had been reduced? These men were required in every ship, and they had rendered faithful service in their class. Their great grievance was that they did not receive the extra 2d. a day that they ought to be entitled to on reengagement. This was a monstrous shame, and a crying injustice. The 2d. a day was as much a right of the stoker as it was of the ordinary seaman. They were an under-paid class, and had not been treated fairly, and he trusted that the First Lord of the Admiralty would take the case of this class into consideration. The late Secretary to the Admiralty had touched upon the burning question of the abolition of our great troopships. The right hon. Member wished to abolish a class of vessel which had done most valuable service both to the Army and the Navy, and to abolish them in the interest of the Mercantile Marine. Those vessels in their voyages to and from India through the Suez Canal formed the best possible school for marine stokers, and he objected to their abolition. The question was too large a one to go into exhaustively at the present moment, but he could assure the late Secretary to the Admiralty that he did not represent his (Admiral Field's) feeling in the matter. No doubt the P. and O. and the other large Steamship Companies would like to carry the troops to and from India, but it was necessary to consider the efficiency of the Service; and seeing that the present system had worked so well for the country, it should not be disturbed. However, he would not labour the question, as it was not at this moment properly before the Committee. If ever the right hon. Gentleman brought his proposal forward in a proper shape naval men would do their best to crush out his idea of abolishing the Indian troopships in the interest of the Mercantile Marine. Our seamen existed for the good of the Public Service and not for the good of the Mercantile Marine. Let them keep in touch with the Mercantile Marine by all means. He had only risen to offer an humble
  80
  protest against remarks made on one or two points in the course of the discussion; in fact, he did not think he should have troubled the Committee at all if it had not been for the mischievous speech of the late Secretary to the Admiralty.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to accentuate the point made by the gallant Admiral who had just sat down with reference to the persistent and unblushing robbery of the seamen by Her Majesty's Government. He found that a witness before the Committee on the Estimates in 1888 stated that the annual amount of which sailors was robbed was £60,000. This was a transaction which would bring a blush to the face of the honest footpad, and would disgrace the ancient and honourable profession of brigandage, because even the vilest brigand would not rob the common sailor. The witness to whom he referred said, in the course of his evidence before the Committee of 1888, that he did not know that it would be quite wise to show in the Estimates how appropriations in aid were dealt with as compared with the sum taken in the Estimates, because, he said—
  "We make a large sum of money out of seamen's tobacco, and I think it would be a bad thing for them to know that."
  Such meanness was almost incredible; and if the statement did not appear in a Blue Book, he should be loth to believe it. The system was a fraud and a cheat. The Government said to the seamen, "In case you do not want your provisions or your clothing, or all of them, we will pay you its value;" but instead of paying them the value, they paid them £60,000 less than the value. He quite admitted that there might be reasons for diminishing the amount to a slight extent, although he could not imagine that it was necessary to diminish it to this enormous extent, which amounted to about 25 per cent. of the whole savings. If the Government thought it necessary to carry on the system at all, at any rate let them give Jack back his £60,000 in some other shape. The present state of things was a crying wickedness and injustice, and a discredit to the Government.
  MR. BAKERremarked that the sailors of the Navy were by no means satisfied with the arrangements now in force with regard to their food. Between 4 o'clock in the afternoon and

  81
  6 o'clock the next morning a sailor got no provisions of any sort. He put it to the House whether it was reasonable that seamen should be kept all these hours without any nourishment? It was also, he believed, the case that the Admiralty were continuing a system which had existed for half a century without making those changes and improvements which were accepted as reasonable in all phases of life. He hoped the Admiralty would keep abreast of public opinion upon this question, and not allow themselves to be led astray by the Executive officers.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTrequested the right hon. Gentleman (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth) to make clear his statement with regard to the reduction of the item for provisions. According to the statement of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forwood), there should be, in view of the increased number of seamen, an increase in the item of £52,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that there had been a decrease in price of £21,000, and he had also mentioned a sum of £7,000, without, however, making it clear what it related to. There was apparently a sum of £32,000 to be accounted for. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the stock of provisions, when the present Government took Office, was found to be sufficient, and accordingly the present Board of Admiralty spent £15,000 to increase the stock. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will state from what source he obtained that sum of £15,000.
  MR. BURNSsaid, it was stated on page 36 of the Estimates, under the heading "Hired Artificers and Labourers," that in 1892–3 there were 371 artisans and labourers employed, whilst in the following year 373 were to be employed, or an increase of two men. This implied that the amount of work to be done by hired artisans and labourers was fairly regular and permanent. The total amount of money paid to these hired men, he supposed through contractors, was, roughly, £16,000. He would suggest to the Government that in future the Admiralty should do what every private firm and every Public Body in London and elsewhere had done for some time, and eliminate the middleman in relation to contract labour altogether.
  82
  He believed it would be profitable to the taxpayers to do so; that it would remove many obstacles to discipline, and would put an end to many an objectionable practice which now permeated the official staff. He was certain that if there had been no contract system in existence it would have been impossible for the state of things to have arisen which was recently disclosed at Deptford in connection with the suicide of a man employed by a Government contractor. Many of the temporary labourers who were supplied by contractors had been working in Government establishments for 18, 20, 25, or 30 years. These men frequently had the most dirty and unpleasant, and always the most precarious, conditions of employment. When holidays and other privileges were given to the permanent staff the temporary men were always excluded from them. He would suggest, in the interests of the men as well as in the interests of the taxpayer, that the Admiralty should get rid of the system of employing day labourers at contract prices. The contractors looked upon contract day labour as an orange to be squeezed, of which they themselves got the juice, and, unless the Admiralty seriously considered his suggestion, he would oppose every Vote under which the subject could be raised.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON, Dundee)said, that on this specific question of contract labour at Deptford, he desired to say a few words. He had thought that the question would be raised in connection with Vote 10, but he did not complain of his hon. Friend's observations, especially after the example set him on the Front Opposition Bench. The matter had been brought to his notice by the Petition about which so much had been said. It appeared to him that certain changes were necessary, but he found that what the petitioners really wanted could not be effected without making them the servants of the Government. The petitioners themselves had not made that request, but it had certainly appeared to him that the relief they sought could not be conferred except by putting them on the footing of actual Government employés. The result was that communications had been opened by the Admiralty with the War

  83
  Office and the Office of Works, where the same system existed, and representatives from the various Departments were now considering what changes could be effected, and he hoped those changes when made would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend. The question of the wages of the men engaged in the Victualling Yard, which was another question the hon. Member had referred to, was also under consideration. This was a very much larger question, and included within its scope workmen employed in other yards. He had answered inquiries upon this subject on many occasions, and he could not now make any positive statement, further than that when the Committee which was now sitting, almost from day to day, working out the question submitted to them by the Admiralty—that was to say, the labour question in all the dockyards—had presented their Report, the Admiralty would further consider the matter. He hoped the Report would soon be ready; and when it had been approved by the Admiralty, he would state in the House the conclusion arrived at. He trusted that the matter would soon be settled to the satisfaction of all concerned.
  MR. J. H. WILSONsaid, he wished to offer a protest against the way in which the men were fed in the Royal Navy. He had served five years in the Naval Reserve, and had come in contact with a large number of seamen of the Royal Navy, and he could assure the Committee there was great dissatisfaction existing amongst the men on board men-of-war as to the large proportion of their wages which they had to spend in providing themselves with food. They were provisioned now under the system adopted 30 or 40 years ago. If there had been any alterations, they had been very slight indeed. Well, he maintained that it was not right for the men to be obliged to spend a part of their wages on food. It was the duty of the Government to provide for them sufficiently. He trusted, therefore, that the matter would be taken into consideration by the Government, and that they would see whether they could not effect some alteration in the provision scale. There was not sufficient variety. The men were allowed pork, beef, biscuits, but the variety was extremely limited. There
  84
  were many things which could be used—tinned meats, for instance. The men were very much dissatisfied, and they had not the same means of ventilating their grievances as other men had. He did not know whether he would be in Order in referring to the men of the Royal Naval Reserve.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; that will come under another Vote.
  MR. J. H. WILSON: Then I will simply content myself with this protest against the way in which the sailors are fed on board Her Majesty's ships.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: If the men have spent money on victuals it has been mainly out of the "savings" which they have taken up by not using the rations served out in the ordinary course. They desire a greater variety, and that is one of the reasons which make the system of "savings," to which the hon. Member for Lynn referred, so popular. It has been alleged that the Admiralty make an enormous profit out of the seamen under this system of "savings." This is a very old system, and one which, as I have said, is very popular with the men of the Royal Navy. It is a very peculiar system, and it would be very difficult for an outsider, without special study, to understand it. Still, it is popular in the Service, and that is a great point in its favour. The facts stated to have been given in evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons relate, as the hon. Member for Lynn said, to the year 1882, since which time the prices of provisions have altered very much. Consequently, there is a very great diminution in the amount of money which accrues to the Government, owing to the fact that the men prefer to take up the savings. That reduction in prices, and consequent diminution in profit to the Government, is going on from year to year. With regard to one very important class of savings—namely, the savings on rum the seamen get more than the value of the rum which they do not consume. The savings price of rum is 3s. per gallon. The contract price is under 1s. 2d., and on savings in rum the seamen get the whole of the difference between the 1s. 2d. and 3s.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Does the seaman get the benefit in an increased supply of rum, or how is it?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The seamen get the benefit of that in money, which they can speed on nourishing food, if so minded. I am happy to be able to state that the quantity of rum consumed in the Royal Navy is diminishing year by year, and that temperance is increasing; in a most remarkable manner. As to Sub-head "G" and the criticisms of the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and of my right hon. Friend, the broad facts are these: The present Board of Admiralty are spending money, under this Vote, in Sub-head "G," for a great augmentation in the amount of provisions, not only for the increase in men by 2,600, but also for the increase of stock to the extent of £22,000. Before the end of the last financial year we had increased the stock to the extent of £15,000, and now we are adding £7,000 more, so that we are providing more fully for the victualling of the Navy than has ever been done before. By the end of the year we hope to approach, if not actually to attain, the authorised average limit of stocks, which we found so considerably depleted. No provision has yet been made for the increase of wages in the dockyards. But my right hon. Friend is mistaken in thinking that, in his time, all labourers were raised to 17s. He left those in the Ordnance Wharves at 16s. The Government believe that wages of 16s. or 17s. a week are too low, but the whole question of the wages of labour is now under consideration. A Committee is sitting almost de die in diem under certain instructions from the Board. On receiving their Report, the Board will decide what changes shall be made. I can only assure the Committee that we intend to be "in the first flight of employers," as was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and that we shall deal with our ordinary labourers in no stingy or niggardly spirit. I do not know whether I ought to follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite into the whole question of the Indian troopers, as I think that is travelling a little beyond the question before the Committee—though the right hon. Gentleman managed very ingeniously to raise it here on the plea that the men are victualled under the Vote. But I must say that the right hon. Gentleman, when
  86
  he based his remarks upon the theory that we had brought about a change of policy, based them upon an insufficient foundation. I do not admit that any answer of the Civil Lord has indicated a change of policy. The Naval Advisers of the Government are the same as during the late Board of Admiralty, and their general views are not likely to have undergone any great change. The Indian troopers, however, are wearing out, and the question of policy is becoming urgent; but the future policy as to the Indian troopships is now under the consideration of a Departmental Committee consisting of two Lords of the Admiralty and two representatives of the India Office. I will, therefore, not go further into the matter now. The hon. Member for Devonport will excuse me if I do not go fully into the question of the uniform of coastguardsmen, the messing arrangements of the engine-room artificers, and the Royal Marines. I should like to get before me more specifically than it would be possible in Committee of the House the precise points on which the hon. Member thinks that the men are aggrieved. I will only assure him that the points are new to me, and that I cannot give him an answer at this moment without their having been previously carefully considered at the Admiralty. The rations of bread and meat are provided daily, and for them each Marine pays 4½d. a day, although they cost the Admiralty considerably more. I cannot agree with the hon. Member that the Marines are the worst-treated service in the world, seeing that they are a most popular branch of the Service. Their numbers have been increased this year by 500 men in addition to the increase last year, and no special difficulty is experienced in enlisting men. Coming to the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne, I do not think that there is anything to answer except with respect to the alleged promises to the stokers, and as that question is not on this Vote I will reserve it. In answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, I would state that tithes are paid for the Royal Clarence Yard at Gosport and the Alexandra Yard at Haulbowline. We pay tithe like other occupiers of land.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Do you get any service in return?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: We pay like other people, and I do not know that there is any direct return. As to chapel allowances, I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member any answer, but I will do so if he will put a question on the Paper. As to beer money, Marines on shore are not allowed any alcoholic liquor as part of their rations, but each private receives 1d. a day. In regard to allowances, they are made especially for colonial service. You cannot expect that men will go out from this country and serve abroad without additional allowances, and it is a well-recognised practice to give such allowances. With reference to the payment of House Duty in respect of official residences, that is a remnant of the old system that has now been done away with. The House Duty is now paid by those who occupy the houses, except in a few old cases. In conclusion, I must a little complain of the hon. Member for having lumped the Admiralty with the other Departments, of which he has complained that they are always asking for more money. That is a poor encouragement to a Department to practise economy, whose Estimate is £100 less than the Estimate of the late Board of Admiralty.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he would now give the noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Hamilton) the details for which he asked. He did not complain of the way in which the money was spent on luncheons and so on, but that, having been voted for one purpose, it was expended for other purposes. He found on the 28th March, 1891, in connection with the launch of the Renown, afterwards called the Victoria, by the Duchess of Connaught, £440 was asked from the House for providing accommodation and refreshments. There was a note in the Estimates after this item, "which will be met by savings in other directions." That was what he objected to. There was another item of £2,800 and another of £1,900 in connection with the launching of first-class cruisers.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The statement the hon. Member made was to the effect that luncheons given by me were paid for out of public money. He has not said one word to justify that statement. It is true, I gave a private luncheon at a launch and invited Mem-
  88
  bers of both Houses of Parliament, including the hon. Gentleman himself; but I paid for that luncheon myself. When the Queen or a Member of the Royal Family launches a vessel it is necessary to make preparations on a larger scale than in ordinary cases, because a large number of people are present.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he might not object to the payments, but he said distinctly that the consent of the House should have been obtained for all these expenditures, whether for refreshments or otherwise.
  Vote agreed to.
  2. £133,000, Medical Establishments and Services.
  MR. FORWOODsaid, he thought it would be information to most Members of the Committee to be told that they had at Great Yarmouth a lunatic asylum. At the beginning of this century, at the time of the French War, a hospital was built in the town of Great Yarmouth alongside the river that flowed through that town. It covered a considerable area of ground, was well built, and in every respect was a good building; but he believed it was never used for the purposes for which it was intended, and of late years it had been adapted and used as an asylum for naval lunatics. Some years ago it was first so used, and at that time there was not that accommodation for men suffering from mental disease as there was now throughout the country, and the result had been that the patients in this asylum had gradually diminished, until now he did not believe that any patients were sent from the naval side, so that the cost of maintaining naval lunatics under Vote 3, became very excessive, being something like £130 or £140 per head per annum. As no sufficient use was being made of the establishment for naval purposes, the question arose whether it could be turned to other purposes, or whether its use as a lunatic asylum could be increased? The consequence was, as they would see in the Vote now under discussion, the Admiralty had turned what he might call lunatic asylum keepers, for they had consented to receive patients from the India Office. [Cries of "Order!"] He did not think there was any doubt about his being in Order, as this Vote covered

  89
  up in a marvellous way the cost of this establishment. He had tried to discover something about the cost of this establishment, the number of patients, and the circumstances connected with it. The Committee was asked to vote £133,000 for the Medical Services of the Navy, and one would imagine that represented the medical men on board ship, and the patients received at the Naval Hospitals—Haslar, Stonehouse, and elsewhere; but, as a matter of fact, there was spent a considerable sum of money, amounting to £8,000 or £10,000 a year, in connection with this lunatic asylum at Great Yarmouth. It was not a bad arrangement that the expense of this hospital should be reduced by receiving patients from the India Office; but he hoped it would only be a temporary arrangement; that it would only last so long as they had any naval patients at this hospital, because the patients could be better cared for elsewhere, better arrangements could be made for them, and he had an idea that at the proper time this establishment at Great Yarmouth might be utilised to much better purpose in the naval interest than it was now. It was in a splendid position for an educational establishment, whether for youths such as were educated on the Britannia or otherwise; it was between the sea and the river, was in a very healthy position, and much better use might be made of it than it was put to at present, namely, the care of a few naval patients and some patients received from the India Office in whom the Board of Admiralty had no interest or concern. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could give the Committee any information as to the annual cost in connection with this Great Yarmouth Hospital, how many patients it contained from the Navy, and how many were received from the India Office?
  MR. MOORSOMsaid, he was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman began his observations; but he gathered that he desired to abolish the Royal Naval Hospital at Yarmouth, and he (Mr. Moorsom) was there to say a word in its favour.
  MR. FORWOODsaid, he would abolish it as a lunatic asylum, as it could be turned to better account for naval purposes.
  MR. MOORSOMsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not stated what those purposes were, and he did not know what better purpose it could be turned to than taking care of officers and men who were, from mental and physical causes, incapable of performing services for their country any longer. But he desired to say a word on behalf of the attendants who waited on those unfortunate persons. There were 32 of these attendants, and they had, as he thought, a genuine grievance in respect of pay and pensions. No person was employed who was not carefully trained for the purpose, and who possessed rare patience. The pay of these men was not high, being 2s. 2d. a day, which, with the uniform and provisions, was calculated to be about 22s. 6d. a week. The six senior attendants got 2s. 6d. a day, but none of the juniors got that unless there was a vacancy. The men asked—and surely it was a modest request—that after a few years' service, say five years, they should get 2s. 6d. a day, instead of having to wait many years for a vacancy for this small increase, and they did not ask for it unless they were qualified to the satisfaction of the Superintendent. In regard to pensions, it was formerly the custom to establish these men. Out of 32 employed 13 were established, and there were now eight vacancies. Yet, curiously enough, in the Estimates for 1893–4 a Vote was asked for 21 established men, whereas there were only 13. These eight vacancies had existed for some time, and the Admiralty would not allow them to be filled up; but perhaps his right hon. Friend could give them some explanation of that. What these men asked was that they should all be established after one year's service, provided they were duly qualified. Let them compare the position of these men with that of the messengers of the Admiralty. The pay of the messengers was considerably higher, and they had easier hours and lighter work than the attendants at this establishment. The attendants began work at half-past 6 in the morning, and did not leave off until 8 at night, and they only went home upon alternate nights. One who knew these men well told him—"The attendants here are a fine body of men, who do their duty well, and are worthy of every consideration. Were I sick or insane I should like to be cared for by

  91
  men such as these, with their endless patience and kindly forbearance." They could and did minister to minds diseased. He did not suppose in that House they had a single friend but himself—certainly not in the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forwood). The Commissioners in Lunacy in their Reports—not specially with regard to these men, but in reference to attendants upon the insane generally—recommended that pensions should be given to such attendants. It was well known that after attendance for some time upon the insane these men were rendered incapable of taking other employment, and the Superintendent at Yarmouth had more than once pressed the claims of these men upon the Admiralty, but without result. He begged that the right hon. Gentleman and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty would pay attention to these matters, and that one or other of them would visit the establishment, and see for himself the care, love and devotion with which these men did their duty.
  MR. TOMLINSONthought it seemed undesirable that the Institution should be kept up as it was at present. He knew something of the Institution, and knew that the patients there were well treated and cared for, but the numbers maintained in it were so small; there were 32 attendants, and he doubted whether the patients exceeded that number. The contribution from the India Office towards its maintenance was £5,560, and, as the number of patients was so limited, it was quite clear that the bulk of naval lunatics were sent to some other Institution. He should imagine that Great Yarmouth would be a very inconvenient place to send naval lunatics to, as it was away from the ports used by the Navy; and he doubted whether it was wise to take these people from surroundings they were accustomed to. He thought, in the interests of the taxpayer and good economy, the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. For-wood) should be considered, as he believed good would result from abolishing the Institution as a lunatic asylum. In Lancashire they had large Institutions that were carried on very successfully from the fact that they were large, and because arrangements could be made by which the attendants could be properly proportioned and the patients carefully
  92
  looked after. He hoped the subject would receive careful attention, because there was no advantage in having a small number of naval lunatics in an establishment, when they could be equally well looked after and be quite as happy in other large Institutions.
  ADMIRAL FIELDlooked upon the proposed abolition of this Institution with great regret, and he was sorry it emanated from the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary to the Admiralty. He had looked upon the right hon. Gentleman as an advocate for naval rights, and now they found he wanted to abolish a Naval Institution. He remembered that when it was proposed to send naval lunatics to the Naval Hospital at Great Yarmouth naval men were grateful to the Admiralty of that day, and no reason was given for abolishing it except the dirty reason of economy. The great difficulties in regard to most county Institutions was the difficulty of providing sufficient accommodation for lunatics, and here they had accommodation for naval lunatics who did not wish to be mixed up with lunatics from other counties, with mechanics, labourers, and ploughmen; sailors were a class apart from any other class, and they wished to remain so, even when they became lunatic. If he lost his head in that House—and some of them were likely to do so before the Home Rule Bill was through—he should be glad to be sent to Great Yarmouth. The question of economy ought not to be considered, and if there were not sufficient patients now that they took them from the Indian Office then they might get some from the Army, and charge them to the War Office. It was an admirable Institution, and they ought to keep it, especially in these days of floating batteries called ironclads in which men turned grey in a single night, and it ought to be maintained. It was erected for good reasons, and it should never be abolished except for good reasons overweighing those for which it was established. He protested against these proposals to abolish everything that was naval because they might thereby save a few dirty pounds here and there.
  MR. A. C. MORTONthought it would be a good thing to take the sailors away from Great Yarmouth asylum and send the Naval Lords there, and, for his part,

  93
  he would sooner see them there than the sailors. He might make the same remark on this Vote as upon the others respecting the use of money put down for one purpose for an entirely different purpose; but he would raise the whole question on the salary of the First Lord, and take a Division upon it. The only item he wished to refer to was on page 50, Sub-head G.—" Funerals by contract or agreement, including coffins and compensation for loss of burial fees." He wanted some information as to "loss of burial fees." This had been a burning question in this country for some years. They found the clergymen took the fees and did not do the work, and he wished to know whether any clergymen, or other persons, were getting fees on account of sailors lost at sea? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them how much was paid for burial fees, and whether the clergymen really did any work for it?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I will reply first to my right hon. Friend opposite. The total number of patients in the establishment at Great Yarmouth is about 140 naval and 60 Indian, and the cost of the establishment is about £12,000, to which India contributes £5,560. I will not go into the subject fully, because I have not had myself any facility for studying the question upon the spot. Before the present Board of Admiralty form any conclusions on a, subject of this sort, they would like to visit this Institution. I must remind my right hon. Friend that the Board of Admiralty of which he was a Member decided in favour of maintaining this Institution, and before we could say they were wrong we should need an opportunity of considering the question. Unfortunately, seamen are particularly exposed to mental diseases, especially in the form of general paralysis, which comes upon them because of their rough life at sea and the anxieties and hardships to which they are subjected; and, under these circumstances, it is very natural there should be an Institution such as this. I cannot, therefore, undertake, either to my right hon. Friend opposite or to the hon. Member for Preston, that we will necessarily share the views they have expressed, nor do I make any statement or promise on behalf of the Government; but we will do our best to form a just conclusion on
  94
  the facts of the case. With respect to the matter which my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Moorsom) has brought forward, I may say that the present Board have not had the question of wages at Yarmouth Hospital specially brought before them. The late Board received a Petition in the year 1891 from the medical attendants in Yarmouth Hospital. It was considered, but no increase of pay was given. Among the mass of Petitions which the present Board received in November last there was none from Yarmouth. Any representation from Yarmouth Hospital will receive the same careful attention that has been and is being given to representations from other Naval Hospitals, and we shall endeavour to do justice in each particular case. I will look into the matter which has been raised by my hon. Friend.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, the Secretary to the Admiralty had given no information with regard to compensation for burial fees.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, the explanation of this rather mysterious item was this: Seamen dying in naval ports were buried by the naval chaplains, who, of course, charged nothing for this duty. [Mr. A. C. MORTON: They get their salaries, of course?] They, of course, got their salaries. By this course the clergyman, of the parish, who would otherwise be entitled to his burial fee, was thereby deprived of it; and, under an established and antique rule, it was provided that a clergyman whose duty was taken by a naval chaplain was entitled to compensation for the burial fee he himself would have received if he had performed the Burial Service. He could promise his hon. Friend that the matter was one which should be carefully examined into.
  MR. A. C. MORTONwould not like to cause any hardship to present incumbents, but he considered that when the present incumbents died or ceased to hold the livings there ought to be an alteration of the system, which seemed to him a most unchristianlike system of men taking money who did not do the work.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESnoticed from this Vote that for 76,000 men the Medical Service cost £133,000, which was about £2 per man for physicking and doctoring. If £2 per man was spent on

  95
  this purpose he wondered how the men could survive; and it seemed to him their health would be improved, and the Service improved also, if the amount could be reduced to something like £1 per head, which was far more than he spent himself, and he thought that strong active young men in the Navy could very well do with 15s. per head.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (interposing)said, the hon. Gentleman was making an entirely wrong calculation. This Vote was for the services of medical officers who were employed in the hospital, the medical attendance to seamen being provided for in another Vote. The particular Vote to which the hon. Member alluded was for making provision for Hospitals like Haslar, Stone-house and others, where some of the highest and most skilled men in the Naval Medical Service were employed to look after the serious cases which had to be sent to hospital.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESremarked that, that being so, it made the matter rather worse than he thought. Not only was there this £133,000, but there was another Vote for medical matters. If the amount spent in physic could be decreased and the difference added to the money expended on pay and allowances it would be an improvement. He desired specially to utter a word of warning against the inordinate pretensions which were set up by the medical men in the Navy in general. They seemed to suppose they were a kind of high priest. He had two sons on the Britannia, and he was proud that they should be there. First of all, before they could be taken on that ship, they were examined as to their health by the Board in London. Each boy was examined to see that he was perfectly sound, and was found to be so; but what was the result? In the course of ascertaining if his boy was perfectly sound he was brought into contact with another boy who gave him the measles, and his boy went back to school and gave it to 40 other boys. This was the result of submitting his son to an ordeal which was supposed to insure that nothing was the matter with him. There was another little incident to which he wished to refer. When they sent a boy into the Navy they had to give a long account of his birth, parentage, and history, and then they were
  96
  called upon to sign it, and very properly and naturally to have their signature attested. But this attestation was not by a Magistrate or person of some importance or consideration, but by a medical man. What virtue was there in a medical man attesting a signature? It was because the chief medical officers of the Admiralty desired to add to the importance of the medical profession generally by hoisting them up to the position of Magistrates. He hoped the Board of Admiralty would reduce the amount spent in physic and would also do something to abate the inordinate pretensions of the medical officers of the Admiralty.
  MR. J. H. WILSONdisagreed with the hon. Member as to the advisability of there being a reduction of the medical staff of the Navy. The hon. Member seemed to think the medical men were on board ship simply to administer physic. That was not so. In time of an action they should require the doctors to attend to the wounded men, and they were, therefore, obliged to have them there always, so that they might be prepared for any emergency.
  MR. KEARLEYdesired to enter another word of protest against the scale of pay that the Admiralty deemed it fitting to pay to its employés. He referred particularly to the attendants in the medical hospital at Stonehouse. These men only received 2s. 6d. per day; they had to work seven days a week, and go on night duty at least once a week. They had no extra pay for Sunday work, and their duties were of a very responsible nature. They had charge of stores, of the receiving and despatching of medicines, and he understood that, under the superintendence of the foreman of the stores, they were called upon to take part in the preparing of the medicines. If a catastrophe were to happen on board one of the ships by which a number of men were to be poisoned, it would be a sad state of things for the Admiralty to have to admit the incident was caused by the mistake of a man who was paid the beggarly sum of 2s. 6d. per day. They were called upon to do very unpleasant duties, such as carrying out dead bodies, and it was high time this sweating was put an end to. These men had protested and petitioned for years past; and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.

  97
  Forwood) was Secretary to the Admiralty, he paid a visit to Devonport with a view to inquiring into the grievances of the men. He at that time made an appointment with the men at Stonehouse and received their Petition; but he was unable, probably through want of time, to keep the appointment, and consequently their claims were overlooked. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in his speech in Liverpool he took credit to the late Government for seeing that no labourer would be asked to work in future for the mean wage of 2s. 6d. per day, but these men at Stonehouse still continued to be paid this miserable pittance. It might be urged that the men had pensions; but he thought the day was rapidly passing away when a Government would be able to maintain that because men, after years of service for the State, had obtained a pension that therefore they should be required to accept an under-paid rate of wages. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give them some assurance that this question should receive the earnest consideration of the Admiralty.
  MR. FORWOODsaid, the hon. Member was under an entire misapprehension in stating that the men who received the rate of wages to which he had referred had in any way any responsibility in regard to the preparation or distribution of the medicines of the Navy. He had himself inquired into the grievances of the men on behalf of whom the hon. Member spoke, and he found that their work consisted principally in carrying boxes of coal up to the wards. Having regard to the general rate of wages and the interest of the taxpayer, he thought these men were fairly well paid for the position they held and the work they had to do. There was one point on which he should like to have some information. Representations were made to the late Board of Admiralty by workmen of all the yards, who pointed out that, although they had excellent medical officers at each of the yards to attend to any accidents, yet accidents frequently occurred to the eye by the use of steel chippings, and they desired to have
  98
  specialists appointed to attend to such cases. The late Board granted a sum of 250 guineas to be paid to the institutions of the different yards so as to retain the services of specialists as oculists at the yards, and they also made a grant of a sum of money to be paid to a certain London hospital so that extreme cases to injury to the eye might be brought of London. He did not find any provision for this matter in the Estimates.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHcould assure his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport that the matter to which he called attention was receiving the earnest attention of the Admiralty. He himself spent some time at the Stonehouse Hospital, and he confessed his opinion somewhat differed from that of his right hon. Friend opposite. Some of these men, probably including those who had extremely disagreeable duties to perform in removing the bodies of those who had unfortunately died in the hospital, were not paid very liberally. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would find the contributions to which he had referred provided for under Sub-head "A." They were not omitted from the Estimates.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894."
  SIR J. GORSTsaid, he desired to call attention to the proceedings in connection with the stranding of the Howe. The story of the stranding of the Howe was a very simple one. The Channel Squadron, of which the Howe was part, entered Ferrol Harbour on the morning of the 2nd of December. The Royal Sovereign led the way, and the Howe was the second ship in the line. Before coming to anchorage the ships had to make a considerable bend to the north-west in order to escape a shoal upon which the Sultan grounded some years ago. In making this detour the Howe went some distance

  99
  further to the north than the Royal Sovereign, but she had turned when she suddenly struck upon an unknown rock where the chart marked seven fathoms of water. This, of course, led to a Court Martial according to the Rules of the Service, to try Captain Hastings, the Commander of the Howe, and his navigating officer, Commander Dixon, for the loss of the ship. The Court Martial sat on the 29th of December and the following day, and after hearing the evidence which was adduced before it, and which was of a very satisfactory and exhaustive character, the Court came to the conclusion that the ship stranded on a rocky shoal at the entrance to Ferrol Harbour, which shoal was unknown at the time, the Admiralty chart showing seven fathoms of water where the ship struck, and they acquitted the officers of the ship of all blame and returned their swords. There was an end of the Court Martial so far as Captain Hastings and Commander Dixon were concerned, and in accordance with the ordinary principles of justice, a person who has been tried and acquitted could not be put upon his trial again. But for some reason or other the Admiralty were dissatisfied with the finding of the Court, and had attempted in a Memorandum laid before the House to give some reason why. They said that no bearings were taken, and that no use was made of the twin screw to get the ship back into the channel. The Court had found that the accident had happened because, at a point where the ship struck, there were seven fathoms of water marked upon the chart, and that was a perfectly sensible, clear, and satisfactory explanation. He did not see how anybody was to blame, because the Admiralty had furnished the ships with the best charts they possibly could. It was not possible for the Admiralty themselves to survey foreign harbours. Ferrol Harbour was well-known. It was true the original chart was an old one of about 1783, but it had been revised as recently as 1873, when the Sultan met with the accident, and some alterations had been made as late as 1886. The Admiralty, therefore, having furnished their Captains with the best charts they were able to procure, he did not think any blame attached either
  100
  to the Admiralty, or the Admiral, or Captain Hastings, or anybody else. It seemed to him that after the Court had fully acquitted Captain Hastings it was a pity the Admiralty did not let the matter alone. But they put the Admiral commanding the Fleet on his trial, which was a most unusual thing to do. In following such an unusual course they ought to have taken great care to act in a strictly regular manner and according to precedents of the Naval Service. As Admiral Clanwilliam had sat on the first Court Martial, it was reasonable to pass him over. The second Court Martial ought, therefore, to have been presided over by the Duke of Edinburgh; but he was abroad on duty at the time. The next officer in order was Vice Admiral Sir A. Heneage; but, instead of appointing him, the Admiralty selected Admiral Sir N. Salmon from the half-pay list. He had not a word to say against Sir N. Salmon, but it was not in accordance with precedent to select for such a post an officer from the half-pay list. This was a selection utterly repugnant to the usages of the Service. Then he could not make out what it was the Admiralty put Admiral Fairfax on his trial for. The only hint of a charge was that he selected the time of a high flood tide for entering Ferrol Harbour. But he did not select it; it happened to be high tide when he arrived there. The reason given for the holding of the second Court Martial was that, as Captain Hastings had been acquitted, it had been thought necessary that a further Court Martial should be held on the Vice Admiral for the conduct of his Squadron, in order that all the circumstances might be fully brought out and justice done to all concerned. The second trial was, therefore, a "fishing" inquiry held in the hope that something might turn up to justify some kind of charge. The Court found the charge assumed to have been made not proved, and, therefore, aquitted Admiral Fairfax of all blame. Unfortunately, the Court took the unusual course of adding a rider to its verdict, and the rider was an expression of opinion that the reduction of the speed to four knots while the Squadron was in the channel was inexpedient. That had never been hinted at as any charge against Admiral Fairfax; and the reason for his doing it was that

  101 when he turned to go round Pistol Point he was near his anchorage, and he slowed down to four knots in order that he might not run over it. After the second Court Martial were led to express that pious opinion as to the inexpediency of slowing down to four knots, they went on to state, however, that the stranding of the Howe was not due to that act. If that were so, why did the Court add the rider expressing either approbation or disapprobation of it? They attributed the accident to the inaccuracy of the chart and to the fact that the Howe diverged from the course taken by her leader. The latter statement was self-evident; for if the Howe had followed the course of the Royal Sovereign, which reached her moorings safely, she would not have grounded. The finding of the second Court, then, acquitting Admiral Fairfax, was quite consistent with that of the first. The sole cause of the accident was the fact that the rock on which the Howe foundered was not shown on the chart. The Admiralty ought, therefore, to have rested satisfied with the finding of the two Courts; and it was scarcely fair or decent that they should have done anything afterwards which implied blame. They might have addressed confidential Minutes to the officers of the Service warning them of the dangers disclosed by the inquiry into the grounding of the Howe, but to publish a Minute to the whole Service and to the whole world, arguing against the decisions of the Courts Martial after the officers tried had been acquitted, was to hold up the Courts to ridicule and contempt. The Admiralty stated in their Minute that the findings of the two Courts were conflicting—which, however, was not the case—and that the divergence of the Howe from the course of her leader was a contributory cause of the accident—a fact which, as he had shown, was obvious. The Admiralty were making a very monstrous assumption in saying that, because the divergence of the Howe was a contributory cause of the accident, therefore the finding of the first Court Martial was wrong. The Admiralty could not get over the going into Ferrol on a flood tide, but this should be judged by authority. They were not all qualified to deal with the question in a technical
  102
  sense. The gallant Admiral below the Gangway (Admiral Field) could not; but he (Sir J. Gorst) could not, and he did not think there was anyone on the Treasury Bench just at the moment who could deal with the question except on authority. Well, let them see what authority they had. Turning to the evidence—he was not going to do more than refer the Committee to the names—they had Admiral Hornby. This was at the second Court. Admiral Hornby was one of the most distinguished naval officers in the Service. He had taken a squadron into this harbour himself, and he now said that there was no special difficulty as to the navigation of the harbour, and that the state of the tide necessitated no pains of consequence, as the harbour was entered upon arrival at it. Admiral Hornby did not see where the risk lay in this instance, and he declared that there was no want of skill or seamanship in the reduction of the speed. Then they had the late Controller of the Navy, who said he brought three ships into the harbour. He had been there twice, and he would go in at any time of the tide without fearing danger. Indeed, if he was in command of the Channel Squadron, he gave it as his view that he would rather take the vessels into this harbour than into any harbour in Spain. He did not think any want of skill or seamanship had been displayed. As he had said, he was not going through the evidence at length. He would simply remind the Committee that then they had the statements of Admirals Hornby, Seymour, Vesey-Hamilton, and Fitzroy that it was perfectly safe to take a fleet into Ferrol upon a flood tide, and, further, that the speed of six knots was quite right, and that the slowing down to four knots was right also. But the Admiralty were so eager to condemn a man who had been acquitted that they dragged these matters forward again. The issuing of a Minute of this kind, after the two findings, was calculated to bring Courts Martial into contempt. If Courts Martial were of no use, by all means let them be abolished; but, while they existed, the Admiralty should treat their findings with respect and submission. The Admiralty, by issuing this Minute, had dealt a deadly blow at the findings of Courts Martial in general. He might

  103
  say that he had not the honour of the personal acquaintance of either of these officers, and that he had not been asked, either directly or indirectly, to bring this matter before the Committee. He had merely done so in the interests of the service. He was quite impartial in the matter; and, being impartial, he read with indignation the sentence in the Minute, which he considered to be the worst in the whole document, and which ran thus—
  "Their Lordships are unable to reconcile the evidence given by Captain Hastings at the second Court Martial with the line of defence adopted by him at the first Court;"
  This was, he felt, the most deplorable sentence in the Minute. Here was an officer honourably and fully acquitted by the Court Martial, and the Admiralty were not content to say that they disagreed with the finding and considered that officer culpable, but they put in a sentence which was an insinuation against his honour as a gentleman. He was utterly at a loss to conceive what the Admiralty meant by that sentence, though he had read all the evidence given at the two trials. He could not defend Captain Hastings from the imputation, because he did not understand it. The only thing he could conjecture that it meant was that Captain Hastings was not only further in the bay than the position taken up by his leader, but that he was also somewhat out of station just at the time the accident took place—he was rather nearer the Admiral's ship than he ought to have been, and he had before the Court to defend himself from both those irregularities. In defending himself he attributed his being out of station to the circumstance that the Royal Sovereign had reversed one of her screws for the purpose of assisting her to turn. That was what Captain Hastings stated at the first trial; but at the second trial other evidence might have been forthcoming to show that the reversal of the screw would not have the effect Captain Hastings supposed it would have, and he might have come to the conclusion that his first statement was erroneous. There was an attempt made at that second trial to ask him questions about that. The prosecutor asked—
  "Did you not say at the first trial that this circumstance had brought you out of station?"
  104
  And he was proceeding to answer, when the prisoner intervened and protested against leading questions being put, in consequence of which the prosecutor withdrew the question, and declined to ask anything further on the point. He (Sir J. Gorst) had searched the evidence, and that was the only thing he could find to show what the Admiralty were driving at in this sentence to which he referred. He believed that wag the only reason for an insinuation which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would disavow. He thought the Committee would admit that the conduct of the Admiralty in issuing this Memorandum or Minute, in which they took on themselves to reverse the judgment of the Court Martial was a matter which ought to be explained, because if Courts Martial were to be treated in that high-handed manner by the Admiralty it would be better to reduce the Vote. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he rose with much hesitation to reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He was very sorry, speaking from a naval point of view, that the right hon. Gentleman had thought proper to disturb these dry bones. He had hoped that they would have been allowed to sleep. It was some time since the Court Martial was held, and the subject had almost faded from the public mind. His brother officers would have preferred, under the circumstances, that it had been left alone. Much might have been said in favour of discussion at the time when the Admiralty Minute on the subject was issued, but not now. But the right hon. Gentleman was a clever man, who loved these legal disquisitions. He (Admiral Field) hated them. With regard to the composition of the Court Martial which had been complained of, he considered that the Government had simply discharged their duty in the matter. They were perfectly right in appointing a senior Admiral to

  105
  try a Vice Admiral. He was not going to defend the Minute line by line and clause by clause, but in the interest of the Service and of discipline it was not desirable that a discussion of this kind should take place in the House. As it had been raised, however, he would do his best to answer some of the points which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. He did not quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman challenged the right of the Admiralty to issue the Minute. If the right hon. Gentleman challenged the right of the Admiralty to review the sentence of the Court Martial the whole Service was against him. It was the undoubted right of the Admiralty to review sentences of Courts Martial. The Admiralty, it was to be remembered, was not a Court of Appeal; they could not alter a sentence passed by a Court Martial, but they could issue a Minute upon the finding of a Court Martial, and call the attention of the Fleet in their own way to that finding. It was owing to the old law, which did not give the Admiralty power to review a sentence, that Admiral Byng had been murdered. It was after that that the power was given. After that officer was shot there was a great agitation in favour of giving the Admiralty power to review sentences, and in the course of time that power was conferred on them under the 53rd section of the Naval Discipline Act. If the exercise of this power on the part of the Admiralty was questioned he could easily show how advantageous it was for the Service, especially where excessively severe sentences had been passed; but whilst he did not complain that the Minute was issued, he did complain that it was laid on the Table of the House. It ought to have been treated as a confidential document. The hon. Member for Preston had asked for precedents for the issue of this Minute on Courts Martial, and in reply the case of the Conqueror had been referred to. That precedent was dead against the laying of the Minute on the Table of the House. In the Conqueror case the Court Martial had acquitted the Captain in command of the ship and had reprimanded the navigating officer—a ridiculous sentence—in reply to which the Admiralty issued a Minute which showed that the Captain of a ship could not divest himself of
  106
  responsibility for the safety of that ship. Sir James Ephinstone came down to the House and moved for Papers, but Lord Clarence Paget was Secretary to the Admiralty at that time—an Admiral who knew his business—he (Admiral Field) only wished there was an Admiral on the Treasury Bench now—and the Minute was refused, Sir J. Ephinstone being defeated on a Division by a majority of 25. It was not to the interests of the Services or of discipline that shortcomings or mistakes on the part of individuals should be proclaimed to the whole world. Naval officers were accustomed to very rough communications from their superior officers, but they did not want those communications to be laid upon the Table of the House and made the subject of Debate. They were used to plain speaking; they were accustomed to strong signals being flown from the mast-head, but they would not like the fact of such signals to be given to the country at large. At least, the First Lord should have toned down the statements of the Minute before allowing them to be published excepting to the Fleet. He suspected, however, that the Minute was like some British spirits—manufactured for home consumption. There was a certain amount of irritation in the public mind, and they took steps which they thought would allay that irritation. He regretted that a reflection had been cast on the Court Martial that first sat, because that Court included three Admirals, and every Captain on it, save one, had commanded ironclads. That Court tried Captain Hastings and acquitted him—finding that verdict as a just deliverance according to their oaths. They took into account what the Minute did not take into account. The Minute treated the Port of Ferrol as though it were unknown; but, as a matter of fact, it was the Portsmouth of Spain—the port from which the great Armada sailed. The chart was naturally relied upon, especially in view of the fact that there had been a re-survey after the grounding of Her Majesty's ship Sultan. The Admiralty declared that the want of knowledge of the rock on which the Howe struck was inexcusable ignorance, but he (Admiral Field) maintained that it was excusable ignorance. And when the Admiralty complained that

  107
  the Howe was taken within 50 yards of a known danger it must be remembered that the channel was only 150 yards wide, which only gave a passage of 50 yards between known dangers on either side, or, if the ship could be kept in the middle of the channel, only 12½ yards from the course on each side, which would be within 50 yards of a known danger. As a matter of fact, there was scarcely a harbour in the world where a ship entering would not pass within 50 yards of a known danger. In Portsmouth Harbour it would do so; also in Sydney Harbour, but so long as the dangers were known it did not matter. If Captains were not to go within 50 yards of known dangers on entering ports they would have to remain outside, and if no confidence could be reposed in the latest charts of a port like Ferrol Captains would have to resort to the old-fashioned practice of sending boats ahead to take soundings wherever they went. It was possible that the first Court Martial might have found a different verdict if they had had before them all the evidence which was submitted to the second Court Martial. But they had not that evidence before them, and Captain Hastings was entitled to an acquittal. He objected entirely to the second Court Martial. He objected to putting an Admiral on trial at all, except, in time of war, unless he had compromised the national honour. Their remedy was to supersede him. By trying him unnecessarily they lowered his prestige and struck a blow at his power to maintain discipline. In olden times the Admiralty dealt with Admirals with velvet gloves. In the case of the Agincourt, which struck on the Pearl rock, the Admiral was not tried, and the Admiralty expressed regret at having to transfer him to another command. They also transferred the second Admiral, without trial in either case. Why was that precedent not followed in the case of the Howe? Because the matter occurred too near home, and it was thought the public desired a trial and a victim. The Naval Lords were not in favour of the second trial: it was forced upon them. He thought the Foreign Office ought to have made a friendly representation to the Foreign Office of Spain, because, as was
  108
  well known, the Spanish Authorities were aware of the presence of this rock in their own harbour. The chief naval officer of that port was actually watching the entry of the ships with his glass, and was surprised that the leading ship did not strike on the rock herself. Why were not the British naval officers warned of the existence of the rock, so that they might have engaged pilots? This was very rough treatment by a friendly Power. The fact was that the Spaniards looked upon that rock as part of their torpedo defence, and a very good defence it was. Naval men felt very much annoyed that the accident should have happened when it might so easily have been avoided, and thought the Spanish Authorities had been guilty of a very unfriendly act. He was not going to pass criticism on the essence of the Minute so far as it reflected on the Admiral or the Captain of the ship, and all he wished now to do was to draw attention to the wording of it. The Admiralty were within their right in issuing the Minute, and in issuing it they had only done their duty. Naval men would not have found fault, even with the wording of it, if it had not been laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, he rose to reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or as much of it as the hon. and gallant Admiral who had just sat down had not disposed of. The Admiralty did not complain of the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward; but they objected to the way in which he had imputed motives to them in regard to the issue of the Memorandum. The right hon. Gentleman said they had seemed to be eager to overrule the Court Martial, to discredit it, and to cast imputations upon everybody. He assured the Committee that the Admiralty were actuated by a spirit very different from that. The circumstances of the sinking of the Howe were not so materially different from those they had just had to deplore—not so materially different, but that they approached the subject of the Howe in somewhat of the same spirit as the entire House regarded that more deplorable catastrophe which had overtaken

  109
  the Victoria. In reply to the attack which had been made cm the Government, what he had to do was simply to vindicate the Memorandum of the Admiralty. In regard to the regularity of their procedure, the Admiralty considered that the defence of the Captain of the Howe impeached the Admiral of the Squadron, and they referred the Minutes of the Court to him. They did not dismiss him at once, as the hon. and gallant Member, suggested they ought to have done.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I did not suggest you should do it.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, he had understood the gallant Admiral to say that the officers should have been superseded. But the sense of justice of the House of Commons would have condemned the Government if they had done that. Then followed a matter which the right hon. Gentleman had carefully ignored—namely, a letter from Admiral Fairfax; to the Admiralty. That letter was one of the main facts in the case. It complained of the action of the first Court Martial. The Admiral complained of the defence set up by Captain Hastings. He said Captain Hastings had "hedged" in his defence, and that he tried to cast the whole blame upon him. Then the Admiral set up a theory of his own as to the disaster, which threw the blame on Captain Hastings; and directly impugned the correctness of the finding of the first Court Martial. The Admiralty ordered a second Court Martial. He rather understood the right hon. Gentleman to dispute the regularity of that; but if he wanted a precedent he could be furnished with it. There were precedents in the cases of the Narcissus and the Endymion in 1874, in which the Captains were first tried and the Admiral afterwards. The second Court Martial acquitted Admiral Fairfax. Thus the first Court Martial acquitted the Captain, and it was intended apparently to cast the blame on the Admiral, and the second Court Martial positively acquitted the Admiral and as positively threw the blame upon the Commander of the Howe, finding that the divergence of the Howe from the course of the flagship was the cause of the disaster. It was all
  110
  very well to say that this did not carry with it the full legal results of a verdict of guilty; but there it was. The Admiralty most carefully considered the findings of both Courts, and they thought it to be their duty to place on record, for the instruction of the Service, the nation, and the House, the conclusion at which they had arrived. That was the genesis of the Minute. The Minute he would divide into two portions. In the first place, it censured and reprimanded the men acquitted; and, secondly, it expressed the opinion of the Admiralty on the various matters discussed at the two trials. He (Mr. Robertson) had to defend both these parts. As to the last, was it credible or conceivable that he should be called upon to argue as to the advisability of the course adopted? Did the right hon. Gentleman, when he attacked the Government, contend that the finding of a Court Martial was conclusive? If so, he could confront him with scores of precedents to show that the course the Admiralty took was entirely in accordance with practice. He believed it was true to say that there was never a finding of a Court Martial that was not either quashed, confirmed, or commented upon. The result of the Admiralty's consideration of the finding of a Court Martial was always made known to the Service for the information of the Service. The most valuable part of the case of the Government was, no doubt, that the Minute censured officers who had been acquitted by the regular tribunal of a Court Martial. On that point he had expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have made out a much stronger case than he did. The right hon. Gentleman had not adduced any real argument to show that the Admiralty had been guilty of any irregularity in censuring men who had already been acquitted by Court Martial. Section 53 of the Naval Discipline Act had no application to this case, because that section simply prohibited the increase of a sentence of a Court Martial, while permitting it to be diminished; but here there was no sentence. Therefore the section had no application. Now, how had the Admiralty been in the habit of dealing with these cases? It could not be expected that there would be many precedents on a matter of this peculiar

  111
  character; but there were several which more or less bore upon this case, and one which covered it completely. That was the precedent in the case of the Conqueror, which had been alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member. In that case the Captain had been tried by Court Martial, and acquitted. He was afterwards made the subject of an Admiralty Minute exactly as Admiral Fairfax was, and was censured in it for not having taken proper precautions. The propriety of the action of the Admiralty was challenged in the House of Commons, and Lord Palmerston said he could quite understand that hon. Members might take an interest in the individual Captain—the subject of the discussion—but he trusted the House would take an interest in the ships of Her Majesty's Navy, and he went on to express the opinion that the Admiralty had performed their duty to the country in making the statement contained in the Minute. All that could be repeated in the case of the Howe. The question was submitted to the judgment of the House, and the action of the Admiralty was sustained by the House. He maintained that the line followed by the Admiralty on that occasion, approved as it was by the House of Commons, became a precedent for the guidance of subsequent Boards of Admiralty. He turned now with much more diffidence to what he might call the merits of the Memorandum. Here he found the right hon. Gentleman was not unnaturally singularly deficient in material. He elaborated the constitutional or legal part of the argument; but he had not left much to answer with reference to the substantial justice of the statements made in the Memorandum. The Admiralty did charge Captain Hastings and Commander Dickson with unskilful management. The unskilful management consisted, in the first place, in having got their ship into a position which was within 50 yards of water marked in the chart as three and a-half fathoms only. This was admitted, and, indeed, there was no denying it. At the same time, there was no justification of, and no attempt to justify, it. The Howe was 100 yards out of the mid-channel course, which she was directed by the sailing directions to
  112
  follow. She was also within 100 yards of a known rock.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg pardon. She was only 75 yards from the mid-channel course.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid that, as a matter of fact, she was 100 yards out of her course at the bow, and 150 yards at the stern. He wished to answer the ridiculous contention that the inaccuracy of the chart was the cause of the accident. Of course, the accident would not have occurred if the seven fathoms of water marked on the chart had been there; but if the ship had been where she ought to have been, there would have been no danger. It took both the inaccurate chart and the divergence from the proper course to make the accident. The second point on which the Admiralty imputed want of skill or want of proper management to these officers was that they disregarded the sailing directions with reference to the currents. This imputation had not been attacked by either of the gentlemen who had spoken, and he would not, therefore, waste the time of the House by defending it. The great point on which the Admiralty said Captain Hastings and Commander Dick-son showed want of proper seamanship was in neglecting to take the bearings that would have insured their safety. Nobody had ventured to say that they had done so. The charge which seemed to excite the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman more than any other was the statement that the Admiralty could not reconcile the evidence given by Captain Hastings at the second Court Martial with the line of defence adopted by him at the first. What Captain Hastings said at the first trial was that he was hampered by the motion of the flagship. ["No, no!"] That was, at all events, the colour put upon the defence by Admiral Fairfax. At the second trial Admiral Fairfax questioned Captain Hastings on the point. He asked him whether the movements of the leading ship in any way hampered. his movements, and the reply he received, was "No, not hamper." Admiral Fairfax further asked—

  113
  "Did anything that was done or left undone by me in your view contribute to your striking upon this unknown rock in what you believed was a perfectly secure position?"
  The answer given by Captain Hastings was—
  "It being an unknown rock, nothing you did contributed to my striking."
  SIR J. GORSTasked when Captain Hastings had said that the movements of the flagship hampered him?
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, such statements were scattered all over the defence at the first trial. In one place Captain Hastings said—
  "The movements of a ship astern are largely governed by those of her leader."
  He (Mr. Robertson) did not say Captain Hastings used the word "hampered." That was the word used by Admiral Fairfax, and it was a perfectly fair word to describe the line of defence taken by Captain Hastings. He appealed to the common sense of the Committee as to whether, under the circumstances, it was easy to reconcile the two lines of defence? The last of the subjects dealt with by the right hon. Member related to Admiral Fairfax. The Committee would see that the Admiral was censured very lightly in the Memorandum. All that was said about him was that the increased risk caused by taking the Squadron into Ferrol on the flood tide was not sufficiently considered by the Admiral. He thought he might almost leave that statement to stand by itself. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had quoted authorities to show that it was perfectly safe and prudent to enter Ferrol on a flood tide, and had said, amongst other things, that the Admiral did not choose the flood tide. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the evidence of Captain Hamill he would see that the Admiral did chose the flood tide. Rather than wait for a less convenient season for the purposes he had in view, he took the risk of the flood tide. The question of the prudence or imprudence of waiting till slack water or ebb-tide was just one of those technical points on which he (Mr. Robertson) confessed he had no right and no desire to dogmatise. He was, however, entitled to as much liberty
  114
  of opinion on the point as the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed to expert opinion in favour of Admiral Fairfax's contention. He (Mr. Robertson) could point to an equal weight of expert opinion in a contrary direction. He thought he might appeal again to the common sense of the Committee to say whether it would not strike the average man that, when the Commander of a ship or a Squadron had to go through a rocky, tortuous channel like that at Ferrol, with the tide setting strongly against the opposite shore, it was better to wait till slack water or ebbtide? It was patent on the face of these proceedings that, although British ships and Squadrons had often visited Ferrol, no British Squadron had ever before gone in on a flood tide. Sir Geoffrey Hornby said he had taken a Squadron in. once on a flood tide; but the Admiralty had a table of all the entries of British ships into Ferrol, and could prove that he was mistaken. Admiralty Minutes, in so far as they expressed an opinion on naval technicalities, must, of course, be based upon the opinion of their Naval Advisers. In one of the cases that had come before the House he remembered being very much impressed with the felicity with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) put the point. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "In professional matters the First Lord of the Admiralty was under a most serious responsibility if he refused to be guided by the opinion of his Legal Advisers."
  As far as naval opinion had been expressed in the Minute, it was the opinion of the First Lord's Naval Advisers. By that the Admiralty were bound to be guided, and by that they had been guided. The House of Commons was neither a Court of Law nor a Court Martial. It was a Court of far higher jurisdiction; it was the supreme tribunal of the nation, before which they were on their defence. It was to the common sense of the Committee that they appealed, and he claimed that in the serious position in which they had found themselves they had not shirked responsibility; and for that, he was sure, the Committee would never condemn them. There was one word more, in justice to their Naval Colleagues,

  115
  that he ought to say. Painful as the duty was to others, it was doubly painful to them—painful to condemn men who had been their naval comrades, their friends, and superiors. He did not know a duty that could be more painful than that, but it was not flinched from. Something had been said about discrediting Courts Martial, but nobody believed that this case would have that effect. Condemnation of their conduct would result in tying the hands of future Boards, and they would be afraid to express an opinion such as that which they had been compelled to form respecting a grave and deplorable national disaster.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Before the discussion on the Vote is concluded, I should like to say a few words upon this subject. My right hon. Friend beside me raised this question, and spoke with ability and acuteness upon various questions which have been brought before the Committee; but I am bound to say that the conclusions at which he arrived I do not share. The Board of Admiralty were placed in a position of very great difficulty. I myself had on more than one occasion to deal with almost similar questions; and, looking at the circumstances in which Lord Spencer and the Board of Admiralty found themselves, I think it my duty to say here publicly that if I was in the same place I should have done exactly the same. Let us consider it a moment. A very serious disaster occurs to one of the best ships in Her Majesty's Navy. The ship ran aground in a harbour the entrance of which was well known. We find in this harbour one of the largest of Her Majesty's vessels stranded in the immediate vicinity of a rock that is known. It is perfectly true that the shoal on which the ship stranded is not marked on the chart, but the shoal was near the known rock. Why was the ship there? In this case I never from the first thought that the defect in the chart was the primary cause of the stranding of the vessel. The primary cause of the accident was that the ship was out of her station—in a place where she ought not to have been—and that constitutes bad navigation. It is perfectly clear to me that as soon as this case was investigated the Admiral would be
  116
  blamed for the orders he had given or the Captain for unskilful navigation of the ship. A Court Martial is held, and the Captain is acquitted. Admiral Fairfax then, in a letter to the Admiralty, severely censured Captain Hasting's defence and allegations. What position was the Admiralty in? Here is a public document from the Admiral commanding the Channel Squadron in which he brought grave charges against an officer who had recently been acquitted by a Court Martial. If that Court Martial stood, it seems to me clear that the Admiralty could not have allowed Admiral Fairfax to have remained in command of the Squadron. Would it not have been a monstrous thing to have superseded him in his command? The Admiralty was bound to re-try the case and form as powerful a Board as possible. I am bound to say the Admiralty did not exceed or misuse their powers. I believe that substantial justice has been done, and that the Admiralty could not have acted otherwise. I am bound to say, although Admiral Fairfax and Captain Hastings are my personal friends, I believe the Admiralty has throughout adopted the best course. I sincerely hope that, in the circumstances in which the House now finds itself, it will not, by supporting the reduction of the Vote, pass a censure upon the Admiralty. What constitutes the glory and one of the merits of our Naval Service is the personal responsibility of every one for his own actions. I am surprised it should be suggested that because a man is an Admiral he should be treated differently from others.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I quoted the Agincourt.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: If Admiral Fairfax had been superseded the Admiralty would have been guilty of an act of injustice. I say if responsibility is to be brought home to individual naval officers do not let this House adopt the theory that because a man is high up in the Service he is to be treated differently from those who are lower down. We are in the presence of a far graver disaster than that connected with the Howe. I know there are many hon.

  117
  Gentlemen in this House who, whenever an accident takes place, are disposed to treat it leniently and to say it was an error of judgment. But the profession of war is a serious one, and errors of judgment cannot he condoned, although they are committed in times of peace. The House and the country expect the Admiralty to express its opinion plainly upon complicated and difficult questions in which it is their duty to apportion the blame. It is much to the credit of the Naval Advisers of the Admiralty that they have in no way shirked or evaded an unpleasant duty for which they were responsible, even although it affects their personal friends. The House expects the disaster which has just occurred to be probed to the bottom, and therefore do not let us do anything to weaken the hands of those responsible for these investigations. Looking at the case before us in a proper sense, as men of business, I say I think that the truth has been ascertained and substantial justice has been done.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): On the part of the Government, I desire to acknowledge the admirable manner in which the noble Lord has expressed the general opinion of both sides of the House. It would be the worst thing that could happen if it should go forth to the world that the Admiralty, which, in the long run, is responsible to the House and the country for the safety of Her Majesty's ships, and the maintenance of a high standard of discipline in the Navy, is in any way hampered in the responsible discharge of that most important duty by the sentence of this or that Court Martial. It has been always recognised, and there is abundance of precedents for it, that it is the duty of the Admiralty, as the authority supremely responsible for the safety and discipline of the Navy, to pronounce its opinion, in the last resort, as to who is or is not to blame for great disasters. It would be a bad day for the Navy and the country if, whenever you have a state of facts such as you have in this case, two Courts Martial, one absolutely acquitting a
  118
  Captain and the other absolutely acquitting an Admiral, and pronouncing upon the same facts two irreconciliable findings, you had not a Supreme Court of Appeal which, with a full sense of responsibility to the House of Commons and to the country, should pronounce upon them, and declare who is, in fact, to blame. It was impossible for the Admiralty, after the finding of the first Court Martial, to allow the matter to rest, and not to challenge further investigation. It may be that entering the harbour on the flood tide had nothing to do with the loss of the Howe; but it had a great deal to do with the conduct of the Admiral, not merely in relation to one vessel, but in relation to the whole squadron, for the safety of which he was responsible. The second Court Martial would not have discharged its duty if it had not gone beyond the loss of the Howe, and pronounced an opinion on the whole conduct of the Admiral in relation to all the ships committed to his charge. Having carefully followed the course of these Courts Martial, I think there are two practical conclusions to which they distinctly point. The first is, that the superior efficacy of the second tribunal, as compared with the first, was due largely to the fact that it was assisted professionally by a gentleman who took the position of prosecutor, and it was not left to the Court itself to investigate what had taken place. In proceedings of this kind it is of the utmost importance, for the elucidation of the facts, that the Admiralty should always be represented by a professional adviser appearing distinctly as a prosecutor, just as the other side should be represented by someone appearing for the defence; because in that way only could you have adequate security for the bringing out of the whole truth. Secondly, in all these questions when they arise the Admiralty for the time being has a responsibility to the country which it cannot shift nor rid itself of. Another disaster has just occurred, and another great ship in Her Majesty's Navy has been destroyed, with the loss of a large number of valuable lives, under circumstances which undoubtedly call for the most minute and careful scrutiny. I am perfectly certain that this Committee, representing not

  119
  naval nor expert opinion alone, but embodying the opinion of the country at large, will say that no investigation of the kind under discussion can be satisfactory which does not probe the facts to the bottom, and give the country, as well as the House, the amplest means of ascertaining how they stand in relation to the conduct of the Navy. I venture to think the Committee will come to the conclusion that the Admiralty were acting not only within their rights, but in strict conformity with their duty, and that the Minute which has been laid on the Table of the House is the accurate judgment of a competent tribunal.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, that no worse doctrine had ever been laid down in this House than that propounded by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, the late First Lord, and the Home Secretary, for they had laid down that the Admiralty should exercise extra-legal powers and pass beyond the authority given by Act of Parliament. In civil life how many men in this House would not rise, as he now did, and repudiate such a doctrine? He ventured to rest his case now, as he rested it earlier in the Session, upon a broad ground. When it was brought forward the Civil Lord of the Admiralty appealed to the House not to discuss it, because the Minutes of the Court Martial were not before the House. Those Minutes had nothing whatever to do with the broad features of the case. The great and important question was, had the Admiralty any right to upset the sentences of two Courts Martial? His claim was that they had no right to do such a thing; in so doing they acted almost illegally, certainly extra-legally. The Civil Lord had admitted that the Admiralty had censured certain officers who had been acquitted by competent Courts, and he maintained that the Admiralty had no right whatever to review those verdicts, and substantially to increase the sentences. Everyone familiar with the discipline of the Service knew that if the Commander-in-Chief or the Admiralty expressed censure on an officer they substantially punished him, because they held in the hollow of their
  120
  hand the career of every officer. That was why they complained so bitterly about this action of the Admiralty. The short defence made by the Civil Lord was the only defence they could make. He hoped on Report to have the opportunity of elaborating this matter.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 393.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT SIR J. T. HIBBERT (Oldham) moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and explained that its object was to remove a doubt in the working of the Act of 1890 in Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 385.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.)*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.) moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I object to the Third Reading being taken now.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  SEAMEN'S PROVISIONS BILL.—(No. 191.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 25th April.]
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. TOMLINSONobjected.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: This Bill has been three

    121
    months before the House. The Amendments have been practically agreed to by the shipowners; and I hope the hon. Member who objects will remember the thousands of men who toil at sea and are half-starved, and for whose benefit this Bill has been introduced.
    MR. TOMLINSON: It is quite true the Bill has been before the House for three months, but the Amendments agreed to by the shipowners are not the Amendments of which the hon. Member has given notice. His Amendments require careful consideration.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: The Amendments are down in my name, and have been agreed to by the shipowners.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I object.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  SHOP HOURS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 333.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, Clause 2, 13th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir E. Harland.)
    MR. PROVANDappealed to the hon. Baronet to withdraw his objection, as the Bill contained only a couple of clauses, and was of a non-contentious character.
    SIR F. S. POWELL: I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his objection. The Bill is of the simplest character. The Shop Hours' Act empowers the appointment of Inspectors by Local Authorities, but by an oversight no provision was made for having their salaries placed on the rates.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 395.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. TOMLINSON*MR. TOMLINSON moved to report Progress. This was a consolidating Bill, and it was quite contrary to the practice of the House to accept consolidating Bills without having them examined by some Committee. The proper course would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SEAMAN'S RATING BILL.—(No. 222.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON MR. HAVELOCK WILSON moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It simply provided that no man should be allowed to join a ship as an able seaman until he had had four years' service. At present a man could join after six months' service, to the great danger of the lives of the travelling public.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Havelock Wilson.)
    MR. FORWOOD: The Bill is of considerable importance, and should not be brought on at this time of the night.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES:This Bill would prevent the whole of my constituents going to sea. I therefore object to it.
    DR. TANNER: They are at sea already.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  EARLY CLOSING BILL.—(No. 357.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
    MR. CREAN: I object.
    MR. W. FIELD: May I appeal to the hon. Member not to object to this Bill?
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I would also appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his objection.
    MR. W. AUSTIN: I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his objection.
    MR. CREAN: I object; I object!
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  BIRMINGHAM CANAL BILL [Lords]
  (by Order.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [23rd June], "That the Clause (Application of Section 24 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888,)—(Dr. Farquharson,)—proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  An Amendment made.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 337.)
  Lords Amendments agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under 'The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870,' relating to Newent
  124
  Gas, Portishead Gas, Sheffield Gas, and Sligo Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (Newent, &c.) Bill [Lords.]

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NEWENT, &C.) BILL [LORDS]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 401.]
  SEAL FISHERY (NORTH PACIFIC) BILL [Lords].—(No. 393.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  FATAL ACCIDENTS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 362.)
  Read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords.]

    STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.
    MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—Derry City and County Railway Bill [Lords].
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  TREATY SERIES (No. 10, 1893.)
  Copy presented,—of Agreement between Great Britain and Portugal, relative to Spheres of Influence North of the Zambezi [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (MRS. ELIZA SAUNDERS.)
  Address for "Copy of the Memorial to the Secretary of State for India of Mrs. Eliza Saunders, dated 16th day of April, 1892, and of the Correspondence connected therewith."—(Mr. Alpheus Morton.)
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

LORD KINGSALE.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Michael William de Courcy Baron of Kingsale to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The Earl of Jersey—Took the Oath.

INDIAN CURRENCY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, seeing my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for India in his place, I wish to ask him a question relating to a matter which is considered of the most vital importance by all who are connected with India in
  2
  any way. It is understood that a Committee was formed, of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was Chairman, to consider the question of the Currency of India; that that Committee has sent in a Report which has been considered by Her Majesty's Government, and that some Despatch on the subject has gone out to the Government of India. I wish to ask the noble Earl whether the Despatch has been sent; whether an answer has been received from the Government of India; and, if so, whether he will be good enough to state it to the House?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for asking a question on this important matter. A communication was made to the Government of India as to the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee, and a reply was received on Saturday from them on the subject upon which a determination was come to by Her Majesty's Government and by my Council. I have to-day re-

  3
  ceived from the Viceroy a Despatch which I will now read to the House—
  "Council has passed an Act, which takes effect at once, to carry out plan recommended by Lord Herschell's Committee. Act provides for closing of Indian Mints to free coinage of silver, from and after date of passing. Arrangements will be made to issue rupees from the Mints in exchange for gold and sovereigns, at the rate of 16d. per rupee, until further notice; and to receive sovereigns and half-sovereigns at the public treasuries in payment of Government dues at the same rate. It is intended to introduce a gold standard into India, but gold will not be made legal tender at present."
  I have laid the Report on the Table and also the Correspondence with India on the subject.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I hope the noble Earl will endeavour to forward the printing of the Papers, because there is often, in this House, great delay.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have taken every possible step to have the Papers printed and the distribution made at the earliest possible period.

DISTURBANCES IN DOMINICA.
  POSTPONEMENT OF QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF STAMFORDsaid, he had hoped to be able to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had received any further information as to the late fatal disturbances in the Island of Dominica, coincidently with the asking of similar questions in another place. Yesterday, however, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for the Colonies informed him that he had been unexpectedly summoned to Windsor, and he therefore begged to postpone the question to Friday next.

BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL.—(No. 283.) REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he was sure the noble Lord in charge of the Bill (Lord Monkswell) would not dispute the value of the maxim, "Practice what you preach"; and would like to know whether he was aware that there were from 30 to 50 yards of barbed wire in one of the approaches to Battersea Park under his jurisdiction and belonging to the County Council? He saw it last Wednesday week, and it was a little height above the ground, so that persons going out
4
that way in a crowd towards the Albert Bridge must get their coats torn. Perhaps the wire had been put up for the purpose of preventing people coming up from the river and stealing the large stones from Burlington House; but, at all events, the noble Lord ought to come to the House with clean hands in moving a Bill of this kind.
LORD HALSBURYsaid, he did not know whether the noble Lord intended to move an Amendment upon that, or possibly he might bring in a Bill of his own if he was one of the victims.
Clause 2.
LORD MONKSWELL*LORD MONKSWELL moved—
In page 1, line 17, after ("1878") insert ("the county council"), and after ("committee") leave out ("of a county council") and insert ("thereof").
This Amendment had been thought desirable, because there were some Councils in Scotland which had not formed District Committees. He, therefore, proposed to say "the County Council or District Committee thereof." That, he thought, would do away with the objection taken by Lord Balfour of Burleigh on the subject.
Amendment agreed to.
Verbal Amendments.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3.
LORD HALSBURYsaid, the Amendment just moved by the noble Lord reminded him of one point which he would mention now where a question might arise if the County Council were themselves the occupiers—notice having to be given to the occupiers. However, this was not, of course, the final stage of the Bill. He had an Amendment to substitute "nuisance" in this clause for "dangerous to persons or animals lawfully using the highway." The effect of the Amendment was to strike out words which were inconvenient as regarded giving a description of the wire and to substitute what was proposed in Standing Committee, that was to say, words which were familiar to every lawyer and every Magistrate who had constantly to construe them, "nuisance to the highway." It was somewhat technical, but was a simple mode of describing what was intended to be dealt with as a nuisance.

5
He had received representations from both sides of the House upon the subject since it was last under discussion urging that something should be done to render more simple the meaning of the language used. On one side it was said that a great many persons, including noble Lords and others who were fond of field sports, were very much disposed to regard the wire only, and not the nature of the wire, in reference to the use of the highway—that any wire at all was to them an abomination which they wished to get rid of. That he could well understand. The language of the Bill, certainly in regard to highways, seemed to point to the wire; whereas, if the words he suggested were adopted, it would not only be a question of the erection of the wire, but the situation, height, and position of the wire in reference to the highway. All those things would be matters for the tribunal to consider. By adopting these simple words, which were familiar to the Statute, the difficulty would be got rid of which might arise in construing the words as they stood, which seemed rather to point to the dangerous character of the wire itself than to the combined effect of the situation, height, and so on, of the wire in reference to the public highway. That was the object of the Amendment; and those who had written to him on the subject, referring to what he had stated on the introduction of the Bill, had expressed themselves as content with words which should apply to the nuisance to the highway. No doubt the noble Lord's words would make a nuisance to the highway, but the clause would be more easily construed if the familiar Common Law definition of what was intended to be abated were used instead of them.
Amendment moved,
In page 2, line 1, to leave out ("dangerous to persons or animals lawfully using") and insert ("a nuisance to").—(Lord Halsbury.)
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he did not feel competent to express an opinion in the presence of noble and learned Lords as to whether or not the words proposed were better than those in the Bill; but he would suggest, ought not the clause to run "nuisance to persons or animals lawfully using the highway."
LORD HALSBURYsaid, the wire was not a nuisance to the persons passing along the highway. That was the object of the Amendment, because it comprehended the situation of the wire as well as the passing of the person or animal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he was not sure that this Amendment would be more readily understood than the words in the Bill, which entirely indicated what was the object in view. Though it was perfectly true that in law a nuisance was quite understood by lawyers, the first question was in regard to the Local Authorities, whether it would be always so understood by them, they not being lawyers. If this were a matter merely to be dealt with by the lawyers, he would agree to the proposal, but that definition would not be better or easier for non-legal persons.
LORD THRINGasked the noble and learned Lord whether "nuisance" would really be better in connection with highways? Nuisance to highways was generally in the nature of digging gravel, or something done to the highway itself, rather than in reference to passing along the highway. However, if the noble and learned Lord was satisfied, he would not venture to put his own opinion against his.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD HALSBURYsaid, his next series of Amendments—he mentioned them altogether because they, more or less, depended upon one another—was as to giving an appeal to Quarter Sessions in these cases and setting up a special procedure. The first was, in line 5, leave out from ("to") to end of line 8, and insert ("abate such nuisance").
LORD THRINGpointed out with great deference to the noble and learned Lord, that the legal authority directed the nuisance to be abated. The Court of Summary Jurisdiction did not abate the nuisance; what they did was to make an Order directing it to be abated.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, in this particular place the Amendment was merely to get rid of the obstruction—to abate the nuisance.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD HALSBURY LORD HALSBURY moved—
In line 12, to leave out from ("is") to ("order") in line 14, and insert ("a nuisance to such highway may"); and in line 14, to leave out ("direct"), and to leave out from ("occupier to") to end of Clause and, insert ("abate such nuisance").
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was not sure that he understood what the noble and learned Lord proposed to do by leaving out the words "by summary order." He did not quite see why those words were to be left out.
LORD HALSBURYsaid, because they were provided for by a subsequent Amendment.
LORD THRINGobjected to the Amendment, because it involved the whole question. A great deal of trouble was taken by the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Cross) in passing the Act with respect to summary procedure, and by that Act rules were laid down, wherever a Court of Summary Procedure inflicted a fine or made a summary Order, how that Order was to be carried out. There was found to be some difficulty in the matter, because every single Act had a different mode of procedure, and he would submit that the noble and learned Lord was now re-introducing an old practice. It was intended that that Act should direct the whole procedure in regard to summary jurisdiction, and it would be better to leave the clause in its present form, which was perfectly well understood, than to introduce an entirely new system of procedure. He admitted that in this case it was not of great consequence; the matter did not involve any great Constitutional question, but, still, the Amendment would entirely reverse the system which that Act was intended to bring in of laying down general rules of procedure which could be understood and acted upon.
LORD HALSBURYsaid, he could claim to have had some interest in that matter, as he was Solicitor General at the time, and he thought the noble and learned Lord was under a misapprehension. It was intended to cure blunder, and to provide in future that where an Act did not enact any mode of procedure that Act should apply. It was intended to do that which, singularly enough, only three persons present in Grand Committee were aware of. Almost everbody there who spoke suggested
8
that there was no mode of enforcing an Order of the Justices, except by indictment, for disobeying the Act of Parliament; and this Act was not referred to by the noble Lord; but the language of the Act itself showed what was intended. It provided for cases where power was given by any future Act requiring a person to do, or abstain from doing, anything, but where no mode was prescribed of enforcing such Order. The language of the Statute showed exactly that it was in order to provide against any blunder in passing an Act of Parliament. Everybody in Grand Committee agreed that something must be done. He did not think the House would approve of a general clause of this kind in reference to something concealed in an Act of Parliament, to which nobody referred, giving power to the Court, where no mode was prescribed of enforcing such requisitions, to annex to its Order such conditions as to the mode of action as the Court might think just; and to suspend or rescind such Order, and generally make such arrangements as it might deem fit for carrying such Order into effect. Where no other power was provided those extensive powers were to apply. It was intended to cure blunders, and to make a general regulation as to what was to be done in future. He appealed to their Lordships whether they would approve of an Act of Parliament, with no mode of procedure provided in it, and saying that the Court might, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, make such arrangements for carrying the requisition into effect as it might think fit. That was a very great power, and he asked their Lordships' judgment upon it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he presumed what the noble and learned Lord wished to provide was, that the Court of Summary Jurisdiction might order the proprietor to remove the nuisance, and that if he did not abate the nuisance, that they might do so themselves. The only difference would be that the Magistrates might abate it. The addition to the Summary Jurisdiction Act was that, if the nuisance had not been abated, the Magistrates might give further time, or make such conditions as they thought fit. That seemed to be very desirable, because a person might not have been

9
able to do it within the time, and by further time being given the necessity might be avoided of the Magistrates taking part in abating the nuisance. Surely that was better than that the Magistrates themselves should do it, if it was not done at once. This was a matter in which the public interest was concerned, if arrangements could be made without the necessity for that extreme step by which the nuisance could be equally removed. He begged to support the Bill as it stood.
LORD THRINGsaid, he had not spoken on the occasion mentioned by Lord Halsbury, as he could not refresh his memory with regard to the terms of the Act, but he could say with confidence that its intention was to prevent difficulty of this kind; and this would be introducing a very bad precedent. Every Court of Petty Sessions and their clerks knew the Summary Jurisdiction Act by heart, and he thought the more they could adhere to the existing law and practice the better.
VISCOUNT CROSSsaid, as the author of the Act of 1879, he quite agreed that its one object was to cure blunders in any Act which might be passed afterwards, so that there should be a procedure ready to be acted upon. But it went further, and applied what was a very fair course of procedure. He certainly thought when the Act was passed that it contained a model set of clauses, and that no one would put any other procedure in a future Act unless there was good reason for considering that a different procedure should be applied.
LORD HALSBURYsaid, the previous Act not only gave power to remove a nuisance, but to inflict a fine of 20s. a day during the time the Order was not obeyed.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the proviso was that if the Order were not complied with the Court of Summary Jurisdiction might abate the nuisance, but the noble and learned Lord was putting forward another proposition. This was not an alternative that if the proprietor failed to abate he was to be liable to a fine.
On Question? that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 46; Not-Contents 34.
Amendment disagreed to.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, some provision would be necessary in this matter, as the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in Ireland were not very satisfactory. He did not know whether the noble and learned Lord would consider this the proper time to raise the question. The Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879 did not apply to Ireland, and he was told at the Irish Office that the provisions for enforcing Summary Jurisdiction Orders were not very good in that country. It was suggested that for Ireland the provisions of the Public Health Act (Ireland), 1878, should apply, with the necessary modifications, whore an Order was made by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in like manner as if made under the Act of 1878.
LORD HALSBURYsuggested that the noble Lord had better move this on Third Reading. There might be a difficulty in applying the sections to Scotland.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, noble Lords were quite satisfied, he understood, with the state of the law in Scotland.
LORD HALSBURYthought their Lordships had better have notice of the proposed provisions.
LORD BALFOURreminded their Lordships that there was only one more stage before the Bill left the House, and it would be well if the noble Lord would consider whether this, and some of the Amendments having reference to the Common Law, were really applicable to Scotland. He had some doubt about it.
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, in this particular case the County Surveyor would be the person to enforce the Act in Ireland. Perhaps the noble Lord (Monkswell) would look into the matter.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he had been in communication with the Irish Office on the mutter, and they thought special provision should be made for Ireland.
Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 179.)

NULLUM TEMPUS (IRELAND) ACT, 1876, AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 157.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MORRIS, in moving the Second Reading, explained that its object was to remove doubts which had arisen as to whether certain chief or quit rents payable to the Crown were within the Act of 1876, and to provide that the period of 60 years should be a bar to all claims.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Morris.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, this subject was very fully discussed the other day, when I stated I was certainly quite prepared to give my assent to the Bill. I am quite satisfied that whether the Act of 1876 did or not cover these cases, it was intended to cover them; and if it does not cover them, it is, I think, quite right that it should be amended.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL), in moving the Second Reading, said: My Lords, I need not detain you many moments. The main object of the Bill is to carry out the recommendations made by the Council of Judges. There can be no doubt that, although appeals have been very much discouraged by the Court of Appeal, nevertheless the mere fact that a party has a power to appeal often puts the other side to considerable trouble and expense. The 1st clause permits every legitimate appeal upon a question of real importance, but it prevents the absolute right of appeal whether there is any ground shown for the appeal or not. Clause 2 proposes to amend the practice as regards appeals from Quarter Sessions. It does not make any substantial alteration in the law, but puts such appeals on a more satisfactory footing. Clause 3 deals with another matter which has been recommended by the Council of Judges with regard to the reception in certain cases of particular kinds of evidence, Although these proposals are not
  12
  in the exact form recommended by the Council of Judges, they have been reconsidered by and have had the approval of the whole of that Council. There is one other clause—Clause 4—which deals with the Rules and Orders relating to those who are employed in the different Legal Departments. An Order in Council has been made with regard to Civil servants generally, dealing with the mode in which their duties are to be performed and also with the conditions of retirement. The contention has been raised that that Order applies to the Legal Departments, and, although I do not accept that view, I am aware that some provision is necessary in reference to these Departments. I have received many and weighty objections to the clause as it is drawn which satisfy me that that clause ought not to pass in its present form, but I hope to be able to remodel it so as to meet those objections. If the Bill is read a second time, I will put down my Amendment and allow ample time for its consideration. Under these circumstances, I ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD COLERIDGEsaid, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had correctly described the measure as framed mainly upon the recommendations of the Judges, in which he heartily agreed. He also agreed entirely with what the noble and learned Lord had said with regard to the clauses. One clause he had said required modification, and, in his opinion, it required considerable modification. He hoped the noble Lord would so amend it as to prevent the interference of the Treasury with the Executive; and, to that extent, he was glad to support the Bill.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, undoubtedly, as to the greater part of the Bill, it would be the duty of anyone occupying the noble and learned Lord's position on the Woolsack to give effect to its provisions if he could. One of the important matters dealt with was a scandal which had grown of late years to very large proportions where persons defeated in the Courts below brought up their causes in formâ pauperis, which had practically the effect of fining many innocent people enormous sums of money, when there

  13
  really was no true ground for bringing an appeal at all. This Bill would be a real boon in removing that great scandal. With reference to the 4th clause, after what the noble and learned Lord had said, he did not think it necessary to discuss it, and would only add that he took the same view with reference to the effect of the Order in Council; but it was undoubtedly better that the matter should be made quite clear by legislation. He hoped, when the Bill came up with the Amendments spoken of by the Lord Chancellor, that their Lordships would agree to it.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMPANIES (CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the law relating to the certificate of incorporation of joint stock companies—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 178.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 133.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS NAMES BILL.—(No. 133.)
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.