Sitting of 9 April 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, being returned,
MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to—

1. Shop Hours Act, 1895.

2. Convention of Royal Burghs (Scotland) Act (1879) Amendment Act, 1895.

3. Army (Annual) Act, 1895.

4. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1895.

5. Agricultural Company of Mauritius Act, 1895.

6. Credit Foncier of Mauritius, Limited, Act, 1895.

7. William Hancock and Company, Limited (Conversion of Shares), Act. 1895.

RAILWAY (TIMES OF TRAINS).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th August 1894; Sir Frederick Fitz Wigram]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210.]

LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.
Copy ordered,
"of Return of the Loss of Life at Sea for the year 1893 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 32, of Session 1894)."—(Mr. Burt.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 212.]

EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
Copy ordered,
"of Statistical Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1894, and Report to the Board of Trade thereon."—(Mr. Burt.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 213.]

EAST WICKLOW WRIT.
MR. J. J. CLANCY MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.) moved that a new writ be ordered to issue for Wicklow, East Division, for the election of a Member to serve in the room of Mr. John Sweetman, who has accepted the office of Steward of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead. He said that he only brought forward this Motion after discovering that the hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry, who, by the custom of the House, was entitled to make the Motion, had determined not to make it this day, which was the last on which it could be made before the Adjournment of the House.
SIR T. ESMONDEsaid, that the hon. Member was perfectly accurate in his account of what had taken place between them concerning this writ. He had no intention of opposing the Motion; but he would point out that, in moving this writ, the hon. Member had acted in contravention of the ordinary practice, though it was not a Rule of the House. The reason he had not moved the writ was, that it was seen by the Party with whom he acted that it would be much more convenient if the writ were not moved till after Easter, if the election took place later on. As the writ had been moved, however, he should not oppose it.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, that this question of the moving of writs had many times been discussed by the House of Commons and between the Whips of the various Parties. He had always understood that the practice of the House had been this: if those who were charged with the moving of the writs did not move them within a reasonable time, other Members moved them. In this case, no doubt, the appointment to the office which vacated the seat was only made the other day; and if the House were not on the eve of the Easter Adjournment, it might be unreasonable for any Member, other than the Whip of the Party to which the retiring Member belonged, to move the writ. But if this writ were not moved now, the effect would not be to consult the general convenience, but the very opposite. This contested election would then last for six weeks. It would begin at once, and would last all over the Recess and a fortnight afterwards. These were the reasons why his hon. Friend had moved the writ, and he respectfully submitted that no practice of the House whatever had been thereby contravened.
MR. T. SEXTONpointed out that the last election kept this seat in the possession of the Irish Party with which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not act. According to the usages of the House, and the unbroken practice of a number of years, the Party in whose possession the seat had been left by the last election were entitled, within certain reasonable limits of time, to a discretion in the moving of the writ. The vacancy for East Wicklow was only made known yesterday; he was informed that the

1257
application of Mr. Sweetman for office under the Crown only reached the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday; that it was in the course of yesterday that the application was granted and the appointment issued; and that the appointment might have reached Mr. Sweetman this morning, but that possibly it had not. In former discussions it had been stated that a period of two days elapsed between the receipt of the appointment and the issue of the writ. In these circumstances, by intimating to the hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry that, unless he moved the writ to-day, he would take it upon himself to move it, the hon. Member for North Dublin had acted in contravention of the practice of the House, and had denied to the Party to which Mr. Sweetman had belonged the discretion to which they were entitled. The hon. Member had put that Party, if they were inclined to rely upon the argument of usage, in a position to oppose the issue of the writ. But that was not their intention. They were sensible that inconvenience would be inflicted on the constituency by the course which had been taken. If the writ were issued to-day the nomination must take place before the end of next week, when, according to the usage of all political parties in Ireland, it was customary to summon conventions for the purpose of choosing candidates. The immediate issue of the writ was taking the constituency at a disadvantage and by surprise, and would render it extremely difficult for the electors to take the usual steps for the selection of candidates. He thought, therefore, that his hon. Friend was right in making this protest; but the writ having been moved, and the Party with which he acted being as ready as any other to face the inconvenience, he should not oppose the issue of the writ.
Motion agreed to.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to give notice that on the Order for Committee on the Established Church (Wales) Bill being read, to move—
"That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions with respect to the application of endowments of
1258
chapels in Wales and Monmouthshire which are exempt from rates as places of public worship and are registered according to Act of Parliament."

QUESTIONS.

  THE "PARTICULARS CLAUSE."
  Mr. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in the Bill which he has introduced to amend the Factories and Workshops Act, provision will be made for the application of what is known as the "Particulars Clause" to other industries, such as factories and workshops where clothing is manufactured, and in the fustian-cutting industry, and others of a similar character; if it does not, will he be prepared on the Committee stage of this Bill to accept Amendments having this object in view.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): So far as I am aware, the clause in its present form covers all the cases in which the practical grievance aimed at by its provisions has been felt and complained of. If there are other cases where the conditions of work are similar, there is no objection in principle to the extension of the clause, but I cannot at this stage pledge myself either to propose or to accept the enlargement of its scope.

  DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETINGS.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether it is competent or legal for a Rural District Council, or a Parochial Committee of that Council, to meet and transact the business of the township within the walls of a public house. Whether in districts where there are not other facilities of meeting than in a schoolroom in that locality, such schoolroom can be refused when proper application is made by the local authority for its use; whether he is aware that at the present time the Parochial Committee of the Rural District Council of Shevington, near Wigan, are transacting the business of the township inside licensed premises; and, whether he will

  1259
  make full inquiries into this matter with a view of remedying the existing state of things?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central): I have made enquiry as to the case of the Shevington Parochial Committee, and I am informed that their meetings are held in a large room forming part of licensed premises. The Local Government Act, 1894, prohibits a Rural District Council or a Parish Council from holding a meeting on licensed premises, except in cases where no other suitable room is available, either free of charge or at a reasonable cost; but I am advised that it is doubtful whether the prohibition extends to a Parochial Committee appointed by a District Council where the Parish Council are not themselves the Committee. I am also advised that the right conferred by the Act on the parochial electors to use the public elementary school for certain meetings does not extend to the meetings of such a Committee. The Rural District Council are, however, empowered to determine the place of meeting of the Committee, and it appears to me desirable that they should exercise this power in the present case.

  THE WELSH COMMISSIONERS.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will lay upon the table an estimate of the probable receipts and expenditure of the Welsh Commissioners for each of the first five years from the date of the passing of the Established Church (Wales) Bill, including in that expenditure the established charges for the Commissioners and their staff, the cost of maintaining the Cathedrals, and the necessary provision for the interest and instalments of the principal of any loans made by the National Debt Commissioners to the Welsh Commissioners? And, whether it is intended that any part of such expenditure shall be charged on property attached to parochial benefices, or solely on the property defined in Clause 3 of the Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is not possible to furnish such an estimate as the right hon. Baronet asks for. Apart from other respects in which such an estimate
  1260
  must at this moment be too speculative and contingent to be trustworthy, it could only be made by anticipating, which I have no means of doing, the operation of Clause 4 of the Bill, which provides that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty shall, immediately after the Bill passes, ascertain what is Welsh Ecclesiastical property, and apportion it as provided by the clause of Clause 5, which provides that the Welsh Commissioners shall determine what are private benefactions; and of other clauses of the Bill. As regards the second paragraph, I may point out that Clause 3 covers, for purpose of transfer to the Welsh Commissioners, property attached to parochial benefices, as well as other property. The intention, however, and, I believe, the effect of Clause 9 (b) is that the expenditure referred to in the first paragraph of the question should be borne by the property which is not attached to a parochial benefice, and which will remain in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners.
  MR. CYRIL DODDinquired whether any estimate had been made of the cost of maintaining the Cathedrals.
  [No reply was given.]

  COUNTY TIPPERARY MAGISTRACY.
  MR. R. M. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two appeals from Justices in Petty Sessions, in cases in which Michael Buckley had been convicted for assaults upon a civilian and a police sergeant, acting in the discharge of his duty, respectively, came before the County Court Judge and Justices of the County Tipperary in Quarter Sessions in the month of February last; whether Mr. Patrick Crowe, one of the last-named Justices, who had been but recently appointed, is correctly reported to have stated, upon the case being called on and before any evidence had been given, that he had had an interview with the defendant, and intended doing all in his power to get him off; whether the County Court Judge is also correctly reported to have stated it was highly improper for any magistrate to discuss with a person who was about to be tried before him for a criminal offence the merits of his defence,

  1261
  and that such conduct was calculated to bring into contempt the administration of justice; is he aware that the decisions of the convicting Justices were affirmed, notwithstanding the protest of Mr. Crowe; and will the Lord Chancellor of Ireland call upon him for an explanation of his conduct?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): The facts, I believe, are stated with substantial accuracy. I have referred the matter to the Lord Chancellor to deal with.
  MR. R. M. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the proceedings held at a meeting of the Irish National Federation on Sunday the 3rd March last, at Ballylooby, County Tipperary, presided over by the parish priest, at which Messrs. Nicholas Shee and Patrick O'Donnell, two recently appointed Justices of the Peace, attended, when strong resolutions were passed condemning the taking by persons of unoccupied evicted farms in the locality, and demanding the release of Irishmen convicted in England of the commission of serious crimes, and that in support of such resolutions Mr. Shee made a strong speech, in the course of which he stated that it was very doubtful whether the persons so convicted were really guilty at all; (2) whether he is aware that these are the same two gentlemen who attended at a great National demonstration held at Mullinahone, in the same county, on the 28th October last, at which similar resolutions were proposed by Mr. Shee and seconded by Mr. M. Drohan, also a recently appointed magistrate; and (3) has the conduct of these Justices of the Peace been brought under the notice of the Irish Lord Chancellor; and, if so, will any action be taken in reference thereto?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings at the meeting referred to in the first paragraph, and have read the speech delivered by Mr. Shee. The other magistrate named as having been present at this meeting did not speak, and took no part in the meeting further than attending. I have also seen a newspaper report of the proceedings at the earlier
  1262
  meeting alluded to in the second paragraph. The resolution passed at this meeting on the subject of the taking of unoccupied farms was very general in terms, and contained no direct reference to any particular case in the district, and, so far as I am aware, no result has followed the adoption of this resolution. The action of the gentlemen referred to has not been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, nor do I, upon the information before me, see any reason for taking this course now.
  MR. ROSSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in cases of meetings being held to denounce the takers of unoccupied farms, he was in the habit of putting the speeches before the Law Officers of the Crown with the view of ascertaining whether there should be a prosecution or not.
  MR. J. MORLEYbelieved that in nine cases out of ten the speeches went before the Law Officers; he directed that they should go before them. Of course in some cases he formed his own judgment.

  A WELSH CHURCHYARD DISPUTE.
  MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the dispute between the rector of Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog, Denbighshire, and his parishioners as to the payment of fees for the erection of tombstones in the parish churchyard; whether he is aware that an action for trespass was instituted by the rector in November, 1893, against two of his parishioners in reference to the erection of a monument; that the action was settled, and that the terms of the settlement permitted the erection of the monument in question without the payment of the fee, subject to the recognition of the legal rights of the rector in respect to the churchyard; whether he is aware that the rector, notwithstanding this settlement, continues to refuse to allow tombstones to be erected in the churchyard, and that he does so solely on the ground of the non-payment of the fee; whether he will state whether there is any evidence of such fees having ever been paid to previous incumbents; and whether, in view of these circumstances, any course is open to the parishioners by which the immemorial

  1263
  custom of the parish in respect to the churchyard can be preserved?
  MR. ASQUTTH: My attention has not been called to this matter since I answered a question upon it in 1893. I understand that there was an action which was settled upon the terms mentioned in the question. The rector informs me that he has adhered to those terms, but that they did not apply to all tombstones for an indefinite time, but only to the tombstones in respect of which the action was brought. I am not aware whether there is any evidence of such fees having been paid to previous incumbents. The rector states that prior to the Burial Act, 1880, it was customary to make an offertory at the altar prior to the interment, but since under that Act the burials have been held with Nonconformist rites in the churchyard and without any service in the Church, the custom of making the offertory has been discontinued and no fee received in lieu thereof. I have no jurisdiction to decide the disputed questions both of law and fact which are at issue between the rector and the parishioners.

  BRITISH HONDURAS.
  MR. E. BRODIE HOARE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether it is proposed to withdraw the whole of the troops from British Honduras at the end of April; (2) what provision has been made for the protection of life and property on the withdrawal of the troops; (3) whether it is proposed to re-establish the constabulary on the same footing as the force which mutinied a few months ago, and was disbanded after all their demands had been granted; and (4) whether the Government will take steps to establish telegraphic communication with Jamaica or some other depôt for Her Majesty's forces.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): Last January the Colonial Government was informed that the Imperial troops could not be retained for any length of time, and that the reorganisation of their local force must be at once proceeded with. It is now arranged that half the troops will be withdrawn on the 30th instant, and the remainder on July 31. This will give
  1264
  ample time within which the Colonial Government can re-organise their local force, and place it on a satisfactory basis. As regards the last question, it would no doubt be advantageous if British Honduras were in telegraphic communication with Jamaica or elsewhere; but we do not see our way at present to carry through any such scheme, involving, as it would, a very heavy expenditure.
  MR. E. B. HOAREasked the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to answer the third paragraph of the question.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, that only half of the constabulary mutinied; the other half were perfectly loyal, and behaved very well during the time of difficulty. He was not at the present moment in a position to say on what lines re-organisation would proceed.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS COMMISSION.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the Highlands and Islands Commission, in their Report, state that in dealing with grazing farms, where only part of a farm has been scheduled, care has been taken as far as possible to leave what, in the event of the scheduled lands being appropriated, would constitute a workable and profitable farm; will he state whether the Commission, according to the terms of reference to it, had power to exclude any lands suitable for the purposes specified in the Royal Warrant; and what course does he propose to adopt in the circumstances.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): It is the fact that the Commissioners, in their Report, state, that they dealt with grazing farms in the manner mentioned in the questions. The terms of reference invest them with powers and duties, which were combined with the right of using a discriminate judgment, and in the exercise of these powers in scheduling land, the Commissioners were, and are, of opinion that they acted within the limits assigned to them.
  DR. MACGREGORasked if the right hon. Gentleman approved of the plan of scheduling only the worst part of a grazing farm for occupation by the

  1265
  crofters and leaving the best parts for other uses?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, it seemed to him very reasonable that, in deciding whether land was suitable, some regard should be paid to the uses to which it was at present being put; but it was a matter which, in his opinion, was for the judgment and discretion of the Board of Commissioners.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE.
  Mr. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what harbours of refuge have been constructed in the United Kingdom since the year 1800; and what has been the cost in each case.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The harbours of refuge constructed out of public funds which are capable of being entered at all states of the tides are as follows:—Alderney, Portland, Plymouth, Holyhead, and Kingstown. Holyhead is the only one of these now under the Board of Trade. It was commenced by the Admiralty in 1847, transferred to the Board of Trade in 1862, and completed in 1873, and the cost of constructing the north breakwater and the works connected therewith, including land, was £1,285,000. The other harbours are under either the Admiralty or the Public Board of Works in Ireland, and I am unable to state the cost of their construction. I have no knowledge of the numbers or cost of harbours constructed by private enterprise.
  MR. CLANCYasked whether there was any difficulty in the way of the right hon. Gentleman getting the returns of all these harbours?
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he thought it would be a very expensive process, and he could not undertake it without consulting the other Departments.

  NICARAGUA CANAL.
  SIR EDWARD HARLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, (1) whether he is aware that the United States Government has now appointed a Commission to examine into the question of the construction of a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, through the State of Nicaragua, and to cause the surveys and locations of
  1266
  the proposed route of the canal to be revised; (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will appoint a Commission to co-operate with the United States Commission, so that the investigations might be conducted conjointly; and (3) whether Her Majesty's Government will take all steps in their power to safeguard the interests of this country, in the matter of the construction of the canal in question?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Board of Inquiry will consist of three engineers, who are to make their report on or before the 4th of November next. Her Majesty's Government could not consider the question of sending anyone to take part in any inquiry by an American Commission unless their co-operation were desired by the United States Government. They are, however, fully sensible of the great importance of this question to the shipping interest generally, and, in the event of the construction of the canal being proceeded with, will take steps to secure for British vessels and commerce as favourable treatment as is given to those of any other nation.
  SIR E. HARLANDasked, whether the hon. Baronet was aware that the President of the United States was so impressed by the importance of this undertaking that he was despatching the Commission in a special warship?
  SIR E. GREY: I must ask notice of that question.

  LONDONDERRY COURT HOUSE.
  MR. J. ROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the rooms allotted to the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the County Londonderry in the Court House are wholly inadequate for the purpose of holding the Crown Records and other documents, and are insanitary; whether the Clerk of the Crown has reported that the Public Records, of which there are several hundred files in this office are in danger of being lost, and that he is unable properly to perform his duties in consequence of the want of accommodation; whether it has been brought to his notice that the right honourable Mr. Justice Holmes held, at last Derry

  1267
  Assizes, that the Grand Jury were not bound to provide these offices; and whether, inasmuch as the Treasury receive all the stamp duties and fees in respect of the besiness passing through this office, he is prepared to advise that Department to provide the necessary accommodation, or assist in providing the same in conjunction with the Grand Jury?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT, Oldham): The duty of providing adequate County Court accommodation rests with the Grand Jury, and not with the Treasury. I understand that the matter referred to in the question is now under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The expenses of County Court Officers borne on the Votes greatly exceed the receipts from the stamps and fees.
  MR. P. M'GILLIGAN,: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if Mr. Justice Holmes, on the occasion referred to, commented rather severely on the application referred to him by the Grand Jury for increased accommodation for the Clerk of the Crown and Peace, whose salary was ample enough to provide it, whilst he (the Judge) had not a proper desk to write upon, and also stated that the accommodation most required there was for suitors, witnesses, and others, and that the sum of £200 proposed to be expended on the Court House for general accommodation was wholly insufficient.
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: In reply to the hon. Member I have to say that the Treasury consider that this expense should be voted by the Grand Jury. The observations of Mr. Justice Holmes are now being considered by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
  MR. ROSS: Do I understand that although the Treasury receive the fees, they are not prepared to contribute anything whatever?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: The expense of the Treasury is a great deal more than what they receive.
  MR. ROSS: In what form?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: I cannot tell you that off-hand.

  SEAL FISHERIES.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under
  1268
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a proposal has been received from the Government of the United States for the summoning of a Conference of the Powers concerned to deal with the seal fishery in the North Pacific Ocean; whether consent to join such a Conference involves or permits interference with the decisions of the Paris Arbitration of 1893; and whether Her Majesty's Government will refuse consent to join such a Conference unless the Conference be authorised and instructed, on the lines suggested by the Arbitrators at Paris in 1893, to deal with the whole of the question of the seal fisheries, specially including preservative regulations and limits within the territorial jurisdiction of the Powers?
  SIR E. GREY: No such proposal has been received. A Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and passed, which, among other points, provided for the conclusion of negotiations with Great Britain, Russia and Japan for the appointment of a joint commission to investigate the conditions, habits and feeding-grounds of the fur seal herds, and to consider and report what further regulations were needed. The Bill was rejected in the Senate.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any petition or other communication has come from the Canadian Dominion suggesting that, in consequence of the inability of Congress last Session to appropriate the sum agreed upon by the Government to pay the damages to sealers under the Paris Arbitration Award, and in view of the serious financial difficulties thereby brought upon many of them engaged in the sealing industry, Her Majesty's Government can see their way to advance some portion of the sum awarded by way of loan, pending a final settlement with the United States Government?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not in a position to give any answer to the question at present.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. E. MCHUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. J. Mains), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspectors of the Local

  1269
  Government Board have yet reported on the state of the fishermen of Glenvar, County Donegal, as to whether they report that any necessity exists for supplementing the machinery of the ordinary poor law in the district?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As I have already stated in reply to a question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Donegal, it is proposed to open a relief work at Glenvar. The work will consist of the construction of a boat slip, and will be started either to-day or tomorrow.
  MR. MCHUGH: On behalf of Mr. Mains, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board Inspector, who attended the meeting of the guardians on the 11th February last, has yet reported the result of his further investigations in the districts of Malin, Glengask, and Clonmany, County Donegal?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The result of the Inspector's inquiries into the condition of the people in this part of Donegal was brought under my notice towards the end of March. The inspector states that the people in the districts mentioned depend to a large extent upon the fishing, which will very shortly commence. The Guardians applied for and were afforded extended powers in relation to the administration of outdoor relief in the Union, and the Local Government Board are of opinion that the resources of the poor law will be able to deal with any individual cases of distress that may occur.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution unanimously passed at a meeting on the 4th April of the Carrick and Kilcar Committee for Relief of Distress, proposed by the Rev. P. M'Devitt, parish priest of Carrick, and seconded by Dr. Harkin, stating that at least 100 families in the Carrick and Kilcar districts were still in great need of employment, and urgently pressing upon the attention of the authorities the absolute necessity of at once providing work for these poor people; and whether the Government will take immediate measures for the relief of this distress?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The resolution was received by the Local Government Board this morning, and no unnecessary delay will take place in inquiring into the matter. I may add that some 61 families from the Kilcar Division have so far been afforded employment on the Relief Works in operation there.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to complaints of the manner in which relief works are administered in the parish of Party, Ballinrobe Union; (2) whether he is aware there is but one relieving officer for the five East Divisions (all in a state of distress) of Ballinrobe Union, and that he is a tenant of Mr. Lynch, the landlord of the poorest portion of this distressed district, who is the Local Government Board inspector of this district; and that the administration of the relief works by Mr. Lynch and the relieving officer is impugned by the priests of the district and by the Ballinrobe Board of Guardians; (3) will he explain why the priests are not only not consulted in the administration of the relief works, but their recommendations are neglected; (4) whether he has been furnished with a list of 86 families (550 individuals), tenants on the estate, all of whom, in the opinion of the parish priest, are in need of such help as they might obtain from the relief works which are being carried on in the district, but are excluded by Mr. Lynch and the relieving officer; and (5) what steps he proposes to take for the due consideration of so grave a state of affairs?
  MR. J. MORLEY: (1) Complaints have been made from time to time as to the alleged insufficiency of the Works in Ballinrobe Union, and as to the refusal of the Government to put on the works persons named by the local clergy. (2) Mr. Lynch is not the Inspector in charge of this district. There is one Relieving Officer in charge of the Western District, where works are in progress, and the Local Government Board are not aware whether he is a tenant of Mr. Lynch, the Inspector. The Union is in charge of Dr. Flinn. (3) The Inspector has interviewed the priests in this District, though he may not have found it practicable to carry all their suggestions

  1271
  into effect. (4) Large numbers of names of persons for employment on the works have been forwarded by the local clergy, but it is not considered necessary, at present, to increase the number of persons employed on these works. (5) If it should be found necessary to extend the relief works in this union the matter will be at once reported to Government. I may say, in answer to my hon. Friend, who has asked me a good many questions very naturally on the condition of the people in this district, that I have directed special reports to be ready for me when I go over to Ireland next week.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some special consideration to the list of names I have given him on this subject?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I would rather not give any undertaking of that kind until I have actually seen the inspectors who were on the spot, and who, therefore, know how matters stood.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received lists of families in great distress, namely, 86 families in Aughamore parish and 68 families in Loughanboy; and whether, in considering the cases of these people, the priests and the poor law Guardians of these districts will be consulted?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have received the lists referred to, and have sent them to the Local Government Board for immediate inquiry. The Inspector is already, I understand, in communication with the clergy of this district on the subject of the relief operations.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the resolutions of the Milford Board of Guardians with reference to the distress existing in their district and the need of relief works there; whether the names of 300 persons in Cranford and Loughkeel electoral divisions have been sent to the Local Government Board Inspector, all of whom are in extreme destitution; whether the above named electoral divisions are scheduled as congested; and what the Local Government Board intend to do in the matter?
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1272
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the electoral divisions of Cranford and Loughkeel, in the Milford Union, which are scheduled as congested districts, any relief works will be opened to enable the people to live through the privations they are now enduring, brought on by the failure of the potato crop and other such causes, and which threaten, if no remedial measures be adopted by the Government, to become yet more serious in a very short space of time?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board are informed by their Inspector that there is not, at present, any abnormal distress in the electoral divisions mentioned in the question. The Inspector is now making further inquiries into the condition of the people, and will report at once if any special measures require to be adopted to relieve any distress that may exist. He has also been supplied with the list of persons referred to in the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Donegal.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Local Government Board have received representations from the Guardians of Stranorlar Union, that to relieve the distress existing within it by additional poor rate would be impracticable, by reason of the poverty of the ratepayers, and that without help it is impossible for many families to subsist till harvest time, and that there are within the Union several partly formed roads which are useless in their present condition; and what answer the Local Government Board have given, or intend to give to these representations?
  MR. J. MORLEY: A Resolution of the Guardians of this Union to the effect stated has been received. The Local Government Board understand that there are a number of poor families in the Union who have suffered from the failure of the potato crop and who may require assistance shortly. At the present time, however, there are only three persons in the entire Union in receipt of out-door relief and the rates are low; and so far as the Local Government Board can see, the resources of the Poor Law should suffice to deal with any cases of distress that have arisen.

  TRAINING SHIP IN IRISH WATERS.
  MR. E. M'HUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. J. Mains): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he has considered the expediency of having one of Her Majesty's training ships for boys in Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly during part of the year?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): Lough Swilly is included among the Ports which will be visited by the Northampton during her present cruise.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, if he can say what ship it is proposed to station for training purposes at Queenstown, and when she may be expected there?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No conclusion has yet been arrived at, as to which training ship will be stationed at Queenstown. nor of the date at which she will be sent.

  ADMIRALTY RIGHTS AT HOWTH.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, what steps will be taken by the Admiralty to preserve the right of way round the sea coast from Sutton to Howth, on which the coastguards and revenue preventive service have patrolled at all times; is he aware that a gentleman who has recently bought property at Sutton is seeking, in the Land Judges' Court, to abolish all rights of way along the coast over his land; and will the Government be represented in Court to resist any encroachments on the immemorial user of Her Majesty's officers and the public?
  MR. W. KENNYasked, whether, having regard to the fact that this question of right of way was now the subject of legal proceedings, it was desirable in the interests of justice, that the matter should be the subject of discussion in this House?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Of course, it would be undesirable to discuss in this House any question which is sub judice. In answer to the question on the Paper, the Dublin Board of Works have been requested to take all necessary steps to preserve the Admiralty rights in the matter. No information
  1274
  has been received of any attempt to interfere with the coast guard using the path.

  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMIS- SIONERS AND ALLOTMENTS.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether, in accordance with the precedent set by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1894, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will consider the desirability of inquiring, by means of a Departmental Committee, into the best means of extending the facilities for the granting of agricultural allotments upon the estates under their control, and into the applicability thereto of provisions of the Local Government Act 1894, and into other like matters appertaining to the subject.
  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (MR. G. LEVESON-GOWER, Stoke-upon-Trent): The Estates Committee, which is charged with the management of the property under the control of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, holds its meetings weekly. For some years past it has been made known, in the parishes in which the Commissioners are possessed of agricultural property, that they are desirous of affording all reasonable facilities for the acquisition of allotments by the labouring population. A large number of allotments have been provided, and many negotiations with District and Parish Councils are pending at the present time.
  MR. CYRIL DODDasked, whether similar facilities would also be afforded to small shopkeepers who often wanted allotments?
  MR. LEVESON—GOWER: That is certainly a question that will receive consideration.

  TELEGRAPH AND POSTAL FACILITIES TO LEWIS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state what sums have been expended each year since 1885 on telegraph extensions and increased postal facilities respectively in the Western Mainland of Ross-shire and in the Island of Lewis?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, Nottingham, E): The information desired by the hon. Member is being prepared, and shall be communicated to him.

  ISLAND OF MATACONG.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Island of Matacong (West Coast of Africa) was ceded by Great Britain to France under a Convention made in 1882 and ratified in 1889; whether private proprietary rights over the island were at the time of cession, and had for a long time been, owned by an English trading firm, to whom no notice was given of the cession, and whose representative on the island in September, 1891, was taken prisoner and taken from the island by an armed force; whether the French Government expressed their willingness to make full inquiry, and whether they have now communicated their decision as to the validity of the title of the said English firm (the proofs of which were demanded and handed in in June 1893); and, if so, what is their decision; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will indemnify the said English proprietors for the serious damage to their property and business resulting from many years' forced suspension of private proprietary rights?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: By the Convention of 1882 Great Britain recognised the Island of Matacong as belonging to France. That Convention was never ratified, but has been treated by both parties as binding. Private proprietary rights over the island dating prior to 1882 are claimed by an English firm. Their representative claimed rights which were considered inconsistent with the French sovereign rights, and was removed from the island by the French Authorities. The question has been repeatedly brought before the French Government, who have stated that the validity of the titles must be proved before the local tribunals, as titles of an anterior date are said to exist, or that the question should go to arbitration. The latter alternative has been refused by the British firm. The case is not one in which an indemnity should be paid by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Before the cession of the island was any reservation of the then existing proprietary rights made by this country?
  SIR EDWARD GREY>: The cession was made 20 years ago; but I will inquire into the point.

  LONDON WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. J. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that many suburban consumers of water living outside the London area, and supplied by London water companies, are still without a water supply in consequence of the frost acting upon inefficiently laid mains, he would be disposed to introduce legislation affording protection to these people, or at least extending to them the right to demand an inquiry, which is at present possessed by the householders in the more central districts of the Metropolis?
  MR. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE: It appears to me that the same remedies should be given to consumers outside the London area supplied by the London water companies as to those within. But, before taking any action in this direction, it will be necessary to see what is the result of the inquiries in respect of the complaints against the water companies from ratepayers within the area.

  GAS CYLINDERS.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Birmingham, Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent case of death caused by the explosion of a gas cylinder at Fenchurch Street Station, and to the recommendation of the coroner's jury that gas cylinders should be subjected to a Government test, and should be stamped showing that they are capable of resisting the pressure of the gases which they contain; and whether he will take steps, in the interests of public safety and of a large and growing industry, to carry out the the recommendation of the jury?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have already answered a question upon this subject, and have received a report from an expert upon the matter. I intend to invite

  1277
  further expert inquiry. It is reported to me as most probable that the explosion was not due to an imperfectly welded cylinder, but was caused by the ignition of an explosive mixture which no cylinder would stand, however perfectly it had been tested. I will, however, request those who are to be consulted upon this question to inquire how far the Government test would be a safeguard, and I will carefully consider the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member.

  THE INDIAN PROCEDURE BILL.
  MR. W. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India with regard to the Bill called the Procedure Bill, which has recently been before the Supreme Legislative Council of India, which proposed, among other things to give the Courts power to prevent decrees for restitution of conjugal rights being enforced by the imprisonment of the wife, will he explain why the Government abandoned this clause, which was supported by many members and only opposed by three, one of whom was the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal; whether the present law that any wife in India, even though she be a child, may be imprisoned for not living with her husband has only been in force for about 18 years; and whether the Government will again introduce the proposed reform into the Supreme Legislative Council and endeavour to carry it?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds, in the absence of Mr. H. H. FOWLER): This clause was unanimously struck out by a Seclect Committee of seven members, four of whom were natives of India, on the ground that the country was not yet ripe for such a change; and a motion to restore it was lost in the Legilsative Council by 15 votes to 2. Under the present law a wife cannot be imprisoned until the Court has heard and considered all objections raised by her, and I am advised that a plea of childhood, if established, would lead to the dismissal of the suit. It is the case that imprisonment in these suits was not prescribed by law until 18 years ago, but I believe that other methods, not less objectionable, of enforcing conjugal rights were in force before that time. I have
  1278
  no reason to think that the Government of India propose, in the circumstances which I have stated, to re-introduce the measure at present, but I have no doubt they will do so as soon as they consider that it can be passed with due regard to the state of public opinion in India.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN STRABANE UNION.
  MR. J. A. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain on what grounds the Local Government Board have sanctioned the erection of two labourers' cottages on the farm of John Finlay, Tulleyrap, in the union of Strabane, although there are already four cottier tenants living in houses on Mr. Finlay's farms, and eight farms all situated within half a mile of Mr. Finlay's farm, several of them as large as his, upon the whole of which there is a single labourer's dwelling, though there are empty labourers' houses upon four of these farms?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages in the townland mentioned has yet been sanctioned by the Local Government Board. An Inspector of the Board has, however, been appointed to carry out the Acts in the Union (the Guardians having declined to do so), and I understand he contemplates making a Scheme for the erection of 13 cottages in five electoral divisions. Two of the proposed cottages are intended to be built in the townland mentioned; but before the erection of any of them can be sanctioned by the Local Government Board there must be a Local Inquiry held in the matter by another Inspector, at which all the owners and occupiers of lands proposed to be acquired will have an opportunity of offering objections to the Scheme. Of course, for any lands that may be ultimately taken, the persons interested will receive compensation, the amount of which, in case of disagreement, will be determined by an Arbitrator.

  POSTAL FACILITIES AT FINTRAY, ABERDEENSHIRE.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is only a delivery of letters three times a week in

  1279
  the northern part of the parish of Fintray, situated only ten miles from Aberdeen, and close to two railways; whether frequent representations have been made to him of the grave inconvenience thereby caused; and whether, by a re-arrangement of the postal deliveries or otherwise, he will endeavour to secure to this district a daily delivery of letters?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: This is a subject to which my hon. Friend himself directed my attention in October last. I stated then that I could not sanction a more frequent delivery in the district referred to, because the revenue from the letters barely covered half the expenditure incurred. I fear the circumstances are no more favourable now, but if my hon. Friend can suggest any arrangement of the deliveries which will meet the case without materially increasing the expense, I will give the suggestion my careful consideration.

  QUARANTINE.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce at an early date a Bill containing such provisions as are necessary to terminate quarantine?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE(who answered the question) said: A Bill is being prepared on this subject, and I hope it will be introduced shortly after Easter.

  QUINQUENNIAL CENSUS.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to introduce a Bill in the course of the present Session to, provide for a quinquennial census relating to the numbers of the population for the United Kingdom in the year 1896?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Government does not at present propose to introduce a Bill on this subject.

  THE NEW CODE AND SCHOOL VENTI LATION.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been directed to the inconvenience and danger to health likely to arise from the provision in Schedule VII. of the New Code for ventilation by enlarged inlets and outlets in addition
  1280
  to the windows; whether he is prepared to amend the article in Schedule VII., Article 11, of the Code, in order to prevent such injurious consequences; and whether, having regard to the danger arising from windows which swing, he is prepared to omit the provision in Schedule VII., Article 9 (b), which compels the construction of windows with a portion made to swing?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): The size of the ventilators proposed is not unduly large. The teachers will of course exercise a discretion in opening and shutting windows. It is hoped the provision will be beneficial and not injurious to the children. Swing windows are generally in use in schools, and no such windows as would involve danger are contemplated under the new rule.

  THE LAND SLIP AT SANDGATE.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, if he will state why the coastguards' houses at Sandgate, which were rendered uninhabitable owing to the landslip which took place there two years ago, have neither been pulled down nor shored up; and whether steps will taken to deal with these structures without further delay?
  MR. EDWARD ROBERTSON: The delay in dealing with the houses in question arose on account of a consideration as to whether the Coastguard Station should be removed to another place. This has now been settled, and provision has been made in the Estimates for the present year for the erection of new houses.

  THE AMERICAN AND SCOTCH MAILS.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, having arranged a special accelerated train to carry the American mails per Etruria to London, he will in future arrange a similar train to convey the mails to Scotland, so that letters may be delivered in time to be answered by the outgoing steamer?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I am afraid the amount of correspondence for Scotland would scarcely warrant the establishment of a special service similar to that for London; but, apart from

  1281
  this, even by the employment of a special train, it would seldom be practicable to give to Scotland an interval for reply by the outgoing steamer. I may point out, however, that it is the rule to send the Scotch mails from Queenstown by the quickest practicable route, and that in some cases these mails do already benefit from the special service.
  MR. J. WILSON: Arising out of this answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that a very large amount of business is done by merchants in Glasgow both with America and Canada, and that it is essentially necessary they should be in possession of the earliest information possible as soon as the letters were delivered?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEYbelieved there was a large amount of business done, but he did not think the matter was one for special arrangement.

  THE IRISH MAILS.
  MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is now in a position to make a definite statement on the subject of the tenders for the mail contract between Dublin and Holyhead, and between Holyhead and London? May I supplement that question by asking whether the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have to-day received a communication from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce in which they protest against the adoption of any boats smaller than those proposed by tender No. 2, and asking the Postmaster General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to receive a deputation?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I have got a telegram to that effect. I propose also to answer the question in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin. [Mr. W. FIELD asked the Postmaster General whether he was in a position to make a statement regarding the mail contract via Queenstown, Kingstown, and Holyhead; and, whether acceleration and increased accommodation would be provided on land and sea?] I have seen the Directors of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company to-day, and they have promised to provide me with some further data showing how the amount of the tender is made up, on which they are anxious that
  1282
  I should obtain some technical advice. Pending the consideration of these figures, I regret to say that I am unable to make any definite announcement. I may repeat that, under any new contract, it is my desire to obtain an acceleration of half-an-hour, together with the requisite accommodation for the mails, and accommodation for passengers at least equal to that afforded in the Ireland. I am happy to be able to state that the special service for accelerating the Saturday American mail was successfully inaugurated on Saturday last. The new mail train arrived at Queenstown punctually at the appointed time, 6.45a.m., and the Cunard Mail Packet was able to get away from Queenstown by ten minutes to eight, instead of about midday as heretofore.
  MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is my intention to accept a tender for boats of a smaller size than those mentioned in No. 2?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am afraid I cannot make a statement until after the decision of the Government.
  MR. W. FIELD: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he expects to be able to make a declaration with regard to this matter. We have had it now under consideration I do not know how many times, and we have never had any kind of a definite reply from the right hon. Gentleman. All the commercial community of Dublin and the whole of Ireland are united on this question?
  DR. KENNY: Is not the sole matter in dispute some objections on the part of the Treasury? Are they not the only stumbling-block in the way, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman get over that stumbling-block in a matter of national importance? Will he assure the House that he will give a definite answer by the termination of the Recess?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I cannot say more than that I am most anxious to lose no time whatever in coming to a decision. There is a substantial difference between the amount offered by the company and the amount the Government is justified in giving.
  DR. KENNY: Is not the Treasury the objector. Has not the City of Dublin Steam packet Company offered

  1283
  to submit the whole matter to arbitration, and has not the right hon. Gentleman power to submit to arbitration in this matter?
  MR. A. MORLEY: It is a most unusual course for the Government to submit any such matter to arbitration.
  DR. KENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give any answer to this before the Dissolution?
  [MR. A. MORLEY did not reply]

  EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken to make thoroughly sound and effective the existing movement in favour of evening continuation schools; and whether, following the precedent set with so much success by the Science and Art Department, he will consider and arrange for the appointment of a person or persons thoroughly competent and specially experienced to advise local educational authorities, especially in rural districts, as to the economical and effective organisation and working of evening continuation schools?
  MR. ACLAND: The Department is most anxious to make evening continuation schools as sound and effective as possible in every way. Her Majesty's Inspectors are always ready to advise local authorities as to the organisation and working of such schools. I do not think that the necessity has arisen for a special staff of officials devoting themselves entirely to this branch of the work of the Department.

  EXAMINATION OF ACTING TEACHERS.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state the date of the last certificate examination for acting teachers and for college trained teachers; the date of the issue of the results of the examination so far as college-trained teachers are concerned; and the date of the issue of the results so far as acting teachers are concerned; and whether he can in any way compensate the acting teachers for the prolonged anxiety and injustice consequent on this differential delay of more than five weeks?
  MR. ACLAND: The examination was held from December 10th to 14th, and the result, so far as the colleges were concerned, was announced on the 21st February. The acting teachers were informed of the result of their examination from March 27th to April 3rd. The work on the acting teachers' examination is much more laborious than that on the students', and the difference between the dates of announcement is generally about a month. There has been nothing exceptional on this occasion, in the difference of date, which is really unavoidable.

  THE PROPOSED VETERINARY COLLEGE IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what progress has been made in carrying out steps for the establishment of a Veterinary College in Ireland; and, if an Act of Parliament be necessary for the purpose, when does he propose to introduce it?
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will introduce a Bill this Session to provide the promised £15,000 to start the Veterinary College in Dublin?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The draft charter for the proposed Veterinary College in Dublin has been settled, and is now before the Law Officers for approval. Upon the incorporation of the governing body a Bill will be introduced forthwith to provide the proposed grant-in-aid.

  GOVERNMENT OF HAWAII.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House what now represents the Government of Hawaii: and, whether the existing Government, in the event of there being one, is recognised by Her Majesty's Government?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The present Government of Hawaii is Republican. The Republic was recognised by Her Majesty's Government on the 15th of November last.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY CODE.
  MR. P. J. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in

  1285
  view of the fact that the police code, published in 1881, with Amendments up to date, is the manual placed in the hands of recruits to the London police force, he would have any objection to the publication of the Royal Irish Constabulary Code by a member of that body?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The publication referred to in the first part of the question is, I presume, that which deals with the general principles of police duty. It is not the code of the London police, which, as I stated yesterday, is a confidential publication. The Royal Irish Constabulary have also in their hands a manual of police duty, and, for reasons explained by me yesterday, I see no sufficient reason for consenting to the Constabulary Code being made available for public use.
  MR. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the book to which I have referred was published in 1881 by the then Director of the Criminal Investigation Department in London?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not aware of anything of the kind.
  MR. KENNEDY: Might I inform the right hon. Gentleman that the book is in the Library?

  LANDED ESTATES COURTS CONVEYANCES.
  MR. R. M. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the result of his communication with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland respecting the execution of Landed Estates Courts conveyances?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Lord Chancellor informs me that arrangements have been made under which the Master of the Rolls will execute any conveyances in the Land Judge's Court that may be presented to him for execution.

  SURGEON MAJOR GENERALS IN INDIA.
  MR. R. W. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is the fact that the pay of Surgeon Major Generals in India is reduced, from 1st April last, from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 2,000 per month; and, if so, whether such reduction will be followed by diminished duties and responsibilities on the part of these officers; and whether it is proposed to
  1286
  reduce the pay of officers of corresponding rank in India at the same time and on a similar scale?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The number of the principal medical officers in India has been increased from three to five, the responsibilities of all, except the Surgeon Major General at headquarters have thus been reduced, and their pay is diminished accordingly. It is not proposed to reduce the pay of officers of corresponding rank in India.

  SECOND DIVISION CLERKS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to give the information recently asked for regarding the promotion of second division clerks in the Dublin offices?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: In accordance with my promise in reply to the hon. Member's question of the 12th March, I have had a statement prepared which I shall be happy to hand to him.

  THE CONVICT M'CANN.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet arrived at a decision regarding the release of M'Cann, an Irish political prisoner, who has been 12 years in prison, and is now 70 years of age?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have decided, with the concurrence of the Secretary for Scotland, that in consideration of this convict's age and feeble state of health, he may now be released on licence.

  COMMISSARY BAKERIES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will insert in the tender forms about to be issued for Ireland a similar clause to that inserted for the commissary bakeries at Aldershot, Shorncliffe, &c., in England, that tenders would be only accepted from millers, thereby insuring the supply of home-manufactured flour?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,: The same form of tender is now in use for flour, both in England and Ireland, the stipulation as to millers having been withdrawn from the English form.
  MR. FIELD: Am I to understand that the Irish millers tender for the supply the same as they do in England?
  MR. WOODALL: Precisely the same form of tender is issued in both cases.
  MR. FIELD: Am I to understand that there is a new form of tender which boycotts the native producer from tendering to supply ships in Ireland or England?
  MR. WOODALL: Millers take exactly the same position as others.
  MR. FIELD: May I ask what that position is?
  MR. WOODALL: I think my hon. Friend will perfectly understand my answer when he sees it in print.

  AN OCEAN DERELICT.
  MR. J. C. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether intelligence has been received from Madrid that a large sailing vessel has been seen abandoned near the Straits of Gibraltar, about seven miles off Tangier, right in the course taken generally by vessels of our fleet when going to and from the Mediterranean; and whether he will order a cruiser from England or the Mediterranean and Channel Squadron at once to search for this dangerous derelict and bring it to port or destroy it?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No Report respecting this wreck has been received from Madrid. In the Shipping Gazette of April 5th, it is stated that the Spanish steamer Joaquin Velasjo reports having passed a vessel waterlogged and abandoned, foremast only visible, in the position stated, which is not in the ordinary track. Where the vessel (if it is a vessel and not a spar, which is equally probable from the Report) is now, it is difficult to say, but if not on shore, or at the bottom, the strong currents have probably taken her into the Mediterranean. No search could be made with any prospect of success unless further Reports are received.

  REFUSAL TO ALLOW A MEETING IN COUNTY CORK.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will explain upon what authority, and for what reason, the police refused to allow a
  1288
  public meeting to be held at Grenagh, County Cork, upon last Sunday.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The placard convening the meeting pointedly referred to the taking of a farm from which the late tenant (who was named) had been evicted, and it was believed that the meeting, if held at the place originally selected, would have an intimidatory effect, and might lead to a breach of the peace. It was decided, therefore, not to allow it in the neighbourhood of the farm in question.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked whether the promoters of the meeting had any notice of the intention of the Government?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, Sir, the district inspector is specially directed to inform the promoters some time before the meeting of the intention, and the information was given to them that the meeting would not be allowed.

  DUBLIN SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM.
  MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the duties and responsibilities of the Director of the Science and Art Museum at Dublin have vastly increased since his appointment to that office in the year 1883, and that the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Presidents and Vice Presidents of the Committee of Council on Education have, at various times, recorded their opinions that the salary enjoyed by the Director is inadequate; whether the last specific application for an increase of salary made by the Director, by his letter of 29th October 1894, has been considered by the Treasury; and, if so, with what result; and, would there be any objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the correspondence on the subject of this salary?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: The Treasury has received more than one application for an increase in the salary of the Director of the Museum, the last was in August 1894. After full inquiry the Treasury was of opinion that the emoluments—amounting to £760 a year—afford not inadequate remuneration for the duties of the post. The manner in which the present Director has discharged his duties has been recognised by the grant of the honour of a Companionship of the Bath. I cannot

  1289
  consent to lay on the Table departmental correspondence relative to the salaries of Civil Service Appointments.

  THE WEXFORD AND DUBLIN MAIL.
  MR. P. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the night mail between Wexford and Dublin leaves Dublin at 8 o'clock p.m., and often does not arrive in Wexford until 7.30 or 8 o'clock next morning, thereby delaying the rural postmen, and causing immense inconvenience to the public generally; and, whether he will look into the matter and see if a uniform service is possible?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: No representations on the subject have reached me; but I will have inquiry made with the object of securing greater regularity, should the circumstances require it.

  MADAGASCAR.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have made any provision to enable British subjects in Madagascar to leave the island if they so desire during the French invasion.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No special provision is required. British Consular Officers are at the two principal ports, and will protect those who may come to the coast. No intimation has been received of the wish of British residents to leave except in the case of some British Indians at Mojunga to whom the French Authorities offered facilities.

  UPPER NILE WATERWAY.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to secure the control of the Upper Nile Waterway?
  SIR E. GREY: It is impossible to make a statement on this subject in answer to a question.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTdesired to know whether the French Government had informed Her Majesty's Government that no expedition had been sent to the Nile.
  SIR E. GREY: I have nothing to add to what has been already said.

  DENBIGH ASYLUM.
  MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the views of the deputation which waited upon him, on 20th February last, in reference to the enlargement of Denbigh Asylum; and whether he is in a position to state his decision?
  MR. ASQUITH: My decision is, that the additional accommodation needed is to be provided by the enlargement of the existing Asylum at Denbigh.

  ELECTION OF OVERSEERS AT BOOTLE.
  MR. J. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that on 1st April a meeting of the Vestry of Bootle was held to elect overseers of the poor, at which four ratepayers were duly elected at the meeting; whether he is also aware that the magistrates refused to accept the names so put forward, and elected four others which had not been before the Vestry meetings; whether this was a contravention of the Local Government Act; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The only information I have on this subject is contained in the letter which my hon. Friend has been good enough to send me. It rests with the magistrates to appoint the overseers, and they are under no legal obligation to elect persons nominated by the Vestry. Under the Local Government Act, the power of appointing overseers in urban parishes may be transferred to the Urban District Council on their application.

  A PROFESSIONAL CORONER'S JURY.
  MR. J. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Corporation of Bootle has been paying a professional coroner's jury for two years past, at a cost of over £200; and whether this is a legal payment; if not, whether he has power to interfere to protect the ratepayers against such charges?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have no information as to this matter, nor any power to interfere with regard to it. The accounts of Municipal Corporations are not subject to control by the Local Government Board or their officers.

  INSPECTOR RUFF, METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether his attention has been called to the case of Inspector Ruff, of the Metropolitan Police Force, in Islington, who was reduced in rank about a year since, some six months before he was entitled to retire on a full pension (2) whether Mr. Ruff had since retired and been awarded a pension on the scale of his salary during the few months that had passed since he was reduced in rank, instead of on the average pay that he had received during the last three years of his service in the force; (3) whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the legality of this action; and (4) whether he will give orders that the question of Mr. Ruffs pension be reconsidered in accordance with what is understood to be the usual practice?
  MR. ASQUITH: The answer to the first three paragraphs is in the affirmative. I am in communication with the Law Officers on the subject, and hope to decide the matter at an early date.

  DUBLIN AND GARRISTOWN RAILWAY.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet come to any decision regarding the request made to him by the deputation which waited upon him last winter for public assistance in the matter of the proposed Dublin and Garristown Railway?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I communicated with the Board of Works in the matter of this projected railway, and was informed that the funds for meeting the State Guarantee under the Act of 1883 were exhausted. The Grand Jury of Meath, at Spring Assizes, 1894, decided not to express approval of the proposed railway, at any rate until the Grand Jury of the County of Dublin, who were mainly concerned in the matter, had expressed their opinion as to the project; and, in the June following, the Grand Jury of the County Dublin expressed disapproval of the line and refused to guarantee.
  MR. CLANCYasked, whether it was not the case that every fact the right hon. Gentleman had stated now was
  1292
  stated to him by the deputation mentioned in the question?
  MR. J. MORLEYreplied, that the facts were mentioned to him by the deputation. What he promised the deputation was, that he would inquire whether there were funds. Until and unless Parliament provided due funds the Government cannot further the hon. Member's object.
  MR. CLANCY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of asking Parliament to provide the funds?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not believe the present would be a very auspicious moment.

  DISTRESS IN ST. OLAVE'S UNION.
  MR. J. C. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the fact that the relieving officers of St. Olave's Union lave been giving 3s. 6d. per day, half in cash half in kind, in out-relief (nominal stone breaking) to over 60,000 persons without the inquiry by the guardians whether they were deserving cases as required by law; and what steps he proposes taking to rectify this?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have made inquiry on this subject. Owing to the distress which prevailed in the St. Olave's Union in January last, the guardians opened a labour yard. I am informed that during the first few days the yard was open, the number of applicants was so great that the officers of the guardians were unable to make proper inquiries as to the cases; but a special meeting of the guardians was then held, and arrangements were effected whereby the usual inquiries were duly made. The yard was closed on the 28th March, the total number of persons set to work there having been, not 60,000, as stated in the question, but 3,910. The total number of days' work done was about 60,000. The subject has been fully inquired into by the Committee on the Unemployed.

  COLLAPSE OF A TUNNEL.
  MR. E. SPENCER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, having regard to the extraordinary collapse of a portion of a tunnel at Guildford on the London and South Western Railway on Friday, the

  1293
  22nd of March, any steps, and, if so, what, are taken by the Board of Trade, or otherwise, to periodically ascertain as to the safety of tunnels on railways; and whether the Board of Trade will, at an early date, hold a more formal investigation as to the causes of such collapse, and of the circumstances attending the same, as provided in the Railway Regulation Amendment Act, 34 and 35 Vic., c. 78, s. 7?
  MR. J. AIRDasked, whether it was not the fact that the South Western Railway were able, by their exertions, to reopen the line in eight days after the accident occurred?
  MR. BRYCE: It was opened very soon, though I am not prepared to state the exact time. As regards the question on the Paper, the duty is not devolved upon the Board of Trade of making periodical inspections of the permanent way of railways. That is a responsibility which rests on the railway companies themselves. As at present advised, I see no reason for thinking that the causes of the accident have been insufficiently ascertained by Major Marindin, the Inspecting Officer, whose Report I have only just received to-day, but have not yet had time to peruse.

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE ACT.
  MR. R. M. DANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, have any complaints been received by that body respecting the want of office accommodation by the local registrars under the Local Registration of Title Act; and what steps, if any, the Treasury intend taking in the matter?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: No such complaints have reached me. Applications from Local Registering Authorities for the expenses of carrying into effect the Local Registration of Title Act are dealt with by the Board of Works, subject to appeal to the Treasury, and no such appeals have reached the latter.

  THE WAR BETWEEN CHINA AND JAPAN.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he can have drawn up and presented to this House a Report on the naval experiences in the recent war between China and Japan which can make public all such facts and lessons as
  1294
  can be published without prejudice to our naval interests?
  MR. ROBERTSON: The Reports prepared in the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty on such subjects as are indicated in the question are of a confidential nature, and are designed for the information of the Board of Admiralty. There is no intention of presenting any such Reports to the House of Commons.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLasked, whether the hon. Gentleman could answer the question, which particularly excluded matter which could not be published without prejudice?
  MR. ROBERTSON: There are no others, I understand.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLwished to know whether any of the chief features of these actions would be issued in the form of a confidential Report to Captains of ships in commission?
  MR. ROBERTSON: I must ask notice of that question.

  H.M.S. "SHARPSHOOTER."
  MR. W. CODDINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the amount of coal consumed by the Sharpshooter during her 30 hours' trial; and what was her indicated horse power at that time?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The amount of coal consumed by the Sharpshooter during her 30 hours' trial was 74 tons. The average indicated horse power during the trial was 2,326. Superior results have since been obtained with further experience.

  COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will instruct the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to include in their annual Report the particulars which are set forth in the notice of Motion standing on the Paper this day?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,said, I have no doubt that full particulars of the operation of the new death duties will be given in the annual Report of the Inland Revenue, but I cannot undertake that the statistics will be in the precise form set forth in the Motion of the hon. Member.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he proposes bringing in a Bill this Session for triennial Parliaments?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have no such intention. I do not know that we should have time to pass the Bill.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERpressed the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Government proposed to maintain the Septennial Act throughout the whole course of this Parliament.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is a large question, Sir. Time is not always at the disposal of the Government.

  DR. HERZ.
  MR. A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any steps have yet been taken to procure the return of Dr. Herz, who for over two years now has been under arrest, and is lying seriously ill at Bournemouth; and, if not, whether the Government propose to take any steps, either by negotiation with the French Government or otherwise.
  MR. ASQUITH: I may point out that the "arrest" of Dr. Herz consists simply in the presence of a police officer in the hotel where he is lying ill, and every precaution is taken to secure that there shall be no avoidable inconvenience or annoyance to Dr. Herz and those who are attending on him. We are in communication with the French Government with the view of putting an end, if possible, to the existing situation, and I hope that an agreement upon the subject may soon be arrived at.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is his intention to introduce the Bill to facilitate the construction of light railways at an early date.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the intention of the Government to introduce this Bill at an early date.

  THE SLAVE TRADE.
  MR. R. A. YERBURGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that an anti-slavery memorial has been forwarded to the Prime Minister from the Wesleyan Methodist body, assembled in their quarterly meeting, appealing to the Government to suppress the Slave Trade in its possessions under its East African Protectorate; And, whether, seeing that it is laid down by all authorities that, as is pointed out in the memorial, one of the most effective methods of destroying the Slave Trade is to make railways, the Government will, as soon as the negotiations with the British East Africa Company are completed, proceed with the construction of a railway from Mombasa to Lake Victoria Nyanza.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: When the transactions with the East Africa Company are completed that question will be carefully considered by the Government.

  PRISON CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. C. SHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the fee charged to candidates for prison clerkships has been reduced from £3 to £1 because it has been found that the former amount was fixed too high upon the scale published in the London Gazette of 9th September 1879; and, if so, how is it proposed to compensate those clerks who paid the higher fee for the loss of prospects held out to them as candidates.
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: Candidates before 1891 paid a fee of £3 because there were posts in the Department of the maximum value of £400 and upwards to which they could be promoted without further certificate. This rule still holds good for such clerks. There has been no loss of prospects, and there can be no question of compensation. In 1891 the fee was reduced to £1, because clerks since appointed cannot be promoted to the higher posts without the issue of a fresh certificate and the payment of a fresh fee.

  SCHOOL BOARD RATE.
  MR. ARCHIBALD GROVE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, pending a general

  1297
  re-adjustment of the incidence of the School Board Rate, he could advise the extension of Clause 97 of the Education Act, 1870, by which poor localities with an exceptionally low rateable value are relieved from the Consolidated Fund?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (MR. A. H. D. ACLAND, York, W.R.,: This is a matter which would involve legislation. Pending the inquiry which is being made in the Department on this subject, I am not able to say whether the extension of this clause can be recommended.

  ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, with regard to the position of the Factories Bill, which is the sixth item of Government business on the Paper today. It is whether on the last occasion when he was publicly asked in the House whether it would be taken before Easter, in order that it might be referred to the Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman stated that it would be taken to-day, and whether it is now intended that the three Scotch Bills and the Light Railways Bill should stand before it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, that I had the expectation and the intention of putting the Factories Bill down for tonight. But we will put it down as the first order on the Monday the House reassembles. No time will in that way be lost; the Bill will be as far forward as if the Second Reading had been taken to-day.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state now on what day the Budget will be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The day I should fix, though I do not wish to be finally bound to it, would be Thursday, May 2nd.
  MR. G. J. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to secure the First Reading of the Crofters Bill to-night?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As far as I am concerned, certainly.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the second and third orders on the day on which the House meets? In the event of the Crofters Bill and the other Scotch Bills not being reached to-night, will they come on as a matter of course?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Our object is to proceed as much as possible with Bills which may be considered non-controversial. I should, therefore, propose after the Factories Bill, to take such Bills, for instance, as the Fatal Accidents (Scotland) Bill, which, I believe, is non-contentious, the Truck Acts Amendment Bill, and the Coal Mines Bill.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Fatal Accidents (Scotland) Bill will be opposed, and will he take into consideration the fact that in order to be in their places on Monday Scotch Members will have to leave their homes on Saturday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We feel that Scotch business is a good deal in arrear, and therefore we are bound to do what we can to forward it, even at the risk of some inconvenience which I am afraid may be caused to hon. Members.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop the discussion on the Naval Works Bill at 11 o'clock to-night in order to enable the Crofters Bill to be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I should very much hope that the discussion will stop before that time, and that there will be plenty of time to introduce the Crofters Bill.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: If the discussion should continue, will the right hon. Gentleman suspend it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is very necessary to get the Second Reading of the Naval Works Bill to-night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman without inconvenience tell us what business he proposes to take on the Thursday after the meeting of Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have been asked by the late Secretary to the Admiralty to give an opportunity on Vote 8 of the Naval Estimates for a discussion of the question of boilers, and though I cannot pledge myself at this time, my contemplation is that we might give such an opportunity on the Thursday after the meeting of the House.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked whether the Coal Mines Bill was likely to be distributed to Members to-day or to-morrow. Last night it was not printed.
  MR. ASQUITH: It will be in the hands of the Members to-morrow.

  New Writ issued for the City of Oxford v. the late Sir G. Chesney.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

  THE EASTER ADJOURNMENT.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMoved, "That this House, at its rising to-morrow, do adjourn until Monday, April 22nd."
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby), rose, amid general cheers, to move, first:—
  "That the thanks of this House be given to Mr. Speaker for his distinguished services in the Chair for more than 11 years; that he be assured that this House fully appreciates the zeal, ability, and impartiality with which he has discharged the duties of his high office through a period of unusual labour, difficulty, and anxiety, and the judgment and firmness with which he has maintained its privileges and dignity; and that this House feels the strongest sense of his unremitting attention to the constantly increasing business of Parliament, and of his uniform urbanity which have secured for him the respect and esteem of this House."
  And, secondly:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her Royal favour upon the right hon. Arthur Wellesley
  1300
  Peel, Speaker of this House, for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House; and to assure her Majesty that whatever expense her Majesty shall think proper to be incurred upon that account, this House will make good the same."
  He said: Sir,—When 11 years ago the House of Commons, with a happy prescience, invited you to occupy that Chair you addressed us in memorable words, which made a deep impression at the time, and which those who heard them have not forgotten and will not forget. You said:—
  "I know how necessary it is for any man who aspires to till up that great office to lay aside all that is personal, all that is of party, all that savours of political predilection, and to subordinate everything to the great interests of the House at large to maintain not only the written law, but, if I may say so, that unwritten law which should appeal to, as it always does appeal to, the minds and consciences of the gentlemen of the House of Commons, to promote and to hand on unimpaired the traditions of this House, and over and above all its most cherished and inestimable traditions—I mean, Sir, that personal courtesy, that interchange of chivalry between Member and Member, which I believe to be compatible with the most effective party debates and feelings, and which, I am sure, is one of the oldest and, I humbly trust, may always be the most cherished tradition of this great representative assembly."
  [Cheers.] We are here to-day, to bear witness that these honourable pledges you have most honourably fulfilled. [Loud cheers.] It has been said, and truly said, that in no other country is there anything that corresponds to the position of the Speaker of the English House of Commons. It is without an exact parallel anywhere. What is it we require of a Speaker? They are qualities not common in their single excellence; most rare in their happy combination. We expect dignity and authority, tempered by urbanity and kindness; firmness to control and persuasiveness to counsel; promptitude of decision and justness of judgment; tact, patience, and firmness; a natural superiority combined with an inbred courtesy, so as to give by his own bearing an example and a model to those over whom he presides; an impartial mind, a tolerant temper, and a reconciling disposition; accessible to all in public and private as a kind and a prudent counsellor. These are high and exacting

  1301
  demands, and in you, Sir, we have found them all fulfilled. [Loud cheers.] No one who has not spent his nights and days in the House of Commons can estimate the weight of the public care which falls upon the Speaker, the perpetual labour and the constant anxiety of that great post. The changes which have been made in our procedure during your term of office, have added greatly to its responsibilities. The real authority of the Speaker rests absolutely on the confidence of the House [Cheers.] That confidence you have earned, and that authority you have exercised to your high honour and our great advantage. [Cheers.] You have won from all the meed, not only of reverence and respect, but of esteem and affection—[cheers]—and the severance of the ties which have bound you to this House and this House to you is to us a subject of poignant and of lasting regret. We know well that the weighty duties of your office makes great demands, not only upon mental power, but physical resource. It is with deep regret we learn that your strength is no longer equal to the strain. We trust that on your retirement from that chair you will still have many years of future happiness and health—[loud cheers]—which we feel assured will still be given to public usefulness and your country's good. As we shall cherish the recollection of the services which you have rendered, it will be a satisfaction to you to know that those services are duly valued by this great Assembly, of which you have been so long the chief and the ornament. You will feel in the days that are to come, that you have added fame to a name among the most illustrious in the annals of the House of Commons—[loud cheers]—and that you have exalted the dignity of a station the highest to which an English gentleman can be called It has been said that the memory of the departed who have deserved well of their country is a possession for ever, and the House of Commons, when you have left it, will enshrine the record of your Speaker ship among its purest and its noblest traditions. [Loud and prolonged cheers.]—The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Speaker,—The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has moved in the customary form of words our sense
  1302
  of the great services which you have rendered to this House, and in associating myself with him by seconding the resolution I feel that I am only expressing sentiment which every one of my hearers feels, that never before has this ancient formula been charged with such an amount of feeling as it is charged with on the present occasion. [Loud cheers.] We are going through no formal or merely complimentary ceremony this afternoon, but we are expressing from the very depths of our hearts feelings which far transcend the powers of expression which we may possess, and which, if they could be expressed, would hardly be fitting for an occasion of this kind. Sir, as the Leader of the House has just reminded us, you have held office during a period in which the future fate, as I think, of this House hung in the balance. The 11 years during which you have held office have been years of great change in this Assembly. There has been in those 11 years one great Reform Bill passed, the greatest Reform Bill since the Reform Bill of 1832; there have been great changes in the constitution of Parties; there have been questions mooted among us which have raised, necessarily raised, to fever heat Party passion; and, above all, there have been changes in our rules which have thrown upon you, Sir, responsibilities shared by none of your predecessors. [Cheers.] Sir, the Administration which proposed those changes and the House which accepted them were deeply conscious at the time that they were taking upon themselves no light responsibility, and were, it might be, in their desire to increase the efficiency of this Assembly, throwing upon the holder of your office a weight which it was impossible to bear; and many were the prophecies, made in no pessimistic spirit, that it would be impossible in the future for the Speaker to be, as he had ever been in the past, the impartial mouthpiece not of one Party only, but of the sense of the House taken as a whole. Sir, those prophecies have not been fulfilled. [Cheers.] Through the great qualities which you have displayed that crisis in our history has been safely passed, and I trust that no similar crisis is ever likely to arise, for it has been given to you, Sir, to show in the Chair that kind of authority which no rules

  1303
  and no privileges can give, which cannot be conferred even by the support of the House, but which must be inborn in the man who exercises it—[cheers]—and which shows the kind of genius appropriate to the great place which you fill. May it, Sir, be our lot in the future to find men, as in turn each holder of the Chair resigns his office, who, I will not say will equal you, but who will approach you at all events in the exercise of this incommunicable gift. [Cheers.] I cannot sit down without adding to this testimony of the great public service which you have rendered the expression of the personal feeling of grief which animates us all at the inevitable severance now so near. [Cheers.] For it will be said of you, Sir, not merely that you have occupied a great place in the long line of illustrious Speakers, perhaps the greatest place for many generations past—[cheers]—but it will also be said of you that each individual Member of the House found in you a kind and considerate guide—[cheers]—and that you carried with you in your retirement not merely the respect and the admiration of all who have watched your great career, but also the love and the affection of every single Member of that great Assembly whose interests you have served so well. [Loud and prolonged cheering.]
  MR. SPEAKERput the Resolution formally.
  MR. J. M'CARTHY, who was received with cheers, said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Irish Nationalist colleagues in this House and for myself, I desire to say that we associate ourselves most gladly with the well-earned tribute which the House of Commons is about to offer to you for your splendid services in the Speaker's Chair. ["Hear, hear."] We cannot but remember at a time like this, and if we could have forgotten it your own words yesterday would have recalled to our memory that when you first mounted the Speaker's chair it was what you yourself in a most expressive phrase yesterday called a time of "storm and stress." It was a time of storm and stress for you; still more perhaps for myself and for my colleagues. But we have learned to know each other better since that time, and I am now glad to say, proud to say, on behalf of all my friends in this House, that we
  1304
  recognise your absolute impartiality [loud cheers], as well as all the many other exalted qualities which you have displayed in the Speaker's Chair. Many and many of us have had to consult you on questions of order and to appeal to you for counsel and guidance, and we have always been received by you in the kindliest fashion, and have been given the most willing advice. We have been received by you as comrades, if I may adopt your own enchanting expression in your speech yesterday. [Cheers.] Mr. Speaker, you were born to an illustrious name; you have added to that name a new and peculiar lustre. [Cheers.] I will only say, speaking for all the Nationalist Members for whom I am entitled to speak, that every Nationalist Irishman in this House will remember your past with the highest honour, and offers to you now the most cordial wishes for your future. [Loud cheers.]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to add two or three words only, and I wish to do so lest silence should possibly be misconstrued, and lest it should be thought that any party, or any section of any party, in this House was indifferent to the services which you, Sir, have rendered or ungrateful to you for them. My friends and myself accept most willingly the words that have fallen from the leader of the House and the leader of the Opposition as our spokesman on this occasion, and we desire to associate ourselves with all that they have said. We recognise with them that the functions of the Chair will have been exercised in recent times in circumstances of increasing difficulty, anxiety, and labour. As had been said by the Leader of the House, these circumstances have called for the manifestations of great qualities, the possession of any one of which in its highest degree would be unusual, but the combination of all of which could hardly have been expected from a single personality. [Cheers.] Sir, I think it is the universal sense of this House that you have shown that remarkable combination ["Hear, hear!"], and that you have accompanied it with unfailing kindness to all of us who have, at any time, found it necessary to seek your assistance and advice. ["Hear, hear!"] We feel that you have added lustre to the

  1305
  great position you have occupied. We deeply regret your retirement, and we earnestly trust that you may have before you many years of happiness in which you may enjoy your well-earned and well-deserved repose. [Loud cheers.]
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I trust that the House will not consider it out of place on my part if I ask its permission to add just two or three words to what has already been said in support of this resolution. [Cheers.] It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the real value of this resolution largely depends upon the absolute unanimity with which it will be passed. ["Hear, hear!"] The character of this House has of recent times undergone one remarkable change. Instead of two great parties only existing in the State, to-day this Assembly consists of many sections of many groups of Members with many individual aims and distinct interests of their own. This resolution will, indeed, be a high tribute to the absolute impartiality of the Chair if it receives, as it will receive, the hearty support of every Member of every section in the House. [Cheers.] I belong to, I believe, the smallest group of Members in this House, and on their behalf I desire to be permitted to associate myself with all that has been said in support of this Motion. The authority and impartiality of the Chair are the property of the House at large; they are the guarantee of its continued power and influence in the State; they are in a special manner the safeguard of the minorities—["Hear, hear!"]—and the smaller the minority may be the more need there is for the strong and impartial hand which will protect them from the despotism of majorities and safeguard them in the exercise of their just rights and privileges. ["Hear, hear!"] You, Mr. Speaker, yesterday spoke of having presided over this Assembly during many Sessions, some of them, as we have been reminded, of storm and of stress. It was my fortune to sit as a Member of this House during all those Sessions, and I cannot help remembering that during the whole of that time I sat here as a Member of a Party which was in a minority, and during a considerable portion of that time as a Member of a Party which was
  1306
  in a very small minority indeed. I cannot help remembering also that the storms to which you alluded were storms which raged round the Party to which I belonged, and the cause which I was advocating. Sir, I recognise also that in the past we have more than once been forced by our conception of our duty to utter what seemed a jarring note in the deliberations of this House, and to take action which undoubtedly was distasteful to the sentiments of the majority of its Members. But, looking back now, as I do, over all those years, I can truthfully say it is my belief that on all these occasions, and under every circumstance of excitement and unpopularity in this House we met with, from you, uniform courtesy and impartiality. [Cheers.] The alteration in the procedure of this House put into the hands of the Speaker a new and enormous power. That power, we believe, has been used by you invariably for the protection of the just rights of minorities, and for the maintenance of freedom of debate. [Cheers.] I venture most humbly to express the belief that, should it ever come to pass that the great office of Speaker of the House of Commons should be degraded to the level of a mere partisan office to be scrambled for by successive party majorities in successive Parliaments, not only would the power and prestige of the House of Commons suffer, but those who would suffer most would be those small minorities who must, in the nature of things, look for protection to a strong and impartial occupant of the Chair. [Cheers.] Sir, as a Member of one of those small minorities, I desire to express our deep regret at your resignation of the high office that you have elevated and adorned, our gratitude to you for your unfailing courtesy and fairness to us in many troubled times in the past, and our sincere hope that you may for many years to come enjoy the rewards of your laborious and honourable services. [Cheers.]
  MR. D. NAOROJI: In the peculiar position in which I am placed here I offer to you, Mr. Speaker, my most sincere and heartfelt gratitude for all the kindness and helpful counsel you have always extended to me. [Cheers.]
  MR. SPEAKERaddressed the House as followeth, all the Members being uncovered: I am greatly honoured and deeply touched by the speeches which have been delivered in moving and seconding the Resolution now before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I am not less touched and honoured by the speeches which have been delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Longford, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford City, and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Finsbury. It was my duty yesterday to give such expression as I could to the emotions which were aroused within me by my imminent retirement from this Chair. The fewest words, perhaps, will best befit me to-day. If I use only conventional language in returning thanks for the honour which you do me—which the whole House has done me—[Cheers]—I hope it will be believed that there underlies that merely conventional language a deep and abiding sense of gratitude to this House—a deep acknowledgment of that personal kindness, I would say, which has been shown to me from all quarters of the House—a kindness the expression of which adds perhaps to the poignancy of my feelings and accentuates my regret on leaving the Chair, but the memory of which will after a short time mitigate, I am sure, to me the inevitable pain of parting. [Cheers.] I desire respectfully to thank you. [Loud Cheers.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg to move that it be entered in the Journals of the House that this motion was carried nemine contradicente. [Cheers.] I also have to move that—
  "The thanks of this House be given to Mr. Speaker for what he has said to the House, and that the same be printed in the Votes of this day and entered on the Journals of the House."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURformally seconded the Motion.
  Motion agreed to unanimously.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have now, Sir, to make
  1308
  the second Motion which stands on the paper, namely—
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her Royal favour upon the Right Honourable Arthur Wellesley Peel, Speaker of this House, for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House; and to assure Her Majesty that, whatever expense Her Majesty shall think proper to be incurred upon that account, this House will make good the same."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to second that.
  Motion carried unanimously amid loud cheers.

  NAVAL WORKS BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, the Bill that they had in their hands dealt entirely with the great works which were being carried out in connection with the needs of the Navy. They were concerned with the new works at Gibraltar and Portland, and also a certain number of important matters of another character, such as the alteration of some of the larger dockyards. He thought that, so far as the works at home were concerned, the judgment of the Admiralty was sound in what they proposed to do. He thought the alterations and additions to Portland were of greater importance than the proposals as to the harbour at Dover. It was not necessary to enter into the question as to whether these strategical matters were desirable; no one who had given any attention to the matter would dispute that we must have large harbours for our men of war equipped against the attack of torpedo boats, and that was at the bottom of these proposals. He could not help thinking that Portland, excellent harbour as it was, lay a long way to the east, and experience seemed to show that it would be very essential to have some harbour westward of it. Plymouth Harbour was, of course, largely closed in by the Breakwater; but the entrances to Plymouth Sound were now extremely large, and would, he thought, constitute a danger in time of war. The distance

  1309
  between the north end of Plymouth Breakwater and the nearest point of the shore was nearly half a mile, and the distance was nearly the same on the south side; and although this considerable entrance was not available to large ships, it was available to torpedo boats, and he would very much like to know from the Civil Lord if this matter had been under consideration at the Admiralty, and whether the necessity of a harbour secure against torpedo boats further westward than Portland had been considered. In regard to Gibraltar, during past years two schemes had been proposed very like that now unfolded to them, and one of these was, that a harbour should be made on the east side of the rock. It was fair to assume that the Admiralty had come to their present conclusion after careful consideration. He pointed out, however, that during recent years the range of guns had enormously increased, and a distance of four or five miles could be covered by every modern gun. The consequence was, that if two or three guns were put up on the hills at a distance of four miles, undoubtedly they could throw shells into the harbour that was to be constructed at Gibraltar. Such guns, of course, might be dislodged by land forces, but it appeared to him to be very doubtful whether they were right in spending this large amount of money upon a part of Gibraltar which was within the range of guns. He could not help thinking that to incur the greater expense of establishing a harbour on the east side of Gibraltar might, perhaps, be the wiser policy. He should be glad to hear that this subject was being carefully considered by the Government. He believed there was no possible chance of our being at war with Spain, but the history of the past two centuries showed that whenever we had been at war, either with France or Spain, the other country had been dragged in. He did not propose to criticise the financial proposals of the Government, and he did not think it really mattered two straws whether amounts of money of this sort should be voted in the Estimates or by a Bill. It had a little startled hon. Members on that side of the House at first to find that Gentlemen who had criticised their action some years ago, should after such a short lapse of time propose practically
  1310
  the same method of raising their money, and he could only say that their action now certainly did not harmonise with their criticism of some years ago.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he did not desire to enter into any detailed examination of the works proposed to be constructed, but to examine the principle which underlies this Bill, and the method by which the Government proposed to give effect to it. On the Conservative side of the House they had given the Government hearty support in increasing the strength of the Navy. But when they understood that the Government proposed to take a certain portion of the expenditure which had hitherto fallen on the Annual Estimates out of the Estimates, and to expedite the work by raising money on loan, they were surprised, and now wished to examine the methods and principles on which the money was to be raised and continuously applied. This question of finance was really not an Admiralty, but a Treasury question, and therefore any criticism of his would not be directed against the Admiralty or the Naval Lords. Whenever any large expenditure was taken out of the Annual Estimates, and the Government of the day had recourse to loans or terminal annuities to defray it, they did so on one plea only, urgency. The first condition which should underlie a Bill such as this was that if it was worth while to construct works out of loan, there should be a time limit within which works so commenced should be finished. Then, when the House was asked to adopt exceptional procedure, it should be in possession of the total cost of the work which the Government proposed to take in hand. Another condition, quite as important as the other two, was that if the Bill was an annual Bill, and only met a portion of the expenditure, a statutory injunction should be imposed on future Chancellors of the Exchequer that when the money was exhausted another Bill would be brought in to provide more. Every one of these conditions was wanting in this Bill. He believed that no Bill to commence works out of loan in which these three conditions were wanting had been successful. He believed the Bill was based on the Fortifications Act of 1860

  1311
  and subsequent Acts of Lord Palmerston's Government. Under no series of Acts had there been so much waste of expenditure. The history of those Acts was remarkable. The works proposed were in excess of what were proposed now. But Lord Palmerston had great advantages in floating his policy. He had just come into office with a large majority, and the relations between England and France were strained. The Volunteer Movement, which had attained such proportions, sprung up, and great pressure was put on the Government to devise an adequate scheme of fortifications. Lord Palmerston stated that the expenditure he wished to incur was 11 millions, and that the expenditure had been examined by experts. He asked the House to vote two millions in the first year, and the remaining nine millions in subsequent years. The plea under which Lord Palmerston induced the House of Commons to adopt his proposals was that all expenditure necessary would be found in three or four years, and the works would be completed. In the first Bill Lord Palmerston produced all the conditions he had alluded to as necessary were wanting. A year after that Bill was introduced Lord Palmerston was asked whether he intended to bring in another Bill. Another Bill was brought in in 1862, but the proposed expenditure was reduced to £6,900,000. The House of Commons objected to the Bill. There were many divisions. The Government were nearly defeated, and they had to insert in the schedule full details of expenditure up to date, the amount spent in the year, and other sums required. This schedule the House of Commons forced on the Government, and substituted it for the schedule in the Bill. A year after a Bill continuing these fortifications was introduced. Things went on until 1869, when Lord Cardwell brought in a final Bill. Nine years after Lord Palmerston brought in his Bills the fortifications were in no way completed, and Lord Cardwell's Bill was to provide:—
  "The final sum necessary to be raised on loan for carrying on the work now in course of construction for the protection of the Royal Arsenal and Dockyard, and authorising the abandonment of that portion of the work already sanctioned by Parliament which has not been commenced."
  Lord Cardwell further explained that his
  1312
  Bill was founded on this principle, that the loan works should be brought to a final close not exceeding the estimate contained in the last Act of Parliament, that all works not already commenced, as far as loans were concerned, should be abandoned; and the works begun were to be utilised as much as possible, and completed as economically as possible. For 20 years the forts intended to be erected were useless, until the late Mr. Stanhope took the matter up in earnest, and brought in an Act by which funds were found necessary to arm these forts. After the waste of money incurred by the procedure adopted over the Fortifications Bill, the House would be much to blame if it adopted a similar Measure now. His object was to suggest certain alterations which the Government should make. Let the exact dimensions of the scheme be thought out and put into an Act of Parliament; let them ensure that the works necessary should be pushed on with expedition, and let the expenditure as far as those works were concerned be final. The late Government, in the cases of the Imperial Defence Act, the Barracks Act, and the Naval Defence Act, gave a full schedule of the total expenditure; in the Naval Defence Act they put a time limit; and each Defence Act they contrived so that it was complete in itself, and it was not necessary to come to Parliament for more money for the completion of the scheme. What were the statements in connection with this Bill? Last year the Government very properly undertook a much larger expenditure in connection with works than they incurred in the preceding year. At the time he pointed out that the sum put upon the Estimates was quite insufficient to meet the proposed expenditure; and the Civil Lord gave him a return by which it was shown that there would be a large increase in connection with the works over and above the Estimates. Since then, however, the Government had adopted fresh proposals. Last year's proposals involved an expenditure of £4,266,000, and the new proposals of this year a further expenditure of £4,315,000, making a total of £8,581,000. It was shown, however, by the return that only £1,300,000 of the expenditure was for works that were in any way included in this Bill, so that there remained a sum of £3,000,000 for works

  1313
  that were not touched by this Bill, these being Dover Harbour, Hongkong Dockyard extension, and Portsmouth Barracks. The first question that arose therefore was—Are those works part of the Government scheme or are they not? They had all known that the Navy Estimates must be largely added to, and he had calculated the increase at £2,000,000, but he doubted whether the revenue would stand it. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer found that it would, he increased the expenditure which the proposals of last year entailed and determined to meet a portion of it by means of a loan. Therefore it was necessary to have a clear and definite statement whether the new proposals mentioned in the return were part and parcel of the Government scheme, and, if they were, why they were not included in this Bill. A Bill of this kind, unless the House dealt very carefully with it, practically took away from the House all control over the works which were included in it, save by vote of censure, whilst, if they were charged upon the annual Estimates, they were subject every year to criticism in Committee of Supply. The way to secure a continuous naval and military policy was to get the consent of Parliament to a scheme to be continuously prosecuted; and the danger was that it was possible in a time of pressure for one determined Minister or Department to thwart the deliberate intention of the country, for which there was no redress but moving a Vote of Censure. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be ready to meet objections and to insert a clause which would make it imperative on the Government next year and in subsequent years to go on voting money until the works were completed. Then there ought to be a full schedule of all the expenditure as in the Fortification Act of 1862, showing the character of the work, the expenditure already incurred, the outlay to be incurred within the year, and an estimate of the remaining outlay. Lastly, they ought to have, if possible, some time limit. He did not know whether it would be necessary to pass an Instruction to the Committee in order to bring the Amendments he suggested within the scope of the Bill. His only desire was to adopt the best method of procedure, associated with the best safeguards ex
  1314
  perience could suggest, and then to pass a Bill the operation of which should be automatic, progressive and final, and should not result in another of those fiascoes which had characterised their procedure in the past.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he desired to acknowledge the courtesy and fairness with which the noble Lord had dealt with the matter; but as regarded the form of the Bill there was a fundamental difference between the noble Lord and the Government. The noble Lord assumed that the only justification for a loan depended upon the urgency of the expenditure; whereas the Government thought that the true distinction between loans and votes should be whether the expenditure was permanent or temporary in character. That was why he drew a clear distinction between the Barracks Act and the Naval Defence Act. Their contention always had been that it was not proper to resort to loans for things that perished in the using, and that they should be reserved for permanent works. He had always held the doctrine that you might equalise annual expenditure in respect of public buildings and their sites by a well-regulated system of loans, and therefore he had never raised any objection to loans for permanent works. The Reports of the Debates would show that they on that side of the House did not offer any opposition to loans for barracks; but they did object to loans not being limited to such expenditure. Therefore he was not at one with the noble Lord as to the matter of urgency being the ground of discrimination. There was no pretence for saying that the fortifications, localisation, and barracks building schemes were regarded as matters of urgency, to be done in a short time, but the Naval Defence Act did rest upon urgency; and they did not object to resorting to loans for the permanent works. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time himself took the distinction; he said that he drew a clear distinction between works that were of a permanent character and those that were not. Speaking on the Imperial Defence Act on May 15, 1888, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "He was glad the hon. and learned Gentleman had called attention to the subject, because

  1315
  it enabled him to say once more and most clearly, that the present proposal of the Government could not be drawn into a precedent for building ships by means of loans. He should himself very much deplore the fact if this were in any way turned into a precedent for meeting the needs of the year by means of a loan. He should always adhere to the principle that the needs of the year should be met out of the revenue of the year."
  The reason why he thought it was desirable to have a loan in the case was not on account of urgency, but on account of the permanent character of the work. Then, as to the question of a time limit, there was no time limit in the Barracks Act; there was certainly no time limit in the Localisation of Forces Act, which extended over a great number of years; there was no time limit in the Fortifications Bill; and even in the Naval Defence Bill of the noble Lord the time limit did not answer its purpose, and he had to introduce Bills to extend the time. Therefore, he did not think the argument for a time limit was a strong argument. There was one other point the noble Lord took, and that was, that the House should be informed of the total cost. No doubt the House ought to be informed of the total cost of works on which they embarked; but the question was, whether the total cost of the works was to be put in a Bill. The ground the noble Lord took was, that it would bind future Governments and future Parties. That was exactly the very thing to which he had always objected, and always should object. It was not right to bind future Governments and Parties in these matters. What right had the House to bind future Governments? That was the very question which was fought out in the year 1862, when the Fortifications Bill was brought in. The strict limitation in the Bill of the expenditure for the particular year was the doing of a Conservative Opposition. Those fortifications, at that time, were thought to be very valuable, and everybody now admitted them to be practically of no use whatever; therefore, if any obligation had been imposed on future Governments, they would have been compelled to spend millions on works which would have been totally useless. He wished to point out what was the principle for which Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir George Lewis con
  1316
  tended on that occasion, and on which the Bill was framed. Sir Stafford Northcote, in 1862, introduced a Schedule into the Bill. What was the object of that Schedule? It was to confine the Government in the strictest possible way to the expenditure for that year, and to prevent the Government from spending one single farthing beyond the necessities of the cost incurred in that year, on the very ground that no future Parliament and no future Government should be bound by anything beyond that done during the current year. Sir Stafford Northcote, on July 10th, 1862, in moving his Amendment, said:—
  "It provided that it should not be lawful to apply to any work any greater sum than that set down in the Schedule as the total estimated cost of the work. He then wished to provide that the Government should not be at liberty to make any contract involving a greater expenditure than the sum set down for the first year, for the works in the same district."
  The Government had not gone so far. Stafford Northcote went on:—
  "There were two objects in view. One was to limit the expenditure to the present year, by insisting on a correct and real appropriation of the money; and secondly, to limit the power of the Government to bind the House by contract, so as to put it out of the power of the House in the next year to act freely in the matter."
  Then again:—
  "All the reasons which prevailed on the House in 1860, not only to sanction a considerable expenditure, but to sanction the objectionable practice of meeting the expenditure by borrowing money, were now crumbling to dust. The main object in his proviso was this, to recover the control with which the House of Commons ought never to have parted."
  That was the object of the framework of the Fortifications Bill in the year 1862. What the noble Lord asked was, that they should say to future Parliaments that they were bound by the decisions of this Parliament.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No; what I want to prevent is, that any Minister shall upset a policy without bringing in a Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had another very great objection to that. The moment expenditure of this kind was put into a Statute, they removed from the House of Commons the control over expenditure. There might be an enormous majority in the House of Commons differing from a former policy, and

  1317
  desiring to stop the expenditure upon it, but if the suggestion of the noble Lord were adopted, they might be giving a veto over the authority of the House of Commons, with reference to public expenditure, to the House of Lords. That was, to his mind, a fundamental objection to a policy of this character. It would be a matter of really vital importance to bind any future Parliament on a question of this kind; and to leave the question whether the House of Commons in a future Parliament was to deal with it or not to the House of Lords was, in his opinion, not a sound policy. That was the reason why the Government had adopted the course they had taken. It was dictated by Mr. Disraeli and Sir Stafford Northcote in 1862. It was followed on that occasion, and they were very careful to maintain the control of the House of Commons over the expenditure of the country, whether it were in the form of a loan or in the form of Annual Estimates. Therefore, he could not accept the principle of the noble Lord that the Bill ought to be framed so as to oust the financial jurisdiction of the House of Commons in future years. He did not think the House need be in the least alarmed lest there should be any danger of the House of Commons being unwilling to support the necessities of the Navy.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: We are not afraid of the House of Commons. It is the Government we are afraid of.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERasked, what need was there to be afraid of the Government. After all, the Government had to be afraid of House of Commons. Therefore, any alarm on that ground was, to his mind, chimerical. Accordingly, he could not agree to the principle of the noble Lord that a loan was founded on urgency, and not on the permanency of the works. He could not agree to the time limit because, in his opinion, works were much more necessary at one time than at others, and, therefore, to bind themselves to time, showed a distrust of the House of Commons and a distrust of the Government of the day—a distrust that they would not be always ready to keep works of this kind going at times when they considered it necessary for the advantage and protection of the country.
  1318
  If the noble Lord thought that the more elaborate schedule proposed in 1862 by Sir Stafford Northcote would be more satisfactory, he did not think that much objection would be raised to it; but this would be a question to discuss in Committee. The noble Lord asked whether the Government considered that they were binding themselves to these new works. Certainly the intention of the Government was to carry out these works. He had always held a very strong opinion that Dover, commanding both the North Sea and the Channel, was of all places in the world the place where there ought to be a harbour. He was now anxious, and always had been anxious, to see a Government harbour at Dover; and therefore he was willing to say that the Government were as much in earnest about Dover as any other part of the scheme. That was the view of the Government, and he hoped the noble Lord would consider it to be a satisfactory statement. The Government would be willing to enter into a fair discussion on any alteration of the Bill in Committee; but at present he must state the reasons why he could not accept some of the canons which had been laid down by the noble Lord.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid, that in view of the very unfair and shabby treatment accorded to Haulbowline in the present Bill, he thought that he would be neglecting his duty as representing the constituency in which that neglected dockyard was situated if he failed to take this opportunity to press for some definite statement as to the precise proportion of the money to be voted by the Bill which it was intended to expend there. He greatly feared, judging from past experience, that the Irish share of the grant would be an exceedingly small one, because he regretted to say that it appeared to be the settled policy of the Admiralty to ignore the claims of their only Irish dockyard. He considered that he was justified in making the assertion because, although since the present Government had been in office the Annual Naval Expenditure had increased by about £4,500,000, Haulbowline had reaped little or no benefit from this additional expenditure, while vast sums had been, or were about to be, expended on British

  1319
  dockyards. It was an undeniable fact, almost a shameful one, that of each £100 contributed by the unfortunate Irish taxpayers towards the maintenance of the Imperial Navy, the handsome proportion of about half a sovereign was considered to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the only Government dockyard in the country. In addition to the £1,000,000 which it was proposed to expend, no less than £4,465,000 was to be spent on dockyard work during the current financial year, and of this sum the magnificent total of £7,163 was to be devoted to the needs of Haulbowline, or considerably less than a six-hundredth part of the outlay, towards which Ireland would be called upon to contribute about one-twelfth. When he asked the Civil Lord a question on the subject the other day, he was referred to the Navy Estimates, and those were the facts which the Estimates told—facts of which every Englishman ought to feel ashamed. He challenged the Civil Lord to say that such a division of Imperial expenditure between an impoverished country and a wealthy one was either equitable or just. It could only be defended on the principle that might was right, and that was not the spirit in which Liberal statesmen desired to act towards Ireland any longer. Not one of the important works recommended by the naval officials at Haulbowline towards the proper equipment of this dockyard, even for repairing purposes, had been adopted by the Admiralty. Was it not an absurdity as well as a scandalous waste of public money to maintain a staff of officials for the mere purposes of calculating abstruse specifications and drawing up elaborate plans of works which it was apparently never intended to construct? There was a suspicion also—he feared a well-founded one—that even the miserable sums voted for Haulbowline were not all expended there; and he asked for a specific assurance on that point. It was a curious circumstance that when he visited this dockyard shortly before last Christmas there was little or no appearance even of a beginning having been made with either of the important works towards which £1,000 had been voted last year; and when he asked a question on this subject
  1320
  two months ago, he was told that those buildings had not been hurried during the summer on purpose to avoid the necessity of discharging the workmen in the autumn and the winter. But he found it exceedingly difficult to reconcile that statement with the information furnished to him by the naval officials at Haulbowline on the occasion of the visit referred to. It was to the effect that over 100 men had been discharged from Haulbowline since the summer. Why? Because there was no money to pay them; and many of these men were dismissed at a time when very severe distress prevailed at Queens-town. He regretted to say that he unavailingly brought the painful circumstance to the notice of the Civil Lord. One of the strongest motives that impelled him to press the claims of Haulbowline to a fair and reasonable share of this grant was because it would give employment to those deserving and hardly-treated men. He hardly thought that in the present condition of this dockyard it was possible for the Admiralty to adhere to the undertaking given by them last year that ships on the Irish station should in future be repaired there. He feared from what he had heard that this promise had not been very strictly carried out, and he would press the Civil Lord to give some satisfactory undertaking on that point. The attitude which successive Boards of Admiralty had adopted towards Haulbowline was a mystery and puzzle to every Irishman. The Naval Authorities did not appear to realise that they possessed in Queens-town the finest harbour in Europe, and the only port of refuge for ships disabled in the Bay of Biscay, or for ships injured during the Autumn Naval Manœuvres on the Irish coast. The basins had been constructed at a cost of nearly three-quarters of a million and only required a slight outlay to render them serviceable and efficient. No doubt there were certain difficulties in the way of converting Haulbowline into a building yard, but from an Imperial standpoint it would be an inestimable advantage if it could be properly equipped as a first-rate repairing yard. The Admiralty would never wake up to the importance of this question

  1321
  until some battleship went to the bottom in attempting to cross the Channel in a leaky condition. The standing excuse for neglecting Haulbowline was that there was already more dockyard accommodation than was required; but the contents of this Bill shattered that excuse to atoms. He earnestly appealed to the Admiralty to follow no longer the old bad and dishonest policy of their predecessors in this matter, and to rise superior to the temptation to purchase English dockyard votes with money properly belonging to Ireland, Finally, he desired to express his acknowledgments and thanks for the benefit conferred on the south of Ireland by the decision to establish a training ship on that coast.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that, thanks to the courtesy of the Civil Lord, he had had an opportunity, along with other Members interested in the matter, of inspecting the plans which were the subject of discussion. He could not but observe with immense satisfaction the great progress of public opinion which must have taken place in order that so magnificent and far-reaching a scheme as was specified in those plans should be now within measurable distance of accomplishment. He had not to look back very far to a time when the most sanguine would hardly have dared to hope for such a realisation of their wishes. Only two Sessions ago it was ruled out of order to discuss the question of the Gibraltar Dock on the Dockyard Vote. That state of things was now entirely changed, and it was now realised that a dockyard without a dock was a waste of public money. The speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, although of great interest, would not interest in the highest degree those who regarded this question purely from a Naval and Military point of view. Though it was important that the two sides should adjust their differences as to the financial methods to be employed, that was, not the essential part of the question. The weak point in these proposals was, that there was absolutely no guarantee as to the speed with which the works would be carried out, or as to their initiation at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down the doctrine that it was not
  1322
  advisable or customary for one Parliament to bind another, or for the Vote of one Session to determine the Vote of another. That doctrine was hardly in accordance with well-known facts. He had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer a party to votes which violated that doctrine. The work of shipbuilding must be considered from Session to Session, and even from Parliament to Parliament. The House had a right to ask for some guarantee that this great programme, which had been everywhere hailed as adequate to the necessities of the present time, at any rate, would be translated into reality. In the two most important points—the Hongkong and Dover works—there was no guarantee that they would ever be undertaken. Why should there be any delay? The Chancellor of the Exchequer went back to the bad old argument founded on the statement that works undertaken in Lord Palmerston's time were now useless, and that it was a great pity they were undertaken. He might as well say "Do not insure your house; because my insurance last year and the year before was wasted, my house not having been burnt down." This argument was often used and always to throw dust in the eyes of the people, and to burke the true problem. If these works had to be done, the sooner they were begun and finished the better. Nine millions would be required; and the country wanted value for the money. Surely authority could be given to the responsible Department to go on with the works as fast as possible, with the assurance that the money would be provided as it was wanted. Why should the Hong Kong works wait? Was the outlook so peaceful and satisfactory in the East that the country could afford to let these works slide? No advantage was to be gained by delay either there or at Dover, where a previous survey had accumulated a vast amount of information for the engineering operations. A date had been given for the completion of the Gibraltar works, but he hoped that that was not a fixed and final date. The period, first announced as seven years, had now been reduced to five. If the Civil Lord declared that according to the advice of the most experienced contractors, five years was the shortest period possible for the completion of the

  1323
  works, the House would accept the assurance. But he believed that that period was too long. The works could be begun at, at least, six different points simultaneously; and with regard to the dock, a great portion of it would be blasting work. The great Alpine tunnels afforded some experience of the work of rock excavation by modern appliances. A few weeks on the works of these great tunnels represented the amount of rock excavation which would have to be undertaken above the water-level at Gibraltar in the construction of the dock. He understood that the Government were going to employ their own engineers on the work, and he thought that might be desirable; but he should like to hear the opinion of some great contractor, accustomed to executing works on a large scale, as to whether so long a period as five years was necessary for the completion of the work. At any rate, the works might be initiated more quickly. He hoped that the noble Lord would press for some definite statement of time; and he could assure the Civil Lord that he would meet with nothing but support, both in and out of the House, if he would abandon the plan of making this a matter of dole from year to year. Could the Civil Lord tell them he was absolutely certain that this million sterling would be expended on the works within the time specified, because if he could not, pro tanto, they would waste the money? Until they were completed, the works were of no use at all, and therefore, true economy was either to have the money in our pockets or have the works finished. He was anxious the contractors should be instructed to go on full steam and not be checked for one day till they had done the work and turned it over to the satisfaction of the Government Inspectors.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the financial part of the matter was that which interested him the least, nevertheless, it was undoubtedly most interesting. The Bill provided for the expenditure of 1,000,000 sterling, but the House would, on reference to the statement of the proposed naval works which the Bill was intended to initiate, see that what was proposed was an expenditure of 9,000,000 sterling. One point he wished to make quite clear, and it was that after to-day it would be
  1324
  impossible for the House to discuss the matters connected with one sovereign of the expenditure. When a supplementary Vote was presented, they were always told they could not discuss the principle upon which the original Vote was founded. This was an original Vote, an original vote which involved the expenditure of £9,000,000 sterling. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer was extremely virtuous as to the method by which this money was to be obtained; he was not going to raise money by borrowing. To-night he said: "I am not borrowing in the sense in which I used the term, because I am going to borrow for permanent works." And he distinguished between breakwaters, fortifications, dredging—a less permanent work than dredging he (Mr. T. G. Bowles) really did not know—and ships. Ironclads, the right hon. Gentleman said, were like ladies' bonnets, always getting out of fashion. But were fortifications in any different case? Had not the original fortifications at Portsmouth and Plymouth and Alderney gone entirely out of fashion? Did not breakwaters go out of fashion? All these permanent works were as little permanent as a lady's bonnet. They were, indeed, like a lady's watch, always out of repair and always requiring expenditure. "But," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer: "I am not going to make a loan in the ordinary way; I am going to give you an opportunity every year of controlling this expenditure, and of stopping it if you please, because I am going to submit an Annual Loan Bill." And the First Lord told them in his statement that in this way "the control of Parliament would be effectively maintained over the expenditure." Could it be pretended that the House was to be asked to begin to build to the extent of £9,000,000 sterling, and then, when it had spent £1,000,000 sterling that it could stop the works? On that ground alone, he said that if once they accepted this Bill, they were practically pledged to the whole of the works. It might be that as the works progressed they might not approve of some of them, and when they, the Opposition, had crossed the floor of the House, if ever they did, he might find it necessary to move some reduction of the Vote. He might be told by the

  1325
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover square, or possibly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, that he must resist the Motion, and the right hon. Gentleman would closure him in the name of keeping faith with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer's motto was: "Pay as you go;" but this year it was: "Borrow as you go." Of course they knew how the tremendous change had been brought about. The First Lord of the Admiralty went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and told him he must have the money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had not got it, whereupon the First Lord said: "Then borrow it." Then the usual scene ensued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recalled his marriage vows in which he swore he would never borrow; Don Juan of the Admiralty pressed a little more, and Donna Julia of the Treasury,
  "A little still she strove, and much repented,
  And whispering, 'I will ne'er consent'—consented."
  And having consented she came to the House, renewed her vestal vows, and swore she was no worse than she ought to be, and indeed, a great deal better than the financial prudes who sat on the Front Opposition Bench. Of course they were sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer had lost his financial virtue, but it mitigated their sorrow that he had lost it in the cause of the British Navy. As he had said £9,000,000 sterling was to be spent, £4,000,000 on docks and dredging, £1,000,000 on barracks, and £4,000,000 on torpedo defences. As to the docks and dredging his belief was they were all necesary and proper works to be made, especially the dock at Gibraltar. A great deal of rubbish had been talked about the danger to which that dock would be exposed in time of war. War was an exceptional state, and however open to attack in time of war the dock would always serve its uses in time of peace; and in time of peace, as everybody knew, Gibraltar was filled with cripples from the Mediteranean and Atlantic, and up to this time it had never been able to do any repairs. But the dock would be I equally safe in time of war unless we were at war with Spain. The gallant captain behind him had said that if we
  1326
  went to war with France we should probably get to war with Spain. [Captain BETHELL: "We always have been."] No; the gallant Gentleman forgot the Peninsular campaign, when, together with Spaniards, we drove France out of Spain and contributed so much to the final defeat of Napoleon. It was unlikely we should ever be at war with Spain; but if we were, he doubted whether Spain would be able to do damage to the dock at Gibraltar. The dangers to the dock from hostile attack even from Spanish territory, had beer enormously exaggerated; but even if they existed, he would rather have the dock with all its danger than have no dock at all.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid his criticism was in connection with the alternative scheme.
  Mr. T. G. BOWLESsaid, he now came to the question of barracks, He was at variance with the policy of putting seamen into barracks. He admitted that in these days we did not want so large a proportion of seamen no our men-of-war—he himself was an advocate for replacing a considerable portion of seamen by blue and red marines—but he maintained that the seamen we have must be even more finished seamen than those of old. The whole tendency of this barrack policy was to put an end to seamanship, and to substitute in its place what he would call landsmanship. He, therefore, thought it was a mistaken policy. The next important matter was the torpedo attack works. It was proposed to spend close on four millions on such works——1,000,000 at Gibraltar; £650,000 at Portland; and £2,000,000 at Dover. In saying it he might be thought a shocking naval heretic, but he did not believe in torpedo boats or in torpedo attacks; because, in his opinion, they never could succeed except there was gross carelessness on the part of those attacked, and that was a position in which he hoped our fleet would never be found. He thought those very works would have a tendency to produce that want of vigilance which, in his judgment, was the one condition of success in a torpedo attack. The best policy was to meet torpedo boats with torpedo boats. It was said that the strain on the men would be great if they were exposed to attack by torpedo boats. That was

  1327
  true; but our business was to teach our men to stand that strain. There was a terrible strain on our seamen during the blockade of Toulon for two years; but the men went through it unflinchingly, and at the end proved themselves to be the finest seamen in Europe. It was nonsense at this time of day to propose to remove all strain on our seamen by boxing their ships up inside breakwaters, so that the men could turn in and go to sleep without any apprehension or anxiety. His first objection to this scheme of torpedo defence by the construction of breakwaters at Gibraltar, Portland and Dover was that it meant crowding our ships into places from which it would be difficult for them to get out again. It would, to a large extent, destroy the mobility of the ships. The mobility of a ship was its great virtue. There was no more, helpless thing in the world than a ship at anchor; and the more they tried to keep the torpedo out, the more they would keep the ships in. They would box up the ships, and, therefore, render them the more helpless. His second objection to the scheme was that by gathering the vessels into those places they invited attack. The enemy could fire into the crown of our ships at any of those three places from two or three miles out in the open sea, and the fleet being huddled up together could not return the fire. It should be remembered that at Dover there was a rise and fall of the tide of from 18 to 20 feet, which meant that at low water every vessel would have, between her and the attacking ships outside, a wall of breakwater 20 feet high close to her and masking her guns. That he thought was a most serious matter. His next objection was that whatever defence those breakwaters might be against the present torpedo, they would be no defence at all against the aerial torpedo, which he believed would he greatly developed in time. A further objection was that those places would each require land works and a small army to defend them. In fact, the scheme amounted to this—that breakwater and land forces should do work that would be far better done by the fleet if the fleet were properly handled. The worst thing that could happen to war-vessels was to keep them
  1328
  in a secure place doing nothing or next to nothing. Lord St. Vincent, when in the Tagus in 1796 said, "Inactivity in the Tagus will make cowards of us all." He believed that would be the tendency of those torpedo works, and therefore he considered them mistaken. He hoped the House would bear with him while he proceeded to consider the general question of naval strategy to which he had devoted much time and attention. No one could belittle the importance of the subject. It meant that disposition of our fleet and our stations over all the seas which would enable us to retain our supremacy over all the world; and if mistakes were made in time of peace, dearly would she rue it when the stress of war came upon us. He thought mistakes were being made which would diminish the natural advantages which the kingdom possessed as the centre of naval operations. Those natural advantages were stupendous. Like Tyre, these islands might be said to be seated "in the seat of God in the midst of the sea." We had all the habitable lands—Europe, Asia, Africa, and America—grouped around us, and we stood in the centre of all the naval routes, at the crossing of all the roads, and on eternally interior lines. Our islands were so placed in regard to Europe that we divided North Europe from South Europe; and, as history showed, if both North and South Europe were against us we could prevent them meeting, because in the Straits of Dover we commanded the gate. Yet while thus preventing the junction of our enemies we could maintain free intercourse with out friends, for the western ports of our kingdom must remain open, and could never be blockaded, even though the whole navies of the world joined in the attack. This then brought him to the question of the relative importance of positions for arsenals and dockyards as stations for the main forces of our fleet. As to Gibraltar, he thought it a priceles possession. He, therefore, approved of everything which had been done there with the single exception of the torpedo defences, whose utility he doubted. Here he might say that he marvelled how any man with the slightest pretence to be a student of naval

  1329
  history and naval strategy, could ever recommend the voluntary surrender of the Mediterranean. In the event of war we could not, would not, and should not give it up without a struggle. In that fight we should probably win, but win or lose, fight for it we must. But he was not so confident as to the importance of Dover and Portland. These places were within torpedo-striking distances of the coast of a country which might in conceivable circumstances be hostile to us. But his main objection to them was that they were not places from which our fleet could make the greatest effect upon our enemies. He never contemplated for our fleet a policy of defence. As Blake had said, "Those who would command the sea must always attack," and for attack Dover and Portland were not suitable. Far better places, for all strategical purposes, were Chatham and Plymouth—Chatham to command North Europe, Plymouth to command South Europe, and both combined together, like forceps, to defend the south coast, to close their forces on any attack that might take place between them. Indeed, a better position than even Plymouth, for Naval action, would be (as Lord St. Vincent long ago pointed out as the result of his practical experience) the Scilly Isles, which offered the most splendid position, either for assemblage of convoys, for defence of Ireland, or for attack upon any part of South Europe. For a quarter of the sum the Government proposed to spend on Dover, they could convert those isles into the safest and most ideal strategical position in all Europe. History had shown them that in time, of war it was not at Dover or Portland that their positions must be. As for a harbour of refuge, every seaman must know that Dover was not the right place for it. If they were to have a harbour of refuge, it must be at Dungeness, where they were considerably removed from the Downs. As for a strategic position, he thought that works at Dover, or a naval position which involved the keeping of a great force at Dover, would be not only useless, but positively mischievous. Dover, of course, commended itself to naval landsmen who wanted to have their defences close to them, but it was the greatest mistake to suppose that the naval defence should be, close to the
  1330
  country that required to be defended. They had not forgotten those hosts assembled at Boulogne to invade this country. And how was this country protected from them? Not by anything at Dover or Portland, but it was saved by the fleets which blockaded Brest, Rochfort, Ferrol, and Toulon. It was the action which took place 1,500 miles away at the ports of the enemy which prevented the hosts who, from Boulogne, could look upon the cliffs of Dover, from ever landing upon them. It was not at Dover they wanted their defence, but it was at the ports of the enemy they required their ships. He had ventured to lay these criticisms and considerations before the House. He thought it would be recognised that they were not light criticisms, nor should they be lightly passed over. He might have strengthened them, but, for many reasons, he preferred to remain on general grounds, and to confine them rather to general suggestions. He believed those who considered the subject would agree with him that the true principles of strategy were the same now as they were in Lord St. Vincent's time, with the sole difference that we had a greater advantage than was possessed in Lord Vincent's time in acting on interior lines. These criticisms were serious; he had learned them from the works of great seamen and great masters, and from the lessons taught by their last naval war. He submitted them with all diffidence to the House, and he trusted they would receive from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and from the First Lord, that attention which undoubtedly they deserved.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEwished to direct the attention of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to practical points concerning Dover and Gibraltar. As to Dover, he should not follow the hon. Member for King's Lynn into the strategic considerations, but he would assume that the advisers of the Admiralty were right in what they had recommended as to these works being proceeded with. Having made this assumption then, he must agree with what had been said as to the unwisdom of postponing the works. He desired to know why there was to be such postponement? He rather understood from the Chancellor

  1331
  of the Exchequer that convict labour was to be utilised.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid that was not so.
  SIR C. DILKEwas glad to hear that, and observed that in the original scheme of some years ago it was intended to make strong endeavours to have convicts employed there. But the situation had wholly changed in recent years with regard to convict labour, whilst the machinery employed in making breakwaters was of so delicate a nature that to employ convicts on the work would be waste of time and money. He left that aside, merely asking the ground for the delay in commencing these works at Dover, which he assumed, for the purpose of this discussion, to be necessary works. Whilst the hon. Member for King's Lynn had greatly questioned the wisdom of the works at Dover, he had agreed with every other speaker in admitting the importance of the works at Gibraltar, except as to that relating to the torpedoes, in which he differed from every naval authority. At Gibraltar there was only one dock to be built. The House would remember the patriotic endeavours made by the hon. Member for West Belfast and Sir George Chesney, whose death they all lamented, to bring this question of dock accommodation at Gibraltar before the country and the Government, and they must all be glad at the partial success with which they had met, and which was recognised in this Bill. The importance of the position at Gibraltar—entirely independent of the question of the command of the Mediterranean—could not be overrated, and to have only one dock there was altogether insufficient. In time of war they would need more than one dock, and they must always have war in mind when discussing a Bill of this sort. One dock was a very small provision to make against the chances, or, indeed, the certainties, of future war. The Minister of the French Marine, in the recent debates on the Estimates, recognised the probability that, in the naval engagements of the future, ships on both sides would be crippled, and that the Power which was able to kept a certain number of ships out of the first engagement would be the Power to command the seas after the first day's operations. If British ships, therefore, were fighting at a great
  1332
  distance from home, and probably from Malta, how were they to bring their crippled ships to port for repairs and continue to hold the seas unless they had adequate dock accommodation? It had been said that it would be costly to construct docks on the east side of Gibraltar; but on the western side, even within the limits of the present scheme, there was room not for one dock only but for three, and three docks could be built as fast as one. Even if the larger and more costly and difficult scheme on the east side was not pressed, he urged that the provision of dock accommodation at Gibraltar, which was so urgently needed, should be pushed forward with the greatest possible speed, there being, as he had pointed out, ample space for three docks on the western side, and within the limits of the present scheme.
  MR. G. WYNDHAM, alluding to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, observed that for very many years all men of light and leading in naval matters had regarded Dover as the place at which a national harbour of refuge should be constructed. But he was content, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, to shelter himself behind the assumption that the Government had been well advised in this matter, and to accept the recognition of the necessity for this harbour which had been given so fully and frankly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that Debate. He had a number of arguments and statistics in favour of the importance and urgency of making at Dover a harbour of refuge, but he would discard them and take the admission of the Government. All he asked was, that they would take the next logical step upon those admissions. He had but one point to make—he made it with brevity and with considerable hope. It was that Hong Kong and Dover ought to be mentioned in the schedule of the Bill. Accepting the whole of the Government plan as it stood, he asked them to complete it by filling up the schedule, so that the House should be associated with them in inaugurating a policy which was popular throughout the whole country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had defended his pedantic finance on the ground that he wished to show the greatest reverence

  1333
  for the House of Commons. How could he better show his reverence than by making the House of Commons his colleagues in the inauguration of his great scheme? He knew it had been urged that to publish details about battleships was injurious, but here the Government had published the whole scheme, and yet they would not ask the House to vote the money for it. The House of Commons resented the practice of the spending Departments of taking money allocated to one item and spending it on another, but here the Government deliberately, and of set purpose, went into this scheme meaning to spend the money and yet refused to the House of Commons the right which they claimed of associating themselves with them in this great scheme for defending the British Empire.
  ADMIRAL FIELD, knew that the hon. Member for Dover was not speaking on behalf of his constituents alone, but also having thought out these questions for years on behalf of the Naval Service. For his own part he wished to speak purely from the Naval view. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman opposite, Sir C. Dilke, for his admirable speech, and the first-class suggestion he had made that the Government ought not to limit their action to the one dock at Gibraltar. He was afraid the hon. Member for King's Lynn represented but a small portion of Naval opinion in the views he had put before the House. The hon. Member forgot the changed conditions of naval warfare. In former days officers and men had no fear of a submarine enemy. It was well-known on the part of everybody that, even in the summer manœuvres, the wear and tear on the part of officers and men was almost more than they could endure, and if, during the anxieties and responsibilities of war they could not have a decent night's rest when in harbour, coaling or victualling their ships, they would fill our madhouses—for that was the short and long of it. He wished to emphasise the opinion of the hon. Member for Dover as to the serious mistake of the Government in omitting to include the harbour at Dover. It must have been done intentionally, and it was very strange that, apparently according to Clause 4 of the Bill, the Treasury were to be furnished with a full estimate of the details, but the
  1334
  House of Commons not. He still ventured to hope there would be a proper schedule annexed to the Bill, not necessarily stating that the cost should be confined to the specified amount, but giving the estimated cost of every work contracted for. He thought the Naval barracks might very well wait if there was any financial difficulty to encounter; but he could not see any reason why Hong Kong and Dover should be omitted. So long ago as May 1886 the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the
  "matter [Dover] had been carefully considered by a Committee of the Cabinet, consisting of the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, and the Secretary of State for foreign Affairs; and they had come to the conclusion that the first works that ought to be undertaken were those at Dover."
  Surely the necessity had not become less by the effluxion of time. By the tremendous importance of torpedo warfare, this work indeed had become one of extreme urgency. Unless he heard that the Naval advisers were in favour of the exclusion of Dover from the programme, he would not believe that this had been done with their approval, but rather that it had been done in spite of their disapproval. It was madness to waste time and to hesitate about incurring expenditure when they could readily get the money. Naval men were never afraid of the House of Commons but of the Government, and this was true whichever Government was in power. All Governments were more or less alike in this matter, unless they were heavily squeezed by public opinion pressing on their heels. He did not trouble his head about the manner in which the money was to be found. He did not care about that so long as it was found, but surely in that Bill they should find the probable estimated cost. It might be that the Government of the day would be slack in carrying out that which the previous Government were sincerely desirous of accomplishing. He should not accuse Government of not acting in good faith, but it looked as if they were acting under abnormal pressure, and if that abnormal pressure were removed they might not be so earnest in carrying out that great schemes to maintain their sea power. Why keep form them all the

  1335
  estimated cost of all these works? He thought his noble Friend was justified in all the observations he had made, and particularly as to the "cold fit" which might come on again. They should take steps to make it almost obligatory on the successors of a Government to spend the necessary money, but that was not to be realised, he feared, judging from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nothing had been said justifying the omission of the important works connected with Dover. He hoped everyone who spoke would enforce that contention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the House were the masters. No they were not; they were slaves, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the first to fall foul of any hon. Member who proposed any increase. He, however, should move to put Dover in the Bill and take a Division upon it.
  DR. COMMINShoped that defects in regard to the conveyance of workmen to Haulbowline would be made good. He thought there was inadequate accommodation in this respect.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONexpressed, in the first place, his acknowledgments of the unanimity with which the proposals in the Bill had been received by the House. There had been nothing challenged, and even so few questions had been asked that he had very little to say on behalf of the Admiralty. With regard to Dover, the hon. Member and also the gallant Admiral had left the House, but his hon. Friend was still present, and all he had to say practically was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already marked the limits within which he must be guided. It was not for him to go beyond the lines laid down by his right hon. Friend, but he was sure the spirit of his remarks had been correctly interpreted. As to Dover, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not pledge himself as to the employment of convicts, and his own belief was that it would not be found convenient to employ them. As to the million covered by the Resolution, it would be competent for any Member to introduce a new item by taking an amount from one or more items in the Bill. That, he believed, would be perfectly in order. As to Hong Kong, that was a pure question
  1336
  for Committee. The only dissentient note struck was by the Member for Lynn Regis, who was no longer in his place, and he challenged the barrack policy. They only continued that policy, and it was better from all points of view of discipline and even seamanship that the men should be housed in suitable buildings on shore instead of in hulks, which took up space now wanted. That was the policy of the late and the present Board. As to the financial provisions of the Bill, they had already been dealt with. The hon. Member for East Cork had broached the question of Haulbowline, but the point raised was scarcely germane to the Bill.
  MR. W. O'BRIENsaid, surely they had a right to know in what proportion the money was to be spent?
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, that question was not asked at all.
  MR. W. O'BRIENheld that it had been raised.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, the question referred to was the general administration of Haulbowline. The dredging of Hawlbowline meant the cutting of a new channel, and could, therefore, be properly described as permanent works. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean suggested that, instead of one dock, two or even three docks should be made at Gibraltar. The disposition of the House towards the Bill was that of "asking for more," and his right hon. Friend's suggestion would be taken into consideration. The hon. Member for the Holderness Division expressed the opinion that the harbour at Gibraltar should have been made on the east side. But the proposal now made had been carefully considered, and it was the unanimous opinion of the Board of Admiralty that the wiser course was to proceed with the extension of the present dockyard accommodation.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLasked whether the Admiralty had considered the dangers that might arise on that side of Gibraltar in time of war.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, the best naval and military opinion was that the desirability of these works counterbalanced any dangers that might exist. The question of a more westerly harbour than Portland had not been considered, and he could not, therefore, express any

  1337
  opinion upon it. He concluded by asking the House to allow the Second Reading to be taken now, and said that if they did so they might be able to get rid of certain other Bills to-night, and thus give on the first Monday after Easter an opportuntiy for discussing Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates, on which a great many questions were likely to be raised.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, it was rarely that the House had before it questions of greater moment to the country than those involved in this Bill. The majority of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were rejoiced at finding that the Government were alive to the necessity and importance of the great works of defence and of naval construction provided for in the measure, and for this reason they were disposed to pass over lightly the inconsistency and paradox which were involved in the present proposals of the Government. For his own part he regarded the Bill as a triumph of the Imperial idea. It marked the complete overthrow of the Party which had been known under various names, as peace-at-any-price men, Little Englanders, and so forth. The fact that a Radical Government were proposing such a measure marked the practical end of that party which so long dominated the military and naval and Imperial policy of the country. They could not shut their eyes altogether to the fact, too, that the Bill was a practical condemnation by the Government themselves of the attitude which they adopted when in opposition in regard to the Naval Defence Act seven years ago. The then Government proposed to spend £21,000,000 to bring the Navy up to the necessary state of efficiency, and the repayment of that money was spread over periods of five and seven years. The right hon. Gentlemen who now composed the present Government then strongly opposed the principle of any postponement of repayment and of any loan; yet they now proposed to the House to expend £8,500,000 on works which they all admitted to be necessary, and to spread the repayment over a period, not of five or seven years, but of 30 years. The inconsistency of the Government in this was obvious. Still, he was glad to get the works promised and provided for,
  1338
  and therefore he would not dwell further on that point. There were features in the Bill, however, which were open to objection, especially in respect to its vagueness. There was no provision in it to ensure that the money should be spent on the works within any given period, no restriction that would prevent the present or any future Government from delaying the works and spreading the expenditure of the money over 20 or 30 years, or abandoning the works altogether except for the inherent absurdity of such a course. The financial part of the present scheme was open to the serious objection, therefore, that the works might, under stress of Party influence, Treasury pressure, or financial difficulties, be greatly restricted during the coming year, and no practical answer had been given to this criticism. It would be open to future Governments, or Treasuries, to cut down and delay the works as they pleased. Under the Naval Defence Act the works provided for could not possibly be restricted or postponed except by a new Act of Parliament. Mere pressure from the Treasury would not be sufficient to delay the work under that Act, but in the present case the Government could say that only a million or half a million of the money should be spent in a given year. For this reason he thought it was a misfortune that the whole scheme was not clearly and definitely put in the Bill, and in such a way that it would require an act of the Legislature to restrict or delay the works. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had made some criticisms upon the Bill, but they were effectually answered by the hon. and gallant Member for the Eastbourne Division, who pointed out that the hon. Member had overlooked the great changes that had taken place in modern warfare. It was pointed out that in his criticisms as to the proposed harbour for Dover and the rendezvous and harbour of Portland, the hon. Member for King's Lynn had overlooked the great revolution which the torpedo and the torpedo boat had effected in modern naval strategy and warfare. Anyone, however much of a layman he might be, who had studied the annual manœuvres, and had heard the opinions of distinguished officers who had taken part in them, must know that the stress placed on the whole

  1339
  complement of a ship by the liability to torpedo attacks was so terrible that it could only be borne for a limited period. The hon. Member said something about the Downs being a safe anchorage for a British fleet. It would be impossible for such a fleet to anchor safely there in the case of war with France. The torpedo boat could now steam 18 or 20 miles an hour, and therefore in one short hour the enemy would be able to launch a crowd of such boats upon the fleet. Dover was a place of great importance for both defensive and offensive purposes, and it was necessary that our Fleet should have safe anchorage and harbour there. He regarded a protected harbour at Dover as one of the most important proposals of the Government. Such a harbour should be torpedo-proof. It was true the hon. Gentleman pointed out certain advantages that Dungeness possessed, but he did not prove that that place was in any way superior to Dover. It was almost incredible that we should have no safe harbour for our Fleet on the whole of the east coast. He regretted that both Dover and Hong Kong were not scheduled in the Bill, and he hoped an Amendment would be moved, and accepted by the Government, which should include both those great works formally in the Bill. In view of the great development of naval strength among the Indo-China races of the East, and the naval power which Japan possessed now, and was likely to possess in a still greater degree in future, Hong Kong was of very great value. He did not regard Japan in any way as an enemy, she was a natural of this country, but still the great development of naval power rendered it necessary that Hong Kong should not be neglected. He welcomed the proposals of the Government in regard to Gibraltar in a most cordial spirit. Perhaps the House would allow him a small amount of congratulation upon the fact that the present proposals of the Government in regard to Gibraltar were in almost every detail the same as those recommended by the Committee over which ho had had the honour of presiding at the Admiralty some six years ago. He very much regretted that these years, in the smaller portion of which the Conservative Party were in power,
  1340
  should have passed so far without any thing having been done. [An HON MEMBER: "1886 to 1892."] The hon. Member was in the wrong; the Report was not issued till 1889, he believed.
  SIR D. MACFARLANEasked if the appointment of the Committee had not been a proof of public opinion on the subject.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, it would be unfair to charge the late Government with the delay. The hon. Gentleman and the House would recollect that other works of the very greatest importance to our naval interests existed at that time; our Fleet was exceedingly deficient, and the first necessity was to re-establish the naval supremacy of the country. There was a very considerable opposition made to the financial proposals of the Government with regard to the Fleet at the time, and that was an excuse for some of the delay. As the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean pointed out, whether we held the Mediterranean or not, Gibraltar was of first-class importance as a naval station, and the value of Gibraltar was undeniable. It was almost certain that if we should be involved in a struggle with our great naval rival the decisive sea-fight would be fought within the waters of Gibraltar, and the importance of a suitable dockyard could not therefore be over-estimated. He thought there would be many disadvantages in having a great naval station at the Scilly Islands, which would be open to bombardment from every part of the sea. The value of Portland Harbour was also very great, as a fleet stationed there would be in the best position for commanding both the great Channel harbours, Brest and Cherbourg; and with our outpost at Alderney we should be in a position to intercept any movement of our rivals. He regretted that more had not been done to place that important outpost in a position of effectual defence. He concurred in thinking the west side of Gibraltar the best place for a dock. He had had the opportunity of hearing the views of the most distinguished sailors in the British Navy on this question, and their opinion was the same. He expressed his regret that the Bill was not more definite in regard to the future, and thought the whole programme of the Government as to these

  1341
  works should have been set forth. No definite time had been fixed, as far as possible, for their construction. It would have been more satisfactory if the Government had had the courage to directly acknowledge that their attitude in 1889 was a mistaken one.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNcongratulated the hon. Gentleman, and the Members of the Opposition generally on their view of the importance of the Bill. He pointed out, however, that the Bill would have gone through on two or three nights had it not been for the importance attached by hon. Members to the proposal as to one of the dockyards. He contended that the sum of £2,500 for the dockyard at Haulbowline was either too little or too much. It was extraordinary on the part of the Admiralty, whoever their advisers might be, that Haulbowline Dockyard, which cost the country £750,000, should at the present moment be practically useless as far as the Naval defences of the country went. The Admiralty should either close the place altogether or utilise it in the Naval defence of the country. They had had two or three object lessons within the past few years of the importance of maintaining Haulbowline as a dockyard repairing station. During the Naval Manœuvres of 1893, off the Irish coast, the Apollo and another warship were seriously damaged. They could not be repaired at Haulbowline and had to be removed to Devonport. If a hostile fleet had been off the coast this could not have been done. The ships would have been put out of action, and all because the Admiralty, with something worse than cheeseparing policy, would not recognise the value of Haulbowline as a repairing station. The first stone of the dockyard was laid 20 years ago by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, but the original specifications had never been carried out. If the Admiralty persisted in their neglect, it would be the duty of Irish Members on every available occasion to call attention to their neglect. Lord Spencer, four years ago, and since, had said the Government intended to make Haulbowline of real value and support to the Navy as a repairing and refitting station in the time of war, and to repair vessels in time of peace. In view of the repeated declarations of the First Lord of the
  1342
  Admiralty, and the fact that £750,000 had been expended on the dockyard, the Admiralty should either frankly acknowledge that they did not intend to maintain Haulbowline Dockyard or show their readiness to make it useful in the Naval defence of the country.
  SIR E. HARLANDasked, what sized graving dock it was proposed to construct at Gibraltar? The Civil Lord of the Admiralty would appreciate the great importance of the matter in view of the enormous ships—war transports and armed cruisers—which no doubt would be called into use in the next Naval war. As to the works proposed at Dover, from the plan he had seen, he was afraid there would be nothing like sufficient room for modern warships to swing at anchor with any degree of safety or convenience. It was almost impossible to form harbours too large in view of the enormous number of vessels which would probably in future form our Channel Fleet, and which might be passing at a time. He would be glad if the Admiralty would give the House an opportunity of seeing the plans for the proposed completion at Dover Harbour.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEYsupported the case put forward for Haulbowline Dockyard. Haulbowline was admirably situated for a Naval Station, and considering the large sum of money that had been spent on the dockyard he could not understand why the Admiralty had not kept it up in a state of efficiency. With regard to the harbour works at Dover, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty must have convinced himself of the fact that both sides of the House were determined that the works should be proceeded with forthwith. There was a strong feeling in that direction on the Mnisterial side of the House, and he believed on the other side also. He was much gratified the other day when inspecting the Gibraltar plans, to find that the director of the works had pencilled on the plans two additional docks. It was essential that Gibraltar should become a real naval base; but it could not be what it ought to be until it had a more effective equipment. By this Bill, the Government proposed to take such land and execute such works as they might deem expedient. A large part of the expenditure under the Bill would be

  1343
  incurred on Devonport, and the work would involve a permanent increase of the population. Owing to the system of land tenure that prevailed, there was a fearful amount of overcrowding, and the responsibility rested upon the Government to see that the people whom they brought there were properly housed. At present there were no workmen's houses, but the tenement system prevailed. The Government of the country were practically responsible for the creation of Devonport, where they occupied 200 acres of land; and they were morally bound to take cognisance of any conditions of land tenure which prevented the proper housing of the people. When they were taking powers to acquire land they ought to have in view the providing of a remedy for the evils of overcrowding that already existed, and would be aggravated by an increase of the population. Since it had become known that the Government works were to be extended, the local authorities had instituted an inquiry as to the evils that must result from further overcrowding, and if he were permitted in Committee he would state some of the results with the object of forcing the Government to recognise their responsibility.
  MR. EUGÈNE CREAN, said that the thirty years of procrastination which had occurred in the development of Haulbowline was a disgrace to the Government of this country. The dockyard was started in 1865, and £150,000 was to have been spent upon it in six years, but now, thirty years afterwards, the docks were not finished. There had been great loss from bad management in Cork Harbour. The sill of a dock had to be deepened, and, when the gates came to be put in position, they were found to be worthless. This involved a loss of £12,500, and this sort of thing had been going on for thirty years. Irish Members had been silent, or they had simply asked questions to which they had received scant replies. Yet the question was one that deeply touched the Empire at large. The suitability of the place as a harbour was not disputed; it offered safety to vessels from stress of weather or from an attacking force. Boats could be protected by a line of forts so that no shots from the sea could touch them. There was no safer port in the Empire,
  1344
  yet the place had been boycotted to such an extent that the Irish people felt indignant: and it was possible Irish Members might come to think that the boycott was being carried a little too far. They felt it difficult to support the Government on measures for the advancement of England. They would see this Bill through, but they certainly would expect more satisfaction on this point than they had hitherto received.
  SIR R. TEMPLE, said no doubt that Irish Members were right in insisting that the British Government ought to make up its mind whether Haulbowline was wanted or not; but he was afraid that, if the matter were to be so decided, the decision would be that, in the present condition of naval arrangements, it was not wanted. No doubt it was a first-rate geographical position, and it was a lovely situation; but it certainly seemed that Haulbowline was superfluous, and if that were the case, he put it to the Government,—what was the good of keeping it up when there was no real intention of making it effective? Before the days of machinery it was no doubt a valuable position, but in these days he doubted very much whether it was. Therefore, hon. Members below the Gangway were quite right in saying that the Government must make up their minds in the matter. Was it to be or not to be? That was the question. He thought the House was especially inclined to meet the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord—that night, because of the bright, courteous, and satisfactory manner in which he had given his explanation. He had been struck with the generous latitude that had been allowed to hon. Members to discuss works that were not in the Schedule of the Bill, such as the works at Hong Kong and Dover. Of all questions that came before the House, Naval questions were the most important. They affected not merely the wealth and welfare, but the very life of the nation. He would not, however, labour the question of Hong Kong. It had been pointed out by the late Civil Lord that the development of the power of Japan augmented the importance of Hong Kong Nor need he labour the Dover question. He believed the true reason for these works at Dover had not quite been taken in the Debate. He believed the reason

  1345
  was that Dover was the nearest point to the French coast in which several torpedo stations were being organised in a most effective manner, and therefore it was important that Dover should be rendered impregnable to a torpedo attack. He contended that the Schedule ought to have included these two important places, so that the whole scheme of the works might have been set forth. If Hong Kong and Dover were included, the expenditure would be some £9,000,000; and he contended that there ought to be set out in the Schedule—(1) the total cost of the works, and (2) the amount of money that was wanted for each work in the present year, to follow with the total for the present year. He had asked the Civil Lord whether any one of these works had been sanctioned by the House.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: One half have.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: Then the other half have not. He wanted to know, as a matter of financial regularity, whether that was correct?
  MR. ROBERTSON: About one half of the expenditure was sanctioned last year for works which were approved of for the first time in the Estimates of last year.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: The question I want to press is, has each one of these works been sanctioned by this House before being included in the Schedule?
  MR. ROBERTSON: No; I think that only those included in last year's Estimates can be said to have been sanctioned The rest will be sanctioned to-night.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that was very important. Some of the works had been put into the Bill without having been previously sanctioned by the House, and it was a question whether that was regular or not. He should have thought that, before any expenditure took place, there must be a Resolution of the House, and each one of the works ought to have been sanctioned by the House. He would not, however, labour the point, and would simply submit that it was a great question whether it was not a financial irregularity. Of course, he had listened with due attention to what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the principle of one Parliament not binding another. That was a principle on which all would agree
  1346
  to some extent, but there must be limitations of it. It could not apply to limitation for a short period of time. If the Government would kindly consider that, the House having undertaken any one of the works, its progress would have to be spread over so many years before completion was arrived at. The work having once begun with the sanction of this Parliament, that did bind the next Parliament to complete it. There was no more effective mode of making an obligation binding than by beginning the work. Therefore, it was all nonsense to say that one Parliament could not bind another. It was essential that there should be some such obligation, otherwise the work might not be properly completed. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was objectionable to prevent a Minister from altering a policy except by Act of Parliament, because the House of Lords would have a veto on the House of Commons, did not really touch this matter. The House of Lords might veto the House of Commons to some extent, but they never vetoed a money Bill. The House of Commons might pass an Act to bind themselves, they might release themselves from that obligation and from that binding by Act of Parliament, but there would be no danger of the House of Lords vetoing them, because they never interfered on matters relating to finance and money. He might, perhaps, be allowed to make a few remarks about Gibraltar. He wished first of all to join in the chorus of congratulation to the Government for having taken this work in hand. Undoubtedly, the next Trafalgar would be fought in the waters under the Rock, and it was necessary that there should be an effective dock at Gibraltar to receive the wounded ironclads. That was plainly and absolutely necessary. Then the strategic importance of Gibraltar must also be considered. As to the idea of abandoning the Mediterranean, it was not to be thought of. We might as well abandon our Eastern Empire altogether. No man who knew India would think of abandoning Gibraltar. He was sure that his hon. friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster), who had led this agitation in connection with the works at

  1347
  Gibraltar, was to be especially congratulated; and he wished that his gallant friend Sir George Chesney had been alive to see the result. He could not, however, join with the hon. Member for the Holderness Division of Yorkshire (Capt. Bethell) in his views about the Spanish position. He could not conceive any one getting big guns up those hills; and the idea of being afraid of the Spanish artillery was not a little ridiculous. Besides Spain was a friendly Power towards Great Britain. He listened with interest to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) who spoke on these subjects with great authority; and he was thankful to hear the right hon. Gentleman lend his great authority on the question of Gibraltar. The right hon. Gentleman said that though much had been done still more remained to be done; and as he knew the Rock of Gibraltar well the right hon. Gentleman had informed the House that those plans which were good as far as they went were not enough. But the Civil Lord said that if the House wanted more the Government would be glad to consider the recommendations; and this so far was satisfactory. The House, indeed, wanted to see Gibraltar put in the position of a real harbour of refuge and centre for our ironclads. No doubt the Admiralty were well advised by naval experts in determining to devote their efforts to the west side of the rock rather than to the east. In the meantime let the west side be completed and the east side would come hereafter. Civilians without official information could not of course offer any conclusive criticism on details; and no doubt the Government would take what had been said into consideration. What they could do, however, was to encourage the Government in doing right as regarded all naval affairs. They could assure the Government of their support in the performance of that duty, and the support of public opinion in the constituencies. Thus they would be able to give the Government that national encouragement in making our Navy supreme, and all our naval stations impregnable from one end of the globe to the other.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, that with regard to Haulbowline he
  1348
  thought the Irish members, as well as the British taxpayer, had a fair cause for complaint. Either the Admiralty ought to make Haulbowline a serviceable yard or abolish it altogether. At present they were doing neither the one thing nor the other. It was a yard of all others where half-measures had done the most misehief, and the result ought to be a serious warning as to delaying works in the future. It was indeed an object-lesson as to the necessity of beginning works at once and of finishing them within a definite time. He heartily congratulated the Government on their naval policy this Session. The Government, at any rate, had this Session taken the Navy out of the lines of mere party policy, and any party which adopted the line they had now pursued were adopting a thoroughly popular policy. Speaking for a manufacturing town in Lancashire he said that his constituents and others interested in our commerce would take the deepest interest in the welfare of our Navy. As to the mode in which the money was to be provided, he did not much care. His concern was that the money was to be spent on these definite objects. But although he was heartily glad that the money was being spent, he did not think that the Government had taken sufficient security against waste and delay. The Government were especially to be commended for undertaking a class of expenditure—works which had been too much neglected by the Governments of the last 10 or 15 years. The tonnage of the Fleet had doubled in the last 15 years, and the number of men had increased 50 per cent.; but within the same period the annual expenditure on works had hardly increased at all. The average expenditure had not been £500,000 a year. It was no good looking after only a portion of the needs of the Navy. Ships, men, and works must be carried on side by side, and for the first time these three essentials were likely to proceed abreast. As to the particular mode of raising the money, no doubt the Government, in proposing a loan, were acting quite properly. The works to which the money was to be devoted had been neglected by previous Governments; and therefore there was some claim to throw a portion of the burden on future years. Moreover, permanent works

  1349
  such as these differed largely in their character from the mere building of ships. But he wished that the House were not legislating so much in the dark, and that they had more details of the expenditure. The Government were not following precedent in this matter, for in the Act of 1860 the schedule not only gave such useful details as the station, district, and name of the work, and the estimated cost of the whole, but it also gave year by year the amount expended up to date, the amount to be spent in the current year, and the further sum required. If such particulars were supplied in the present case, they would go far to satisfy the requirements of hon. Members. He hoped that it would be possible to introduce some limit of time into the Bill; for the last few years had shown that the work which was done quickly was as a rule done most economically and efficiently. That was the reason of the great advance which this country had made over foreign nations in regard to ships. If these works were allowed to hang on year after year, they would cost two or three times as much as if they were proceeded with steadily and finished within a definite time. He did not quite agree with what had been said as to not binding future Parliaments to carry on the works. The commencement of works threw on any future Parliament, which did not wish to go on with the works, the onus of wasting all the money which had been spent; and, as no Parliament would be foolish enough to do that, practically the initiation of the works did bind future Parliaments. But in respect of a portion only of the work was such an obligation on the future imposed. The total sum required was £9,000,000, but this Bill only referred to £4,500,000, to which Parliament had already pledged itself in the Estimates of last year. With regard to the other £4,500,000 which concerned some of the most important of the works, there was absolutely no guarantee but the bare promise of the Government. On Hong Kong, Dover, and the Portsmouth Barracks not a single shilling was being spent this year, to pledge their continuance. The Government, no doubt, intended to carry out their provision, but it would have
  1350
  been satisfactory if, either in the Estimates or in this Bill, certain small sums had been expended to bind Parliament to go on with the works. The opinion expressed on all sides of the House had been that this Bill was not large enough, but that all these important works ought to be carried out at once. He knew that the Civil Lord had made certain promises, and hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House recognised in the Civil Lord a patriotic Minister, who in his position had done as much as most Civil Lords for a long time. They did not grudge him his meed of praise, but they hoped that he would do his best in the very important Bill not to let these works hang on. The Civil Lord said that all these works were of urgent importance. Then why should some be taken and others left? Why should they not all be included in the present Bill and be begun this year? The Civil Lord had suggested that it would be possible to introduce Amendments into the Bill suggesting that the works at Dover and Hong Kong should be proceeded with at once. But the House could not increase the total sum of £1,000,000 provided by the Bill, except on the proposition of the responsible Government; and if further works were to be undertaken at once, the sum available would have to be considerably increased, unless the works already provided for were neglected, and that was not desired. They did not want to substitute these works for anything else; they wanted to add them to the works proposed in the Bill, and surely they were works of very considerable importance. He was particularly astonished that the work at Dover should be postponed, because the question of its construction had been before the country so long. In 1886 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious the work should be proceeded with, and he (Mr. Hanbury) confessed he did not understand the reasons the Civil Lord had given for postponing the works. The first reason was that in all the other places where works had to be carried on there were works already in progress, but at Hong Kong and at Dover there were no works going on at present. He did not see how that bore on the question. Inasmuch as the works at Dover had been under consideration so long,

  1351
  sufficient surveys must have been taken to permit of operations being begun at once. Aware as he was that great works were being constructed upon the northern coast of France, he was convinced that no more important work could be taken in hand than that suggested at Dover. As to Hong Kong, surely, in view of what had happened in that part of the Pacific within the last few months, it was unwise not to hurry on as best we could with the naval works. A great change of power was taking place in those regions, Japan was becoming a great naval Power, and we did not know whether she would be our friend or enemy. He also wished to impress on the Government what was so well said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, namely, the importance of the dock accommodation at Gibraltar being a thorough work. If there were a great naval engagement near Gibraltar, one dock there would be of no practical use. Sir William White and other authorities had shown that with our great ironclads we were making a great experiment; that the first battle between two great Powers would be an experiment on a great scale. They had also expressed the opinion that most of the ships would be so damaged that they would have to go into dock. Would it not be monstrous if our ironclads had to come all the way to England for repairs? Surely the Government who had already shown their patriotism would not refuse to listen to the practically unanimous appeal which had been made to them to undertake work in the directions he had specified. He believed that in putting pressure on the Government in this matter hon. Members were representing the opinions of the constituencies in every part of the country. He hoped the Government would make this Bill, which was a very good one, a thorough Bill, and one which would meet all the requirements of the case.
  MR. A. B. FORWOODsaid, the nominal expenditure under the Bill would be £5,000,000 sterling, but according to the estimates before the House the proposed works would cost something over £8,000,000 sterling. Members of the House who had had any experience of great harbour works in the country were thoroughly
  1352
  aware of the constant under-estimates that were made in such hydraulic works. Only recently one undertaking was estimated to cost £7,000,000 sterling, but before it was completed—and it was not completed yet—upwards of £15,000,000 sterling would have been spent. Before the House engaged in these great works with a light heart they ought to have from the Government fuller information than they now had as to how the plans had been drawn, as to who had been consulted, and as to what the estimates for the construction of the works were. He had a very high opinion of the abilities of the professional adviser of the Admiralty; but in this instance barracks were to be erected in one direction, dry docks, docks and breakwaters were to be constructed in other directions, and he did not think it possible for one gentleman situated as the Director of Works was to give the care and attention to such works which were really requisite if the nation were to get value for their money. Therefore, he would be glad to have an assurance from the Civil Lord that the Admiralty, before undertaking the construction of all those works, would call in the assistance of some engineer of eminence, who would, at any rate, relieve the Director of Works of some of the overseeing of those undertakings. There was another point in connection with this matter upon which he would like to have a word from the Civil Lord. It was of importance that the House, before parting with the Bill, should know how the proposed works were going to be constructed. Were the works to be undertaken by the Department, as in times past, with the assistance of convict labour—which experience had shown to be the most costly of all labour—or were tenders to be invited for their construction? His own hope was that as large a portion as possible of those works would be carried out by contract. He did not think the House fully realised the magnitude of the works the Government were about to commence. Take, for example, the extension of the docks at Keyham. The outer-sea wall of that basin—1,800 feet, or 600 yards long—would be, from the foundation to the coping, something like 80 feet. That illustration would give the House some

  1353
  idea of the character, extent, and importance of the works. Attached to that basin there were large graving-docks, which, as the Civil Lord had said, would, so far as the Admiralty could look ahead, suit all future warships. But between the graving-docks proposed to be constructed and the existing basin, there was what was called a tidal basin of eight acres; and he would like to suggest that these eight acres should be added to the proposed basin where war vessels were to be moored, which, in addition to providing additional accommodation for the war vessels, would save something like 700 feet of walling, which was an expensive item in the construction of docks. The next point was in connection with the Bill itself. The Bill provided for £1,000,000 being voted for those works; but only £100,000 of that amount might be spent this year. There was no provision in the Bill as to the time within which the money should be spent. If there was one object more than another that ought to be aimed at in connection with the system of borrowing money for constructing works out of capital, it was the acceleration of the completion of the works. It was a most unfortunate procedure on the part of the Government, whenever they undertook a big work, that the amount voted year after year was not regulated, as it ought to be regulated, by what would push on the work most quickly and in the most economical manner, but was regulated solely by what the Treasury could spare for the work. The result was, that the completion of great public works undertaken by Departments, was protracted for an indefinite time. For instance, the works at Chatham on which £2,000,000 were spent were commenced as far back as 1855, and were not completed until 1885, or 30 years afterwards. The works at Portsmouth, which cost £2,250,000, also took 30 years, or from 1864 to 1894, to complete. He had not the slightest doubt that had those works been left to contractors
  1354
  they would have taken, not 30 years, but at the utmost seven years. He believed the policy of introducing this Bill and constructing works under the system of loans produced an improvement upon the old rate of progress, but he should have liked to have seen some time limit, and some security given to the House that when it voted the money every effort should be made to expend the sum so voted and the works rapidly pushed on to completion. This would ensure that they should not have a vast amount of capital lying dormant because the works were in a slow state of progression. Allusion had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the supposed fact that by the introduction of this Bill a control was afforded to Parliament over the expenditure, whilst the right hon. Gentleman stated that it did not bind future Parliaments. But if those works were to be carried out by contract—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that contracts were not prohibited—and contracts were entered into for the construction of works like those, say at Keyham, he should like to know what control Parliament could have in that case. It was mere pedantry to suggest that Parliament would have control over the expenditure once it had entered into a contract for the construction of any of these large works. Another practical point to which he desired to call attention was the importance of estimates. All they had set out in the schedule of the Bill was a sum of money allocated for the first expenditure on each of these works. There was no allusion made to the estimated full cost of the works. He thought he was right in saying that all well-organised railway undertakings, which had great works to carry out before they would consent to a single sixpence being expended, required their engineer to table his estimated cost; and once he had given in that estimate of cost he could not obtain one sixpence more for expenditure over the estimate

  1355
  without giving full particulars and bringing the matter up from the special authority of his board of directors. They wanted in connection with these great naval works something analogous to such a system as he had described, so that Parliament might have a real control over the work as it went on. There were certain omissions from this Bill to which allusion had already been made in the course of the Debate. With regard to the proposed harbour at Dover, whilst there had been no absolute promise, enough had been said to lead to the belief that it was likely to be included in the Bill. It was important that a prompt conclusion should be come to as to whether a harbour was to be constructed at Dover or not, and for this reason: some four years ago one of the great railway companies having its terminus at that port inquired whether the Admiralty had any intention of carrying out the harbour proposed some 50 years ago, stating that if there was not such intention it would be necessary for them to do something to improve it for the purpose of their cross-channel traffic. Not receiving the assurance they desired, certain railway companies obtained a Bill for the construction of a pier for their own purposes. If the large harbour scheme was to be carried out by the Government the work proposed by the railway companies would be unnecessary, and there might be an opportunity of entering into negotiations with the companies by which they might pay the money which they had contemplated expending to the Government in aid of the great harbour work. It was, therefore, important that this question should be promptly considered. Of course, if the Dover Harbour were included in the Bill it would have to be looked at from a different point of view from that taken 50 years ago—the system of navigation, the size of ships, and all arrangements for naval warfare being perfectly different now from what they were half-a-century since. He was quite
  1356
  sure that when the matter came to be taken up that regard would be had to the exposure of the site, to the tremendous gales and heavy seas, and to the great silting that took place all along the coast around Dover. He thought it was a pity that the improvements were not made at Hong Kong. There was no doubt they were very much required, and would have been put in hand long ago had the new system of capitalising the cost of new works been adopted at an earlier date. Disagreeing with the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he regretted the omission of any provision for further barrack accommodation at Portsmouth. He could not think we did anything to improve the morale or the seamanship of our sailors by having them living in old wooden huts in the harbour at Portsmouth, and alike in the interests of the men and of the public service, the men should be housed in barracks on shore. He hoped the Civil Lord would not leave out this question of barrack accommodation at Portsmouth. The last omission was the Dockyard at Pembroke. It was a dockyard where work was done economically and well, but, unfortunately, vessels had to be towed round to Devon-port to complete, and this was disadvantageous and not economical. If £100,000 could be found out of the large expenditure proposed for the improvement of Pembroke Dockyard, there would be a considerable economy effected in the completing and fitting up of ships at that port. They were embarking in an unknown expenditure, and no Member need be surprised if it ran up to £13,000,000 or £15,000,000; but, having put their hand to the plough, there must be no turning back. By carrying on the works at the most rapid rate they would ensure the truest economy.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYprotested against the financial arrangements of the Bill, the real explanation of which was the incautious declarations made by the Government when in

  1357
  opposition. It was quite clear that the plan which had been adopted had taken the control of Parliament practically away. The system on which the money was to be spent, as between contractors and the Admiralty itself, was an important condition. The House should know, roughly speaking, how much of the money was to be expended by contractors and how much by the Admiralty, and, considering that the expenditure was to go to all parts of the world, surely it was reasonable some scheme should be submitted showing the principle on which the money was to be expended. The Bill was not in any sense a general scheme which the Government could be regarded as placing before the House. They heard of great works, but no details were given as to how these works were to be carried out and completed. There was no definite programme with a settled principle which would enable the House to know that these measures would be carried out. They were all agreed that their Navy had been strengthened, but he would ask, if the Government were opposed so strongly to the Naval Defences Act, why had they not put before the House their whole plan? The fact was, they felt they had no guarantee that the scheme would ever be carried out. Why did not the Government carry the scheme out in a straightforward manner? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, "What right have you to bind a future Government?" That sounded very well as a statement on a platform when they wanted to delude those they were talking to. But if this idea were carried out of never pledging their predecessors it would be impossible for a Government to enter into a contract beyond twelve months. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" was a sound principle, but they could not act on it in Government. According to this principle they could not build a ship or a barracks unless it was finished in the twelve months. It was a fiction and a delusion on which no sound finance or
  1358
  business could be done. It was, as an hon. Member had said, a pedantic system of finance. As to the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the House might change its mind and refuse to sanction the expenditure which a previous Government had approved of—that was possible, but it was improbable. The country had made up its mind to a certain Naval programme, and to the expenditure of a large sum of money, and was it to be supposed it would suddenly change its mind? Therefore he held that the Government should openly face the position. The Bill provided no time limit of any kind; and it depended upon the future whether the proposed works would ever be carried out at all. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Government postponing any one of the items, and possibly them all. The Government had themselves pointed to the works at Dover and Hong Kong as urgent and necessary, but they were not included in this programme, simply because the Government thought they could put them off as they had done before. And even if an amendment to include these works were moved in Committee, they would only be robbing Peter to pay Paul. From the financial standpoint, and as a matter of serious business, the provisions of the Bill were not satisfactory. With regard to Haulbowline Dock, if it was not wanted the sooner they stopped spending money on it the better. Under the present Bill it was proposed to expend £2,500, out of an expenditure of a million, on that dock.
  MR. ROBERTSON: Nothing more could be done there.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that if all that was required was £2,500, that could have come out of the ordinary Estimates; but it had been put into the Bill in order to satisfy Irish votes. To spend £2,500 on dredging was really not doing anything for the dock at all. He did not see why the House should go on spending this money on this dock. If

  1359
  expenditure was necessary, let the House face the question boldly, and grant whatever was necessary. The whole muddle in the financial arrangements of the Bill was due to the obstinacy of the Government in declining to adopt the system which the late Government adopted in the Naval Defence Act. He was sure that when the Accounts came before the Public Accounts Committee, there would be an infinite number of questions raised upon this system. All this could have been avoided if they only had had some systematic arrangement for the whole Programme of the Government. The country had determined that the Navy should be fully equipped, and the Government had accepted that position. Why could they not have the courage of their opinions, and put the whole thing in one Bill, so that they might be tied down, not only to begin, but to finish the different works? If that were done he was sure that the Government would carry the country with them; but as it was, this sort of piecemeal work would always be unsatisfactory, and he believed that the Government only stuck to it because they wished to have a back-door to escape, in case of urgency, from the scheme which they had adopted.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he could only speak again by the indulgence of the House. In answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Belfast, he might say that the extreme length of the dry dock at Gibraltar was to be 580ft., the width at entrance 94ft., and the depth of water on sill at ordinary spring tides 35½ft. [Sir E. HARLAND: "Five hundred and eighty feet is absurdly short."] Any representations of that sort would be considered. The question of what use was to be made of Haulbowline Yard was far too large for him to attempt to deal with upon the present occasion, but there would be an opportunity for raising that question hereafter. With reference to the question of how much of the new work was to be contract
  1360
  work, and how much Admiralty work, he might state that the works at Gibraltar and Portland Harbour would be done by Admiralty contract labour. About half the dredging would be Admiralty work, and the rest of it contract work. With these three exceptions—Gibraltar, Portland, and half the dredging—the whole of the work mentioned in the Bill would be given out to private contract.
  MR. HANBURYpointed out that there would be two systems going on at Gibraltar at the same time, because the work now being done there was contract work.
  MR. ROBERTSONexplained that the small amount of that work at present being done there would soon be finished. The suggestion to make Pembroke Yard a finishing depôt had been under consideration before and had been rejected, though he did not deny that there was something in the suggestion to make Pembroke more complete. He could only promise that the matter should receive further consideration. He hoped that the House would now give the Bill a Second Reading.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLthought the statement as to Gibraltar was very scanty and unsatisfactory. The proposed dock was very far too short for practical purposes, and there were already two ships in the pay of the Admiralty which could not get into the dock; while in the future there would most likely be others in the same predicament. The battle had been fought over this dry dock since 1884. He had always advocated the erection of dry docks, and he was much surprised to learn that the length of the one at Gibraltar was to be 580 feet. He thought that the Government, with the present feeling of the country on this subject, might have suggested a sum sufficient for the erection of a proper dry dock at Gibraltar. Although the Civil Lord had stated very properly that he would consider the objections raised to the length of the dock,

  1361
  he must know already that increased length, having regard to the position where this dry dock was being made, would involve a large increase of expenditure, because at the place chosen by the Government there was a very high rock. But there were other matters in connection with Gibraltar to which the attention of the House ought to have been drawn before it was asked to pass this Bill. The measure had been submitted to the House without any explanation of the principles involved. On the financial principles not a word was said by the Government until the Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to reply this evening to the criticisms of the noble Lord, the late First Lord of the Admiralty. He wanted to know what was to be the depth of water enclosed by the new flying breakwater and the extension of the new mole. The depth of the water was a very important matter, and no information had been given them on the point. When the extension of the new mole was talked of, he wished to know whether, with that extension, facilities were to be provided for the coaling of steamers. Were facilities for coaling to be provided in connection with the new flying extension that was to be made, or was it to be merely a new breakwater? Then, had the Government considered the alternative schemes that had been before them for the past 10 years? Had they considered the canal scheme, and the scheme relating to the eastern face of the rock? [Mr. E. ROBERTSON: "It has been all answered already."] These points had not been all answered. [Mr. E. ROBERTSON: "I referred to the portion of the eastern side of the rock."] The hon. Member had made an observation which would lead the House to suppose that all these questions had been answered, whereas they had not been all answered. The canal scheme had not even been referred to by the Government speakers. The Government knew very well that in adopting the scheme for a dry dock in the parade ground, as it was called, they were adopting a scheme which was very expensive, which was incapable of future expansion, and which could only provide one dock. He thought that the Government ought to have told them something about those other schemes which were not open to the same objections, and
  1362
  ought to have given some special reasons or constructing this particular dry dock which was to cost something like £300,000. These were very grave omissions from the list of works for which provision was to be made. There was the omission of such important works as those at Dover and Hong Kong, and there was no mention of improvements in ports in the Far East of the Mediterranean. Two months ago in this House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a speech foreshadowing an intention to give up our hold on the Eastern Mediterranean. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman afterwards took the first available opportunity to withdraw that speech, and he was, therefore, surprised to find that no mention was made in these works estimates of any works in the Eastern Mediterranean, where a very small expenditure would provide us at all events with a secure harbour for our Fleet in sight of Famagusta. He knew that some people who did not realise the dangers of their proposal, thought that our best policy would be to abandon the Mediterranean. But if, from pusillanimous advice, we should be induced to withdraw from the Mediterranean, what hold had we on the Atlantic? He could state on the highest Naval authority, and from his own personal observation, that we did not possess a properly-equipped Naval base between Devonport and Cape Town, and if war broke out there would not be a single port where coal and stores could be replenished or ships repaired over that very nearly 7,000 miles of Atlantic Ocean, the only remaining route to our great Possessions in South Africa, to Australia, to India, and the Far East. The House would appreciate the importance of this statement when he said that the modern battleship only carried coal sufficient for three weeks' effective cruising, and no such vessel could proceed 3,000 miles for effective service unless it could have recourse to a reliable coaling base. He regarded this as a neglect of Imperial and Naval interests. The works set out in this Bill had never been properly explained to the country, and he believed that not only experts, but the general public, would not feel much confidence in what the Government were about to do from the explanations they had offered to the

  1363
  House that night. As to the financial principles of the Bill, his noble Friend the late First Lord made a speech in which he advanced four criticisms on the Bill, and the effort which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to answer them only showed how weak was the case of the Government in regard to this part of the measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer advanced several contentions which appeared to him to be contradictory in themselves and of one another. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not a sound policy to allow finance in Naval and Military matters to be subject to the control of the House of Lords, and in almost the same breath he said the only sound policy was to introduce an annual Bill for this purpose. If that meant anything, it meant that annually they were to put their Naval policy, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, at the mercy of the House of Lords. That was one contradiction. Then the right hon. Gentleman said it was a mistake to suppose that a loan would be appealed to as a financial measure on the plea of urgency. The only legitimate justification for a loan, he said, was because the money was intended for permanent works; but his main financial principle was that the needs of the year must be got out of the funds of the year. Here was a Bill which professed to be a Loan Bill, because it was for permanent works, and yet in its very principle it was to be an annual Bill to take the money of the year for the work of the year in order to pay for permanent works which ought to be paid for by a permanent loan. The noble Lord argued that there ought to be a time limit in any expenditure of this kind, but he had not heard from any Member of the Treasury Bench why there should not be a time limit, and he thought his noble friend who had made this criticism deserved a substantial reply on that point. Then the right hon. Gentleman had told them that it was no use taking the total cost, because they must from year to year provide funds for the work which was to go on. But if they were in any way to charge posterity with the continuance of these works they left it to posterity to say that the works might be stopped at any moment. The money spent upon these works would,
  1364
  unless they were continued, be absolutely thrown away. He thought it would have been more practical and businesslike if the Government had explained to them that these various works would cost so much money. He found that they provided for a million sterling of expenditure, leaving the country saddled with a further expenditure of five millions and a half, if the first expenditure was to have any effect at all. It was a great pity that the whole matter could not have been discussed at greater length. In one of the classes the Admiralty was enabled to transfer from one head to another in the schedule, without the control or approval of the House, large sums of money. The consequence was, that the million which it was proposed to spend on 11 different items might all be spent upon one item. He contended that that was a breach of their best financial traditions, and there were other matters in the Bill which would also require their close scrutiny in Committee. On the whole he wished to congratulate the Government on having boldly followed in the steps of their predecessors so far as they dared. He could only regard the Bill, however, as a halfhearted, halting, and inadequate attempt on the part of the Government to follow in the wise financial course pursued by their predecessors.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid, the view he took might be put in the form of an analogy. In a Committee of the House dealing with a project brought forward by a private adventurer, a statement of the whole expenditure required had to be given, and the private adventurer was expected to take powers to incur that whole expenditure; if he did not the Committee was not likely to pass the Bill. The House ought to have the whole scheme before it, so that the details might be discussed. The result of the mode of dealing which the Government had adopted was, that the House could only imperfectly consider the schemes under which the money was proposed to be lent. When they came another year and offered any criticisms upon the scheme, they would, he supposed, be told that they sanctioned the scheme because they sanctioned the expenditure for the first part. As guardians of the public

  1365
  purse they were bound to protest against this method of dealing with public funds.
  MR. WILSON LLOYDsaid, the schedule of the proposed expenditure was very meagre. He agreed that the House ought to have more complete information before it. He wished to ask why it was that in this scheme so large a proportion of the money was to be spent outside England. They were told—and they all knew it—that England was "the predominant partner" of the United Kingdom. Yet under this scheme England, which found a great part of the money, would not have the benefit of the expenditure of the money in this country. From the point of view of popularity, he should have thought the Government would have spent the money in the country in which they desired popularity. But what did the House find? They found that the first item of expenditure in the schedule was to be spent outside the United Kingdom—at Gibraltar: £275,000, more than a quarter of the whole sum, was to be spent in Gibraltar. Surely the Government must know the depressed state of the labour market in England at the present time. It had been said and even promised that we were to give up Gibraltar. A time might come when we should give it up as a naval station. He hoped not, for he should deplore it. But it was often suggested that Gibraltar should be given up. They all knew that, after spending a million of money on important defences and fortifications on the Ionian Islands, those islands were given up. The ex-Prime Minister advocated the giving up of the Ionian Islands, and they were given up after a million of money had been spent there. However desirable it might be to spend £275,000 for Gibraltar, the money should be spent in England. [Ministerial Cries of "Divide!"] Yes; those cries were their argument. Expenditure for Ireland and Gibraltar, but not for the benefit of the British taxpayer. If a Member on the Opposition side of the House said, "We want this money spent in England," they cried, "Divide!" and thought it out of order. England was the predominant partner, and he did not know why £275,000 should be spent in Gibraltar, and £250,000 in Ireland, leaving less than half to be spent in
  1366
  England, where most of the money would have to be found, and the labour market was sorely in need of employment. The defence of this country might be improved by the construction of a ship canal from the east coast to the west, which would enable us to transfer our naval force from one to the other as circumstances might render necessary. Above all things, let us employ labour at home, and spend money at home, and so improve the condition of our own working classes; and this the construction of the suggested canal would do.
  MR. J. C. MACDONAurged that, however much money might be spent upon dock accommodation for our shipping at Gibraltar and elsewhere, it would be of little use if ships never arrived to be docked. Amongst the many dangers to which shipping was exposed, perhaps the greatest was the danger of running upon a derelict. This danger has only recently been reported as close to Gibraltar, where it is proposed to spend so large a sum for two docks. The Secretary of the Admiralty having, in reply to a question on the subject, admitted that a large floating derelict had been swept through the Straits of Gibraltar into the Mediterranean from the Atlantic Ocean, the Government would be seriously compromised if so great a danger were not captured or destroyed.
  Bill read 2°.

  CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On the resumption of the Adjourned Debate on the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill, it was proposed to postpone the Order to Monday, the 22nd instant.
  DR. CLARKasked when the Government intended to bring in the Bill?
  MR. ASQUITH: It would be the second Order on the Monday.
  DR. CLARKsaid, that meant it would be again reached at midnight.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANprotested against the way this Bill was being put off. Scotch Members had been kept waiting on the chance of the Order being reached that night, and now they were to be hurried back on the Monday that the House reassembled on the same chance. He

  1367
  moved that the Bill be put down for the Thursday.
  DR. MACGREGORseconded that Amendment.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be persisted in. The Government strongly desired to bring in the Bill. As a Scotch Member he was himself interested in it. They were pledged to bring on the Factories Bill immediately after the Recess, and would put this Bill down next.
  MR. T. H. COCHRANEsaid, that it would be an inconvenience to him as a Scotch Member to return on the Monday.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid, it had been usual to take Estimates on the first day after a Recess.
  It being now midnight, the Debate stood adjourned, and the Order was put down for Monday the 22nd.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE (RECEIVER) BILL.
  Read 3°, and passed.

  GROCERS' LICENCES ABOLITION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. D. A. Thomas, Bill to abolish the Retail Sale of Spirits, Wine, and Beer by Shopkeepers in England and Wales.
  Bill presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 23rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

  INSTITUTIONS FOR IDIOTS (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr Round, Bill to exempt from Poor and other Local Rates all Registered Institutions for the Care, Training, and Education of Idiots and Imbeciles.
  Bill presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 6th May, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

  SCOTCH BUSINESS.
  On Motion for the Adjournment of the House,
  DR. CLARKasked the Government what they intended to do with reference to the Crofters Bill for Scotland. The Scotch Members were being brought down night after night for this Bill, and it was always being postponed. Would
  1368
  the Government make it a second Order on a Monday or a Thursday before public business, or would they give some information as to the course they intended to pursue? Scotch business was as important as Welsh, Irish, or English business, and the Scotch Members were not going to take the leavings of the Government.
  MR. J. H. C. HOZIERasked whether the Crofters Bill was in future to have precedence of the Scotch Local Government Bill.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANearnestly joined in the appeal made by the hon. Member for Caithness. He hoped the Government would consider, not merely the better progress of Scotch business, but the greater convenience of the Scotch night; and that would be served if the Government could state to-morrow whether the Bill would be taken as the First Order on the Thursday after the House re-assembled.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, with reference to the question of the hon. Member opposite, the Crofters Bill would be taken before the Scotch Local Government Bill, as the Government regarded it as the first Scotch business of the Session. As to the question of the hon. Member for Caithness, if the Bill to which he referred was, unfortunately, not read on the Monday night after the Adjournment, as the Government hoped that it would be, then it would be taken as the First Order on the following Thursday.
  The House adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve o'clock.
  ON the conclusion of the Sitting, Mr. Asquith, and other occupants of the Front Benches, took leave of Mr. Speaker by shaking hands with him. As Mr. Speaker was leaving the Chair a cheer was raised throughout the House, to which the right hon. Gentleman bowed his acknowledgments. During the discussion on the Naval Works Bill, the attendance of Members was comparatively small, but throughout the evening a constant succession of Members took leave of Mr. Speaker while he occupied the Chair for the last time.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Shop Hours.

2. Convention of Royal Burghs (Scotland) Act, 1879, Amendment.

3. Army (Annual).

4. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1).

5. Agricultural Company of Mauritius.

6. Credit Foncier of Mauritius.

7. William Hancock and Company.

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Mendip (V. Clifden)—after the death of his nephew.
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (CHANNEL ISLANDS CHIL DREN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. [No. 71.]

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
I. Report on the agricultural experiment stations and agricultural colleges of the United States of America.
II. Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, showing the acreage and produce of crops, prices of corn, and number of live stock; together with summaries of agricultural statistics for the United Kingdom, British Possessions, and Foreign Countries; 1894.
Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOT- LAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the whole House (which stands appointed for Tuesday, the 30th instant) put off to Monday, the 6th of May next.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered,—That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended: and that the time for depositing petitions praying to
1254
be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Easter, be extended to Tuesday, the 30th instant.

STANNARIES COURT (ABOLITION) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, remarked that it was before the House last Session, and explained that its object was to abolish the Court in Cornwall known as the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries, and to transfer to the County Courts all jurisdiction and powers of the Stannaries Court. It had, he said, been suggested that it might be desirable to make special provisions with regard to the hearing of mining cases after the business of the Stannaries Court was transferred to the County Courts, and he promised to see what could be done as to this.
Bill read 2a.

THE EASTER RECESS.
On motion of THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl of KIMBERLEY), it was agreed that the House at its rising to-day stand adjourned until Monday, the 22nd day of April, at Three o'clock.
The House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday, the 22nd instant, Three o'clock.