asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have now considered the recent notification of Sir Harry Parkes, making the publication of newspapers in Japanese by Englishmen an offence punishable by three months hard labour; whether, under the Order in Council of 1865, British Ministers in China and Japan are not in fact prohibited from creating offences in China and Japan, which are not offences in England, or violations of British Treaties with those Countries; and, whether the Government approve Sir Harry Parkes' notification as necessary?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have now received the despatches containing the full information with regard to the regulations referred to, and have submitted the Papers to the Law Officers. Her Majesty's Government will come to no decision until furnished with their Report; and, in the meantime, it would not be right for me to express any opinion on the provisions of the Order in Council.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, considering that by the County Court Orders, 1875, eight days are named on which the County Court office is directed to be closed, the Government approve of the course taken by a County Court Judge in fixing his courts to be holden on those days, and so depriving the County Court clerks of their holidays?

, in reply, said, that the question with reference to a County Court Judge holding his sittings at the time when the County Court office was directed to be closed would have been more fitly put to the Lord Chancellor, as the County Court Judge was a judicial officer, and was in no sense under the control of the Attorney General. Speaking, however, as an individual, he might say that the practice of holding Courts on days appointed for holidays for the clerks was one very much to be deprecated. He did not think a County Court Judge should do so without good and special reasons.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to pay by way of compensation or otherwise any and what sums of money to any and what persons in relation to the running down of the yacht "Mistletoe" by Her Majesty's ship "Alberta," and the various proceedings consequent thereon; and, whether such sums are included in the Navy Estimates already laid upon the Table, and under what heads and sub-heads?

The whole of the information asked for in the first part of the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman is contained in the Papers already laid before Parliament. The total sum payable in relation to the accident to the Mistletoe was nearly £4,000. That has already been paid. No future payment will be made but the annuity to the steward of the Mistletoe, whose arm was broken, which is contingent on his arm not being sufficiently recovered to enable him to earn his pension in the Naval Reserve. The payments have been made out of the surplus of last year; the Votes will, therefore, not appear in the Estimates for the current year. The payments fall under Vote 14, which is a sum taken for payments on account of damage done by Her Majesty's ships.

gave Notice that he would on an early day after Easter call attention to the practice of making such payments out of the surplus of last year.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, without Notice, a Question with reference to a subject which is to be discussed to-night, on which I am desirous, on personal grounds, to have some explanation, inasmuch as one of the victims of the collision between the Alberta and the Mistletoe was a relative of mine, and was the daughter of my late lamented Colleague. In the Papers laid upon the Table it appears that the Admiralty have reprimanded one of the officers who "contributed to this stupid blunder," and I wish to know, Whether it is correct, as has been asserted in the newspapers of yesterday and to-day, that Captain Welch, one of the two officers in command at the time of the collision, has declined to accept the reprimand of the Admiralty, and if that is so, whether really law and justice should not be done in this case, and whether the two officers should not be tried by Court martial?

The right hon. Gentleman has given me no Notice of the Question. I have seen in a quasi-comic paper that statement.

In The Times newspaper?

There is a statement of the character which he has described in the paper I have alluded to, and I believe it was copied into others. I have seen it in no other periodical. But it is perfectly impossible for an officer to decline to receive a reprimand. It would be an act of insubordination. He may ask for a Court martial, if he is so disposed, and in that way, but in no other way, can he repudiate a reprimand.

Then he has not asked for a Court martial? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if Captain Welch has requested to be tried by court martial?

No.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will, after Easter, lay upon the Table a Return of those Foreign Countries in which British ships at present enjoy the privilege of exemption from any municipal law relating to stowage, giving the particulars of such exemptions?

Sir, as I am not aware of any municipal laws of foreign countries relating to stowage to which British ships are subject, I am unable to lay on the Table any Return of foreign countries in which British ships at present enjoy the privilege of exemption from such laws. If the hon. and learned Member for Chatham has any such information as his Question implies, I wish he would name any one of such foreign countries, or lay his information before the House, when it will receive due consideration.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, if Holland were to offer abolition of the Sugar Duty in lieu of her engagement under the Sugar Convention entered into at Brussels last Au- gust, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to accept the Treaty on such terms; and, whether the adoption of this course by Holland would lead Her Majesty's Government to advise the ratification of the Treaty?

, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government would hear with much satisfaction that the Dutch Government had determined to abolish the sugar duties. The abolition of the duty would evidently be the most effectual mode of abolishing bounties in that country. If, therefore, Holland were to make such a proposal, it could not be otherwise than acceptable as a fulfilment of her part in the arrangement come to at Brussels last year.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received of the progress of the mission to Momein under the charge of the Honourable T. G. Grosvenor?

Sir, we have received a telegram from Her Majesty's Consul at Shanghai, stating that Mr. Grosvenor's Mission had arrived safely at Yunnan Fu on the 6th of March. The Chief Commissioner of British Burmah also telegraphs under date of the 4th of this month, that he had received intelligence from the Resident at Mandalay announcing that a letter had reached him, viâ Bhamo, from Mr. Grosvenor, dated Yunnan Fu, the 10th.Mr. Grosvenor had everywhere been received with civility by the Chinese officials since leaving Hankow. Mr. Grosvenor proposes to go on to Burmah after the inquiry is over, and expects to be at Bhamo by the end of May.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he has had an opportunity of considering the Report of the Boston Election Commission; and whether, having regard to the time that has elapsed since the persons scheduled to that Report as guilty of bribery committed the offences alleged against them, he is of opinion that those persons are liable to be prosecuted under any or either of the statutes for the prevention of Corrupt Practices at Elections?

Sir, I will reply to the second part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman first. I am aware that there is a provision in the statute referred, to to the effect that proceedings cannot be taken for certain offences mentioned after the lapse of 12 months from their commission; but if a man were indicted for a common misdemeanour it would, at all events, be very doubtful whether the provision in question would be any bar to the proceedings. With regard to the earlier part of the Question, I would say that, having had a further opportunity of considering the Report of the Commissioners and the evidence on which it is founded, I have not thought it necessary to institute any prosecution in this case.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the great advantages likely to result to the public from the International Exhibition and Congress of Hygienie, and other means and appliances for the protection and saving of life, to be held at Brussels during the current year under the patronage of the King of the Belgians, Her Majesty's Government is prepared to adopt a course similar to that taken by the Governments of Germany, Russia, and other states, in recommending to Parliament to vote a sum of money to enable the various departments to be properly represented at the Brussels Exhibition?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government are not at all insensible to the advantages of such exhibitions; but having regard to circumstances, we do not find ourselves in a condition to propose any Vote on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will have any objection to lay upon the Table the Replies of Lord Northbrook to the Despatch of the Secretary of State for India, dated November 11th, 1875, which was published in the Correspondence on the Indian Tariff Act lately laid before Parliament?

:Sir, we have not yet received the whole of the replies of the Indian Government to the despatch of the Secretary of State for India of November 11th, 1875. When the Correspondence is complete I will lay it upon the Table of the House.

:asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state to the House the reason for the arrangement that, contrary to the universal practice hitherto, the annual training of the Londonderry Regiment of Light Infantry Militia is not to be held this year at or near the city of Derry, but at Moneymore, a small town of about 300 inhabitants, at the extreme verge of the county?

, in reply, said, the annual training of the Londonderry Regiment of Light Infantry Militia was to be held that year at Money more, because Londonderry had been reported against on the score of insufficient accommodation, and the officer in command of the district had advocated a camp at Moneymore, and his suggestion had been approved by the Irish Government.

said, he desired to raise a question of Order with reference to the second Notice of Motion on the Paper, which was for the appointment of a Committee to consider and advise the House whether a particular Petition from foreign subjects should be received by the House. The Petition was one which the House had already declined to receive. The Question he desired to ask was, Whether there was any precedent, first, for appointing a Committee to consider the case of a particular Petition; and, second, for the appointment of a Committee to consider whether the House should receive a Petition which it had already declined to receive. He wished to guard himself against misunderstanding; he did not for a moment doubt the power of the House to appoint a Committee to consider the abstract question whether a Petition from foreign subjects should be received; the question applied only to the Motion before the House; and therefore it was, whether the Motion was in Order with regard to this Petition which the House had declined to receive.

In answer to the noble Lord, I am not prepared to say whether there is any precedent or not for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider a Petition of this kind; but there can be no doubt, if the House thinks fit to appoint a Select Committee to assist the House to determine whether a Petition of this character should or should not be laid on the Table of the House, such a proceeding would be in accordance with the usages of the House, and, as a matter of Order, would be quite regular.

gave Notice that when the Motion came before the House, he should oppose it by moving that the Committee should be appointed to consider whether, and in what cases, a Petition from foreign subjects should be received by the House.

, in rising to call attention to the circumstances under which the yacht "Mistletoe" was run down, and to the subsequent proceedings; and to move—

"That as the Officers appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into the circumstances attending the collision between the 'Alberta' and the 'Mistletoe' appear to have reported, and the Board of Admiralty by compensations have practically acknowledged, that those in charge of the 'Alberta' were in the wrong, Her Majesty's. Government ought, when life had been lost through that wrong, to have taken further steps to vindicate public justice,"

said, before he entered into the main question he had rather a grave charge to make against the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in respect of an incident which transpired on Friday. It would be recollected that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the Report of the Inquiry had not been laid on the Table along with the other Papers, and that the First Lord of the Admiralty replied that it had been designedly left out. He (Mr. Anderson) then asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Report of the Inquiry had not been one of the Papers which had been asked for by himself and promised by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the right hon. Gentleman curtly replied, "No." What had previously occurred was this:—The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) put the following Question to the right hon. Gentleman—Whether he had instituted an inquiry into the circumstances of the collision between the Alberta and the Mistletoe, and, if so, whether he would state the result of such inquiry to the House? This Question was followed on the Notice Paper by his (Mr. Anderson's) own Notice of a Question to ask, whether any inquiry had been instituted by the Admiralty into the circumstances; and, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty would lay on the Table of the House any Report or Correspondence on the subject, and whether any payments had been made, &c. The right hon. Gentleman asked, leave to reply to both these Questions at once, and said he intended to lay on the Table of the House Papers which would give both hon. Members the information they asked for. The information which he (Mr. Anderson) asked for was the Report of that inquiry; therefore, that was part of the information the right hon. Gentleman promised. He now said it was designedly kept back. Did the right hon. Gentleman design to keep it back when he gave the answer to the two Questions? If so, his reply was decidedly disingenuous, for it left the impression on his mind that it was to be furnished. If the right hon. Gentleman did not then mean to keep it back, but afterwards changed his mind, thinking it necessary in the interests of the public service to keep it back, he ought to have informed him (Mr. Anderson) of his intention, for they had been in communication, both verbally and by letter, and never until the last moment did the right hon. Gentleman give him the slightest idea that this important Report was not to be laid upon the Table. It was only when the Papers were actually produced, and when it was too late, that he (Mr. Anderson) found out what had actually been done. This was an instance of a mode of answering Questions by right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side against which he felt bound to protest. There had been another instance of it that night. Some right hon. Gentlemen appeared to think that flippancy was wit, and tried to evade every question that was put to them; but, however much the House liked a smart answer, at the same time it liked truthfulness and honesty a great deal better. He felt bound to say that in this matter the Prime Minister frequently set a very bad example; and it was not in keeping with the dignity of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should put himself in such a position that a respectable newspaper—not a Party paper—should be able to say of him that in answering a Question "he fenced and dodged." He would not himself use such words of any hon. Member; but he hoped for the future right hon. Gentlemen would take a more dignified tone in replying to Questions. The question had been asked—why was the whole matter brought up now? Newspaper articles had been written, asking—"Why rake it up now, seeing that the whole thing is settled, and every- body satisfied?" It had been said that the Notice of Motion had been put down in consequence of the Papers having been produced; but it was all the other way. The Notice of Motion had not been put down in consequence of the Papers having been produced, but the Papers had been produced in consequence of the Motion having been set down. No doubt the question had been settled to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, which had adopted its own course, settled everything its own way, and used the nation's money to buy off everybody who could possibly raise obstacles, by instituting a prosecution, making things pleasant in that way to a certain extent. Something more than that, however, was wanted by the public. They were not altogether content to see public justice perverted, and the nation's money used as hush money, merely to screen persons in high places. When the nation learned what had been done, he thought it would approve of the course he had taken in exposing it. He did not believe it was too late for redress even now; but, even if it should be so in this case, calling attention to the matter might prevent similar occurrences in future. The House was aware of the circumstances of the case. On the 19th of August last, on a fine day, in a clear roadway, and in broad daylight, Her Majesty's yacht the Alberta, going at 15 knots an hour, ran into the Mistletoe, which was almost stationary, going at the rate of only two or three knots an hour, and steering her course to Ryde. The occurrence could not be better described than in the first telegram to the Admiralty, which said—

"The 'Alberta,' in crossing over last evening with the Queen on board, came into collision with and sank the yacht 'Mistletoe' of 120 tons, belonging to Mr. Heywood. One lady and the mate went down with the vessel. The master picked up in a drowned state, died on board the 'Alberta.' One man with arm broken was sent to Haslar. Mr. Heywood is at Admiralty House, under the care of Dr. McEwen, where he was joined by Mrs. Heywood last evening. The crew on board Flag Ship. The Queen, after seeing that arrangements had been made for the care of the survivors, left for Balmoral. Divers are endeavouring to recover the bodies of Miss Peek and the mate, and vessels are going out to raise the vessel. The 'Alberta's' cutwater is all knocked away."

Now, this accident occurred in Stokes Bay, where the Royal yacht had abun- dant room to go wherever she pleased; and there was not the slightest ground for doubt as to what ought to have been done. The Rule of the Road at Sea was perfectly clear. Article 15 said that if two ships—one a sailing ship and the other a steamer—were proceeding in such directions as to involve the risk of collision the steam-ship should keep out of the way of the sailing ship. Article 16 said that every steam-ship when approaching another ship so as to involve risk of collision should slacken speed, or, if necessary, stop and reverse. By Article 17 it was laid down that every vessel overtaking any other vessel should keep out of her way; whilst Article 18 set forth that where, by the above rules, one of two ships was keeping out of the way of another, that other should keep her course, subject to the qualifications contained in the article following—Article 19—which said that in obeying and considering these rules due regard must be had to all the dangers of the navigation, and to any special circumstances which might exist in any particular case to render a departure from the above rules necessary in order to avert immediate danger. Article 20 said that nothing in these rules should exonerate any ship, or the owner, master, or crew, from the consequences of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, of the neglect of any precautions which might be required by the ordinary practice of seamen or special circumstances of the case. Now, he thought that those rules made the case so clear that it was impossible to get over it at all. Captain Welch undoubtedly said that the Mistletoe changed her course, and ran in a course somewhat parallel to that of the Alberta. If so, one of these rules would apply, because the Alberta would have been in the position, mentioned in Article 17, of overtaking another ship, and was bound, therefore, to have kept out of the way of that vessel. Thus, even if it was true that the Mistletoe changed her course and ran in a parallel course, the Alberta was in every case bound to keep out of the way of the other vessel. In his statement as to the course of the other vessel, however, Captain Welch was almost, if not altogether, uncorroborated. The only independent witness was Captain Parker, of the Moonbeam, who said there was no change on the part of the Mistletoe from taking the starboard tack until the moment of collision, and that under no circumstances ought the Royal yacht to have got near. Then the question naturally arose, What were the probable causes that led to the disaster? He found that on the bridge of the Alberta there were six persons—Prince Leiningen, Captain Welch, General Ponsonby, Captain Fullerton, and two quartermasters. There were no sails or anything to disturb their view forward excepting the funnel, which could not possibly obstruct the view of all these men. It was impossible, if they were looking forward, that they could not have seen the Mistletoe. Prince Leiningen said he was watching the Victoria and Albert, which was coming up in the rear, and there was too much reason to believe that the others were engaged in doing the same thing, until, suddenly, one of the quartermasters touched Captain Welch on the shoulder and called his attention to the Mistletoe; but it was too late, for a collision was then unavoidable. Then there was the usual bustle, and Prince Leiningen and Captain Welch did all that was possible—which was nothing—to prevent the collision. The order was first given to stop, and then to reverse the engines, and the boats were lowered. It was, however, impossible, as already said, to avoid a collision, and the only question was whether the Alberta should run into the Mistletoe's broadside, or strike her in a slanting direction. Captain Welch said he had noticed the Mistletoe a mile away, and if he had continued to watch her afterwards there would have been no difficulty in keeping out of the way. But a remark made by Captain Welch to one of the persons beside him on the bridge (Captain Fullerton) would show pretty much what led to this disaster. "What bad manners," he said, "these people have, driving across the bow of the yacht with Her Majesty on board." And that was said of a vessel a mile off, and which could have not got out of the way had she attempted to do so. Prince Leiningen, from his evidence, was evidently ignorant of the Rules of the Road at Sea, or thought they did not apply to Her Majesty's yachts or the Royal Navy, for he said that the duty of the Alberta was to "give way" to a sailing vessel, and that if a sailing vessel ran into her on the starboard tack—on which tack the Mistletoe was —the sailing vessel would have to bear the blame. Now, there were two fallacies in that statement. The first was the assertion that it was his duty to give way to a sailing vessel. To give way merely meant to pass by the stern, and might be done with very close shaving. That was not his duty at all, the rule stating that his duty was to keep out of the way, which was a totally different thing, and not saying a single word about sailing ships on the starboard tack giving way. That was a new invention of Prince Leiningen himself, so that he really did not know what was his duty on that occasion. Commander Sullivan said—"It was difficult, from the uncertain movements of yachts, to navigate the Solent at the speed at which the Royal yacht was necessarily obliged to proceed; "but when asked what was the necessity for such a speed, he gave no satisfactory reply. In fact, it was only too evident that there was a sort of idea among all naval men that all mere yachts and vessels of the Mercantile Marine should get out of the way, whether they were able to do so or not. Well, two of the bodies—those of Miss Peel and Captain Stokes—were found, and it became necessary to have an inquest. Upon that, he (Mr. Anderson) should have some very strong observations to make. He meant to say that there was a deliberate plan for the frustration of public justice in that inquest, and that that deliberate plan rested partly on officials of the Admiralty. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the First Lord of the Admiralty) knew anything about it even now; and still less that he had known anything about it at the time; but he believed that the officials of the Admiralty did, and that the right hon. Gentleman ought to know it now because he had better means of finding it out than he (Mr. Anderson) had. Besides, it was the First Lord's business to find out all the circumstances before he took the exceptional course which he did. Now, he should like to explain that the Royal Yacht consisted really of three vessels. There was the Victoria and Albert, of which Prince Leiningen was the commander; there was the Alberta, which was a tender to the Victoria and Albert, and was commanded by Captain Welch; and there was the Elfin, which again was a tender to the Alberta, and was under the command of Captain Balliston. It was quite evident, therefore, that, one ship being a tender to the other, the captain of the main ship became captain of a tender the moment he went on board that tender. So that Prince Leiningen became commander of the Alberta over Captain Welch the moment he went on board that vessel. That was a most important point, which appeared to have been lost sight of by the Admiralty. There were several irregular matters which required to be noticed in connection with the inquest. First, the coroner was a solicitor to the Admiralty. In other words, it was a man in the Admiralty's pay who acted as coroner. There was no occasion for that irregularity, as there were two men, one the deputy coroner at Gosport and the other the coroner at South sea, not in the pay of the Admiralty, either of whom could have acted as coroner; and it would have been far more decent if the coroner, who was a paid servant of the Admiralty, had declined to serve in a case in which the Admiralty and Naval officers were concerned. That was the first step of which he had to complain in connection with the inquest. The next was in getting the jury summoned, and respecting that, he could prove a fact which the House would hardly credit—that Captain Balliston, of the Elfin, the Alberta's tender, and thus one of the captains of the Royal Yacht, and who was an intimate friend of Captain Welch's, actually went to the summoning officer to suggest that certain names should be put on the jury. He (Mr. Anderson) had a letter from the summoning officer acknowledging that Captain Balliston came to him and suggested one name. He (Mr. Anderson) had been told by several of the jury, for he had been down to Gosport himself and had seen nine of the jurymen. ["Oh, oh," and laughter.] Well, this was a very important case and as he was about to make strong statements he had thought it desirable to make sure of the facts. He had seen nine of the jurymen, highly respectable men, and they were very indignant at the way in which they had been treated, and the way in which they were made the instruments of a perversion of justice by placing two men on the jury who ought not to have been there. He did not blame the summoning officer for acting on the suggestion of Captain Balliston, because he had not entertained any suspicion about the matter. Mr. Saxy, one of the two jurymen in question, and the person Captain Balliston suggested to the summoning officer, was an intimate acquaintance of Captain Welch, was actually visiting at his house between the times the coroner's jury was sitting—visiting one of the men who were implicated, and whom the jury were about to exonerate or condemn. Another man who ought not to have been on the jury was a Mr. Mumby, who described himself in his trade circulars as soda-water manufacturer to Her Majesty the Queen, and claimed public patronage on the ground that he supplied Her Majesty at Osborne Her Majesty's yacht, the Alberta itself, and 50 or 60 Queen's ships, of which he gave a list in his circular. He was, in fact, a mere creature of the Admiralty, claiming the patronage of the public as he did as purveyor to the Admiralty. Could these two men be supposed, in such an inquiry as this, to have been independent men? But that was not all, for Mr. Mumby had previously claimed exemption from serving on juries, on the ground that he was a chemist and a stamp distributor. Only last year he was put on a jury and fined £10 for not attending, and he claimed a remission of the fine for the reason referred to, and got it. What, then, induced him to change his mind and serve on this jury? Could anybody doubt that some private influence had been used to induce him to serve on this particular jury—the very last in the world on which he ought to have served? So much for the composition of the jury. Well, the jury having been summoned, the coroner took the wholly irregular course of appointing the foreman, instead of leaving it to his fellow-jurors to elect him, or as was sometimes done suggesting the first name on the list; and the person appointed was Mr. Mumby, whose name did not stand first on the list, and, indeed, for some time had not been on the list at all. He was informed, too, that during the inquest the coroner acted with the most unmistakeable bias, and was constantly speaking in private to the foreman of the jury. When the jury wanted to put a question it had to be put through him, and he twisted every ques- tion, until at last they were obliged to put them themselves. More than that, the Deputy Judge Advocate of the Fleet attended the inquiry regularly, and sent up written questions to be put to the men of the Mistletoe. The men of the Alberta were obliged to give evidence in the presence of their officers, and Captain Balliston sat immediately beside the witness as he was giving evidence, and actually whispered to him. That occurred during the first two days, until the jury were obliged to complain and insist on his being removed. The result was, that the Alberta men were afraid to give honest evidence—they always looked to their officers to try whether they could not get a cue what to say. There was one other matter he had to refer to, which was perhaps even worse than the gross irregularities of which he had spoken. It was this, that Prince Leiningen took upon himself—he hoped without authority—to read to the jury, evidently for the purpose of influencing them, this letter from the Queen—

"I wish to say how admirably I think every one behaved, and with what rapidity the boats were lowered, and officers and men jumped overboard to save lives, and I believe no one would have been saved otherwise. It was most sad that, notwithstanding the noble efforts of Captain Fullerton and others, one lady lost her life; that the poor old man should have died on board, and that another man was lost."

Now he (Mr. Anderson) had no objection to that letter in itself; it was a most feeling and considerate letter, but not a letter which ought to have been read to the jury to influence them, and which could not but have had an unfavourable and improper effect. When the jury came to consider their verdict, notwithstanding all this, they agreed upon a verdict that the collision was caused by the negligence of the officers in charge of the Alberta; but, just before that verdict was given in to the coroner, the two jurymen who had been named desired to know what the result of giving such a verdict would be; and when they were informed that the result would be to put some of the officers of the Alberta on their trial, they immediately withdrew from the verdict and stood out against it. The consequence was that the jury were unable to agree—11 being for and 2 against the verdict. The matter was accordingly remitted to Winchester Assizes for further consideration, where a Charge was made by Baron Bramwell. But long before this matter came up at Winchester, a very remarkable letter was published, which he regretted to be obliged to allude to at all, but he found it necessary to do so, as it had an important bearing on the subject. It was a letter written by General Ponsonby at the request of the Queen, to the Marquess of Exeter, and was as follows:—

"It has appeared in the course of the recent inquiry at Gosport that it is a common practice of private yachts to approach the Royal yacht when Her Majesty is on board, from motives of loyalty or curiosity. It is evident that such a proceeding must at all times he attended with considerable risk, and in summer, when the Solent is crowded with vessels, such manœuvres are exceedingly dangerous. The Queen has therefore commanded me to request that you will kindly assist Her Majesty in making known to all owners of yachts that she earnestly hopes this practice, which may lead to lamentable results, should be discontinued."

He had spoken favourably of the former letter, but he must condemn that letter entirely. He did not believe it came from the Queen, for there was nothing of the Queen's spirit in it. He did not believe the Queen would send out such a letter without the consent of her responsible Advisers, or some of them, and he should like to know which of Her Majesty's Ministers was responsible for the production which he had just read. In the first place, it was not true that the "common practice" existed of private yachts approaching near the Royal yacht. No doubt an insinuation had been thrown out by the officers of the Alberta at the inquest that Mr. Heywood was endeavouring to get near the Queen's yacht in order to see Her Majesty; but that insinuation completely broke down. There was no such attempt, and it was very well known in the Solent that sailing yachts were too much afraid of Captain Welch and the rate at which the Queen's yachts were sailed ever to attempt to go near his vessel. This letter was not only very unfortunate in its language, but it came out at an unfortunate time—namely, between the time the first jury were unable to come to a decision and the time they were taken in hand by Baron Bramwell at Winchester Assizes. In the meantime a second jury was sitting, and it appeared necessary that an explanation of that letter should appear. That explanation was as follows:—

"As some misconception has arisen in respect to the letter addressed by Colonel Ponsonby to Lord Exeter, we have been requested to state that it was written three weeks ago, before there was any reason to expect a second inquest, and was intended solely to convey the simple request contained therein; that any expression of opinion on the cause of the accident was studiously avoided, and no blame whatever was imputed to the men of the Mistletoe or any other party."

Even if written before there was any idea of a second inquest, it was quite well known that the first jury had not given their decision and had been remitted to Winchester to give it, and that its purport could not fail to influence any decision at which that jury might arrive. He said that letter did insinuate that the accident was caused through the common practice of private yachts approaching Her Majesty's yacht. The explanation said, it contained nothing but a simple request therein. That was just what he complained it did not do. It was not like any letter which the Queen had ever written before. Her Majesty had always shown that she deeply sympathized with her subjects in their sufferings and their griefs. Three was not a word of sympathy, however, in the letter of which he spoke, not a word even of caution to her own officers, nothing but an insinuation that it was the common practice of private yachts to approach too near the Royal yacht, and a request that they should not do so in future, which was tantamount to saying to all the yachtsmen of England that in future they had better keep out of the way, or they might expect to be run down. He repeated he should like to know which of Her Majesty's Ministers was responsible for that letter? He had grave doubts whether it would ever have been issued without their advice. He expected an answer to his question, and hoped to be told not only whether it was done with the advice of the whole of the Ministers, but whether any one of them knew anything about it. Whoever did it, whether one of Her Majesty's Ministers or not, he had no hesitation in saying he should be severely reprimanded for it, for in all his experience during the whole of Her Majesty's reign he knew nothing that had so jarred on the feelings of her people as that letter. The next matter he had to refer to was the jury being put under Baron Bramwell at Winchester. There had been considerable discussion about what the learned Baron had said to the jury in his Charge, and it would be remem- bered he had written a letter saying that what was imputed to him was not correct. That explanation, however, did not remove the doubt which existed, and it was not, to his mind, satisfactory, because it contained a statement of what he intended to say, rather than a point-blank denial of what he was reported to have said. It seemed clear that the learned Baron had spoken in an unguarded manner, and it must be remembered that it was not what Baron Bramwell intended to say, but what he did actually say, that had had its effect in influencing the jury; and a letter signed by 11 of the jury had been sent to him (Mr. Anderson) at the time, expressing distinctly the impressions conveyed to them by what Baron Bramwell did say. However, he should not dwell further on that point. Then came the second inquest. The body of the mate of the Mistletoe was found, and at the inquest consequently held, a jury was taken from Port sea, he believed it was taken from the neighbourhood of the dockyard, and was largely composed of men connected with the supply of the Navy. He did not, however, complain of the constitution of that jury, but he should have to make a few remarks on their verdict, which was founded mainly upon certain words of Mr. Justice Patteson, which were quoted to them by the coroner. The learned Judge laid it down that—

"It was perfectly clear that no man could be indicted for manslaughter for an accident if he acted to the best of his judgment and ability. He was not criminally responsible for a mistake or an error of judgment; but if, on the contrary, a person placed in a situation of great responsibility and trust conducted himself with gross negligence and inattention, then in case of death he was unquestionably guilty of the crime of manslaughter."

That appeared to be principally what the Portsea jury founded their verdict upon, but Judge Patteson went on to say—

"If the man did not display due care and caution, he was liable to the charge of manslaughter."

The jury found that the deceased had met his death by drowning, and that it was brought about by the accidental collision of the Alberta with the Mistletoe, but they added a rider to their verdict which entirely contradicted it, and altogether contravened the last part of the ruling of Mr. Justice Patteson. It was as follows:—

"The Jury wish to express their opinion that there was an error of judgment on the part of the navigating officer of the 'Alberta,' and that they think that a slower rate of speed, during the summer months especially, would be more conducive to public safety, and that also there should be a more efficient look-out."

He contended that this rider was a declaration that there was too great speed and too little outlook, and that these amounted to a want of "due care and caution" on the part of those responsible for the management of the Alberta, and yet, instead of finding a verdict to that effect, which by Judge Patteson's ruling involved a charge of manslaughter, the jury returned one which had the effect of an acquittal. Thus they had one jury twice dismissed unable to agree, and the Admiralty officials at Portsmonth knew perfectly well why they did not agree, and how that disagreement had been brought about. Then they had a second jury giving a verdict with a rider attached to it, which verdict was in opposition to the charge of Judge Patteson, which was quoted for their guidance. The Admiralty under these circumstances were bound by every consideration to make further inquiry. They were bound to have a court martial, or, if they objected to that, they were bound to have had a public trial which would have satisfied the public. They might have had a trial commenced on a magistrate's warrant, but, failing that, they might have had a court martial. He understood it was the rule of the Service whenever there was an accident to one of Her Majesty's ships that there should be a court martial. The Alberta lost her cutwater, sustained other damage, and had to go into dock to be repaired. Was not that an accident that demanded a court martial? But instead of taking that course, what did the Admiralty do? They held a secret inquiry. He thought a secret inquiry was a thing utterly unworthy of, and, indeed, a disgrace to this free country. It was expressly got up, one would say, for the very purpose of defeating justice, and he for one should like to see that atrocious system altogether abandoned. The inquiry was conducted by three officers, the public being left in ignorance as to the result, for their Report was carefully suppressed, and the only way one could judge at the conclusion arrived at was that a letter was addressed by the Secretary to the Admiralty to Admiral Elliot, in command at Portsmouth, in which he was asked to inform Captain his Highness Prince Leiningen and Staff Captain Welch that—

"Having given careful consideration to the Report of the officers who formed the Court, and concurring generally in the finding at which they arrived, my Lords have come to the conclusion that, as the attention of Prince Leiningen is frequently and unavoidably taken up by attendance on the Queen during the time Her Majesty is on board the 'Alberta'in crossing the Solent, the conduct of the navigation is properly left to the Staff Captain, and that the latter officer must be held responsible for it."

He should like to know whether the Court of Inquiry came to that finding, or whether it was only the conclusion drawn from their Report by the Lords of the Admiralty? In either case he condemned it as being an untrue finding, and an unworthy attempt to make a scapegoat of Captain Welch for the purpose of screening Prince Leiningen. He had already shown that Prince Leiningen, being commander of the ship of which the Alberta was the tender, became the commander of the latter the moment he went on board. It was not his business to attend on Her Majesty; that was the business of her suite. If he were not to attend to his ship, why was he made captain? Prince Leiningen himself made no such claim of exemption from responsibility. To his credit he had in a manly and straight forward manner come forward and claimed the responsibility, and after that he was surprised that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have assented to such a finding. It was untrue also as a matter of fact, for Prince Leiningen at the time was not attending on the Queen. He was standing on the bridge with Captain Welch, and gave all the orders for stopping the engines and lowering the boats, as he himself stated at the inquest, showing that he was acting as captain at the time, and was in every way responsible for what had occurred. He wished to know, if Prince Leiningen had been on board his own ship, the Victoria and Albert, where there was no Captain Welch upon whom to cast the blame, where the responsibility for such an accident would have fallen? The letter of the Lords of the Admiralty went on to say—

"My Lords further consider, in accordance with the finding of the Court, that the course steered by the 'Alberta' should have been such that she could not have been brought into collision with the 'Mistletoe' through any alteration of course made by that vessel."

That view was a correct one, according to the Rules of the Road, at Sea, which he had already laid before the House. The Alberta had no right whatever to be in the neighbourhood of the Mistletoe, because, going at a speed of 15 knots an hour, the slightest touch of her helm would have taken her far away from the latter; whereas the poor Mistletoe, going at two or three knots an hour, could not possibly have got out of the way. Then the letter proceeded—

"My Lords cannot therefore acquit Staff Captain Welch from blame in not having exhibited sufficient care and attention so as to have avoided all risk of accident, and he is to be reprimanded accordingly."

The only objection he had to that passage was that, in his opinion, the reprimand should have been given elsewhere. The letter then went on to say that—

"My Lords are satisfied that after the collision every effort was made with the utmost rapidity for the preservation of life;"

but then it proceeded—

"I am to add that in dealing with this matter my Lords have taken into consideration that Staff Captain Welch has now for a great many years been in charge of the 'Alberta' on the occasion of Her Majesty crossing the Solent, and that up to the time of the unfortunate occurrence above referred to, no accident of any kind has taken place, and that his proceedings have given entire satisfaction."

Any one reading that last paragraph would suppose that the Lords of the Admiralty intended that it should be inferred that Captain Welch had not previously been concerned in a collision, and that they wished to give him what the Americans termed "a clean record." It appeared, however, that previously to his obtaining the command of the Alberta, Captain Welch was for many years in command of the Fairy, and he (Mr. Anderson) understood that accidents were not unfrequent in the case of the Fairy. He was informed that on one occasion the Fairy ran into a yacht called the Zouave, and had to be beached in consequence. On another occasion she went into a packet-boat called the Solent, and on frequent occasions there were damages done by the Fairy by the system of close-shaving. The rest of the Papers laid before the House in connection with the subject consisted of the Correspondence that occurred during the process of buying off the surviving sufferers so as to preclude the possibility of a public trial, because a public trial would no doubt have brought forward awkward facts, and the Admiralty desired to suppress these facts. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would make a point out of these offers having been made as displaying a gracious consideration for the poor sufferers. He thought, however, that he should be able to show that these offers were intended to become the basis of a mere business transaction, and that what was meant was simply to buy off the sufferers and to prevent them from prosecuting their claims publicly, because the letters contained a clause which entirely took all grace out of the transaction. The clause to which he referred was this—

"Of course, in accepting this sum you will undertake not to bring forward hereafter any claim upon Her Majesty's Government on behalf of yourself or your son in respect of your loss."

In his view that clause took away all grace from the offer. He did not wonder at the poor widows accepting those terms, or at the steward of the Mistletoe making a good bargain for himself, but he confessed he was surprised at a gentleman of Mr. Heywood's wealth and position accepting the sum of £3,000 not to proceed further in a case where life had been lost. Had only his vessel been destroyed, he could have understood Mr. Heywood's accepting pecuniary compensation for the damage he had sustained; but where life had been lost, he was surprised that he had not insisted upon a public trial being had, which would have brought the whole of the facts clearly before the public, and have enabled them to judge where the blame really lay. The public would not be satisfied until some further inquiry had been held, and under the circumstances he was compelled to condemn Mr. Heywood severely for his part in the transaction. He was anxious to press upon Her Majesty's Government that even now it was not too late to institute a court martial to inquire into this matter. He had heard to-night from the First Lord of the Admiralty that Captain Welch had never asked for a court martial; but he (Mr. Anderson) held in his hand a letter from Captain Welch himself in which he distinctly stated that he had asked for a court martial. The letter was a long one, therefore he would only read the one sentence in it which was in point, and was to the following effect:—

"Had my request made at the time for a court martial been complied with, the public would at once have known the truth."

The letter was dated "Ischia, March 17," and was signed by Captain Welch. It therefore rested with the First Lord of the Admiralty to show that the statement in the letter was untrue. They were told that Captain Welch had refused to receive the reprimand of the Admiralty. If so, then let him have a court martial, but let Prince Leiningen be included in it also. The First Lord in this matter had acted exactly as he had done in the case of the Vanguard. He seemed to think that when he was satisfied, there was nothing else to be said. He said at the time of the accident to the Vanguard, that he had made up his mind as to the cause of the collision, and that nothing more was needed. He now virtually said that the Lords of the Admiralty had now made up their minds on this matter of the Mistletoe, and that the public had nothing to do but to pay the compensation and hold their tongues—the public had no right to complain of the perversion of justice, but had only to pay the bill. One would imagine that the right hon. Gentleman thought already that he was living under an Empress. ["Oh, oh!"] No doubt if they came to a division the subservient majority which backed up the Government would back them up again, and he had no hope in a division to carry the court martial he asked for. But he would warn the Government that the course they were following, however much it might bring success to them now, would redound to their discredit and bring ultimate disaster. He would be told he was doing wrong in bringing up the question at all, and that in doing so he could not help bringing discredit on Her Majesty. He entirely disclaimed bringing any discredit on Her Majesty. He did not suppose any discredit could come to Her Majesty through that inquiry, but discredit would come to the Government, and that was their due. But if discredit did come to Her Ma- jesty, it was not through, him it came, but through hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had been doing their best for some time past to set Her Majesty in antagonism to the wishes and feelings of her people. ["Oh, oh!" "Divide!" and "Question!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like to hear that. Why, if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had been a Red Republican, he could not have done more in that direction than he had done. He knew that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House considered him (Mr. Anderson) a Radical of very extreme views; but he was not anything of the kind. He disclaimed extreme views. He had received many letters from persons who were far more extreme than himself, and they had written condemning the course he had lately been taking. They wrote to him—"Why are you always attacking the Government?—the Government are doing splendidly. Let them alone; they are bringing discredit on the Monarchy; and if they continue to do that you will have the Monarchy swept away." ["Oh, oh!"] Those were not his views. He desired to preserve the Monarchy, and in order to do that he opposed the policy of the Government. He opposed their tarnishing the lustre of the Crown by the gewgaw and new-fangled title of Empress. He did not wish to tarnish the lustre of the Crown, and it was for that reason that he had called the attention of the House to the sending Her Majesty out of the country in an unconstitutional and altogether unprecedented manner, simply in order that she might not learn what the real feeling of the people was. For the same reason he brought forward this case, in which there had been a deliberate attempt made to pervert public justice, and it had been done in such a way as to make it appear as if it was done in order to screen a relative of Her Majesty. He believed that those persons who took that course in the servile idea of pleasing Her Majesty were altogether wrong, for it was his opinion that they had put a mean interpretation on Her Majesty's feelings and principles, and that Her Majesty would scorn to interfere with the course of public justice in order to screen either herself or any of her relatives. He begged, in conclusion, to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

The hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Amendment (Mr. Anderson) commenced his speech by saying that he had a serious charge to make against me, and I quite admit that if the facts of the case were as he has stated them, a very serious charge was made against me. But I beg to say that I think the hon. Gentleman has no foundation whatever for making that charge. The other day, without any Notice to me, the hon. Gentleman put a Question, as to whether I had not promised to produce a Paper which I was then refusing to lay upon the Table of the House. I think I might fairly have complained of such a charge being brought against me at the time. It was imputed to me that I had been guilty of a breach of faith in answering, as I had done, a Question put to me by another hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House; and if I did give the hon. Gentleman a curt answer, I must say I felt somewhat indignant at the form in which the Question of the hon. Member for Glasgow was put. I was asked, without Notice, whether I was not refusing to give a Paper which I had promised to give. Well, I thought I could trust to my memory as to what I had promised, and on referring to the Questions put on the Notice Paper, I am entirely confirmed as to my recollection. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) asked me whether there had been any inquiry into the circumstances of the collision between the Alberta and the Mistletoe; and, if so, whether I would state the result of such inquiry; and the hon. Member who has brought forward this Amendment asked me whether any inquiry had been made by the Admiralty as to the circumstances under which the yacht Mistletoe was run down in August last, and whether I would lay upon the Table any Report or Correspondence on the subject. My answer, I think, was this—I am speaking from memory—I said I would lay on the Table Papers which would give both the hon. Gentlemen the information they asked for. The Papers which I laid upon the Table answered the Question of the hon. Member for Tynemouth, for they showed that there was an inquiry, and also the result of the inquiry—namely, a reprimand of Captain Welch by the Admiralty. With regard to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, whether I would lay on the Table any Report or Correspondence on the subject, I have to say I laid the Correspondence on the Table. I never intended at that time, nor have I ever intended since, to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Court of Inquiry, and for this reason—Courts of Inquiry, both Naval and Military, are assembled very often to inquire into very delicate matters, and into personal relations between officers; matters which it is not desirable to bring before the public. They are held in order to advise the authorities, naval or military, on the matters which are referred to them, and it has always been considered inadvisable that the officers who compose these Courts should be fettered as to the advice they might give by the knowledge that their Reports and proceedings might be made public. Therefore, as a matter of general public policy, it has always been held that these Reports ought not to be produced. I should, however, have been extremely glad in this particular case to have laid the Report on the Table of the House. Indeed, I believe that, if I had produced the Report of the proceedings before the Court of Inquiry, even the hon. Member himself would have been satisfied with the course I adopted; but, on general grounds, I thought the production of the document would be mischievous as a precedent for the future, and accordingly I did not lay it upon the Table. The same course was adopted only the other day by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. He was asked to produce the Report of an inquiry into a military scandal, and he said that there was no objection to its production, except that, on general grounds, it was not desirable to produce Reports of that nature. The hon. Mem- ber says that we have held a secret Court of Inquiry, and that he has shown that some of the results of that inquiry were the instructions issued by the Admiralty; but if he had gone further, he would have found that the Admiralty instructions as to these inquiries are that, as a general rule, they should be held with closed doors, unless there were instructions to the contrary, and, therefore, that we only, in this particular case, followed what was the rule of the Service. If I had issued instructions, and the inquiry had, in consequence, been made public, I will answer for it that the hon. Gentleman himself would have been the first to say that I had endeavoured to influence the coroner's jury by showing what was the professional opinion upon the subject. That is the reason why instructions were specially sent down that the proceedings of the Court should not be made public. It was to prevent any interference with or influence on the coroner's jury. The hon. Gentleman has gone into the question of the proceedings of the first coroner's jury that was empanelled. He said that no doubt a good deal of what he would say to me would be new to me; and I confess that it was. I have not been down to Portsmouth to see any of the jurors who were summoned upon this inquest, or to make any other inquiries; but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the coroner of Hampshire, who sat on the first case, is not a Crown officer, but is elected by the freeholders of Hampshire, and is the proper person to hold inquiries upon bodies that come within his jurisdiction. I presume, though I know nothing of the circumstances under which the men were summoned, that the usual course was followed, but, if not, it has nothing to do with me or with any other Member of the Government. As I have said, the coroner is an independent officer, elected by the freeholders of the county, and has duties to discharge towards those who elected him. Then what was my duty as head of the Admiralty in the matter? A coroner's jury not having been able to agree in the case of the inquest upon the first two bodies rescued from the water, I ordered a Court of Inquiry, and in doing that I did the usual thing and the Court was held in the usual manner. Nothing was done on the Report of the Court of Inquiry for many months, for this reason—that the jury not having been able to agree, the coroner adjourned the inquest until the next Winchester Assizes, so that it appeared to me to be right that the judgment of the Admiralty should not be known until the jury had been discharged at the Assizes. It so happened, however, that a third body was brought on shore and—I cannot but express my deep regret that such a loss of life should have taken place upon an occasion like this—it was taken into a different jurisdiction, that of the borough of Portsmouth, and a different coroner, and of course a different jury were assembled to inquire into the cause of the death of the person whose body was brought there. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman laid any blame upon the Portsmouth coroner; but, like the other one, he was not a Government officer or a Crown official, but was elected by those whose duty it was to choose him. This tribunal came to the conclusion that the death was accidental, though no doubt they appended a rider, in which they made suggestions as to the speed being too fast, and said that in navigating the vessel Captain Welch had exhibited an error in judgment, but they did not fix any criminal responsibility upon him. Then came the adjourned inquest held at the Winchester Assizes, and there the first coroner's jury had the advantage of the summing-up of a learned Judge (Baron Bramwell) upon the depositions; but after hearing his Charge they were unable to agree upon a verdict—that is, they failed to fix any criminal responsibility upon any one concerned. Thus two juries had been discharged, one with a verdict of Accidental Death, and the other with no verdict: and then it became the duty of the Admiralty to consider what course they should take in reference to the Report of the Court of Inquiry. They founded their judgment upon the Report of the Court of Inquiry, and they found in accordance with what has been read by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that Prince Leiningen's time being considerably taken up with personal attendance upon the Queen, the conduct of the navigation was properly left to the charge of Captain Welch. The hon. Gentleman has said that the Admiralty has endeavoured to screen Prince Leiningen; but that I indignantly deny. The hon. Gentleman has told us quite truly that Prince Leiningen is the captain, not of the Alberta, but of the Victoria and Albert. The hon. Gentleman is also perfectly correct in saying that when a captain of a principal ship goes on board a vessel which is a tender to that principal ship, his authority extends to that tender. It is true that he can take the command of the tender if he chooses. But it is not the practice under these circumstances for the captain of the principal ship to take the command of the tender. The practice is, that the navigation shall be in the hands of the captain of the tender, and that practice has prevailed with respect to the Alberta whenever Her Majesty is on board; and if the hon. Gentleman will look at The Navy List he will find that Captain Welch is there put down as the captain of the Alberta. The case; however, does not rest simply on the practice of the Service. As a matter of fact, Prince Leiningen, when in attendance on Her Majesty in crossing the Solent, is constantly in personal communication with Her Majesty, and cannot attend to the navigation of the ship. But the hon. Gentleman says that Prince Leiningen does not repudiate his own responsibility. Well, it is true he does not, any more than my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government repudiated his responsibility with regard to the issue of the Slave Circular which he had never seen; and, no doubt, Prince Leiningen did the same thing in the same chivalrous spirit. But, as a matter of fact, these orders with regard to steering were given by Captain Welch, and it was not until the collision was impending that Prince Leiningen rushed forward to give orders. Now it is all very well to say that Prince Leiningen is screened because he happens to be in a high position. If it were so, the hon. Gentleman's censure on the Admiralty, and especially on myself, would be well deserved. It is not, however, according to my notions of justice, that a man should be blamed who ought not to be blamed, simply because he holds a high position; and I maintain hat if, under the circumstances of the case, the censure of the Admiralty had alien on Prince Leiningen, it would have fallen on a man who was entirely innocent in the matter. But I will refer to the charge of Baron Bramwell, and ask the House to consider for a moment what it was he told the jury at the Assizes. He told them that if they found a verdict against anybody it could only be against Captain Welch, and that they must exonerate Prince Leiningen. The hon. Gentleman says, however, that Captain Welch demanded a court martial. All I can say in reply is, that such a demand never reached the Admiralty. I heard nothing from Captain Welch to that effect, and if he had demanded a court martial I would certainly have granted him one. I am perfectly surprised, therefore, to learn from the hon. Gentleman that he has a note in his possession, in Captain Welch's handwriting, in which he says that he demanded a court martial, for no such demand has reached the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman went on to contend that the Admiralty ought to have ordered a court martial; and I do not undertake to say that there are not arguments in favour of the adoption of that course; bat the position of things is very peculiar in the case in which an inquiry has been held by a civil tribunal. This was not the ordinary case of a Court of Inquiry, and then the question whether a court martial should be ordered on that inquiry. But we had before us the fact that two coroner's inquests had been held in this matter under two different coroners, with an interval between them of a great many months, and that the juries failed to find any criminal responsibility against any officer of the yacht. One of these juries had the advantage of hearing the Charge of the learned Judge, and the other had come to the conclusion that the deaths were accidental, and it became a question under the circumstances—those two inquests having failed to fix criminal responsibility on any of the officers—whether any further inquiry should be ordered by the Admiralty. We could not resist the conclusion, not wishing to shrink from our duty, that a certain amount of blame attached to Captain Welch. We considered, in accordance with what appears in the Papers, that the course steered by the Alberta should have been such that she should not have been brought into collision by the alteration of course on the part of the Mistletoe. But while we were of opinion that Captain Welch was to a certain extent to be blamed, we gave weight to the fact that he had been engaged during a period of 27 years in the most arduous and responsible task of practically conducting the navigation of a ship with Her Majesty on board—a responsibility which was enough to try the nerves of almost any man in waters where the navigation is somewhat intricate and difficult, owing to the natural and loyal wish of Her Majesty's subjects to see Her Majesty, and to the number of yachts collected there for purposes of amusement. We were aware of all this, and while we felt that the discharge of Captain Welch's duties required the greatest nerve and coolness, we also knew that he had never yet given cause for blame on the part of the Admiralty. Under these circumstances we thought that justice would be done if a reprimand was administered to Captain Welch, who was the only person in fault. That was the course we adopted, and it is a course which I hope the House will approve.

said, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman, however much he might regret that the subject had been brought under the notice of the House, must feel that it was impossible to avoid that being done, seeing that the case was one which had excited so much public interest. But now that it was under the consideration of the House, hon. Members were placed with regard to it in a very difficult position; for they had no facts in connection with it officially before them, the Report or the finding of the Courts of Inquiry not having been produced. He knew the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and with truth, that it was unusual—[Mr. HUNT: Unprecedented]—well, he would say unprecedented, to produce the proceedings of a Court of Inquiry; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not also without precedent that one of Her Majesty's ships should have run down another vessel, however unfortunately, and that no inquiry should have been instituted into that calamity by the Admiralty, but a secret Inquiry, the result of which could not be known? He did not charge the right hon. Gentleman with not producing the proceedings or the finding of the Court of Inquiry; but it was, he contended, most unfortunate that the House was in the position that no single Member of it had any authentic access to the depositions in the case or to the evidence of the witnesses, except the right hon. Gentleman himself, and that they were obliged to depend for their information on which to arrive at a just conclusion on the reports in the newspapers. Now, he wished, on the present occasion, to confine himself to the administrative part of the question alone. The right hon. Gentleman, towards the end of his remarks, introduced to the notice of the House that which seemed to him (Mr. Goschen) to be the main point at issue—why he rested content with the Court of Inquiry without proceeding to deal with the matter by court martial? The House would observe that if the custom of dealing with questions of the kind by Courts of Inquiry was to be sanctioned and adopted, nearly every calamity might be withdrawn from the cognizance of Parliament and of public opinion. Let him suppose that in the case of the Vanguard the Court of Inquiry had not been followed by a court martial, the House would have been utterly unable to have dealt with the subject. It was a remarkable fact that there had been two or three other instances during the last six months which had also been dealt with by Courts of Inquiry, and that not only was the House ignorant of the proceedings of those Courts, but even of the finding of the Admiralty itself. An accident had happened to the Iron Duke, there was a Court of Inquiry, but the decision of the Board of Admiralty was not known. It might have been a small and unimportant thing; but the House was unable to judge of its importance, because they were unacquainted with the proceedings. In the same way, there was the case of theMonarch, in which there was a Court of Inquiry, with, as far as the House was aware, no further result. It was not only the practice to keep secret the proceedings of Courts of Inquiry, but he believed it was unusual for the Admiralty to state its finding on a Court of Inquiry; nor had their opinion in the cases he had mentioned been communicated to the country at large. In fact, they had not done so in the present case until the Papers were moved for. Now, he wished to point out why those precedents against the publication of the proceedings had grown up. They were generally considered in the light of preliminary inquiries only, which afterwards might lead to subsequent action, and which decided the Admiralty as to whether they should take any further proceedings or not. If they were to assume that Courts of Inquiry were intended to supersede or take the place of courts martial, they would make a great error indeed. "The object of Courts of Inquiry," it was laid down, "was to investigate in the first instance charges affecting officers." They were not in the nature of a judicial tribunal; they were simply so many officers gathered together to form a preliminary investigation to guide the Admiralty. Those hon. Members who had read the Papers would have observed that the officers holding the Court were informed that the proceedings would not be made public, but that that was not intended to prevent Prince Leiningen or Captain Welch from being present at the Inquiry. These were the instructions given by the Admiralty. These were two of the incriminated officers, and it might have been according to precedent that they were allowed to be present; but when Mr. Heywood applied that he also might be present at the Court of Inquiry, he was informed that he could not be permitted to attend—that it would be against the custom of these Courts of Inquiry. These circumstances existing, it stood to reason that the finding of a Court of Inquiry was an ex parte statement. In what position did the House of Commons find itself? They had before them the explanation given by Prince Leiningen and Captain Welch; they had the decision of the Admiralty upon the finding of the Court of Inquiry, while they were unaware of the evidence upon which it was founded. The Board of Admiralty said they concurred generally in the finding of the Court of Inquiry; but whether their finding was precisely the same as that of the Court of Inquiry there were no means of knowing, and the House never would know. Consequently, they must treat the matter as if no Court of Inquiry whatever had sat, and they had to deal simply with the decision of the Board of Admiralty. If the right hon. Gentleman censured, or if he had acquitted the officers, he had censured and acquitted them on his own responsibility, under the sanction of his Naval advisers; the House must hold him alone responsible. This was not a case like that of the Vanguard, where the right hon. Gentleman concurred in, or dissented from, or had over-ridden, the decision of a court martial; and in the position of affairs in which the House was placed, it seemed to him (Mr. Goschen) that the House could not come to a conclusion one way or another as to whether the decision of the Admiralty was right or wrong, because they had no evidence before them, except the reports in the newspapers. He almost regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had imparted into the discussions the Charge of Baron Bramwell in order to strengthen the verdict which he and his Naval advisers had arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to give a reason why he did not try the matter by court martial, which was very unsatisfactory—namely, that as two juries had been unable to agree to a verdict that Captain Welch or Prince Leiningen were criminally liable, he did not like to try them by court martial. The difference, however, was this. Captain Welch and Prince Leiningen might be professionally liable, although not criminally liable. In that he meant that they were responsible for their conduct in quite a different manner from the points of responsibility which would be raised against them in a charge of manslaughter, or even in a civil action. The great point was that justice should be done; but whether justice had been done, he professed himself, from want of means of information utterly unable to decide. If the Court of Inquiry had decided there was no case, then it would have been wise to drop the matter; but that Court decided there was a case. He thought the Admiralty might have proceeded to a court martial, and, indeed, for all they knew, the Court of Inquiry might have recommended a court martial. If there had been a court martial, many misunderstandings, he thought, might have been avoided. The ordering of a court martial, however, was a matter which so distinctly rested with the Executive Government, that he for one could not vote for a Motion which would direct the Government to hold a court martial. It was simply the duty of the House of Commons to watch the action of the Executive Government in the matter, and not to interfere or direct what should be done. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman thought, and he hoped the Naval Service thought, that the action which the Admiralty had taken was sufficient; but he ventured to say, with regard to the last letter which had been included in the Papers—namely, the letter from the Marquess of Exeter to the Admiralty, in which he informed them that Mr. Heywood had requested that he should express his hope that feelings which might anywhere have arisen in consequence of the lamentable accident might rest now and for ever—that letter was not entirely conclusive as to the manner in which the public might view this sad affair. He almost regretted that the Marquess of Exeter should have thought it necessary to send this letter officially to the Admiralty, or that it should be considered as an official document to be included in the Papers to be submitted to the House. Nothing could be more agreeable to their feelings than to think that Mr. Heywood was satisfied with the expressions of sympathy tendered to him by the right hon. Gentleman, and the pecuniary compensation for the loss of his yacht that he received from the Admiralty; but he should be sorry if the satisfaction given by the Government to Mr. Heywood were marred by any general feeling that the act was done with the view of having the matter hushed up. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow in calling the money which had been paid to Mr. Heywood hush money, and he was sure the House would vote the money—if not cheerfully, at any rate willingly—knowing that Mr. Heywood had lost his yacht, and that the money offered was simply a pecuniary equivalent. He also thought they would be glad, as no civil proceedings had been taken, and as Captain Welch had been censured by the Admiralty, that such civil proceedings had been avoided by voluntarily tendering the value of the yacht to Mr. Heywood; but no one in that House would think that it was purely a question affecting the Board of Admiralty, the officers of the Alberta, and Mr. Heywood. It was a question in which the officers of the Naval Service generally were deeply interested. They wished to feel—and he trusted that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman they would be able to feel—that justice had been done, and that, the officers of the Royal yacht had been dealt with precisely as a lieutenant or captain in any other ship would have been. The officers of the Royal yacht had special privileges in some respects; but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite would concur with him in thinking that it was most important in the interests of the Service, and in the interests of the Queen's ships, that in all cases of mishap equal severity should be shown, and that the navigating officer of the Queen's yacht should not be treated with greater leniency than would be extended, for instance, to the lieutenant of the Iron Duke. He thought the House would do well to support the right hon. Gentleman in any expressions he might use for the purpose of showing that all branches of the Service might expect impartial treatment. Holding the views he did, he could not vote for the Amendment, which appeared to prescribe further inquiry by a court martial. If the House saw that sufficient justice had not been done they had, in his opinion, the necessary information before them for forming a judgment. The main point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was that, in consequence of the course which had been pursued, they were unfortunately without any authentic record of the proceedings which had been taken in this unfortunate case.

said, that believing that impartial justice had not been done in the case, he would have no hesitation in voting with the hon. Member for Glasgow. Considering the high position of the parties, there ought not to have been the slightest delay in investigating the case—not the slightest suspicion that justice had not been done. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord had said that but for two inquests having been held a court martial would have sat in the case; but, from the manner in which those inquests were conducted, it was evident that everything had not been elicited which it was desirable to know, and there had been nothing on the part of the Admiralty excepting a Secret Inquiry. As regarded the first inquest, there had been no solicitor, no legal advice whatever, and he apprehended no cross-examination of the witnesses for the first three days—not even a nautical assessor until the last day of the inquest. Was it likely, then, that the facts of the case could have been thoroughly elicited? The conclusion arrived at by the jury at the second inquest seemed to him ridiculous, and one which would not commend itself to the country. Then, with regard to the secret Court of Inquiry, it was to be observed that the whole of the witnesses they examined were officers and men of the Alberta, with the exception of Mr. Heywood, not a single seaman of the Mistletoe being called. He did not think, therefore, any great reliance could be placed on anything which that Court of Inquiry had done. If the Alberta had been a merchant steamer, Captain Welch would unquestionably have been put on his trial for manslaughter; and, if she had been an ordinary vessel of the Admiralty, could it be doubted that a court martial would have been held? It was admitted by the Admiralty that Captain Welch ought to have kept out of the way, and yet he received a mere reprimand, the slightest punishment which the Admiralty could inflict. Such a punishment, in his opinion, was totally inadequate to the offence, and contrasted very unfavourably with what had been done in the case of the Vanguard. He thought he would be justified under all the circumstances in saying that an impression existed that impartial justice had not been done in this case; and that, if decisions of this sort were to be given by the Admiralty, a belief would in all probability arise in the naval service and in the public mind generally that favouritism had something to do with advancement and with getting men out of difficulties, and that interest in high quarters was more powerful than knowledge of a man's profession and the earnest discharge of his duty.

said, he really could not sit still and allow the extraordinary theory as regarded responsibility which had been placed on record in the Papers presented to the House, and enunciated in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, to pass unchallenged. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to him to have taken the responsibility off the captain's shoulders in the most extraordinary manner, for he allowed him to be divested of the responsibility after the collision had taken place; and if this theory was to hold good, they ought to have an entire change in the instructions to naval officers. As far as his (Admiral Egerton's) acquaintance with the Service was concerned, he considered the theory that the captain of a ship on stepping on board a tender was not responsible for her was utterly unwarrantable. He might, indeed he very often did, delegate the navigation to the master, or the officer of the watch, as he did on board his ship, but he did not thereby divest himself of the responsi- bility for the safe conduct of his vessel. It was plain, moreover, that Prince Leiningen considered himself to be responsible, because in one part of his evidence he stated that he was responsible for the safety of Her Majesty while she was on board, and how could he be responsible for Her Majesty's safety unless he was responsible for the vessel itself? As regarded the Court of Inquiry, the Admiralty were perfectly justified in holding an inquiry before the proceedings at the coroner's inquest were completed, and in keeping the result of that inquiry secret, because any finding on the part of a body of naval officers would have had a very prejudicial effect on the position of one party or the other if published before the legal proceedings were instituted; but after the coroner's inquest had been concluded, it would have been much better, and certainly more satisfactory to Prince Leiningen and Captain Welch, if a court martial had been held. According to what they had heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Captain Welch appeared to be of that opinion himself, though he could not tell whether Captain Welch entertained that opinion before as well as after he knew that he was to be reprimanded and Prince Leiningen was not. But Captain Welch seemed to feel that he was an aggrieved party. For himself, he did not believe that in this instance the prejudice had been in favour of the captain and against what used to be called the unfortunate master. There was not sufficient evidence before the House by which to form a decided opinion upon whom the fault lay; but he thought it had been clearly shown that the fault of the collision belonged to the Alberta. Whether it was to be attributed to Prince Leiningen or Captain Welch was one of those points which he thought ought to be cleared up. He did not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) as to the Motion before the House. If he thought that it was in any way a direction to the Board of Admiralty to hold a court martial he should vote against it, because it was not the business of that House to direct the Executive Government in the course it ought to pursue. But he looked on the Motion rather as an expression of regret that some further steps had not been taken to vindicate public justice in that case. Prom that point of view he did not think that they need be precluded from voting for the Motion; but after the discussion which had taken place, he trusted the hon. Member for Glasgow would not think it necessary to proceed to a division.

, in rising to call attention to the position of the Royal Marine Corps, especially as regarded the stagnation of Promotion and the comparative inadequacy of the Pay of the Officers, in respect of which he had given Notice of a Motion for inquiry by Royal Commission or otherwise, but which by the Rules of the House he was precluded from moving, said, he need not remind the House that the Royal Marines, though in point of organization they were a military body, were an essential part of Her Majesty's Naval Force, constituting from one-third to one-fourth of its natural strength. It was the misfortune of this corps to occupy a peculiar position between the Army and the Navy. They had the arduous duties of both, but the collateral advantages of neither. They had never got the Governorship of a fortress or a province; they had never had any Staff appointment in India, and never an Adjutancy of Militia. Having no employment out of the pale of their own corps, the block of promotion was so great as to become almost hopeless. There were in the Royal Marines seven senior lieutenant-colonels of 35 years', and the youngest lieutenant-colonel had 30 years' service; the senior captains had 30 and the junior captains 17 years' service; and the first 61 subalterns had an average of 15 years' meritorious service, yet they were receiving only £1 a-day. It must, therefore, be admitted that there was something very exceptional in the arrangements as to promotion in this corps, and that those arrangements operated very unjustly on those gallant officers. One cause of the block was, as he had said, that there were no outlets for promotion at the top of the tree in the Governorships and other appointments which officers of the sister Service got. Another cause was that the generals did not retire until they were 70 years of age, while officers of corresponding rank in the Navy were retired at 65, and rear-admirals—corresponding in rank to major-generals—at 60. By the adoption of the same limits of age for retirement as in the Navy one cause of the block in promotion would be removed. An exceptional injustice was done to the colonels second commandants. They were full colonels on the Staff of the Army, yet their pay was only £1 a-day, which was less by a third than their pay was in 1812, although their work now was greater, and the cost of living was infinitely greater. There were several captains who had been 29 or 30 years in the Service, and in addition to there being no rank of major to which they could be promoted, there was the further hardship that 46 Marine captains had, by the abolition of the Woolwich division and other changes, been placed on the Reserve list to step in when a vacancy occurred over the heads of officers who had earned promotion by long service. By that means the promotion of lieutenants was retarded by five years. There were 16 senior lieutenants, averaging 17 years service. Their maximum pay was only £136 17s. 6d. per annum, only equal to the pay of a clerk in a first-rate shop or bank, and they could not expect any promotion for three years longer service. He was informed on the best authority that so great was the discontent among the officers in the Royal Marines, induced by these disabilities and disadvantages and long neglect of their claims by successive Governments, that the prospect of supplying vacancies in that corps had become very serious indeed. As regarded physique, discipline, and tout ensemble, the Marines were second to no other corps in the Service; and it was highly disadvantageous to the Service that the existing feeling of discontent and hopeless disgust should be allowed to continue among them. It was stated on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman that he was waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission on Army Promotion and Retirement. But this was not a satisfactory reason for delay, be- cause there was no representative of the Marines upon the Royal Commission, and no question was allowed to be asked respecting them there. Moreover, the position of the Marines differed so entirely from that of the Army, that to deal with the Marines upon the rules applicable to the Army would be unjust. His suggestion was for an inquiry into the stagnation of promotion existing in the corps, and the inadequate pay of the officers. Such an inquiry would not take long, and would not cost much, for the witnesses were all on the spot. Further delay was cruel, and one or two things might be done which would give sensible and immediate relief—for example, he would suggest that the Government might extend to the Marines the temporary scheme of August, 1873, and give to about 20 captains £75 per annum over what they were entitled to, as an inducement to them to retire. That would partly remove the block of promotion, and be received by the junior officers with great satisfaction. If they gave 6s. per day to the four colonels second commandants it would only cost £1 4s. per day, or about £460 a-year, which could be easily given by a Treasury that could find £500 extra for a Commissioner's salary without inquiry. If the Admiralty were in earnest on this question, he did not believe that the Treasury would refuse to do justice to brave and meritorious men who had done nothing to deserve injustice.

said, that the Motion of the hon. Member could not, unfortunately, be put to a vote in consequence of the late division, and therefore the House could only discuss and consider it. Having had something to do not only with the official arrangements, but with the Parliamentary inquiry, he might perhaps be allowed to make a few observations. In 1867 the subject was referred to a Select Committee. At that time the Artillery and Engineers were the only non-Purchase corps, and the general opinion at that time was that the Marines should be dealt with, not perhaps exactly on the same lines, but as a non-Purchase corps; but since that time the whole of the Army had become non-Purchase. In considering the claims of the Marines it was necessary to take into account the system of promotion and retirement both in the Army and the Navy. He had entirely concurred, therefore, with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord when, some time ago, he said it was expedient to see what arrangements were made upon the Report of the Royal Commission upon Pay, Promotion, and Retirement in the Army before dealing finally with the Marines. He was bound, however, to say that he had no idea, when expressing this opinion, that there would be so enormous a delay in preparing the Report of this Commission. Some Members of the Commission were, no doubt, fully employed, but their inquiries had already occupied more than two years, and when he supported the Government in the view they then expressed, he had no idea that that meant a postponement for two years of the claims of the Marines. These claims were carefully considered in 1867 by a Committee of which he was Chairman, and again in 1870, when the scheme of naval retirements was settled; but, in his judgment, some modification was now required in the arrangements then made. He did not speak as to particular details. These would be for the consideration of the Government, after official inquiry. But he thought there were changes which it would be most unjust not to make as soon as possible, and he deeply regretted the great delay which had been caused through waiting for the Report of the Commission. Perhaps one way out of the difficulty would be to make some small changes at once in the position of the officers in the Marines, leaving the general question over until after the Report of the Commission was forthcoming.

said, that it was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was fully alive to the present state of affairs, because more than once during the last Session he alluded to the extreme urgency of the case, and pledged himself, as far as it was possible for him to do, that measures should be taken to remove the grievance which existed. He regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the expression of opinion of the House might have produced some moral effect upon him, and have induced him to lend a favourable ear to any proposition which the Admiralty might suggest, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would report to the right hon. Gentleman the unanimous feeling that existed that some steps should at once be taken with respect to the Royal Marines. It was not desirable to wait for the long-delayed Report of the Army Purchase Commission; but that steps should be immediately taken to put an end to a state of things which was not only unfair and unjust to the Royal Marines, but disadvantageous to the country. It was a grievance to the whole Army that a system should be carried on which had been stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty to be indefensible—waiting for the Report of a Commission which was delayed from Session to Session, and which the House had the authority of the Secretary of State for War for believing would not be presented in sufficient time for any steps to be taken during the present Session. The final settlement of the case of the Royal Marines must, no doubt, wait until the settlement of the whole case of the officers of the Army. But there were grievances peculiar to the Marines. They asked to be placed on the same footing as their brethren, either in the Army or the Navy. They complained that, at the present time, they were in a position inferior to both these Services, and said that whilst waiting for more comprehensive measures they ought to receive more pay, and that greater facilities should be given for promotion, and that they ought not to be kept in their disadvantageous position.

cordially joined in the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) that the Government should no longer delay in removing that stagnation of promotion from which the Marines so severely suffered. On mere grounds of economy, this relief should be at once given, for if the Admiralty waited for the Report of the Army Commission, it would be a Parliamentary proof of the intentions of the authorities to apply the Army system to the Marine Corps, and not only likely to lead the country into enormous expense, but certain to do so, for past experience showed that all these inquiries on a large scale invariably led to such results. It should be clearly understood that a proper system of promotion could not be established in the Marine Corps until the grades and numbers in the several ranks of the Marine Corps were assimilated to those of the Army, and until all the other Army advantages were given to the Marines in due proportion. These changes could not be made without adding largely to the numbers of officers in the senior ranks of the Marines, and unavoidably there by increasing the cost of this Corps. That evil should be avoided, and other measures taken to attain the object of relieving the Corps from stagnation in rise, without departing from the present exceedingly good organization in the Marine Corps. The Government should not, therefore, put off the application of remedies which would be sufficient for the existing defects, and make the mistake of waiting for plans likely to endanger its efficiency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had only to supply the Admiralty with a few thousands of pounds to allow of special retirements being made amongst the seniors of the Corps. A small outlay now would prevent a much greater one in the future, and with the certainty of such consequences he was sanguine that the Treasury would endeavour to remedy the defect which at present existed in the promotion of the Marine officers. Of this he was assured, that if the Government had the least desire to remove this grievance they could very easily do so.

supported the claims of the Marines, who, he said, had been too long neglected. As a Member of the Committee which sat in 1867, he would remind the House that its inquiries related chiefly to promotion and retirement in the non-seniority corps—the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers, and the Royal Marines. The Committee recommended a variety of changes; and in the two former, the rank of major had been restored, but nothing whatever had been done for the Royal Marines. If that rank of which they were deprived many years ago were restored, it would greatly aid the flow of promotion, and go far to remedy an injustice which was deeply felt by the Royal Marines. He thought it was injurious to the public service to continue to treat this meritorious body of officers with neglect.

said, the Marines had been too much neglected by the Governments of both sides of the House. It was absolutely necessary to do something in the matter in order to relieve the corps from the lamentable condition into which it had fallen. He contended that the advantages that had been obtained by the Corps of Engineers and the Artillery might, as a matter of justice, be granted to the Marines.

said, the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had spoken in favour of doing something for the Royal Marines, but not a word to explain why, when in office, his Party had done nothing. There were at the present moment a large number of Marine officers who might retire on certain fixed allowances. Thus there were two colonels-commandant who were eligible to retire on £600 a-year, eight lieutenant-colonels on £450, and 21 captains on £300. For reasons of their own they did not choose to retire, and the money for those pensions must at the present moment be provided for and in the Treasury. He begged to suggest that, as they did not choose to retire, the privilege should be extended to officers junior to them. A temporary relief every year would thus be provided for some anomalies; and the privilege ought to be extended to quartermasters, which would affect the ranks of the non-commissioned officers. There had been no vacancy at all in the quartermasters for the last seven years, and the promotion of non-commissioned officers was thereby stopped. He suggested, too, that by garrison duty increased employment might be found for the Marines. For instance, Gibraltar was won by the swords of the Marines, and now that the Suez Canal diminished the importance of the fortress as a depôt for troops on the highway to India, it would be a great act of grace to allow them to garrison it.

concurred in the views generally taken by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House on the subject, and he trusted that the Government would relieve the Royal Marines from the grievance of which they so justly complained. Great dissatisfaction prevailed among the corps, and the time had now arrived when something ought to be done without further delay, and without waiting for the Report of the Commission.

said, the Marines were suffering under great disadvantages, and he hoped the Government would give the case immediate attention.

said, that he should not like the debate to close without being allowed to say a few words in support of the Motion, as he had held a brief during the two previous Sessions on behalf of the gallant corps now under discussion, and he had in his hands at the present time numerous letters from distinguished members of the corps, who justly complained of the grievances under which they continued to suffer. He urged that the time was come when Her Majesty's Government should address themselves in right earnest to the removal of those grievances which had been so fully detailed in the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd). It should be recollected that the sea service of the officers of Marines ceased when they had passed the rank of captain, and the majors, colonels, and generals were obliged to remain and languish at home, without any hope or prospect of promotion, at an age when active service was most desired by them in order to obtain professional distinction. In the meantime, all the higher honours and coveted appointments of the Army were altogether withheld from them. This was manifestly unjust, and required a remedy. They had been advised to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission on Army Retirement; but the fact was they had no representative of their corps on the Commission, no evidence had been or would be adduced on their behalf, and the Report would have no reference to the Marines whatever. They appeared to be nobody's child. There it lay between two stools, on one of which sat the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, while on the other sat his right hon. Friend now before him, the First Lord of the Admiralty. Neither of them would stretch out a hand to pick the child up. The stool on which the First Lord sat was quite strong enough to support him, and he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) hoped that he would no longer hesitate to take the child up and place it in his ample bosom, where he had no doubt it would be well fostered and cherished. To speak seriously, full justice had already been done by many who had spoken to the noble and distinguished services of the Royal Marines, and not least by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North). There was no quarter of the globe which did not bear record to the feats and exploits of this gallant corps, and especially because, from the peculiar nature of their services on board our ships, they were frequently called upon to act at times and in places where the Regular Army had not the same opportunities of action. He was glad to hear that his right hon. Relative the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), though he had not the good fortune to be in the House when he spoke, strongly deprecated further delay in remedying the grievances complained of by the Marines, and the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman was the more important because he had previously advocated delay. The right hon. Member for Pontefract could not but feel sympathy with the Royal Marines, as he quitted office in 1871, having proposed a scheme for the Navy, but having left the Marines out; and, in consequence, that force had been left out in the cold ever since. At the same time, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) felt convinced that no one had the interests of that corps more at heart than the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the real difficulty in the way of redress appeared to be the question of pounds, shillings, and pence. Surely, in order to do justice to a noble corps, which had deserved so well of their country, a wealthy nation like England would not grudge the expenditure and outlay of a few thousand pounds in order to stop the complaints—the just complaints—of a distinguished arm of the Service, and to set forward the flow of promotion, now completely dammed up and stagnant. He had very great pleasure in giving his cordial support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Plymouth.

said, that the officers of the Royal Marines and their claims to promotion had not escaped the attention of the Admiralty, and they had every possible desire to remedy the grievances complained of. Shortly after his right hon. Friend became First Lord he examined the subject, in the hope that he might be able to redress their grievances, especially in regard to the stagnation of promotion. It was, however, necessary to wait for the Report of the Commission on Army Promotion and Retirement. It was thought by the Treasury—and he quite agreed with them—that it would be desirable to proceed pari passu with the Army and the Marines; but no long time would elapse after the Report of the Commission was published before a well-considered scheme for redressing the grievances of the officers of the Marines would be laid before the House. The Admiralty had been urged to take provisional measures; but even if they were desirable there might be found a lion in the path in the shape of the Treasury. He, for one, was opposed to provisional measures, because they were apt to prevent greater improvements. He trusted that his hon. Friend would accept his assurance of the desire of the First Lord to redress the proved grievances of which the Marines complained.

said, it was no part of the duty of the Commission on Army Promotion and Retirement to inquire into the case of the Royal Marines, and he did not believe that their Report would have any bearing on the subject. He hoped that the Government would really do something for them, and would take means to satisfy the legitimate demands of this gallant body of men. The expenditure of a few thousands would meet all that the officers of this much-neglected corps required.

deprecated the course taken by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, in saying that there was a lion in their path in the shape of the Treasury. They must deal with these matters as a Government as a whole, and they could not separate the responsibility of the Treasury and the Admiralty. There might have been difficulties raised by the Treasury to a proposed outlay on the part of the late Board of Admiralty; but he never pleaded that he was in favour of a certain course, and that he had been prevented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from carrying it into effect. If the matter on hand were reasonable, the hon. Gentleman would find that the Treasury would lose its leonine character and become a lamb.

said, he had stated that if the Admiralty were to propose a provisional measure, they might find a lion in their path in the Treasury; but he had expressly guarded himself against being supposed to be in favour of provisional measures.

said, he would not have risen had it not been for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), who asked what bearing the Report of the Royal Commission could possibly have on the case of the Marines. The view taken by the Treasury was that, the Army being now on the non-Purchase system, it was in all respects the same as the Marines, and no scheme for placing the Marines in a proper position as to promotion could be carried into effect without making arrangements for the retirement of officers of the Army at a certain age. The Admiralty must know at what age officers of the Army were going to retire before they could, deal satisfactorily with the case of the Marines. It was true that the question as to the Marines was not referred to the Commission; but, still, the general considerations which referred to the whole Army would apply also to the Marines. When the Royal Commission was formed with reference to the Army, he considered whether it would not be possible to refer to the same Commission the question of the stagnation of promotion in the Marines, but the Commission had already been constituted, and he saw that the Marines were not likely to have regarded it with confidence, unless they had their representatives upon it. It would not be difficult, however, to lay down a scheme for the Marines on the line of the scheme for the Army, and he hoped before long to be able to put forward a plan for getting rid of the very great grievances under which the Marines at present laboured.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the management of Highways, said, its main object was to leave the management as much as possible to the various local bodies, so that they might adapt its powers to the wants of the various localities, while at the same time means would be provided for introducing, as far as possible, a uniform system of supervision and accounts. Power was also given in the Bill to make bye-laws to provide for a great deal that was now done under the Turnpike Acts.

inquired if the Bill would apply to South Wales?

said, some of the provisions would apply to South Wales. In general there was no wish to break up the South Wales system, which had worked very well.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the further amendment and better administration of the Laws relating to the Relief of the Poor in Scotland, said: In the year 1871 a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the operation of the Poor Law in Scotland, and whether any, and what, amendments should be made therein. There were referred to the Committee the Minutes of Evidence which had been taken by Select Committees on the same subject in the Sessions of 1869 and 1870. The Committee presented a very full Report, containing a number of recommendations for the amendment of the Scottish Poor Law. I have very carefully considered these recommendations, and the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce gives effect to the larger number of them. The evidence which was taken by the Committee and its Report were very favourable to the administration of the Board of Supervision in Scotland, and proposed to confer upon them more extensive powers than they now possess, particularly in the way of initiating proceedings under the Poor Law Acts. The Bill accordingly provides for greater powers being conferred on the Board of Supervision in several particulars. In regard to the constitution of parochial boards, after very careful consideration I have not seen my way to make quite such extensive changes as were recommended by the Select Committee. In regard to the elected members of every board, I propose that they should continue in office for three years, one-third going out of office annually by rotation. That is the only change that I propose to make in regard to parochial boards in burghal parishes. In regard to the parochial boards of rural parishes, where the number of owners is small, I think the present system has worked so well that I do not propose any further change except the introduction into them of a certain number of the larger tenants without the necessity of election. In rural parishes, where the number of owners, entitled, as such, to be members of the board, exceeds 30, the Bill proposes considerable alterations in the constitution of the board in the way of limiting the number of members, very much in the way recommended by the Select Committee. It is proposed that in all assessed parishes there shall be a compulsory classification. In regard to the 37th Section of the Poor Law Amendment Act, the Committee recommended that it should be repealed, and the rates imposed upon the gross valuation as appearing on the Valuation Roll. I believe that change will be very convenient for the parochial authorities, and the Bill gives effect to it. The Board of Supervision will have the power in sanctioning classifications to secure that the assessments are imposed equitably upon different classes of property. In regard to settlement the Bill proposes twochanges—in the first place, correcting what is believed to have been an unintentional enactment in the Act of 1845, a settlement by five years' residence will not hereafter be lost except by five years' absence. In the second place, where a settlement has been acquired by 10 years' residence, it will not be lost except by the acquisition of another settlement by a residence in another parish for a similar period. Cases relating to disputed settlement will be made competent only in the Sheriff Court, it being competent to state a special case on a question of law for the decision of the Court of Session. Provision is made for the superannuation out of the poor rates of Poor Law officers with the consent of the Board of Supervision. This system has worked well in England and Ireland, and tended to the efficiency of the officers. Each parish must appoint a medical officer, removable only with the approval of the Board of Supervision. The Bill further provides for an efficient audit of the accounts of parochial boards by auditors appointed by the Board of Supervision, the salaries of the auditors being paid by the Treasury. The Treasury will also pay one half of the total amount expended in salaries to medical officers, and in providing medicines, &c, for the poor in the same manner as is now done in England and Ireland. These are the leading provisions of the Bill, but there are others of minor importance which I need not refer to at present, and I will conclude by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.