, in rising to call attention to the course of study pursued at the Naval University at Greenwich, said, that the education of naval officers, although a less sensational topic than other controversies connected with the Navy, was a question of the utmost importance. Some years ago he had invited the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee on the higher education of naval officers, and he had never ceased to watch the Naval University at Greenwich with the deepest interest. While admitting that the resources of that University had in the main been well applied, the recent Report of the Committee, appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into the organization of the College, suggested some doubts as to whether the studies of half-pay officers, who were voluntary students, had been in all cases judiciously chosen. There was reason to apprehend that the Naval University had failed to remove one most serious defect in naval education. He referred to that essentially important subject for naval officers, a knowledge of foreign languages. There was a twofold object in the establishment of the College—first, to increase the technical knowledge and skill of officers; and, secondly, to cultivate their general intelligence. Such being the objects, the question was whether there was not some reason to apprehend, from the Report of the Committee, that the study of mathematics had been too rigorously insisted upon. In the words of the Committee of Inquiry—"The back-bone of the instruction at the Naval College consists of mathematics." The Committee did not depreciate the importance of mathematics as the foundation of many branches of study essential to a naval officer, but they were of opinion that only a limited knowledge was necessary for the effective performance of the technical duties of a seaman, and for the practical application of those branches of physics and applied mechanics, which most immediately concerned his profession. Few books could be more useful to a naval officer than Arnott's Physics, and it was a work which could be mastered without mathematics. To the scientific artillerist and shipbuilder, or to understand the theory as distinguished from the practice of navigation, mathematics were essential, but they would do nothing to supply quickness of eye to the pilot, or fertility of resource to the seaman. He would like to refer to some remarks on this subject made by Professor Faraday in giving evidence before the Public Schools Commission—

"I should like," he said, "a profound scholar to indicate to me what he understands by the training of the mind in a literary sense, including mathematics? What does the mind learn by that training? Does it learn that which enables a man to give a reason in natural things for an effect which happens from certain causes, or why in any emergency or event he does or should do this, that, or the other? It does not suggest the least thing in these matters."

He need not pursue the subject further. No doubt mathematics were of special value to naval officers and would form the groundwork of any complete course of naval education; but in the case of half-pay officers, the time at their disposal at Greenwich was not sufficient for a complete course of training, and if their limited time were too largely occupied with mathematics, there would be reason to fear that subjects of more practical importance would be neglected. The students at the College were not idle. Captain Curme informed the Committee that he studied 10 hours a-day. Yet, notwithstanding their assiduity, the officers had no time at their disposal for many valuable subjects. One lieutenant stated in evidence that—

"The lectures on physics were so few that he could not possibly have got his first-class certificate in them, or in winds and currents, if he had not availed himself of private tuition. For the last month there was an extra lecture on steam, from four to five o'clock, twice a-week. If he had had the same in physics it would have made a great deal of difference. Moreover, on winds and currents, there was no lecture during the last two months he was there."

Experimental physics, practical mechanics, modern languages, and International Law were recommended by the Committee as alternative subjects of equal value with the higher mathematics. In making this recommendation the Committee had said—

"We wish to guard ourselves against approving a course of study which should he chosen simply because it was easier."

Whatever the subject selected by the candidate, they recommended that the standard of examination should be such as implied in the student both diligence and aptitude. The reasons why so much importance—he might say undue importance—was given to the mathematical studies of the senior officers at Greenwich were not far to seek. Prior to the establishment of the Naval College, mathematics was the only subject, not strictly of a professional character, which was systematically taught in the Navy. The consequence was that the majority of the superior officers, who distinguished themselves by their scholastic attainments, were mathematicians, and they naturally attached special value to the subject in which they were themselves most proficient. There was a tendency generally, in educational matters, to get into a groove. This tendency was specially pointed out in the Report of the Public Schools Commission. As they justly observed, a master could only teach those branches of knowledge in which he had himself been instructed; and it was only natural that he should attach the highest importance to those studies, in which he was himself proficient. Following the opinion of the recent Greenwich Committee, he would urge that the course of study for commanders and captains should be varied, and that they should be allowed to make their own choice of studies from among the various subjects which were recognized at the College. They should be examined periodically, and as a further guarantee for their diligence and discipline they should be placed on full pay so long as they were permitted to reside at the College. The Committee on higher education were of opinion that the study of French was of particular importance, and they further recommended that opportunities should be afforded for learning German. The attention of the Committee had been specially directed to this subject by several most competent witnesses. They examined Colonel Williams, who had been for five years Instructor in Fortification at the Royal Naval College, and who told them that ignorance of French and German was the thing from which our naval service suffered more than anything else. Commander Wharton, who had obtained the Beaufort testimonial, went so far to say that French was a far more useful subject for the average naval officer to study than mechanics. Passing to the evidence collected by the recent Committee on the Naval College, he might refer to the evidence of Captain Curme, an officer who had passed successfully through a course at Greenwich, and who expressed himself as follows:—

"There is no one thing in which most of us feel our deficiency more than in the fact that so few of us are linguists. I am sorry to say that frequently a foreign officer comes on board one of our ships and it is rare to find anybody that can talk to him."

If he were allowed to refer to information obtained from private sources, the House would be surprised to know how deficient naval officers were in the knowledge of languages. In time of war the knowledge of languages was, as a matter of course, still more essential. The advantages of a knowledge of languages to a naval officer in a high command were never more conspicuously illustrated than in the operations of the combined fleets off Carthagena. The consultations with the Admirals in command of the combined squadron, and the negotiations with the leaders of the Intransigentes required the constant use of many languages. The success achieved by Sir Hastings Yelverton in sustaining the honour and authority of England, without resorting to open hostilities, was due not only to the tact, which he displayed, but to his rare facilities for carrying on a personal intercourse in many languages. Was it not reasonable to infer that many little wars might have been prevented by a timely explanation in the language understood by the enemy? In short, the study of languages was obviously so essential to the efficiency of the Navy that the sole question was as to how it could be most effectually encouraged. The only direct step which had hitherto been taken by the Admiralty had been to issue a Circular, in July, 1874, inviting candidates to offer themselves for examination in French, Spanish, German, Italian, and Portuguese. The names of successful candidates were to be noted for employment in flag and senior officer's ships, as Interpreters of the First or Second Class. When so appointed, those of the First Class were to receive an allowance of 2s. 6d. a-day, and those of the Second Class an allowance of 1s. 6d., in addition to their pay. A reference to the Navy List showed that only three commanders and 10 lieutenants had passed the examination. This was a number obviously too small for the requirements of the Navy, and the inference might reasonably be drawn that further inducements were necessary. Admiral Shadwell's Committee had reported that it would be advantageous to the public service if, under suitable regulations, officers could be permitted to visit foreign countries for the purpose of studying the languages. They were to be placed on full pay and allowed harbour-service time if on their return they could pass the prescribed examination. As a further inducement to officers to qualify as interpreters, the Committee recommended that all officers who had successfully passed the required examinations should receive the extra allowance whenever they were placed on full pay. The Committee concluded their recommendations on the subject of foreign languages with a reference to the suggestions of Admiral Milne, who advised that on foreign stations, when in harbour, captains should be directed to obtain the services of French and drawing masters; and that some pecuniary aid should be given by the Admiralty to young officers in difficulty to pay such masters. He (Mr. Brassey) most earnestly recommended to the pre- sent Admiralty the adoption of these suggestions. The English Navy was behind the Navies of all the other European Powers, except, perhaps, the French, in this most valuable attainment; and while the French were improving very much in this respect, and specially in their knowledge of English, he was assured that among the younger officers of our own Service there was even less disposition than formerly existed to apply themselves to this study. In the opinion of the responsible authorities at Greenwich, it was impossible to impart the requisite knowledge at the Naval University. It was in foreign countries that it could be most effectually acquired. Every naval officer ought to spend a portion of his half-pay abroad, until he had mastered at least one foreign language thoroughly. The strongest recommendations on this behalf had been made by the Committee on Naval Education, and by individual officers of the highest distinction. He ventured, therefore, to hope that the Admiralty would no longer hesitate to adopt the remedial measures required to supply the most serious educational deficiency of our Naval Service. In urging the subject of the revision of the course of study at Greenwich on the attention of the Admiralty, he wished to guard himself against being misunderstood. He was not an opponent, but, on the contrary, an advocate of a special mathematical training for the Navy. His remarks applied exclusively to the case of senior officers of the rank of captain or commander, who went to Greenwich for short periods as voluntary students, and who, he ventured to maintain, should be allowed a reasonable discretion in the choice of any branches of study, recognized and taught at the College, which they might desire to follow.

rose to express his dissent from the observations of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) on the study of mathematics, though he was quite at one with his hon. Friend as to the importance of a knowledge of modern languages. The hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated that only a limited knowledge of mathematics was necessary. He (Mr. Reed) was sorry to see that the study of that branch of science was openly discouraged in that House.

said, the remarks to which reference was made were quoted from the Report of the Greenwich Committee.

said, that it was chiefly on account of that Report that he had risen to address the House. He advised the Admiralty to receive with great care the Report of that Committee. The connection which he himself had had with the Public Service had afforded him opportunities of observing, first, the great advantage enjoyed by naval officers who possessed a competent knowledge of mathematics; and, next, the great disadvantage which naval officers laboured under who had not that knowledge. It was not too much to say that throughout the whole Naval Service there was a want of extensive acquaintance with mathematics and nautical science, and that it suffered in consequence. For instance, the movements of ships under the helm were not at all thoroughly understood by many naval officers from want of mathematical knowledge. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the late Professor Faraday in support of his view. But it unfortunately happened that men generally undervalued that with which they were least acquainted, and those persons who were conversant with the works of Professor Faraday know that one of the greatest drawbacks to their value was Faraday's ignorance of mathematics, even in their elementary principles, and his inability to appreciate them. There were, no doubt, naval officers in every grade who were well acquainted with mathematics and with scientific principles; but they formed only a limited number, and we were entering upon a period when it was indispensable that naval officers should have mathematical knowledge at their fingers' ends. Every officer undertaking not only the command of a ship, but any responsible duties in connection with the ship, ought to be thoroughly acquainted with the mathematical principles on which the ship was regulated and in conformity with which he must handle her in times of danger. He was sorry to have to differ from the hon. Member who had rendered such good service to the Navy on different occasions; and he asked the Admiralty not lightly to yield to the pressure put upon them to discourage the study of mathematics. We recently had an example of the great necessity that existed for mathematical knowledge in naval matters. The Se- cretary of the Admiralty invited hon. Members the other day to go to see a model of the Inflexible. Hon. Members went to see a model of the Inflexible, but they saw no such thing; they saw a shell, but there was not in it a single element which would determine the question at issue as to the distribution of the weights. Any naval officer trained in mathematics must know that that model differed in almost every particular from the ship itself, and that it threw no light on the solemn question at issue as regarded her stability, and that when such a model was placed before him, his ignorance, and not his knowledge, was presumed upon. All he could say was that the thing was adjusted according to what the Admiralty thought right and proper to look at. No doubt persons unacquainted with mathematics would be unable to see in what that model failed. As a further illustration he might mention that the Inflexible and many other ships depended for the way in which they should be managed on the manner in which water was let into certain compartments to balance other compartments, and mathematical knowledge was essential as a basis for all such proceedings.

said, he agreed with the view of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) with regard to mathematics rather than that of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), who seemed to set an undue value on theoretical, as distinguished from practical knowledge in the officers of the Navy. The latter was possessed in a greater degree by the officers in the Merchant Service in consequence of the actual knowledge and experience they acquired while being at sea. He maintained that though there were many good sailors and engineers in the Navy, there were far too many who at the pains of much study had acquired some share of book learning, but who yet failed in a knowledge of that which was absolutely necessary to those whose success in the Merchant Service depended upon the safe navigation of their vessels.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) had stated that, in his opinion, there was too much study of mathematics at the Naval University, and too little study of modern languages and Inter- national Law. For his own part, he was more inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), that mathematics were really the foundation of Naval science, and that it was desirable that all Naval officers should have a competent knowledge of mathematics. There were only a limited number of hours in the day, and of days in the term, and it would be quite impossible within the time for many Naval officers to study modem languages with any effect. Many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hastings, however, should receive attention; and if anything could be done to increase the time that could be devoted to the study of modern languages and International Law, he, individually, would be very much gratified. The hon. Gentleman had also recommended that the Naval officers with half-pay who attended the College should get a further inducement to pursue their studies by receiving full pay. Here, however, the financial objection arose. It was not without difficulty that they could make both ends meet, and he could hold out no hope that those officers should at present receive full pay. The matter, however, was deserving of attention, and he should endeavour to see whether further inducements of any kind could be held out with the view of increasing the number of officers who would qualify under the Admiralty Circular of 1874. Under it, only a few officers had qualified as interpreter; but he would be very glad to see whether something more could not be done to induce them to do so. The hon. Member for Pembroke had made a very grave imputation on the Constructive Department of the Admiralty, for his remarks meant that that department, in common with the Lords of the Admiralty, had exhibited a model of a ship which did not in the slightest degree represent it. Now, he had not the scientific reputation of the hon. Member; but he was speaking on the authority of the department, and he gave that statement of the hon. Gentleman the most distinct and unqualified contradiction.

asked the hon. Gentleman, whether he was prepared to state on his own responsibility that the model in question was a model of the Inflexible

said, most decidedly and emphatically it was. He had seen Mr. Barnaby, and asked him whether the model of the Inflexible represented the ship, first intact, and then in certain conditions, and Mr. Barnaby said it did. He had no reason to doubt that statement. The model had not been prepared for this special occasion. It had been prepared long ago for the Admiralty, and submitted to the Admiralty as a model of the ship. He thought the hon. Gentleman might trust to the honour of the Constructors' Department that they would not present as a model what was not 'a model of the ship. It was almost incredible that persons in their position, with their eyes open, should endeavour to mislead their masters, the Lords of the Admiralty, and that was what the hon. Member said they had done. He affirmed that the model was a model of the Inflexible as she floated in dock, and nothing else. Of course, she had not got her engines in, and they were not distributed as they would be. But that was represented by a weight put into the ship for the purpose of representing her engines. That weight was placed so as to stand where the centre of gravity would be. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) would corroborate him. If the House believed the hon. Member for Pembroke, they must believe not only that the Constructor's Department, but that the Lords of the Admiralty, had set themselves to deceive the House. That was an accusation which was not true, and which never ought to have been made. The hon. Gentleman forced him to speak of his (Mr. Reed's) authority. He had the highest respect for the authority of the hon. Gentleman, but had the hon. Gentleman never made mistakes? Mistakes made by the hon. Gentleman had been pointed out again and again. The hon. Gentleman was no more infallible than any other Constructor; and when he (Mr. Egerton) was forced to contrast the authority of the hon. Gentleman with that of his own Department, he must say he preferred the authority of his own. He was sorry he had been forced prematurely into this discussion in the absence of Papers which would shortly be on the Table of the House, and to which nothing had been added to make out a case. He thanked the House for having given him an opportunity for standing up for his own Department.

said, the case was simply this—certain officials had made their own calculations, and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Egerton) rose in his place with the view of influencing the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to the question at issue—

said, that the hon. Member was totally out of Order in the observations he was now making.

said, what he wished to state was that there was a question of calculation and a practical issue between the Admiralty and himself. He said that the model was no model. There was not a plate which represented anything in the ship. It was merely a model weighted with lead, and weighted in accordance with the calculations of the Admiralty Department.

said, the model had been made in 1876 for the information of the Admiralty before the ship was commenced, and had not been altered in the slightest respect from the time it had been made to the present.

said, that if he had been out of Order in having made any improper reflections on the Admiralty Department, he hoped the House would, extend to the Admiralty a little of the same lesson when the Admiralty cast imputations upon him.

said, the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke appeared to be that the model in question, although not made for the purpose of influencing the House in the controversy as between the hon. Member and the Admiralty, was nevertheless exhibited for that purpose, and, though made years ago, it must have a certain effect on the minds of those who saw it. As he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) understood his hon. Friend, the model was weighted according to calculations which he disputed. The question between the hon. Member for Pembroke and the Admiralty was so grave, and it was so undesirable that it should be raised at any future time, that he hoped a Committee would be appointed to consider it.

regarded the question between the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) and the Admiralty as a question of mathematics. It seemed to him that the model could not prove mathematically the stability of the ship—that could be proved only by an exact model of the ship, with the weight distributed as on board the ship. It was admitted that this was not the case with the model, which was made many years ago, and not for the purpose of testing the stability of the ship. The engines were represented by a lump of lead, and every mathematician knew that that could not produce the same effect on the stability of the model as the engines and other weights that were distributed over the various parts of a ship. The question was very important, and it ought to be discussed as a scientific and mathematical one, without any imputation of motives one way or another. He did not understand the hon. Member for Pembroke to impute any motives to the Admiralty.

desired to explain that the stability of a ship depended upon the centre of gravity, and the lead purported to show the centre of gravity. It did not follow because the engines were not there, that the centre of gravity was not indicated.

said, a piece of lead might accurately represent the result of all the weights in the ship, if the effect of all the weights in the ship, when taken collectively, resulted in the same effect on the ship as the piece of lead referred to in the position it was placed; and that was what was intended to be done, the simple question being whether it was done rightly. No doubt, it was intended that the model should be correct, and, if it were, the result was correct as far as the model was concerned.

said, there was an important question of fact, about which the two highest authorities were in conflict, and they ought to be brought face to face, because the construction of our future fighting ships was involved. The Ajax and the Agamemnon were being built on the same principle, and a second Agamemnon was in view. When a controversy of this kind had arisen, and had been fomented by correspondence in the newspapers, it was due to the public who paid for the ships and themselves, and it would strengthen the hands of the Government itself, if some further mode was devised for ascertaining the rights and wrongs of this question. Suppose it should turn out afterwards that the Admiralty were in error; the Government which refused inquiry would be placed in a very awkward position.

said, the question was, whether the Admiralty was to he regarded as infallible; and it had made too many mistakes in the past for that conclusion to be accepted. Wooden line-of-battle ships were added to the Navy, and millions expended upon them, after their uselessness had been established.

was reminded by this controversy of the discussion as to the construction of the Captain; and he thought it important that the disputed calculations should be cleared up to the satisfaction of the House and the country.

said, that, in common with many other hon. Members, he had seen the model of the Inflexible exhibited in London, and while he acquitted the Admiralty of any intention to mislead, he contended that that model was utterly useless for the purpose for which it had been intended, inasmuch as it gave the uninitiated no clear idea of the principle on which the ship was constructed. In one of Her Majesty's Dockyards he had seen another model, much more carefully and elaborately worked out, and showing the principle on which the vessel was defended. From that model it appeared that the head and stern—in other words, the un-armoured parts of the ship—could not be struck by a shot in a vital place unless the shot struck the ship six feet under water. [Mr. REED intimated dissent.] If that was a mistake, then the model had been constructed under a total misapprehension of the facts of the case. It was desirable that an early opportunity should be given for a discussion of the question. Whether a Committee should be appointed, or some other course should be taken, he did not pretend to say, but certainly not one moment should be lost in enabling the House and the country to come to a distinct conclusion as to whether the doubts raised by the hon. Member for the Pembroke Boroughs with regard to the stability of the vessel's powers of defence were or were not well founded.

supported the proposal for a Committee, and was of opinion that there were hon. Members of the House competent to examine witnesses and to report on the subject. The primary difference of opinion had reference not so much to the stability of the vessel itself, as to the stability of the citadel, in the event of the wooden portions of the ship being shot away.

, in rising to move—

"That it is inexpedient to build any more vessels of the 'Agamemnon' class until that type has been tried, and that the money proposed to be voted for such purpose be expended in building a vessel of war, with full sail power, capable of cruising and blockading under sail alone, but able to steam when necessary 300 miles in 24 hours, with a coal supply for seven days, and with an armament consisting of one armour piercing gun of the longest range, as well as Shrapnel and Gatling guns and torpedo apparatus,"

said, that, if in Order, he wished to add the following words to his Resolution:—"and that a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into the whole question."

informed the hon. and gallant Member that the Motion for a Select Committee could not be put, as Notice had not been given of it, and the other part of the Motion affirmed a distinct proposition.

said, in that case, he would confine his remarks to the Motion before the House. A great deal had lately been said in the public Press about the Inflexible and her class of vessels, and hon. Members had been invited to inspect the model of the Inflexible at the Admiralty. He, for one, went to have a look at her and would tell the House what he saw. The official in charge offered to fill both ends to show her buoyancy; but he said that that was unnecessary, as the chances were that only one end would be riddled at a time. The fore part only was then filled at his request; but when he (Captain Pim) proposed to touch the model, the official interposed, and said that if he did so the model would capsize. That proved to be the case, for the moment he touched her she turned turtle, and was only saved from going to the bottom by the quickness of the man in charge; and he was confident that if the Inflexible was at all like the model she would go to the bottom in a similar manner. He thought it would be a monstrous thing to send a crew to sea in such a craft. He would just give the House a description of the Inflexible. The Agamemnon and Ajax were vessels of the same type, only smaller, being only 280 feet in length, by 66 feet beam, with a displacement of 8,492 tons, at an estimated cost of £350,000 each; while the Inflexible would cost about £500,000, her length 320 feet by 75 feet beam, with a displacement of 11,406 tons. Her sides at the midship section or citadel were 42 inches thick, including 24 inches of armour, the bottom was flat, the outer skin plating from the armour shelf to the keel was composed of ordinary ship plates ⅝ths of an inch thick, doubled over 30 feet of the bow. This skin plating was rivetted to the frames which were formed of ¼-inch plates, 3 feet 6 inches deep at the keel. They tapered gradually as they rose. The angle irons securing these frames to the skin were weak. The inner bottom rivetted on to the inner edge of these frames was composed of 7–16ths of an inch plates amidships and ⅜-inch plates at bow and stern. This thin, weak bottom had to support 3,150 tons of armour, the heavy boilers, machinery, guns, anchors, cables, and stores carried by the ship, and how any naval architect could call such a contrivance a ship he was at a loss to conceive. He did not wish to press his opinion alone upon the House, but would quote that of Admiral Sir Thomas Symonds, at present the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, whose great experience no one could doubt. In answer to Question 1,158, before the Committee of Designs of Ships of War, he said—

"I should be afraid to go at any great speed at sea with them (the devastation class); I think they are too low. I am afraid of the low, free-boarded ships. I have seen very heavy seas and know no limit to their power." Question 1,159—"If steaming you are obliged to go at a certain speed, or you drown yourself." Question 1,161—"I think it depends upon the ship herself being of a proper height, whether she is smothered or not by the sea." Question 1,163—"All I know is that so far as I am myself concerned, I should be very sorry to be in one of those vessels." Question 1,167—"I have no affection for those low, free-boarded vessels. I am positively afraid of them."

He thought he had said enough to show that it was inexpedient to build any more vessels of such a useless type as the Inflexible or Devastation, or any of the class. They were worthless as coast defenders, and for distant service out of the question. With respect to the other part of his Motion, he could only say that two gunboats such as described in that Motion, properly handled, would destroy any iron-clad in the world. Why the Admiralty persisted in building these large, costly, unwieldy, and easily destructible vessels he was at a loss to understand, especially when some 20 gunboats such as described could be built for the price of one Inflexible. Every sailor knew what small craft could do; their value was traditional in the Service from the earliest times. What did our small, light, nimble ships do against the Spanish Armada, and every reader of naval history must remember the action of the Fan-Fan and Spy gunboats against De Witt's large flag-ship. In fact, he did not believe that there could be the smallest difficulty in finding plenty of officers in the Navy who, with a couple of gunboats would make short work with Her Majesty's ship Inflexible and any of her class. He would not press his Motion to a division; but he did trust the Admiralty would take to heart the facts he had mentioned.

said, he was glad the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend could not move for a Select Committee, because, from the moment the Government undertook to produce the Papers showing the grounds on which they were led to place reliance on the Inflexible, it was, in his opinion, desirable that no further steps in the matter should be taken until those Papers should have been duly considered and the facts of the case were fully before the House. He was glad the hon. and gallant Member had brought the question before the House. Personally, he (Mr. Peed) had painful experience of the penalties one had to undergo for bringing ques- tions of this kind before the attention of Parliament. In this case, it was clear, after what had fallen from the Secretary to the Admiralty, that he (Mr. Reed) was about to be exposed to the penalty of having his professional character placed in jeopardy because of the statements he had made as to the stability of the Inflexible. He could not help, at the same time, observing that it was very easy in those cases to cherish and act upon a false confidence. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had taunted him (Mr. Reed) with the mistakes he had committed when in office; and in connection with the point, he would ask the permission of the House to advert to a single fact—he did so in no spirit of retaliation—and that was, that during recent times we had a ship which had capsized from want of stability, and that one, at any rate, of the officers who were responsible for the Inflexible, and who were said to be superior in authority to himself, had prepared a Report on the stability of the Captain, in which it was stated that she would be safe, even when her ends had been fully penetrated; yet a few days after that the Captain capsized, and 600 men were lost. That was his reason for speaking of the Inflexible, and, notwithstanding these attacks, he should still press for inquiry, for he had no personal object to serve. All he wanted was that the truth might be known, and he would withdraw all he had said, if the Admiralty Papers did not bear out his assertions. As for the Amendment, he could not feel that they were in a satisfactory position, because they had had no opportunity of discussing the proper kind of ship to be built, and had passed a Vote which involved the construction of another large ship of a kind the safety and utility of which had been called in question. The Government, he thought, had been rather high-handed in the matter, and they should have given more attention to the whole question. He much deplored the attitude they had taken, and was sure that the construction of small ships instead of large ones would be publicly urged. They had better reconsider that question, and not put the House of Commons in such a position that they would be debarred from discussing the question for another year. At any rate, a Select Committee might have been appointed; for, though he did not doubt the competence of the Admiralty Board, its members were all at the head of departments, and could not give up their time to the matter. The Government, in his opinion, ought to reconsider the subject, or the House would next year take it into its own hands.

said, that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had already asked for a Select Committee; but he did not know to what decision the Government had come. He considered the matter one of very great importance, and now that it had been brought to the attention of the House, the House was bound to have it thoroughly investigated.

, while he approved of a full inquiry into the subject, was yet of opinion that the Motion was one the House could not adopt, as it dictated to the Admiralty not only what it should not do, but what it should do. By so doing they would be taking the responsibility from the Admiralty, and doing a very unwise thing. The question really was one of fact, which ought to admit of easy settlement, and he hoped that, considering the very general alarm as to the stability of the ship, there would be an inquiry into the state of the case. Instead of referring the matter to a Committee of the House, he would refer it to a Committee of scientific men.

fully agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), that no Parliamentary action could be taken till the promised Papers were on the Table. Those Papers, he was sure, would not satisfy the country, unless they contained, an independent Report approving the design of the ship. The situation was unprecedented in the history of naval construction, that an issue should be raised between two equally eminent naval architects, so that, on their disagreement, nothing but independent authority would satisfy the outside world. The country would probably insist on having independent opinion, and the organization of the Admiralty could not be perfect if the eminent men who designed ships were also the sole judges of their merits. He very much wished that the duty of initiating designs and their final approval were not altogether in the same hands. He was very grateful to the hon. Member for Pembroke for urging upon the Government the necessity for re-considering the dimensions of our ships of war. The torpedo and the ram being now acknowledged to be the most destructive weapons of naval warfare, it seemed most absurd to put all our eggs into one basket.

said, he could not help feeling that the House was discussing the question under a double disadvantage. In the first place, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was unfortunately absent; and, in the second place, the Papers which had been ordered, prepared, and which were nearly, if not quite, ready, had not yet been distributed amongst hon. Members. However, there were one or two observations which it was possible for himself to make, although he was really ignorant of the details of this question. He would state at once that he could not adopt the suggestion thrown out by his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Pim), and which he would have embodied in his Amendment if it had been within the Rules of the House to do so without Notice—namely, to refer this question to a Select Committee. The Government would have a strong and decided objection to take that course; and he thought that, on reflection, the House would itself feel that that was not the way in which such matters should be dealt with. In point of fact, they proceeded on the principle of entrusting to a Department of the Government the duty of constructing vessels, and if the House appointed a Select Committee, however distinguished its Members might be, to examine and report on, and either confirm or overthrow, the decisions of that Department, they would weaken and destroy the responsibility which at present attached to the Admiralty on the part of the Government, and take on themselves a responsibility for which the House were hardly prepared. On these matters they had a right to call the Government to account if anything went wrong; and they would deprive themselves of that right by putting their imprimatur on the action of a Committee. On the other hand, they would subject the Public Service to great inconvenience by an inquiry conducted by persons who, however distinguished, would not possess the advan- tage which a Government Department would have in conducting it. Now, it was undoubtedly the function of the House to criticize the proceedings of the Government, and when a Gentleman of the great experience and high professional standing of the hon. Member for Pembroke called attention to such a subject as this, it was obviously the duty of the Government carefully to consider the observations he made. He could say, on the part of the Government, that while, on the one hand, he thought it absolutely impossible to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, it would, on the other, be quite right that they should consider among themselves the observations that had been made. The matter should receive the careful consideration of the Government. What steps they might think it right to take after they had fully considered it, he could hardly venture at the present moment to foretell; but they were fully sensible of the great responsibility that rested on them, and, whatever was done, there would be no deficiency on their part as regarded an earnest desire to take the right course.

, while agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, that it was impossible to discuss the question with advantage in the absence of the promised Papers, was strongly of opinion that it should be referred to a Select Committee. It was a most important matter from every point of view in which it might be regarded. The question had been raised in a most deliberate and direct manner, and the opinion of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), whether correct or not, could not be ignored. The House was not competent to pronounce an opinion without further information; but the allegations having been made deliberately, and without any reservation whatever, it was their bounden duty to ascertain the grounds on which the charge rested. He admitted that it would be difficult to find among the Members of the House a sufficient number of hon. Gentlemen possessed of scientific, or professional knowledge in respect to shipbuilding to form a Committee; but they could easily obtain a Committee by the addition of hon. Gentlemen of plain common sense who would be able to form a sound opinion upon the evidence which might be offered to them.

believed that all these doubts and discussions arose from the circumstance that neither the House nor the country had confidence in the Board of Admiralty. For himself, he regarded the present constitution of that Board as a practical absurdity. If they had any confidence in its construction, these doubts and discussions would not arise. He went further than the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) as to the absurdity of putting all our eggs in one basket. He maintained that a man-of-war which could not be handled and make her passage to any part of the world under canvas and independently of her machinery was not an available ship in time of war. His strong conviction was, looking to the aspect of European affairs and the present position of the British Navy, that, so far as they knew the intentions of the Government with the view of augmenting the strength of the Navy—they were not equal to the exigencies and requirements of the country.

said, he had great sympathy especially with the first part of the Motion now before the House for suspending the building of ships of the Inflexible type. When it was proposed originally to build the Inflexible he stated the opinion he then held—that it was altogether a retrograde movement and a very great mistake. To that opinion he still adhered, whether the question of stability was right or wrong. From the beginning, our object had been, in the construction of our ironclads to cover the whole water-line with armour. But the Committee of Design thought fit to propose to do away with side armour, and build up a central citadel; and when that design was accepted, by the Admiralty, a great step backward had been taken in the construction of our iron-clads. It was a radical mistake. He believed the best thing that could now be done with the Inflexible would be to get rid of the 900 tons of coal she was constructed to carry in her unarmoured ends and substitute 900 tons of armour, with which her two ends should be protected. He would strongly press on the Government the necessity of not committing themselves to the building of a new ship of the Inflexible class at present.

said, he was sorry to hear from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not intended to have a Commission to consider the condition of the Inflexible. In regard to the particular question raised by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), he thought not only that it would be improper to build other vessels on the plan of the Inflexible, but that the construction of that ship herself should not be proceeded with until an inquiry had shown that she possessed sufficient stability and buoyancy. In his opinion a Committee of that House was the proper authority to examine into this question, as they had already voted £500,000 for this ship, and were now asked to vote sums for constructing other vessels of a similar character, and which might possess similar defects. It would, however, be unfair to the Admiralty for hon. Members to discuss this subject and to take a division without having before them those Papers which it was necessary to see before they came to a definite decision on the subject.

remarked that anyone who searched the records of the House for the last 30 or 40 years would find that most important questions relating to the administration of public Departments used formerly to be referred to Committees of the House. Questions of administration ought to be referred to Select Committees, in order that the House might keep its hold on the various important matters which from time to time came before it. Latterly, however, we had been drifting in a totally opposite direction, and many questions, instead of being referred to Select Committees of that House, were considered by Departmental Committees, in which permanent servants of the Crown occupied leading positions. If the House wished to control the expenditure of the country, it must not allow the inquiries to pass out of its hands into those of the servants of the Crown engaged in the great spending Departments. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them two assurances—first, that no step should be taken with regard to the new Agamemnon until next year; and, secondly, that he would re-consider his decision concerning the Inflexible.

joined in the appeal which so many hon. Members had made to the Government to institute some inquiry into the Inflexible. He could not see any harm in such an inquiry. Indeed, he believed great good, generally speaking, would result from it, both as regarded the stability and rolling of their iron-clad fleet. They were now assured that the model of the Inflexible had not been made for the occasion; and it was desirable that it should be ascertained whether it was made as models usually are, and whether a perfect model ever was made for such purposes. The building of vessels like the Inflexible ought to be stopped until the matter had been investigated, and if the Amendment was pressed to a division he should vote for it.

said, they were asked to appoint a Committee, because the experts did not agree. In his experience as a magistrate he had never known two scientific experts to agree, and he always found that he was left to draw the best conclusions he could from the rival evidence. He did not think the House ought to be called upon to undo the work of years, simply because a difference of opinion between professional men occurred upon one particular point. The responsibility was with the Admiralty, and it ought to be allowed to remain there.

said, he could imagine no good coming from the appointment of the Committee; but as public interest had been so much aroused on this matter, he thought it would be an excellent thing when the Inflexible was completed that the hon. Member for Pembroke should have the opportunity of capsizing the ship if he could.

, in rising to call attention to the Report upon the Table of this House on the proceedings in the Court Martial on Captain Roberts, 94th Regiment, and to move—

"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that, in view of the circumstances disclosed upon the proceedings, She will be pleased to reinstate Captain Roberts in his rank in the Army,"

said, the case placed the discipline and the administration of the Army in a very unpleasant light, and it had attracted considerable attention, not only among military men, but among the public at large. Having had his attention drawn to it, he had on different occasions put Questions in that House to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; and on looking back to his replies, the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Jenkins) thought, must entertain some resentment at having been made the instrument of equivocal statements. He had never seen Captain Roberts, and he had taken up this matter entirely upon public grounds. The case was a serious one for all parties concerned; it affected the right of an individual to receive justice, and the House was the proper tribunal to consider it. Captain Roberts had been dismissed from the Service on the ground that he was unfit to associate with gentlemen, while an issue was raised distinctly, though he submitted, improperly, by the Deputy Judge Advocate General in his charge to the court martial as to the character and reputation of his commanding officer. There were ample precedents for the course he was then taking. Last Session a similar case had been brought before the House by a then Conservative Member who was now a most distinguished Judge. Captain Roberts was an officer who had served his country for 20 years with distinction, and when in the 92nd Highlanders he was decorated with the Indian medal. Having gone on half-pay in consequence of the illness of his wife, he was subsequently appointed to a captaincy in the 94th Regiment. That occurred on the 30th December, 1874, and as it was alleged that for the time he interfered with and stopped the promotion of subalterns in the regiment, he would not be looked upon as a very welcome addition. It was during the stay of the regiment at Belfast that this officer of 20 years' service, decorated with the Indian medal, and against whom from first to last not a single atom of evidence could be adduced, was subjected to a course of treatment at the hands of a combination of his superior officers which at length drove him—or, at all events, induced him—to apply for leave to retire. He wrote a Memorandum embodying his grievances, and committed it to a friend, without giving him permission to use it in any official way, and simply for the purpose of getting his opinion as to the steps he ought to take in the matter. The Me- morandum was handed by the gentleman to whom he had sent it to the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole), who consulted with the Members for Clare (Lord Francis Conyngham and Sir Colman O'Loghlen). These laid their heads together, and resolved to go to the Military Secretary at the Horse Guards, and make some representations to him in reference to the case, based upon the documents, in Captain Roberts' favour. They did not deposit the paper in the War Office, but in consequence of statements alleged to be contained in the documents Captain Roberts was placed under arrest. A court martial was held, and he (Mr. Jenkins) had to reflect rather strongly on the manner in which officers and gentlemen considered it proper to give evidence in courts of that sort. The evidence showed that Captain Roberts gave no authority to send the document to the Military Secretary; that his friend gave no such authority; and it was rather hard on him that, in these circumstances, it should have been so forwarded, although it might be in accordance with military theories of righteousness. The Articles of War were apparently not considered so binding in the Army as was generally supposed. The Articles of War made provision for an officer who felt aggrieved by the conduct of his superior officer forwarding his complaint to the Commander-in-Chief; but Captain Roberts was deterred from taking that course because he had been informed that on two occasions other officers had endeavoured to get their grievances carried to head-quarters, and had failed. That was a matter which demanded inquiry on the part of the Horse Guards. Then came the period during which Captain Roberts was kept in custody. He was arrested on the 20th of April, and not brought to trial until the 27th of July, although from the facility with which officers might have been obtained both in Belfast and from Dublin for the purpose, he might have been brought to trial within a week. That, again, was not in accordance with the Articles of War, which said that an officer under arrest should be tried within a reasonable time. Captain Roberts was not tried until 68 days after his arrest, and that was not within a reasonable time. What was the reason for this long detention? He believed the reason was that an endeavour might be made to induce Captain Roberts to withdraw the grave imputations which he had, in the "Memorandum" he had signed, brought against his commanding officer. A letter was written by the Secretary of the Commander-in-Chief on the 23rd of May, stating that His Royal Highness was aware that Captain Roberts had made grave charges against his commanding officer, and felt bound to give him an opportunity of proving those charges, adding, however, that on consideration of the grave consequences that might ensue, if Captain Roberts came to the conclusion that he had made the charge under mistaken impressions, he was at liberty to make "such retractations of the offensive imputations as might enable the Commander-in-Chief to permit him to retire from the Service." How could any officer, having signed a Memorandum to which he was prepared to adhere, accede to such a proposal as that? The first statement of importance contained in the Memorandum was this—"I was relieved from the command of my company, which was in perfect order." His commanding officer, Lord John Taylour, had exceeded his authority in thus summarily relieving an officer of his company in the face of the fact that the company was in perfect order. Had the company not been in good order the case might have been different; but, as matters stood, there was no excuse, especially in time of peace, for the commanding officer taking such a hasty step as assuming a right to dismiss Captain Roberts from a position which he held by virtue of the Queen's commission. It was an arbitrary act, and calculated to make Captain Roberts feel that he was made the subject of injustice. One of the witnesses, Lieutenant M'Kinlay, who had since unfortunately died by his own hand, took over the company, and, in doing so, certified that it was in perfect order, and that he was satisfied with the state of the accoutrements, &c., and although he gave evidence before the court martial to the effect that they were in an unsatisfactory condition, yet it might be presumed that the first evidence in the shape of the certificate as to fitness and order was correct, especially when it was remembered that he had admitted that as senior lieutenant he had a chance of succeeding Captain Roberts. The evidence of the commanding officer was denied by other witnesses equally credible. Captain Roberts was accused of inefficiency, and the commanding officer, Lord John Taylour, said that he did not know his drill, and that he was unable to give the order "Change companies fours about," until he was told by his Serjeant; but he (Mr. Jenkins) had been informed there was no such order known in the drill of the Army. There was, on the contrary, evidence given before the court martial that Captain Roberts was by no means deficient in intelligence, that he was well informed; but that, on the other hand, he had a disinclination to improve himself in professional matters such as rendered his example anything but beneficial to young officers. Captain Roberts complained that he, an officer of 20 years' standing, was sent for 80 or 90 days to drill three times a-day, and do the goose step with half-clad recruits, and in conspicuous places, where the officers of other regiments could and did look on. Lord John Taylour admitted that Captain Roberts was sent to drill for those days because he had made no progress in his drill; but he denied it was with half-clad recruits, although he admitted it was in the last squad. In reference to this, Major General Bell, commanding officer of the district, stated that he had been 34 years in the service, and he had never seen an officer at drill with recruits; and although Captain Roberts might have been rusty, having been five years on half-pay, it was a military indignity that he should be, by direction of his commanding officer, placed on drill with recruits for 80 or 90 days, without the protection of the presence of a superior officer. What would have been the feelings of any hon. Member under the circumstances? Would he not have felt that there must have been a motive for such treatment, and would it not have been natural that he should have given expression to his feelings? In addition to this indignity, Captain Roberts was ordered to attend all courts martial as a supernumerary, which was like sending him as a child to school to learn that which he already knew. The consequence was he was pointed out to all officers as a man who was unfit to discharge his duty. Yet there was evidence that he had a theoretical knowledge of his duty, for when Lord John Taylour was asked what was the reason for objecting to his sitting as a member of a Court, the answer was that Captain Roberts did not take the evidence in his own handwriting; but there was nothing unusual in that, for the evidence was generally taken down, not by the President of a regimental court martial, but by a subaltern officer. Captain Roberts had also, on the death of a man belonging to it, been deprived of the command of his own company—a step for which a precedent could not be named, and implying that he was not fit to take 100 men through the streets of Belfast. When he entered the regiment he had leave of absence, which was afterwards renewed, on account of the imminent death of his wife, and, although he had four months' leave out of 10, it was not imputed that there was any want of good faith about the medical certificate relating to the wife's condition. Under all the circumstances it was not surprising that, in the written statement, Captain Roberts should have spoken of undisguised hostility; and, though a judicious friend at his elbow might have advised him not to put such conclusions on paper, they were probably no stronger than anyone else would have arrived at had he been exposed to similar treatment. The witnesses who had failed to observe any of the provocations which Captain Roberts received could not recollect that they were present on the occasions when it was offered; but it was shown that on several occasions the orderly-book had been snatched out of his hands, and he had rushed out of the orderly-room, complaining of the manner in which he had been treated. On the part of the commanding officer there must have been a certain animus, some concealed motive—his treatment of Captain Roberts was so severe and degrading, and in any other Army of Europe it would have compelled him to give "satisfaction." Here it was supposed to be sufficient to go to head-quarters for justice, and Captain Roberts was dragged there in spite of himself through the error of a Member of Parliament. Was the House satisfied with the result? He was acquitted of the first charge, and found guilty on the second, framed under the 105th Article of War, of "making false imputations on the conduct of the commanding officer," with a recommendation to merciful consideration, for a reason which amounted to acquittal; for a man could not be guilty of making false imputations if he were innocent, as he was declared to be, of wilful malice or intentional falsehood. It seemed to him that to advise Her Majesty on such a finding to degrade an officer was a very strong proceeding; and he had thought it his duty to ask the House to join him in asking Her Majesty to restore this gentleman to his former position, in order that justice might be done, and that Captain Roberts might not go down to his grave feeling that he had been dishonoured by such charges and by an unjust verdict. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the Address of which he had given Notice.

said, he rose, he must confess, with feelings of such indignation at the attack which had been made upon the officers of the English Army, that he could hardly reply with becoming coolness. The officers of the 94th Regiment, who had given evidence at this court martial, had been virtually accused by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Jenkins) of want of truth and of honour and of everything of which British officers were proud. No accusation could be more unfounded or unjust. It was only within the last three days he had read the proceedings at the court martial, and the reason he had not earlier acquainted himself with the subject was, because he did not think that House a proper Court of Appeal in these matters. ["Oh, oh!"] It was not fit to be a Court of Appeal on military questions; and if its authority in the capacity were recognized, why should not every Serjeant, corporal, or private in the Army who thought he had a griev- ance come to it for redress? As for the case itself, it appeared to him that Captain Roberts could not object to any part of the treatment he had received, though he might well wish to be preserved from his friends. The hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole), in his examination, had declined to say from whom he had received the incorrect and insubordinate document of complaints, which he gave to the military authorities, alleging that he had not the permission of the person from whom it had come; but the Court had, in his opinion, neglected their duty in not insisting on an answer to the question, for under the 13th clause of the Mutiny Act they had ample power to enforce it. Captain Roberts was in rather a hard position, supposing that he had never given the document to be used as it was, and naturally he might have supposed that any real friend in whose possession it came would have consulted some officer of experience as to the expediency of giving it to the Military Secretary, who would have known that to give it to that officer at the Horse Guards would be simple insanity. That was the most incomplete part of the whole story, and an answer should have been given to the question for the sake of both parties. It was impossible that the court martial could have decided otherwise than it did, for no harsh treatment, whether real or imaginary, could be accepted as an excuse for a gross breach of discipline; but he agreed with the general recommendation to mercy. The document which had been mentioned as a statement of Captain Roberts's grievances was too monstrous to be passed over; and, considering that it contained complaints of "an organized system of persecution," of "intemperate and insulting language," of a denial of the usual leave," and of "his life having been made intolerable for the last 12 months," he could only say that no honest friend would ever have let it come under the notice of the authorities, unless, which was not the case, there were positive proof that all the accusations it contained were strictly correct. But with respect to Captain Roberts himself, he could not altogether withhold his sympathy, as when he was ordered to join the 94th he had been 20 years in the Service, but had only passed 18 months with a regiment. He might fairly ask, then, whether it was just and proper to send as captain to a regiment a man who had never had more than 18 months of regimental life and that in time of the Mutiny in India, when there were few opportunities probably of learning the details of drill? They had it from the colonel and two majors of the regiment that he was, as was only natural under the circumstances, utterly ignorant of the rudiments of drill. What on earth, then, was the colonel to do? He could not very well employ a company of formed soldiers in marching about the barrack yard in order to teach an officer who knew nothing. The colonel of the regiment felt that the best course was to drill that officer with the first class of the recruits without arms. He (General Shute) did not say that if he had been the colonel he would have done the same; but it was a great trial to a colonel to have in his regiment an ignorant captain who might ruin the simplest movement in the field, and who he and those under him found it impossible to teach—in fact, an exemplification of the vulgar saying, that "you cannot teach an old dog new tricks." Throughout the whole of those proceedings there was not an instance in which the colonel was proved to have been either intemperate or insulting towards Captain Roberts. It was alleged that the colonel had snatched the defaulters' book out of Captain Roberts's hand in the orderly room. There was no proof of that; but if a commanding officer had to do with an ignorant, stupid officer who was not up in the interior economy of his company, or his troop, and was very slow in finding a prisoner's defaulters' sheet, he might naturally in such a case take the book out of his hand and look at it himself. Then it was said that Lord John Taylour was not so intimate and so on with Captain Roberts as with some of the other officers of the regiment; but though it was the duty of the colonel to be courteous to all his officers, it was not possible that he could be on the same free and intimate terms with an officer who knew nothing of his duty as with one who was a zealous, painstaking, good young man, competent in his duties. Again, he asked, would colonels of regiments be doing their duty to the public or to the tax- payers if they retained in their regiments, unless they could not help it, a man who was totally useless as an officer? A commanding officer always wished a funeral—when 100 men were marched through a town and were inspected by everybody—to be conducted by a good officer, and it was nothing astonishing, therefore, if Lord John Taylour did not employ an incompetent officer on such an occasion. For himself, he agreed with the court martial, and he maintained that Captain Roberts was not justified in saying that the colonel had wished to get rid of him in order to give a step of promotion in the regiment. In conclusion, he held that if the proceedings of courts martial of this kind were liable to be set aside by political influence, insubordination in our regiments would be encouraged, and that our Army would not long remain what it had hitherto been, probably the best disciplined in Europe.

said, the hon. and gallant General who had just spoken had partly admitted the fact that Captain Roberts had not been treated in a manner becoming to men of fair minds, and that he had received less than common justice. He did not think that the Judge Advocate General would say that this was not a case which justified the expression of strong language. The House of Commons was a Court of Appeal to everyone in the kingdom who had been wronged, and on so glaring a case as this the House of Commons ought not to be asked to speak with bated breath. He took rather a lawyer's view of the case. He hoped others would take the view of human freedom; and if there was a wrong, it ought to be heard in that House without any fear of injury being done to the discipline of the Army. It was clear from the evidence that Captain Roberts was not received in a friendly manner when he first entered the regiment. He wrote the letter to which reference had been made, and which had been made public through the action of three Members of Parliament. It might not have been a discreet letter. The hon. and gallant General complained of its being circulated; but Captain Roberts said he was not responsible for that which the the three Members of Parliament did, and that it was unreasonable to say he was. He (Mr. Hopwood) also said it was unreasonable, and few men, unless they placed the discipline of the Army above all right and justice, would say it was reasonable. Then as to the finding of the court martial. It acquitted Captain Roberts of the charge that he he had made wilfully false and malicious statements with reference to the colonel. In fact, by its verdict of acquittal of one of the charges, it affirmed the truth of a large part of Captain Roberts's complaint against his commander. Could any one doubt, who read the facts of the case, that Captain Roberts had been subjected to an organized system of annoyance? The evidence showed that most clearly. It was a pretence to say that he could not march a company through a town properly. Any Volunteer officer could do that. Was it true that "his life was intolerable and his position insecure?" It was not necessary that the court martial should express an opinion upon that, but, no doubt, his life was intolerable. There was abundant evidence to show that the gallant gentleman was treated in a manner which was unbecoming, and he appealed to the House to express in unmistakable terms its opinion of such treatment, and to say that, whether in the Army or elsewhere, it should not be tolerated.

said, that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) had brought very grave charges, not only against the officers of the 94th Regiment, but also against the superior military authorities, and had not even spared the department over which he had an humble control. But if the House would permit him to adhere simply to the matters at issue, he trusted he would in a short time be able to show that the conduct of the Government or of the Horse Guards could not be justly impugned. In spite of what had been said on the other side, the great and primary objection to a Motion of that sort was, that it constituted an appeal to that House from the ordinary legal tribunal. ["No!" and "Hear!"] Hon. Members said "No;" but during a long series of years that had always been the opinion of high authorities in that House. Lord Russell had laid down this principle as follows:—

"What I wish to guard the House against is assuming an authority which is properly given to courts martial of this country without extraordinary necessity and without any sufficient reason, so that any person who may be hereafter led into improper conduct which may expose him to a court martial may he told that he may have the whole question re-opened before this House, by whom there will be a different finding and a different sentence, not acknowledged by the tribunal which had formerly tried and condemned him. Sir, I think that to establish such a precedent would be to shake the discipline of the Army, and not only to relax obedience, but to make all officers on courts martial afraid to do their duty in certain cases under the apprehension of their being re-tried before a Committee of this House."

Some 12 years since the "Simla" court martial, which had already been referred to, but which was distinguishable in many particulars from the present case, was discussed in the House, and on that occasion Lord Hampton, then Secretary for War, and his noble Friend the Member for Radnor (the Marquess of Hartington) and General Peel, both ex-Secretaries for War, Sir John Karslake, and other high authorities, all concurred in the view of Lord Russell's which had been cited. There was also an absolute objection to discussing in the House of Commons questions which depended entirely upon the evidence adduced at a legal trial. How was it possible that hon. Members generally could give the time and attention necessary to study and master evidence taken during 10 or 12 days, so as to be enabled to come to a just decision as to the matters at issue? and he (Mr. Bentinck) protested against the course taken by the hon. Member for Dundee, who, for the space of an hour, had read isolated portions of the evidence without the context. He (Mr. Bentinck) could conceive no proceeding more calculated to mislead and perplex the judgment of the House. But coming to the actual merits of the case the main points were these—first, had the law been fairly and efficiently administered? and, secondly, had either wrong orinjustice been done to Captain Roberts? Now the circumstances antecedent to the court martial were these. In September, 1875, in consequence of confidential reports, the Military Secretary wrote, that His Eoyal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was of opinion that Captain Roberts'sremaining in the 94th Regiment would be of no advantage to the Service, and suggested his immediate retirement.

rose to Order. He said, documents were being referred to which were not at pre- sent before the House, and, as the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, he must produce them.

If the right hon. Gentleman is quoting official documents, it is no doubt the practice they should be laid upon the Table.

said, they were already printed in the Appendix to the Blue Book.

again rose to Order, and said, they were not; and he wanted a promise that these documents, now they had been quoted, should be produced.

said, the hon. Member for Dundee had admitted in his speech all that he desired to say on this subject.

again rose to Order, amid cries of "Order!" from the Ministerial Benches.

I have already stated what the practice of the House is, and having made that statement, I presume the right hon. Gentleman, having quoted official documents will lay them before the House.

was proceeding to say, that on April 5 Captain Roberts was under orders, when—

said: I must again rise to Order. [Loud cries of "Order!"] It is you who are calling out "Order" that are in disorder, and I am the person who is in Order.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must address his observations to the Chair.

Then I address myself to you, Mr. Speaker, and again ask, whether these official documents to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred ought not to be produced.

said, the communication in question was set forth in the Papers submitted to the House.

resumed by saying that in consequence of these and other Reports, and particularly a Report made by General Bell, commanding the Belfast district, to the effect that Captain Roberts's remaining in the 94th Regiment was not desirable, and that he took no interest in his regiment or duties, and occupied the place of an efficient officer, the Horse Guards determined that Captain Roberts's retirement by sale should be immediately proceeded with, and this final decision was communicated to Captain Roberts on the 5th April, 1876. Two days subsequently, and on the 7th April, the document which had been referred to as "Captain Roberts's case," was brought to the Military Secretary by three Members of Parliament, the noble Lord the Member for Clare (Lord Francis Conyngham), the right hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), and the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole). Now, this document was brought not as a private memorandum, but for a public purpose, and it was, therefore, in every sense, a public document, and a libel clearly published, both from a military and a civil point of view. Under these circumstances the Military Secretary had no alternative, by reason of the accusations which the document contained, but to act as he did, else he would have been guilty of a clear neglect of duty, and when such scandals were alleged, have been liable to the suspicion of shielding Lord John Taylour. A trial by court martial then became imperative; but Captain Roberts had no ground of complaint; because, before assembling the court, His Royal Highness gave him the opportunity of retiring from the Army, as decided on April 4th, on retracting the offensive imputation against his commanding officer; and he (Mr. Bentinck) desired to maintain most strongly that the letter of His Royal Highness, to which exception had been taken, was not only intended to save Captain Roberts, but was most kind and considerate in its terms. But Captain Roberts declined the proffered assistance, and elected to stand by the result of the court martial, which thus could not be avoided. Well, then came the question as to whether the prisoner had a fair trial; and could anyone doubt, he asked, who had read the papers, that that question must be answered in the affirmative The prisoner was found guilty on the second charge, with a recommendation to mercy, on the grounds stated. It became his (Mr. Bentinck's) clear duty to advise Her Majesty to confirm the sentence upon the simple ground that there was abundant evidence to go to what may be termed the military jury; but he was bound, in candour, to add, that, in his opinion, the finding of the court martial was right and just, and he failed to see how they could have arrived at any conclusion more favourable to the prisoner; who also, by the gracious favour of Her Majesty, had, by the permission given to receive the value of his commission, obtained the utmost extent of mercy which could be accorded him, compatible with his non-retention in the Army. The late hour would not permit him to discuss at length the evidence given in the case, even assuming he was bound to do so, which he contended he was not; but in order that the House might know the exact truth with regard to Captain Roberts's entire unfitness for the position which he held in the regiment, he would cite the evidence of that most distinguished officer, General Bell, who commanded the district, and who was a disinterested witness in every particular. Major General Bell deposed that when he inspected the 94th Regiment, on the 6th and 7th July, 1875, Captain Roberts was quite unacquainted with his drill, and that he reported Captain Roberts's inefficiency to the Military Secretary and to the Adjutant General, and the result of his Report was that His Royal Highness suggested Captain Roberts should retire; that the Military Secretary asked his (General Bell's) opinion as to the advisability of Captain Roberts remaining in the Service, and he replied that Captain Roberts' sretirement was necessary for the good of the Service; and on cross-examination by the prisoner, General Bell said that it was with his knowledge and sanction that Captain Roberts was drilled shoulder to shoulder with last joined recruits in the barrack square, because he considered him unacquainted with drill; and being further asked by the prisoner whether he considered it just that he (Captain Roberts) should have been deprived of the payment of his company, because he was inefficient at his drill, General Bell replied that he was deprived of his company because his commanding officer had reported him thoroughly inefficient, he considered his commanding officer was right in doing so. The officers of the regiment gave similar testimony, and he (Mr. Bentinck) could also adduce much evidence, if necessary, of a similar purport. Under these circumstances he submitted that the case for asking a revision of this court martial had entirely failed. The trial disclosed neither illegality nor injustice, and he asked the House to reject a Motion which had no substantial basis, and which was expressed in terms unsupported both by Parliamentary precedent and public policy.

said, he did not know Captain Roberts, and was only anxious that justice should be done in his ease. He had gone carefully through it, and he feared from what was contained in the Papers that a series of mistakes had been committed with regard to Captain Roberts from the very commencement. He had requested to see Captain Roberts's commission, and found that it was signed by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief and by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. They, therefore, when they signed it, must have believed him to be efficient; and, if he were inefficient, it was a mistake to put him on full pay. What security had the House that such commissions were not being issued every year? The court martial had in effect condemned Lord John Taylour and General Bell. It was the duty of the House to look after the young men who went into the Army. He did not agree with the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins), and he was aware of the difficulties in carrying out a Resolution worded as that was; but the recommendation of the court martial was the ground on which he asked the Secretary of State to show some leniency to Captain Roberts. There could be no doubt that the recruit drill, and other irritating duties, had been put on this unfortunate officer solely for the purpose of driving him out of the regiment. After being put to recruit drill, he was sent to the adjutant drill, and then to musketry drill. He was then sent back to recruit drill, and was drilled in the public barrack square with half-clad recruits. He had, in fact, been treated with indignity, and his punishment had been greater than he deserved. The practice of suspending a captain from the command of his company was quite unknown 20 years ago, and was never mentioned in the Queen's Regulations. Reviewing the proceedings of the court martial, he contended that its members had neglected their duty in not asking for explanations and checking irregu- larities in the conduct of the prosecution. The court martial did not appear to have contemplated so severe a punishment as that which had been inflicted. If, instead of dismissal, Captain Roberts had been allowed to retire, discipline would have been sufficiently vindicated.

said, he had never heard a lamer defence than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General. There was no desire to turn that House into a regular Court of Appeal from courts martial in all sorts of cases. All that was wanted was, that in cases of flagrant injustice there should be a right of appeal. If such a right did not exist, he wondered where officers of the Army would be in the hands of such despots as Lord John Taylour. After reading the evidence, he had no hesitation in saying there had been a great deal of injustice done to Captain Roberts, and that he had been the victim of gross despotism and cruelty. He thought, also, that the sentence of the court martial was more severe than the evidence and even the finding justified. As to Captain Roberts's letter, it was exceedingly mean to have used it as it had been used. Before taking it for that purpose warning should have been given that it might be so used. Let the House recommend Her Majesty to take a more lenient view of the case. He hoped the House would always be found ready to take up such flagrant cases of injustice.

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (General Shute) had said that the House of Commons ought not to be a Court of Appeal from the sentences of a court martial; and his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate General had said the same, quoting Lord Russell. But Lord Russell had qualified his opinion by adding—"without sufficient reason." If there was to be no appeal to the House of Commons, an officer condemned by a court martial could have no redress. He could not bring an action in a Court of Law, and he would be without a remedy. He (Mr. Forsyth) quite agreed that the House of Commons ought not to interfere unless a strong case were made out. But the question was—Whether in the present instance such a case had not been established? The short facts were that Captain Roberts—an officer of 20 years' standing, who had been for five years in the Gordon Highlanders—was transferred to another regiment, and was drilled with common recruits. All he had done was to state this fact, and it was admitted to be unprecedented, and an insult to a captain, by the witnesses for the prosecution. The answer of Lord John Taylour—"Not to my knowledge," was an admission that he had ordered Captain Roberts peremptorily to "leave the room." ["Oh!"] To refuse leave of absence without reason was insulting. It was simply—

"Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas."

A recommendation to "merciful consideration" always had weight with a Judge in a Criminal Court, and yet in this case the sentence was almost as heavy as it could have been if there had been no such recommendation. No money received for his commission could compensate Captain Roberts for the social injury done to him while his sentence remained in force.

supported the Motion. He was surprised to have heard it opposed as unconstitutional, when all that was asked was, that the recommendation of the court martial should be acted upon, and that Captain Roberts should be re-instated in his former rank, even if only for one day, so that he might be relieved of the stigma of having been dismissed from the Army. In this case, when Captain Roberts asked for leave to send in his papers, permission was refused. Thereupon he sent to a friend in London a private letter, which was subsequently communicated to the military authorities. He did not defend the intemperate language of that letter, which had constituted the charge against him; but it must be remembered that it was written when Captain Roberts was labouring under feelings of indignation at the refusal of his colonel to give him leave of absence. He (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) admitted that it was a mistake on the part of himself and of two of his Friends that that letter was handed to the Military Secretary, and he took his share of the responsibility. It was, however, shown to the Military Secretary merely to save time, and with no intention that it should be put forward officially. The Military Secretary forwarded the letter to the Adjutant General, and the result was the court martial which removed Captain Roberts from the Army. In his opinion, the charge brought against Captain Roberts was the vaguest upon which a man could be put upon his trial. Still, that point had been decided by the Judge Advocate General, and consequently the House had nothing to do with it. The question arose, however, whether there were not facts in the case that justified them in asking for an Address to the Crown to carry into effect the recommendation to mercy, because the evidence disclosed circumstances of the greatest oppression on the part of the colonel of the regiment. Further, the court martial had acquitted him of the more serious imputations—namely, of malice and untruthfulness. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the Secretary of State for War would re-consider the case, and restore this much aggrieved gentleman to his former rank.

said, there was a great deal in the present case that was of a very painful character. There could be no doubt that up to the time Captain Roberts was placed in the 94th Regiment his character was unimpeachable, and, indeed, remained so, till these proceedings, which had been caused by the intemperate letter of which so much had been said. He was rather surprised, however, to find that the hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir Alexander Gordon) should have quoted the respectful language of a purely formal document as a voucher for Captain Roberts's character.

said, he produced the document, not as a certificate of character, but as a certificate of efficiency.

remarked that that only made the hon. and gallant Member's conduct the more extraordinary, considering the language he had used. The hon. and gallant Member must be perfectly well aware that officers were moved from half-pay to full-pay without undergoing any new examination. That had been done in Captain Roberts's case, and no one could pretend that it was done with ill will. On the contrary, Captain Roberts was treated with every consideration, and when he found it disagreeable to go with the 20th Regiment, he was allowed to go into the 94th, where, according to his own admission, for a time things went smoothly. Now, what was it that in course of time made things not go smoothly? Was it any ill-feeling in the minds of the other officers against Captain Roberts, or was it a display of such complete inefficiency, amounting almost to a by-word in the regiment, on Captain Roberts's part as to render him quite unfit for his position? No one, he thought, who had read the whole of the documents, and not isolated passages of them, could have any doubt on the subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) thought it not inconsistent with his duty as a General of the Army to impute misconduct to the court martial. But that court martial was admitted by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) to have acted with great fairness and consideration. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of that court martial in a manner which would have been unbecoming in a civilian, and was still more so in an officer of the Army. ["No, no!"] The fact was that not a single officer who sat on the court martial was an officer of the 94th Regiment. They were all independent members, without favour or affection, and they had no interest except to do justice to the officer who was brought before them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken of Captain Roberts having been subjected to treatment in the regiment calculated to produce irritation on his part. But the evidence of independent witnesses went to show that there was no such intention, but that Captain Roberts was an inefficient officer, and they strove to make him efficient. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clare, having been Judge Advocate General, went with two other Members of Parliament, taking a formal document containing a statement of charges, to the Military Secretary of His Royal Highness. The Military Secretary was not a private secretary, but an official, acting as assistant to the Commander-in-Chief, and therefore he was only an instrument in passing on a document with which he could not deal himself, either to His Royal Highness, or to the Adjutant General, who was responsible for the discipline of the Army. He would venture to say that there was no official who, when three Members of Parliament brought him a document referring to a public matter, would not have supposed that he was to deal with it officially. The evidence of the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) was to the effect that he, in company with the hon. Members for Clare County (Lord Francis Oonyngham and Sir Colman O'Loghlen) went to Sir Alfred Horsford, who declined at first to see three Members of Parliament, but was willing to see one. But when he was informed that the matter would be brought before Parliament, he said he would see the three. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had said that the conduct of Sir Alfred Horsford was "mean;" but a bolder, a more gallant, or more straightforward officer than Sir Alfred Horsford there was not in the Army. Sir Alfred Horsford did his duty; he referred the letter to the Adjutant General. The letter was not marked private, and therefore it was not a private communication, but was, as stated at the time, to be brought before Parliament. And then an opportunity was given Captain Roberts by His Royal Highness to withdraw the document. The right hon. Gentleman then read a letter in proof of that statement. That was the letter which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) said suggested to Captain Roberts a dishonourable course. It seemed to him (Mr. Hardy) no dishonour to call upon a man to say whether he persisted in certain charges he made against the officers of his regiment, and if he could not retract or explain them, that he should put them in a form in which they should be consistent with military discipline. He refused, and there was no other course in justice to the officers whose conduct was impugned, and to Captain Roberts himself, than to bring him to a court martial. The hon. Member for Dundee complained of the delay which had occurred. That delay was made with no intention to injure Captain Roberts, and certainly a large part of it was at his own request. The trial by court martial was held, the charges being for making certain statements which were false in themselves, and for making them wilfully and maliciously. He was acquitted on the latter, but found guilty of the former. So far as regards the organization of which Captain Roberts complained, there was no trace whatever in the evidence. The only charge he made was that against his command- ing officer. It was with great reluctance that he (Mr. Hardy) referred to the evidence given before the court martial; but when a charge was made against a commanding officer, it was right to see whether that commanding officer, Colonel Lord John Taylour, was acting in defiance of his superior officers, or in obedience to what they thought right. One charge was that he had deprived Captain Roberts of the command of his company. Major General Bell was asked what would be the duty of the commanding officer, where a company was suffering from the neglect of the officer in command; and his reply was, "to deprive him of that command;" which was done. He was charged with being an inefficient officer. Major General Bell inspected his regiment six months after undergoing drill, and he was asked if all the officers were equally acquainted with their drill. The reply was that they were not equally acquainted with their drill, and that Captain Roberts was quite unacquainted with it. That was the statement of the inspecting officer, who was quite an independent witness. Major General Bell said he was asked as to the advisability of Captain Roberts remaining in the Army, and his reply was that his retirement was necessary for the good of the Service. That was said by Major General Bell with the immense responsibility which attached to him, and the House would not think of doubting the evidence of an officer in the position of Major General Bell, who was responsible not only to the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, but also to the Horse Guards authorities. With reference to the next charge—that of being sent to drill with the recruits—it was a pity that some of them were in mufti; but, as a matter of fact, every officer when he went into the regiment had to drill shoulder to shoulder with the recruits. No doubt, Captain Roberts was in a peculiar position. He was a man of 20 years' service. He had forgotten his drill, and if he did not like to learn it in the position in which he was placed, he might have gone back to full pay and retired from the Army. Major General Bell expressed an opinion that the commanding officer was quite right in refusing leave to an officer who was not efficient in his drill. There was no doubt that Lord John Taylour was a strict officer, and he never denied that he had put this officer to recruit drill, and that, in his view, he ought to retire from the Service. He might cite another instance of the inefficiency of Captain Roberts. He had been told to make a recognizance report himself; but, instead of doing so, he had obtained the services of a sergeant to draw it up for him. It was much to be regretted, he might add, that Captain Roberts had gone into the 94th Regiment; but, at all events, when he was brought back to full pay, and when the money due to him was given him, he had the opportunity of retiring. It was further alleged that a book had been snatched from him by Lord John Taylour; but in accordance with the evidence of Captain Harvey, the book had been taken from him in the quietest manner, while every one of the witnesses stated that they had never seen anything insulting in the conduct of Lord John Taylour towards him. It was clear that Captain Roberts was in the wrong place, and that he had violated military discipline in a manner which amounted to a very grave offence. That he was guilty of a breach of discipline was admitted, and as to the appeal ad misericordiam which was made on his behalf, he would remind the House that Captain Roberts might have retired from the Army with his money; but he endeavoured to destroy the character of his commanding officer and to injure that of his brother officers, that he took the chances of a court martial with that object, and that he had been found guilty of misrepresentation. These were grave military offences, but in compliance with the verdict of the court martial that mercy should be shown him, although he was sentenced to retire from the Service, he received his money. That was the judgment pronounced in his case, and although the House, influenced by kindly feelings, might be disposed to take the side of an old officer who had done meritorious service before he entered the 94th Regiment, he hoped it would not set itself up against the verdict of a court martial admittedly fair, whose sentence was mitigated in the most lenient manner by those by whom it had to be revised.

, as one of those who had been alluded to as going to the Horse Guards, on the part of Captain Roberts, wished to say one word in explanation. He thought it was his duty to do so, and see the Military Secretary. They went, however, as Members of that House, and not in a private capacity. He believed the case of Captain Roberts was a very hard one, and on that account he wished to obtain a remedy from the military authorities. At the same time, he fully admitted that Sir Alfred Horsford could not have acted other than he did. He implored the House to remember that this was the case of a man who had for many years served his country faithfully, and who was a widower.

reminded the House that Captain Roberts gave no authority to anyone to give this document alluded to to the Military Secretary, and under all the circumstances he hoped the House would support the Motion brought forward by his hon. Friend (Mr. Jenkins).

opposed the Motion, saying it was a common thing for officers, after a long absence, to be sent back to the goose step.

rose to draw attention to The Priest in Absolution, and to move—

"That, having regard to the state of the Law which renders the publication of an obscene book an offence, although the person publishing it be not actuated by any desire to deprave, and to the absence of any power in the Education Department to interfere with the religious teaching in public elementary schools or to make any inquiry thereon, this House is of opinion that the doctrines and practices set forth in a book entitled The Priest in Absolution, and carried out under the name of the Confessional by certain clergymen of the Church of England, do tend to deprave and are dangerous to the best interests of society and of religion."

The hon. Member had only commenced his observations when—