asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session for the Amendment of the Poor Laws in Scotland?

in reply, said, that as there were two important measures connected with Scotland before the House, it would be impossible to proceed with a third, until the measures named in the Queen's Speech were disposed of. He feared the state of Business would hardly permit of a Bill of that kind being proceded with this Session.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, considering that now there are several well-known safety-detaching hooks in use which minimise the loss of life from overwinding at mines, he will direct that the attention of the mine owners of the United Kingdom be called to the necessity for their use, for the prevention of catastrophes such as that which took place at the Blantyre No. 3 Pit, where sis men lost their lives a few days ago?

in reply, said, it was not usual to call on the Inspectors of Mines to send in their Reports before the 31st of March. When the Reports reached the Office of the Secretary of State, they would then be put into the hands of the printer and be laid on the Table forthwith. He quite agreed that the use of safety-detaching hooks was a great safeguard for life. The contrivance had been very gradually, and was now very extensively, used by coal-owners, and it would be beneficial to instruct the Inspectors to promote its use in various districts. He was glad to say that the number of accidents from the cause referred to had for a number of years been very small, and he hoped the use of this contrivance would render them fewer.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government will inquire of the Government of the United States whether it is the intention of that Government to pay the interest on the funded loans in gold coin, in accordance with the terms upon which those loans wore issued, or whether the obligation to pay in gold coin is considered by that Government to be cancelled by the Bland Silver Act; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, if invited by the Government of the United States, to send a Representative to the International Conference proposed by the Bland Silver Act to be held for the purpose of establishing a fixity of relative value between gold and silver?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not felt called upon to make the inquiry suggested by the hon. Gentleman of the Government of the United States. It would, perhaps, be hardly courteous to make an inquiry whether they intended to fulfil their obligations. With regard to the second part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government have not received any invitation to send a Representative to the International Conference. Her Majesty's Government cannot say beforehand what they might do until they receive such an invitation, and are informed in what way the Conference is to be composed.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Government intend to move the Adjournment of the House for the Easter Holidays?

Sir, it is said to be a Scotch practice to answer some Questions by putting others, and really in this matter I am, to a certain extent, in the hands of the House, and must make my Answer depend on the pleasure of the House with regard to the progress of Business. I wish to point out that there are one or two matters upon which we have really no option, for we are bound by time. For instance, with regard to the Mutiny Bills, it is necessary by the Constitution and by Statute that they should be renewed before the expiration of the present Acts on the 25th of April. It is therefore necessary in the present year that we should pass the new Acts before the House rises for the Holidays, otherwise we should be too late, and the Army would be thrown into a state of complete confusion. Then it must be borne in mind that there are certain Supplementary Estimates laid before the House, and, unless they can be got through Committee, and the Bill which will be necessary to give effect to the Vote can be passed before the 31st of March, we should find there would be great financial confusion. Now, this being the position of the House, I have to call its attention to the obligations which we have incurred with regard to particular days. We have fixed a certain day—Thursday, the 21st—for taking the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, and as that day has been fixed for a considerable time, and Gentlemen interested in the subject have made arrangements accordingly, it would be impossible to change the day. A conditional promise has also been given that the Irish Sunday Closing Bill should have a day—I had suggested either the 25th or 28th of this month; but I am not sure that it would not be more convenient to take Monday in the week following. Under these circumstances, if the House is willing to assist us, and if we are able to get on fairly with Supply and the Mutiny Bills, I hope we may be in a position to rise on the Tuesday or Thursday in Passion Week—that is, Tuesday the 16th or Thursday the 18th of April, as may be the pleasure of the House. [Murmurs]. I can very easily appreciate the meaning of those murmurs, but the fact is that the Business which we have to deal with is not of a kind which leaves us much option. It is necessary that we should really get on with it. I propose that Thursday, the 4th of April, should be fixed for the introduction of the Budget; and what I would suggest, with the approval of the House, would be to allow the Government to have the use of Tuesday, the 16th, in which case we might rise on that day and adjourn for the Holidays over the remainder of that week, and over the two succeeding whole weeks till Monday, the 6th of May. We shall then have the greater part of three weeks' holiday. I hope the House will help us to carry out that proposal.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, How many Unions in Ireland were contributing under the provisions of "The National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1835" for the past year; how many at present; and, in how many Unions Notices of Motion to resist the Resolution for becoming contributory are pending?

Sir, the number of contributory Unions for the past year was 40. In the current year that number has been reduced by 14 rescinding Resolutions, leaving 26 Unions still contributory. In four Unions Notices to rescind are pending.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there is any objection to publishing the Statement supplied to the English Consul at Andrianople concerning the treatment endured by Dr. Armand Leslie and Dr. Neville of the National Aid Society, of Dr. Kirkpatrick, of the Red Crescent Society, and of Mr. Bell, the Correspondent of the "Illustrated London News," who fell into the hands of the Russians on January 1st, and were kept prisoners by them for five weeks; and also of the affidavit made by Dr. Leslie before the English Consul General at Constantinople, respecting the mutilation and ill-treatment of the Turkish prisoners, wounded, and refugees by the Russians?

Sir, with regard to the first Question of the hon. Member for Newcastle, there will be no objection to lay the Statement on the Table, with other documents relating to that Statement; but as to the second Question, touching the affidavit of Dr. Leslie, as it relates to Turkish subjects and not to British subjects, it is not usual to lay such a document before Parliament.

asked the honourable Baronet the Member for Walsall, Whether the Petitions from Londonderry, bearing upwards of nine thousand signatures, in favour of the Sunday Closing Bill, Ireland, has on examination been discovered to consist of signatures a large number of which, if not the principal portion, are inscribedin one and the same handwriting; and, also, whether Petitions from Dundalk and Innistiogue in favour of the same Bill have been found irregular?

in reply, said, it would appear from the Questions that had been addressed to him from both sides of the House that the battle on this question was about to be shifted from the floor of this House to the Table of the Committee on Public Petitions, and it was only right that parties who signed such Petitions should be thus reminded that Petitions even after examination by the Committee were subject to rigid scrutiny by Members of this House. Since Notice was given of this Question, he had directed a fresh examination to be made of the particular Petitions. It was not quite accurate to say that the Petitions from Dundalk and Innistiogue were irregular, though it was quite true that several of the petitioners were unable to write their own names. Under these circumstances, it was his intention to propose to the Committee that the names should be cancelled. With regard to the Petition from Londonderry, he could not take the same course. The hon. and gallant Member was not quite accurate in his facts. It was true that in a note that was appended to the Petition in one Report it was stated that signatures were signed by one person; but it turned out on investigation that that person was really attesting the signatures of persons who were unable to write. It was his intention next Monday to propose to the Committee to add a foot-note on the subject to their next Report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he intends to lay upon the Table of the House Sir James Ingham's Report in the case of the late Sergeant McCarthy, and the various statements connected with that case which have been laid before Sir James Ingham, together with the depositions made at the Coroner's Inquest; and, if so, on what day?

Sir, I can lay the Report referred to on the Table, but I cannot say on what day it can be produced, and that is a question of the delay in printing—no time, however, shall be lost, and I may say that the documents have been for some time in the hands of the printers.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If any steps have been taken by the Irish Railway Companies for the adoption of continuous brakes to passenger trains; and, whether questions have been put by the Board of Trade to those Companies similar to those put to the English and Scotch Railway Companies in April, 1877; and, if so, whether he will lay the answers upon the Table of the House?

Sir, as the Irish railway companies are not parties to the Railway Companies' Association, the queries contained in the Board of Trade Letter of the 21st of April last were not sent to them; but the circular to all railway companies of last August on the same matter, laying down the requirements which the Board of Trade considered essential with regard to brakes, was sent to the Irish railway companies, as well as the English and Scotch. Only one reply has been received, that of the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland. I am pressing the other Irish companies for replies, and will shortly report to the House on the subject.

asked the Lord Advocate, When he intends to introduce a Bill with regard to the Courts of Session in Scotland?

Sir, I propose to introduce that Bill the moment the state of Public Business affords a prospect of proceeding with it.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the new Constabulary Code will be issued, and whether there would be any objection to lay a Copy of it, and of the present Code, upon the Table of the House, so as to afford Members an opportunity of inspecting it?

Sir, I find that a revision of the existing Constabulary Code is at present proceeding; but as such documents have always been considered of a confidential character, it would not be desirable to lay it upon the Table of the House.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Suez Canal Company have carried into effect the undertaking given by M. de Lesseps to Colonel Stokes in February 1876, that the Canal Dues should be charged on the tonnage shown by the Board of Trade special certificates, or still continue to charge on the tonnage shown by their own measurements; and, if the latter be the case, what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to secure the performance of this undertaking which formed part of the consideration for the postponement of the reduction of the surtax, of which the Canal Company have had the advantage?

Sir, as my right hon. Friend is aware, there has been a good deal of difficulty in this matter; but I have just seen Mr. Rivers Wilson, on his return from Paris, and I can state since the acceptance by M. de Lesseps in the early part of last year of the conclusions of the Constantinople International Tonnage Commission and the withdrawal of his protests, the Suez Canal Company have recognized the special tonnage certificates given by the Board of Trade in their assessment of the dues to be paid by British vessels. The Company contested, however, the interpretation of the Constantinople rules in certain particulars as applied in the Board of Trade measurements. The Company contended that certain spaces in the vessels were improperly excluded from the net tonnage on which the dues were to be levied, and assumed to themselves the right of verification, with the object of adding and charging for any such additional spaces. In consequence of the complaints addressed to Her Majesty's Government by the shipowners on this subject, instructions were given to the British Directors to come to an understanding with the Company on the matters in dispute. Negotiations have accordingly been in progress for several months, and were brought to a final conclusion at the meeting of the Council this week. The general purport of the arrangement, which it is to be hoped will be acceptable to the shipping community, and will remove all existing causes of dissatisfaction is, that a distinct agreement has been come to as the limits and conditions under which the disputed spaces are to be included in or excluded from the net tonnage, subject to taxation, and that the verification by the Company is to be confined to ascertaining that the deducted spaces are correctly appropriated to their proper uses; that no changes have been made in them since the delivery of the Board of Trade certificate, and that no spaces have been added without being included in the tonnage, the object being not to test the accuracy of the official measurements, but to prevent abuses by which the Company may be defrauded. The Council of Administration, at its last meeting, adopted a revised Réglement de Navigation, which will give effect not only to the new agreement, but to all that was done by the Tonnage Com- mission at Constantinople in 1873–4, and under the Convention between M. de Lesseps and Colonel Stokes at Cairo in 1876. This Reglement will be published in a few days, and will come into effect on the 1st of July next. Her Majesty's Government have undertaken to furnish the Commission with weekly lists of all vessels holding Suez Canal special certificates. Every vessel not provided with a certificate may be measured by the Canal authorities in conformity with the Constantinople rules, and must pay her dues according to such measurement until she produces a special certificate from the authorities of her own country.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government intend to proceed with the adjourned debate on going into Committee on the County Government Bill before the Order for the Second Reading of the Grand Jury Amendment (Ireland) Bill, and when it is proposed to proceed with the said Bill?

Sir, unless there should be very great difficulty with regard to our financial Business, I hope to be able to take those Bills on Thursday, the 28th; but I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the position of the question is that the debate upon the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair on the County Government Bill—the English Bill—was brought nearly to a close the other evening, but was adjourned in consequence of private Members wishing to continue the discussion. I think it would be more convenient that the discussion they proposed to raise should be conducted on the second reading of the Grand Jury Bill, and if hon. Gentlemen would consent to allow the division to be taken on the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair on the County Government Bill without further delay, we should propose moving to report Progress, and then to take the second reading on the Irish Grand Jury Bills. That would probably be the most convenient way to meet the wishes of all concerned. The County Government Bill stands on the Orders for to-night. I do not know whether it will be reached before half-past 12, but if it should I hope there will be a consent to allow that stage to be taken, and then we should have the 28th instant open for the Grand Jury Bill; otherwise the English Bill must stand as the first Order of the Day, and the Grand Jury Bill as the second.

said, he should oppose the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, because many English Members desired to speak on the County Government Bill.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, in view of the recently issued Report of the Irish Church Commissioners, he will give facilities for the discussion of the Bill to amend the Irish Church Act, or himself introduce a measure on the subject?

Sir, the statement made just now by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I think, have prepared the hon. Gentleman for my Answer to the first part of his Question, which is that in the present condition of Public Business it is impossible to place a day at his disposal. With reference to the latter part of his Question, it is not my intention to introduce a measure upon the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any steps had been taken to renew diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Mexico; and if so, whether there is any prospect of such a renewal being established?

in reply, said, the question of the renewal of our relations was practically in the same position as it was last year, when the hon. Member for Swansea raised a debate on the subject, and when the views of Her Majesty's Government were stated. Her Majesty's Government had not shown the slightest reluctance to renew diplomatic relations with Mexico, nor thrown the slightest difficulty in the way of their renewal; but, considering the circumstances under which they were broken off, the Government still thought it was not for them to take the initiative in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, since the occurrence of the Kersley accident, he still adheres to his expressed determination to do nothing more than issue rules for the enforcement of the Mines Act; when the rules will be laid on the Table, and whether the issue of such rules did not imply that the provisions of the Mines Act had been neglected?

Sir, no one regrets more than myself such terrible accidents as that of which we have just heard; but I would point out to the hon. Member that it does not necessarily follow because an accident has taken place that there is criminal negligence on the part of those who looked after the mine. Since I have been in office I have made it a practice of sending down to inquests arising out of colliery explosions a barrister of high qualifications to attend and watch the evidence. Mr. Horatio Lloyd and Mr. Maule have been among those chosen. I have before me Returns of eight cases in which I have sent gentlemen down. In six of those they have reported that no step could be taken to institute a criminal prosecution against anyone; in one the owner and manager of the mine were fined, and in the other a trial took place, in which the jury could not agree, and the Attorney General, on full consideration, recommended that a nolle prosequi should be entered. The hon. Member will, therefore, see that steps are being taken to enforce the Mines Acts; and it does not follow that, because there are serious accidents, owners and managers are criminally responsible. Although accidents still occur, their number is diminishing greatly when compared with the number of men employed in mining. The numbers employed for each fatal accident in the year 1851 was 310; in 1861 it was 360; in 1871 it was 440; and in 1876 it was 613. The number of coal miners employed for each life lost by accident was 220 in 1851; in 1861 it was 300; in 1871 it was 350; and in 1876 it was 551. The House will, therefore, see that there has not only been an improvement, but a gradual, steady, and progressive improvement in regard to such accidents. It is quite true that I have thought it necessary to issue a code of regulations for the guidance of the Inspectors, not because I believed that they did not do their duty, but because their previous instructions had been issued from year to year; and were, therefore, not in a connected form, and it was thought better that they should be consolidated into one code. As to the Correspondence between Mr. Moore and the Home Office on this subject, if the hon. Member will move for it, I shall have pleasure in laying it on the Table.

said, that the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) in regard to the Inflexible raised a much broader question than the stability of the ship.? It raised the question as to the relations of the Admiralty to the House of Commons; the question, in short, of the control of Parliament over the expenditure of public money by the public Departments. Nothing could be more injurious to the country than that the Constructive Department of the Admiralty should become arbitrary, and that it should attempt to spend money without any control on the part of Parliament, or the public at large. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had made certain allegations with regard to the Inflexible, which the Government had been invited, but had failed, to answer. The complaints of the hon. Member for Pembroke, whether they were well founded or not, were at all events perfectly intelligible; but they could not understand the answers given to those allegations by the Admiralty. There were several points on which the taxpayers of the country demanded as a right, full and explicit information before the question of the Inflexible was allowed to rest. First, was the hon. Member for Pembroke right in his account of the original design; second, if he was, when, and for what purpose, was that design altered; and, third, why the change of design was never communicated to the House. Why, when a statement was made by the hon. Member for Pembroke last year, the Admiralty did not at once admit the truth of that statement; and why a period of nine or 10 months had been allowed to elapse before it was admitted that the design had been altered? The second allegation of the hon. Member for Pembroke, equally clear and explicit, was that if the unarmoured ends of the ship were destroyed, the central citadel would possess no stability whatever. That statement he understood the Admiralty to contradict. They gave, in the Papers laid before Parliament, a limit of stability of 30 degrees in the condition under which the hon. Member for Pembroke stated there would be no stability. That statement the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had charitably attributed to a clerical error. But how could it be a clerical error? If an error, it was made in April, 1877, and it had not been corrected down to the present time, although the hon. Member for Pembroke called attention to it in May, 1877. The range of stability, it was now said, was 17½ degrees. But even that was in a condition different from that contemplated by the hon. Member for Pembroke. Would the Admiralty now, at the last moment, give the figures which ought to be substituted for the wrong ones of the hon. Member for Pembroke? Would they give the range of stability, and say what was the maximum stability in that condition of the ship in regard to which they said that the hon. Member for Pembroke made a statement that was wrong? If the Government would not answer those questions, surely it was not a proper way of treating the House of Commons. The third statement made by the hon. Member for Pembroke was that the ship, if each end were riddled but not gutted, would have a feeble stability of 24 degrees. The Admiralty said that the range of stability would be 30 degrees, and that by taking out the masts and placing the cables in the hold, the range could be increased to 35 degrees. At the time that statement was made scientific persons asserted that the range of stability to provide against the ordinary roll of the sea should be 39 degrees. It was, therefore, not worth while discussing whether 24 degrees or 30 degrees was correct; because, according to the state of knowledge existing at the time, either amount of stability was too small for safety. There still remained the important question whether the ship was on the whole a safe ship. To form a judgment on that matter they had before them two documents—the Report itself, and what was called the summary of the Report, said to have been also drawn up by the Committee. Having read both, he could not call the latter document a summary, but rather a series of garbled extracts from the Report; and he asked who had put together those extracts and called them a summary of the Report? The Committee came to the conclusion that when that amount of damage which ought to be provided for had been done to the unarmoured ends, the ship would possess a range of stability of 30 to 35 degrees. These figures could not be altered, and the Committee, therefore, rightly desirous to save the credit of the ship if they could, had proceeded, with the aid of experiments, to inquire whether a stability of 39 degrees was really necessary for the safety of the ship. Their conclusion was that it was not, as a water-logged ship would not roll as much as a free ship, and that, therefore, if the Inflexible were water-logged, she would be safe with a range of stability of from 30 to 35 degrees, although such an amount of stability would be wholly insufficient for an intact ship. They concluded, therefore, that the hon. Member for Pembroke was mistaken, when he said that a ship in such a condition would be likely to capsize. But, although the Committee arrived at the conclusion that the danger anticipated by the hon. Member for Pembroke was imaginary, they discovered another source of danger—namely, that when holes were made in the unar- moured ends of the ship, if she were moved through the water at any considerable speed, her longitudinal stability might be altogether compromised, and she might go down head foremost. He would leave it for nautical men to say whether such a ship was a safe one? He hoped the First Lord would inform the House whether the Admiralty were now satisfied that the Inflexible ought to have had 10 feet more beam, and also whether it was intended to alter the designs of the Ajax and the Agamemnon so as to give those vessels an increase of beam? Before voting money for ships, the House had a right to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to state the principles upon which those ships were to be built. He would make a practical suggestion. In the Navy Estimates sums were asked for building four new iron-plated ships, the design of which had not yet been settled. He proposed that the House should refuse to vote any money for the construction of any more iron-plated ships until the First Lord had laid before them, as the Representatives of the taxpayers of the country, the broad principles upon which the vessels were to be constructed. If hon. Members took that course, they would increase the power of the First Lord of the Admiralty and strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government, while they would be discharging their proper duty towards their constituents and towards the country.

thought that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) had made out a sufficient case for the appointment of the Committee he asked for. If he wanted any evidence in favour of the appointment of a Committee, such as had been suggested, he would find it in the speech of the late lamented First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hunt). No one who ever held the Office of First Lord of the Admiralty took greater pains to master the details of his administration than the late First Lord, and he admitted that the administration of the Navy was in a state of paralysis, and manifested great incompetence and weakness. The Committee which sat in 1871 reported that the Vanguard and the Iron Duke were so weak below the water-line that if they went aground they would fall to pieces. Had the Vanguard been strengthened as the Committee advised, she would not have gone down when struck by the Iron Duke, and he now wished to know from the First Lord of the Admiralty, if the Iron Duke had been altered and strengthened in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee? With regard to the Inflexible, any captain who knew what she was, would direct his guns against her unarmoured ends; and if those were damaged, the citadel would be merely a floating log upon the water. As far as he understood the Report of the Committee, it amounted to this, that the Admiralty had made a mistake in constructing such a ship as the Inflexible, and that they ought not in future to build any vessel on the like principle. There seemed to him to be no organization with respect to our ships of war, and if it were necessary to have organization in connection with our Army on land, it was equally necessary that there should be organization with respect to our first line of defence. They could only be guided by experience obtained in actual warfare, and it was during the Austro-Italian war that the discovery was made, that for the purposes of ocean fighting, rams were decidedly the best type of vessel. He would ask the First Lord if the policy suggested by that discovery had been carried out? Then it was demonstrated in the American war that for port fighting and defence small monitors were the best; but that was a class of vessels which we seemed almost to have lost sight of. He would urge the First Lord to build a number of small iron-clad turret-vessels for running in our shallow waters and protecting our coasts. He suggested, also, that torpedo schools should be established in connection with our Naval Reserve ships, and that all officers in charge of our training ships should be obliged to pass a course of instruction at the Torpedo School in Portsmouth. This could be done at very little expense indeed, and would be of enormous benefit, as at the present moment all our large commercial harbours, such as Liverpool, in the warehouses of which there was every day property worth £60,000,000, were completely defenceless. In these days of steam nothing could prevent a daring officer finding his way into our commercial harbours and doing our property enormous damage. He trusted that the First Lord would see his way to the establishment of a torpedo service such as he had suggested, and believed that if he did establish it he would render our ports impregnable. He very heartily supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln.

said, that the question with regard to the Inflexible was this, whether she was a safe ship; whether we could send her abroad to defend our interests—and whether we could trust her with the valuable lives of our officers and men? He would not touch on the question whether the original design of the ship had been accurately carried out. He would only ask the hon. Member for Pembroke, whether he could point to any of our modern ships of war which had been completed on the original design? The hon. Member for Pembroke had stated that if the unarmoured ends of the Inflexible were destroyed she would capsize, and he thought it probable that such an event might take place early in an engagement. The Committee of last year, however, came to a different conclusion; they were of opinion that such a contingency was not at all likely to happen early in an engagement, and that it was in the highest degree improbable, even in an engagement prolonged to any extent that could be reasonably anticipated. He wished to show how impossible it was that such a contingency should occur. To whom were they to refer? Admirals Hood and Boys thought it highly improbable that the ship could be so seriously injured. He argued that the target presented by the Inflexible was of such a character that in the case of one-half the iron-clads of the British Navy, she could not be materially damaged by the largest guns. He did not, however, mean to infer that she would be able to withstand the combined attack of a large number of vessels; but that the particular contingency anticipated by the hon. Member for Pembroke—namely, the blowing out of the cork and stores from the unarmoured ends—could not be brought about by the fire of any number of vessels. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) stated the other night that he had taken the advice of an experienced artillerist on the subject, and that it would require that 300 large shells should be fired into that particular part of the Inflexible before anything like the destruction of which the hon. Member for Pembroke spoke could be effected. On striking a ship, the fragments of a shell were thrown forward into the ship—not outwards—in a cone of dispersion. Now, an experiment had been made in Vigo Bay in 1870 or 1871, in the case of the Monarch and the Hercules, which were taken out to fire at a huge rock 600 feet long and 60 feet high, at a distance of 1,000 yards, and with a calm sea. Arguing from these experiments, Captain Colomb, an experienced gunnery officer, found that a target represented by the side of an iron-clad could be struck only from two to 15 times in 100 shots—that was to say, that this might be the percentage of shots striking a target, say, 350 feet long by 20 feet high; but, in the case we are now considering, our target was about 200 feet long and 7 feet high, of which 6 were under water. Therefore, only 4 per cent would strike, and 7,500 shots would have to be fired. That experiment went to prove that half the sea-going iron-clad Fleet of Russia might fire the whole of their ammunition at the Inflexible without striking her in that part with such a number of shots as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London had mentioned. The hon. Member for Pembroke, however, contended that the water-line might be easily hit; but neither the experience derived from a period so far back as the battle of Trafalgar, nor from the encounter last year between the Shah and the Huascar bore out that view. At Trafalgar the Victory had only received "some" shot between wind and water, the Revenge nine, the Defence five, and the French Redoubtable "several," but it could not have been a very large number, as she did not sink until the next day. In the fight between the Shah and Huascar the Peruvians themselves acknowledged that the hull of the latter was only struck by seven shots, one of which merely went near the water-line. Admiral Hamilton, in a letter to The Times, had stated what was, in his opinion, likely to happen. "Practical experience," he said, "shows how little damage is done by an apparently overwhelming fire;" and he had had as much experience as any one of the behaviour of ships under fire, so that his view of the subject was probably correct. In that particular instance, he was speaking of the old Penelope, which was aground under the forts of Bomar- sund for a considerable time without sustaining any injury to her machinery, exposed as it was. The experiences of the American War were of the same kind; and, in fact, all the lessons of practical warfare went to show that the contingency suggested by the hon. Member for Pembroke was extremely unlikely. It was singular that neither the hon. Member for Pembroke, nor the noble Lord the Member for Chichester, nor the hon. Member for Lincoln, had been able to point to any authority in support of their assertions. The truth was that their fears were ludicrous, and he hardly understood why the Admiralty had submitted to the Select Committee such a question as the destructability of the unarmoured ends; or how an august Assembly such as this could make it the subject of two nights' debate.

said, that he would not follow the hon. and gallant Member through his speculations as to the number of shots necessary to damage the Inflexible; all he could say was, that if his view was right it would seem difficult to injure an iron-clad at all. As for the Committee on the Inflexible, the verdict, roughly stated, was "Not guilty; but don't do it again." It certainly seemed from the Report of that Committee that the hon. Member for Pembroke had over-estimated the possibility of danger to the ship, and that the views of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) were more correct. Exception had been taken to the composition of the Committee, on the ground that its Members were all more or less connected officially with the Admiralty; but surely no one could be a better President of it than Sir James Hope, while its other Members were men of almost European reputation, whose bias was not all in favour of the Admiralty. One thing he was very glad of, and that was, that the rules of the House precluded them coming to a division on the question. It was far better that it should be left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty.

remarked, that though he had no special knowledge of the subject, it might, perhaps, be useful for one not possessing such special knowledge to express the opinion to which he had come from consideration of the evidence. He could not by any means agree with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, that the Admiralty should take the House into its confidence and virtually ask it to approve of all new naval designs. That would be a very unsatisfactory and dangerous mode of proceeding, as if the House were to be consulted, there would be so much difference of opinion expressed, that there would be little likelihood of any progress in the dockyards; confusion, in fact, would be worse confounded, and we should also be showing our hand to our neighbours, and making public all our designs and all our advantages. That would surely be very undesirable, especially in the case of a new type of ship like the Inflexible. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had rightly said that the question whether the existing Inflexible was identically what she had been designed to be, was not the important point, and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had laid too much stress on his dispute with the Admiralty, and too little on the real merits of the ship. His original charge was a very grave indictment against the ship, and lay in the statement that she was almost certain to capsize if brought under shell-fire, and that she had no reserve of stability for fighting purposes. The attention of the Committee had very properly been drawn to that point, and the fullest possible information was at its service, together with the complete statement of the hon. Member for Pembroke; but the conclusion come to, in his opinion, exploded the charge against the ship. The noble Lord who had brought forward the Motion did not agree with that view of the subject. The noble Lord said the Committee stated that the Inflexible would not be able to turn on her helm if the cork and material were blown out in action; but he had omitted to tell the House that the Committee had reported that that was a condition to which she ought not to be reduced under any circumstances; and that if she had water ballast, as she would have, she could encounter waves of considerable magnitude and turn on her helm. No doubt, she would be in a critical position in the face of a powerful enemy under the circumstances supposed; but the Committee said they could not conceive it to be at all probable that the ship would be reduced to such a condition. The Inflexible carried guns capable of penetrating the armour of any ship afloat, while her vital parts were protected by armour that no guns could penetrate, and yet they were to suppose that in an engagement she would be reduced to that dreadful state, and that her enemy would be comparatively uninjured. They were to suppose that her fire had no effect on the enemy, and that she was alone in the engagement—two circumstances that were extremely improbable. But the Committee went further, and said that that contingency was impossible, unless she entered into an engagement into which she ought not to enter at all. But even then, with care and with water ballast, she would be capable of being handled and taken out of action. The noble and gallant Lord the Member for Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) had shown that, in consequence of the very small mark that ship would present to an enemy, it would be almost impossible to hit her while moving amid the smoke and under the other circumstances necessarily associated with naval warfare. It was said that these difficulties would tell also in favour of the enemy; but it would tell much more in favour of the Inflexible, because while the latter presented a very small portion of vulnerable material to be fired at, any other iron-clad ship which attempted to attack her would have the whole of the citadel exposed to the fire of the Inflexible, which he understood would be sufficiently powerful to penetrate any armour she might possess. The conclusion he arrived at, therefore, from the Report was that the only chance of the Inflexible being successfully attacked was by a ship carrying a broadside armament, and. such a ship must necessarily be a thin-plated ship. He wanted to know what the Inflexible would be doing with her heavy guns to allow a thin-plated ship to come up and attack her in the way supposed? The Report of the Committee amounted to this—that, if probable contingencies were taken into account, the Inflexible could not be seriously injured; that in improbable contingencies she might be seriously injured, but that even then she could be taken safely out of action. In conclusion, he thought the opinion which had been expressed by so high an authority as his hon. Colleague (Mr. Samuda) in regard to using one iron plate instead of two to defend the citadel was well deserving the attention of the Admiralty.

said, that the Admiralty had no reason to complain of the discussion which had arisen about the Inflexible. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had introduced that subject in a very able and temperate speech, while the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) was one of the highest authorities in that House on shipbuilding, and the Government did not find fault with any fair criticisms which might proceed from him. That discussion had been neither Party or personal; it had been initiated by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), whose object was the appointment of a scientific Council of Construction, to be attached to and to assist the Constructive Department of the Admiralty. Now, he felt that such a Council would tend rather to disorganize, than to help good administration; it would awaken rivalries and jealousies, and he was satisfied it would be the greatest possible mistake to weaken the responsibility, either of the Constructive Department, or of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The speeches and letters emanating last Session from the hon. Member for Pembroke in regard to the Inflexible wore calculated to raise a feeling of alarm and insecurity in the country, and it was then rendered almost impossible but that there should be a Committee to inquire into that matter, although the late First Lord of the Admiralty was exceedingly reluctant to adopt that course. For himself, he was very glad that that Committee had been appointed; and he must say, in justice to the late First Lord, that he believed no man could have taken more interest, or evinced more anxiety, than Mr. Hunt had done on that subject, as to which he had been in constant communication and consultation with naval officers and his Colleagues at the Board. Now, the Report of the Committee was written by the Committee, and the Committee alone. The composition of the Committee was the best that could have been made. The hon. Member for Pembroke had raised a doubt whether all the references to the Committee were written by the same pen. He (Sir Massey Lopes) was prepared to say that the late First Lord of the Admiralty, after he left this country for Homburg, wrote there himself those references, and sent them from Homburg to the Committee. No one was a party to those references but himself. One of the charges made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was that the designs of this ship had been altered. He (Sir Massey Lopes) was prepared to say that in no respect had there been an alteration in the designs of the ship.

I never said the designs had been altered. I said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London said they had been altered, and I asked the Admiralty whether they had been altered.

begged his hon. and learned Friend's pardon if he had misrepresented him. At all events, the hon. Member for Pembroke said there had been alterations in the designs of the ship. He (Sir Massey Lopes) was prepared to say that the designs had never been altered since they had been verified by the Committee. The only alteration that had been made in the ship since the first design was the alteration of putting in 80-ton guns instead of 60. The cables and masts had not been altered, as was alleged; but it had been suggested that in consequence of the change in the guns, it might be necessary to take out the masts and restore the cables. He thought anyone who read the Report of the Committee must be of opinion that it was a careful, exhaustive, and conclusive Report; that it was an honest, truthful statement; that there was no ambiguity in it. The verdict of the Committee was simply this—that the Inflexible was a safe sea-going ship; that the apprehensions were groundless, and that the allegations that had been made against her were unfounded. That she was safe and stable under the ordinary circumstances of a naval action. That the assumed conditions of the hon. Member for Pembroke, if not impossible, were extremely improbable, and problematical, and that even under the extreme conditions of the hon. Member's hypothesis—that was, destruction of un-armoured ends—there was a requisite reserve of buoyancy. He thought the hon. Member for Pembroke had been somewhat too hypercritical. He admitted the hon. Member's technical knowledge, but he was not infallible. He was a great authority in shipbuilding, but this was also a gunnery question. He (Sir Massey Lopes) believed it was impossible to build a perfect ship, that an indestructible and invulnerable ship was an impossibility. That absolute safety could not be attained, and that the endeavour to secure absolute immunity from danger in any ship would be illusory. It was the duty of the Constructive Department to employ all their skill and resources in minimizing danger; but he was afraid it would be impossible for them to design a ship which would disarm all criticism, or build a ship which the ingenuity of man would be unable to destroy.

thought the country might be congratulated on the Admiralty having moved slowly, instead of too fast, in the direction of the views of the hon. Member for Lincoln. We might now have had a large number of useless iron-clad ships, if the Admiralty had gone too fast, for the types of ships constructed 10 years ago were to day absolutely obsolete. And yet, slow as our progress had been, we had kept ahead of every other maritime Power. Notwithstanding drawbacks, our ships had always been found equal to the occasion; and he believed they always would be, so long as they were handled with that skill for which the officers of the Royal Navy were noted. He knew nothing of gunnery, and had no special knowledge of shipbuilding; but he had come to the conclusion that, although the Inflexible had not fulfilled altogether the original designs, she was as safe and as seaworthy as most of the iron-clads in Her Majesty's Navy. He was pleased to hear that the most recent additions to Her Majesty's Navy were vessels of a very high class; but inasmuch as the type of fighting ship was continually changing, he thought the fewer that were either bought or built at the present time the better, provided we kept ahead of all the other maritime nations of Europe. The hon. Member for Pembroke had advocated an increase in the number of the smaller types of ships; but he differed from the hon. Member upon that point, because, as the introduction of torpedoes had lessened the risk of invasion, we now required vessels of great speed and carrying heavy armour, qualities which could only be secured by increasing their size. It was all very well to race a short and small ship against a large one in the quiet waters inside the Isle of Wight; but in a heavy sea the larger ship would win. The hon. Member for Pembroke had spoken very highly in praise of the circular iron-clads; but those,vessels appeared now to have quite died out, and nothing had been heard of them during the Russo-Turkish War. He could not join in the condemnation which had been pronounced on the unarmoured ships of the Shah type; because those vessels possessed a high speed and carried heavy guns, and were altogether more efficient cruisers than iron-clads would be, while they formed admirable nurseries for our seamen and naval officers. He hoped that the present First Lord of the Admiralty would follow in the footsteps of his Predecessors; because he believed, with all its drawbacks, our Navy was far before that of any other maritime Power in the world.

observed that the proposal of the hon. Member for Lincoln involved an administrative change in our naval affairs of great importance, and inasmuch as it also involved a question of expenditure, all Members of that House were justified in taking a deep interest in it. It was natural that the chief interest in this discussion should centre round the Inflexible; but that subject having been fully and ably discussed, he should not touch upon it further than to say that the case of that vessel formed the strongest possible argument in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member. The proposal of the hon. Member was that a scientific body of persons independent of the Admiralty should be constituted to assist the Admiralty with their advice and opinion on matters connected with the construction of ships of war. That proposal was not a new one, it having been advocated some 20 years ago by Admiral Elliot and having been supported by Sir Baldwin Walker, the then Controller of the Navy, subject to the proviso that the power of such a body should be limited to inquiry and reporting, in which case it would relieve the Admiralty from some of the most difficult and disagreeable portions of their duty. His view entirely coincided with that expression of opinion. The proposal of the hon. Member had been, as was natural, opposed by two Members of the Board of Admiralty who had urged two objections against it, one being that if adopted it would disturb the ordinary work of the Admiralty, and the other being that it would relieve the Admiralty from responsibility. The first objection was one which a Department always raised to any proposal for an innovation, and could not be held good when it could be shown that the adoption of the innovation would secure a material advantage for the public. With regard to the second objection, if he thought that the constitution of such an outside body as that proposed to be formed would in any way lessen the responsibility of the Admiralty and of the First Lord, he would gladly range himself side by side with those who opposed this Motion, and would do battle with them on behalf of what he conceived to be the great principle of Departmental responsibility, which he conceived underlay our whole system of Parliamentary government. But he could see nothing in this Motion which attempted to infringe upon the responsibility of the Admiralty or of the First Lord. The Admiralty would select the gentlemen who composed this body, they would refer designs to them, and would accept or reject their recommendations; and, therefore, the responsibility throughout would rest wholly upon the Admiralty. We lived in an age when competition was the ruling spirit that underlay all our public Departments, and he was not going to say whether we were the better or the worse for riding this hobby as hard as we had done, and when science was the ruling spirit of every branch of industry. A ship of war was the most perfect scientific machine we possessed, and it was, therefore, most extraordinary that in a Department engaged in the construction of these machines competition should be a bsolutely tabooed. There was no such thing as competition in the Admiralty, and what was the result? The consequence was something very like a national scandal, because whenever a new ship was brought out there was an unseemly wrangle. It was so in the case of the Captain and the Devastation, and now they saw it in the case of the Inflexible. He could not help thinking if there was a consultative body outside the Admiralty and independent of it, but assisting it by its advice and reports, it would go a great way to put a stop to these wrangles. That was one of the main reasons why he was very much in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Lincoln. The Admiralty Administration was a fortress of no ordinary strength. It had been well defended by the able men who composed its garrison. They must do their duty, but they must expect to be well hammered in the attempt. These attacks would, he hoped, be conducted with good temper and moderation; but they must be persevered in, for they did a great deal of good by keeping the garrison alive to their duty, and preventing wild and foolish sorties. He said nothing against the distinguished men who formed the Constructive Department of the Admiralty; but why should competition, as a rule, be excluded, and why should the officers in that department be judges in their own cause? A Committee might be formed, but the ultimate judge was the originator of the design. That did not seem consistent with what a fair investigation should be. The great spending Departments of the Army and Navy must have at all times great elasticity in their work, in order to meet unforeseen contingencies and disturbing influences; but that argument did not apply to the Constructive Department. It was one of the most deliberate councils, and, in truth, rather slow in its action, being behind both the trade of this country and foreign nations in the adoption of scientific improvement. If a fresh body in the shape of a consultative council were appointed, probably it would go a little faster when the scientific improvements to be adopted were of known value and importance. It could not have a good effect that a great maritime Power like England should be found year after year squabbling about the latest designs of its ships, and it was with the view of putting an end to such a state of things that he supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln. ME. E. W. DUFF observed that if he thought the appointment of another Committee at the Admiralty would have the effect anticipated by the noble Lord who had just spoken, he should cordially support it. He could not approve the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr, Gorst), that the designs of our ships should be submitted to a Committee upstairs. Nothing could be more mischievous. They had enough to do upstairs without attempting to solve important scientific questions. With reference to the Inflexible, his opinion was entirely favourable to the ship, and he was glad to find that all naval officers in the House, with the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for East Derbyshire (Admiral Egerton), had expressed general confidence in her. He did not know that it was altogether wise to put so many eggs in one basket, or to spend so much money on one ship; but if we were to have first-class men-of-war, able to carry large guns and resist the armament of the best ships of foreign nations, it was the duty of the country to have ships like the Inflexible, which, he believed, was the most formidable vessel afloat. An absolutely perfect man-of-war—that was to say, a vessel that could carry heavy guns, resist modern artillery, have great speed, carry fuel, accommodate her crew, and have a moderate draught of water—was an impossibility. What they had to consider was, did all those requirements bear a due proportion? He was prepared to maintain that in the Inflexible a just proportion had been maintained. He thought it very improbable that the un-armoured ends would be shot away; and looking to all the requirements of a ship for modern purposes of war, he must regard the Inflexible as extremely satisfactory. In some able remarks that were made by Captain Wilson, of the Thunderer, at the United Service Institution, it was stated that in action at 1,200 yards only 25 per cent of the shots that were fired were likely to take effect; and that was about the proportion that did so in the recent engagement between the Shah and the Huasear. But it was, perhaps, an under-statement that it would take 300 effective shots to produce any result on the unarmoured ends of the Inflexible; for shells penetrating the cork went through it without exploding, and it would require the punching of multitudinous projectiles to get rid of it. As this was almost impossible, there seemed to be full justification for the conclusions arrived at by the Committee. The charge made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), that two plates of 12 inches each had been used where one of 16 inches would have been equally strong was, he thought, based upon an erroneous assumption that the greater resistance of solid plates bore the same proportions for all thicknesses, whereas the proportion diminished with the increased thickness of the plates. They might pay some attention to what was said by foreign critics; and Mr. King, Chief Engineer of the United States Navy, said that the Dreadnought was the most formidable fighting ship in the world next after the Inflexible, which would be the most powerful vessel ever floated. That was the opinion of an independent witness, and it was an opinion which he found was generally shared by naval officers out-of-doors. In the course of discussion reference had been made to the character of our ships on foreign stations; and that was manifestly an important question. He admitted that our Mediterranean Meet was a grand one, and worthy of the maritime greatness of the country; but the ships on our foreign Stations did not correspond with that Fleet, nor with the maritime and Colonial interests we had to protect. Many of those ships were so badly armoured that they could not fight, and so slow that they could not run away. In the encounter referred to the Shah might have been sunk, and the Admiral said it was providential she was not. Talk of humiliation! England had not been so humiliated as when an Admiral's flag was nearly sunk by the buccaneering vessel of a third-rate Power. If the Shah had been sunk by the Huascar, the Admiralty would never have heard the last of it, and he hoped they would take that lesson to heart, and not send such ships out. England ought to have first-rate ships of the Inconstant and Triumph class in the Pacific, at the Cape, and the East Indies, so that the smaller vessels might rally round them in cases of emergency. He hoped the Admiralty would consider this matter, and let them have some ironclads on foreign stations worthy to carry the British flag. At the time of the Crimean War, the appearance of two or three Russian frigates off the American coasts occasioned no little apprehension to those engaged in our maritime trade. He was not an advocate of "bloated armaments," he did not want to see more money expended than was necessary; but we ought to reflect on the enormous property we had on the ocean, and the many Colonies we had to protect. The value of ships at sea belonging to British capitalists had been estimated by Mr. Cobden in 1863 at something between £100,000,000 and £120,000,000 sterling, and he had been told that it had since then almost doubled. That was some reason for our having better ships than we had at present on our foreign stations. He wished to ask the Admiralty whether it was true, as stated by Sir Garnet Wolseley in The Nineteenth Century, that two iron-clads might sweep the Southern Ocean of our commerce and then come down upon our Stations at St. Helena and the Cape of Good Hope? While we spent £11,000,000 a-year on a Navy in which we had 550 effective ships, the First Lord ought to be able to say that such a contingency was not possible, and that he would not have Admirals writing home that it was providential they had not been sunk in casual conflicts. He trusted that the Government would realize the necessity of placing better ships on our foreign Stations, or be able to show the fallacy of the calculations of Sir Garnet Wolseley.

said, he was sorry still to delay the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to the Navy Estimates; but there were several points referred to in the discussion on which he wished to express an opinion. First, with regard to the Inflexible, he confessed the appointment of the Committee last year had given him entire satisfaction. The name of the Chairman, Admiral Sir James Hope, was a guarantee for the impartiality of its proceedings and the completeness of the inquiry. He could not conceive a Committee selected with more care, or more capable of expressing an opinion upon the questions submitted to them by the Admiralty, and he was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Pembroke cast some sort of slur upon the men who formed that Committee. It was necessary to have on the Committee gentlemen of recognized ability. They were selected with singular fairness, and their Report ought to be a guide to the House, the Admiralty, and the country. They might go on inquiring till Doomsday and they would not get a Report which was more satisfactory. The Inflexible was one of the most powerful ships in the world, and in the severest naval engagement would be the most formidable, not only at its beginning but at its end. It was impossible to build a ship which was unsinkable or which was not liable to some naval disaster, especially if she was badly handled; and hon. and gallant Officers on both sides of the House had shown how extraordinarily improbable were some of the conditions which were required to sink the Inflexible. She was, no doubt, destined at first to carry less weight in the middle; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) had fairly stated the reason the additional weight had been resolved upon—namely, that it was found necessary to equip her with heavier guns; and, seeing what foreign nations were doing in the way of naval ordnance, it would have been absurd not to place on the Inflexible, a ship costing £500,000, the heaviest armament she could possibly carry. No doubt, as long as she had only the 60-ton guns she would be absolutely stable even when her ends were destroyed, and the additional weight had given the ends a little more to carry. It was, however, impossible she could be deprived entirely of the support of her ends; and after the Report of the Committee he trusted the House, the country, and the seamen would feel full confidence in the ship. He was by no means sure that, in these days of torpedo warfare, it was altogether wise to build such big ships. They could build ships of 3,000 or 4,000 tons, which could carry the heaviest armaments; and' he congratulated his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty on one of the purchases he had recently made for the nation—he alluded to the Belleisle. That ship had been designed by Achmed Bey, who had designed one of the finest ships in the world. The Belleisle was built in this country, and whoever had the credit of building her—and he thought he saw an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Samuda) who had something to say to it—she was a model for all shipbuilders. Well, if they could get a ship to carry 80-ton guns which would cost less than £500,000, such a ship would be, in some respects, more available for service than the Inflexible could be. A light draught of water was inconceivably desirable. A ship with a draught of 27 feet could not approach fortifications and harbours as the Belleisle with a draft 10 feet less could. It was true her speed was not so great as that of the Inflexible would be, but a speed of 12·7 knots—practically 13 miles an hour—was a good and useful speed; and the Belleisle would turn more rapidly than the Inflexible could, which was 70 feet or 80 feet longer. It was true that she had only four 25-ton guns; but they might instead place one 100-ton gun on board of her. Altogether, she was a most valuable addition to our armour-clad Navy. He had seen the Belleisle at Chatham, and every naval man whom he had spoken to on the subject declared that she was the type of iron-clad for which they had been seeking for many years. Allusion had been made to our naval force on foreign stations. He remembered that in 1865 it happened that a large, powerful Spanish iron-clad—the Numancia—proceeded to the Pacific and bombarded the town of Valparaiso in order to enforce some claim. We had there but one wooden frigate, which was anchored in-shore, and the Spanish Admiral requested her commander to take her out of the way, a thing he was most reluctant to do. There was a ship without armour which might have had to encounter a powerful iron-clad. Immediately afterwards there was a change of Government, and the First Lord (Lord Hampton) did, as no doubt his Predecessor in office would have done—he sent out an iron-clad, the Zealous, which was relieved by the Repulse, and thus for nine years an English iron-clad was flag ship in the Pacific. But in 1874 it was difficult to get a relief ship, owing to the unfortunate condition of our Navy three years ago, when we had only 12 or 13 efficient ironclads, but with boilers in a bad condition. The Shah, a heavily armed unarmoured frigate of 6,000 tons, was sent there, and was attacked by an iron-clad of 2,000 tons, which, after attacking her, escaped from the larger and apparently more powerful vessel. He should be glad speedily to hear of the Shah being removed from those waters, because she was a sham, and the Admiral's flag hoisted on board a corvette until a suitable ship, say the Triumph, was ready to take her place. They must remember that not only Chili and Peru, but Russia also had iron-clads in the Pacific. Altogether, there were at the present time nine iron-clads belonging to different nations in the Pacific; and England, no matter what European complications might arise, ought to have there a much larger force than she had at present. With regard to coaling stations in distant waters, too, the position of England was by no means satisfactory. Russia had coaling stations in that quarter of the globe, from which she could despatch a number of small ships of war to our Australian Colonies before we could be ready, as things stood at present, to meet them. The account recently published of the new Russian dockyard and establishments at Vlactivostoc, in the Corea, by Captain Bax showed the preparations that Power was making in that quarter of the world. Under the system of war now adopted, the Russians would not feel it necessary to burn the towns. They would make them pay for their release from that calamity; but it would be very unpleasant to know that Sydney or Adelaide had been compelled to pay a large contribution to Russia. Observations had been made as to the amount of the Navy Estimates, and he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would be able satisfactorily to explain what he had done with the money. He had, without doubt, strengthened the Navy, and it did not matter whether he did this by building ships or buying them, especially if he could go on buying Belleisles. Mr. Corry used to say that we could have an efficient Navy for £12,000,000 a-year, and that was exactly the sum the First Lord asked for, as the Navy Estimate was £10,500,000, and £2,000,000 would be given to him from the Vote of Credit. It had been a fortunate thing for his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, that certain European complications had enabled him to buy in this country two of the finest ships in any Navy, in addition to the splendid iron-clad the Superb.

said, it had been frequently his fate to express himself dissatisfied with the Navy, and to appear in the unpopular character of laudator temporis acti. He regretted that he could not appear in any different capacity on the present occasion. He did not regard the Estimates which had been placed in their hands in the course of this debate as satisfactory. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty might be able to put the Estimates in a satisfactory light; but the debate had simply shown that, although they had amongst their iron-clads hardly two types alike, there was not one of them which was not open to severe criticism from the highest authorities. In the Inflexible they had the latest attempt of the Admiralty to construct an ironclad, and it was a moot point whether that ship was fit to go into action or not. The design of the Inflexible was nothing but a barge with a long bow, an enormous packing case with one fine end; and that was what the science of the latter half of the nineteenth century, combined with the present mode of conducting affairs, had brought them to. It appeared to him that there was a total want of system and knowledge. He admitted that the question was replete with difficulties, and that they were in a state of transition; but he thought that they might, after a quarter of a century's experience, contrive to build iron-clads which were not susceptible to the criticism which they had received. He thought that there must be something wrong elsewhere than in the vessels, and that the defect was to be found in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. In his opinion, a naval man ought to be at the head of the Admiralty. If a civilian were to be placed at the head of the Admiralty, he admitted that no more capable man than his right hon. Friend could have been selected; but he (Mr. Bentinck) had always hold that the duties of the Office could be far better performed by a naval man. In his opinion, there was something radically wrong in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. He did not consider that any benefit would be derived from the appointment of the Committee which had been suggested. On one occasion he had the honour of being a Member of a Committee consisting chiefly of ex-First Lords and ex-Secretaries. That Committee sat for two months, making speeches apparently for the purpose of explaining to the country that, during their time of office at the Admiralty, everything went well; and at length matters came to such a pass that he came down to the House in order to withdraw his name from the Committee, inasmuch as its proceedings led to a great waste of public time. If the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) was carried, it would lead to a repetition of that solemn farce, and he therefore hoped the House would not revert to that old system. He could not help thinking that the House of Commons now found itself employed in trying to repair the errors of previous legislation, and in trying to find a remedy for one of the greatest blunders that had ever been committed in connection with the naval affairs of the country, and that was the abolition of the old Navy Board. He thought the best thing that could be done would be to re-constitute that Board. In his opinion, the country had not a sufficient reserve of ships. In the old days, when a Fleet was sent to sea, there was a reserve of three or four ships to supply the place of any casualties that might occur. But where was our reserve of iron-clads at the present time? Such was the deficiency of our Navy last year, that we had not an iron-clad available to send to sea, and had to despatch an unarmoured frigate, the Shah, to the Pacific Station as flag-ship. That was a most serious state of things that ought not to be tolerated for a moment, considering that so large a portion of our Navy consisted of vessels which, like the Vanguard, might sink from a mere poke in the ribs. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend the First Lord. He had always contended that at foreign Stations we should have ships that were not entirely dependent upon steam, but ships which were capable of being handled under canvas; but he doubted whether at present we had more than one or two ships of that kind. He was convinced of the necessity of having a large fleet of fast cruisers, which should be able effectually to protect our commerce in the event of war, with sufficient power to defend themselves, and to enable them to destroy the ships of any Power with which we might come into contact. Nobody, he supposed, imagined for a moment that if we went to war we should consent to be bound by that piece of folly called the Declaration of Paris, and a fleet of fast cruisers was, consequently, a necessity. This country depended upon the Navy for the protection of her greatest interests, and if the Navy was inefficient, England would cease to be a great country. Every Englishman, therefore, was bound to do his utmost to support the Government in maintaining the efficiency of the Navy of this country.

said, he would endeavour, as shortly as possible, to answer the remarks which had fallen from several hon. Members during the two nights the present discussion had already occupied. It would probably be most convenient to the House if he first referred to the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln, who had asked for a Committee to consider the way in which the business of the Admiralty was conducted, especially with reference to the construction of ships; and he should be the very first person to approve an inquiry into evils which had been shown to exist, and the very last to object to criticism, especially the criticism of the House of Commons. Nothing was, he believed, more healthy or more calculated to produce good in the administration of a Public Department than that the full light of criticism, both from the House of Commons and the Press, should be shed on its proceedings. At the same time, he ventured to think that the present was not the best occasion for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the conduct of the Constructive Department of the Admiralty. The proposal was inopportune. Many hon. Gentlemen had referred to the fact that the Department was overworked, that its duties were exceedingly heavy; and although they might have disapproved of a portion of the work it had done, they admitted that, upon the whole, the work was exceedingly valuable. Yet, although differing among themselves as to the grounds on which a Committee should be appointed, many hon. Members supported the Motion at a time of difficulty and grave responsibility, in order that the members of the Board of Admiralty might be practically put upon their trial, and that they should be brought down to the House at least two days in the week to give information to hon. Members sitting upstairs, at great cost of time and trouble, and to the consequent neglect, to some extent, of the grave and important duties with which they were charged. Now, in his opinion, no good case had been made out for granting the proposed Committee. It had been admitted that, with all its shortcomings, the result of the work done by the Admiralty as it now existed was a good result; that we had very fine ships heavily armed, and capable of going at great speed; that there had been a great development of inventive genius, and quite as much readiness as there ought to be to accept inventions which had been proved to be useful. He, therefore, must deprecate in the strongest possible way an attempt at the present moment to interfere with work which was, he thought, on the whole, well done. And if it was not well done, who, he would ask, was responsible for that state of things? He was responsible for it at the present moment, the same as his Predecessors in the Office of First Lord were responsible when they were at the head of the Board of Admiralty, and the responsibility of the Admiralty included the Constructor's Department. It was a mistake to suppose that the Constructor's or any department of the Admiralty were an irresponsible body. The Constructors were responsible first of all to the Board of Admiralty itself, and the Board of Admiralty was responsible to Parliament and the country. It would not, in his opinion, be possible to lay down a more unsound or dangerous doctrine than to say—"Well, these gentlemen are a powerful body; they have done their work as they thought fit to do it, and you, a Minister of the Crown, really cannot be held responsible for their conduct." If the Minister of the Crown was not responsible, he was not fit to be in the position he held. If a Minister of the Crown did not see that the work of his Department was properly done, and if he was not prepared to accept the full responsibility for all its shortcomings, he ought no longer to occupy his Office. He was therefore prepared, unequivocally, to accept the responsibility of the Department over which he had the honour to be placed, and, as experience might show to be necessary, to ask the House for additional strength for the discharge of its duties. He would now endeavour, as far as he could, to reply to the other observations which had been made in the course of the debate, believing that he had said sufficient by way of answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln. Reference had been made to the French system, under which there was a Conseil des Travaux, which assisted the Constructive Department of the French Government. It was, of course, impossible to speak too highly of the intelligence, skill, and scientific ability of the French Naval Constructors. They were a most competent body of men; but he thought it would be found, on inquiry, that the system which prevailed in France at the present time could not be accepted as one which conduced to the rapid execution of a successful scheme or design. He believed it to be the opinion of the most able and most trustworthy Constructors that the very Council which had been so strongly recommended by some hon. Gentlemen was in itself an evil. Considerable care was devoted to the examination of designs for ships; but the Council was in itself an irresponsible body. It was not charged with the grave responsibility of executing the work. In the nature of things, a body of gentlemen called upon to examine a design submitted to them could scarcely endorse and pass it en bloc, and the result was, not unfrequently, that modifications were suggested which the constructor who had submitted the design accepted; but the Constructor did not accept those modifications as improvements of his design, but as, on the whole, the best course which he could follow under the circumstances in which he was individually placed. The result was that an inferior design to that which would have otherwise been adopted was taken, because responsibility was frittered away and lost; and undoubtedly there was great delay. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) had remarked that some of the ships had been a long time building, and that changes had been made in the course of their construction. He had asked that very day for a Return which referred to three French ships, and he found that one was commenced in 1870, launched in 1876, and remained yet incomplete. A second was begun in 1870, launched in 1875, and finished about the middle of 1877; while a third, which was commenced in 1865, was not launched till October, 1873. Those facts, he thought, showed that our system did not involve greater delay in the building of ships than existed in France, although he admitted that there had been great delay in the case of one or two of our ships. The Dreadnought had been delayed because, while she was in the course of construction, it occurred to those charged with the responsibility of building Tier that improvements could be made in her. But delay, under those circumstances, had its advantages, for what was the result? Why, that the Dreadnought was a faster, more powerful, and altogether a much more valuable addition to Her Majesty's Navy than she would have been if she had been completed on the original design, instead of waiting, as the Admiralty of the day did, for the results of investigation. It was, he might add, hardly necessary for him to toll the House that the constitution of the Constructor's Department made it in reality a bonâ fide council. There were five constructors, who themselves had a personal knowledge of the art of construction, and they were assisted by two engineers, all of whom concurred in the design which was ultimately submitted to the Lords of the Admiralty; who must not be supposed to be incapable of exercising some discretion and judgment when the design was laid before them. He, for example, was assisted at the Board, not only by his able Colleagues in that House, but by three naval officers selected because of their skill and knowledge of naval affairs, naval construction and artillery, and their general capacity for the discharge of their duties. One of those gallant gentlemen had been referred to to-night as an officer well known as an artillerist and a man of great scientific knowledge, whose judgment was probably equal at least to that of any officer of the present day. He would not pursue the subject any longer, and thought that he had said enough to justify himself in asking the House to believe that there was a real and sufficient judgment exercised upon the designs entertained from time to time. Next, with the permission of the House, he would refer to that which everyone felt to be the most important question, and which had given force and strength to the debate—he meant the anxiety of the country with regard to the Inflexible. He had no complaint whatever to make of criticisms which had been passed on that ship, or of any independent opinions which had been formed concerning her. It was only right and proper that Departments and Ministers should be the subjects of such vigilance; but when, as in the present case, the inquiry made in answer to the appeal of the public had been close and searching, when the Committee entrusted with that inquiry had been almost unanimously accepted as a Committee chosen from the most competent men, and when its verdict had been given in terms of which there could be no doubt as favourable to the construction adopted, then he thought the public might be allowed to rest in the assurance that the Admiralty, the naval profession, artillerists, and all acquainted with such matters wore satisfied with the ship that was about to be added to the Navy. He was afraid that he could not avoid passing over ground that had been already well trodden; but his responsible position entitled him to the indulgence of the House. Hon. Members well acquainted with the subject had remarked that there could not possibly be a ship which should be absolutely invulnerable, and it was necessary to accept the proposition that a ship, if she was to fight, must also be prepared to endure the consequences of fighting. He wished to lay it down as an axiom that a really effective ship should, in the words of a very high authority, possess

"the greatest possible offensive power; and the defensive power should be such as to ensure her, as far as possible, and in equal degrees, against all the various modes in which she may be disabled or destroyed. From this it will follow that it should not be in the power of the enemy to disable the ship by one single blow delivered by any means at his command, if this could have been prevented by causing other defences; where he has not this power, to surrender a portion of their strength to succour the weak part."

That was the case with the Inflexible, and it had been thought right not to place armour on her ends; because it had been conclusively shown by every professional authority that they were not likely to be perforated in such a degree as to impede her usefulness in action, due regard being had to the power of her guns. The Admiralty contended for the Inflexible, and accepted responsibility on her behalf, that she was the most perfectly designed vessel afloat for the purpose of resisting heavy guns and heavy blows, and that she was likely to remain seaworthy for the longest space of time. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) had referred to the fact that at least 300 heavy shots would have to strike her unarmoured ends before she would be reduced to a riddled and gutted condition; but the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had remarked that those shots must strike her, not all in one place, but must be equally distributed over her like the squares of a chessboard before the ship could be thoroughly riddled. He need not refer to the evidence of experts to point out the improbability of such a thing, for, indeed, he might call it impossible as well as improbable. He would only remark that the 24-inch armour of the Inflexible could not be penetrated by any gun now in any ship—that was, the belt of the Inflexible. The 81-ton gun could not pierce 24 inches of armour; but the Inflexible gun, which was the 81-ton gun, could pierce the armour of any other ship now afloat; so that one discharge from the guns of the Inflexible, if it took effect in a vital part, would expose any other existing iron-clad to the greatest possible danger, while a similar gun discharged at the ends of the Inflexible would neither pierce her citadel nor inflict any very serious damage; because her ends were not her vital parts. The discharge from the gun of the Inflexible, if it struck the boilers of the Devastation, or at her vital parts, would probably send her to the bottom; but if a shot from the Devastation were to hit either the bows or the stern of the Inflexible, it would do comparatively little injury. They had, therefore, in the system which had been adopted, security that, unless some more powerful gun was used against her, the Inflexible would be able to hold the sea against the most complete iron-clad afloat. That brought him to the question raised the other day by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), who had stated in most distinct terms that a 16-inch iron plate was equal in resisting power to the two 12-inch plates surrounding the battery of the Inflexible. He confessed his surprise at that statement, though he knew that the theories on which it was based were true up to a certain point; but they gave way under the force of actual experiment. He would state what those experiments were, and they would demonstrate the error of the hon. Gentleman, and show that the extra eight inches had not been thrown away on the Inflexible. The statement that the resistance of iron plates to projectiles increased as the square of the thickness was a very rough estimate, and only held good up to six or seven inches. With thicker plates we had direct proof it was not so. In 1871 two targets were fired at from the 18-ton and 25-ton guns with projectiles from 400 lb to 6001b weight at 200 yards. The first target consisted of a 14-inch plate in one thickness; the second target of two plates of 8 and 6 inches, with 9 inches of oak between. The total thickness of each target was 14 inches iron, 15 inches oak backing, and one inch and a-quarter iron inner skin. The indentation, as measured from the face of the target, was necessarily less with the single plate; but the absolute amount of resistance to shot or shell—that was to say, the protection afforded to the inner skin, or the inside of the turret—was shown to be practically the same in both targets. The deduction from this was that the double-plate system was to be preferred for many reasons, because the plates could be more easily manufactured; they could be made larger, so that no horizontal joint would be required in a turret; through joints could be avoided; the number of fastenings could be diminished; better quality of material could be ensured; and, finally, the cost would be less. Again, at Spezzia, in 1876, a compound target of iron in two thicknesses of 12 inches and 10 inches, with 12 inches of wood between, also a single plate target with 22 inches of iron, were fired at with 2,000 lb shells from the 100-ton gun. In these trials, also, there was a larger amount of penetration in the double plate than in the single plate; but the more serious cracking in the thicker plates made the comparison between the depths of penetration in the two systems of little value. Upon this Report the question was referred to the War Office whether the recommendations of the Committee of 1871 should be re-considered. The reply, after reference to the Heavy Gun Committee, was in the negative. In this conclusion the Director of Naval Ordnance and the Director of Naval Construction concurred. In 1877, at Shoeburyness, two targets were fired at from the 38-ton gun. The first target was a solid 16½-inch plate, with the usual backing. The second target had three 6J-ineh plates, with 5 inches of teak between. The result was that both targets were penetrated; but, in the second target, the base of the shot remained in the last plate, while the whole of the projectile went completely through the solid plate target. The deduction from that was that a solid rolled plate of 17 inches, or 17½ inches, was equal in resisting power to three 6½-inch plates, separated by 5 inches of backing—that was to say, that 17½ inches of iron in one solid plate equalled 19½ inches in three separate plates. It might, therefore, be safely deduced that 24 inches of iron in two separate plates would, at least, equal 22 inches of iron in one solid plate, and that the structural advantages of two separate plates would more than compensate for the two inches of iron of one solid plate. That would show that the proportions which the hon. Member had stated to the House were not sustained by the actual proof they had had of the resisting power of iron. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets had also spoken of a comparatively thin plate keeping out shell. Now, it so happened that the only projectile which penetrated the hull of the Huascar was a shell which passed through her armour, and burst inside the ship. There were other subjects to which he must refer. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had complained that the reference to the Committee was cramped. That point had been already referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes). For himself, he could not conceive how it was possible to charge the Admiralty or his lamented Friend Mr. Hunt with cramping the Reference to the Committee. What did his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) do? He first of all summarized the charges made against the ship by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), and then he asked this last question, which was intended to cover everything—

"Whether, all points considered, the ship is, so far as can be ascertained from the design and calculations, a safe sea-going vessel; and whether, when the amount of damage to which her unprotected ends would be exposed in action is borne in mind, sufficient provision has been made to ensure, in all human probability, her safety under such conditions?"

An hon. Gentleman who did not see in those questions the fullest possible direction to the Committee to give the most complete answer as to whether the ship was a safe and a good ship must be in some degree prejudiced as to the con- dition of the ship, and also as to those who were to put those questions respecting her. He was sure that his right hon. Friend had desired in every way to afford the fullest possible information to the House and the country. Everyone who had known his right hon. Friend must feel that he was far too honourable and straightforward a man and far too zealous in the discharge of his duty—and, unfortunately, he fell in the discharge of his duty—to omit anything which words could do to obtain from the Committee, in whom he had the most complete and perfect confidence, a true statement of the facts of the case. For himself, he believed that that statement had been made. The hon. Member for Pembroke, who he was sorry was not in his place, had asked—

"Would the House believe that up to this moment they had never had a description of the state of the Inflexible's stability as it was on the date when The Times' article first appeared last year and when the debate arose in that House upon it?"

And the hon. Gentleman then went on to say—

"He would now ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would tell them what the stability of the Inflexible was when the debate arose in that House?"

Now, the facts of the case were these—Parliament had been informed of the stability of the Inflexible as it existed when the letter appeared in The Times, and the debate arose on the 18th of July last year. The Paper, No. 285, which was laid on the Table on June 28, 1877, contained a diagram of the curves of stability ascertained in 187G, as they existed in July, 1877, with lower masts in and chains and cables stowed on the main deck. And it was upon that diagram, with masts in and chains and cables on the main deck, that the Committee had framed their verdict as to the stability of the ship. If, however, the masts were removed and the cables stowed below, the ship would have increased buoyancy and stability, and that was shown in a foot note of the same Paper, page 11. He therefore believed the most complete information was given at the time in the most straightforward and honourable manner by those whose duty it was to furnish it; and there had been no withholding in any shape of the facts necessary to enable the country and the Committee to form their judgment upon the value and stability of this ship. He now came to another question. He had been asked why no reference was made in the Report to the Ajax and the Agamemnon. Now, reference was made in the Report, or rather in the Papers sent to the Committee, to the Ajax and the Agamemnon. If they looked to paragraph 4 in the letter of Mr. Lushington, addressed to the Committee on the 30th of August, they would see it stated that those ships were designed on the same principle as the Inflexible, and that the opinion of the Committee in regard to that vessel, whether it was favourable or adverse, would cover them also. What would have been the use of extending the Reference of the Committee, so that they should consider whether the Ajax and the Agamemnon were safe vessels, when they were constructed on precisely the same principle as the Inflexible? They might as well say that if the die of half-a-crown was enlarged from a florin it was not satisfactory, and that it would be necessary to see whether the die of the florin was satisfactory. The case of the Inflexible covered the case of the Ajax and the Agamemnon. If the Inflexible was unsafe, so were the Ajax and the Agamemnon; but if she was safe, then it might be fairly inferred that they were safe also. A great deal was said by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham about our bringing the designs of future ships of war to be discussed on the floor of this House. [Mr. GORST: Not the designs, but the principles of the designs.] They had had a very long debate upon the design of the Inflexible, and it certainly did not show much uniformity of opinion, or anything to induce the Admiralty to come down and ask for a full and free discussion in that House on the designs of their ships. Complaint had been made that there had not been uniformity of design. That, he thought, was one point on which the Admiralty might claim some credit. Taking advantage of invention and of experience, they had moved on from time to time building better and more powerful ships, as they believed, than they had before. But if new principles were to be discussed in that House without any hope of arriving at unanimity on any principle, the Admiralty would then probably go on building on an old type rather than on a new one. With regard to the stability of the Inflexible, in the letter addressed by the Secretary of the Admiralty to the hon. Member for Pembroke, and which was included among the Papers on the Table, it was not stated that there would be a large amount of stability in the circumstances supposed by the hon. Member—namely, in the event of riddling and gutting; but it was stated that even in that case there would be stability. He was prepared to tell his hon. Friend what that stability would have been in the event of the masts remaining in the ship—that was to say, in the event of the condition of the ship being that which was submitted to the Committee. There would have been a curve of stability of 14½ degrees, if she were in a riddled and gutted state. In the event of the masts being removed and the chains and cables stowed below, there would have been a stability of 17 degrees. And that agreed with the Minute of the Admiralty laid before the House, which stated that an ample reserve of stability was left; and that in the case contemplated by the hon. Member for Pembroke, the model remained upright and did not capsize, although the amount of stability was small. He could not refrain, in connection with this subject, from making some reference to other countries, although he concurred with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) in thinking that comparisons, with regard to foreign countries, were not at all desirable from the mouth of the First Lord of the Admiralty; therefore, it was not his intention to make those comparisons. But we might derive advantage from the practical experience of our allies and friends. He held in his hand a communication from the Minister of Marine in Italy, which conveyed to him the information that the Italian Admiralty were building ships which were not intended to have any armoured stability at all. They were larger ships than existed in the English Navy; their displacement would be 2,000 tons greater than that of the Inflexible. They would be protected by armour only so far as the batteries were concerned. Without any regard to armoured stability, the weight of armour from which they were relieved, as compared with the Inflexible, would enable them to carry engines of more than twice the power and coal for many weeks' consumption. The Italian Admiralty had no doubt whatever as to the wisdom of the course they were pursuing. They had gone a great deal further than we had. They had altogether dispensed with armoured stability, and did not believe in its necessity. But he had also a letter from one of the most experienced naval constructors in France, who, speaking of the Inflexible, said—

"I received with a great deal of pleasure the Report of the Inflexible Committee, which you had the kindness to send me some weeks ago. I took a good deal of interest in perusing this valuable Report, and was sincerely happy to find the conclusions arrived at by the very competent persons who were members of the Committee were quite in accordance with your views of the question. I am truly glad to see the final award decided in favour of the ship."

He thought he could say little more as to the wisdom of the course which had been taken. He trusted the House would now permit the Speaker to leave the Chair, and that they would be permitted to see this ship proceeded with, confident as he was that she would be a valuable contribution to the offensive and defensive force of this country. He believed no better ship existed in Europe—if, indeed, in the world—and none that would give greater confidence to the officers and men who might have the good fortune to be placed in her for the defence of the honour and interests of this country.

called attention to the case of Mr. John Clare, the inventor, patentee, designer, promoter, and upholder of Metal Shipbuilding on life-preserving principles, and to his claims upon the Admiralty adopting his inventions, plans, models, and designs as furnished by him to that Department of the State upon its Order, dated the 22nd day of June, 1855. The hon. Member admitted that the case had already been decided by a Court of Law; but thought that if it was competent for the Home Secretary tore-hear criminal cases, it was not too much to ask Parliament to rehear a case in which the only question involved was the propriety of awarding compensation to a man whose brains, inventions, and studies had been utilized by the Board of Admiralty without acknowledgment.

said, he was aware that he could only reply to the hon. Member by the indulgence of the House; but he did not think it would be respectful to the hon. Member if some Member of the Admiralty did not reply to him. The grounds upon which the Admiralty were forced to refuse the Committee asked for by the hon. Member were that Mr. John Clare, having already taken every step open to him to enforce his claims, the Admiralty, after giving them the fullest investigation, had felt themselves compelled to reject them, and their decision had been supported by the Courts of law.

said, it would be great relief to get quit of these constant references to the case of Mr. Clare, and suggested that if there were supposed to be a real grievance, it should be referred to one of the Lords of the Admiralty to report.

in rising to call attention to the representation of this country at the proposed Congress at Berlin, and to ask a question on the subject, said: The Notice I have placed upon the Paper divides itself into two heads of inquiry, which I venture respectfully to submit to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The first has reference to the representation of this country at the proposed Congress, and the second has reference to the Congress itself. At this late hour I am particularly loth to occupy the time of the House; but the opportunities private Members have of gaining its ear are so rare, and the position of affairs is so critical, that I am anxious, if the House will permit me, to state what are not only my own opinions, but what I believe to be the opinions of a great many in this House and out-of-doors as regards the critical state of affairs at the present moment. When we look at the present position, what do we find? No doubt peace has been concluded; but no sooner is peace concluded than armaments have commenced—in fact, we may say that the conclusion of peace is likely to be the commencement of war. Nothing could be more appropriate in connection with the Navy Estimates than the observations I am going to make. I heard with great satisfaction the remarks this evening made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when be said that England would require each Article of the Treaty to be separately examined. But what is the state of affairs at the present moment? Why, the Channel Meet has actually joined the Mediterranean Fleet, although peace has been proclaimed. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) said just now that we have no Naval Reserve whatever. I do not know what Reserve there may be on the coasts of this country; but it is a remarkable fact that no sooner is peace concluded than the Channel Fleet proceeds to the waters of the Mediterranean and joins itself with the Mediterranean Squadron. And not only so, but the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of the Staff of a so-called Expeditionary Force have been appointed. Heaven knows where that Expeditionary Force is to go to; but we see in the newspapers that 50,000 men are ready to go somewhere when called for. The hon. Member for West Norfolk in his remarks just now expressed an opinion respecting the Army in which I cannot concur. He said that it was in an emaciated condition. But we have the authority of the Commander-in-Chief upon this point. Last week he said that the Army had undergone great changes, but he hoped it would not be put to the test just now; and therefore I say, when people put forward the idea that, peace having been concluded, we are going to send 50,000 men somewhere, I hope they will dismiss the idea from their minds. There is no doubt, however, that great armaments are being made throughout Europe. Look at the position of Austria at this moment! Austria is arming to the teeth—peacehaving just been concluded; and a Supplementary Vote has been passed by her for the mobilization of her Army. Roumania is dissatisfied, and Greece at this moment is fighting. Above all, Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly told us—and I say this in no carping spirit, nor as finding fault with them—that for the last month the Foreign Office knows nothing of what is going on. We do know nothing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) the other night asked a Question of the Government, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to him, said—"We know nothing more than you do of what is going on." Well, I say—however opportune or inopportune may be the remarks I am submitting to the House—the country is, and must be, uneasy in regard to this state of things. The country wants to know something of what is going on, and I think that it is entitled to know more than has been vouchsafed to Parliament during the last few weeks. Let the House look at the state of Eastern Europe at this moment. Peace has been concluded. The terms of peace, no doubt, will be considered in this proposed Congress; and I am happy to have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night that England goes to this Congress unpledged and unbiassed, and determined to consider every Article of these terms of peace one by one. True, certain terms which were in the first instance monstrous, and which, I believe, were never earnestly put forward, have been withdrawn—such as the acquisition of the Turkish Fleet and the hypothecation of the Egyptian Tribute. These claims, I say, I do not believe were ever earnestly put forward. But, look; what is the actual and present position staring us in the face as regards Russia? It is enough to make us pause. It is serious enough to make us reflect upon what must be the future in store for Europe. There is Russia standing at this moment with one foot on the Sea of Marmora and the other on the Black Sea, in immediate propinquity to the Bosphorus—insulating, as it were, the Peninsula upon which stands Constantinople. European Turkey has ceased to exist. That may be good or bad; but Russia stands in its place. Russia is an autocratic despotism. Now, of all forms of Government, an autocratic despotism is that which does most to suppress the hopes, the aspirations, and the energies of mankind; and it is an autocratic despotism which at the present time threatens, overshadows, and dominates the peace and liberties of Europe. I wish now to say a few words respecting what this country is going to do in the Conference or Congress. Before peace was made—even as far back as the 12th of February—the Foreign Secretary announced to this country that a Conference was to be held. "All the Powers," said Lord Derby, "had agreed to everything except the point as to where that Conference was to be held." Well, that was a matter of very small importance. But Lord Derby afterwards informed Parliament, in "another place," that ultimately Baden-Baden had been selected. Subsequently Lord Derby informed Parliament that the Conference was to be held in the first week of March. In the first week of March peace was concluded between Russia and Turkey at San Stefano—on the 3rd of March, I think it was. And there was one Member of this House who certainly took the earliest opportunity of expressing his opinion—and I think he almost stood alone in that opinion—with regard to the terms of peace. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) rushed—anybody who has read that Treaty knows what to think about it;—but my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, on the 4th—the day following—rushed to the Town Hall of Shoreditch, and at the top of his voice, and from the bottom of his heart, said—"This is, indeed, great and glorious news." ["Hear, hear!"] I do not know whether the hon. Members who cheer me have read certain particulars of that Treaty; but I consider there is one clause in it which is more painful than anything that ever appeared in the diplomatic history of the world—namely, that within two years every Mussulman who lives within the region to be comprised in the new Bulgaria shall be forced to leave it. Well, the hon. Member for Hackney rushed, as I said, down to the Town Hall of Shoreditch, and in a loud voice, and from the bottom of his heart, said—"This is, indeed, great and glorious news;" and he added—"The most perverse ingenuity cannot discover in what way the interests of England are menaced by these moderate terms." I leave my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney to his moderation; but I think that nothing can be more serious, not only for Europe, not only for the peace and interests of Europe, but of this great country, than the terms of peace agreed to between Russia and Turkey. After that it was proposed, not that a Conference should be held at Baden-Baden, but that a Congress should be held at Berlin. No doubt, the amenities between Germany and Russia might convince this country that, of course, this must have been really a plan between those two Powers. But, whether that was so or not, the fact remains that Berlin was selected, and that Prince Bismarck, after a good deal of frank hesitation, consented to be President of the Congress. I think the Presidency of the chief promoter of the Triple Alliance between the three Emperors, which is a standing menace to Europe, is not a good omen to start with. But I venture to say that nobody in this country will find fault with the policy of the Government in having agreed to go into the Conference, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us to-night in terms which will rejoice the country, that we shall go into the Congress as free agents, unfettered and unpledged. I have heard some in this country who say that, with a feeling of offended dignity, we ought to stand aloof from the Congress; but I am sure the good sense of the House of Commons and the good sense of the country will not be prepared to endorse that opinion. What I say—and what I believe a majority in this House and in the country would say—is—"Let this country go into the Congress with a manly consciousness of its own dignity and of its own power. Let it go in imbued with a desire to promote the welfare of Europe. Let it go in willing to accept, as a fait accompli, that which is now irrevocable," and I am satisfied that this country will be able to do some good in Europe. But who is to represent this country in the Congress? And what is to be the subject of the Congress? I know that the British Ambassador at Paris was appointed to represent this country at the Conference at Baden-Baden, and I understand that he has now been named to the Congress at Berlin. I am not going to say a word of attack on Lord Lyons. I did not join in the attacks which were made the other night on the British Ambassador at Constantinople; and I am not going to say anything as regards Lord Lyons that cannot be attributed to a sentiment of honour. I meant to have taken part in the discussion the other night as regards the conduct of Mr. Layard; but, like many others, no doubt, I was debarred doing so by the press of others who were more anxious, perhaps, or who had a better right to address the House. If I am now going to refer to Lord Lyons, I will not call him a con- spirator; I will not, in delicate language, call him an untruthful man; I will not call him "no gentleman;" I will not stab him in the back when his hands are tied. I consider Lord Lyons to be a most respectable gentleman; but what can he be expected to know of the feelings of this country on the Eastern Question? What can he be expected to know of the policy of the Foreign Office on the Eastern Question—what it is, what it has been, what it may be? All that he can know is, must be, at second-hand, either from the Secretary of State, or from Lord Granville, or from the Russian Ambassador. I do not think the latter are persons who can rightly interpret the intense feeling of this country at the present moment upon the Eastern Question. I do not think myself—and I have followed his career for many years—that Lord Lyons is a man who is able to grapple with the frankness of Prince Bismarck, or the finesse of Prince Gortchakoff. I think Lord Lyons may be a man who knows, no doubt, a good deal about the diplomatic profession, living, and learning, under the aegis of a flourishing Republic. But I am sorry to believe—and I shall be glad to hear it contradicted by the Government—that the opinions of Lord Lyons differ essentially from those which are entertained, and which have been entertained, by the late Ambassador at Constantinople and by the present Ambassador, Mr. Layard. If that is not the case, I shall be glad to hear it contradicted by Her Majesty's Government; because I think this country does not want to see a recurrence of those disorders which marked the diplomatic negotiations of our Representatives at Constantinople last year, and which led to such unfortunate results. To my mind—and I believe in the opinion of the country—Lord Lyons is not the man to go to Berlin to advocate the interests of this country. There is only one man who ought to go there, and that is Lord Derby. The Foreign Minister is, in my opinion, the proper person to represent this country at the Congress. He would carry more weight as Foreign Secretary, and he would be only following precedents which I snail venture respectfully, with the permission of the House, to quote. I say that Lord Derby, as Foreign Minister, ought to go to the Congress. Lord Castlereagh was Foreign Minister in this country in 1814, and as First Plenipotentiary he signed the first Treaty of Paris in that year. Lord Clarendon—an honoured name in this country—was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and he was First Plenipotentiary and signed the Treaty of Paris upon the Eastern Question in 1856. Lord Granville was Minister for Foreign Affairs, and as First Plenipotentiary he signed the Treaty of London in 1871 modifying the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris of 1856. And I may add that Lord Granville, when Foreign Secretary, signed, as First Plenipotentiary, that most important Declaration between Great Britain, Austria, France, Italy, Russia, and Turkey respecting the inviolability of Treaties. I say, with the precedents I have quoted, the Foreign Minister is the proper person to represent this country at the Congress. A Congress is a different thing from a Conference. A Congress is composed of the chief persons of the countries which they represent. As Lord Castlereagh, Lord Clarendon, and Lord Granville represented it, so, I am bound to say, Lord Derby is, in the opinion of this country, far better qualified to represent England than the British Ambassador at Paris. Lord Derby knows better than any man in this country the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I will point out one other objection to the appointment of Lord Lyons as the Representative of England. Lord Lyons, the British Ambassador at Paris, will go to Berlin. He knows nothing, he can know nothing—it is not his fault—of the intense feeling of this country upon this question. He will have to receive his instructions from Lord Derby; Lord Derby will have to submit those instructions to the Cabinet; whereas if, as in the case of Lord Castlereagh, Lord Clarendon, and Lord Granville, the Foreign Secretary were to go, he would only receive his instructions, if there were any to give, from the Prime Minister; and, in my humble judgment, the Prime Minister of the present day would be very likely to interpret aright the feelings and opinions of this country. On the whole, therefore, I think Lord Derby would be the best to represent the country at the Congress; and I hope to hear an assurance from the Leader of this House to-night that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared, if a Congress should be held— which I very much doubt—to send, not the Ambassador at Paris, but the Foreign Secretary, to represent—as he is bound to do—the interests of this country. He should not shrink from the responsibility of his position. He is responsible for what has been taking place during the last 10 months. I have never lent myself to say anything against the character of Lord Derby. I have always declined, though urged on more than one occasion, to find fault with his policy in this House. I have always shrunk from attacking a man who is not in this House to defend himself, and who can be attacked for his policy in "another place." But I do say that Lord Derby ought to go; but whether he or Lord Lyons goes, what are they to go for? What are the objects of this country in going to the Congress? I hope I am not wearying the House. [Cheers.] I will now state in a very few words what I believe those objects are. I can only repeat that I, in common with others in this House, was delighted to hear the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night, that this country can still take an interest in Turkish affairs without its being supposed, as has often been thrown in our teeth, that British interests are bound up in maintaining misrule in Turkey, or in the perpetuation of misgovernment. That is a position which I decline to accept. If England goes into this Congress she goes, as the Leader of this House told the country to-night, not to register the deeds—be they good or be they evil—of Russia. She goes in only to consider which of the provisions of the Treaty of Peace are just and fair to Europe, and to say that they shall separately, one and all, be considered. I have no longer, personally, any faith in Treaties with Russia. Lord Granville, as Foreign Minister, signed that Protocol declaration between the Great Powers which they bound themselves solemnly to adhere to as regards the inviolability of Treaties. The first to break that has been Russia; but Russia has, perhaps, better things to offer to Europe than the inviolability of Treaties. We have been told, over and over again, that we can accept, with confidence, the sacred word of honour of the Sovereign of Russia, which certainly, if not more binding, is a more facile arrangement for those Powers who adopt that plan. I must say that any Treaty with Russia will fail to give that confidence to Europe which I should like to see; but, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to-night—and I think very rightly—that he must decline to enter into the basis of the arrangements upon which this country would go into the Congress, I will put it to the House—I will put it to the country—whether there are not four principal matters which will have to be discussed at length in the Congress. The first is Greece; the second is Bulgaria; the third, the free navigation of the Danube; and the fourth the free navigation of the Straits. These are the four points which pre-eminently interest this country, and which can be treated by the Foreign Minister, if he goes to the Congress, with a greater knowledge than can be possessed by Lord Lyons. But, as regards the Congress, I am bound to say that I was very sorry to hear the announcement of the Foreign Secretary the other night in the House of Lords. He stated that the British Government had recommended that Greece should form part of the Congress. Well, we may all respect the aspirations of Greece; but that action on the part of the Government is an announcement to Russia that they abandon altogether the Treaty of Paris. The Treaty of Paris was between the Great Powers of Europe, and as soon as you admit—as I see by this night's papers—that Greece can enter the Congress, Russia asks that Servia and Montenegro may enter. Now, I hold that the Congress ought to be confined strictly to the Great Powers who signed the Treaties of 1856 and 1871. Next, as regards Bulgaria, it is proposed to erect Bulgaria into a separate Kingdom. I suppose—and I am sure I am not singular in my opinion—that there is no race of men in Europe so destitute of all the qualities that would constitute a vigorous national people as the Bulgarians. I see by to-night's papers that Russia recognizes—but I do not know what truth there may be in the statement—the name of Prince Battenberg for the Kingdom of Bulgaria. There is to be placed at the head of a newly-elected Kingdom a man utterly unknown, and, I should say, utterly unworthy of such a position. As to the free navigation of the Danube, that is a matter of vital importance to Europe; and Russia, contrary to the Treaties, did interfere with the free navigation of the Danube during the progress of the war. Let me, in a few words, point out the importance of the free navigation of the Danube. That River flows for 2,000 miles through Europe, and eight different States are watered by the stream. The Danube is joined to the Rhine and the Maine, and is the highway of commerce for the whole centre of Europe. Will the House believe that, as regards Austria alone and its commerce, the Danube carries 30,000,000 cwt of merchandize annually and 1,000,000 passengers? That is alone sufficient to show the House the importance of the free navigation of the Danube. It should be one of the most important questions to be treated at the Congress, and no one ought to be better able to treat the subject than the Foreign Secretary. I come to the last point of all, and I will not detain the House beyond two or three minutes. That is the free navigation of the Straits. This is a matter of vital importance to this country. The commerce of this country through the Straits exceeds three times that of every and of all other countries in the world put together. Surely, then, these are subjects which ought to be treated not by the Ambassador at Paris, but by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of this country. He ought to have—he must have all these questions at his fingers' ends; and instead of calling to represent this country at the Congress the British Ambassador from Paris, he is bound, I say, not to shirk from the responsibility of the position he holds; and every man, in my opinion, and in the opinion of this House, believes that no one ought to be more capable than the Foreign Minister to consider these questions, which are of such vital importance to the diplomatic and commercial interests of England. I must apologize to the House for having detained it so long. The opportunities are so rare for an independent Member bringing a matter of this importance before the House that I was anxious not to lose this opportunity of expressing what I feel. The moment, I admit, is difficult. There were, no doubt, as I have said, armaments taking place at the moment of peace being signed; and, as I have said, it looks very much as if the conclusion of peace threatened the com- mencement of war. I hope this is not so; but what I do not like—and what many in this House do not like, and what a great many in this country do not approve of—has been that "know-nothing" policy of the Foreign Office, which has caused so much distrust throughout the country. I should suppose that there is no one who must be more sick of this "know-nothing" policy than Admiral Hornby, if Admirals are ever sick. What has been his position? Admiral Hornby has been sent—I was going to say tossed—backward and forward, not on the stormy billows of a troublesome sea, but on the troublesome issues of orders and counter - orders. Poor Admiral Hornby! To my mind, his peregrinations resemble those of that moon-struck silly fellow Telemachus, without even the excitement of his amorous adventures. I am sure that Admiral Hornby must earnestly hope that this "know-nothing" policy of the Government will soon end. In putting these two questions to the Leader of this House as regards the representation of this country at the Congress and the subjects of the Congress—while thanking the House for the generous and kind attention with, which they have listened to the observations I have ventured to make—I do want to see the policy of the Foreign Office have more of British freedom about it—I want to see the Foreign Office getting into the old British groove of Lord Palmerston—I desire that the voice of this country shall still be raised as of old with national power, and. to see the Government of this country standing with firmness and decision, in that front rank of the councils of the nations of Europe which she is indubitably entitled to hold.

said, he would not pretend to set his opinion against that of the right hon. Baronet; but he did not think that the right hon. Baronet's proposal to send Lord Derby to the Congress would be of much advantage to the interests the Government were pledged to defend. Had the policy Lord Derby had hitherto pursued anything of the true British ring about it? When it was first proposed to send the Fleet to the Dardanelles Lord Derby objected to that course; when it was again proposed, and while there was still time to stop the Russians from reaching Constantinople—which was one of those British interests that the Government had pledged its honour to defend—Lord Derby resigned. To bring back Lord Derby the Fleet was recalled. His Lordship remained in office, and the Fleet was sent out again. These were some of "the weaknesses and the vacillations" which had occurred in connection with the policy which, he supposed, Lord Derby himself, to a great extent, had dictated. Had that policy anything of the true British ring about it? It was certainly not what would have been expected from Palmerston, Pitt, and Chatham; and yet the right hon. Baronet wanted to send Lord Derby to Berlin. He thought the weakness and vacillation of his past policy was quite a sufficient bar to his being sent to Berlin to represent the interests of England. The only difference would be that Lord Derby, instead of sending the Instructions of the Cabinet to our Representative at the Congress, would himself receive them from Lord Beaconsfield; and the state of things would be brought back to that which existed when Sir Henry Elliot was our Ambassador at Constantinople. If Lord Beaconsfield could go, there might he some confidence in the result, for the Prime Minister was the one man in the Cabinet who had the pluck to carry out the views of the country. But at present he had no great confidence in the Congress or Conference at all. He did not know that it would ever meet; but if it did, he did not believe it would last many days. It would be the occasion of a little holiday excursion for the Representatives who might attend; but, in his opinion, it would not result in any good whatever to this country, even if it did not result in very considerable damage. Why? Because, as the right hon. Baronet had said, Turkey was "gone," and we had Russia in her place. It was true—Turkey was "gone"—although a Member of the Cabinet, the present Postmaster General, had said that Turkey was not gone yet, but was still a match for Russia. The noble Lord (Lord John Manners) based his assertion on the opinion of Lord Ponsonby, who was right at the time, because then there were those in Turkey, directing its Councils, who had some interest in its well-doing; whereas now it was at present in the hands of persons who cared nothing for the well- being of the country, but only for the gold they could put in their pockets. It was not that Turkey had been abolished and swept away from the map of Europe, or that her power was gone; but that that power was now transferred to the hand of Russia. Turkey was the puppet and Russia made Turkey dance. Turkey had still power, but Russia used that power and would use it against Europe. He had asked the Government over and over again whether there was not an alliance, offensive and defensive, between Russia and Turkey, to be used against England?—and, though he was always met with a know-nothing reply, he believed such an alliance existed. He did not care whether it did or not, for Turkey was in the hands of Russia, which had command of Constantinople and of all the strong places, and, as we had learnt to-day, was advancing on the suburbs of Constantinople and planting foot on the Bosphorus. That and the Black Sea were closed against the English Fleet, and the Black Sea, which was Russia's future base of operations, was beyond the reach of Austria and England. Through the mistaken and ignorant indolence—he was going to say the criminal culpability—of the Government, Turkey had gone, and Russia was in her place, and the power of Turkey was wielded by Russia, and would be wielded against us. And then we were asked to go into a Conference—Good Heaven!—where we could deliberate while Russia held Constantinople and the Bosphorus, and her Navy roamed over the Black Sea and brought supplies to her Armies at will. How could there be free deliberation? If we objected to a clause we should be laughed to scorn, as we had already been told that something was not our business but the business of the belligerents alone. Such an answer had been made to us—a people who once stood against Europe in arms. We were expected to deliberate hampered by the fear of Russia and Turkey united, when in the Sea of Marmora there were six of our ships which might be gone within 12 hours. ["No, no!"] What if Russia, which was within half-an-hour of the lines of Boulair, seized Sestos and Abydos and abvanced on Gallipoli? Did we expect to pass the Dardanelles, then? It was a great feat of heroism when Sir Thomas Duckworth did it, though the guns could not be depressed and the shots went over the ships; but now the danger would be so great and terrible, that deliberation in a Conference was impossible. If we did enter the Conference, what should we say when we got there? It was said we should require that all the clauses of the Treaty of Peace should be laid before the Conference. But Prince Gortchakoff said—"I do not understand that word 'require,' because, when you were informed of the desires of Russia last June, you did not dare to object. You told us not to advance on Constantinople; you dared us to do so, and you sent your Fleet. We replied by saying we would send our troops to the Bosphorus, and you brought back your Fleet." Then we should say—"We take our stand upon the sanctity of International Law and of Treaties;" but Prince Gortchakoff would reply—"Did you not cast your Treaties to the winds on the 6th of May, when you said that British interests were all you should consider; when you said that one of the British interests—the dearest of all—is that we should not approach Constantinople? We have approached—your British interests are worth no more than your Treaties." That was the way Prince Gortchakoff would treat us. On what principle were we to proceed? The right hon. Baronet had given us one—we were to go into the Conference acknowledging un fait accompli in regard to what had happened. That was a principle to which he would never give his assent. If they adopted that principle, Prince Gortchakoff would say—"Then I am satisfied. We have the whole of Bulgaria, we have our heel planted on Constantinople, we have possession of the road to India, we have ports on the Egean and perhaps on the Mediterranean, we have the Black Sea locked up, Persia at our mercy, the Khedive of Egypt the Vassal of a Vassal—for Turkey is the Vassal of Russia—what more can you prevent?" Another principle was that preached the other night by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt)—the principle of nationalities—the nationalities of the Greek and the Slav. That was no new doctrine—it had been urged before now by the right hon. Member for Greenwich, who proposed to run the Greek against the Slav. When did the Greeks ever rule a great Empire? When were they ever thought fit for anything but to cheat and to slander throughout all the great towns of Europe? ["Oh, oh!"] Go into France, or into any other country in Europe, and ask what was the character of the Greeks? In France the word "Greek" was not supposed to mean a nationality, but it was a synonym for a. pickpocket and a swindler. ["Oh, oh!"] They were now seeing the old blunder of 1829 repeated. He believed Her Majesty's Government made an enormous blunder in ever giving way to the iniquitous dream of adopting the Greeks and putting them against the Slavs. Another principle had been put forward—the right of interference for the sake of religion and of race. The object of the war was supposed to be the amelioration of Turkish populations who were called Christians. Were we to acknowledge that principle or not? If we did we could not stop at Bulgaria; for there were Christians throughout Armenia, in Palestine, and in Egypt, and if we would not act on their behalf we must abandon the principle. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had said that he had no faith in Treaties by Russia. He thought no sensible man in this day had. But why, then, go into a Conference? A Conference must come to a decision, and that decision must be embodied in a Treaty. And yet they were told by the right hon. Baronet that he had no confidence in a Treaty. Neither had he (Lord Robert Montagu), and therefore he had no confidence in a Conference. Russia made a Treaty with Roumania on April 16, 1877, and within a year had broken it. The Treaty was not that the Roumanians were to help the Russians, but that they were merely to allow them to pass through their territory; and for this service the integrity of Roumania was guaranteed. The Russians having met with two disastrous defeats at Plevna, everyone thought Russia was ruined. What happened? The Russian diplomatist went to Roumania, and said—"For Heaven's sake, come and kelp us or we are done for, and if we are, you are done for too! If you will help us we will give you independence and an increase of your territory." The poor foolish Roumanians believed the Russians, they went to the aid of Russia, supplied the place of the thousands she had lost, and virtually won the campaign for her. Yet the moment the Russians were victorious the Treaty of the 16th April was forgotten, the services of the Roumanians were ignored, and instead of getting an increase of territory, the Russians proposed to take a slice off. The Treaties, threats, and prayers of the Roumanians were all unavailing. Prince Gortchakoff said—"We have Roumania between the hammer and the anvil; if she says a word we will crush her entirely." That was the way that Russia treated her friends. Within nine months the Treaty with Roumania was ignored. Then there was the Armistice of the 14th February—how long was it regarded? When it was agreed to, all Europe threw up their caps with delight. How long did it last? Within 10 days it was broken by the advance of the Russians to San Stefano. Plighted faith, honour, and the sanctity of Treaties, what were they to Russia? Were honour and honesty considerations which weighed with Russia? No; but power and might were considerations which weighed a great deal. Turkey was the tool and puppet of Russia. Russia had the Bosphorus, and Turkey must do as she was bidden. The Turks, they might be certain, were going to assist the Russians at the Congress. Perhaps Austria would be on the side of England. Let them suppose? that France and Germany were prevented from flying' at each other's throats—and that was the best that could happen—if Russia and Turkey together were equal to England and Austria in the Conference they would not mind; but if they were not equal, Russia would give way, and give way little by little, till she found a point at which England would join her; and then a Treaty would be concluded. But she would then turn to Austria and say—"Don't mind those foolish Islanders; you see how they treated Turkey, whose independence they were bound by Treaty to defend. They are selfish people; they care for their own interests, and nothing else. I can do more for you than they can do." In this way Austria would be detached from the alliance; Germany and France would be satisfied; England would stand alone—Russia, aided by Turkey, would be left master of the situation. Did they think that Russia would stand by the Treaty one moment longer than they thought proper, when they had broken a Treaty made with their own allies, the Roumanians, and another Treaty with their new friends and quondam enemies, the Turks? Did they think that a Treaty extorted by fear would stand for one single moment against the interest of Russia? He did not believe that there was one man in this House who was so foolish as in his heart of hearts to believe it. He wished that for one moment everyone who spoke on this subject would speak as he thought. They would have very few speaking against the views which he represented; but Party Government was the ruin of truth. If, instead of agitating, and talking, and petitioning to get the ballot established outside, they had got the ballot established in the House, they would have a very different vote on this question. When they examined the ballot box they would find all the balls on one side, and the only wonder would be "how the devil they all got there!" The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) had vented his spleen and spat his venom on Lord Lyons—[Sir ROBERT PEEL: No, no!]—but he (Lord Robert Montagu) had always heard that he was a most honourable and capable man.

I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I never vented any spleen, or expressed any feelings of malignity, against Lord Lyons. I disclaimed saying one word against him. I believe him a most worthy man.

said, he was sorry for it, because he had hoped the right hon. Baronet had vented his spleen and got rid of it. If he had not done that he still had it in him. He (Lord Robert Montagu) had always regard Lord Lyons as an able diplomatist, and his appointment as Ambassador at Paris showed that he must be au fait of the diplomacy of Europe—he believed him superior to the humbug, the bamboozling, and cheating, which passed muster for diplomacy—he believed he was a match for all the other Plenipotentiaries. The right hon. Baronet said that they should send Lord Derby to the Conference. If that were so, the best thing for those who regarded the dignity and honour of England to do would be to denationalize themselves as rapidly as possible; let them sell their properties and escape to some distant land before the final catastrophe arrived. Who- ever might be sent, he believed that the Conference would come to nothing. If this country could summon courage to look facts in the face and act with enlightenment, then he believed the result of the Conference would be war. But if the Conference ended in peace, it augured for this country something worse than war—slavery and impotence from which it would take a century to recover.

said, that in the speeches of the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord they had heard the last dying cry and the political will and testament of the old Turkophil party. Whatever difference of opinion there might be between the two sides of the House, he believed that they would generally agree that the proceedings of the Turkophil party had been an unmixed misfortune to this country. That he said from no love of Russia; but he could not help thinking that the manner in which the Turkophil party had spoken of Lord Derby was most indecent and most extraordinary, and had weakened this country in the eyes of Europe and of the world. No one could conceal from themselves that the object of the speech of the right hon. Baronet was to sneer at Lord Lyons, and to diminish the prestige and influence of the Foreign Secretary, and that, too, at a time when it ought to be the object of every patriotic Englishman to uphold it to the utmost. The right hon. Baronet complained that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had given, perhaps, a premature expression of approval to the terms of peace imposed by Russia upon Turkey. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) ventured to think that that was the severest criticism on the right hon. Baronet's own proceedings. If the hon. Member for Hackney spoke without knowledge of the terms of peace, had the right hon. Baronet that knowledge? Had the right hon. Baronet, who took for his text when speaking what purported to be the terms of peace, been taken into the confidence of the Emperor of Russia and supplied with a copy of the terms? Both the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord who followed him went out of their way to make observations about the Bulgarians and the Greeks; but he ventured to think that the present moment was most inopportune for insulting either of those peoples. He believed that the proceedings of the Foreign Secretary in asking that the Greeks should be represented at the Conference had mot the almost unanimous approval of Parliament and of the country; and if anything could increase that approval, it was that the only party to criticize the course taken was the small, disconnected, and broken-up Turkophil party, which still maintained a quasi-existence. That party was attempting to bolster up the unjust Government of Turkey, of which they were the only champions. The right hon. Baronet suggested that Lord Derby should be sent to the Conference instead of Lord Lyons; but the whole of his speech up to the moment at which he made the suggestion was an elaborate indictment of the policy of the Foreign Secretary. If the policy of the Foreign Office was so weak and miserable as to be justly described as a "do-nothing" policy, the Foreign Secretary was the last person who should be sent to the Congress. When Lord Salisbury was sent last year to the Conference at Constantinople, the right hon. Baronet and his Friends complained that the office of British Representative was not filled by a professional diplomatist. Her Majesty's Government were now going to send a professional diplomatist, and the right hon. Member for Tamworth thereupon made an attack on Her Majesty's Government. This country had never been bound in the matter of sending out Representatives by any hard-and-fastrule. In the various Treaties which had been negotiated during the last 100 years, this country had been sometimes represented by professional diplomatists and sometimes by Foreign Secretaries, and even by persons who were neither the one nor the other. It did not seem to him that this was a moment at which the right hon. Member for Tamworth ought to have raised a discussion of this kind. This country was at present in a most dangerous and delicate situation, and the Government ought not to be embarrassed by criticizing the conduct of any individual. If the House were called upon to vote by ballot, no doubt they would say that the right hon. Baronet was the fittest person. He would uphold the fame of England, and the country would be represented by a diplomatist of almost superhuman energy and exalted character. But as this was not to be, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) thought it would be much the wiser course for Parliament to place confidence in the selection made by Her Majesty's Government, and to reserve to itself the free right afterwards to criticize and to give or withhold its approval of the course taken and the results which flowed from it. The name of Lord Lyons was well known throughout Europe as that of a diplomatist of great ability, in whom everybody had the utmost confidence; and he, for one, felt convinced that in the coming Conference he would represent this country in such a way as to entitle his name to a place in the exalted roll of names mentioned in the speech of the right hon. Baronet.

said, he did not propose to enter into the question between Lord Lyons and Lord Derby, because he believed that Her Majesty's Ministers were able to defend Lord Lyons, whilst Lord Derby was in no want of defenders on the other side of the House, as was shown by the somewhat lengthened letter of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), which had done the Foreign Secretary the greatest injury it was possible to inflict on him, and also the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), who had followed in the steps of his Leader. He wished to put to the Government one or two questions with regard to the forthcoming Congress. He should not insist on any answer that might be considered inconvenient, for he was perfectly satisfied with the answers which had been given to the Questions put by the hon. Member for the West Biding (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison) and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow). But there had been a certain divergence in the answers given in that House and in the other House, and between the words of the Government and their written despatches'. The Secretary of State for the Home Department last year had told the House that England would object to Constantinople being approached or occupied by Russia; whilst Lord Derby, in writing to Lord Augustus Loftus, limited himself to an expression which seemed only to mean a permanent occupation, while in July last it was said that any movement by Russia would be met by the movement of the English Fleet. Now, the actual movement of the Fleet in February led to the resignation of Lord Derby and Lord Carnarvon. What he wanted to ask the Government was, what would be their position as regarded Russia in the forthcoming Congress? At the present moment, the Government knew nothing about the terms of peace, as on a former occasion they knew nothing about the terms of the Armistice. The words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were much stronger than the words used by Lord Derby. But the words to which the Government were fixed was the declaration of Prince Gortchakoff, that the interests of Europe would be submitted to the Congress. In 1856 the bases of peace between England, France, Turkey, and Italy on the one hand, and Russia on the other, were submitted to the Congress at Paris, which signed the preliminaries of peace, and ultimately the Treaty. Now, he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to insist upon all the conditions of the Treaty of San Stefano being placed before the Congress at Berlin for alteration if necessary, or whether they would accept them as faits acoomplis and acknowledge the doctrine of Bead possidentes—or whether they were to go into the Congress and agree to a large State in Bulgaria with a Prince nominated by Russia, and whether the new institutions in Bulgaria were to be directed by Russian Commissioners; was the education of that country, religious and secular, to be subjected to Russian authority; or whether this country was or was not to have a voice in the future of Bulgaria, or was it to be established by Russia, and to be tendered for our acceptance or refused blindly? He had the greatest reluctance to any interference by Russia in the education of the youth of Bulgaria; and he would show what was the real meaning of Russian education by reading an extract from the Catechism taught in the schools of Poland by order of the Russian Government. It was as follows:—

"Q. 1. How is the authority of the Emperor to be considered in reference to the spirit of Christianity?—Ans. As proceeding immediately from God. Q. 17. What are the supernaturally revealed motives for the worship (of the Emperor)?—Ans. The supernaturally revealed motives are that the Emperor is the Vicegerent and Minister of God to execute the Divine commands; and, consequently, disobedience to the Emperor is identified with disobedience to God himself; that God will reward us in the world to come for the worship and obedience we render the Emperor, and punish us severely to all eternity should we disobey or neglect to worship him. Moreover, God commands us to love and obey from the inmost recesses of the heart every authority, and particularly the Emperor, not from worldly considerations, but from apprehensions of the final judgment."

He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to allow the dissemination of such doctrines in Bulgaria? But this was not all. There was the Treaty of 1840, by which the Government of Egypt was maintained in the family of Mehemet Ali. Well, the Straits were menaced by the erection of the new Bulgarian State, because it would not be possible for Turkey to maintain the police of the Straits in the future as she had done in the past. The power of Russia was to be established on the Egean, while by the extension of her territory into Armenia, she would be enabled to march down through Asia Minor to Egypt whenever she liked. He should like, therefore, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was the intention of the Government to strengthen, our position in Egypt; whether they proposed to take any island or territory near it or to establish any authority in Egypt itself; or whether they meant to go on in that happy-go-lucky policy which he was afraid prevailed at the present moment among politicians and which was essentially damaging to the interests of the country? He foresaw considerable danger from the formation of the Euphrates Valley Railway. That railway was never encouraged financially by this country, because neither English financiers nor the Government were inclined to spend money on territory belonging to another country. But once let that territory belong to Russia, and let Russia obtain possession of funds by an appropriation of Turkish territory under an infliction of a heavy indemnity, the Euphrates Valley Railway, which had been so long a dream, would ere long become a reality. He should like, therefore, to ask his right hon. Friend further, whether the Government still thought the Indian Empire was worth keeping; whether they still adhered to the policy which induced them to buy the Suez Canal shares, and to that by which, he was happy to say, the Queen was created Empress of India? The last question he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, what were the intentions of the Government with regard to Greece? He did not, he might observe, agree with the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) in the view which he took in reference to the Greeks. He had lived much among them, and he knew their virtues as well as their vices. On the whole, the balance was, he thought, in favour of the former; but, be that as it might, it was, in his opinion, absolutely essential, seeing that the domination of the Turks was being taken away, to establish some means by which to prevent the preponderance of any one race or religious sect in South-Eastern Europe. The Greeks had a very great ambition so far as Constantinople was concerned; and unless some satisfactory arrangement were now made, there would be constant irritation among them, which would be taken advantage of by Russia, as she had hitherto taken advantage of dissensions between the Christian sects very much to our detriment. While, therefore, he was of opinion that the Government had exercised a wise discretion in insisting that Greece should be allowed to enter the Congress, he should wish to be further enlightened as to the object of that proposition, so that we might see how far it tended to diminish the evils to which we were subjected by the existing state of things. In 1856, before the Congress sat, we knew the full terms with which it had to deal. Then the constitution of the present Principality of Roumania was submitted to a Commission to which all the European Powers sent Representatives. Was that example to be followed on the present occasion? Were we to allow Russia to decide what were European interests or not? Were we going to discuss every question relating to the Treaty of San Stefano, without receiving any information with respect to it, or merely having a scrap thrown to us here and there and then being told that it was a fait accompli? He hoped Her Majesty's Government would take a bold and firm course, a step which would save us from war far more than by any vacillation and indecision. The Government ought to be frank to Parliament, for Parliament had shown to the Government an unbounded loyalty. If they allowed this country to be made the plaything of Russia any longer; if we were to be told every day that the Government knew nothing; if we were to be told that the secret was to be kept at Constantinople by the imperious will of Russia over the Turks; and if we were to go in ignorance to the Congress and there be debarred from voting on every subject, then, he said, although they might stave off war for a few months, at the end of the Conference a war would probably break out which would be far more dangerous and detrimental to the interests of this country than any temporary irritation which might be caused by insisting upon our just rights.

I will not detain the House more than a few minutes while I give an answer to the somewhat severe catechism which has been addressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me that there is some poetical justice in the matter, unless, indeed, the Questions were pre-arranged. I should hardly have supposed that that was so; but I recollect that in the course of last winter the Chancellor of the Exchequer assisted at a Conservative demonstration at Christ-church in honour of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; and I remember that on that occasion he made a statement, which did not much surprise me, having always admired the abilities of the hon. Member for Christchurch, to the effect that whenever Her Majesty's Government found themselves in a difficulty, they always relied upon the hon. Member for Christchurch to get them out of it. I can only assume that the Government and the country being, as we all know, in a position of peculiar difficulty and delicacy at this moment, have desired the hon. Member for Christchurch to come forward to-night and ask them exactly those Questions which they were anxious to answer. What otherwise would have appeared to be a singularly mischievous and inopportune proceeding on the part of the hon. Member for Christchurch, in this point of view presents itself as a friendly act towards the Government; and I have no doubt that in a few moments we shall hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a most categorical answer to the searching inquiries put by the hon. Gentleman, who is always so ready to relieve the Government of their embarrassments. But that is not exactly the course I should have recommended or pursued. We have been in the habit, on this side of the House, of being very severely lectured by Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway on the other side as to the unpatriotic character of our conduct. We have been told that there are two things we ought never to do—we are never to embarrass the Government in a critical position; and, above all, we are never to discredit Her Majesty's Representatives abroad. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) began his speech tonight by discrediting, by anticipation, the person who has been selected by Her Majesty's Ministers to represent this country at the coming Congress. If, then, what is laid down is a sound principle, I beg to point out that it has been most singularly violated by the chief doctors of the doctrine to which I have referred. There has been language of a similar character applied by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Robert Montagu) to another person in an equally responsible position; but I do not think that we must be held responsible on this side of the House for the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, like the right hon. Baronet opposite, enjoys the position of an independent Member, and one of the most valuable of the privileges of an independent Member is to condemn and abuse both sides of the House with equal impartiality. The noble Lord has never departed from this principle; therefore I cannot accept the sentiments which the noble Lord has expressed in denouncing Lord Derby, and I wish to take this opportunity of repudiating for myself, and I believe, also, for most of the hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House what, with all respect to the noble Lord, I must call the unbecoming language in which he spoke of the Greek nation. The caus6 of the Greeks is a cause of which England is proud, and has reason to be proud. I think that one of the noblest chapters of the history of which our Foreign Ministers have reason to be proud is that which relates to the emancipation of Greece, effected under the genius of Canning, though he did not live to see it completed. My be- lief is that if Canning had not prematurely died, the emancipation of Greece would have been carried to a much greater extent than it was carried ultimately in 1829 and 1830. The great scheme of a great genius was marred, because he was not able to put the finishing stroke to his policy. There is nothing, in my opinion, in the policy of the Government more commanding the confidence of the Government and the approbation of hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House than the announcement that they have determined, as far as they can possibly do so, to support and put forward the claims of Greece in the coming Congress. These attacks on Lord Lyons, and Lord Derby, and the Greeks, do not represent the feeling of this side of the House. We repudiate them altogether. At a time of singular. difficulty and singular complication in public affairs and in the foreign relations of this country, we certainly cannot support such a course as that which is now taken; but, on the contrary, we strongly condemn the policy pursued to-night by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, the hon. Member for Christchurch, and the noble Lord who sits behind me. It is an attempt, as it appears to me, most unwisely and most unfitly to compel Her Majesty's Government to state here that which it may be very inconvenient, very unwise, and very impolitic that they should state. The hon. Member for Christchurch has spoken of the support which has been given on this side of the House to Lord Derby. He referred to myself and to the protest I had made, and which I will make again as long as the same system continues, against the indecent abuse levelled against Lord Derby both in and out of this House. I admit that I have made that protest, and I say that I will do so again if the same occasion should arise. The hon. Member for Christchurch said it did Lord Derby much harm. I doubt whether the language of the hon. Gentleman did Lord Derby much harm. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, he had not attacked Lord Derby at all.] I have heard what the noble Lord behind me said in regard to Lord Derby; and if I were to ask a Question on the subject of Lord Derby, which I am not disposed to do, it would be whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to sever themselves from the policy of Lord Derby? I feel sure that they are not. Everybody knows that the language and policy of Lord Derby are, and must be, the language and policy of Her Majesty's Government; and the attempt to make out that Her Majesty's Government do not approve the language and the policy of Lord Derby tends to discredit, not Lord Derby, but the Government of the Queen, both at home and abroad. Therefore, I protested against this language, and I protest against it again. We are told that the Government, in a period of great difficulty and peril, are to receive the support of a patriotic House of Commons Then their patron, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, comes forward and he talks of their "know-nothing" policy, and the hon. Member for Christchurch, who always relieves them from embarrassment, talks of their "happy-go-lucky" policy. Then they turn upon us and say—"You are embarrassing the Government." I think the Government will be able to judge, from what has taken place tonight, who are those who give to them, not a servile and indiscriminate support, but, at all events, a general support, whenever they are taking that course which they believe to be essential to the interests of the country. As soon as it was known that the Government were coming forward in the Conference, not for the purpose of maintaining a policy which we believe to be past and done with, but with the view of maintaining the rights, not of one nationality, but of all nationalities, you have heard no language of condemnation from this side of the House; but the very moment it was seen that that policy did necessarily involve the confusion and defeat of the Turkophiles below the Gangway, then Lord Derby, next Lord Lyons, then Her Majesty's Government, then any single man and every body of men who stood between them and that course for which they were prepared to sacrifice everything and to drag this country into war—then these Gentlemen below the Gangway came forward and talked of the "know-nothing" policy of the Government and the "happy-go-lucky" conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. That is not language or conduct which we on this side of the House should imitate; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks it right to tell the House of Commons that, in the present state of Europe, he does not think it advisable, or expedient, or politic to answer the catechism of the hon. Member for Christchurch, I think he will find that many Gentlemen on both sides of the House will support him. I think he will find that the sentiment of the country is entirely with him, and whatever a small knot of Gentlemen below the Gangway, who think this is a proper moment to embarrass and attack the Government, and to use such language as that which has been just applied to the distinguished diplomatist the Government have selected to represent the nation—whatever they may do, from the great body of the House of Commons, the Government will receive that support which they deserve in maintaining the character and interests of this country.

said, he had not the least intention of taking part in the debate; but it was really a little more than the most peace-loving Member of the House could submit to, to be patronized as they had been by the hon. and learned Member who had spoken last. Events had happened very rapidly within the last few weeks; but hon. Members would remember one evening when, standing at that Table, the hon. and learned Member had banged the desk before him until pens and papers hopped off it in all directions, whilst he warned the Government of what he was going to do—when he went down to see his constituents at Oxford, the country was to be roused. That was not a moment of absolute tranquillity, and the Government had asked for £6,000,000 in order to strengthen their hands. "But," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "you shall not have one penny until you tell me whether you are going to adopt the policy of a Castlereagh or of a Canning, and how exactly you are going to re-arrange the interests and pretensions of the conflicting races of Bulgaria." Now he tells the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is not to answer Questions asked of him by the hon. Member for christchurch, certainly more gently and politely than those which were put by the hon. and learned Member before he went down to Oxford. Next he told them they were not to venture to criticize the conduct of the Envoys of England abroad. Yet it was only on the night before last that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends spent a long evening and sustained a humiliating defeat in endeavouring to discredit and denounce our Ambassador at Constantinople. That was too much. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought that by standing at that desk and assuming a condescending and magnanimous tone towards the Government, he was patronizing them and defending them from their supporters below the Gangway. Hon. Members were told, above all things, that they must not single out for attack one Member of the Government beyond another; and they were further told that a speech made by one Member of a Cabinet must be taken to have the sanction of the whole body. Now, what happened at Oxford? Was it possible that the hon. and learned Gentleman had forgotten how he sat by when his former Leader assured the world that he had spent 18 months in denouncing the conduct and obstructing the policy of the Prime Minister of England; that he (Mr. Gladstone) could not bring himself to believe that it was the policy' of the whole Cabinet. Then it was Lord Beacons-field, now it was Lord Derby. Perhaps it was because Lord Derby was in the ascendant now that the hon. and learned Gentleman offered that noble Lord his patronage. The policy of the Government—except, perhaps, for one moment, and one moment only—had, up to the present, been united, and there was not a shadow of foundation for these accusations of divergence of views in the Cabinet. The hon. and learned Member was trespassing a little too much on the memory and on the patience of the House, and the goodwill which the House always bore towards him, for the eloquence with which he often delighted them—though, no doubt, it was from a rather exalted station that he usually condescended to enlighten and edify his humbler fellow-countrymen—when he required them to sit and listen to a speech which, if it had any object at all, was intended to incense the supporters of the Ministry below the Gangway against the Government. Who was it, when the danger was critical and the necessity for supporting the Government urgent, who used his utmost efforts to embarrass the Government in their endeavours to preserve peace? It was the hon. and learned Member. But the consequences of that visit to Oxford had had a very healthy effect upon the hon. and learned Member, and ever since he had sat comparatively quiet in his place; but, when he thought that he had the chance given to him by the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Christchurch, he was eager again to hold his sharp lance aloft and clash into the fray. With that noble and condescending manner he knew so well how to assume, he came down now to patronize the Government against their insubordinate supporters. He (Mr. Plunket) did not believe that at that moment the Government required the patronage of the hon. and learned Member. No doubt, when they did want his support, they would get it! Meantime, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would appreciate how very grateful they all felt for the assistance the hon. and learned Member had so frankly and patriotically given to them. He would not say a word against Lord Lyons or Lord Derby. Certainly, every hon. Member was entitled to make any inquiries he pleased; and, on the other hand, he thought the Government had a right to answer only such Questions as they considered they could answer with propriety. He, for one, was not going to press the Government for any premature disclosure of what they were doing; and if they thought it not advisable to make any statement at the present moment, he was sure the whole House, and no one more than the right hon. Baronet who had initiated this debate, would be satisfied. Hitherto they had from point to point kept the House fairly and fully informed, and he was sure in the future they would continue to enjoy the approval and support of the great majority of that House and of the people in the course they might decide to take.

Sir, I am quite sure that the House will feel that there is something a little inconvenient in the discussion which has been raised. At the same time, I am bound to say that I do not in the least degree impute to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), or to others who have taken part in this discussion, the slightest intention of embarrassing or annoying the Government. I can quite understand that they feel—and the House feels, as the country feels—very great anxiety at the present time. I can quite understand that the anxiety which is felt at so great a crisis naturally leads to the expression of sentiments, and to the putting of questions which are a proof of that anxiety; and I do not in the least believe that what we have heard to-night has been intended to convey any opinion of want of confidence in the Government. On the contrary, I should rather be inclined to accept the remarkable string of Questions, put to us as a proof of the confidence which my right hon. Friend places in us—that is to say, in our power and determination—whatever Questions are put to us, not to say anything which may be contrary to the interests of the country; and, therefore, I trust that in the same spirit in which I receive the Questions they may be received by the House. I stated at the beginning of the evening our general view with regard to the principles upon which we were to enter the Congress. I said that we were to enter the Congress, reserving our full right of individual action and decision on the matters which came before it; that if we were in a minority, we were not to be bound by. the decision of the majority; and I stated further that England would require that the whole of the questions involved in the Treaty concluded between Russia, and Turkey should be brought to the knowledge of the Congress in such a manner as to enable the Congress to take them into its consideration with the view of deciding upon them. I think I cannot say more than that, because the whole covers the parts; and it is unnecessary, and somewhat inconvenient, after having made a statement as a whole to be called upon to say what we will do with reference to this particular item or that particular item—"Do you, or do you not, intend to register that which has already been done; or, before you go, do you intend to have a voice and consider the question?" I say, of course, if it is a matter involving European or English interests, we shall claim to have a voice in the discussion of it, and we shall not accept as practically concluded against us points which have been settled without our having a part in settling them. I cannot say more than that, and I do not see there is any use in repeating it. I trust, therefore, Sir, that I may be excused. from entering into detail on the questions which have been raised. Now, with regard to the Question which the right hon. Baronet has put as to the selection of our Representative, I must ask the House to believe and consider that in all these matters the Government is acting as a whole, and that the Representative of England, whoever he may be—whether it be the Foreign Secretary, or Lord Lyons, or anybody else—will be there as the Representative of the united Cabinet and Government of England; and it will be in the name and under the instructions of the Government of England that he will take his share in the Congress. I think it is both unnecessary and inconvenient that any Questions should be put to go behind that responsibility. If any valid reasons could be adduced against the selection of Lord Lyons, I admit that it might be a fair thing, in this House, that those reasons should be stated; but, really there have been no such reasons given; and I can most assuredly say that Lord Lyons stands in the highest position in our Diplomatic Service, as the senior of our Ambassadors, as one who has held the highest posts, as one who has had practical acquaintance with Constantinople, where he was an Ambassador for some time—all these positions which he has held in our Service must necessarily make him familiar with all that has been going on during the last two or three eventful years, and will enable him to represent the Government in the most perfect, and, we are satisfied it will be, in the most able, manner. I may also say, although I do not think it is necessary I should touch upon such a point—I may venture, as the right hon. Baronet has raised the question of the personal opinions of Lord Lyons, to say that from communications I have had myself with Lord Lyons, I know it is incorrect to represent him as holding such opinions as have been imputed to him, and that it is altogether incorrect to suppose he has taken any position which would be antagonistic to the views which have been held and expressed by other Representatives of Her Majesty's Government. I know that those of our Representatives who have had a share in the conduct of these affairs are perfectly satisfied with him, and fully admit that no man is better qualified or more thoroughly to be trusted in such a matter than Lord Lyons. But, Sir, it is really not a question at all of what the personal opinions of Lord Lyons are. He is a man eminently fitted for any diplomatic business. He is one who will conduct the negotiations placed in his hands with dignity, with tact, and with a perfect acquaintance with diplomatic usages, and a most complete knowledge of the relations in which he stands to Her Majesty's Government. I wish it to be clearly understood, that from the beginning to the end, whatever may take place, Lord Lyons will represent Her Majesty's Government at the Congress, and that it is not he, but they, who are responsible to the country. I will not attempt to follow the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) into some of the topics he has touched upon. I own I was rather surprised that he should have allowed himself to make use of one or two of the expressions which fell from him. And, especially, I do not think it ought to go forth to foreign countries at such a moment as this, that such expressions have been used in this House, as that the British Fleet is in such a position that the Russians could within 12hours destroy or capture it if they chose entirely deny that statement, and regret that at such a moment the noble Lord should endeavour to damage his country That statement is not patriotic.—

Mr. Speaker, I must rise to a point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer imputes a motive to me. He says that my statement about the Fleet was an endeavour to damage my country. I never intended to do anything of the kind. What I endeavoured to do was to save the country from the bad management of Her Majesty's Government.

I will, then, withdraw the expression "endeavour to damage his country," and I will accept his own view—that his language was an endeavour to save the country; but I leave it to the judgment of the House whether it is an endeavour likely to be successful. At all events, I will venture to say that in my view true patriotism rather consists in supporting your country, unless you are prepared to challenge and withdraw your confidence from the responsible Ministers of the Crown, and to relieve them of that responsibility. Sir, we have had a most difficult task to perform. We have, at the present moment, a task of the very gravest difficulty, and we do appeal to Parliament—we do appeal to the country, if they are still disposed to trust us with the administration of affairs, not to weaken our hands. I think I need say nothing more upon the particular questions that have now been raised; but I do wish before I sit down to speak very earnestly to the House upon the position in which we stand at the present moment with reference to the Business of the House. It cannot escape the attention of many hon. Members, that in this attempt to strengthen our hands, the House is practically stopping our proceeding with the Navy Estimates, and that we are in a state of very great difficulty and embarrassment; because until we get the first Vote in the Navy Estimates—until we get the Vote which will give us the number of men—it is impossible for us to proceed with the Marine Mutiny Bill. Time is drawing on, and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is now charged for the first time with the duty of bringing forward the Navy Estimates, at a most critical period in the history of the country, has been endeavouring, but without success, to get into Committee and to bring forward the Navy Estimates. At a time when it is most important that our Naval Force should be in proper order, he has for two nights been endeavouring to get into Committee, and his statement has not been made. Now, it will be impossible to give my right hon. Friend Monday for going on with this question; because on Monday it is essentially necessary that we should take the Supplementary Estimates. There are Supplementary Estimates for the Naval, Military, and also for the Civil Services, and these must be taken on Monday next; because, unless we sit on Saturday, that is the last day on which these Estimates could be taken in order to carry through the necessary measures for voting the money and passing the Bills before the close of the financial year. Therefore, we are in this position. It is too late to go on with the Navy Estimates to-night, and unless we can by some arrangement induce the House to agree to go on with them to-morrow, we shall be thrown over for another week. The position is very serious indeed. I do not deny the natural anxiety of Members to take the opportunity of bringing forward subjects in which they are interested, and I do not deny that a great deal of interesting matter has been advanced in the preliminary discussion; but hon. Members must be good enough to look at this question as a whole, and consider in what position the House is placed. I am not making this appeal in the interest of the Government, but really in the interest of the public service. I trust we shall be permitted to put down the Navy Estimates for to-morrow, and that it will be possible for us to proceed with them.

said, that perhaps he might be allowed to support, to the best of his power, the appeal which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In justice to those who sat on that—the Opposition—front bench, he must say that, although some of them took great interest in naval questions, not one of them had risen to speak on those subjects that night, as they were most anxious that the First Lord of the Admiralty should make his statement. He hoped that to-morrow the House would go into the Navy Estimates at as early a moment as possible.

did not object to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but wished to point out that the Members below the Gangway, who were so often charged with obstructing the Business of the House, were not chargeable on this occasion with having caused any unnecessary delay.

protested against the manner in which the only question in the preliminary discussion on going into the Navy Estimates that the Irish Members took an interest in was interrupted by a discussion utterly irrelevant to the question of the Navy Estimates. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had brought forward the case of John Clare and stated it very clearly, and was replied to in the most cursory manner by one of the junior Members of the Government, who simply told them that the matter had been looked into at the Admiralty, and that the Admiralty did not wish to be troubled any further about it. When an endeavour was about to be made to support the case brought forward by the hon. Member for Oavan, up rose the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) and proceeded to unburden his great soul. As a Committee was now sitting on the question of Public Business, he hoped some arrangement might be devised to prevent delays by such a far-fetched and fanciful discussion as that raised by the right hon. Baronet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had appealed to the House to cut short all further discussion, and he had denounced the language of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu), while quite as hard expressions were used on the other side of the House and passed over in silence. He wanted to speak of the case of the unfortunate Mr. Clare, and asked the House to listen to him while he read a few lines of no ancient date to remind them that there was something serious in this question. In reply to a Memorial signed by some hundreds of persons, including the leading members of the Mercantile Marine at Liverpool, no less an authority than the present Home Secretary returned this answer to the unfortunate petitioner, Mr. Clare, who now asked for the protection and justice of the House—

"Broughton-in-Furness,

"6th November, 1872.

"Dear Sir,—The Memorial you sent states many facts which are not within my knowledge; hut I do think that, as stated at paragraph 19, you have contributed materially to the present system of construction of vessels of war, and I wish that some compensation could be granted to you, whatever may have been your strict legal rights.—Yours truly,

"(Signed) RICHARD ASSHETON CROSS."

Paragraph 19, to which reference was made, was to the following effect:—

"Whatever may have been the strict legal right of the said John Clare to the said papers, your memorialists conceive he has contributed most materially to the present system of construction of vessels of war, and that he is entitled to some compensation or remuneration in respect thereof."

He did not think it had ever occurred to anyone to accuse that House of niggardli- ness in cases in which plain justice and right could be settled at the cost of the public purse. It had been rightly suggested by an hon. and gallant Member opposite—he thought the Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford)—that the real merits and demerits of this case could be sufficiently determined by its reference to any ordinary Member or group of Members of that House; and if such a reference were made, he (Mr. O'Donnell) had little doubt that justice would be done, and fair compensation given to Mr. Clare. It might be urged that the improvements introduced by Mr. Clare had no longer that importance in the naval defences of this country that they had at the time of their introduction. He readily granted that. But if it were true—as he maintained that it was—that the vast improvements on preceding systems of naval construction, as represented in the Warrior type, were due to a fraudulently-appropriated patent of Mr. John Clare, then he thought hon. Members would admit that, even after so many years, justice should be done to the unfortunate inventor. No doubt when Mr. Clare's patent was shown to the Admiralty they wondered why they should not have thought of that themselves, and no doubt they came to persuade themselves that they had thought of it themselves. In the year 1853 Mr. Clare applied for a patent for a new system for the construction of iron ships. Instead of building iron ships by building the hull simply upon vertical ribs independent of each other and of the general design, and only bound together into the framework of a ship by the various plates rivetted to those ribs, Mr. Clare proposed that they should first build up the skeleton of the ship complete and entire, and that the ribs should be bound together by longitudinal girders, and all its framework completed before a single plate was put on. By this means ships of great size, combined, with great strength and buoyancy became possible; while previously iron ship constructors saw no way of strengthening their hulls except by thickening the iron plating, to the immense loss of power of flotation, and to the increased risk of becoming "broken-backed" from the enormous weight depending on mere vertical ribs bound together by no independent connection. In a word, Mr. Clare revo- lutionized the art of iron shipbuilding by substituting compactness and cohesion of frame for dead weight of envelope, and a closely-knit and powerful skeleton allowing of a light skin and great buoyancy, for a ponderous skin, restricted flotation, and a weak and disconnected skeleton. It was in 1853 that Mr. Clare obtained his patent, and it was at once made known to the Admiralty. For year after year correspondence went on between the Admiralty and Mr. Clare. In 1856 Mr. Clare made a model and sent it to the Lords of the Admiralty, with further improvements upon his skeleton ship. Besides this improvement, he submitted a model of a ship on the "latticework" girder system on which the Warrior was subsequently built, but on which the naval authorities did not admit that the Warrior was subsequently built. Now, when it was found that the combination of longitudinal and vertical ribs was laid before the Admiralty in 1853, and when it was found that the model was presented to the Admiralty in 1856, and when it was found that the Warrior was only designed in the year 1859, they must be irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the design for the Warrior was taken from the design of Mr. Clare. Of course, this was only what the Admiralty ought to have done; but they took the design of the Warrior from Mr. Clare, without the authority of Mr. Clare, without compensation to Mr. Clare, while forming a resolution, so far as he was able to judge, to deny to Mr. Clare the entire merit for Mr. Clare's own patent. There resulted Petitions and the usual answers from the Admiralty, which had been continued until the present day. On the last occasion when this question was brought up, Her Majesty's Government had the powerful assistance of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed); but that assistance would have lost its weight with the House if hon. Members had remembered that the hon. Gentleman, though not Chief Constructor of the Navy, had been so during the period when Her Majesty's Government were making this unacknowledged use of the patent of Mr. Clare. It was open to doubt whether the reputation of the Admiralty for originality would not have seriously suffered if an inquiry had been granted; and he was not surprised that the aid of the ex-Constructor should have been lent to prevent such inquiry. Mr. Clare tried his fortune in the Courts of Law; and, in spite of the fearful odds against a private complainant, his failure was not a foregone conclusion. In the course of that trial the counsel for the Petitioner and all the witnesses for the Petitioner, and all his friends were surprised and astonished by the remarkable evidence forthcoming on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government were so fortunate as to find scientific witnesses whose recollection was so remarkably convenient that they actually came forward to swear that the model of the Warrior, that the type on which the Warrior was built instead of showing progress in naval architecture was, in reality, a return to the earliest days of iron shipbuilding. Witnesses were found to come forward on the part of Her Majesty's Government and swear that they perfectly recollected that the skeleton and framework of H.M.S. Warrior was anticipated by the construction of a petty iron steamboat intended for the South African Trade somewhere about 1830 or 1832. It must strike every Member of that House—it must have struck all average common sense—that this was a remarkable piece of evidence, and that it was strange that no ship of the same kind had been constructed since, and that no model hadbeen preserved-—that it should have escaped the knowledge of the most able architects, and that its utility should only be discovered when Mr. Clare made a claim for a patent. The singularity of the coincidence must strike every Member. The evidence of members of the Constructive Department of Her Majesty's Admiralty completely astonished and confounded, he would freely admit, the friends of Mr. Clare. His lawyers asked for witnesses who could rebut the extraordinary memory of Sir Charles' Pox and Mr. Scott Russell. They turned to Mr. Clare, and asked—"Can you find two or three respectable shipbuilders who can find how that little ship Alburka was built in 1830; you see how lucky Her Majesty's Government were to find this ship at this precise moment; they have got witnesses who have sworn your patent was known to the whole world in 1830, and it is quite clear that your case is lost unless you can produce witnesses as far back as Sir Charles Fox goes to rebut his extraordinary evidence." This evidence came suddenly upon Mr. Clare, and rendered it utterly impossible for him to produce the necessary rebutting evidence within a few hours or a few days; and when a Petitioner had nothing better to say than that he believed if he had time he could get rebutting evidence, when he was a private man fighting against the strong power of the Government, what chance had such a Petitioner to have his claim listened to? Sir Alexander Cockburn was naturally struck by the evidence presented by Her Majesty's Government. Sir Charles Pox and Mr. Scott Russell were men of the highest experience. Everyone knew what the Judge did when there was apparently conclusive evidence of this character, and when the unfortunate plaintiff had not the means of procuring rebutting evidence. Of course, the case went against Mr. Clare; and having failed, as the best of men had failed before, owing to the chances of the law, what could poor Mr. Clare do? He raised up a subscription among his old neighbours—those who knew his genius and respected his integrity—until he was able to produce unmistakeable evidence which utterly upset the remarkable and marvellous evidence so suspiciously produced by Her Majesty's Government at the trial which ended so unfortunately for Mr. Clare. He did not think Her Majesty's Government could refuse to submit this case to the arbitrament of two independent Members of that House, on whichever side of the House they might sit. Sir Charles Pox had sworn that he remembered exactly having seen the ship Alburka constructed for the African Trade in 1830 or 1831. He had watched over it with paternal feelings; which made it all the more remarkable that, having studied the Allurka in 1830, he forgot all about it until it was necessary to think of it in order to disprove the statement of Mr. Clare. He remembered superintending the construction of the Alburka. Such was Sir Charles Fox's story; but Mr. Andrew Morrison, the actual designer and constructor of the vessel in question, was fortunately discovered by Mr. Clare, and clearly stated the whole of the facts, to the utter discomfiture of Sir Charles Fox's marvellously opportune memory. Mr. Morrison stated, that in 1830 he designed, laid down, constructed, and assisted in building an iron steamer in Liverpool called the Alburka, 60 feet long, constructed on vertical rib bars, held in their place by plates held by rivets. The Alburka being one of the earliest steamboats that was constructed, was built in the old fashion, and not upon the later plan, which was not known until Mr. Clare placed his patent in the hands of the Government. That was how the Alburka was constructed, and not in any degree on the same plan as the Warrior, as stated by Sir Charles Pox. Then Mr. Morrison went on to say that, so far as having anything to do with the construction of the Alburka was concerned, the statement of Sir Charles Fox was untrue, as no one but himself had anything to do with the construction. The Alburka was the first vessel of that kind constructed in Great Britain for sea-going use, and not on longitudinal and vertical bars, but on the old system of which it was, in fact, the earliest example. Every point, every tittle, and every iota of Mr. Morrison's statement could be examined and verified on reference to evidence, and it could only tend to show that Sir Charles Fox had no knowledge whatever by which he could judge of the Alburka, and that the Alburka was not what Sir Charles Fox declared her to be. Mr. Scott Russell, the other Admiralty witness, had professed himself to be able to depose that a vessel called Her Majesty, plying between Ryde and Portsmouth in 1851, was on the same plan as the Warrior. He said he had recently inspected a vessel called Her Majesty, and that this vessel in all essentials anticipated the plan of the Warrior, and therefore there was no necessity for the Warrior being filched from Mr. Clare's patent. That was another piece of evidence sprung on Mr. Clare; but, fortunately, he was able to produce evidence to show that the case of Her Majesty also utterly failed to prop up the Government case about the Warrior. A vessel called Her Majesty was sworn to by Mr. Scott Russell as having been built by him in 1850 or 1851, and that the plan of using vertical and longitudinal bars was adopted in such vessel, and that the mode of constructing the Warrior and the mode of constructing Her Majesty was identical. George Frederick Goble, consulting engineer, gave a quantity of independent evidence. He said he went down and examined the ship Her Majesty, and found she was not built upon the system of combined vertical and longitudinal bars, that she was not a strongly built iron skeleton ship, according to Mr. Clare's patent; but simply built by ribs kept in their places by plates rivetted on So that the case of Her Majesty proved to be as rotten as the case of the Alburka. So extraordinary was the evidence of Mr. Scott Russell, so extraordinary did it seem to Mr. Clare and Mr. Clare's friends, that an application for committal for perjury was made against Mr. Scott Russell. He did not want to do more than refer the House to the judgment of Mr. Arnold, the magistrate, who expressly said—and the text of his judgment was open to the inspection of the House—that in the case of an ordinary person he should not have hesitated to grant a committal for perjury, and the only thing that made him hesitate was the distinguished position of Mr. Scott Russell. It was plainly proved before him that there was not the smallest similarity between the construction of the ship Her Majesty and the Warrior; but he put it to the applicant whether, considering the high standing of Mr. Scott Russell, it was not difficult to believe that the statement was the result of deliberate perjury rather than of an untrustworthy memory. Therefore, Mr. Arnold recommended that permission should not be further sought to prosecute Mr. Scott Russell for perjury, merely because he was a respectable man. Mr. Clare, being also advised by his lawyers that probably a jury would give Mr. Scott Russell's high standing "the benefit of the doubt," did not go on with the prosecution for perjury. It was in this manner that he declined to make a charge of wilful and corrupt perjury against the Admiralty swearers, though the evidence on which Mr. Clare was upset in his appeal to a court of justice was thus proved utterly fallacious. It was proved that no one was the designer of the Warrior, except the designer of the model of Mr. Clare, which had been in the hands of the Admiralty for years before the Warrior was designed, or was built. Under these circumstances, was it not right and just, was it not necessary for the reputation of Her Majesty's Admiralty, that this grievance should be settled? Was it not at least worthy of some inquiry by somebody less prejudiced than the officials of the Admiralty? In what case was that House ready to accept the dictum of officials in maintaining abuses, supposing that abuses existed, as alleged? He asked the House to see that an impartial tribunal was established to try this matter. Former investigations had been made by members of the Admiralty, or by distinguished members of the bureaucracy of this country. Was it not the duty of that House, in the interests of justice, to see that these officials should submit to something like inquiry? The questions would be—Was it true that the Alburka was constructed, as Sir Charles Fox swore, on the same model as the Warrior? Was it true that the ship Her Majesty was or was not the forerunner of the Warrior, and that the Warrior was or was not built upon the model of Mr. Clare? That model was placed before the Lords of the Admiralty in 1856; and when the Warrior was only laid down in 1858–9, was it not plain that some compensation was due to this unfortunate man? He was perfectly ready to accept the judgment of any fair and honourable Member of that House. At the trial, Mr. Watts, of the Admiralty, admitted that previous to building the Warrior they saw all the plans and models of Mr. Clare, "but they adopted nothing." The Lord Chief Justice said—"Are you sure of that?" The Admiralty witness said they had adopted nothing; but if hon. Members would go to the Admiralty and ask for the frame work of the Warrior, and ask for the framework of the model, they would see that the framework of the Warrior was drawn almost, as it were, in every detail, from the framework of the model sent in years before by Mr. Clare. Such was. the case he had to lay before the House; and he never would consent to bring forward the case of any inventor again if a Committee of that House did not say that in all essential details Mr. Clare was the inventor of the plan on which the Warrior was built. If they did find that, they would say that some compensation was due to this ruined man.

submitted that the discussion of this question at that late hour was not due to any fault of their own, but to the discussion on the Navy Estimates of questions like those raised' by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel). This question had reference to the Navy; the question raised by the right hon. Member for Tamworth had no relation whatever to the subject before the House. It was now 20 minutes to 2, and it was impossible that the case of Mr. Clare could meet with necessary and satisfactory discussion. He must point to it as a case of hardship, and he must say the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) might have signalized his accession to office by taking this case in hand, instead of paying no attention whatever to it. They had had an animated debate on the subject of the East; but if they had not had their iron-clad Fleet, they could not have stood long in the East, and could not have had that iron-clad Fleet in the Dardanelles. Now, he maintained that if it had not been for the painstaking exertions of Mr. John Clare this question of iron shipbuilding would not have been so much advanced for another 10 years. He believed that the longitudinal and vertical bars were his invention. He sent his models and plans to the Admiralty, and these were, or ought to be, now in the possession of the Admiralty. Mr. Clare maintained that those were the plans on which the Warrior was originally built; and, having failed to obtain recompense for his plans, he commenced proceedings against the Admiralty for infringement of patent. What was the defence of the Admiralty? That they had not used the plans of Mr. John Clare, but plans which had been previously used. They went back to the year 1833, and got some of the witnesses to attempt to prove—though they were subsequently alleged to be perjured witnesses—that the Warrior was built on plans in force in that year; whereas it was shown that this system of framing was by no means in existence in 1833. The Warrior was the first vessel built with her framing on this principle, even if there had been more than one vessel built on that principle at that time. It was subsequently proved that the framing of Her Majesty was not on the same principle as that of the Warrior. The facts of this case, although difficult to put before the House of Commons, could be easily told to a Select Committee; and although John Clare might be a poor old man now broken down in health and fortune, yet a man who had spent fortune and life in concerns which were an honour to the Admiralty, should not now be neglected. It concerned the honour of the Government and of the House of Commons that they should hold an investigation into the matter by means of a Committee of that House. The facts of the case were in a nutshell. Either Clare's claim was valid or not valid. If the Government could show that there was anything of this kind in existence before John Clare's invention in 1850, then their case was proved; but if they could not show that such a system was in existence, then John Clare had a claim for a small amount from the Government, which might be a comfort to this unfortunate man's declining years, and might smooth his path to the grave. He certainly thought that the First Lord of the Admiralty might inaugurate his entry to office by directing his attention to the case of John Clare; and he hoped a Select Committee of that House would be appointed to see justice done between man and man.

said, he rose to make a remark, simply because his name had been mentioned in relation to this matter. So far as he was concerned, all that he knew was that it appeared that in 1861 Mr. Clare sent in a Petition, and that, of course, was referred to the Admiralty. The case, after that, went for trial, and was heard in 1863 before Justice Cockburn and a special jury, and Mr. Clare's application was disallowed. A new trial was applied for, but that new trial was unanimously refused. In 1863 Mr. Clare called at the Home Office with a Petition for presentation to the Queen, which was referred to the Admiralty. In June of the same year, he instituted legal proceedings against Sir Charles Fox. He failed, and a new trial was refused. If he had any further statement to make, the same course was open to him as to anybody else. In 1864 the matter was brought before the House of Commons. A Motion was made for a Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the circumstances of the case; but the Motion was negatived. In 1866 certain proceedings were taken before Mr. Arnold against some of the witnesses for perjury. Nothing came eventually of that prosecution; and he (Mr. Cross) was not aware that any correspondence took place with the Home Office after that with Sir George Grey until 1874, when he (Mr. Cross) came into office. Some years before that, Mr. Clare had presented his case before the magistrate. He did not know whether the matter had been fully inquired into or not; and, without any reference to the legality of the claim of Mr. Clare, he had no objection to its being brought before him. When he came into office he took an unusual course, thinking he should like to see what there was in the case. Therefore he took the unusual course of sending Mr. Clare's request for a Petition of Eight to the Law Officers of the Crown. They informed him that the claim was without foundation, and they could not advise it to be entertained. He quite agreed with what Sir George Grey did in the matter; and it was on that account that he had wished to explain the circumstances under which he wrote the letter which had been referred to. The Law Officers of the Crown were of opinion that Mr. Clare had no claim whatever.