asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the British Minister at Rio has furnished any late Report on the progress of slave emancipation in Brazil; and, whether, on the ground that so largo a portion of the slave population have been imported in contravention of British treaties and of Brazilian law, he may be instructed to use, as occasion may offer, the friendly influence of Her Majesty's Government in advising the adoption of measures for anticipating the present remote period of complete emancipation?

The Reports received from Her Majesty's Representatives at Rio with regard to the emancipation of the slaves in Brazil are contained in the Volume of Slave Trade Correspondence, which will be very shortly distributed. The Brazilian Government are already fully aware of the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the question; and it is certain that under the operation of existing laws the number of the slaves is steadily diminishing.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the case of "William Forrest, a working watchmaker of Glasgow, fined A3;3 and costs for having sold a watch without a licence to deal in plate, in which the accused was entrapped into the commission of the offence by an agent of the Inland Revenue instructed to "make a detection;" whether it is true that Forrest, in reply to a false story told him by the agent of the Inland Revenue, stated that he did not sell watches, offered to take him to a dealer where he could select one, and ultimately consented to let him have a watch, sworn to be intended as a present for his wife, on the agent's expression of an urgent desire to deal with him personally, because he believed him to be an honest man; whether any evidence was adduced at Forrest's trial suggestive that this breach of Law was not a solitary one; and, whether the case was prosecuted by a Procurator Fiscal; and, if so, whether Public Prosecutors in Scotland have any instructions to prosecute in every Excise case, irrespective of its general merits, or the manner in which it may have been got up?

From the inquiry which I have caused to be made into the circumstances of this case, it appears that com- plaints had been made to the Inland Revenue Department that William Forrest, the person named in the Question, had been for a considerable time dealing in silver plate without a licence, and two of the subordinate officers of that Department arranged a plan by which they thought they might procure a conviction. One of them called on Forrest, and, after some conversation, proposed to buy a watch. It is the case that in the course of that conversation the subordinate officer did make certain untrue statements; and some witnesses deposed, it would also appear, in the course of the trial, that he rather induced Forrest to sell the watch. When it was reported to the Department that Forrest had sold the watch without a licence, they, not being aware that any deception had been practised, directed a prosecution; but when, after the trial, they became aware that there had been deception, they censured the officer. In answer to the third paragraph of the Question, I have to say that evidence was not produced at the trial that this was Forrest's first or was not his first breach of the law in this respect. The Solicitor to the Inland Revenue began to lead evidence as to the previous complaints; but this was objected to by the Solicitor on the other side, and, yielding to the objection, he did not persevere. The prosecution was not instituted by the Public Prosecutor, but solely by the Inland Revenue Department, who employed as their Solicitor a gentleman who happened also to be Procurator Fiscal for the Justice of Peace Court. The remainder of my hon. Friend's Question I answer in the negative.

I beg to givo Notice that I shall on Friday ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will consider the propriety of asking the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to remit the fine?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the charge tinder which Mr. J. Byrne, Mr. G. Murphy, and Mr. T. O'Dempsey, of county Wexford, were arrested under the Coercion Act is one for which the greatest penalty on conviction, under the Conspiracy Act of 1875, is three months' imprisonment; whether those gentlemen have not now been five months in prison; and, whether their cases have been reconsidered?

, in reply, said, that the charge against these prisoners was that they had endeavoured to compel others, by intimidation, not to work for certain persons, or sell to them—in fact, to prevent the exercise of their lawful rights by other people. The offence was punishable under the Whiteboy Act by imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years, with or without hard labour. These persons had been in prison since the end of October, and their case had been reconsidered.

asked whether, under the Whiteboy Act, the punishment of flogging also could not be applied?

said, that was so; but nobody would think of applying it.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Lord Justice Holker had proposed the repeal of the Whiteboy Acts?

said, he had no information on the subject.

asked, If it is a fact that the suspects in Limerick Prison are not permitted to receive the "Graphic" newspaper; whether this rule exists in other prisons; and, why rules governing matters of this kind are not uniform in all prisons where suspects are detained?

, in reply, said, that application was made by the Governor of the gaol to the Prison Board on the subject, and an order was sent down to that and the other prisons that The Graphic might be received by the prisoners. It appeared from a letter sent to him by the Prison Board that most of the complaints made in the House of Commons by Members were unknown to the Board until they were called upon to reply. If the prisoners would only write to the Board of Appeal, to any member of the Board, or to the Inspector who visited the prisons, any just cause of complaint would be at once remedied. By the General Prison Rules, Governors were obliged to see every male prisoner once, at least, in every 24 hours, and he was also always ready to receive complaints. If there were complaints, and the Governor did not examine into them, he incurred a most heavy responsibility. He was not aware that the Governor had ever refused to do so.

Are prisoners permitted to make complaints by letter to the Prisons Board? In two eases I know that such letters when sent were never replied to.

I cannot conceive that there could be any objection to allow complaints by letter. If the hon. Member will give me the particulars of the cases he refers to I will examine into them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the various Railway, Market, and other schemes affecting London, now before Parliament, involve the removal of more than 20,000 of the poorer classes of the Metropolis; and, whether, pending the constitution of a public body able and willing to protect the interests of the Metropolitan poor, he will provide for the insertion into these measures of clauses preventing the demolition of houses now occupied by the poor, until proper accommodation for the number scheduled for removal has been provided in the neighbourhood, such clauses to be of at least equal stringency to Clause 33 of "The Metropolitan Street Improvement Act, 1877?"

The matter to which my hon. Friend refers is, I admit, one of considerable importance. I cannot say if Clause 33 of the Metropolitan Street Improvement Act, 1877, could be made available in the way he suggests. Our experience has been that the clause has not worked satisfactorily. I shall be happy to confer with my hon. Friend, and also with the President of the Board of Trade, as to whether any provision could be made for the purposes indicated in his Question.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Government proposes to move for the issue of a new Writ for the City of Oxford, in the place of Mr. Justice Chitty; and, whether he will state the course the Government propose to pursue as regards the still vacant seats of Members unseated for bribery?

It is not the intention of the Government to move for the issue of a New Writ for the City of Oxford in consequence of the elevation of Mr. Justice Chitty. In answer to the second portion of the Question, I may state that it is the intention of the Government to submit a Bill for the consideration of the House, and the House will then have an opportunity of dealing with the different constituencies according to the amount of corrupt practices which had been reported to have existed.

Can the Attorney General state when the Bill will be brought in?

At the first practicable opportunity, Sir.

In consequence of the answer I have received, I beg to give Notice that on this day week I shall move that a New Writ be issued for the City of Oxford?

I beg to give Notice that I shall oppose the Motion.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he intends to proceed with that Bill or the Corrupt Practices Bill first?

said, that that was a matter relating to the general conduct of Business; and the Question ought, therefore, to be addressed to the Prime Minister.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have interpreted Article 6 of the Postal Convention at Paris, which declares—

"In case of the loss of a registered article, there is to be paid an indemnity of 50 francs to the sender by the administration upon whose territory the loss has occurred,"

to mean cases of "accidental" loss, and not to seizures, as in the case of the Irish World; "if so, whether they have communicated their views to the American Government or to the other Signatory Powers, what is the date of the communication, and where its terms may be referred to?

said, he would answer the Question on behalf of his right hon. Friend. The words of the Convention were taken as applying to articles which were not to be found. No communication had been made on the subject to any of the Signatory Powers.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, having regard to the fact that the period fixed for the acceptance by the Bastes of the ultimatum sent to them by the Cape Government will expire on Wednesday next, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend that an extension of time be given to the Basutos, within which they may comply with the demands made upon them?

When Sir Hercules Robinson arrived at the Cape he found the Basutos at war with the Cape Government. On the 30th of January, 1881, he reported that he had received a Petition from Lerothodi and Joel Molappo, praying for his intercession in the interests of peace. After some negotiations, the arbitration of Sir Hercules Robinson was accepted on both sides, and on the 29th of April Sir Hercules Robinson gave his award. On the 12th of May Lerothodi, Joel Molappo, and 10 other Chiefs wrote to Sir Hercules Robinson accepting his award. Masupha not having signed the letter, it was doubtful whether he accepted. On the 13th of September, however, Sir Hercules Robinson telegraphed that Masupha had at length fully accepted all the terms of the award, and that they were being carried out in their integrity throughout the whole of Basutoland. On the 24th of November, however, he telegraphed that Masupha had broken all his promises of submission to the award, and was once more acting in defiance of the Government. The award was loyally accepted by the Cape Parliament, and the Cape Government continued to make strenuous efforts to obtain its fulfilment by the Basuto people; but these efforts were only partially successful, mainly owing to the opposition, of Masupha. On the 25th of January Sir Hercules Robinson telegraphed that the attempt to enforce the award on Masupha by the aid of the Basuto Chiefs and people having failed, Ministers advised that Parliament be convened for the 17th of March to consider the situation. On the 15th of February he telegraphed that the Ministers had sent to the Acting Governor's agent in Basutoland an intimation to be conveyed to the Basutos that the award must be complied with by the 15th of March, failing which it would be deemed cancelled. The matter thus lies entirely in the hands of the Cape Government and the Cape Parliament. It is within the power of the Cape Government to enlarge the time without reference to the Secretary of State; and if they intimated any intention to enlarge it this would be at once acquiesced in. But it would be improper in relation to the Cape Colony, and inconsiderate in relation to the Basutos themselves, for Her Majesty's Government to volunteer to the Cape Government a suggestion that the time should be enlarged.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to arm the "Dreadnought," "Thunderer," "Devastation," "Agamemnon," and "Ajax," or any of them, with the new 43-ton breech-loading guns?

The 43-ton gun will be mounted in ships now building, in which the turrets and barbette towers are being prepared for them. The late Board considered the question of the Ajax and the Agamemnon, and resolved to arm them with the 38-ton gun; and the present Board found the ships too far advanced, and the 43-ton gun too little advanced, to enable them to reverse the decision. In the case of the Dreadnought, the Thunderer, and the Devastation, it would be bad policy to dismantle our most powerful ships afloat until we have the new ships with the new guns to replace them on the seas while the process of re-arming is going forward.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, in cases where the ordinary poor rate has been paid and accepted, and the seed rate remains outstanding, the occupier's right to the franchise is lost?

The instalment of seed rate which is payable is by the Statute, as I pointed out yesterday in reply to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), "to be added to the poor rate, and to be collected therewith." Therefore, there cannot lawfully be a part payment of this aggregate rate under the description of "ordinary poor rate," or any other description. Consequently, the hypothesis on which the hon. Member's Question is founded cannot, in point of law, arise.

inquired, if there was any provision in the Seeds Act repealing portion of the Reform Act which made the non-payment of the poor rate the only ground for disfranchising?

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any intelligence has been received from the Government of Gibraltar respecting arrests and imprisonments of different of Her Majesty's subjects, in that possession, made on the occasion of the installation of Dr. Canilla, as Vicar Apostolic, under the protection of the troops?

A despatch was received to-day from Gibraltar which will be included among the Papers now with the printers. It appears that in clearing the Church of St. Mary the Crowned, which had been occupied early on the morning of the 2nd by persons who had commenced barricading it, 43 arrests were made, all, with one exception, by the civil constables. Twenty of these were tried the next morning by the magistrate, and one of them, who had assaulted the police inspector and been punished on the last occasion of disturbance, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. All the prisoners were defended by a barrister. Of the other persons arrested, some were bailed until the following day, when all the rest were tried. The same day, the 4th, notices of appeal were lodged in respect of 24 of the convicted prisoners, and, bail having been given, they were released pending the appeal.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can now answer the question, put to him in August last, as to Captain Chatterton, viz.:—Whether, after the holding of the court of inquiry on the state of Captain Chatterton, as mentioned by him last Thursday, there were general, brigade, and divisional orders issued in reference to his case, dated respectively 15th, 16th, and 17th March 1869; and whether, in consequence of such orders, Presidency Surgeons Baillie and Brougham, and Garrison Surgeon Powell, placed Captain Chatterton in the Officers' Hospital at Fort William, Calcutta, for urgent surgical treatment, as the operation, however simple it might have been if performed in the September previous, had become a serious one, owing to delay; whether Garrison Surgeon Powell has certified that, after full examination, he found Captain Chatterton suffering from a contracted limb, for which he considered the division of the left tendon achilles necessary; that he attended him daily, prepared his papers, and proposed to take him before the Medical Board in Calcutta on the 28th April, with a recommendation that he be granted twelve months' leave of absence to visit England, in order that the operation might be performed under favourable circumstances, but that he was unable to take him before such Court in consequence of an Order from the India Council being served on him on the 26th April, requiring him to dismiss Captain Chatterton from the hospital; whether that India Council Order was founded on the previous Despatch of January, and in ignorance of the opinions subsequently formed by the highest medical authorities in Calcutta; whether, in consequence of Captain Chatterton being so hastily turned out of the hospital, he was left to find his way back to England to undergo the operation the best way he could; whether he will allow this officer to be examined by the Medical Board at the India Office to report to the House whether Captain Chatterton is now a cripple for life, notwithstanding five operations, performed in England, in consequence of the delay in attending to his case in India, owing to the differences of opinion existing among the medical authorities in India; and, whether he can recommend some compensation to Captain Chatterton for the injury he has sustained, and the great expense to which he has been put, in consequence of the numerous operations he has been obliged to undergo?

In May last I informed the hon. Member that I would have the matter carefully looked into, in order to ascertain whether it was requisite to make further inquiry in India. Subsequently, I privately informed the hon. Member, in reply to a private inquiry made by him, that the replies I had already given in the case of Captain Chatterton were based on the information which had been laid before previous Secretaries of State, and that the more detailed inquiries subsequently made in India only confirmed more precisely the accuracy of that information. I have now satisfied myself that further inquiry in India would throw no more light on the case than we already have. It has been officially reported that under no general, divisional, or brigade order was Captain Chatterton placed as a patient for surgical treatment in the Officers' Hospital at Fort William. These orders simply communicated to him the fact that, pending the orders of Government in his case, he might consider himself on leave in Calcutta, and consult any medical officer he pleased. He, therefore, voluntarily availed himself of the privilege of admission to the Officers' Hospital, according to the then prevailing custom of all officers when sick and on leave in Calcutta. He was admitted into the hospital on the 7th of April, 1869. The case-book shows that he came in for stiffness of ankle-joint due to the contraction of the ten do achilles and heart disease. The existence of the former was unquestioned; of the latter it was more doubtful. The case-book adds that "no treatment was considered necessary or adopted," and that he, having been placed on half-pay, left the hospital on the 23rd of April, 1869; but he apparently did not leave until the 28th. The surgeon in charge of that hospital, now retired, has, I believe, certified that he intended to bring Captain Chatterton before a Medical Board with a recommendation that he should receive 12 months' leave to enable him to undergo a division of his tendo achilles under favourable circumstances. Before the Board met Captain Chatterton had been placed on half-pay, and was at liberty to proceed to England without further permission or the formality of a Board, a liberty of which he availed himself. I am not prepared to call for a Report on Captain Chatter-ton's state by the Medical Board of the India Office; nor can I admit that there is any ground for recommending Captain Chatterton for any pecuniary aid in addition to the retired half-pay he already receives.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What is the present strength of our Channel Squadron; if he could state, without detriment to the Public Service, for what duties it is intended; and, what opportunities are now given to Naval Officers, and especially to Flag Officers, to perfect themselves in the art of manœuvring Fleets?

Three ships of the Channel Squadron are now cruising in the western part of the Mediterranean. The object of their cruise is to teach their seamen to work aloft, and, as far as it can be done with three ships, to practise the officers in manœuvring. The Minotaur will be commissioned in a fortnight for the flag of the Vice Admiral in command. The Sultan will be added to the Squadron next month, and it is hoped that on the return of the Detached Squadron from China in August next, the Inconstant will be attached to the Channel Squadron to complete her commission, making six large ships in all, carrying 4,200 officers and men. With regard to the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, I have something to say on the opportunities to officers for practising manœuvring in the Statement on introducing the Estimates. Perhaps he will excuse me if I reserve it till then.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, taking into consideration the revelations which have come to light in connection with Omagh Gaol, he will order an inquiry into the proceedings of the Prisons' Board in reference thereto, and into the sanitary condition of all the prisons in Ireland?

, in reply, said, a very careful inquiry had been made into the state of Omagh Gaol by an eminent Dublin physician, whose Report he had only before him that day. He did not, however, think there was any ground for going to the expense of a general inquiry into the proceedings of the Prisons Board in reference thereto, and into the sanitary condition of all the Irish prisons. Since the prisons came under the supervision of the Prisons Board the death-rate had been very low; but, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, he had directed that special inquiry should be made into the condition of the prisoners under the Coercion Act.

said, he had intended to have asked the Chief Secretary what provisions would be made for the widow and children of the man who lost his life in the discharge of his duty? but, owing to the fact that certain Papers were being laid upon the Table, he would postpone his Question.

inquired, whether the Chief Secretary would have any objection to allow the medical sanitary officers of Dublin, who were the officers of the Local Government Board, to inspect Kilmainham Prison without any expense to the Government?

said, he did not think he ought to do that unless there were special reasons for it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to remove from Kilmainham Mr. Parnell, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. O'Kelly, to some other gaol; and, if so, whether he has taken special care as to the sanitary condition of that gaol?

That is a Question I must decline to answer.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what grounds John McMorrow is still retained in prison, he having been arrested over twelve months ago?

, in reply, said, that the individual in question had been arrested on the ground that he had been a principal in a riot and in an unlawful assembly. He had made inquiry as to whether his liberation could be effected without danger; and if the hon. Member would repeat his Question in a few days, he would inform him of the result of the inquiry.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, "Whether he is aware that Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates was "reported" last year as late as March 21st, and that, during the former Liberal Administration, Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates was "reported" as late in 1873 as March 26th; in 1872, as March 23rd; and in 1871, as March 28th; and that Vote 1 of the Army Estimates was "reported" in 1871 on March 24th; whether the Law on these occasions was broken with his sanction; and, whether any more serious evils will result if the Reports of Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates and Vote 1 of the Army Estimates were taken during the present year as late as in 1871?

I cannot answer to the fullest extent which the form in which it is printed demands the Question of the hon. and learned Member without entering into a detailed exposition of the rules under which this House votes public money with the view to the public security and to the control of Parliament over public money, which would not be appropriate on this occasion. I accept the statements made in the Question of the hon. and learned Member as to matters of fact. I have no doubt that they are accurate. It is perfectly true that in 1881 these Resolutions were not reported until the 21st of March; whereas Monday next is only the 20th of March. That is a difference which I will not dwell upon. The hon. and learned Member will see that it is more than explained by the absence of Her Majesty on the Continent. The time will be consumed in communicating with Her Majesty by telegraph, and in the transmission by messenger of the Royal signature necessary to complete the passing of an Act. As to the other years referred to in the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, I accept the statement of the hon. and learned Member in reference to them. But when the hon. and learned Member asks me whether the law was broken on those occasions with my sanction, I have to reply that it was not broken with my sanction, for the simple reason that it was not broken at all. On those occasions there was no breach of the law or irregularity in any sense whatever; because before the Navy Votes were taken other Votes had been taken, and a Ways and Means Bill was in progress through the House, so that it could receive the Royal Assent before the close of the financial year, and likewise certain Votes necessary for the Public Service were in a position to be reported before the close of the financial year. There is no inconsistency between the precedents cited by the hon. and learned Member, and the statement I made last night; because at the present time there is no Ways and Means Bill in progress through the House which could receive the Royal Assent before the close of the financial year. The third Question of the hon. and learned Member I believe is disposed of by my answers to the former Questions.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government were aware of the approaching departure of Her Gracious Majesty for the Continent when they invited the House to deal with other matters than the Estimates three weeks ago?

Her Majesty makes her own arrangements with regard to the times of her departure, and gives us adequate information with regard to them when we ask it. I do not think I am called on to give any further answer.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering all the time that has been already lost for want of his proposed Rule 2 (as to Adjournment Motions at Question Time) and Rule 12 (as to Supply on Mondays), he will postpone the consideration of the Cloture and the others, and bring forward these two for more immediate discussion?

Her Majesty's Government, when they were preparing the Resolutions, which have since been laid upon the Table and partially entertained by the House, considered very carefully the question whether they should begin by submitting to the House the Resolution relating to the power to close the debate, and they made up their minds that they would best consult the convenience of the House by giving that Resolution the first place. I will not now enter into the reasons for that determination; but I do not think that we should depart from it even if the discussion had not been commenced; but as it has been commenced, I think that my hon. Friend will see that it would be highly inconvenient to change it at the present time, although I believe that what is called the Monday Rule is one of the most important in reference to the conduct of Public Business.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the patrols which are now in certain cases substituted for the protection heretofore afforded to caretakers are mounted?

, in reply, said, he was not aware that the patrols in question were mounted. He had reason to believe that the mounted patrols were not found to be efficient.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following account is substantially true, that—

"On the 18th November last Mr. Digby was fired at and wounded in the neighbourhood of Tullamore. That Patrick Masterson, the son of a landlord and tenant farmer, was arrested, in the middle of the night, on suspicion for the crime. On his arrival at Tullamore he was placed in the 'black hole' of the prison, and, later on, compelled by a constable to strip and put on old clothes and slippers. Later on four 'corner boys' were brought in and placed beside him, and then, on examination, Mr. Digby said only that Masterson was 'about the size,' but did not recognise him. Two men, who saw the shot fired, declared that Masterson bore no resemblance to the man who fired the shot. Upon this, Masterson was remanded that witnesses might be brought. Meantime he was left fasting in the 'black hole' till 2 p.m. The witnesses included the petty sessions clerk, a country gentleman-farmer, and several members of the accused's family, who proved he was nine miles away and in bed at the time. After five remands, and no evidence against the accused, he was discharged. On the third remand the resident magistrate had the solicitor to the accused turned out of Court by the police. One week after his discharge he was re-arrested under the Coercion Act, and is now in hospital in Naas Gaol spitting blood, caused by his hard treatment in Tullamore Gaol; "

and, whether, if this statement is correct, he will release Patrick Masterson?

, in reply, said, that the hon. Member appeared to have been very much misinformed as to the facts of this case. The only really accurate statement was that Mr. Digby was fired at, and it was by the merest chance that he was not very seriously injured. The following night Masterson was arrested on suspicion of having committed the offence. He was not placed in the "black hole" of the prison, but was put in the kitchen near the fire. He was not forced to strip; but his trousers was kept by the police for certain reasons, and another pair supplied to him. He was placed with four persons of his own class for identification, and Mr. Digby walked straight up to him and said he was the man; but as he had not properly seen his face, he could not swear to him. It was not true that he had been left fasting until 2 P.M., because he got his breakfast and dinner, and expressed his thanks for both. No witness proved that the man was nine miles away from the place at the time of the occurrence. The magistrates did not turn the attorney for the accused out of Court; but his demeanour was most insulting to the Court. He refused to sit down, although frequently requested to do so. The Court was then cleared, and the business of the day disposed of. Masterson was not in hospital, and was not spitting blood.

said, he wished to ask the opinion of the Speaker with regard to a Question of Order. It would be in the recollection of the House that yesterday he seconded a Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) by going through the formality of raising his hat. Later on he rose to address the House, when he was stopped by the Speaker, who ruled that he had exhausted his right by formally seconding the Motion. He wished to state that he believed he was entitled to address the House, and he afterwards referred to Sir Erskine May's work on Parlia-mentary Practice, where, at page 333, he found the following sentence:—

"Formerly a Member who had moved an Order of the Day or seconded a Motion was precluded from afterwards addressing the House upon the same question, or was heard merely by the indulgence of the House; but of late years the option of speaking at a subsequent period of the debate has been conceded whenever the moving or seconding is confined to the formality of raising the hat."

He wished to ask whether or not that opinion was an accurate representation of the practice of the House?

I have to say, in the first place, that the point of Order ought to have been raised at the time. At the same time I am quite willing to answer the appeal of the noble Lord. The noble Lord seconded not a substantive Motion, but a Motion for the adjournment of the House; and I may say that a Member seconding a Motion for the adjournment is fully entitled to speak at the time. If he raises his hat he can only speak later in the debate with the indulgence of the House. I cannot say that the occasion to which the noble Lord refers is one on which special indulgence should be conceded. The quotation cited by the noble Lord from the valuable work of Sir Erskine May applies to substantive Motions and Orders of the Day, and not to questions of the adjournment of the House like that which arose yesterday.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government are in possession of a copy of the Russo-Persian Treaty; and, if so, whether such copy will be laid on the Table, together with the other Papers relating thereto?

, in reply, said, Her Majesty's Government were now in possession of the Treaty, which would be laid before the House. The Papers passed out of the Foreign Office more than 10 days ago, and the delay had been caused by the difficulty in reproducing a map. The map had been drawn on stone by the Intelligence Department of the War Office, and copies were being struck off by the contractors under the direction of the Stationery Office. As a large number were required, great delay had been caused; but the Foreign Office had pressed the Stationery Office for the production of the map; and he could only express his regret that the Papers were not forthcoming earlier. The Treaty would also be laid at once; but the Papers to which he had referred contained all the necessary information.

gave Notice that on Thursday he would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a series of Questions with respect to the treatment of the Irish political prisoners. One of these would be whether he had taken any steps to shorten, or intended to shorten, the period of 18 hours' solitary confinement imposed upon these political prisoners not yet convicted of crime?

remarked that letters sent to "suspects" in Irish prisons had not been received by those gentlemen. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the letters not delivered to the political prisoners would be returned to the senders when opened?

said, he would answer the Question on Thursday.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister, Whether, considering the public scandal which would arise from this House being counted out on three consecutive Tuesdays, the Government will endeavour to keep a House to-night to enable private Members to bring on their Motions?

, in reply, said, it would be impossible for the Government to take any measures with that end in view. If they were responsible for keeping a House on one Tuesday, they would become responsible for every Tuesday, a task which manifestly no Government would undertake.

asked the Prime Minister if the discussion on the clôture Resolution would be the first Order of the Day on Monday, or would the Be-port of Supply be taken?

I have not considered the subject yet. I am not sure that we may not get the Report of Supply before Monday.

inquired whether the clôture Resolution, when passed, would not be enforced during the discussion of the remaining Resolutions; and whether, to avoid such a contingency, the Prime Minister would propose the suspension of the operation of the 1st Resolution until the others were passed?

To suspend the operation of Rule 1 would require a separate Resolution; and I am not inclined to multiply Resolutions without a strong reason.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the French Commercial Treaty, recently signed by Lord Lyons and M. Freycinet, is already binding upon us for 10 years; and, if it will be laid upon the Table of the House before ratification?

The Treaty is not a Commercial Treaty; but with that exception the statement of the hon. Member is perfectly correct. It is a Treaty relating to fisheries, trade marks, navigation, and other purposes; but it is not a Commercial Treaty. It is binding on this country, and it will be laid on the Table of the House.

As the hon. Baronet has not given a definite reply to my Question, I wish to ask him whether I am to understand that the situation remains precisely as before? I wish to ask if it is not the case that this Treaty, by deliberate omissions, is, in point of fact, a retrograde Treaty?

The hon. Member is entering into matters of debate. He may put a Question; but it is not competent for him to enter into matters of debate.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is not the case that by reason of its omission to deal with these matters we suffer injustice, and whether it is not, in point of fact, a retrograde Treaty, which ties our hands for a period of 10 years as regards questions where pressure might have been brought to bear to remedy such injustice? I also want to ask him whether it is true that the concession which has been made as regards a reduction in the surtaxe d'entrepôt on South African wool is not, in reality, a concession to French manufacturers, which, by cheapening so much of their raw material as may be obtainable from South Africa, will operate to the disadvantage of our competing manufacturers and agriculturists? ["Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]

The hon. Member cannot be allowed to introduce matters of debate or controversy.

I beg to give Notice that on Thursday next, on going into Committee of Supply, I will call attention to this Treaty and move a Resolution.

This is not a retrograde Treaty, because, as regards the subjects with which it deals, it is exactly the same as the last, and has nothing to do with the surtaxe d'entrepôt.

It omits it.

It is not a Treaty which can possibly take account of it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that Dr. J. E. Kenny has applied for permission to pay a professional visit to Mr. Davitt in Portland Prison; whether he has not for many years been Mr. Davitt's medical adviser; and, whether permission to pay the visit was refused?

Soon after Michael Davitt's admission to Portland Prison Dr. Kenny applied for permission to visit him, and I very gladly gave him that leave; but subsequent events connected with Dr. Kenny made me think it would be improper to allow any further visits of Dr. Kenny to Michael Davitt. [Mr. O'DONNELL: Mr. Michael Davitt.] I therefore decline to grant any further permission. At the same time, I am able to inform the hon. Member that Michael Davitt's health is extremely satisfactory.

asked whether permission would be given to any independent medical man other than Dr. Kenny to visit Mr. Davitt?

If the name of any gentleman to whom I see no objection is submitted to me, I think it very likely that such permission would be given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can give to the House any information with regard to the giving way of the shaft at Lumley Colliery and the imprisonment of 115 men?

At the time I left the Home Office no information beyond that contained in the papers had reached me; but if any should come in the course of the afternoon I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

, in rising to call attention to the work and position of Fitters in Her Majesty's Dockyards; and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is detrimental to the public service, fatal to the efficiency of our war ships, and unjust to the artificers concerned, that superintending leading men should he placed in authority over workmen with whose trades they have no practical acquaintance, or that men should be put to execute work for which they are unsuited, either by training or experience,"

said, he had no intention of attacking the Administration of either the present or the late Government. He feared that the system referred to in this Motion was one which had grown up through the course of a great number of years, and for which responsibility could not be placed upon any particular Administration. The whole burden of his contention would be that it was impossible for men not highly trained and skilled in the working of iron, and in the management of machinery, to do that work satisfactorily, and with advantage to those who employed them. In other words, he contended that a tailor was the most proper man in the world to make a coat, and that a shoemaker was the most proper man they could find to make boots. It was unfair to ask men. who Lad been trained from boyhood to work in wood to succeed in making iron vessels; and especially preposterous to ask them to undertake the work of fitting and arranging most complicated machinery. As workers in wood, there was no doubt that the shipwrights in their Royal Dockyards, as, indeed, in their private yards, would compete most successfully against any workers in wood in the world; but it was not fair or reasonable to expect that those men could turn their hand to learn a new business, after arriving at the middle stage of life. Yet that was precisely the complaint which he had to submit to the House. Speaking generally, about 25 years ago shipwrights who were employed at the Royal Dockyards were put to work in iron, and about four or five years ago another step was taken in the same direction, and shipwrights were put to the highest class of work—that of fitting machinery in the interior of the hulls of their great fighting vessels. Up to 1877, he believed, all machinery, of whatever sort and for whatever purposes—including water-tight doors, stop valves, sluices, machinery for ventilation, and other purposes—was done by fitters; but in that year there was a considerable transfer of fitters from the Engineers' Department to the Chief Constructor's Department, or, in other words, they were placed under the supervision of shipwrights, and a new regulation was made defining the work which should be chargeable to the Engineers' Department, and the work which should be chargeable to the Chief Constructor's or Shipwrights' Department. In that regulation all machinery was handed over to the Shipwrights' Department, except that which was actually required for the propulsion of the vessel; and it would surprise many to hear that that work was not to-day in the hands and under the control of those men who alone could make the machinery, and were capable of fitting it so that it would efficiently answer the purposes for which it was intended. What should be one undivided authority and one responsibility, in order to insure complete efficiency, was now scattered all over the vessels, as it were; and when any of the machinery failed it was all the more difficult to fix upon anyone the responsibility of the failure, as each Department could cast blame upon the other when, in reality, none of the Departments were to blame, but the ridiculous system of allowing one part of the machinery of the vessel to be fixed by workers in wood and under the management of a separate Department to that which looked after the engines and boilers. He wished it to be understood that the shipwrights, who had the responsibility of fitting delicate and complicated machinery, were incapable of making a single inch of that machinery, and, therefore, could know nothing about fitting it into its place. No private contractor would act on the system followed by the Government; and in all private dockyards great care was exercised that the men employed as fitters should thoroughly understand the machinery which they were handling. Those who had the management of affairs in the Royal Dockyards were officials of position and character, who, doubtless, intended to do what was right, and this extraordinary proceeding was the result of drifting as it were. He understood that the present Board of Construction consisted of five shipwrights, one engineer, one engineer's assistant, one engineer-in-chief, and a secretary, who was also a shipwright. Here there was a preponderance of something like three to one in the interests of wood and sailing, and that in the presence of a condition of things when nearly everything on board a ship was done by steam. He would now give some illustrations of the extraordinary work to which he had been referring. On board the Inflexible, which was being fitted at Portsmouth, an important electrical machine, intended for the instantaneous transmission of messages from one part of the vessel to the other, was fitted by shipwrights to the inequalities of the deck in such a manner that it would not work at all. No engineer trained to the fitting of engines would ever have made a fatal and an almost criminal mistake of that kind. Again, on the Agamemnon, two water-tight doors, on which the safety of the ship might in certain circumstances depend, were fitted by shipwrights in such a way that they would not shut, and, therefore, were of no use. On board the Polyphemus, several doors and valves, which had been originally fixed by shipwrights, had to be re-done by fitters. With regard to the keel ballast, on which the safety of this vessel so much depended, it was most important that the machinery for letting it go and tightening it up should be the best that could be got, and fitted into its place by the best possible mechanics. Then there was another matter connected with this extraordinary vessel which he wished to bring under the notice of the House. He had been informed on good authority that the capstan engines, after having been made by contractors, were fitted on board by shipwrights; but, in consequence of their inability to gear the worm properly into the wheel, the shipwrights sent for the dockyard engineer to show them how to do the work properly. He declined to act in the matter, whereupon the shipwrights had to repair the defects themselves. The result was that it took 35 lb. of steam to work the capstans when they were light; whereas, when at full work, they ought not to take more than 10 lb. But there were other instances of defective work on board this vessel. Owing to the unsuitable machinery employed, the launching of the life-raft occupied from 20 to 30 minutes instead of two or three, as it ought to do. Then it appeared that at Sheerness Dockyard it was the custom for shipwrights, instead of ironworkers, to fit the iron water-tight compartments in vessels. Then, on board the Inflexible, the shipwrights had made four attempts to erect some important hoisting machinery; but having failed in their efforts, owing to their want of engineering knowledge, engineers were at last called in to do the work. Again, ridiculous designs for rudder-heads having been made by the Shipwrights' Department, it was ultimately found necessary to have other designs prepared by an engineer. Upon the arrival of the Ajax at Chatham, after her completion, it was found that her two ponderous turrets, which had been fitted by shipwrights, would not work, and had to be lifted up from the deck altogether. This was owing to a mistake made by the shipwrights in erecting them; and he had been informed, by persons of the highest experience, that this mistake would cost the country at least £5,000 or £7,000, to say nothing of the trouble, loss of time, and want of confidence caused to those on board. The statements he had made were based on careful investigations extending over the past 12 months; and the facts he had stated constituted but a mere scrap of the many fatal extravagances, blunders, and waste of money that prevailed in the Dockyards through men being employed upon work they did not understand. Shipwrights accustomed to build only wooden vessels were now employed as platers, engineers, iron-fitters, &c, without any inquiry as to whether they were capable of doing such work. At Devonport, for instance, shipwrights were put to bend a stern-plate to one of the vessels lying in the Dockyard; but being unable to manage the job, it had to be handed over to the iron shipbuilders. Then the shipwrights were asked to give an estimate for an iron coal-shoot, when they fixed £20. The iron shipbuilders, knowing more about the matter, fixed £30. The work was then intrusted to the shipwrights, with the result that it cost the country £50. The fact was that many of the shipwrights were supernumeraries, and in order to find them employment they were put upon work to which they were unaccustomed. Although their present ships were almost entirely constructed of steel and iron, 200 shipwrights had entered the Dockyards at Portsmouth as against 12 fitters. It had been said that it was more convenient to employ shipwrights who went on the Establishment than fitters who did not care to do so. What was the reason of that? Some years ago a proposal was made to the fitters with a view to induce them to enter the Establishment. The proposal contained a provision reducing a wage of £1 14s. a-week to £1 10s., and so on in proportion, and offering a speculative pension as an offset for the reduction. The Government could not be surprised at the refusal of the fitters to accept those terms. He complained also of the way in which work, such as patterns made by the chief engineer, was submitted to the inspection of the shipwright, a worker in wood; and when he had approved them, instead of their being executed in the Yard, where men and materials were lying idle, they were put out on contract, for no reason that he could conceive, except that the Dockyard officials had the purse of the nation to dip into. The Government work might often be executed within the Yard when it was sent out. And it was of the utmost importance that every part of the vessels should be perfect. He hoped the House would say with him that these things should continue no longer. Let them remember that their vessels had not been into action. They were all experiments, more or less. The only evidence they had yet had as to what they would do in action was what they had done when they had come into contact with each other—and they knew how they behaved then—in the most unwarlike manner possible, blowing up or going down, as the case might be, and disappearing from the face of the waters. They wanted that these vessels, which carried, as it were, the fortunes of the nation within their sides, should be as complete in the successful production of unity in engineering skill, efficiency, and finish of workmanship as it was possible to make them. Anything he brought forward might be suspected of having a tinge of trade unionism in it. He ventured to inform the House that there was nothing of that sort in this matter. The movement, indeed, had originated with anti-union men; but the unionists were patriots in the work of helping forward a movement of this kind, as they usually were, notwithstanding what was said against them. Every gun they had on board those floating monsters, every monster itself, was absolutely useless, worthless—nay, a mere trap to those who had to go on board, and a trap and a deception to the nation, unless, when called upon to perform its functions, it should answer in even the minutest part of its machinery and work with absolute perfection. These, and these only, were the conditions under which these vessels could successfully discharge the duties for which they had been created. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that he had satisfied himself that the disclaimer of the hon. Member of the association of this question with trades unionism was perfectly correct; but even if it were associated with the trades union body he should not object to it, because trades unionism was a very different matter from what it was many years ago. The removal of unjust and iniquitous laws which operated to the disadvantage of the working class had placed trade combinations upon a reasonable and just basis; and little objection could now be urged against them, either by employers of labour or economists. Nor was this in any way a matter of wages. His hon. Friend was not advocating an advancement of wages for any section of the workpeople. All he wanted was that the best qualified men should be appointed to do the work for which they were most capable. The House must have been impressed by the descriptions given through many channels of the immense alterations which had taken place in the construction of modern war vessels, showing how steam had almost superseded every other agency as a motive power, and how every branch of science, no matter how abstruse and refined, was brought to bear in the construction and management of their ships. Wood had given place to iron, steam had taken the place of wind, so that sails were little used, and electricity was brought into constant operation in the management of war vessels. From the statement just made to the House it appeared that their Dockyard authorities had been slow to make themselves acquainted with the important changes which must take place in the application of labour to the construction of their vessels in order to keep pace with the immense scientific advance of the age. It was clear that the very great change in conditions and material must involve equally large changes in the accomplishments and acquirements of those who had to deal with these matters. In the olden time it was very easy to take a man from the Coast Service or the Mercantile Marine and make him fit to serve in the Royal Navy. But now they required, not only a sailor, but also a man to some extent well skilled as an engineer, and capable of using the instruments required in regard to iron ships designed upon the most delicate principles. Thus he was a totally different man from the old naval seaman, and he was more costly to train, more rare, and much more important to the community. Such a man could not be trained to efficiency very quickly, and it behaved the House to do all in their power to secure safety to crews composed of such men, and to maintain them in a position in which they would not only be safe, but would absolutely feel safe and have full confidence in the machinery of the ships to which their lives were intrusted. The hon. Member had brought forward a great many cir- cumstances which would appeal to the House very strongly in regard to the shortcomings of their Public Departments in these respects. For himself, as one accustomed for very many years to deal with mechanical forces, he could very fully realize the immense importance of a due distribution and division of work amongst those who were concerned in the construction of these delicate and important machines. From the evidence he had seen on this subject it seemed perfectly clear that the line of demarcation was not strong enough between the engineer who had to do with the fitting of the engines and the man who, while occupying an inferior position, really was put to work which could not be properly done without suitable training and ability. It seemed to be a question where the engineer ended and the shipwright began; and when men with the name of shipwrights were put to work which only trained and skilled engineers were able to do, the Government might be fairly asked to look into the matter, and give some solid assurance that such defects should be remedied as far as possible. He held no brief for any class of workmen; but was concerned only for the efficiency of the Public Service, and for a due and proper expenditure of the public funds. This was a time especially when attention was being drawn to the efficiency of the British workman; and it behaved Parliament to co-operate in everything that could be suggested or accomplished to promote in all respects an improvement of his position. They were beset by rivals on every side, and the supremacy of their industrial and constructive powers was very much questioned. Surely, then, the reproach should not rest upon any Department of Her Majesty's Government that it permitted slipshod work, put the wrong men to the wrong task, or proceeded by any rule-of-thumb system, which would certainly be rejected in the management of any private concern. Neither himself nor the Mover of the Resolution sought to make an attack upon the Government. They had no special case to make out against the present Dockyard administration which did not apply to previous Administrations; but he was sure they should perform a graceful and useful service to the Government by bringing a certain amount of pressure to bear and gently stimulating them so that they might, to some extent, escape those bands of wood and iron which surrounded the best intentioned officials. If in this way they helped to loose those swathings of red tape which always bound up great Departments of the State, they would not have spoken quite in vain.

said, the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, who spoke, as he always spoke, with great special knowledge, and with a personal conviction which always produced a considerable impression upon the House, showed that there were doubts in his mind—and if doubts existed in his mind he was sure they existed very widely elsewhere—which he was very happy to have so very fair an opportunity of trying to clear up. The subject of his Resolution was an important one and a very delicate one. He (Mr. Trevelyan) spoke not only as a Member of that House, and not only as a Member of the Government, but as the representative of a firm employing vast numbers of workmen all over the globe, and speaking on a question intimately affecting the interests and, what was perhaps more important, the feelings of those workmen. Everyone knew how cautiously, in the private trade, an employer would, under those circumstances, open his mouth in public; and he hoped the House would forgive him if, on that occasion, he was very quiet and very tame, though he could assure them he would be quite sufficiently explicit in what he said. The state of the case was this—A generation back, when ships were built of wood, and not of iron, the great bulk of the skilled mechanics in the Dockyards went by the name of shipwrights, and were, as a matter of fact, carpenters, specially skilled in a special class of work. The master shipwright had under him a certain proportion of fitters and millwrights, for the purpose of carrying out certain metal work in connection will the hulls of ships; but the great army of skilled workmen were the shipwrights. They might, indeed, well be called an "army," because they had some of the best military qualities about them. They regarded the nation as something more than a mere paymaster; they were proud of their position; they valued their certain and assured employment; and they regarded with very high appreciation the prospect of a pension for old age. The hired men who were not yet established looked forward, by good behaviour and ability, to succeed to vacancies on the Establishment, and to become entitled to a pension. And their appreciation of these advantages they showed by serving for a much lower paythan shipwrights received in the private yards; and 30 years ago shipwrights took, and took without grumbling, at Woolwich and Deptford, 4s. a-day, when workmen in the private yards on the Thames were earning 7s. Towards the beginning of those 30 years, the entire nature of ship building changed, and so the nature of shipbuilders—the mechanical powers and faculties of these shipwrights—changed also. On this point he would not ask the House to accept his dictum, but would be able to support it with evidence, which he thought would thoroughly satisfy hon. Members. That was a very long period in a generation of working men, and the men now in the yards who were classed as shipwrights had been trained from boyhood upwards—because at every time in their Dockyards they had no less than 545 shipwright apprentices—had been trained to a very great extent, and, in fact, in the case of the great majority of them, in metal and not in wood. Their name had not been changed; but they were doing work as different from that which was done by the shipwrights of 1851 as the work of making a locomotive was from the work of making a mail coach. But in one respect they had not changed, and that was in their relations to the nation which employed them. They still preferred the certainty of the Establishment. They appreciated being Government workmen, with a right to pension. And the Government encouraged them in that view, because, to speak quite plainly, it was a matter of life and death to the country to have in the crisis of a war a great body of skilled workmen, on whose services the nation might count, as it counted on the services of its Blue-jackets and Marines. To what a great extent that might be said of the shipwrights was shown by the fact that of 4,200 shipwrights nearly 3,000 were actually on the Establishment—a fact the value of which, under circumstances that had occurred before and might well occur again, it was hardly possible to overrate. Now, the fitters viewed the question differently. The certainty of employment, the short hours which they worked in the Dockyards—51 hours a-week, as against a much longer period of hours in private yards—had not such attractions in their eyes that they were willing to sacrifice their freedom and their high wages for the certainty acquired on the Establishment. Out of nearly l,300 fitters only 236 were on the Establishment, and the wages which they received were higher by 9d. a-day than those received by shipwrights, either hired or established. The fitters, speaking through his hon. Friend, told them that they did not like to see work which they could do done—and, as they maintained, not well done—by men who did not belong to their branch of the trade. Their contention was that the shipwrights were mere carpenters. A deputation of fitters waited on the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Arthur Otway), and stated that the authorities had given fitters' work to shipwrights—"Men who are used to woodwork, and know nothing whatever of fitting." Especially (they said) that was the case with the fittings of doors in water-tight compartments. They urged—

"The iron-clads of the present day cost between £500,000 and £600,000, and if an accident took place from bad workmanship the ship would be at the bottom of the sea with 200 or 300 sailors. The fitters had stood this as long as they could, until they found the very bread was being taken away from them and given to others not entitled to the same."

But when the shipwrights heard of the movement among the fitters they, too, were on the alert; they, too, addressed the hon. Member for Rochester, and described themselves as follows:—

"We are the working constructors of the British Navy in wood, iron, and steel, and, at the same time, principally in steel. Therefore, who can be so capable of fitting doors of all kinds, sluice valves, armour plates, stems, stern-posts, rudders, and all else pertaining to the construction of a ship of war as the shipwright?"

They, too, stated that a ship of war cost £700,000 or £800,000, and that the lives of 500 or 600 men depended upon the workmanship in it. And they urged these considerations with the warmth of men who felt that their bread, and the bread of their children, depended on the issue of the controversy. Now, these allegations having been made on both sides, and the consequences to the individual fitters employed in Her Majesty's Dockyards being nothing (for, under any circumstances, there was no talk of discharging them), while the consequence to the shipwrights would be very serious indeed, he hoped that the House, in fairness, would allow the shipwrights to be judged by the opinion of those who had an intimate knowledge of the work which they turned out. The opinion of the Constructive Department of the Navy fully and absolutely confirmed their contention, that in technical skill the fitter and the shipwright, who worked in steel and iron, were on an equality. The late Controller, Sir Houston Stewart, summed up the unanimous feeling of the Department, over which he so long and so ably presided, when he said—

"The shipwrights have become skilled workmen in wood and iron, thus enabling a great deal of the work which in former days could only have been done by fitters to be skilfully turned out by them at lower wages than fitters receive."

Captain Parkins, the Superintendent of Pembroke Dockyard—the most purely iron shipbuilding establishment in the whole world—assured him that the shipwrights had, to a great extent, ceased to be carpenters, and had become skilled workmen in iron, and did nothing else. That was the opinion inside. What was the opinion from without? Mr. Henry Laird, of the Birkenhead Ironworks, unsurpassed as a judge, and, perhaps, unsurpassed in his experience of Admiralty work—Mr. Laird, fresh from a complete overhauling of the iron-clad Hotspur, which had been built by shipwrights, said of himself and his partners—

"We always consider that the work turned out by the Royal Dockyards is of superior quality, and have found such as has come under our immediate observation thoroughly sound and good."

Mr. Peter Rolt, the representative of the Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Company, wrote as follows:—

"I beg to state that, from my long acquaintance with work in. the Dockyards, I have no hesitation in pronouncing the work on ships to be of the very best description."

There they had outside opinion in this country. What was the opinion abroad? In 1873 and 1874, when it was contemplated to introduce iron shipbuilding on an extended scale into the French Dockyards, some eminent constructors were sent over to examine and study the system pursued and the work turned out in our Dockyards; and their Reports were so favourable that our system of having a foreman of the class of naval architects over each ship, with a special class of shipwrights bred in the Dockyard, was generally adopted-in the construction of modern iron ships in the French Navy. That able writer and excellent judge, Engineer King, of the United States, made similar observations in his official Report—

"The inferior officers and workmen," he said, "in the English Dockyards are employed solely on their merits, and are mainly well-trained, efficient, and faithful, besides which the permanence of employment adds stability and gives character to the whole staff of employés."

And, finally, the work of our shipwrights was submitted to an ordeal through which nothing could pass which was not sound and true. It had to find favour in the eyes of the captain and the officers of the vessel, and that was no slight test of its excellence, as would be acknowledged by anyone who had seen the commanders of such ships as the Nelson and the Inflexible hanging about the lobbies and office rooms of the Admiralty day after day to ask, to ask not for some advantage of pay or rank for themselves, but for some more and more exquisite perfection in the safety and fighting power of that beloved vessel over which they thought that the nation should be only too proud to spend its money. If the shipwrights' work could face the critical observation of such officers as Captain Fisher of the Inflexible and Captain Erskine of the Nelson, it must be good indeed. It was stated by Captain Fisher, in the Report he had made regarding his vessel, that all this most complicated arrangement had fully answered the expectations that he had formed of it. If this Motion were carried, they would be forced to break into their system—to discharge the men by hundreds; and why? Flow did this controversy begin? He would read a letter written by Admiral Brandreth at the time that lie was Superintendent at Chatham—

"The fitter question refers to an arrangement we made here some months since. Fitters' work has been in arrear from the ships "—

the Agamemnon, the Ajax, and the Polyphemus, no doubt—

"All getting into the fitting stage at once, while the shipwrights' work was well ahead. So, as the Wages Vote would not allow more fitters to be entered, an arrangement was made to remove the ship-branch fitters from on board and work them at the machines and shops, in order to prepare additional fittings, which additional fittings shipwrights have been employed to fit on board. This has been found to help the work much, and has prevented the discharge of shipwrights."

Now, he would ask hon. Members to consider what, if this Motion were passed in its present shape, they would be doing. Here was a little shipbuilding crisis, resembling on a very small scale what would occur in war. In order to push on the arrears of work, that excellent manager, Admiral Brandreth, judged that he wanted more of the men in the shops and fewer in the ships; and, therefore, for the first time in the history of our Dockyards, Parliament was invited to step in and remove from the Admiral and the Captain Superintendents the discretion of arranging the national work as in their judgment they thought best. There was really no foundation for the cry of taking bread out of the fitters' mouths. On this very occasion 20 more fitters were entered at Chatham Yard, so far from any being discharged; and the Constructor told the men, with perfect truth, that if it had been the shipwrights' work that had been behind, and the fitters' work had been ahead, he should have made a precisely counter-arrangement in order to avoid a discharge of fitters. He had hitherto spoken with reference to the class of work on which fitters and shipwrights were employed. He should now wish to say a few words on that part of the Resolution which related to superintendence of labour. The case stood thus:—In the steam branch of each of our Dockyards all the skilled workmen were fitters, all the leading men fitters, and the foreman of the branch was invariably an engineer likewise. In the ship-fitters' shop, where ironwork was made destined to be put on board ship, the leading men were likewise ship-fitters. He believed it was nowhere the case that fitters, as body, were under the authority of leading men not of their own trade. But on board ships in process of construction the foreman in charge of the ship was a shipbuilding officer. The essence of the English system was that one and the same foreman, who was, in truth, a naval architect, was responsible for the progress of one and the same ship, just as on land one and the same architect superintended the construction of a building, whether built mainly by bricklayers or joiners; and the Admiralty could not consent that the responsibility for the construction of the ship should be divided between as many foremen as there were men of different trades employed on board, any more than in building a house one architect would be told off for the joiners and another for the bricklayers. The foreman was an officer highly paid, of great importance, and very great scientific knowledge—an officer of an education and standing very much above that which his name might in the ears of the general public imply. Hitherto these foremen of the yard, who had both shipwrights and shipfitters under them, had been taken originally from the shipwright class; but he was perfectly prepared to say that the Admiralty, who were now on the eve of examining into the organization of the Constructive Department, were ready carefully to consider whether promising men of the engineer class might not have a chance with others of qualifying themselves for the arduous duties of general foreman of the yard. To what extent the Naval Constructors of the future were to be taken from a class of special officers educated for the purpose was not yet determined; but, so far as they were drawn from the ranks of the workmen, shipwrights and fitters ought to have an equal chance in proportion to their numbers of being educated for the posts of foremen and constructors. To show the tendency of thought in the Admiralty with regard to this question, it was only last week that he had in his hand Papers carefully discussing the circumstances under which fitter apprentices were to share with shipwright apprentices the advantages of being edu- cated at the Naval College at Greenwich. He thought the House would see that this reform would remove every vestige of the complaint which his hon. Friend made with regard to the class of fitters not having their fair share of authority. He might say that both with regard to the class from whom their Naval Constructors were to be drawn, and still more with regard to the distribution of work between shipwrights and fitters, the Admiralty expected great assistance from the advice of Mr. Rendel, the new Civil Lord, who had had unsurpassed experience in dealing with great bodies of workmen in steel and iron. In conclusion, he must impress upon the House that it was in the interests, to a great extent, of the Public Service, and, he thought, even to a great extent of the men themselves, that their Dockyard administration should not be bound by any hard-and-fast rules. In shipbuilding, and, most of all, in shipbuilding for war purposes, it was unavoidable that ships should be in various uneven stages of advancement, and at one time an enormous amount of one kind of work had to be done, and a few months afterwards the pressure was in the direction of quite a different class of work. Now, in private establishments, in order to meet the exigencies of trades union rules, the redundant men of one class would be discharged, and men of the class required would be entered, and they, in their turn, would again be discharged and give place to others. But in the National Dockyards it was not desirable, and anyhow it was practically impossible, to play fast and loose in this style with the vast masses of workmen whom they employed, depriving them by hundreds a day of the right to a pension which they had been many years in earning; and therefore it was that our constructors were allowed to shift men from shop to ship and from ship to shop whether they were called fitters or shipwrights, as long as they were good workmen able to perform the task on which they were engaged. That power, essential, as he believed, to the national welfare, essential, as he was sure, to the comfort and final well-being of the workmen whom they employed, they must not abandon without greater reason than his hon. Friend had shown. His hon. Friend had brought forward a considerable number of instances of bad workmanship. He was not very willing to go into that question. He should be a pretender and a coxcomb if he were to essay to give an answer in detail to those instances which had been brought forward without Notice. The constructors could, if they thought it worth while, bring forward instances of bad workmanship on the part of ship-fitters. But, with their full and hearty approval, he had agreed to have nothing to do with this line of defence. The Admiralty would not run the risk of fostering a rivalry between two great classes of public servants which, novelty as it was, might soon grow into a positive danger to the State. The Admiralty would not run the risk of encouraging one set of workmen to be ever on the alert to detect imperfections in the work of another set of workmen. Fitters and shipwrights had for many years wrought side by side as brother workmen; and he earnestly trusted that the effect of that debate would be to clear up the feeling which last summer was for the first time visible, and which he could not help hoping that second thoughts had, to a certain extent, already mitigated. The question had received, the attention of the Admiralty ever since his hon. Friend had had his Notice on the Paper, and everything should be done which considerations of the national advantage would permit to see fair play between all classes of our public workmen. It would be to him, personally, a very great gratification, and he thought to the public advantage, if his hon. Friend, having secured any small advantage for the class he so ably represented, would consent to withdraw his Motion.

said, he thought they might well be satisfied with the remarks which the Secretary to the Admiralty had made, coupled with the appointment of Mr. Rendel to the Constructor's Department. His only wonder was that they had secured such a man as Mr. Rendel at the low salary which they could offer.

said, he was much obliged to the Secretary to the Admiralty for the fair manner, generally speaking—though he found fault with many parts of his speech—in which he had met this Motion. Having regard to the concessions made, and the promises held out of such an encouraging nature in regard to future amendment and progress, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee on the Metropolitan Fire Brigade in 1877, with the object of moving—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the protection to life and property from fire in the Metropolis is insufficient, and that whilst a constant water supply, with proper hydrants affixed, is absolutely necessary for its improvement, the management of the Fire Brigade itself should for the future form a branch of the Police Force of the Metropolis."

The hon. Baronet remarked that his official position in the late Government had prevented him from following up the Report of the Committee of 1877; but the question was still one demanding the urgent attention of the House; and its importance might be gathered from the fact that during the seven years from 1868 to 1875 there were 1,197 lives endangered, and as many as 240 of them lost, by fires in the Metropolis. Since that period, moreover, these figures had gone on in a constantly increasing ratio. He had been unable to get the particulars for 1875 and 1876; but in 1877 he found that 165 lives were endangered and 29 lost; in 1878, 151 endangered and 25 lost; in 1879, 164 endangered and 32 lost; in 1880, 160 endangered and 33 lost; and last year, 1881, 154 lives endangered and 40 lost. Those statistics showed that in the last five years 159 lives had been sacrificed, and nearly 400 lives had been lost in 12 years. Another reason for calling attention to this matter was the large number of fires which took place in the Metropolis. Last year there were 1,991 fires, without including what were called "chimney fires," and of those 167 were of a serious character. There was a steady increase of fires, and, beyond the loss of life which resulted, the destruction of property was serious. Every day the Metropolis was growing in size; and if they looked at the streets and the mode of paving so much prevalent, there might be an additional danger under their feet if a fire got beyond the control of the Fire Brigade. General com- plaints as to the frequency and danger of fires, and the discontent existing amongst the firemen, led to the appointment of the Committee in 1876. When that Committee was sitting evidence was brought forward showing that the discontent amongst the men hindered recruiting, and that the men were short-handed and over-worked. The subject of the water supply also was considered, and even the question as to whether the Metropolitan Board of Works was the proper authority to have control of the Brigade was discussed, and the suggestion that the Brigade should be formed as a branch of the police was carefully gone into. That Committee sat from April to July in 1876, and from March to May in 1877. There was no doubt that the Committee made an exhaustive inquiry into the merits of the whole case. As to the question of superannuation, he would not go into that, because in 1877 the Metropolitan Board of Works brought forward a scheme which he was informed was working satisfactorily. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to show how far the Fire Brigade, on receiving an increase of pay, had availed itself of the additional facilities afforded it in an increase of the water supply, when—