asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on 9th January, Sergeant Wharton, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, entered the house of a Mr. John M'Nulty, near Loughglynn, and arrested J. M'Nultyand eight other persons whom he found in the house; whether Sergeant Wharton searched J. M'Nulty and took money from his person; whether, on M'Nulty objecting to this treatment, Constable Anderson, who accompanied Sergeant Wharton, drew a revolver and threatened to use it against M'Nulty and the others; whether J. M'Nulty and the others were taken by Sergeant Wharton and his force before the Honourable Charles Ffrench, a brother of Lord do Freyne, whose tenants they were and whose rents they were accused of withholding; whether the entry into the house of Mr. M'Nulty by the band of armed constables, the arrest?, the searching of Mr. M'Nulty, and the seizure of his money were each and all made without any warrant; whether proceedings against Mr. M'Nulty have recently been dropped by the Government; and, whether the Government propose in any way to recompense M'Nulty and the others for the treatment they have received?

(who replied) said: John M'Nulty and nine other persons were arrested, as stated in the first paragraph of the Question, without a warrant, on a charge of criminal conspiracy, when actually engaged in collecting money under the Plan of Campaign, which was seized by the sergeant. They were at once brought before Mr. Ffrench, as described in the Question, the nearest, and indeed only, available magistrate. He confined himself, after having taken an information, to ordering the discharge of nine of the accused, and sending M'Nulty's case for investigation to Petty Sessions, offering to accept bail for his appearance thereat. A rescue having been threatened Sergeant Wharton drew his revolver, and cautioned the persons interfering to stand aside; but he used no threats to M'Nulty. M'Nulty and five others were returned for trial from Petty Sessions; and, as I have already stated, in answer to a Question, in the exorcise of the discretion I possess I have directed that the proceedings should not be continued by the Crown, but that no recompense will be paid to the accused.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there was any warrant?

I have already said there was not.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state who was the magistrate before whom the men were brought?

I have stated it was the Mr. Ffrench described in the Question.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the second paragraph of the Question—whether Sergeant Wharton searched M'Nulty and took money from his person?

Oh, I omitted to state that the sergeant took money which had been collected by M'Nulty.

And the sergeant was not entitled to do so?

I hold he was perfectly entitled to do so.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the great dissatisfaction in Inverness and the North of Scotland generally, with the slow rate at which the London Day Mail is carried from Perth to Wick and Strome Ferry, and of the fact that it now takes about 10 hours more than the London Night Mail to traverse the distance between London and Wick, he is willing to re-consider the possibility of accelerating the London Day Mail north of Perth, in accordance with the Memorials sent in to him from the Northern towns and counties on the subject?

I am aware that the London Day Mail is carried from Perth to Wick and Strome Ferry by a slower train than that employed for the London Night Mail. But the postal revenue of the district would be altogether inadequate to justify the maintenance of two Mail Trains a-day throughout, running at the speed and under the conditions of the Night Mail Train The payments made for the conveyance of Mails north of Perth are already so considerable that it may become a serious question on the next revision of the contract whether, if more moderate payments cannot be accepted by the Highland Railway Company, the liberal and effective postal service in the districts traversed by that lino may not have to be reduced. I am sorry that I can hold out no expectation of a compliance with the prayer of the Memorials referred to.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return stating the number of murders committed by Burglars in the United Kingdom during the past 10 years; how many such murderers have been convicted; how many Persons have been wounded by the use of fire-arms by burglars; how many burglars in the Metropolitan Police District have avoided arrest by the use of fire-arms; and, whether he contemplates proposing any change in the law to deter burglars and others from the felonious use of fire-arms and other dangerous weapons?

A Return such as my hon. Friend asks for, including the whole of the United Kingdom, could only be obtained by Circular from the Local Police Authorities, and would entail much labour and expense, and I regret that I do not feel able to comply with the request. If, however, my hon. Friend will be satisfied with a Return including only the Metropolitan Police District, I will ask the Chief Commissioner if he is able to give the information asked for; and, if so, I shall be happy to lay such a Return on the Table. It is not my intention to propose any change in the law with regard to the use of fire-arms and other dangerous weapons by burglars.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the limited number of Inspectors in Ireland under the Factory and Workshops Acts, and their consequent inadequate administration, he will appoint an additional number of practical men as Factory and Workshop Inspectors?

I have consulted the Chief Inspector on this matter, and he informs me that he is not of opinion that the number of Inspectors in Ireland is too limited, or that the Acts are inadequately administered. There are, unfortunately, few industries requiring inspection in the South and West of Ireland, and complaints as to evasion of the Acts in those districts are very rare. The Inspectors resident in Ireland will receive occasional assistance from England; but I have no intention to add to the existing number of Factory Inspectors.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether complaints have been made to the Inspector General of Constabulary by the Town Commissioners of Boyle, County Roscommon, of the conduct of Sub-Inspector Babbage, commanding the police in Boyle, in disobeying their Orders, and neglecting to aid them in maintaining good order in that town; and, whether, under the provisions of the 70th section of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 103, the police are bound to obey all proper and legal Orders issued by the Town Commissioners for the government and good order of the town?

said, he would answer the Question on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. He had heard from the Inspector General of Constabulary that a complaint was made to him in regard to the disobeying by the Constabulary of a particular order of the Boyle Town Commissioners; but though the Constabulary had directions to obey all proper and legal orders issued by the Town Commissioners, with regard to this particular order which they had not carried out there was a doubt as to its legality.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Whether it is true that Mr. Cecil Roche, E.M., was sent specially to Boyle to try a summons for non-payment of rates, issued by the Town Commissioners against Colonel King-Harman, M. P., and Mr. Webb, J.P.; whether Mr. Roche accepted Mr. Webb's hospitality, and put up at Mr. Webb's house during his stay in Boyle; whether Mr. Roche dismissed the summons against the de-fondants on the ground that a question of the lawfulness of the prosecutors' title to act as Town Commissioners had been raised; whether Mr. James Candon, the present Chairman of the Town Commissioners, has been appointed a Justice of the Peace by virtue of his title as Town Commissioner, under Section 29 of 17 & 18 Vict., c. 103, and has held a Town Court fortnightly since his appointment; and, whether Mr. Roche sat and acted in the Town Court on the 9th ultimo with Mr. Candon, though he now questions the validity of Mr. Candon's claim to act as Town Commissioner?

(who replied) said: Mr. Cecil Roche was one of two Resident Magistrates sent at the request of the Town Commissioners to hear the case referred to. It is not a fact that he accepted Mr. Webb's hospitality, or put up at his house. The magistrates, of whom Mr. Roche was one, decided that, owing to the question of the Town Commissioners' title pending in a higher Court, they could not dispose of the question as to the rates. Mr. Candon having been appointed a magistrate, as described, by the late Lord Chancellor, Mr. Roche has naturally not felt it within his jurisdiction to question the appointment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has been able to obtain more detailed information as to the re-marriage of William Frederick Jaine with his wife, Fanny Jaine, at the parish church of Kimbolton on 16th February, after they had already been married at the Primitive Methodist Chapel in Leominster; whether such re-marriage was performed by the Rev. Augustus Garthwaite, Curate of Kimbolton, and with full knowledge that the parties were already married; whether, with such knowledge, he proceeded to enter the ceremony as a marriage in the Parish Register, and in the entry (No. 211) described the parties as being "bachelor" and "spinster," married after banns; whether the wilful insertion of such an entry is made a felony by the Statute 24 & 25 Vict., c. 98, s. 36; whether this re-marriage was actually celebrated without either banns or licence, in contravention both of Ecclesiastical Law and of the Statute 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, s. 21; and, if any banns were proclaimed, on what Sundays, and at whoso request, they were proclaimed, and what written record exists of the proclamation; and, whether he will direct the Public Prosecutor to take any action in the matter?

I have received a further letter from the Vicar of Kimbolton Parish, and have also heard from Mr. Squires, the Primitive Methodist minister at Leominster, as to the re-marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Jaine. The Vicar repeats that his curate was not aware until the following day that a religious ceremony had been performed; but believed that the parties had been married before the Registrar only. The ceremony was entered as a marriage in the Parish Register, the parties being described as stated in the Question. The Act of 24 & 25 Vict., c. 98, which makes it a felony to knowingly and unlawfully insert in any Register any false entry of any matter relating to any marriage, appears rather to be aimed at a different state of facts from that which I have mentioned. The marriage was solemnized without publication of banns, properly so-called; but there had been notice of the marriage throe times given through the Registrar's Office as provided by statute, in lieu of banns. I am led to think from the correspondence that the curate believed that he was entitled to solemnize the marriage in church without banns under 19 & 20 Vict., c. 119, s. 12, although no doubt he ought not in such a case to have entered the marriage in the Parish Register. Under all the circumstances of the case, the curate scorns to me to have acted without full knowledge of the facts, and rather per incuriam than with any fraudulent intent; and, accordingly, I am not prepared to advise the Public Prosecutor to interfere.

inquired, whether a marriage could be solemnized in a church without any other notice than that given at a Registrar's Office?

said, he would like Notice of the Question; but, so far as he was aware, the production of the Registrar's certificate was sufficient to entitle parties to be so married.

stated that the Secretary to the Registrar General informed him to the contrary.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government will agree to a Select Committee of this House being appointed to consider and report upon the supply of horses for Army purposes; and also to report whether, in their opinion, the supply could be in any way improved by the action of the Legislature?

We have carefully considered this matter, and have come to the conclusion that there would be no adequate advantage in holding an inquiry by a Committee of this House at the present time into the supply of horses. The question of horse supply for the Army is of an urgent character; and I do not wish to be precluded by the appointment of such a Committee from taking any immediate steps that may be necessary.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can now inform the House of the nature of the Despatch received from the Dominion Government suggesting a "modus vivendi" for a settlement of the Anglo-American Fisheries dispute, and when he anticipates that further Correspondence will be in the hands of Members; and, whether the prohibition of the sale of bait to United States fishermen in Newfoundland whilst permitted to French fishermen is in harmony with "the most favoured Nation" Clause of Foreign Treaties?

Her Majesty's Government will be desirous of informing the House of the course of negotiations with the Government of the United States upon the Fisheries dispute as soon as possible. I hope to lay on the Table the Despatch now being addressed to the United States Government before the Easter Recess. I hope the House will excuse me from entering upon the questions affecting the Newfoundland Fisheries in a fragmentary manner. Her Majesty's Government will be careful to observe their International obligations, while having duo regard to the interests of Her Majesty's subjects.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What amount has been expended of the £10,000 voted last year for the erection of a Prison at Galway for convicts to be employed upon Harbour works?

Serious difficulties occurred in the way of the carrying out of the proposed works; and I am informed that the only part of the money spent is the sum of £63 paid to an engineer.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be advisable, considering the increased strain likely to be put upon prison accommodation in Ireland, to proceed with this work as expeditiously as possible?

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government have sanctioned, or have raised any objection to, the following passage in the Resolution of the Governor General in Council, on Infant Marriage and Enforced Widowhood, passed in October last—

"When caste or custom lays down a rule which is of its nature enforceable in the Civil Courts, but is clearly opposed to morality or public policy, the State will decline to enforce it? "

Her Majesty's Government have neither sanctioned nor Lave they raised any objection to the passage quoted.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware of the present practice by which, when solicitors in Glasgow have to get deeds adjudicated upon by the stamp authorities, in order to fix the duties to be paid thereon, it is necessary to employ an Edinburgh agent to present such deeds at the Stamp Office in that city, expense being thereby incurred; and, whether the Government will take stops to arrange that in such cases deeds may be handed in at the Glasgow Stamp Office and transmitted by the Glasgow authorities to Edinburgh?

, in reply, said, the facts were as stated in the hon. Member's Question; but whenever the inconvenience complained of was pointed out to the Board of Inland Revenue, they proceeded to have it remedied, and arranged with their solicitor in Edinburgh that he should receive direct from solicitors in Glasgow, by post, all deeds for adjudication, without employing any agents in Edinburgh.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at Lifford, County Donegal, in the case of Hannah O'Donnell, charged with having taken forcible possession in Gweedore; whether there is now in existence a Circular to the police, such as was deposed to in that case by Sergeant Mahony, directing the police to interrogate tenants as to their relations with landlords, and to demand possession, or otherwise act as bailiffs for the owners of property; and, if he will lay a copy of it upon the Table of the House?

I think the hon. Member must have seen some incorrect report of the proceedings. I am informed that Sergeant Mahony gave no such evidence. There is no such Circular as is suggested in the Question.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police so acted, as the informations in the case show? I can give the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the informations.

asked the Postmaster General, Why payment for extra duty, performed during the Christmas pressure in the travelling post offices in Ireland, has not yet been made; if he can state why payments for extra duty done in this branch of the Service are not made as punctually as in other departments of the Dublin Post Office; and, when these payments will be made?

Considerable delay in making these payments has been caused by certain officers of the travelling post themselves, who omitted to submit their claims with sufficient promptitude. The amounts have now been passed and instructions issued for payment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the old burial ground of the parish of Llanfrothen, Merionethshire, has, for some years, been too full to allow of any more interments in it; whether, 20 years ago, a lady presented to the parish a piece of ground adjoining the old burial ground; and, whether the present incumbent of the parish refuses to Nonconformist parishioners the right of availing themselves of the provisions of "The Burials Act, 1880," in burials in the additional portion of the parish burial ground; and, if so, whether he can take steps to prevent this defeat of the law?

I received a letter this morning from the Rector of Llanfrothen, who informs me that the burial ground of the parish is not full, that many burials take place there annually, the last having taken place on the 17th instant. It is a fact that a piece of land was presented to the parish by a lady for burial purposes, but on the condition that the service should be conducted according to the rites of the Church of England. This piece of land was conveyed to trustees under 36 and 37 Vict., c. 50. Presuming that the condition attached to the devise was inserted in the conveyance, the provisions of the Act of 1880 do not seem to me to have been evaded; for Clause 9 of that Statute enacts that the Act shall not authorise the burial of any person without the performance of any express condition, on which any right of interment in any burial ground vested in trustees, not being the burial ground of the parish, may have been granted.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether his attention has been called to the "Return of the value of live stock and crops, showing the numbers, at various ages, of cattle and sheep, and the estimated produce of the crops, with the average prices of each year and of each kind from 1881 to 1886," prepared for the Royal Commission on "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," and mentioned at page 0 of the Report of the said Commission; and, whether he would consent to a similar Return being prepared for England and Wales, so as to assist landowners and tenant farmers in effecting equitable readjustments of rents?

(who replied) said: The Agricultural Department will consider the Return referred to, which has now been printed, and will decide whether it is possible to prepare a similar Return for England and Wales.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, When the Report of the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council for the year 1886 will be presented?

(who replied) said: The whole of the Report is in the hands of the printer, and it will be presented before the end of the month.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he can inform the House what stops the Irish Executive propose taking to prevent the shipment from Dublin of cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia; whether the Veterinary Department consider the proposed new arrangements satisfactory; and, if not, whether he can state what course the Department proposes to adopt; and, if he will lay the Correspondence relating to the subject upon the Table of the House?

(who replied) said: The Irish Government have passed Orders prohibiting the movement of cattle out of the infected districts in Dublin and the neighbourhood without the special sanction of the Lord Lieutenant; and further measures suggested by the Privy Council in this country are under the consideration of the Irish Government. The Correspondence is not complete, and cannot, therefore, be laid on the Table at present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, on the afternoon of 14th March, a man named Stack, suffering from a fractured leg, applied for surgical aid at Guy's Hospital, and his case was not attended to till 1 a.m. on the following morning; whether, on the same morning, after the leg was set, he was ordered to leave the place, as there was no room for him, a relative having to pawn her wedding ring to pay for a pair of crutches supplied by the Hospital; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the case?

I am informed by the Medical Superintendent of Guy's Hospital that the facts of Stack's case are as follows:—Stack was brought to the Hospital at 7 p.m. on Monday, and was found to be suffering from a simple fracture of the small bone of his leg. He was taken into the accident ward for the night and received immediate attendance; and, as is usual in the case of similar injuries, the limb was temporarily placed in sandbags, and in the course of a few hours, between 11 and 12, the limb was put up permanently in plaster of Paris bandages. Stack was discharged on the following day with a pair of crutches supplied at the expense of the Hospital, and without any charge to Stack or his relatives. He was discharged in the ordinary course, and not for want of room. When Stack came to the Hospital every bed in the ward was occupied; but one of the occupants, who was leaving the next morning, was placed on a stretcher, and thus made room for Stack. The Hospital Authorities seem to me to have done all that was proper on this occasion.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Lords of the Treasury have considered the statement of the Town Commissioners of Arklow, in which they protest against the proposal of the Board of Works to raise an additional loan, on the guarantee of the rates, of £4,325 to complete the harbour; whether it is alleged that the original sum of £20,000, for which a baronial guarantee was given, in addition to the Treasury Grant, was ample to do the work, but for the large sum expended in repairing damages, owing to the collapse of the breakwater during its construction; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Treasury will increase the grant by a sum sufficient to put the harbour in working order?

the statement referred to by the hon. Member has been considered. It is alleged that the original sum was ample. Additional expenditure was, however, necessary in consequence of damage done by storms during the progress of the work, and of delay caused by discussion. In June last year a joint deputation of the Town Commissioners of Arklow and the local Harbour Committee unanimously approved the completion of the south pier on the Board of Works' plan. Unless the Town Commissioners are prepared to guarantee in the terms of the Act the additional capital required, I fear that the proposed north groyne cannot be proceeded with; but experience may show that it is not necessary. Two eminent engineers who were called in are of opinion that experience might show that the works already done would be sufficient for the purposes of a harbour.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can hold out a hope that the Egyptian medal will soon be given to the officers and men, including the Indian Native Regiments, who served around Suakin in 1885?

The Egyptian medal has already been issued to all British and Indian troops who served at Suakin during any part of the period from the 26th of March, 1884, to the 14th of May, 1885, which has been held to be the limit of the period of warlike operations for which the medal is granted. I am afraid I can hold out no hope that the question can be re-opened.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, as stated in the Report of Mr. Fletcher, the Inspector under the Alkali Acts, before the Select Committee on the Ventilation of the House, there exists, a few yards south of the Houses of Parliament, at Cookson's Wharf, Millbank, a refuse heap, upon which castaway bedding, rags, bones, hair, animal and vegetable re-fuse out of Westminster is burnt periodically at night, as occasion requires; and, whether, if correct, he proposes to do anything to mitigate this nuisance?

Mr. Fletcher, in his Report, expressed the opinion that the unpleasant smell, re- sembling that of burning animal matter, experienced on the west side of the Houses of Parliament, early in the morning of July 9, 1884, arose from the burning of some refuse material at Cookson's Wharf, Millbank. I am informed by Mr. Fletcher that subsequent inquiry has shown that this burning of refuse was an isolated act, in violation of orders, which has not been repeated.

asked, whether the establishment referred to, not being carried on for the purpose of manufacture, was not exempt from the operation of the Factory Acts?

said, that was an entirely new point. The Question put to him was as to the nuisance, and as to that he had replied that it was an isolated act, and had not been repeated.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the recent changes which have taken place in the Government of the Niger, sufficient steps were taken to secure the assent of the natives to the now arrangements; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House evidence to show that the natives were parties to the establishment of the authority of the Royal Niger Company; and, whether he has any information to show whether the late disturbances were due in any way to the natives resenting the imposition by the Company of heavy taxes, to which they were not accustomed?

The Charter to the Royal Niger Company was granted after most mature consideration. There is abundant evidence as to the general assent of the Natives, over 230 Treaties having been concluded with the Company. It is not proposed to lay upon the Table these Treaties, which, indeed, would be misleading, as they contained clauses giving exclusive rights which have become inoperative under the Charter. Reports show that the recent disturbances arose from robberies by a Native Chief, and not from the imposition of taxes.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether Welsh will be included among the class subjects under Article 15 of the Education Code now lying upon the Table of the House?

The hon. Member is aware that Welsh is now a "specific subject"—that is, it is taught to individual scholars, and grants are made in respect of each child who passes; but I am not prepared to make Welsh a "class subject," and, therefore, to refuse all giants unless the language is taught throughout the school.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he will consider the desirability of so altering Article 124 of the Education Code so as to allow pupil teachers in Wales to be presented for examination as Queen's Scholars who have been under instruction for the prescribed time at one of the three University Colleges of Cardiff, Aberystwith, and Bangor, without residence at the Training College?

It would be difficult to accept on the part of pupil teachers in Wales instruction at the three University Colleges of Cardiff, Aberystwith, and Bangor as equivalent to residence in a Training College, for the syllabus of subjects, the study of which it is thought necessary to enforce on candidates for certificates, is not adopted at those Colleges, and students would, therefore, be placed at a disadvantage in the examination, and would be less eligible as teachers afterwards.

asked the Vice President of the Com- mittee of Council on Education, Whether, in the "Class Subjects" of Article 15 of the Education Code, the Education Department will sanction an alternative scheme of English adapted to schools in Welsh-speaking districts; whether, in the "Elementary Subjects," Li-lingual reading books, of the ordinary size, may be used in Welsh schools; whether Her Majesty's Inspectors in Wales are in a position to suggest such a scheme of bi-lingual teaching, and, if approved, whether it will be inserted in Schedules I. and II. of the Code; and, whether such a scheme will be made equally applicable to evening schools in Wales?

The hon. Member is aware that in Welsh-speaking districts it is already provided that the intelligence) of the children examined in any elementary or class subject may be tested by requiring them to explain in Welsh the meaning of passages read, and I know of no reason to object to the use of bi-lingual reading books. The forthcoming-General Report on Wales, which will be published separately, will show the attitude of Her Majesty's Inspectors on the subject, and will, I hope, satisfy the hon. Member that the Department is not insensible to its importance.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, for many years up to 1862, a grant was made by the Government to the pupil teachers who successfully passed in Welsh or Gaelic, and who taught in schools in Welsh or Gaelic-speaking districts; whether the Scotch Education Code of 1887 allows pupil teachers to obtain marks in Gaelic grammar, translation, and composition, in their admission examination to the Training Colleges, and directs a grant to be made to pupil teachers employed in giving bilingual instruction to Gaelic-speaking children; and, whether the Education Department will add Welsh to the four languages in Schedule V., Section 10, of the Education Code, and direct a grant to be made to pupil teachers employed in giving bi-lingual instruction to Welsh children?

A grant was formerly made to certificated teachers under the circumstances de-scribed in the Question; and by the Scotch Code of the present year the customary grant is made in respect of pupil teachers employed for the special purpose of giving bi-lingual instruction, but not required to make up the minimum staff. I am not, however, as at present advised, prepared to make the changes suggested in the last part of the Question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether there are any Rules in force, and what is the practice, in regard to the supply of drawings or information to Foreign Powers, or individuals, of vessels, &c., constructed in the Royal Dockyards, or by firms or Companies outside of the Dockyards; whether such drawings or information are sometimes supplied under the authority of the Admiralty; whether any moneys have been received by the Admiralty for their supply; and, whether any further steps will be taken in regard to designs which may be considered to be of a more confidential character?

It is contrary, both to Rules and existing practice, for Government employés to supply drawings of ships constructed in the Royal Dockyards either to Foreign Powers or to individuals. Certain exceptions to these Rules have at times been made with the approval of the Admiralty; and in these cases the expenses incurred by the employment of extra draftsmen have been refunded by the persons for whom the drawings were made. Private firms tendering for the construction of ships and engines are, of necessity, supplied with specifications and drawings. New Regulations are about to be issued in reference to the publication of confidential designs.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the statement is correct that the In- dian Government are about to post a force of observation on the Pishin Frontier; if the Government propose entering Afghan territory; and, whether they intend affording and material or subsidiary support to the Ameer of Afghanistan in case of a Russian advance?

The Secretary of State has no information which corroborates the statement referred to, nor has he any reason to suppose that Russia is contemplating an advance against Afghanistan; but he has not authorized me to express any opinion as to the course he would take should such be the case.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether John Malone and Richard Magee, who were arrested and lodged in New Ross Police Station on the 21st February last, on a charge of insubordination, and who were on the following day brought before a magistrate, in a room of the police station, and by him sentenced to three months' imprisonment, were before sentence asked to give bail for their appearance at the then next Petty Sessions for the district; whether he will state the amount of bail required by the magistrate in each case; and, whether the prisoners declared that they were unable to give such bail?

, in reply, said, the prisoners had been inmates of the Now Ross Workhouse, and had raised no objection to their being tried by the magistrate. The charge against them was not insubordination. They were convicted under the Vagrancy Act for being found loitering for an illegal purpose; and the fact that the magistrate did not ask them could they give bail did not affect the legality of the decision.

asked, was not the magistrate bound, under the 22nd section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, to call upon the prisoners to find bail; and, whether the failure to do so did not render the decision illegal?

said, the magistrate was not required to do so in the case in question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Royal Commission on the Development of the Resources of Ireland have concluded their inquiries regarding arterial drainage; and, if so, whether they will report upon that subject prior to their entering upon the consideration of the other questions referred to them?

I understand from the Royal Commissioners that they have practically completed their inquiry upon the subject of arterial drainage; and, in accordance with the promise conveyed by my Predecessor in Office to a deputation of which the hon. Member was one, they intend making a separate Report upon this part of the Reference to them. They are now engaged on the preparation of that Report.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police officer, to whom Captain Plunkett telegraphed not to hesitate to shoot the people of Youghal if it should be necessary, was County Inspector Brownrigg; whether County Inspector Brownrigg was recently summoned before the Youghal Bench for an assault upon a local merchant, and fined; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Chief Secretary to entrust this officer in future with such discretionary power as is named in the telegram?

The telegram sent by Captain Plunkett was addressed to County Inspector Brownrigg. With regard to the circumstances of the case mentioned in the second paragraph of the Question, I have to say what was stated by my Predecessor on a previous occasion—that County Inspector Brownrigg was summoned for an alleged assault while in the discharge of his police duties, and was fined a farthing, without costs—the presiding magistrate, in announcing the decision of the Bench, stating that the case ought not to have been brought into Court.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, prior to granting a lease of land attached to the Victoria Patriotic Asylum for Girls on Wandsworth Common, held in charitable trust, the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund sought and obtained the consent of the Charity Commissioners?

I am advised that the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund would not be required by law to obtain the assent of the Charity Commissioners to the grant by them of a lease of laud for 21 years.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether Mr. Auldjo Jamieson, Crown Agent for Scotland, is a member of the firm of Todds, Murray, and Jamieson, who act as estate agents; whether the said firm are agents for the Ardencaple Estate, Argyllshire, where a deforcement took place in connection with the eviction of a farmer named M'Dougal, and for which Samuel M'Dougal has been tried and imprisoned; and, whether the Government will require that so important and responsible an official as the Crown Agent shall act as the servant of the Crown alone, and not as an estate agent in cases that may come before him in his public capacity?

I answer the two first paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question in the affirmative As regards the third paragraph, I have to say that the Crown Agent, in matters of prosecution for crime, is solely an administrative official, and cases in no way come before him in that capacity. They are dealt with by the Lord Advocate and his deputies, without consultation with the Crown Agent of any kind; and it would be quite out of his province for him to interfere in any way with the proceedings, and he never does so. It is not intended to make any alteration on the existing practice.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether teachers of national schools in Ireland, seeking promotion from the third to the second class, are required to present at the annual results examinations a certain proportion of their pupils in the higher classes; whether by this rule several teachers are debarred from all hope of promotion, in consequence of the districts in which their schools are situate being so thinly populated, and so poor, the people in many instances being unable to provide clothes for their children, that it is impossible for the teacher to secure the required minimum attendance of 100 days of the requisite number of pupils to qualify for presentation at the results examinations, while in such schools the number of passes in many cases on the whole average 87 per cent; and, whether, under the circumstances, he is prepared to recommend a modification of this rule in certain cases where the diligence and efficiency of the teachers are undisputed?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that every national school teacher seeking improved status and remuneration is expected by the Commissioners to have such a fair proportion of pupils in the higher classes as the circumstances of his school—whether in a thinly-populated district or not—warrant, and to have both junior and senior pupils carefully instructed. While there is no absolute rule fixing any precise number of pupils for the higher classes, the existence of such classes in other than infant schools is always an important element in determining the admission of teachers to examination with a view to promotion.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that a scheme has been submitted to him which will insure a proportionate commission on all postal orders; and. whether the Department intends to adopt that or some system founded on similar lines?

I have received, a few days ago, from my noble Friend the Member for the St. Alban's Division of Hertfordshire (Viscount Grimston) a scheme such as that referred to, and it is now undergoing a careful examination.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that British merchants in Shanghai can send their letters through the French Post Office there for conveyance to Europe by the English steamers of the Peninsular and Oriental Company at the rate of 2.½d. per half ounce, while the same letters, if sent through the British Post Office at Shanghai, also for Europe, would be charged 5d; and, whether he is disposed to take steps to remedy this apparent anomaly?

Yes; I am aware of the circumstance to which the hon. Member has called attention. The explanation is that the French Post Office does not avail itself of the option given by the Postal Union Convention of collecting additional postage to meet the expenses of conveyance to distant places, while the British Post Office does avail itself of that option. In the case referred to, the French Office does not incur a loss in feuding the letters by British packets for 2½d.; but even at the 5d. rate a considerable loss is incurred by the British Office, because it has to pay heavily, not only for the sea service, but also for a special train service across Italy and France. Obviously, any reduction of the British postage would involve additional loss; and I am not prepared at present to recommend the Treasury to incur that loss.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of Madras planted cinchona for the purpose of obtaining a febrifuge for the Native classes; whether it is the fact that sales of Government bark are advertised in London papers; that the bark comes to Europe for the manufacture of quinine; and which drug being retailed at an average of some 300 per cent above the wholesale price (which to-day is 2s. 8d. per ounce for the best) puts it wholly and totally beyond the means of the classes the Madras Government intended to benefit; and, whether the present method of selling its bark in the open market in Madras is contrary to the understanding arrived at when the Government ceased to export bark on its own account?

One of the objects, but not the only one, of planting cinchona, was that stated. Government bark is advertised for sale in London, and comes to England for the manufacture of quinine. Government gets quinine for its Medical Departments at wholesale prices, and makes the "Red Bark" into an effective febrifuge cheap enough to be within the reach of all classes. I do not understand what is the "understanding arrived at" mentioned in the last paragraph.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, How many reduced shank Palliser screw bolts for armour plates (approximately) have been used in Her Majesty's Navy; whether they are generally used in ships now afloat; and, whether they are still being used to fasten armour plates on ships now under construction?

From 25,000 to 30,000 Palliser armour bolts with reduced shanks have been used in Her Majesty's Navy. They are generally in use in ships now afloat, and are still used for ships under construction.

asked whether Captain Palliser had received any pecuniary benefit from his discovery?

said, he would like to have Notice of the Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether any information can be given respecting the numerous outbreaks of anthrax that have taken place in various parts of Great Britain during the past six months, and whether they have been traced to the use of railway trucks for the conveyance of foreign hides, the same trucks being subsequently used with cattle?

(who replied) said: An inquiry in reference to the recent outbreaks of anthrax is now being conducted by the officers of the Agricultural Department. There is no reason, however, to believe that the disease has been more prevalent during the last six months than previously. The Anthrax Order of September last imposes on the owners of animals the obligation to give notice of the disease, and on the Inspectors the duty of making Returns weekly; hence public attention has been called to outbreaks which otherwise would have escaped notice. None of the outbreaks have been traced to railway trucks in which foreign hides had been previously carried.

asked, what steps the Government were prepared to take to stamp out anthrax in Cheshire?

said, he was not himself able to give an answer to that Question without Notice.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether arrangements will be made in order to enable contingents of officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers to take part in the Jubilee Naval Review; and, if so, whether it can be arranged that these contingents shall be representative of the different districts of the United Kingdom?

The Jubilee is to be celebrated by a Naval Review to be held at Portsmouth on July 23, at which Her Majesty has signified her intention to be present. This Review will embrace a large number of battle ships, coast defence vessels, fast cruisers, torpedo boats, and gunboats; and. unlike previous Reviews, will not be merely a pageant, but the prelude to a series of operations at sea to test the efficiency both of men and ships. These operations will comprise the defence of our principal military and commercial ports and the protection of our coasts from the Downs to the north of Donegal Bay, and also the protection of our commerce near the entrance of the Channel; and in carrying them out all precautions will be taken which would be observed in time of war. We shall be glad to associate with these manœuvres a limited number of Naval Reserve men who may wish to volunteer for service on this occasion, to be selected from each district; also a certain number of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers could be embarked in the coast defence vessels to be employed for the protection of the commercial ports. There will, I imagine, be some difficulty in the men forming these Reserves leaving their regular employment for the time required for the Review and subsequent operations, and there will also be a certain expense in conveying the men from their respective localities; but I hope these are not insurmountable difficulties.

inquired whether Members of the House of Commons would receive an invitation to the Review; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government would consider what arrangements would be made for taking them to Portsmouth, and for their accommodation when there?

We are still a good way away from the 23rd of July; but if my hon. Friend will put the Question to me a little nearer that time, I have no doubt I shall be able to give him a satisfactory answer.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that "Railway material for 100 miles of line is being collected in the Pishin Valley;" what is the distance from the existing terminus of the railway to Candahar; is this material collected with a view to an extension of the line to Candahar; and, will the Secretary of State promise that information shall be given to Parliament before railway surveys or works are undertaken beyond the British frontier?

Yes; 100 miles. So soon as any designs for extending the railway are adopted, the Secretary of State will be happy to communicate the same to Parliament, should it be consistent with the interests of the Public Service to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for War, in the event of it becoming necessary, in sudden emergency, to raise the Horse Artillery Batteries of the First Army Corps to war establishment, From what source he proposes to obtain the necessary horses and men; and, if from the Second Army Corps Batteries, in what condition these latter batteries would be left as regards numbers of horses and men?

No batteries of the Second Army Corps would be drawn upon for the First Army Corps; and in the event of mobilization any deficiency in men would be made good from the Reserve. With regard to horses, it is the fact that economy prevents our maintaining a full establishment either for the Cavalry or the Artillery. The question of the best mode of supplying the necessary number of horses is engaging my earnest attention; but, in my opinion, it would not be solved by maintaining another battery of Horse Artillery on Second Army Corps strength.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Board of Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) have yet concluded their investigation into the alleged connection of Mr. James A. Irwin, teacher of the Carrickawilkin (County Armagh) National School, with the Orange Society; and, what is the result of the inquiry?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they were satisfied, on inquiry, that the teacher named had broken their Rules in the manner alleged, and they have removed him from their service.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Return ordered of the Number of Meetings and Attendances of the Board of Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) will be laid upon the Table of the House?

I understand that the Return will be laid on the Table within a day or two.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received any intimation that Mr. S. E. Shirley intends evicting 36 families on his Farney Estate, in the County Monaghan, on the 22nd instant; whether it is a fact that the tenants on this estate have served Mr. Shirley with the necessary originating notices, preparatory to going into the Land Court to have fair rents fixed; and, whether a police force has yet been applied for to carry out these threatened evictions on Tuesday next; and, if so, whether, pending the decisions of the Land Court in their cases, he will withhold his sanction to the Forces of the Crown being used for the purpose of carrying out the eviction of the tenantry of this estate, which numbers 2,000, and represents about 12,000 persons?

I require further Notice of this Question.

Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask him is he aware the evictions take place to-morrow?

The Question only appeared on the Paper on Saturday, and I have not had time to obtain the necessary information.

In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give Notice that I shall recommend the tenants on Mr. Shirley's estate to protect themselves by adopting the Plan of Campaign.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is intended to include in the provisions of any Land Bill the cases of the tenant purchasers under the Land Act of 1870?

The Government propose, on an early day, to give their general views on the land legislation for Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. John Roe, solicitor to the lately dissolved Board of Guardians of Donaghmore Union, in the Queen's County, has received a sum of £800 out of the rates for fees under the Labourers' Acts; whether anything has really been done within the area of the said late Union in the way of housing the labourers; and, what work was performed by Mr. Roe in consideration for the sum mentioned?

It appears, from the minutes of proceedings of the Guardians, that when the affairs of the Union were being arranged prior to its amalgamation with neighbouring Unions, the solicitor of the Board sent in his bill of costs, which had been allowed to run on since 1869, and amounted to £363. The Guardians agreed to allow him £300, which included whatever may have been due to him under the Labourers' Acts. The amount is not distinguished; but, of course, it could only have formed a very recent part of the debt, which had been accumulating for 17 years. The schemes under that Act fell through, as, owing to delay on the part of the Guardians in the presentation of their petition, the dissolution of the Union took effect before anything could be done.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a paragraph on page 8 of The Pall Mall Gazette of Wednesday, 16th March, headed Stormy Evictions in Mayo, or if he has other know-lodge of the facts referred to therein—namely, that the Resident Magistrate present at the eviction stated—

"If the people offered resistance the police. must shoot them down. … A bailiff, named Gallagher, abused by an old woman when he was removing her furniture, drew a revolver and threatened to shoot her. … A dying lad was carried from one of the cabins, and last night he received the last rites of the Roman Catholic Church;"

and, if he is aware that the rents, for inability to pay which those evictions were carried out, varied from 46 per cent above the valuation to twice, and even in one case four times, the valuation?

The statements referred to are either unfounded or misleading. The evictions were not stormy; there were only a few people present. No magistrate used any such words as are stated, nor did any bailiff act in the manner described. In one of the houses there was a sick child in its mother's arms; and the Sheriff's attention being drawn to it, he, out of consideration for this case, merely took formal possession, allowing the inmates of the House to re-enter it at once as caretakers, and disturbing none of the effects.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph in the Question, as to the rents varying from 46 per cent above the valuation to twice and oven, in one case, four times the valuation?

I know nothing about that.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a letter was sent from the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council to the Local Authority of the North Dublin Union, to the effect that it is of the highest importance, in the interest of the Irish cattle export trade with Great Britain, that every possible step should be taken to prevent the spread of pleuro-pneumonia, and, under the circumstances, inviting the Local Authority to take into consideration the compulsory slaughter of 42 head of cattle that at present remain in five pleuro-pneumonia infected places in that Union; whether he is aware that the Local Authority have resolved not to cause their slaughter; and, seeing that the interest of the Irish cattle export trade with Great Britain is seriously affected by the frequent outbreaks of that fatal disease amongst Irish cattle in Great Britain, whether the Privy Council will forthwith enforce the provisions of Clause 6 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Amendment Act of 1886 in Ireland?

The facts are substantially as stated. It appears from the minutes of the last meeting of the Local Authority that they proposed to take the matter into further consideration on the 6th of April; but they will be asked to do so at an earlier date. The question as to how far the provisions of Clause 6 of the Act of 1886 can be enforced with the least inconvenience and expense is at present engaging the attention of the Privy Council Veterinary Department.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council in Ireland has been called to the statement that American cattle arrive in Liverpool and Glasgow in better condition than Irish cattle; whether this arises from defective arrangements in the cross-channel steamers, and overcrowding, or otherwise; whether it is the fault of the Board of Trade Regulations, or of those of the Privy Councils of Great Britain and Ireland, that nothing is done to remedy the state of things complained of; and, whether, in view of the attitude of certain Local Authorities in Great Britain, the Government will take energetic steps in this matter?

It is true that such a statement as is referred to has been brought under the notice of the Veterinary Department in Ireland; but if the complaint against the condition of Irish cattle be well founded it cannot be traced to defective arrangements in the cross-channel steamers, either by overcrowding or otherwise. The Regulations on the subject are as carefully devised as possible. They are identical in England and Ireland, and are the same for cross-channel steamers as for those carrying cattle to Great Britain from other countries. The shipment of animals is superintended by officers of the Veterinary Department, who do all in their power to prevent any cruelty or infringement of the Regulations; and I am afraid that no further action on the part of the Department seems practicable.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following 10 ratepayers in the townland of Derrygrule, in Mountmellick Union, have for years voted in all the elections in the electoral division of Mountmellick until 1885—namely, John Quigley, Mary Meehan, James Brien, James Quigley, Edward Jones, William Tanner, John Conroy, Richard Dickinson, Bridget Bergin, and John Walsh; whether the newly-appointed clerk, acting as Returning Officer, has disallowed the votes of the ratepayers mentioned, although they have paid the rates assessed on their holdings; and, whether the Local Government Board will take steps to protect the rights of the persons in question at the present election?

This Question only appeared on Saturday, and was at once referred to the Local Government Board; but there has not been time fur the receipt of their Report, as they had to refer to the country for the required information.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government recognize Pondoland as belonging to Great Britain or to any other Power, either absolutely or as a Protected State; whether any negotiations are pending between Her Majesty's Government and any other Power concerning Pondoland; and, whether Government are in a position to give assurances that Pondoland will not be occupied, either directly or indirectly, by any Foreign Power?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to the Question. Her Majesty's Government exercise a Protectorate over the whole Coast of Pondoland, and consider the country as being under their influence, and do not recognize a right on the part of any other Power to interfere in its concerns. I stated, in my answer of the 15th instant, that in August, 1885, in reply to a proposal for placing Pondoland under the protection of the German Empire, the German Government had stated that they were not in a position to entertain the Petition; and the hon. Member has probably seen in to-day's newspapers the statement from the semi-official North German Gazette, which confirms this view. No negotiations are pending between Her Majesty's Government and any other Power respecting Pondoland. Her Majesty's Government consider that no Foreign Power could occupy Pondoland without their consent.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the regular Constabulary' force for the North Hiding of the County of Tipperary stands at 309 men; whether, out of that number, there are at present only 26G men in active service in the district; whether the sum of £1,000 is annually paid out of the Riding for what is termed extra police; whether, including the so-called extra police, the regular force is at present short of the number of 19; and. if so, whether he will fill up the regular Parliamentary quota, and relieve the ratepayers from this tax for extra police; whether he will inform the House, or give a Return, as to the number of persons at present under police protection, and the number of men employed in discharge of protection duty in North Tipperary; whether at the recent Spring Assizes at Nenagh, where the presentment for this Extra Police Tax was opposed, the presiding Judge, Baron Dowse, replying to the traverser, made use of these words—

"It is imperative on me to puss this presentment, otherwise I would be most happy to concede to the just application. You must look for redress elsewhere;"

and, whether he will explain, while there is a comparative absence of crime in the county, as stated by Baron Dowse, why the ratepayers are burdened with this tax for extra police?

The full force of the North Riding of Tipperary is 309 men—namely, 266 free force and 43 extra men. The number actually serving is 290, leaving 19 vacancies, which, according to statute, are proportionately divided between the free and extra men. It is impossible that the full force should always be present in any county, as allowance must be made for occasional absence, and for recruits training at the depôt. I have already explained, with regard to extra police generally, that the chief reason why they are required is for the protection of individuals. In the North Riding of Tipperary there are six persons under constant protection, and 22 under protection by patrols—the number of police employed on this duty being six and 27 respectively, or a total of 33.

The right hon. Gentleman says there are 33 of the police engaged in protection duty. Will he say what the rest of the extra police are doing?

I have said there are 43 extra men, and I have accounted for 33, the greater part.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is a fact that the Judge said it was the most peaceable county in the Circuit?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can inform the House what are the exceptional measures that will have to be taken in time of war to provide the requisite number of Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants to serve as watch-keepers, and to take command of torpedo and picket boats, and how many hours watching out of every 24 their Lordships consider to be within the range of non-injurious duty for the average Naval Officer?

The exceptional measures alluded to would be, speaking generally, to call out all officers over whom the Admiralty had control, and who may be required—whether in the Reserves, retired, or specially employed. It has been generally held in the Services that three watches, or eight hours out of the 24, are the range of non-injurious watch-keeping duty which an officer can be called upon to perform continuously.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the following telegram that has appeared in the newspapers:—

"Zanzibar, March 18.—The King of Johanna, the second largest of the Islands of the Comoro Group, having refused to receive a French Resident, the French Commandant at Mayotte promised that, if he assented, the French Government would endeavour to obtain an amendment of the Slavery Abolition Treaty with England. The King persisting, nevertheless, in his refusal, the French offered the Throne to the King's brother, who, however, declined to accept it. The French corvette Nielly was subsequently ordered to Johanna to bombard the place; "

and, whether he can confirm the truth of this report; and, if so, whether the Government will make representations to the French Government, with a view of preventing any further interference, on the part of the French, with the King of Johanna, and take such steps as may be necessary to support the King in his adherence to the existing Slavery Abolition Treaty with England?

Her Majesty's Government, although they were aware that differences existed between the Sultan of Johanna and the French Authorities at Mayotte, have no information confirming the intelligence conveyed in the telegram from Zanzibar. Mr. Holmwood, Her Majesty's Acting Consul General at Zanzibar, has, however, received instructions to report on the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many previous convictions for drunkenness, &c, were recorded against Detective Constable Peter Monahan; whether the young man Shea, whom he assaulted in Killarney, has lost the sight of the eye which was injured; and, whether it is in accordance with the Constabulary Rules and Regulations to continue as detective or policeman in plain clothes a man who has been convicted of assault and drunkenness?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a constable named Johnston was stationed in Tuam from the commencement of his service until the year 1885; whether he was then promoted to the rank of acting sergeant, and changed from Tuam to Cummer; whether he has been subsequently promoted to the rank of sergeant, and is now stationed again in Tuam, from whence he was first promoted, and whether this is contrary to the Constabulary Rules; if it is true that another sergeant named Brady, who had been stationed in Tuam only for four months, was ordered to another station to make room for Johnston; and, what are the reasons stated for the alleged exceptional method of procedure?

I am informed by the Inspector General that there was nothing exceptional or contrary to the Regulations of the Constabulary Force in the transfers and promotions made in the cases of these men. The exchange of stations effected between the two sergeants was for the purpose of placing Sergeant Johnston in a barrack where there was accommodation for his family, a requirement which does not exist in the case of the other sergeant.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty, late of the Macroom Workhouse, now of Milistreet, has been appointed to the Commission of the Peace in the County of Cork; whether Mr. Hegarty is owner of a public-house in the town of Millstreet, and is also bailiff to the Landlord Defence League in Cork; whether he has been for some time past, and still continues, under police protection; if it is true that his police guard have objected to the treatment they have received at his hands; what reasons have been given for granting police protection to Mr. Hegarty; on how many occasions this year has a supplementary police patrol been sent to survey the route by which Mr. Hegarty was travelling; whether such police were supplied on Mr. Hegarty's application; whether the only people who frequent his public-house are policemen and emergency men; whether, in view of these facts, it is his intention to bring the appointment under the notice of the Lord Chancellor; and, by whom was Mr. Hegarty recommended for the said magisterial position? The hon. Member desired to supplement the Question, and to ask whether it was a fact that quite recently Mr. Hegarty compounded with his creditors?

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he thinks it right to appoint as a magistrate a late pauper of the Macroom Workhouse, and now a holder of a publican's licence; and, whether he thinks such an appointment will tend to the preservation of law and order in Cork?

The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has nothing to do with the appointment of magistrates.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the license was transferred from Hegarty to his son; whether it was not done immediately before Hegarty was appointed a magistrate; and whether, therefore, Hegarty was not practically a publican at the time of his appointment?

The year before last, Sir.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Bulmer, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was committed to gaol by Mr. Coroner Rice on Wednesday last, for refusing to answer questions tending to discover the person who bayonetted Patrick Hanlon, of Youghal; whether District Inspector Smith, to whom the Coroner handed the warrant for execu- tion, has executed, or made any attempt to execute, the same; and, what stops the Government intend to take to insure the execution of the Coroner's warrant?

(who replied) said: I am informed that a warrant was issued by the Coroner for the committal of Constable Bulmer for refusing to answer a question which the constable, by the advice of his solicitor, declined to answer, on the ground that it might tend to criminate himself—he and his comrades having been previously charged by counsel for next-of-kin with wilful murder. As the warrant was considered by the District Inspector to be illegal in point of form, and as he would in such case have no protection if he executed it, he had held it over until he was advised as to its legality; but he undertook to produce Constable Bulmer if, and when, required in the meantime.

What is the doubt about the warrant?

I have given the reply I have received.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the second part of the Question—namely, whether District Inspector Smith, to whom the Coroner handed the warrant for execution, has executed, or made any attempt to execute, the same?

I have already answered that part of the Question. I have stated the District Inspector was in doubt as to the legality of the warrant.

I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether it is competent for an Inspector of Police to decide for himself as to the legality or illegality of a warrant issued by the Coroner?

I have already stated that it is not competent; but, inasmuch as a Coroner's or a Magistrate's warrant is no protection to the person directed to execute it, the District Inspector has a right to be advised upon it.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell what steps have been taken to see whether the warrant was illegal or not?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the only answer I can give is the information I have received from those in the locality; but, of course, if the District Inspector's advice is that the warrant is legal, the warrant will be executed in the ordinary way.

I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with reference to the question of the execution of the warrant of the Coroner at Youghal, when the warrant of the Coroner was issued? I am informed that it was issued last Wednesday. he can tell us, probably, whether that is correct; and how long the suspension of the execution of the warrant will be allowed to continue before the question is decided?

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was probably aware that he, in his capacity as Attorney General, had nothing whatever to do with this matter, and he had no information as regarded the date. The answer he had given was simply to the effect that the execution was suspended for a reasonable time, an undertaking being given that the man would be produced in the meantime, if required.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it has been the practice, whenever the Representatives of friendly Powers have made formal applications to inspect Government workshops and arsenals, or to obtain copies of drawings and plans of warships, machinery, or armaments, to grant the facilities sought by such persons; and, whether it is the case that Naval designs have been furnished to the American, Russian, and other Governments?

The War Department allow Representatives of friendly Powers, whose applications are forwarded by the Foreign Office, to inspect such workshops as do not contain secrets exclusively held, or supposed to be held, by Her Majesty's Government; and the same rules apply to the grant of drawings and plans. The Admiralty allow Foreign Naval Attaches free access to inspect the Government Naval Establishments. It is not the practice to allow them to obtain copies of drawings and plans of warships, machinery, or arma- merits. In exceptional cases drawings of designs have Loon given.

asked, Whether the First Lord of the Treasury intended to proceed to-night with his Motion for a Select Committee to examine into the Army and Navy Estimates, and to report their observations thereon to the House?

, in reply, said, he had certainly hoped that the House would have accepted this Motion without debate. In the circumstances, it would not be in his power to proceed with it to-night. It was his intention to have made the Motion, in fulfilment of an engagement he made to the House; but it was not expected that a debate would arise upon it, seeing that full powers would be possessed by the Committee under the terms of the Motion.

said, the Bill was in print, and would, he hoped, be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow; but the question of when he would proceed with the second reading would depend on the course of the other Business of the House.

I beg to give Notice that I shall to-morrow ask leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of crime in Ireland, and for other purposes.

I wish, Sir, to say that, under the special circumstances of the Notice just given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I shall to-morrow, at half-past 1, move that the introduction and several stages of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, including the Rules of Procedure, whenever it shall be sot down by the Government as the first Business of the day. And, Sir, with reference to the inquiry addressed to me on Thursday night last by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), I beg to say that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with this Motion to-morrow, and, I hope, with the consequent Motion of which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has given Notice. In the event of the Bill being brought in to-morrow, or Wednesday, it will be printed at once, and the second reading will be taken on Monday next. We hope to proceed with the Rules of Procedure on Thursday and Friday.

Sir, I beg to give Notice that tomorrow, when the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) makes the Motion that he has just announced, I shall move the following Amendment:—

"That this House declines to set aside the Business of the Nation in favour of a measure for increasing the stringency of the Criminal Law in Ireland, while no effectual security has been taken against the abuse of the law by the exaction of excessive rents."

I wish, Mr. Speaker, to put a Question to you upon a point of Order. I see that there are two Notices standing upon the Order Book in the names of the hon. Members for North and South Antrim (Mr. C. E. Lewis and Mr. Macartney) for Tuesday, the 5th of April, a date when the House will probably be in recess for the Easter holidays. One of them is for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the alleged system of jury-packing in Ireland, while the other expresses approval of the action of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the telegram of instructions to the police sent by Captain Plunkett to the District Inspector at Youghal. I wish, Sir, to have your ruling, as a matter of Order, upon both of those Notices, having re- gard to your ruling in the case of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who desired to raise a debate upon jury-packing when the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech was under discussion. You then ruled that it was not competent for my hon. Friend to allude to the question of jury-packing so long as there was a Notice standing on the Paper in reference to the subject. Now, Sir, one of those Notices refers to the question of jury-packing, and the other to the instructions of Captain Plunkett to the police of Youghal to fire upon the people if necessary. What I wish to know is, whether your ruling extends to the preclusion of Amendments to the Motion, "That you do leave the Chair," for the purpose of going into Committee of Supply upon the Civil Service Estimates; and whether your ruling will extend further to the preclusion of any debate upon the subjects to which these Notices apply in Committee of Supply?

I cannot presume to settle cases before they arise. I must see and hear what is said in debate before I can give an opinion.

I also wish to ask a Question, Sir, on a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has just announced that he will take the second reading of a particular Bill on Monday next. But that Bill has not yet been printed, seeing that permission has not been given by the House to read it a first time. Therefore, I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is not contravening the Order of the House which prevents a subsequent stage from being put down before the previous stage has been taken?

I presume that before the Motion is put down for the second reading the Bill itself will have been printed.

I do not know whether I have put the Question quite clearly. At present the House has not given permission for the introduction and first reading of the Bill, nor has it been printed. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has announced that he will put down the Order of the Day for the second reading next Monday. What I wish to know is, whether, in doing so, the right hon. Gentleman is not directly contravening a Standing Order of the House?

Of course, I presume that, in the event of the Bill being read a first time, it will be printed in the interval between that stage and the second reading on Monday.

In reference to your ruling, Sir, as to the Question put by the hon. Member for South Louth (Mr. T. P. Gill) relating to two Motions standing in the Order Book in the names of the two hon. Members for Antrim, relating to jury-packing and the telegram of Captain Plunkett, I wish to know whether, supposing it is necessary to discuss the question of jury-packing—

Order, order! I gave no ruling on the Question raised. I declined to give any ruling.

I was only going to ask your ruling,. Sir, in connection with a Bill of which Notice has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, whether we shall be precluded from discussing the Question relating to jury packing in connection with that Bill, owing to the Notice of Motion which is already standing upon the Notice Paper?

I cannot see that any objection arises as a point of Order.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government can give any intimation as to the probable date on which they will introduce their Irish Land Bill?

It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make a statement on this subject almost immediately.

The discussion which took place on Thursday night in respect of the Navy was almost entirely confined to the special subjects of which Notice had been given by Amendment on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Votes; and it was not possible, therefore, to outer into a general discussion upon naval questions and the policy indicated in the Memorandum of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton). I think, therefore, that the noble Lord has done well in giving an opportunity on this occasion for raising a further discussion upon the general questions connected with the Navy on the Victualling Vote. In opening that discussion, I am prepared fully to subscribe to all that was said by other hon. Members on Thursday night in regard to the Statement or Memorandum submitted to the House by the noble Lord, both as to its ability and completeness; and I hope that the example which has now been sot will be followed in succeeding years, and that hereafter a printed Statement will be submitted to the House in substitution of the personal explanation which has hitherto been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty. At the same time, it appears to me that an annual Statement of this kind will have much more permanent interest than a mere formal speech in introducing the Navy Estimates; and, therefore, it is most desirable that such Statements should be perfectly impartial, and not of a partizan character. I regret to say that much evil has been done in past times in consequence of mixing up partizan statements in regard to the Navy and questions of policy in the discussions upon the Navy Estimates. Such a practice is, in my opinion, much to be deprecated; and I should have hoped that in a Statement of this kind it would have been most carefully avoided. I have to complain, however, that the Statement made by the noble Lord in some respects appears strongly to partake of a partizan character, and to be specially directed against the shipbuilding policy of his Predecessors, and especially of Lord North-brook, who was First Lord of the Ad- miralty for four or five years. The parts of the Statement which I take objection to in this Memorandum are twofold. In the first place, the Memorandum, so far as it deals with a retrospective history of the Navy, contains this assertion. The noble Lord says that—

"During the years from 1881 to 1885, while every other Naval Power in Europe was increasing its Naval Expenditure, England alone stood still."

The noble Lord further goes on to say that during that time England has been the only Power not to recognize the necessity of important changes in naval construction being brought to bear, with a view of obtaining thicker armour for ships and greater speed. It appears, he says, that other Powers have been largely engaged in producing vessels of greater power and speed; and that we alone have stood still, England having been the last Naval Power to recognize the new condition of affairs. The other statement to which I desire to call attention is contained in pages 14 and 15 of the Memorandum, which gives a valuation of the vessels comprising the Fleet, and also an estimate of the amount required to replace vessels which have become obsolete from old ago or wastage. The noble Lord arrives at an estimate that £1,800,000 is required annually for replacing the Fleet, and he ends by saying that the expenditure for the years immediately preceding 1885 was very much less than that amount. Now, I think I shall be able to show that both of the Statements to which I have referred are untrue, and have no foundation in fact; and, further, that they are exactly the opposite of the real state of affairs. I do not mean to say that the noble Lord has made a wilful misstatement, but he has assorted a fact, probably on the authority of others, without sufficient consideration. If the noble Lord had gone a little further back in his historical retrospect and had included the three years before 1881, he would have then found himself in conflict with some of his own Colleagues, and especially the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), and who at that time was First Lord of the Admiralty, in regard to whoso administration some of the allegations made by the noble Lord may with great truth be said. I have no desire, however, to enter into a recriminatory discussion with the First Lord of the Treasury. I have not mentioned the matter for the purpose of bringing charges against the right hon. Gentleman, hut simply to show what was the condition in which Lord North-brook found the Navy, and the changes during his administration which were made in it. I find that the expenditure for now ships during the three years which preceded 1881 amounted to £1,430.000 a-year, which is very considerably below the point the noble Lord estimates as the proper average expenditure on new ships, and very considerably below what it was in past times and what it has been since. The Gunnery Vote had been reduced to less than £400,000. That, again, was the period in which special exertions were made by the French for reconstructing their Navy. Their increased expenditure commenced in 1876, and it reached its maximum in 1879; and for the throe-years he had alluded to it amounted to exactly the same sum as that expended in England—namely, £1,430,000 a-year. When my noble Friend Lord North-brook came into Office in 1886, he recognized the fact that the Shipbuilding Vote had been brought down to a dangerously low point, as compared with France. I was a Colleague of the noble Lord in the Admiralty at the time, and I well recollect pointing out to him what I had frequently urged in this House during the naval administration of the First Lord of the Treasury—that, having regard to what was being done in France, the expenditure of the past few years in regard to the Shipbuilding Vote for the English Dockyards and by contract, especially that for iron-clads, had been brought to a very low point. I further expressed an opinion that unless a considerable addition was made to the Shipbuilding Vote there was likely to be great alarm in the country on the subject, and probably a scare would arise which, in the end, would involve a much larger expenditure. I always recognized, for my part, that there were special reasons for the great increase which took place in the expenditure in the French Dockyards. Their vessels were built of wood, armour-plated, instead of being completely constructed of iron. They were perishing away, and would not stand the wear and tear to which they were subjected. It was, therefore, found necessary to make great exertions to bring up the French Fleet to a proper condition; but yet the fact remained that in these three years the expenditure in the French Dockyards upon shipbuilding was exactly the same as the expenditure in the English Dockyards and by contract. My noble Friend fully admitted the necessity of doing considerably more in the direction of building now ships, and during each of the next four years he added largely every year to the Shipbuilding Vote, and the consequence was that the average expenditure for the next four years during Lord Northbrook's administration amounted to £1,900,000, or £500,000 above the average of the previous three years, and £100,000 a-year above the amount which the noble Lord opposite, in the Statement presented to the House, asserts to be necessary for the annual replacement of old vessels. Lord North-brook brought up the annual expenditure upon new ships from the point at which he found it—£1,400,000—to the sum of £2,210,000 in the year 1884–5, and the average for the whole period was £1,900,000, showing an increase of 10 per cent on the average of the previous three years. This increase was almost wholly devoted to iron-clads and the larger class of cruisers. The expenditure on iron-clads has been brought up from £700,000 to £1,300,000, or 90 per cent. Therefore I say it is not true that during the years from 1881 to 1885 the naval administration in this country stood still. The fact is that during the same time the French Government made no further increase in their Navy Vote, and the expenditure in their Dockyards during four years averaged precisely the same amount at which it stood in the previous three years. Therefore, it is exactly the opposite of the truth to say that the shipbuilding in the English Dockyards stood still while there was a rapid increase in the French Dockyards. Precisely the reverse was the case—namely, that this country increased its expenditure by 10 per cent during the four years and by 90 per cent upon ironclads, while the expenditure of the French Dockyards upon the same class of vessels remained stationary. During that period Lord Northbrook commenced eight iron-clads against four laid down by the French. Six of these vessels can run 17 knots an hour, whereas the average speed of the four vessels laid down in the French Dockyards is only 15 knots, showing an advantage in the case of the English vessels of no loss than two knots per hour per vessel. Then, again, five of the English vessels are constructed to carry guns of 67 tons, whereas the French vessels only carry guns of 50 tons; and as to the coal-carrying capacity, I find that six of our vessels have been constructed to carry 1,200 tons of coal each, whereas the French vessels can only carry 600 tons,—thus showing that the English vessels are provided with double the amount of coal-carrying capacity which the French vessels possess. Lord Northbrook also laid down, during the same period, several very large and fast cruisers of the Mersey type, faster and bettor vessels than the French. All these vessels were either completed, or will be completed, within the present year, while none of the French vessels are within two years of completion. I think I have shown that the statements contained in the noble Lord's Memorandum are not in respect of the years 1881–4 justified by the facts of the case; and I with great confidence appeal to the noble Lord to alter his Statement, because I am quite sure he does not desire that a Memorandum of this kind, which gives a retrospect of the history of the Navy, should contain inaccurate assertions, especially when this Memorandum will hereafter in all probability be looked upon as an authentic record. I trust the noble Lord will realize the fact that his Statements are not correct, and that he will rectify them so as to bring thorn in accordance with the true facts of the case. In 1885 unquestionably Lord North brook agreed, under the pressure of public opinion, to propose to the House a special Programme, involving a further expenditure, which was to be spread over five years, of £3,100,000. This alarm was, I think, occasioned by public opinion not fully understanding, as I believe, the enormous accession of strength which is gradually being attained. The alarm had its origin, I believe, in the fear as to our relations with France arising out of that damnosa hereditas—Egypt. Lord Northbrook had always said, that while he believed that the rate of expenditure on now ships which he had attained would, if continued for a few years longer, have been quite sufficient, yet he was not unwilling to avail himself of public opinion to hasten the building of ships by a special Programme; and he therefore applied to Parliament for the special Vote I have mentioned of £3,100,000 to be spread over five years. The expenditure was subsequently increased to £3,500.000, and was spread over three years only instead of five; with this additional money two additional ironclads and five belted cruisers—which are, in fact, second-class ironclads—are being built. The result was that a very large addition was made to the Navy, and whatever credit is due for that is entirely due to Lord North-brook, and not to the Board over which the noble Lord opposite now presides. Lot me point out that none of the ships provided under the special Programme of 1885 are yet completed; and, therefore, if it is really the case, at this moment that the provision of the ships in the first reserve of the British Navy is more full and ample than it had ever been before. The noble Lord has claimed credit for the Navy of England being stronger than the Navy of any three other Powers.

:No; if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him, what I said had reference to the number of ships on commission.

Then the noble Lord said that the number of English ships on commission were equal to the strength of the three most powerful Navies.

No; I said nothing about the strength of the Navy; but I said that the number of ships on commission of the iron-clad class was larger than those on commission of any three other naval Powers.

At all events, we had three times the number commissioned; and I think if the noble Lord compares the strength of the vessels he will make a similar admission in regard to that point. I think he will also be prepared to make this further admission that at this moment, in regard to the vessels which are now in the first reserve, and are coming into it in the course of the present year, the Navy of England will present a comparison with other navies infinitely bettor than it has done with the navies of Foreign Powers for many years past. If that be so, it seems that the vessels being built under the special Programme of Lord North-brook are not yet completed; is it not clear that this satisfactory provision has been made out of the normal Votes for the Navy from 1881 to 1885? The noble Lord has attempted to throw discredit upon the special Programme of Lord Northbrook in two ways. First, he said that the adoption of it tended to throw the Dockyards into confusion; and, secondly, that it by a sudden increase led to waste. I think he ought to have remembered that all the vessels which came under the Vote of Credit were ordered to be built by contract, and not one of them in the Dockyards. Therefore it cannot be the case that any of the vessels building in the Dockyards were interfered with by the special Programme, or that the work of the Dockyards was (hereby placed in confusion. The noble Lord says it would have been far better if some of these ships had been built at an earlier period. Now, if the seven big vessels contracted for in 1885 had been contracted for three years earlier, we might have got some of them earlier; but, on the other hand they would have been inferior in many respects as to speed and other qualities. We have certainly got much more powerful vessels and vessels of much greater speed. In fact, the improvements in naval construction have been so rapid that three or four years make a great difference, and there can be no doubt that the vessels bought under that Programme are much better and more powerful than if they had been ordered three or four years earlier. Then as to the cost, it is no doubt certain that in consequence of the depression in the trade, the vessels have been bought at a far more reasonable cost than they could have been if contracted for sooner. I do not, however, wish to make much of that point, and I only put it against the attempt of the noble Lord to discredit the special Programme, and to assert that it would have been far better if the vessels had been constructed earlier. I have now done with this part of the case, and there is only one other point I wish to mention. It has reference to the contract for the engines of the Renown and the Sans-pareil. Lord Northbrook is in Italy at this moment, and unable to make a personal explanation. I have, however, received a letter from him, in which he says that he assumes full and entire personal responsibility for what has been done in connection with these vessels. In the course of his letter he expresses surprise in regard to two points. One is, that the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Pearce) should have been included in the reference with respect to a case in which he himself had been one of the tenderers. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty has very hastily assumed that because the engines of the Nile and Trafalgar contracted for by the same firm a year later were at a somewhat lower price, therefore there must necessarily have been a mistake. That shows very little knowledge of business. The engines, though for larger ships, were of the same size, horse-power and pattern, and that very fact alone, undoubtedly, enabled the contractors—Messrs. Humphrys—to offer a lower price. The other point is, that Lord Northbrook should never have been informed that a special inquiry was taking place by a Committee of which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) was a member, and that he should have been afforded no opportunity of making an explanation on the subject. I think that many hon. Members will agree with the surprise expressed by Lord Northbrook upon these two points. I have felt it my duty to make this statement in regard to Lord Northbrook—I will not say in his do-fence, but in regard to the conduct of himself personally, and his policy and that of all of his Colleagues. I believe, myself, that the naval administration of Lord Northbrook during the period I have adverted to will bear full investigation, and will stand against any of the somewhat carping criticisms which have been made upon it by the First Lord. Lord Northbrook's fame has been mainly achieved as an administrator; and I believe that the present Government showed their appreciation of it by offering him a seat in their Cabinet. I should like to know what form the statement the First Lord would have assumed if Lord Northbrook had been one of his Colleagues at this moment? I cannot think that any reference to Lord Northbrook would have appeared in this document in so damaging and derogatory a form with regard to Lord North- brook during the time he was First Lord of the Admiralty. Turning from these matters to the Estimates now before the Committee, I find that the Estimates for the coming year show a reduction of £793,000 as compared with last year. I confess that when I saw that amount I was somewhat surprised, especially when I recollected that the noble Lord the Member for Smith Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had left the Government, because, as he told us, he could not induce his Colleagues at the Admiralty and the War Office to assent to a reduction of even £500,000. It will be recollected that the noble Lord, in the explanation which he made at the beginning of this year, told the House that he had had a discussion with his two Colleagues at the War Office and the Admiralty with reference to a reduction of their Estimates. He said he would have been quite prepared to remain in Office if he could have induced them to make a reduction of £1,000,000. He said, further, that £100,000 or £200,000 less than that would have satisfied him, and that he was not prepared to say he would not have remained in Office if a reduction of £500,000 only could have been promised. He did not, however, find that either of his Colleagues was prepared to meet him in that respect; and therefore he was bound to send in his resignation. Certainly, in the face of that statement, I was surprised to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty claimed credit for a reduction of £700,000 in the Estimates of the year as compared with last year. I shall, however, be prepared to show that this reduction is, in fact, of an illusory character, and will not bear examination. There is an increase in the Gunnery Vote for naval purposes of £292,000. The effect of the Statement of the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) is that there has been that increase in the Vote as compared with last year. However, the comparison of the noble Lord, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point of view, should be made with the Estimates of last year, only including the addition of the Supplementary Estimates.

That is always done.

No, it is not—at all events, not for financial purposes. The noble Lord knows well that there will be further Supplementary Estimates in the coming year, as there have been in the past; and, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may deal with the matter financially, he should make a comparison with the Original Estimates and not with the Estimates including the addition of Supplementary Estimates. Now, the Supplementary Estimates were £272,000; therefore, deducting these two items, the real diminution, as compared with the Original Estimate last year, from the point at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look at the matter, is only some £240,000 lower; and I am not sure that that sum is not also illusory, because the Supplementary Estimates have been caused by hastening on the contract work, and enabling More money to be spent in the current year. If that work had not been hastened, it is quite clear that all the money paid under the Supplementary Estimates to the contractors would fall upon the coming year; and I should like to know from the noble Lord if that has been done which was so much complained of by the Auditor and Comptroller General, and whether the money was advanced to contractors for work in hand, or whether the work has not been hastened. At all events, I am right in saying that if this contract work had not been hurried so as to bring it within the present year what is due to the coming year would have been included in the Estimates of this year, and the result would have been exactly the same. There has been a benefit to the coming year at the expense of the next year to the extent of £240,000. Taking the two Estimates together—the Army and the Navy Estimates—there is a saving only, I think, of £260,000. I cannot understand why the Government, for the purpose of saving a Colleague so valuable to them as the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, might not have advanced a little further and made a further reduction of the sum of £240,000. That would have been very easy to do, especially as the noble Lord pointed out that the liabilities at the end of the coming year would be very much reduced from what they were at the beginning of the year. Therefore, I think the Government might easily, by postponing the contract work for three or four months, have arranged that the payments should be made to come into the financial year, and then the further reduction the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington asked for would have been effected, and in that way the Government would have saved a valuable Colleague I can only surmise that there was some other motive on the part of the Colleagues of the noble Lord for getting rid of him than the difference that existed between them of £240,000. The programme of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to now work is of a very moderate character. It provides for five protected cruisers of 2,500 tons each and a few smaller vessels. Looking at the very large increase which has been made during the last few years, I am not prepared to say that the noble Lord was bound to go further, but at all events it appears to me to be somewhat out of harmony with the noble Lord's demands last year when he supported the views of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), that an expenditure of £5,000,000 to be provided by terminable annuities ought to be spent upon cruisers. The demand made by the noble Lord last year, was that it would be necessary to construct immediately no less than 20 large cruisers, and some 20 smaller ones at a cost of £5, 000,000. I congratulate the Government at the conclusion at which they have now arrived. I think they are right in making a more moderate demand; and I congratulate the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty in having succeeded in restraining his noble Colleague, and in having brought the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone so much within his demand of last year. One of the most interesting parts of the statement of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty has reference to the future There is one statement to which I have already adverted shortly—namely, the valuation which the noble Lord has already made in regard to the effective ships in the Navy, and also the annual sum required for supplying the waste in the Navy. But I would observe that the statement contained in the Memorandam is a very different statement indeed to that which was made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty in the course of the Recess at a meeting in Lancashire. In the course of that speech, the Secretary to the Admiralty estimated the effective ships of the Fleet to be of the value of £50,000,000; and he gave them an average life of only 15 years, bringing out the fact that an annual sum of £3,000,000 was required in order to replace the Fleet—in other words, he considered that £3,000,000 should be expended every year on new ships in order to keep up the Navy to its normal amount of value—namely, £50,000,000. He wound up in the manner usual with the present be and by making a fierce attack upon his Predecessors. He said that whereas £3,000,000 were annually required, Lord Northbrook had only provided £1,800,000, and hence the neglect of the Navy. When I read that statement I looked upon it as a very exaggerated one, and I thought there were some extraordinary fallacies connected with it. I had in past times made calculations of this kind, and I had brought out far different results. I, therefore, proceeded at once to make a valuation for myself from the information I had before me. My calculations brought out that the fair value of the existing vessels belonging to the Fleet was £35,000,000. I thought that 15 years was a very short life to give to our iron-clads. I find that out of the 56 iron-clads we now have of an effective character, no loss than 20 have had a longer life than 15 years, including the Hercules and the Sultan, and there are 22 others—such, for instance, as the Monarch and the Audacious—all excellent vessels which have had a good deal more than 20 years' life. They are still valuable vessels with many years before them. We have not yet had sufficient experience of the cruisers of a larger type to allow us to form any data with regard to them, because it is only within the last few years that iron-clads have be on substituted for wooden vessels; but the Active and Volage, built 18 years ago, are still very valuable vessels. In regard to our troop-ships, I may mention three of those vessels. The Himalaya was purchased 33 years ago, and is as good as she was on the first day she was constructed. The other two—the Tamar and the Orontes—were both of them built more than 32 years ago. Therefore, I think it is a mistake to assign so short an average of life as 15 years for our iron-clads; and, under these circumstances, I found that the sum required annually for the replacement of effective ships amounts only to £1,800,000, instead of the £3,000,000 put down by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. For-wood). I was very nearly writing to the Press to complain of the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty on this subject, and to give my version of the value of the Fleet, and the annual cost of replacement; but I refrained from doing so believing that the hon. Gentleman would renew his attack in this House. I was rather surprised, therefore, when I looked at the Memorandum of the noble Lord to find that he had completely thrown over the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty; that he had abandoned altogether the hon. Gentleman's valuation, and had brought out a result almost identical with that which I, as an amateur, had arrived. Instead of taking the value of the vessels at £50,000,000, he brought them down to the point of £39,000,000 only, including the shipbuilding, and he conceives that 15 years is too short a limit to assign as the average life of our vessels. The result he brings out is precisely similar to that which I had done—namely, £1,800,000 compared with the £3,000,000 his Colleague the Secretary to the Admiralty proposed in the Recess. I think we are entitled to some explanation from the Secretary to the Admiralty upon this point, and to ask whether he concurs with the valuation now made by the noble Lord. If so, I think we ought to have some apology from the hon. Gentleman for the attack which he made upon his Predecessors, and which he founded on this misstatement. It is clear, then, that if the noble Lord is right, and he believes himself his Estimate is a very fair one, and is, if at all, in excess, we may look forward to a considerable reduction in our expenditure on new ships in coming years, when the special programme of 1881 is completed. We are expending this year £2,800,000 on new ships, or £1,000,000 in excess of the noble Lord's Estimate. This excess involves a corresponding increase on the Vote for guns and gun mountings. I feel little doubt, therefore, that we may look forward to a reduced expenditure of £2,000,000 in the total Votes, including the Gunnery Vote. Turning to another point, I have observed with pleasure, on reading the Memorandum of the noble Lord, that the Admiralty are making efforts for the reform of the Admiralty organization, both in the Admiralty itself and in the Dockyards. I can assure the noble Lord that on this side of the House we heartily sympathize with him, and are prepared to do our very best to assist him in carrying out any reforms he may make. I say this because I can recollect the time when it was very much otherwise. The last attempt to reform the Dockyard administration was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers)in 1870, and at that time a most tremendous political opposition was raised against the proposed reform, which did not confine itself to this House, but was experienced in the Dockyards themselves, and within the walls of the Admiralty also. The result was that every kind of obstruction was interposed in every way to the reform of the Dockyard administration, and I am sorry to say that in the end things went very much to the bad, especially under the régime of Mr. Ward Hunt. I attribute much of what has taken place since in regard to the Dockyards, to the unfortunate way in which this attempt to reform the Dockyard administration was received. I can assure the noble Lord that none of his reforms will be treated by us in that spirit, but we shall endeavour to assist him to the best of our ability in carrying them out. I am certainly afraid that he is attempting too much at once. Dockyard reforms can only be carried out slowly and with the greatest care, and the noble Lord will find that it is not so much the system that is at fault as the men. It is difficult to find good men to place in responsible positions in order to see that the reforms you propose to introduce are properly carried out. The present system of Dockyard responsibility is such as to prevent the growth of Dockyard reforms. There is one change which the noble Lord has made which I think is in the right direction, although I cannot say that I think it goes nearly far enough. The change I refer to is in the respect of the appointment of civil assistants to the Naval Superintendents of Dockyards. I say that those appointments are in the right direction, but they are only a very small step in the right direction. Let me point out to the noble Lord and the House what has really been done. The Admiralty have appointed a highly-paid officer in each of the Dockyards as a civil assistant to the Naval Superintendent. This officer has a salary of £1,000 a-year, which is more than is attached to the post of Chief Constructor in the Dockyards. At the same time, the civil assistant has no direct responsibility of any kind. He is not able to give a simple command or order to anyone single man in the Dockyard; he is merely the assistant of the Naval Superintendent, to advise the Naval Superintendent, and to act the part of an aide-de-camp or a kind of a spy going about the Dockyard seeing if there is anything that ought to be done, and then advising the Naval Superintendent upon the matter. Perhaps even the discharge of this duty may do good, and I believe it has done good in finding out evils of various kinds, and bringing them under the attention of the Naval Superintendent. But the reform is one which I maintain does not go far enough, and I think it is absolutely necessary to impose responsibility upon these men, and to give them some definite function to perform with full command over others. I look with great alarm at divided responsibility. Let me suppose a case. There might happen to be a difference of opinion between the Chief Constructor of the Dockyard and the civil adviser of the Naval Superintendent—say in regard to some important point of naval construction. Divided responsibility in such a respect would be a most serious matter, and might lead to a naval disaster. Therefore, I cannot but think that the noble Lord will have at a very short date to go much further, and to give these important officers some real and direct responsibility in the Dockyards. That ought to be the true end and aim of any real Dockyard reform, and I do not believe that any satisfactory reform can be carried out in the Dockyards unless you are able to build up a complete system of management and control under one supreme civil Head under the Naval Superintendents. When you have done that, the Naval Superintendents in the smaller yards, such as Pembroke and Sheerness, will be found redundant and may be dispensed with. With respect to all that the noble Lord has said about stores, I fully concur. I recollect well that when those doctrines were upheld by the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh and Mr. Baxter, they were denounced as tending to reduce the strength of the Navy by depleting the storehouses. In regard to reforms in the Admiralty itself, I listened with some interest to the remarks made by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford) upon that subject, especially in reference to the duties of the Naval Lords, in regard to which he said that great changes are taking place. He said that all of them in future would be consulted, and that they will all have to write minutes in regard to their own Department, and that nothing will be done without their approval. I listened to the noble Lord attentively, but I could detect no real change as having taken place. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to point out distinctly what change has been effected. The Order in Council distinctly lays down the responsibility of each Naval Lord; and in my time the Naval Lords signed the "Estimates." The noble Lord was obliged to admit in his speech that the Navy Estimates were flung at his head without his having been allowed to see them before they were presented, and that he was asked to put his signature to this important document-without having been consulted in the matter. I should like to know if that is the result of these new Rules? Is it the outcome of the new Rules that the Naval Lord is required to sign his name to the Estimates without ever having seen them? If so, it appears to me to be a very singular arrangement; but I would venture to say that the refusal of the Naval Lord to sign the Estimates is an unprecedented occurrence, full of danger in regard to the future. The noble Lord cannot absolve himself from the general tenor of these Estimates even by refusing his signature to them, because every Naval Lord is practically responsible for the Estimates as a whole, and if he does not care to be responsible for them his proper course is to give up his post. Although, therefore, the noble Lord did not sign the Esti- mates he is responsible to the House and the country for them, and if he fails to do that he ought not to be there. His only alternative is to resign. There is one other point to which I desire to allude. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty gave an explanation of what is to occur in the future when new ships are under construction. I understood him to say that each Naval Lord is to be asked what he wants in a new ship—each Naval Lord is to lay down his requirements—and then the Admiralty are to call upon the Constructors to build a ship in accordance with their demands. If that is to be the new plan of the Admiralty in regard to now ships I do not know where it may lead us. Certainly not to the construction of a good vessel, I hold that one of the most important and responsible duties of the Admiralty is that of determining the designs of the larger vessels. It has been my lot to have been at the Board of Admiralty on several occasions when vessels of an important type have been agreed upon, and I know of no more responsible and difficult duty than that of arriving at such a conclusion. On all occasions the Naval Lords have been fully consulted; but so also was the Scientific Department of the Admiralty, represented by the Chief Constructors. There has often been a divergence of opinion between those two branches of the Navy; but I have never known a case where agreement was not finally arrived at between the scientific element and the naval element of the Admiralty. I think I may say that the great changes which have taken place in the designs of vessels during the last 20 years have not been due to naval officers, but that they have been forced on the Naval Service, in a great measure, by the Scientific Departments of the Admiralty, and by the Scientific Departments of other countries—especially of France. If naval officers' advice alone had been taken we should have made very little advance indeed. Eventually an agreement has been come to between the scientific department and the leading naval officers representing the Admiralty. As a general rule, the object of the naval profession is a very conservative one on these subjects, and perhaps rightly; but I do not believe that the most eminent naval men would stand by that conservative feeling unless they were egged on by the scientific branches of the Admiralty. The consequence has been that the designs of our vessels have been the result of a combination between the best scientific and the best naval opinion. A big ship must be in the nature of a compromise in which various elements of strength are combined, as to which there is room for great difference of opinion. As a general rule, it has been possible to bring the Naval and Scientific authorities into harmony by some concessions on either side. The importance of this has already been brought under the notice of the House in the case of the Nile and Trafalgar. The facts of that case have not been disputed by the noble Lord. Their importance consists in this, that for the first time the scientific constructors wore not consulted, but were directed what to design upon the sole advice of the First Naval Lord. An order was given by the Board of Admiralty to construct these two vessels on certain conditions laid down by the advice of naval officers. The constructors objected, and reported that the vessels were not what they ought to be for the enormous expenditure devoted to them, and that they were very deficient in certain qualities, especially in speed. The constructors entered their protest, and asked that a Royal Commission would be appointed similar to that presided over by Lord Dufferin. I am not going into the whole subject of the designs of these two vessels; but I confess that the result of the debate on Thursday last was to impress me with the highest importance of the demand which has been made for a Royal Commission. That step, I believe, would result in reassuring public opinion as to the vessels already constructed after the attacks which have been made upon them by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed), which seem to me to be exaggerated, and most unfair to Sir Nathaniel Baruaby and Mr. White. I am afraid that the noble Lord, in the course which he has pursued, has promoted distrust in regard to some of the vessels which have been built, and that he has not stood up for the officials of the Admiralty as he ought to have done. I cannot help bearing in mind i what the noble Lord stated last year as to the construction of the Agamemon and the Ajax, and I think that having regard to the whole tenor of the dis- cussion on Thursday it would be wise, at the present moment, to appoint a Commission of design, not with a view of altering any of the vessels now under construction, because that could not be done, but to reassure the public mind as to the character of the vessels now being constructed, and also with a view of laying down the conditions which are in future to be followed when now vessels are to be built. It is quite certain that before very long there will be a new departure in the case of vessels of large tonnage. I believe that the French Government are not commencing any now vessels of large tonnage, nor are they engaged, at the present moment, in laying down any large iron-clad at all. It is, therefore, evident that we are approaching some other line, and in view of that I think it would be well that a Committee of Design, similar to that presided over by Lord Dufferin, should be appointed again for the purpose of considering the designs on which the future construction of vessels should be based. I make this remark in no carping spirit. I think the programme of the noble Lord, for the coming year, is a wise and moderate one, and that it will afford an opportunity of considering what should be the character of our vessels in the future. It is quite evident that the days of iron-clads of the type of the Colossus and others are numbered, and it is right that the Government should be fully advised before taking a new departure. With regard to another point, I entirely agree with what has been stated as to the education of naval officers, and the results of the inquiry of the Ravensworth Commission. I regret what the noble Lord said about it; but I do not propose to refer to that matter now, although I shall certainly take the opportunity of expressing my views upon it at greater length on some other Vote. There is only one other point I desire to allude to. I read with pleasure the statement made by the noble Lord with regard to the personnel of the Fleet, He said that the waste of men is far less than formerly, and that the service has become more popular. I rejoice at that, for after all the personnel of the Fleet is by far the most important part of it. We can improvise in time of war to a great extent the matériel of the Fleet, but we cannot improvise officers and men of the highest quality. That must always be a work of time with respect to the malériel of the Fleet. No one can foretell what would be the requirements of the nest naval war. My own opinion is that something very much more simple than the cumbrous and costly constructions of the last few years will he the platform on which our men will have to fight, and that science will discover something appropriate to the time, which will be improvised quicker than the iron-clads. What it may be we cannot foretell, but whatever it may be it will require hearts of steel to man our vessels. But having the greatest confidence in the personnel of the Fleet; knowing that our officers and seamen will be men of great courage and of the highest intellect, I fool that they will be adequate to any duty that may be imposed upon them, and that they will maintain the interests of the Service, and of the Empire wherever they may be called upon to act.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) stated that he is not quite sure the next Secretary to the Admiralty will know the form of vessel in which the seamen of our Fleet will have to fight. He, perhaps, thus explains his own position when Secretary to the Admiralty himself. At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact, as being generally recognized, that questions relating to the Navy were not Party questions. Yet the gist of the whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that of a Party politician. Now I am afraid that it is this Party spirit which has injured the efficiency of the Navy in the past, and that if the efficiency of the Navy is really to be restored on a firm basis, it will be as well to discard any partizan feeling when discussing matters in which the Admiralty are concerned, and by hon. Members dropping their politics for the time. The right hon. Gentleman, in praising the policy of Lord Northbrook, quite forgot to tell us which policy of that noble Lord he was praising. Was it the policy of March, 1884, when this House brought a considerable amount of pressure to bear on the Representatives of the Government, when it was demanded that an inquiry should be instituted into the condition of the Navy, when it was asserted that the House and country were dissatisfied with the existing state of things, and when the proposal was resisted by the Representatives of the Admiralty in this House, and especially by Mr. Brassoy—now Lord Brassey—on behalf of the Government? He said, in March, 1884, that the Admiralty were satisfied that

"the addition they were making for the Fleet was sufficient to maintain our naval supremacy, and that it would be impolitic to propose the sensational Estimates which the critics of the Government policy demanded."

The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) maintained that it was

"impossible for the Government to allow an inquiry to be instituted into the state of the Fleet on the supposition that its condition was unsatisfactory."

That was what Lord Northbrook's Administration stated in March, 1884; but in the month of November in. the same year they came down to this House and asked for an additional expenditure of over £3,000,000, because they were then altogether dissatisfied with the condition of the Fleet. Which of these two policies of Lord Northbrook is it to which the right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has been referring? I think he ought to have specified whether it was the policy of Lord Northbrook in March, 1884, or the totally opposite policy which he advocated seven months later. I trust that the Committee will hear from the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty a somewhat clear statement as to the responsibility which attaches to naval individuals in the Admiralty. I confess that, after the debate which occurred the other night, I have been more confused upon that point than I was before. I have never, since 1869, been able to understand the responsibility which attaches to Naval Lords. It was stated the other night that the Impérieuse and the Warspite are frightful examples of the bad system prevailing at the Admiralty. It was then pointed out that the case of the Benbow was an example of blunders owing to the goodness of the system, but badly applied. In one of these cases it was alleged that the system was bad, but in the other that it was good. The hon. and gallant Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex (Admiral Field) said that under the Order of Council in 1869 the whole position of the Naval Members of the Admiralty has become most un-satisfactory. That was contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), who issued that Order in Council. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was perfectly satisfactory, because it throws individual responsibility on Naval Lords of the Admiralty, and he emphasized that fact by saying that he made each Lord of the Admiralty sign the Estimates, in order to show that he was directly responsible for his own Department. The next thing which happened was that my noble and gallant Friend the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), who is so distinguished an ornament of the Admiralty and the Naval Profession, stated that he had refused to sign the Estimates because he knew nothing about them, and had not had time to study thorn. Now, I do not think it is right that the House and the country should not be able to attach some responsibility to particular men for particular failures; and I cannot see how that provision is to be made while the civil element—what I may call the clerical element—controls. I cannot conceive how it is possible to say, in regard to the defence of this great Empire, involving as it does many critical questions, which only experts can deal with, that you should spend so much larger a sum every year in the clerical department of the Admiralty than on the expert staff. I cannot conceive anything more adverse to the establishment of a better state of things in regard to the naval administration. So long as naval officers are few at the Admiralty, and until you organize your Admiralty into departments under responsible naval men, with adequate naval staff, kept there long enough to know their business, I cannot see how you can get that business efficiently done. we must also have the guarantee which is provided by the American system—that not only shall the Admiralty and the naval administration be divided into departments, but that there shall be a Naval Lord at the head of each department. Unless that is done, you will never have that proper consideration devoted to the wider questions of policy which is necessary in order to secure the due administration of the Navy. I want to know from the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty, if the Naval Lords are responsible for the Estimates, how it is that they did not sign the Memorandum; how is it that it comes as a Memorandum of the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty alone, while the Naval Estimates, which are necessary in order to carry out his policy, are signed by a majority of the Naval Lords? If the noble Lord, and the other Lords, are responsible for the Naval Estimates, they should be responsible for the policy that is involved in them; and, therefore, they should have been called upon to sign this Memorandum. I trust I may be allowed to express a hope that the next Memorandum will be a Report from each Naval Lord at the head of each department, stating that he is satisfied that the Estimates are sufficient and necessary for the department with which he is connected, and then let the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty sign generally for himself that the Estimates are correct. That is a question of some importance, because if, under the Order of 1869, each Lord is responsible for his department, I cannot understand why the Memorandum appears as if it were the solo production of the First Lord. There is not one single word, from beginning to end, in that Memorandum as to the requirements of our coaling stations. I know the noble Lord will tell me that that is not in his Department; but I think it is a monstrous thing that the safety of the coals for the Navy in a time of war should not be vested in the Board of Admiralty, instead of resting with the War Department. It can easily be understood that the Navy will be helpless and powerless unless adequate stores of coal are secured, and yet there is not one word about the coaling stations in this Memorandum. If the noble Lord cannot guarantee an adequate provision for the coaling stations, I maintain that there is little use in spending money on ships. There is another point in connection with this Memorandum which has surprised me still more. Hon. Members will have read a very interesting paragraph about the personnel of the Fleet; but I think it is somewhat astounding that in these days the noble Lord should have omitted to mention the 10,500 Marine Infantry and 2,500 Marine Artillery under his control. It is astonishing to me that so large an Infantry and Artillery Force should be regarded as so minor a detail in the defence of the country as not to be worthy of mention in this Memorandum. Who is responsible for this omission? Still less can I make out why, in these circumstances, we should have the House of Commons dissatisfied, and the country agitated, because the Secretary of State for War proposes to break up five batteries of Horse Artillery in order to provide garrisons for the purpose of protecting the coals required by the Navy in different parts of the world. I cannot conceive why it should be considered at all necessary to break up five batteries of Horse Artillery in order to meet naval requirements, and to provide Artillery for garrisoning naval stations. But it will be found that the Board of Admiralty, or, at all events, the Naval Departments, have 2,500 Marine Artillery placed absolutely at their disposal. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has not even considered it necessary to mention them in this Memorandum. As an officer who has spent 15 or 10 years of his life in that Force, I think I ought to know something about its value. Yet my opinion is that, although the country is spending a great sum of money in order to secure an efficient body of Artillery, the Admiralty are misusing and misapplying it. I challenge contradiction to that assertion. I find that there is a mention of the Marine Service in the Memorandum; but it is only this—that a certain number of Marines are about to be turned into butchers and bakers. I admit that that may be right; but I do not know why we should break up a number of batteries of Horse Artillery, while it is proposed to turn the Marino Artillery into butchers and bakers. I think our naval defences in a time of war is too serious a matter to be trifled with in that manner. I should like to know whether there has been any communication whatever between the War Office and the Board of Admiralty as to the application of the Marines and the Marino Artillery to the defence of the coaling stations? There is not one word about that matter in the Memorandum, nor any allusion whatever to the employment of the Marines, except as butchers and bakers. What I want to know is, whether the question of de-feuding the coaling stations under the Admiralty with a Marine Force has ever been put by the Admiralty to the War Office? If that had been done, the whole matter could have been fairly inquired into, and the defence of these coaling stations would have been carried out at a cost infinitely loss and in a far more efficient and satisfactory manner. The noble Lord must admit that when the Horse Artillery is broken up, the War Office will come to the Admiralty and call upon them to provide transport for the Artillery and their stores to coal depots all over the world, backwards and forwards, and the country will have to pay for it. Marino Artillery would go out as supernumeraries in warships, and transport expense would thus be saved. There is another interesting point touched upon in this Memorandum. I am sure that the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone is the last person to give credit to any Department which does not deserve it. One of the most interesting portions of the Memorandum is the statement with regard to the Naval Intelligence Department. I most cordially approve, and I warmly thank the present Board of Admiralty for, the stop they have taken. It has been too long deferred already, and I think that the promotion and extension of that Intelligence Department is the wisest step the Admiralty have ever taken in its history in modern times. But I am sorry to say that I cannot give the Board any credit for the idea of this Naval Intelligence Department. The facts are these. The Naval Intelligence Department appears first in the Estimates of 1881 for the sum of £500. Lord Northbrook does not deserve credit for that, nor does Lord Northbrook's Administration. It was a totally inadequate Estimate, and merely a sop towards satisfying public opinion. The present Board of Admiralty are taking a further step in this direction, and I believe they are pursuing a wise policy—one of the wisest, indeed, which has distinguished the Admiralty for many years. More than 20 years ago I pointed to the necessity of establishing a Naval Intelligence Department; and I remember having had a bad time of it, on one occasion, at the hands of a Naval Lord of the Admiralty, because I dared to advocate certain views. At length the United Service Institution asked me to put all my arguments together and deliver a lecture upon the subject. I remember talking to a distinguished friend of mine —who has since left the Admiralty—upon the matter, and he implored me not to deliver the lecture, because the Admiralty did not want such a Department. My lecture, however, was given in 1881, and Lord Northbrook came down afterwards and said that it was very interesting, and that something should be done in the matter. Nevertheless, it was not until 1884 that Lord Northbrook produced the Vote for £500; and he might just as well have asked for 500 pence for all the good a sum like that was calculated to do. My estimate was, and still is, that the Naval Intelligence Department should cost at least £20,000 a-year. It has leaked out how this question of the Naval Intelligence Department has been dealt with in an Admiralty Minute; but it is somewhat like the performance of the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out. There is not a single word in the Admiralty Minute which requires the Naval Intelligence Department to make itself acquainted with the vast and complicated operations of sea commerce. It is supposed that our commerce is. to a certain extent, always the same on the ocean, and there is not a single word said about the naval arrangements for the protection of that commerce, to the variations and tendencies of which these arrangements must conform. The natural laws which influence commerce are the keys to our ocean defence, and therefore I feel emboldened to ask the noble Lord what is to be the policy of the Admiralty in the event of war? Are we ready to maintain a blockade, and, if so, is the Admiralty prepared to keep up a force sufficient for blockading all the war ports of probable enemies, so as to prevent their iron-clads from getting out? In addition, to watch the great commercial ports of the enemy, are they in a position to guard the 13 great junctions of our commerce on the ocean? Are we prepared to maintain a sufficient naval force to hold those 13 junctions?—because, if we are not, we might just as well try to keep possession of the line of railway from the Victoria Station to Dover, and allow the enemy to take possession of Clapham Junction. Have we an adequate force for this purpose? Have we an adequate force to watch neutral ports so as to deny the enemy coal? The whole question of naval warfare is the coaling of our own cruisers, find the position we may be in to deny coal to the enemy. I am satisfied, and I challenge contradiction, that the Admiralty are not prepared and have not a sufficient force at command to do these things; and I want to know what is to become of the commerce of this country in the case of war, if you are not? I hope the noble Lord will understand that in speaking strongly on this matter I am not saying that he is to blame, or that the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone is to blame, or even Lord Northbrook. I blame no individual; but I say that the system is to blame, and I contend that you are imperilling the whole of your commerce by continuing to pursue this absurd course. Just one word more. It is important for this House and the country to have some standard by which it is to measure its naval requirements. It is of no use to say that we are equal in ships to three Foreign Powers, and, therefore, we need spend no more. That would be just as reasonable as to say that Sir Charles Warren has got more police than burglars, and therefore the Estimates for the Metropolitan Police ought to be cut down. In this Metropolis do you measure the strength of your police by the number of criminals? Do you not increase your police in proportion to the growth of wealth and the area over which it is spread? We are told that the growth of the Metropolis necessitates the increase of the Police Force by 150 police constables annually. So also in the Navy—it is not a question of money primarily, but of the necessities of the case. There ought to be some standard by which the requirements of the case can be measured. Abstract comparisons with the Naval Force of other countries are worthless. Our Naval Force must be measured by our requirements, and it certainly seems to me that the strength of our Navy has not been developed in the same ratio as our responsibilities. It may be quite true that the number of Her Majesty's ships in commission may exceed those in commission of any three other Naval Powers. That, however, means nothing. I trust that in connection with the next Naval Memorandum we shall have a map issued showing by ocean districts the amount of British commerce compared with that of France, Russia, Germany, and other Foreign Powers; also the number of ships and guns which England has on each ocean, and the number of ships and guns which foreign nations have. That would probably educate Parliament and the country as to the extent of our responsibilities, and the task which is imposed upon the Navy of this country. Abstract comparisons do nothing but blind people. The question of coal is all-important in these days, and it is regrettable to hear that Singapore is not adequately defended. I can say that the same statement applies to the Cape, notwithstanding the fact that the Cape is to us of the very utmost importance as a coaling station. Foreign fleets can coal at Madeira and at St. Vincent; and the moment a war breaks out, unless you have a sufficient squadron off these places to stop vessels from going in there to got supplies of coal, you would find it impossible to maintain the ocean routes for your commerce to the other side of the world, and your commerce would be absolutely paralyzed. Thus the neglect of the War Office as regards coaling stations increases Admiralty responsibilities. If that happens, who are you to hang? The noble Lord says—"I will not be hanged; I have nothing to do with the coals; they are not in my Department." I trust that in next year's Memorandum the noble Lord will not almost apologize for the expense, and hold out hopes of a reduction. I myself hope to see a greater increase of efficiency, and also a still larger expenditure. I cannot help thinking that it is nothing but moonshine to see your commerce grow and grow, and to expect to cut down your expenditure. At Singapore, for instance, where you import annually 300,000 tons of coal, the station is inadequately defended; and unless it is properly defended and maintained in time of war it would mean the stoppage of nearly the whole of your Mercantile Marine. Surely it is most unsatisfactory that a station like that should be left without proper defence, especially when we know that in that very Port of Singapore a greater average amount of tonnage is cleared and entered annually than in the whole of the Ports of the United Kingdom during the year Her Majesty commenced her Reign. We are told to cut down our Expenditure; but perhaps the Committee will allow me to mention the fact that when Her Majesty began her Reign the total sea commerce of the Empire was only one-fifth of what it is now. The tonnage entering and clearing British Ports is now ten times as great, whereas our Naval Estimates are not throe times as great as at that time. Take the tonnage of the National Mercantile Marino entering and clearing the national ports, and compare the Naval Expenditure of this country with that of the other great Naval Powers. It will be found that Germany spends 7s. upon her Navy per ton of national tonnage entering and clearing national ports; Italy pays 15s. per ton for Italian ships entering and clearing Italian ports; Russia £2 10s. per ton for ships entering and clearing Russian ports; and Franco £1 1s. for her ships entering and clearing French ports. Thus you have Germany paying 7s., Italy 15s., Russia £2 10s., and Franco £1 1s., while the British Empire pays 2½d.

I have not risen for the purpose of making any comments upon the able speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down (Captain Colomb), but rather to answer some of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), especially where he referred to the policy of Lord Northbrook while at the Board of Admiralty. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that what the right hon. Gentlemen said as to the pressure brought to bear upon the Admiralty was quite true. It must not, however, be forgotten that before that pressure of public opinion was placed upon Lord Northbrook, the noble Lord had stated that if the £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 which was then asked for was granted by Parliament, he would not know how to use it, or what to do with it. I think I am very nearly quoting the actual words of Lord Northbrook at the time. The noble Lord found it necessary, subsequently, to give in to the public opinion of the nation at large, and that public opinion was not certainly always in accord with that of the right hon. Member for Central Bradford. Both the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman came round to it, however, very quickly at last, and they passed Votes for the purpose of putting the Navy in a proper state of efficiency. Lord Northbrook, in the speech which he made on that occasion, declared his readiness to reverse his previous decision, and said that the money might be used with great advantage to the Navy and to the country. Therefore, I think that to quote what was said and done under the administration of Lord Northbrook is not saying very much, when we take these inconsistencies into consideration. I am sorry that any reference at all has been made to Lord Northbrook's administration, because I believe that the question ought to be discussed on its own merits, and in a manner befitting the importance and efficiency of the Navy, as well as the great interests of the country. The right hon. Gentleman devoted a largo portion of his speech to the political side of the question, and to some views expressed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord the Member for Paddington. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford should have devoted so largo a portion of his speech to a political retrospect instead of discussing the real merits of the question. I do not desire to give any credit to one Party more than another for the steps which have been taken to reorganize the naval administration of the country; and the Memorandum of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) ascribes no credit either to a Conservative or a Liberal Government, but decidedly and emphatically refers to the desirability of the policy of continuity. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the re-grot expressed by Lord Northbrook that the hon. Member for the Govan Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Pearce) was placed on the recent Committee over which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. For-wood) presided, on account of the fact that the firm with which he is connected had tendered for the construction of the ship3 which were to form the subject of inquiry. I have nothing to say about that; but the country either requires technical knowledge to be brought to boar upon an inquiry into these subjects, or it does not. For my own part, I think it was of the highest consequence to have such knowledge as my hon. Friend possesses, just as it was to have the knowledge which my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sutherland) possesses as the head of one of the largest Steamship Companies of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan has great experience in the building of large ships; and what we want and must have is the experience which he and gentlemen like himself can bring to bear upon these technical questions. Such experience, however, it would be impossible to obtain if we are to rule out every person who has an interest in the actual work. We must either adopt the one principle or the other; and if we say that we require the knowledge in these matters which a shipbuilder alone possesses, then the argument of Lord Northbrook which the right hon. Gentleman quoted falls entirely to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman has referred, in connection with the improvement and the reorganization of the Dockyards, to the difficulty of finding good men. I do not think that that is a difficulty which really exists, or that the present Board of Admiralty has found to exist. I question whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, discovered that it was difficult to find good men. I think it is always possible to find good men in the Dockyards, and if necessary to find good men who will be willing to go there when they are wanted. I was surprised, therefore, that such a statement should have been made by the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that he has himself had considerable experience at the Board of Admiralty, and that he has always taken a deep interest in these matters. Nor can I agree with the further statement which the right hon. Gentleman made, that we should practically disestablish all the naval control in the Dockyards, and establish in its place a civil control.

I did not say that. I said that the business should be under Naval Superintendents, with a complete civil control.

That is just the same thing, and we have gone as far as that in the arrangements made by the present Board of Admiralty. I quite concur that £1,000 a-year is a large salary to give to a civil assistant, and I have said that I could not concur in having an officer so largely salaried for doing the work which is now performed by the Naval Superintendent's civil assistant in the Dockyards. But I think it would he carrying the principle to a grievous excess indeed in the wrong direction, if we were to give greater power to this gentleman, and piano him practically over both the Admiral Superintendent and the Chief Constructor. I admit that the position he now occupies is a very anomalous one, because he has, in reality, no power whatever; and, worse than that, he takes away a considerable amount of responsibility from the Chief Constructor, the Admiral Superintendent, and others upon whom the real responsibility ought to rest. Now, I think that is a serious consequence arising from the appointment of civil assistants. I trust that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, when he rises to take part in the debate, will reply to some of the remarks which I felt it my duty to make on a previous evening. In addition, I hope to get some information from the hon. Gentleman about the Naval Barracks. I think it is necessary to understand what is the use they are to be put to. Some £70,000 or £80,000 has been spent upon them, and I understand that only about £3,000 or £4,000 is necessary to complete thorn. It would appear that their non-completion is due to a desire to put off the matter, because only about £1,000 is appropriated for those barracks this year. It has been stated that the Marines are to occupy them when complete, and that the Marino Barracks at Stonehouse are to be sold to the Railway Company; but I believe there is no foundation for that assertion. It is a very valuable property, and I think it will be of some interest to know what the real facts of the case are. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord, or the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, will give the Committee such information in reference to those matters as happens to be in their possession at the present moment. There is one item to which I now desire to call the attention of the Committee—namely, the sum of £12,000 for armour-piercing projectiles paid by the Admiralty this last year. That seems to me to be a mixing up in these Estimates of what ought to be paid by the War Office. I do not understand why this item. should be in the Naval Estimates of last year, and I think that such an arrangement will lead, or rather has led, to confusion in the accounts. I hope the day is not far distant when the Admiralty will have full control over its own expenditure; because I believe that is a matter of importance, so far as the efficiency of the Navy is concerned; and because I believe that much of the delay and difficulty which have taken place would have been avoided if the Navy Departments had the control of their own armaments. With reference to the reorganization of the Admiralty in respect to Dockyards, to which reference has been made, I cannot help referring incidentally, before I sit down, to the fact that every reorganization in the arrangements of the Dockyards, and in the Department of the Admiralty, necessarily entails great expenditure. It is, no doubt, quite necessary that a number of clerks and others should be pensioned off, and that the pay of men who take their place should have increased the charge by £8,000 for the coming year; but I want to impress on the Admiralty that, while we are making economies in the Dockyards, and cutting down the wages of men and discharging men too, we must not forget that a keen interest is taken by these people, by their friends, and the country generally, in the figures which show an. increase in the higher Departments, and that economies, if they are to produce contentment, should provide for reduction at the top as well as at the bottom.

I think it is desirable that I should dispose of the questions which have been raised by hon. Members who have already spoken, and I trust my hon. Friends who wish to speak on the Estimates will pardon me for intervening at this stage of the discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) has pointed out that there is a certain charge for armour-piercing projectiles, and he asked why that item is included in the Navy Estimates. The simple explanation is that the Vote for which the War Office is responsible was already so high that it was thought impossible to include this sum; and, for that reason, and rather than leave out a provision for these projectiles, we have included the charge in the Navy Estimates. In the same way, with regard to the armaments on which these projectiles are to be tried, al- though, under the present system, the War Office must provide the great bulk of the money necessary for the armament of the Navy, yet I hold, undoubtedly, that it is the right of the Navy, if they cannot get sufficient Supplies from the War Department, to get it under their own Vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport also spoke of the Dockyard reorganization, and scorned to doubt the necessity of discharging a certain number of men from those establishments. We found last year that it was necessary to make a change which placed upon us the unpleasant task of having to discharge, at different times, a certain number of men; but a review of all the considerations brought home to the minds of the Board the absolute necessity for this. It was said at the time that it was our duty to find work for these men; but that doctrine is one to which I cannot assent, because it must be borne in mind that the Dockyards exist for the Navy of the country, and not for the men who are employed in them; and it is the duty of the Admiralty, therefore, to administer the Naval Department as efficiently and economically as possible, even though it may happen, and as, I fear in certain cases, it has entailed more or less hardship on individuals and distress upon localities. It is the desire of the Admiralty to put the Dockyards in a firm and impregnable position, so far as their work is concerned; but when, under the various alterations and reforms which are being pressed forward, the Dockyards become more efficient, and as soon as they are able to hold their own with private yards, there will be no opposition to asking that the great bulk of the work required by the Navy shall be done in them. With regard to the relations of the Admiralty Superintendent and the civil assistant, the principle on which we have endeavoured to proceed with regard to the Dockyards and the different Departments, is to make one man responsible for all that goes on there. If he wants more assistance we are willing that he should have it; but I am convinced that many of the undoubted blunders which have occurred in the past were owing to the system under which no one man was held thoroughly responsible for what occurred in a Department. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) says that he approves of this appointment of civil assistant; but, if so, I think it is unfortunate that he should have spoken of his work as that of a spy. The right hon. Gentleman has made use of a most unfortunate epithet; it is one which I think is not calculated to assist that officer in the difficult work which he has to do in the Dockyards. How is it possible that any man can discharge the duty of supervising labour at the Dockyards if a distinguished Liberal, one of the Members of this House, characterizes his work as that of a spy? The very word illustrates the way in which the right hon. Gentleman approaches the discussion of naval questions. He looks on the question from a Party point of view, and anything which is not associated with himself, or his Party, he feels bound to disparage and depreciate. He commenced his speech by saying that I have made a statement which is not true, and which is unfair to Lord Northbrook, and to the Board of which Lord Northbrook was the head. I have great respect for Lord Northbrook, and I should be very sorry to say anything that was unfair of him, or of the Board over which he presided. What are the statements which the right hon. Gentleman characterized as untrue, but which he did not prove to be so? I stated in my Report that "in the period between 1881 and 1880 every Naval Power in Europe save Englargely increased its naval expenditure." Well, that is true. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that it was true. But he says—" You ought not to have made that statement, because in the period antecedent to 1881 the Conservatives were in power." What on earth has that do with my statement? I submit that what must to a great extent influence the expenditure of this country is the expenditure of foreign nations. We cannot help noticing what foreign nations do in this respect, and it is apparent that during the period I have named, Franco and Germany had enormously increased their naval expenditure.

I stated that between 1881 and 1885, France had not. increased her naval expenditure, and I called attention to the statement of the noble Lord as to the position of England during that time.

I showed the other day that while the expenditure of France had increased 30 or 40 per cent. our expenditure had only increased 16 per cent for the period 1876–1886; and it is the fact that between 1881 and 1885 the total expenditure of France largely increased, and I wont on to say that "England was the last Naval Power to recognize these new conditions." That is true; and it was because of that the large Vote was brought forward by Lord Northbrook, All I asserted was that if that expenditure had been spread over a larger number of years, greater care would have been taken in disbursing it, and the nation would have derived greater benefit from the outlay. The Statement which I drew up and which is laid before the country, presents an accurate view of the naval affairs of the nation. If it happens to reflect on any particular Administration, what does that matter to the country—if it is true? I do not believe the House of Commons to be a hard master, in the matter of expenditure) on the Navy, provided the Government take the House into its confidence, and make a full and frank statement. Every Government is liable to make blunders, and it is the duty of those who succeed them to seek to benefit by past experience, in order to remedy those blunders. If the Board with which I have the honour to be associated should commit blunders, is it to be supposed that a succeeding Government is to be deterred from commenting upon the faults of our Administration? What was the Administration up to 1885, which the right hon. Gentleman champions? Was it a satisfactory Administration? Does the Report in any way strain the facts? Why, one hon. Gentleman, who is perhaps the greatest authority on shipbuilding in the House, the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) fell foul of me the other night, because he said I made far too favourable defence of what he calls the blunders of that Administration. What are the facts? In the Memorandum to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, he will find the following passage:—

"With the important exception of being more deeply immersed than was anticipated, the Impérieuse, in her trials, fully realized the expectation of her designer, and notwithstanding her deep draft, she is now, taking the essentials of speed, armament, and armour into consideration, if not actually the most powerful, one of the most powerful iron-clad cruisers afloat of her tonnage."

And that is what the right hon. Gentleman calls undue depreciation of the vessel. The right hon. Gentleman was Secretary to the Board of Admiralty which occupied itself in laying down vessels of the Impérieuse, Warspite, Admiral, and belted cruiser class. There is a great dispute as to whether or not those belts were deep enough. Into that dispute I will not now enter; but the Committee will understand that where there is a narrow belt of armour over the vital part, so to speak, of the ship, it is essential that the draught of the vessel should be what was anticipated when she was laid down. Every one of those ships was more deeply immersed than she ought to have been. Why was that? Because, at the time they were laid down, proper co-operation did not exist between the different Departments relative to their complement and armour-plates. What happened with reference to the Benbow? She is a vessel which was to carry two 67-ton guns; but the armament was suddenly changed to two 110-ton guns; and the consequence was, that she had to carry additional weight on that account, and also on account of shot and ammunition. The Rodney was designed to carry 43-ton guns, and, after she was laid down, that was altered to 63-ton guns. In the case of the belted cruisers, the complement of men was put down at 350; but it was found that the crew necessary to work the guns was 421 men. Every one of these mistakes could have been prevented. I allude to this matter, not for the purpose of finding fault with the late Board of Admiralty, but in order to show to the country that the present Board have made an alteration which we believe will be beneficial. It consists in this—that when a design of a ship is approved by the Board of Admiralty, each single officer—the First Lord, the Comptroller, and Chief Engineer—should, in consultation with the designer, fix the weight of the engines, the number of the complement, and the exact nature of the armament, that they should estimate the exact weight necessary to supply that complement and armament; and then that they should attach their signatures to the contract, after which no alteration shall be made. I have alluded to the fact that these ships were more deeply immersed than they ought to have been, because that is a very great blunder, and because every one of them will have a belt of much less utility than it was intended to be. [An hon. MEMBER: Are any of the belts under the water?] That depends much on the quantity of coal on board. The second mistake in the action of the late Board is to be found in the fact that, for the purpose of obtaining high speed, the designer was in the habit of associating the trial of vessels with what are called legend weights. The statements made in this House with reference to trials were thoroughly misleading. They were misleading because, if the vessel has her full supply of coal on board, it is evident that she cannot attain such a high rate of speed as when she has not her full quantity on board. Having detected this, it was my duty to show, as clearly as I could, what the Board of Admiralty unanimously decided upon to prevent its recurrence. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that I wrote this Memorandum for the purpose of causing pain to those who held Office before us. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to that Statement, let him read the evidence laid before several Committees, and the Reports made by the Select Committee as to the state of things existing at the Admiralty in 1885. Lot him read the evidence of General Graham on the Dockyards, and he will see that the language used is far stronger than anything I have said in this Memorandum, for I knew how much Party fooling entered into the discussion on the Navy Estimates in this House, and I was anxious to start with no such embarrassment. The right hon. Gentleman wont on to say that the programme of work proposed to be laid down is of a very moderate character. What is the position in which we find ourselves? There is provision made for additions to the Navy which have never before been made in one year. We found that we were able to produce this result by placing all the power we could on the vessels that were building; and we felt, until that was done, it was not advisable to launch into a more extensive programme. But there was another consideration. If we had laid down a large number of sloops and gunboats, we should have been compelled largely to increase the Dockyard Establishments; but next year, when we have finished the iron-clads now building, there will be a considerable reduction in the Establishments. When we came into Office, there were in, the Dockyards 80,000 to 100,000 tons in iron-clads perfectly useless to the country. They were all near completion; and the lesson we have learned is this—if you want to turn those vessels out of the Dockyards rapidly, you must lay them down at such intervals that you can afford full and continuous employment for each branch at the Dockyards. The policy which we have pursued is to complete all the vessels in hand as soon as possible; and then, when the}' are finished, to fill up the gaps by laying down fresh vessels. The right hon. Gentleman says there has been no alteration in the law which constituted the Board of Admiralty. But there has been an alteration in the system. Under the present law, and under the Order in Council, the First Lord of the Admiralty is primarily responsible to Parliament and the country for the Navy and the expenditure connected with it. The other night I stated that the two Orders in Council of 1869 and 1872 illustrated the different manner in which the Admiralty has been worked. Under the Order in Council of 1869, the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) speaks of the Lords of the Admiralty as his "assistants;" his object being, as he practically admitted, to reduce the Board of Admiralty to the same condition as the Board of Trade, which has very little to do. Then the second Order was passed which rescinded the Order in Council of 1869. Then the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into Office, and he passed a second Order in Council, which rescinded that of 1869, striking out that objectionable word "assistants," and putting the Naval Lords in their proper position—that of Colleagues of the First Lord. Since I, myself, have been at the Admiralty I have endeavoured—and Lord Ripon worked on the same lines—I have endeavoured to give as much authority as possible to the Naval Lords, each in his own Department. The first object of our desire, therefore, is to give the Naval Lords, as far as their own Departments are concerned, as much power as possible; and the second object is to ensure, so far as the general question of policy goes, that there should be full and adequate discussion at the Board. The question is raised in another sense by the omission of my noble and gallant Friend's (Lord Charles Beresford) name from the Estimates. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bow (Captain Colomb) seems to think it would be better if in future the names of all the Lords of the Admiralty were attached to the Memorandum laid before the House. I do not think that is possible. If you have a largo number of people to draw up a Report, the probability is that the Report will not be very satisfactory. It is a curious fact that, previous to 1869, when the powers of the Junior Lords were greater than they are now—and when nearly all the business of the Admiralty was transacted before a full Board—it was not the practice of all the Lords, although they were responsible for the Estimates, to sign them. It was then insisted that all the Lords should sign the Estimates, and I find that the signatures came to be given as a matter of course. I thought that a somewhat objectionable practice; and, therefore, before these Estimates were presented, I asked my Colleagues whether they had any objection to sign them, and my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Charles Beresford) said that, inasmuch as he was not cognizant of ail the Estimates and their details, he thought it was better he should not attach his name to them, although he fully agreed with the policy embodied in them. It is a matter for consideration whether anyone should attach his name to any document of this kind unless he has had an opportunity of going through the whole it. It is perfectly evident to the House, as business men, that the mass of complicated figures such as this, comprising 100 pages, cannot well go before each individual Member of the Board in that manner. What can be done was done in the present instance. the policy which is embodied in the Estimates was fully discussed, the shipbuilding programme was agreed to, and then it was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Forwood) and myself to go through the Estimates and, in connection with the Naval Lords, who are responsible for each individual Department, put the figures into shape. I think, however, it is a proper matter for consideration whether, in subsequent years, it would not be better to go back to the old practice, and for all the Members of the Board to sign the whole document, or whether each of them should only attach his name, so that each Lord may sign those Estimates for which he is personally responsible. Now, with regard to the subject of the Intelligence Department, which has been referred to in the discussion, I am glad to say we have secured the services of about 10 of the ablest young officers in the Navy, and I believe they will be able satisfactorily to perform their duties not at a cost of £20,000, as an hon. Member has suggested, but at a cost of something like £4,000 or £5,000 a-year. It will be seen at once that, as the officers I have mentioned are on The Navy List, their employment in the Intelligence Department does not involve any additional charge, so far as pensions are concerned. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) approved of the proposal to estimate the value of the Navy by giving a capital sum, as representing the value of the Navy, and appropriating an annual sum for the purpose of meeting depreciation and waste. I believe that the figures which are contained in my Memorandum will stand the test of time; but when the right hon. Gentleman draws a comparison between the figures in my Memorandum and the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty in Lancashire some time back, it is only right I should say that this idea and the figures are those of my hon. Friend; and I am sure both the Board of Admiralty and the House are much indebted to him for the ability and energy with which he has worked out the idea. I believe he puts before the House, in a plain and intelligible way, what is the sum which ought to be spent annually to keep our Navy up to the requisite strength. My experience is that it is no use placing before the Committee an enormous mass of figures; what, I presume, hon. Members would like to have is a simple account which, at one glance, will tell them what we are doing, what we propose to do, and what ought to be done. There are many business men in the House, and I believe this idea of annually voting a sum neither more or less than that which we consider to be requisite to make good the waste and depreciation of our Fleet is one which will commend itself to their minds. There is a considerable difference between the total of the capital account in this Memorandum and that which my hon. Friend gave in Lancashire; but his estimate in Lancashire included a number of things which are excluded in the Memorandum. My hon. Friend's estimate included all the gun-mountings and armaments; and if we take into consideration the total cost of the armaments and gun-mountings, which amounts to something over £10,000,000, there is practically only a slight difference between my hon. Friend's estimate and the estimate in my Memorandum of about £200,000. The estimate my hon. Friend gave in Lancashire was not an estimate worked out by actuaries as that contained in the Memorandum is, but it was a rough estimate made from the materials which he had during the time at his command.

I drew attention to the fact that the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) arrived at the estimate of £3,000,000. and that then he stated that the late Board had only provided £1,800,000. The latter figure certainly did not include either armaments or gun-mountings.

I am not myself cognizant of all the details of my hon. Friend's (Mr. Forwood's) speech; he is quite able to take care of himself, and I have no doubt that, later on, he will satisfactorily explain any statement that he made. Then, allusion was made to the speech I delivered at the Mansion House on Lord Mayor's Day. Now, Sir, what distresses me very greatly is that it is the habit of certain writers in the Press to constantly depreciate everything connected with the Navy, and the result is that a wholly false estimate of the naval strength of this country is convoyed to the minds of people. I believe there are persons in this country who believe we have got the worst Navy in the world; and I believe it to be a great advantage to this country that there are here competent naval attachés, representing various foreign Governments, who are able to represent to their Governments what our real naval strength is. Therefore, on the occasion in question, I was anxious to lay before the country and the world a clear statement of the condition of things. I pointed out that we had as many ships in commission as any three naval Powers; but I never implied that we wished to fight, or considered ourselves a match for any three naval Powers that were in a thoroughly satisfactory condition. On the contrary, the views I then laid down were in full accordance with those expressed in this Memorandum before the Committee. We have made great progress with our iron-clads; we have now coming on a large number of efficient cruisers; but all naval officers will agree with me when I say that a great portion of our sloops and gunboats are obsolete and quite unsuited to the requirements of modern naval warfare. There is one remark I must make with reference to these gunboats and sloops. I find that a considerable portion of these gunboats and sloops are in their first commission, but that they are quite obsolete in respect to speed. I do hope that, whoever may be at the Admiralty, they will take care that, when small vessels are laid down, they are of the requisite speed and have sufficient power in them. Every year speed is becoming a more essential fact in naval warfare, and it is possible for a vessel of comparatively limited displacement to attain a high speed. I am sorry I have detained the Committee at so considerable a length. I have, I think, shown that this Memorandum of mine was drawn up in no partizan spirit, but with an anxious desire to secure efficiency without undue expenditure. When the present Board of Admiralty accepted Office, all of us were determined to do our best to attain that object. We were conscious we might have difficulties to contend with. We knew we might come in contact with some of the old usages of the Service, and have to confront local prejudices and class prejudices; but we felt that the duty imposed upon us was one from which we ought not to shrink. I am confident that if Boards of Admiralty will frankly lay their case before the House of Commons without exaggeration—if they point out what has been done, the manner in which it has been done, and what is required to be done—I believe this House will always give a most patient and attentive consideration to any such appeal. I believe, moreover, that no difficulty will be experienced in obtaining the money required to put the Navy in efficient condition, provided that there are guarantees that the money will not be wasted.

Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the Statement of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) is of a very melancholy character, because what does it mean? It means that the British Admiralty is only now—in the year 1887—learning a very elementary portion of its duty in the administration of the Navy. We, who are connected with the Mercantile Marine of this country, have been brought up to do exactly what the Admiralty now propose to do. In building ships for the Mercantile Navy it has been our custom to study every point—to consider what work particular ships have to do, what speed they are to go, and what weights they have to carry—but it seems to me that the building of ships for the British Navy has been very much a matter of chance. Why has that been so? Because of the system hitherto prevailing that ships have been laid down, and instead of being built as speedily as possible, the time of construction has varied, and in some cases has been as long as seven or eight years. I believe I am correct in saying that, at present, the capabilities of the country are such that the very largest iron-clad could be built within two years, and oven in two years there are certain alterations which could not be avoided, on account of the strides now made in mechanical science. But these alterations ought to be allowed for in the Estimates. Instead of that, everything is drawn down to the very finest point, and there is no margin loft for any contingency. What is the consequence? Even, according to the statement of the noble Lord, very few of our recently constructed vessels of war are up to the requirements for which they wore intended. During the late war scare large sums of public money were expended, but still the old reckless system prevails. Now-a-days ships are ordered by the half-dozen; but when they are completed, it is found there are great deficiencies in them. If one vessel were to be built at a time as speedily as possible, we should be able to find out exactly what that vessel could do, and what improvements could be made. It must be borne in mind that we have, in this country, great private shipbuilding yards, owned by gentlemen who are very competent to be of great service to the State in giving advice in the designing and the construction of vessels for the Navy. Although we are, after all, greatly indebted to the professional gentlemen connected with the Navy, we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that their profession prompts them to take a somewhat shortsighted view, compels them to run in too narrow a groove. Now, if the Admiralty, when they have once made up their minds as to the class of vessel they think suited for certain services, would consult with the different private builders, I feel sure great improvements could be made in the designs of Her Majesty's ships of war. Having sat in this House for a great many years, I have noticed the repetitions of the same old stories. We have had hon. Members rising, gone-rally from the Conservative Benches, and telling us that a great deal of money has to be spent. Their excuse is that the expenditure is necessary for the defence of the Mercantile Navy of the country. The Mercantile Navy wants defending, but the taxpayers of the country want defending also. The speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bow (Captain Colomb) made me wonder whether the world was so big that there were so many British interests to defend. According to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view, it is not £12,000,000 of money that is required to protect our interests in the different parts of the world, but I should imagine it must be something like £100,000,000 of the money of the British taxpayers. ["No!"] I think I am correct in saying that, if all the requirements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were complied with, that not much short of an expenditure of £100,000,000 would be requisite annually. But I rose more especially to call attention to the peculiar agreement which has been made by the Admiralty, sanctioned by the Treasury, for what is called the subvention of merchant steamers for State purposes. Looking through the noble Lord's Memorandum, I find that the excuse for that subvention is, that £500,000 of the British taxpayers' money was wasted during the late war scare in hiring fast merchant vessels. I have not the slightest doubt that every penny of that £600,000 was wasted. I have not the slightest doubt that every penny that is going to be spent on this subvention of merchant steamers for State purposes will be also wasted. Although I do not like to bring, what may appear, mere Party politics before the Committee, there have been some whisperings that, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) stood as a candidate for the representation of one of the Divisions of Liverpool, a feeling prevailed in Liverpool that the people there had been badly treated by the present Government in the taking of the mails away from Liverpool and giving them to the North German Lloyd steamers sailing from Southampton. That may or may not have been the fact; but, any way, we do know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not returned for Liverpool. Well, now, shortly afterwards we find that this agreement has been made with the White Star Company and the Cunard Company, by which a certain price has been fixed for the hire of certain of their vessels. Knowing what I do of merchant steamers, I am prepared to say that the price fixed for the White Star steamers—which are not modern steamers, which have an old class of engines, and which, in other ways, are not suited for the purpose intended—is utterly unreasonable and extravagant. The price fixed for the Britannic, for instance, is £130,000. If the vessel were put in the market it is very likely it would be impossible to get half that sum for it. A new vessel of the same class with modern machinery, could be built for a considerably less sum than the price named for the Britannic. But in addition to the price of £130,000 fixed, if the vessel is taken by the Government, 10 per cent is to be added to that price, which makes another£13,000; so you give £143,000 for a merchant steamer which is supposed to be of some service to the country as a fast cruiser, but which, I fear, will not be found to be the case. Now, let us consider what is the arrangement with the Cunard Company. The vessels of this Company to be taken are those— the Umbria. the Etruria, and the Aurania. The price of the Etruria. is fixed at £310,000. I am not prepare to make the statement as a fact, but I am under the impression, having made some engines, that a new vessel of the Etruria class, also with modern engines, could be built for, from £220,000 to £250,000. But in the case of the Etruria you also add 10 per cent, which makes £30,000, or a total of £340,000. In addition to that, you are going to give to the White Star and Cunard boats what a barrister would call a retaining fee of 15s. a-ton, making £5,100 a-year for each ship. What does that mean? It means that to a Company that is running in competition with other Companies, you are giving out of the taxpayers' money a subsidy which places them at an advantage over others who are competing with them in the same trade. Then you fix the hire of these vessels at 20s. a-ton per month. Any shipowner in the country would only be too glad to get 20s. per ton per month for his vessels. The fleet of the Peninsular and Oriental Company is about 200,000 tons; so a retaining fee of 15s. per ton per annum would sum up to £150,000 per annum. During the late scare, when transport vessels were wanted, and when so much money was wasted by the late Government, the hire of merchant steamers was down as low as 10s. and 11s. per ton per month. And when you have got these vessels, when you have spent this money on them, my own opinion is they will be utterly useless as armed cruisers, and that this agreement will result in a gross waste of public money. Another point in this subvention, but to which, perhaps, my remarks do not apply as strongly, is, that when now vessels are built which come up to the Admiralty requirements, they are to come under the terms of the subvention, and they are also to have a retaining fee. I am very doubtful, indeed, as to the wisdom of this arrangement; but, anyhow, the last provision of the subvention I have mentioned is very much better than that by which you take old unsuitable vessels, fix an enormous price upon them, give them a retaining fee, and also fix what is a very largo and profitable price upon them for their hire. Those of us who are connected with steam shipping know that, every now and then, the country gets into a state of alarm, merchant steamers are taken up in a somewhat reckless manner, large hire is paid, and in some cases it has been a godsend to Companies to have their vessels taken; in. more than one case it has saved the Company from premature bankruptcy. I do not apply tin's remark to this agreement; but what has happened ought to be a warning to this Government, and to any Government, not to make such a foolish agreement as this—a totally unnecessary agreement—and not to waste money in the way suggested. If the Government of this country think they have £50,000 a-year to spare—although I am now perhaps entering upon a different subject—let them grant that as an annual subsidy to the distress in the Metropolis, and we may excuse them; but as things stand, I unhesitatingly say that this is an agreement that ought not to be ratified by the House of Commons, and if there is an opportunity when the Vote comes forward of pronouncing against it, I shall certainly do so, either in Committee or in the House.

I should not have intervened in this discussion to-night had it not been for two Questions asked in the House this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Henry Tyler) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Finsbury (Mr. J. Rowlands). These Questions induce me to ask the Committee to allow me to say a few words upon the subject referred to in them. It will be fresh in the recollection of the Committee that a short time ago some rather painful discoveries were made as to the sale of designs of ships of war at Chatham Dockyard; and I am reminded by what has occurred to-day of a Question I put during the last Session of Parliament to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I asked whether it was true, as stated in the American Press, that the United States Government had managed to obtain confidential plans and specifications of some of our ships of war. The noble Lord seemed to think that the Question imputed rather a breach of trust to some of our officials. Well, I happen to have with me the extract from the American Press upon which I based my question—having provided myself with it to-day on seeing in the Paper the Notices of the Questions to which I have alluded. The Army and Navy Register, of Washington—a journal occupying in America a position similar to our Army and Navy Gazette, says—

"Secretary Whitney"—that is the official at the head of the American Navy—"has determined to include in the list of new cruisers for which proposals are to be invited, the large unarmoured cruiser authorized by the Bill passed two weeks ago to increase the naval establishment, and has directed that for this vessel the plans prepared by Chief Constructor White, of England, for the ship known as No. 27, be used. These plans contemplate a vessel of greater power and speed than any cruiser now afloat—in fact, the very highest-powered vessel of the kind in the world at the time of completion."

Then follow the details and dimensions of the ship, with which I will not trouble the Committee. I think hon. Gentlemen will agree with me that I had some reason for asking the First Lord of the Admiralty the Question I did—they will agree that I was justified in asking whether the statement contained in this extract was true or false. Since then—only a few days ago—a statement was made in the papers to the effect that these very designs to which that Question referred were parted with by Chief Constructor White, when he was not in the employ of the Admiralty. Mr. White, therefore, is absolved from blame in this matter; but the Committee will remark that in the paragraph I have read, upon which I founded my Question, there was no indication of that kind. I am reminded of the observations of the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) the other night, who mentioned what struck me as a strange piece of information—namely, that Mr. White, whilst Chief Constructor at the Admiralty, was allowed to do work—of course including the execution of designs—for the firm of Armstrong and Company, of Elswick.

As I have several times before stated, Mr. White was in the Admiralty, and he left-it when he became head of the shipbuilding yard of Messrs. Armstrong and Company. When the Chief Constructor of the Admiralty, Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, retired, I offered the appointment to Mr. White; but the greatest difficulty in the matter was the desire of Messrs. Armstrong and Company to retain him in their service. The only condition Messrs. Armstrong and Company made on parting with him, was that they might be allowed to consult him in certain contingencies with regard to uncompleted contracts.

I simply mention what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff said, and I hope the Committee will understand that, not for one moment, do I impute blame to Mr. White. Passing that matter by, I should like to direct the attention of hon. Members to a curious publication which appeared in America not long ago, issued for private circulation by the Naval Constructor of the United States Navy. It appears from that publication that two years ago the United States Naval Constructor was requested and required by the Secretary to the United States Navy to go over to England with the view of learning all he could as to our "improvements in naval architecture, and especially with regard to the steel ships of war." In the preface to this book are set forth the communications made by the then Secretary of the United States Navy to this Naval Constructor, Mr. Philip Hitchborn. This gentleman was informed that the Bureau of Construction would defray all his expenses; that he was to keep vouchers of those expenses; but that when vouchers were not given, he was to keep the best record he could. Mr. Hitchborn came over to England, and visited Pembroke Dockyard first, where he met with some success. While there he obtained, in some way or other, detailed information from specifications of the size and form of the composite barbette ships Anson and Howe, and a photograph of the double bottom of the Howe. He was also supplied somehow with extracts of specifications of the Forth and the Thames, which were being constructed there at the same time. That was all the information he could obtain at Pembroke. At Devonport Dockyard his efforts were crowned with greater success; for he obtained geographical and descriptive estate plans of that Dockyard, and of the Keyham Steam-Yard or machine factor}'. These plans were much fuller than could have been obtained from the Ordnance Survey or any published plan. They are strictly Admiralty confidential information, and the question is how could, Mr. Hitchborn have obtained them? He could not have obtained a staff of surveyors and naval architects to measure up and plot off these extensive establishments, because the proceeding would have had to be done in the open, and it would have been detected and stopped at once. He could not have obtained his information by a bird's-eye view, as the plans are geographically and mathematically exact in their details. Somehow or other he got hold of detailed information. He also procured information from specifications of the Mariner, Racer, and Icarus, sloops of 970 tons displacement; particulars of the Royalist and Amphion, sister ships; and some particulars of the Tamar, troopship, which had put in at that time for repairs. At Portsmouth Dockyard, Mr. Hitchborn obtained specifications and particulars of the following ships:—Collingwood, Colossus, Camperdown, Impérieuse, Hecla, and Polyphemus; a sot of detailed working drawings of the Calliope; the detailed construction of the 'midship section of the Mersey, and a plan of the fighting-deck of the Mersey, with its general arrangement of machine-guns, etc. Then he went on to Chatham, where he obtained specifications, etc., of the fast cruisers Severn, Arethusa, Leander, Phœton, etc.; worded particulars of structural details of the Rodney and Hero; copies of the confidential detailed plans of the 'midship section of the Rodney; and particulars of the composite construction of the Caroline. I have now in my possession facsimiles of the drawings Mr. Hitchborn obtained, and I should be glad to show them to any hon. Member who may desire to see them. The question is, were these plans and specifications confidential, or were they not? If they were, how did this gentleman manage to get hold of them; and if they were not, there is no need to make any fuss about the disclosure of naval secrets, and no need to talk about the desirability of meting out punishment to anyone? I say, if these plans and specifications were confidential how did Mr. Hitchborn get possessed of them? The Dockyard officials would never have given them to him, nor would the Admiralty officials—it seems to me preposterous to imagine such a thing for a moment. The only inference we can draw is that these plans and designs and specifications were obtained from Pembroke, Devonport, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Chatham in the same way that they were obtained from Chatham the other day. I asked the Government a few days ago whether the man Terry who had been detected selling these designs at Chatham had ever been employed as naval draughtsman in any other Dockyard except that of Chatham; for if he had been at Pembroke, Devon-port, Plymouth and Portsmouth, Mr. Hitchborn's possession of these plans and specifications might have been accounted for; but it seems that before his employment in Chatham Dockyard he was nothing but assistant overseer at some works in Sheffield. The conclusion we must come to, therefore, is that there were some other Young Terrys lying around at the other Dockyards, ready for some miserable gain to sell the secrets of their country. What Powers have been supplied with these plans? What other country, besides America, is in possession of this detailed information concerning the characteristics of our ships and the formation of our Dockyards. It is possible that some other Powers may have them. It is true that at the present moment we are at peace; but we never know now-a-days when we may have to expect war—we never know how soon or how far friendly relations existing between us and other nations may be broken. I hope hon. Members will bear this in mind, that though we may not suffer in time of peace through a foreign Power possessing the plans and designs of our ships, in time of war these very designs will be used against us to our detriment. It seems to me that it is nothing short of high treason, in time either of war or peace, for anyone to sell to a foreign Government any description of Her Majesty's ships. I do not know how hon. Members take it; but it does seem to me that designs and specifications relating to our vessels of war should be kept in the strictest manner confidential, all knowledge of them being confined to this country, seeing the enormous amount our taxpayers have to pay in respect of them. No considerations of courtesy or etiquette should permit any English official to make known to the Representative of any foreign Power such information as this; and I do hope and trust that if these designs are hold by the Admiralty to be confidential—and I assume they are so hold as we are told—although we are told that foreign attachés are allowed to look at thorn and examine them, but not to take them away—the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty will not content himself with issuing the new rules to which he has referred, and with putting up proclamations in the Dockyards—on the principle, I am very much afraid, of locking the stable door after the horse is stolen—but that if the existing law is not strong enough to punish these offences I have referred to, he will use his influence to get it amended speedily, so that it will be possible to visit with the very severest penalties, such as imprisonment with hard labour, those who recklessly and wilfully sell the designs of Her Majesty's Navy to foreign Powers, thereby imperilling the safety of the country.

I desire to give credit to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty for the improvements which he has effected in the form in which the Navy Estimates have been laid before the House. I had an idea that the Army Estimates were better arranged than those for the Navy; but I see that a I great improvement has taken place in regard to the Appendices of the latter, and I trust that any defect which still may be found to exist with regard to them will be remedied by the noble Lord. In regard to the naval guns, about which I spoke last week, I had not seen the details set forth in the Appendix, but I think there are still some defects in the information which should be remedied. When we had nothing but wooden ships, we had an accurate list not only of the number of the vessels, but of the armaments of these vessels. We had an establishment of four fleets each of 30 line-of-battle ships, making 120 line-of-battle ships, armed with 17,500 guns. Since, however, the old establishment was broken up, we have always been at a loss as to what the exact armament of the new Navy should be. Until we have an accurate system established, it will be impossible to found any conclusion upon the cost and the number of guns. At one time the establishment of guns seem to be 3,000 breech-loaders; but at another time we are led to understand that it is 3,000, and in the present Memorandum and Appendix there is not a single word of information on the point of the guns forming the armament of the Fleet now maintained. In connection with the list of ships which go to make up the £39,000,000 of capital that is expended on the present Navy, there is no mention of any kind of armament put in the ships. In regard, however, to the vessels now building in the Government Dockyards, and building by contract, there is a careful statement made as to the cost of armament, but no statement as to the calibre of the guns that are required. When I mention that the amount in the Army Estimates to be taken for the guns, &c, of the ships building is £1,062,200, it will be seen that the amount for guns is not alone sufficient, but also we need the calibres and numbers.

The armaments are set out in the Appendix. Under the name of each ship the armaments are carefully given.

the armaments specified of which I have a Memorandum are armaments for the general fitting out of the ships for | service this year. But I will not fail to study the Table more carefully. As I understand the correction of the Secretary, the armaments given in the Appendix are for ships now building in Her Majesty's Dockyards and by contract. I fail, however, to see that the number and calibre of the guns composing the armament of Her Majesty's existing Navy are given. In connection with the one set of vessels fitting out, we have it set out that there are 308 guns, which is a very small number, indeed, compared with the total armament of the Navy. These are intended for the 15 vessels fitting out for actual service this year. It would be as well if we could have two complete lists prepared, showing the number and calibre of guns for the ships completed, and the number of guns for those building and fitting out and in service. I understand that in the case of these 308 guns, which are intended as the armament for the 15 vessels fitting out, there are no less than 15 different calibres. That is a great evil. Stores and projectiles are multiplied, and expense incurred for such varieties of guns. Great confusion also arises in consequence of describing some guns by the weight of the shot they throw, and calling others 10-inch guns and 18-ton guns, and 12-inch and 55-ton guns. These distinctions are confusing; and I feel convinced that if something is not done to rectify that evil, Her Majesty's Government will find some day that a great mistake: will occur, which will be attended with, disastrous consequences, in giving out guns, projectiles, and stores to the different ships. The matter is one of great importance, and I feel sure that hon. Members connected with the Naval Service will appreciate what I say. There is another point connected with the Admiralty to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the question of taking stores from the War Department. I cannot protest too strongly against this system of allowing the Navy to be supplied in these matters by the War Office; and I think the Secretary to the Admiralty would effect a great good by taking over stores from the manufacturers at first hand. It is not necessary to have those stores in the War Office magazines. Each vessel afloat or in the Reserve has its own complement of guns, stores, and ammunition, and might as well be at once handed over to the Admiralty. So also the 308 guns that I have referred to might be at once provided for in the Navy Estimates, and handed over to the Naval Authorities. Nothing but confusion will take place unless this is done. I further reiterate my advice that the Admiralty have in their gunners, boatswains, carpenters, and other ranks, men well fitted to act as storekeepers.

The naval experts who have taken part in this debate have expressed the opinion that we do not spend sufficient money on the Navy, and that a great deal more-money ought to be devoted to this purpose every year. But I, on the other hand, think that the outside public are convinced that quite enough money is spent on the Navy, if it were wisely spent; and, in arriving at that conclusion, I have been very much influenced by the tone and tender of the remarks of those who are best acquainted with the real condition of the Navy—especially the remarks of such Gentlemen as the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed). Now, Sir, in the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty which has been laid before the Committee, the expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1888, is estimated at about £12,500,000, and we are bidden to expect a reduction of £793,000 on the Estimates of the present year. It must be quite evident that this is a case of reckoning our chickens before they are hatched. No doubt, the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty expects to see his Estimates come out as they appear now on paper; but no Estimates ever come out at the end of the financial year as they have been originally placed before the country. What usually happens is that, towards the end of the financial year, it is found necessary to introduce Supplementary Estimates. This year, as the Committee is aware, they amounted for the Navy to £277,000; and the Estimates, about which such a great flourish was made 12 months ago, turn out to have been based on the fiscal principle of Mr. Member. I have very little doubt that the Estimates of the present year are destined to meet with a similar fate, and that we, none of us, shall know, until the end of March next, what the expenditure has been. In all probability, there will be a bundle of more or less important accounts tacked on to the Estimates before us this time next year. Last year, the late Secretary to the Admiralty explained to us that from 1871 to 1880, under a Conservative Administration, the expenditure upon the Navy averaged £11,133,000, and that from 1880 to 1886, under a Liberal Administration, the annual expenditure was £11,500,000. This amount has now been brought up to close upon £12,500,000; and I think the general tone of the Naval Members of the House is that £12,500,000 is not nearly sufficient to keep up an efficient Navy. I am myself satisfied, however, that the great body of the taxpayers think that it is a great deal too much to pay for such a Navy as we have, especially in times of depressed trade. When we consider that this amount is £4,500,000 more than the cost of both Army and Navy during the time of the Crimean War, I think that the conclusion at which the outside public have arrived is fully justified. It is, of course, easy to understand that there should be a considerable increase in the cost of the Army and Navy since the time of the Crimean War; but is it not a fact that it is chiefly the wastefulness which has increased? If it is not so, how is it that we have hoard from the hon. Member for Cardiff that; £1,500,000 has been as much wasted as if it had been thrown into the sea? And how is it, again, that we have heard from the First Lord of the Admiralty himself, of vessels the armour of which is below the water line? If this sort of mismanagement were stopped, and if the money were spent in a legitimate manner, and not upon fat contracts which do not benefit the nation—which benefit nobody but i the favoured contractors—there could be no sort of question that the burdens which now press so severely' upon taxpayers might be materially lightened, and we should have a far more efficient Fleet. We have been told, and, no doubt, with truth, that it is the practice—not a mere accidental occurrence—to build vessels on the Clyde, and to send them to Devonport to be pulled to pieces again, before they have done any work, or seen any service at all. The last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General abounds in statements which show that the money of the taxpayers is not devoted to its legitimate use. Will any naval export in the House explain to the Committee, and to the country, how it is that while the prices of labour have decreased considerably in every private shipbuilding yard, they have increased—indeed, more than doubled—in Her Majesty's Dockyards? The Admiralty itself pays far less for some of its materials than it did—as, for instance, iron plates which, in 1874, cost £19 per ton, in 1883 were £18 per ton. Lead and copper, in the same way, have decreased materially in price; but has there been any proportionate decrease in expenditure? Nothing of the kind. The expenditure continually advances, and the result is a continual disappointment to those who are expecting real and practical reforms to be set on foot at the Admiralty. I defy anyone to sit here as a mere outsider, knowing nothing whatever about naval matters, and listening to the statements that are made by those who do know about them, and not feel satisfied that the money wrung from the public by all sorts of objectionable taxes, such as the Income Tax, is neither rightly nor usefully spent. If they want to get some idea where the money goes, I would earnestly advise the Members who have not yet read them, and people out-of-doors, to get hold of the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not say that these documents are as interesting as the last new novel; but they are full of information which will show the taxpayers of the country that their money is being wickedly and wantonly thrown away. the Comptroller and Auditor General tells us, for instance, that advances are continually being made to contractors to which they are not entitled; and he says that the view entertained throughout the Dockyards is that because money has been voted by Parliament, therefore it must be spent, if possible, within the financial year. Well, with such an opinion as that prevailing in the Dockyards, of course, there would be no difficulty in spending twice or three times the amount of money voted. Therefore, it is no wonder that naval experts should come down here and tell us that our armoured ships are generally armoured below the water line, and that most of our ironclads are only tit to be the coffins of those who man them. The Committee appointed to inquire into the matter of contracts said that there is no business-like co-operation between the heads of Departments, and that £15,000 has been paid to a contractor for work which he actually offered to do for £8,080. Then we are told that the contracts are not scanned closely. A witness, Mr. White, when asked why the contracts are not scanned closely, replies that it is, unfortunately, against the Admiralty traditions—that is to say, that it is against the Admiralty traditions that proper caution should be taken even in the purchase of materials and stores for the use of the Navy and the Service generally. All sorts of idiotic follies are committed daily in the management of the Navy. According to the Report on Contracts, sugar and Jamaica rum are sent out to vessels on the West India stations. Flour is actually sent from Deptford Dockyard to Hong Kong, and rice to India; and the only thing requisite to complete the operation is that vessels on foreign stations should occasionally send back coals to Newcastle. This last suggestion would not involve a more absurd and wicked waste of the public stores or of the public money than to send rice from Deptford to India, and rum to Jamaica. Then, of course, when a Vote of Credit is granted, there is a sort of Saturnalia of extravagance. Ships are taken up, and never used afterwards; cables are purchased, and never taken out of the manufacturers' yards; bills are sent in to the Admiralty for all sorts of useless articles. The Report just issued by the Committee appointed to inquire into the Dockyards reveals endless scandals. It is shown therein that there is no proper examination of goods delivered; consequently, we may safely assume that inferior articles are shot into the Dockyards at Bond Street prices, because contractor.?, as a rule, do not spare people who do not examine the consignments of goods they receive from them, and do not look into their proceedings. I will read a short passage from this Report. It says—

"We were impressed by the fact that large quantities of tools issued from the Tools Store proved to have been of inferior quality; and although their failure had been frequent, it was left to an Admiralty Officer to bring the matter to notice, merely as the result of a casual visit to the Dockyard."

Then there are innumerable pensions to all sorts of persons, and extravagant salaries, and a system of occasional reorganization, the result of which is to saddle the country with still more pensions, and to encourage a system under which all sorts of hangers-on, and relations of hangers-on, and men who have been useful to those in Office, or who are likely to be useful to them at election time, receive payment out of the public funds. When complaint is made of this wild and wicked expenditure, the country is told that there is no possibility of saving anything in the Navy. And, when we humble Representatives of the taxpayers desire to express our opinion upon these matters—and I submit that, although we are not experts, we have no difficulty in possessing as much information upon the subjects I have dealt with as those who are exports—we are told that we are not competent to criticize such subjects, and that we ought to sit silent and vote, and so perform our duty to our constituents. "Well, I believe that the public have had about enough of that system, and, whether under a Liberal or a Conservative Government, it will not last much longer. I am very sure that in these days, when the industrial classes are finding it more and more difficult to obtain employment, and when trade is depressed at home, and this country is being invaded from all quarters, while our trade is not allowed opportunities of extending itself into foreign countries in the same proportion; you will find that there is an increasing impatience of the heavy load of taxation which Administration after Administration places on the backs of the people. I believe that the Conservative Party has now got the best opportunity it has over had, or in all probability is over likely to have, of putting an end to this monstrous evil. One of the Leaders of that Party has publicly identified himself with the cause of Retrenchment, and has made sacrifices for it which have never been equaled, either in this age or in any other. I believe the public will look to this Party for the realization of the hopes of Retrenchment, of practical reform, and of a mitigation of taxation which have been held out not only by that Leader of whom I spoke, but by many of us in our addresses to our constituents—hopes of reform and of mitigation of that taxation which now weighs upon all classes with a severity which cannot much longer be endured.

I wish to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) one or two questions with reference to his Statement; and, first of all, with regard to the value of the ships in reserve. The Ajax is said to be worth £552,000, and we are told by Lord Brassey in his manual that the difficulty with regard to her is that she will not steer; but if she is such a valuable vessel, it would be well worth while making her efficient. But no mention is made of repairing or doing anything to her to enable her to go to sea, and if she is not fit for sea, she ought not to stand on this list at the value of £552,000. On page 240 it will be seen that she was laid down at the original cost of £548,000, and that there is an additional sum of £3,157 for completion to the 31st of March. The First Lord also mentioned in his Report and in his speech the question of speed, which we all know is one of the greatest necessities at the present day; but he does not account for the building of the vessels mentioned in his Report which are only to go 13½ knots. I refer to the Rattier and Wasp, Class 6 and 7 in number. If this calculation is made on the old system of trial, which the noble Lord himself has properly denounced, it would mean something like 10 knots in actual sea work. The trials of these vessels are spoken of as having been very satisfactory; but at the same time we are told that the protected cruisers and torpedo boats would give nearly double the speed, and consequently they could not escape from our own vessels by any possibility. Of course, it may be said that to obtain greater power the vessels must be larger. I should think I that the cost of increased size would be well repaid by the increased speed that would be gained. I should like also to ask if it is the fact that upwards of £30,000 are to be expended in putting the Garnet in order? The original cost of the vessel was £102,288 in 1878–9, and I see that the cost for completion to the 31st of March, 1886, is nearly £19,000. I understand that upwards of £30,000 more is about to be expended for the purpose of putting her to rights. The Garnet belongs to a class of vessels of the Gem type—vessels which never steamed above eight knots in their best days, and which probably will never go at a greater speed than six or seven; knots. She is therefore 10 years old, and obsolete, and yet it is proposed to spend upon her now nearly one-third of her original cost. The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour) appealed to me with reference to the guns of different calibre supplied to Her Majesty's ships. I do not know why the hon. and gallant Member refers to me; but of course I, in common with all practical men, support the view which he takes, that the fewer types of guns—and consequently the fewer different sizes of shot and shell, a vessel has on board—the better. I should think he would know that it is impossible for the Admiralty to take over the supply of guns to the Navy in a very short time, because they have to create a Department for the purpose before they can take the responsibility upon themselves, and they must have time to get their house in order for it. If it is done in too great a hurry it will be done badly. The First Lord has made a remark which strikes me as being very peculiar, and it is, that the £36,000, which the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) spoke of as £12,000, for armour-piercing projectiles, was brought into the Navy Estimates because the War Office would not supply the money. Surely it is an extraordinary thing that the First Lord of the Admiralty should say he wanted certain guns or ammunition for a particular purpose, and that the War Office should be in a position to reply—"You shall not have them," be cause it practically comes to that—it is a question of cutting down a particular Vote to the smallest amount. I should like to know what the country cares whether this £36,000 comes out of the Admiralty or out of the War Office Estimate! Certainly, it ought to come out of the grant of whichever of the two Offices is responsible for supplying the ammunition. It is right that the First Lord should have included this money in the Naval Estimate, because it was the only way in which he could do that which he believed to be necessary; but it was perfectly wrong that such a necessity should have been laid upon him at all. The First Lord spoke of civil assistants at the Dockyard being conducive to economy and efficiency; and I ask whether it would not be more economical and better for the discipline of the Dockyards that a Superintendent should be appointed for a fixed term of years? Superintendents are now appointed for a year, 18 months, or two years, depending upon their promotion and other contingencies, and by the time they have got to learn what is the work of the Dockyard and become thoroughly acquainted with their duties, they are relieved by another officer, who has again to learn the duties of his position. Then let me mention the sending of ships from one yard to another in an uncompleted state to be completed. I am aware that it may be said that this refers particularly to vessels being sent from the yard in the district which I represent to be completed at another; but my argument will be equally good in the case of a vessel sent from another yard to Pembroke, Portsmouth, or Devonport. It is utterly impossible that a ship can be finished in any other yard as cheaply as she can be where she was laid down. In the first place, the people in the yard to which she is sent have not the same interest in her; on the contrary, their interest would be to run up the expenditure on her to the highest figure. They would take care when they got hold of a vessel like the Nile, for instance, at Portsmouth, that she shall cost as much as the Trafalgar, which was built there, and of necessity much work must be done. Any prac- tical man will admit it is quite impossible that a vessel can be completed as cheap another set of people as by those by whom she was originally built. There have been several questions asked with regard to obtaining designs from the Dockyards. I do not know that the noble Lord has informed us yet where the gentleman is who divulged the designs at Chatham, and whether there is any means of preventing him from now divulging all the secret knowledge he possesses to anyone who will buy it? As far as I understand, he is at liberty to do so at any moment he thinks fit. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stock-port (Mr. Jennings), who just spoken, I think he made a great mistake in drawing an analogy between times of depression and the state of the Navy, and that, if we were to be guided by his suggestion, the very difficulty which he wishes to remove would be augmented. If the money to be spent on the Navy were dependent on whether the country is suffering from depression or otherwise, we should get what the First Lord has said he is most anxious to prevent—namely, fitful, and consequently larger, expenditure. What can the efficiency of the Navy have to do with the question as to whether there is a greater or less amount of depression in the country? The noble Lord has said that we must proceed on some settled plan, and not on the plan of fits and starts such as has been adopted before. The question of the Navy has but one reference to the state of the country, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bow (Captain Colomb) has given us to-night a comparative statement, which shows that the amount expended in this country for the protection of its commercial tonnage is ridiculously small to that of every other country. I think the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Devonport was quite right in his statement as to the necessity which exists for having professional men and experts upon Committees such as that which was appointed to consider the system of purchase and contract in the Navy; and I do not think it was worthy of the hon. Member who accused one of those who sat on that Committee of being bassied because a firm with which he was connected had tendered in respect of one of the vessels. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has received such a severe handling from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. K. Stanhope) that I do not think it necessary further to refer to his speech than to say that the vessels—the building of which he wished to stop last year—the Nile and the Trafalgar, and the designs of which he now considers should have been the subject of inquiry by a Royal Commission, are those which the had. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Rood) and others qualified to judge have spoken of as the very best that we have yet laid down.

With regard to the defence of our coaling stations, I have a few remarks to make. We have the Royal Marines and Royal Marine Artillery some of the finest men in Her Majesty's Service, and those men are not employed altogether so advantageously as they might be. I have always been of opinion that the defence of the coaling stations ought to be intrusted to those men. This arrangement would leave at the disposal of the Secretary of State for War a number of men of the Regular Army! who are now distributed all over the | world. The defence of such stations as Hong Kong. Singapore, and Bermuda ought to be in the hands of the Royal Marines and Royal Marine Artillery; and in that way you would save the expense of transporting to those places the land forces who are now discharging the duty there. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite has said very truly that the coaling stations deserve every attention at the hands of the Government. These places are of the utmost importance for the operations of the Navy; and unless they are fortified properly our Fleet will not, in time of war, be able to keep the seas, and therefore I think their garrisons ought to be under the orders of the Admiralty, and not under these of the War Office. There is another matter on which I should like to make a few remarks, and that is the question of submarine mining. I have long been of opinion—and I have had some experience in this matter—that all the work in connection with submarine mining should be done by the Navy, and not by the Army. we require: sailors for the guard-boats employed in the Service, but the urines themselves are in the hands of the Engineers. It is said that the Admiralty requires all the men they can lay their hands upon for the sea-going Fleet. I do not demur to that at all; but there are the Royal Naval Volunteers, who might be so organized that the Navy might take charge of this Department. The guns which are required to defend the submarine mines might also be in the hands of the Royal Marine Artillery. There is another point to which I desire to refer. The Staff sergeants of the Royal Marino Artillery are paid less in pensions than the men of corresponding rank in the Army to the extent of 3rf. a-day. The armoure sergeants also get less than the men in the Line. The alterations I suggest are of a trifling character, and as they are the cause of discontent among a fine body of men, I hope the noble Lord will take the matter into consideration.