explained that he was requested by the promoters of the Bill, by the Irish Society, to state that no objection would be raised against the locus standi of the Diocesan Council if they should think fit to petition against the Bill in the House of Lords; and further, that no advantage would be taken of the circumstance that they had not petitioned against the Bill in the House of Commons.

said, that it had been his intention to move the rejection of the Bill, to explain the origin of Foyle College, and the position which it occupied in relation to the Church of Ireland, and to read the memorial of the Diocesan Council, setting forth their objections to the Bill, which objections were shared by the Bishop of Derry. As, however, the Irish Society had now agreed to concede a locus standi to the Diocesan Council in the House of Lords, he did not propose to trouble the House with the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the "King's Colours" of the 72nd (Seaforth) Highlanders, of the year 1815, were, on the 6th instant, bought and sold by auction in London for £35; and whether the War Office will discover the present owner with a view of recovering, by purchase, or otherwise, this national trophy for the regimental district?

Regimental colours when they have been in use the prescribed period or have become unserviceable, are disposed of as the commanding officer may direct. The colours shown as those of particular regiments are not in every case genuine. The esprit de corps of the regiments concerned almost invariably secures a fitting resting-place for the colours, and Lord Lansdowne thinks it desirable to leave the question to the feeling of the regiment, who can judge best of the circumstances and the genuineness of the colours.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Camberwell, Peckham (Mr. BANBURY): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that certain Second Class Examining Officers of Customs of approved character, with over 17 years' service in that grade, have been debarred from attending an examination for promotion instituted by Customs General Order 86/'94, under the provision of Treasury Minute of 24th of March 1891; and, whether, in view of the terms of their appointment to the service, namely, that the highest positions in the outdoor department were open to them, the Government will favourably consider the case of these officials?

Up to 1891 the system of promotion from the Second to the First Class of Examining Officers of Customs was by selection. It was in that year altered to one of examination, partly written, partly viva voce. It was then found that some of the older and best officers who were well fitted for promotion by their experience and practical knowledge were not fitted to pass a written examination, and such men under the General Order of 1894 were allowed to qualify by a viva, voce examination only. All others are of course still allowed to compete in the ordinary examination, and the higher positions are thus open to them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether a Comptroller of Prison Industries has been appointed; and, in such case, who the new functionary is, and what his salary, and if he has been given distinctly to understand that he must be careful to make no attempt to utilise his forced labour to undersell or otherwise compete in the outside market in this country with the productions of free labour?

In accordance with the strong recommendation of the Prisons Committee, a Comptroller of prison industries has been appointed by me. The comptroller is Mr. James Duncan, who had, as store accountant in the prison department, been engaged in duties of a similar nature previous to his appointment, and his salary is on a scale rising from £700 to £800. The Comptroller will have no power to make arrangements for utilising prison labour without first obtaining the approval of the Prison Commissioners, and the Commissioners will be guided in their action by Section 11 of the Act of 1877, which provides that due regard shall be had to the avoidance of undue pressure on or competition with any particular trade or industry.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if his attention has been called to the increase by nearly 3,000 of the pauper aliens arriving at eastern ports for sojourn in this country in the first third of the present year compared to last year: and, whether he will introduce and press forward the Measure in contemplation with regard to the immigration of aliens without further delay?

asked whether it was not a fact that the aliens who appeared in the monthly Board of Trade Returns under the heading of those "not stated to be en route to America" included a large number of sailors and others, who almost immediately proceeded to other countries; and whether it was not a fact that at many of the eastern ports, such as at the Tyne ports, nearly every alien who arrived was reengaged as a sailor or proceeded to America or elsewhere?

My hon. and gallant Friend refers in his Question to "pauper" aliens. No returns of the Board of Trade deal with paupers as such; they give the total number of aliens, the gross increase in which is as stated in the Question, but the number of sailors included among aliens not stated to be en route to America was 3,431 as compared with 2,316 in the first four mouths of 1895. With reference to the last portion of the Question, I cannot add anything to what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the subject.

May I ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been drawn to the serious matter of the importation of these alien sailors who take berths on British ships?

Attention has been drawn more than once in the House of Commons to the fact that a good many foreign sailors are engaged for manning the mercantile marine.

I must ask whether the right hon. gentleman can give us any hope of the Bill being speedily introduced? Its mention in the Queen's Speech is calculated to draw these people to this country in greater numbers.

I am afraid I can give no further answer. I confess I have not much hope of being able to introduce the Bill.

asked, whether the Government would give time for the Bill which had been introduced.

My hon. and gallant Friend has a Bill before the House.

No, Sir, I have not. [Laughter."]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Major Lothaire has been tried and acquitted at Boma by a tribunal which had been recognised by Her Majesty's local representative as a court of competent jurisdiction; whether there is any foundation for the report that attempts are being made to place Major Lothaire a second time upon his trial; and, whether it is in conformity with the criminal procedure of any civilised State that a person should be tried twice for the same offence?

Major Lothaire has been tried and acquitted at Boma by the Court of the Congo State, at which Her Majesty's Vice Consul was present in his official capacity. We have as yet, however, no knowledge of the nature of the proceedings, and cannot receive the official Report for some weeks. The law of the Congo State under which the trial was held provides for an appeal, notice of which must be lodged within two months of the judgment. Her Majesty's Vice Consul has been instructed to see that this notice is given in order to prevent the right lapsing by default; but no opinion can be offered as to the prosecution of the appeal until the Report has been received.

Am I to understand that the law of the Congo State contemplates what I refer to?

Yes, Sir; an appeal is provided for by the penal code of the Congo State.

Does that law prevail in any other civilised State, if the Congo is one?

I have no information upon that point.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, in reference to a statement to the effect that the expenditure of the English public on education is £14,000,000 a year, whether it is known to the Education Department what is the extent of public expenditure in the United States upon similar services, and whether it is the case that as long ago as 1889 that expenditure was estimated at £28,000,000, and is now, for elementary schools alone, vastly higher?

From the Report of the United States Commissioner of Education, it appears that the total expenditure on "common schools," which are defined as including public day schools of elementary and secondary grade—i.e., public primary, grammar, and high schools—was in 1889–90 (taking a dollar as 4s.) £28,622,043, or £3 8s. 10d. per scholar in average attendance; and in 1892–3, £32,668,655, or £3 13s. 9½d. per scholar in average attendance.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to complaints that, whilst publicans in Long ford are compelled by statute to close their shops and not to sell drink except to bona fide travellers, the Military canteen is kept open for such sale and free admission granted to all civilians who apply, with the result that several convictions for drunkenness on Sundays have recently been obtained by the police; and, whether he will cause such representations to be made to the War Department as will prevent this competition between an unlicensed canteen and a licensed publican, and also prevent the violation of law which the Sunday Closing Act was designed to enact?

I am informed that it is not the fact, as alleged in the Question, that several convictions for drunkenness on Sundays have recently been obtained by the police at Longford, because of drink supplied in the Military canteen there. A few months ago a man under the influence of drink was observed coming from the direction of the military barrack on Sunday and a conviction was obtained against him, but this appears to be the only recent case, and there was no evidence that this man got the drink at the canteen. The presence of civilians in the canteen is absolutely for bidden both on Sundays and other days. No representations on the subject have been made to the War Office, but if the practice exists it will be promptly stopped.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. J. PINKERTON), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland - (1) whether he is a ware that Mr. W. E. Ellis, Local Government Board Inspector, surcharged the Chairman of the Galway Board of Guardians in the sum of £1 2s. 6d. for relief given to a family, three members of which were lying in scarlet fever, and which was given by order of Dr. Golding, Medical Officer of the Union; and that the same inspector also surcharged another guardian for signing a relief ticket for a man who had no property whatever, and, upon these gentlemen refusing to pay, caused summonses to be issued against them; (2) whether he is aware that, at the hearing of the summonses at Galway Petty Sessions, on the 27th April, the magistrates (including Mr. Gardiner, R. M.) declared that, while compelled by law to convict, the demand was unfair and unjust, and refused to give costs; and (3) under these circumstances, will steps be taken to remit the fines?

The Local Government Auditor states he did surcharge the sum mentioned to the Chairman of the Galway Guardians for outdoor relief given on the Chairman's order to the holder of three acres of land. Section 2 of the 25 and 26 Vict. Cap. 83 enacts that any person who shall be in occupation of land to a greater extent than a quarter of a statute acre, and who shall be considered by the Guardians to require relief, shall be relieved in the workhouse, and not otherwise. The Auditor did not surcharge any Guardian for signing a relief ticket, but probably the hon. Member has in his mind a case in which the Auditor disallowed outdoor relief given to a man rated for a small holding, there being no evidence that he was not in occupation of this holding for which he was rated. I have no information as to the statement in the second paragraph, but am making inquiry. The Auditor states he would have been inclined to stretch a point if this had been an isolated case, but that, the Galway Guardians having so frequently contravened the law in this respect and remonstrances having hitherto failed to influence their action, he felt obliged to make and enforce the surcharge referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what proportions of the 4d. per word paid for telegrams to Spain from this country are assigned to the British Government, the Spanish Government, and the Cable Companies respectively; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the existing contract or contracts on the subject?

The "conventional" charge for a telegram sent by cable to Spain is 40 centimes a word, and the proportion assignable to Spain under Paragraph XXIV. of the International Regulations, agreed upon at the Conference of Paris is 10 centimes. The balance belongs to the company by whose cable the telegram is sent. If any service is performed by the Post Office in connection with the telegram, the payment for such service is regulated by the general Agreements between the Department and the Companies. I scarcely think it necessary to lay these old Agreements on the Table of the House. There are no specific contracts on the subject to which the hon. Member refers.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a Board of Trade certificate has yet been given to the Ohio steamer of Hull, the same having been withheld pending the result of a trial voyage with the Belleville boilers with which the vessel was fitted under the inspection of the Board of Trade; if the certificate has not been granted, what are the reasons for its refusal; and, have the Board of Trade so far granted a passenger certificate to any vessel fitted with boilers of that make?

A Board of Trade passenger certificate has not been issued for the steamship Ohio of Hull, no application for one having been made by her owners since the trial voyage referred to in the Question. So far, the Board of Trade have not granted a passenger certificate to any vessel fitted with the Belleville boilers. Only one application for the survey of a vessel with boilers of this type has been received, and the case is still under survey.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that an explosion occurred on board the vessel during her last voyage?

No, Sir; I am not aware of that, but I will get the information for the hon. Gentleman if he desires to have it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into the matter, and to give us the official report on that explosion?

was understood to signify his assent.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, when a line of rails is laid (as in the case of the Glyn Valley Tramway), some part of which is on the property of a company or of private individuals, and the rest of it on the property of the road authority, how is it determined whether the line is to be taxed upon its passengers or upon its passenger carriages; and, does this depend on the quantitative proportion which the one property bears to the other?

Almost the whole of the Glyn Valley Tramway is laid on a public road, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were advised that it could not be regarded as liable to Passenger Duty. In such cases, the question whether Railway Passenger Duty is or is not to be charged can only be determined by reference to the particular circumstances of each undertaking. No doubt the proportion of the line which is laid on private property to that which is laid on the road is taken into consideration.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the case of pensioner, Thomas Bryson, Newtowngore, South Leitrim, late of the Royal Engineers, whose pension of 1s. per diem is unable to support him owing to his enfeebled condition from the diseases he contracted on active service; and whether he is prepared to inquire into this case, and recommend some increase of pension?

The case of pensioner Thomas Bryson is at present under the consideration of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether it is the fact that applications to have a fair rent fixed for a second statutory term, lodged with the Land Commission, have now been listed for hearing by Sub Commissioners in the ordinary way: and, (2) whether the undertaking of Mr. Justice Bewley, that the decision in such cases would be postponed until after the passing of the Land Bill, will be carried out; if not, will he explain no what grounds?

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Only 457 of such applications had been lodged with the Land Commissioners up to the 13th inst., although there are probably some 30,000 cases in which such applications could have been lodged. The Sub-Commissioners have, on application made to them, full power to postpone the hearing of any such case if they consider the interests of justice so require. Mr. Justice Bewley did not, as I have repeatedly pointed out, give any such undertaking as that attributed to-him in the second paragraph. He merely expressed his view as to a course that might be adopted under certain circumstances. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether cases have been brought to his notice showing the inadequacy of the allowance of 6d. a day deductable from the pay of non-commissioned officers above the rank of sergeant for the support of a deserted wife and family; whether the advisability of amending Sec. 145 of the Army Act in that respect will be considered, so as to provide for a larger deduction than 6d. in any case where the Secretary of State thought larger alimony desirable; whether the attention of the War Office has been called to the case of a Sergeant Major Engineer's Clerk, of the Royal Engineers, at Devonport, in receipt of £2 10s. a week, who refuses to allow more than the statutable 6d. a day to his wife and family in Cork, from whom he is separated in consequence of his cruelty and infidelity; and, whether the circumstances connected with this case are such as to call for some special action by the War Department?

Complaints as to the inadequacy of the stoppage have been very infrequent, and it has not been thought advisable to amend the Army Act in regard to it. The case referred to in the Question has been brought before the War Office; but, as the wife in the first instant left her husband, it has not been considered necessary to place him under compulsory stoppages. He has, however, consented to a voluntary stoppage. It is a matrimonial quarrel in which the Secretary of State does not think it desirable to interfere.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether Sergeant Dunton, convicted at the last Cork Assizes of bigamy, committed while at Queenstown, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude, and who has been since released, has been permitted to continue in Her Majesty's service; and, whether it is usual that a soldier convicted of felony is permitted to continue in the service; if not, why and at whose instance Sergeant Dunton has been treated in an exceptional manner?

Dunton has been continued in the service; but he has been reduced to the rank of private. The offence of a soldier is taken into consideration in determining the question whether or not he shall be retained in the army, and in this case there were mitigating circumstances.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for retaining in Her Majesty's service a soldier who has been convicted of felony?

Yes, Sir, I think there are precedents to that effect. Of course the offence of felony is varying in its character and in cases where it is not of a heinous character the soldier has been allowed to retain his position.

Is there any precedent for retaining in Her Majesty's service a soldier who has been sentenced to three years' penal servitude?

said he would require to have notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can now state the circumstances connected with the release of Sergeant Dunton, convicted of bigamy under aggravated circumstances at the recent Cork Spring Assizes, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude, and who was released from prison before the close of the Assizes; and, whether he can state whether Mr. Justice O'Brien, who tried the prisoner, recommended his release; and, if so, on what grounds?

At the recent Cork Assizes, Sergeant Dunton pleaded guilty to a charge of bigamy and was sentenced by Mr. Justice O'Brien as stated. The Judge, however, on further consideration arrived at the conclusion that the sentence should not be enforced and so communicated to the Lords Justices, and it was on his report and at his instance that the sentence was remitted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he is aware that the governor, deputy governor, clerk, storekeeper, and two-thirds of the entire staff of the Cork male prison are non-Roman Catholics, though 85 per cent. of the persons under their control are Roman Catholics; and, (2) whether the Prisons Board will endeavour to secure that at least one person holding a position of authority in the Cork prison is a Roman Catholic?

It is the fact that about 85 per cent. of the prisoners confined in Cork prison are Roman Catholics; and, as regards the prison staffs consisting in all of 25 persons, thirteen of these are Protestants and twelve Roman Catholics. The allocation of officials in the Prisons Service is not regulated by considerations of religion.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would answer the second paragraph of his question?

said, that he saw no reason to depart from the practice which had hitherto obtained, which as far as he was aware had not given any adequate grounds for complaint.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the summer cruise of the Channel Fleet will include a visit to Lerwick; and, if this is not already arranged, will he instruct the Admiral to bring the Fleet to Lerwick after leaving Kirkwall?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Channel Squadron will visit Queens-town Harbour during the present summer?

The present cruise does not include a visit to Lerwick or Queenstown.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the officers of the German mail steamer who were recently sentenced for entering forts at Hong Kong with photographic apparatus, had, prior to their arrest, taken any photographs of, or in connection with, any of the forts; and, if so, whether such photographs were impounded?

The Governor has reported by telegram that no photographs of the forts were taken by the German officers in question, whose original sentence of imprisonment with hard labour was commuted after a rehearing to a fine of 100 dollars. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Japanese Government has accorded to the Chinese greater entering facilities in Formosa for their ships than heretofore; and, whether such additional facilities will be also available for English ships?

We have no information of any such facilities having been granted to China. British shipping would undoubtedly participate in any benefits secured to the shipping of China.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Government intend to carry into effect the recomdations of the Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the present appliances of Her Majesty's Dockyard at Haulbowline, set out in their Report issued as necessary to complete its fitness as an emergency dock in time of war and for repairing ships on station in time of peace; and, if so, when will the works be commenced?

The Admiralty intend to carry into effect such of the recommendations of the Committee as will render the dockyard at Haulbowline available as an emergency dock in time of war, and Her Majesty's ships will be repaired there, when convenient and practicable, in time of peace. Provision has been made in the current Navy Estimates for purchasing the machinery recommended by the Committee. A large portion has been already ordered, and is expected to be delivered by the time the buildings and foundations are ready to receive the machines. Provision, of £15,000 (part of £34,000) is made in Vote 10, 1896–7, for commencing the work, which will be proceeded with as soon as the Vote is passed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has any intention of appointing a Departmental Committee, as suggested by the late Secretary of State for India in September 1895, to inquire into the present method of selling Council drafts?

I have no present intention of appointing a Committee, but any practical suggestion, shall have my careful attention.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware of the strong desire which exists in London in favour of substituting the Parliamentary Divisions for the present School Board electoral divisions; and, whether he can give effect to this desire by a suitable provision in the Education Bill?

No representation has been actually made to the Committee of Council on the subject by any official body. The Government are afraid that it is impossible to embody a reform Bill for School Board elections in London in the present Education Bill.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he can announce the names of the Commissioners and the terms of the reference of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, the reappointment of which was on 3rd March declared by the House of Commons to be expedient?

The Local Government Board, and not the Home Office, is the Department really concerned in the appointment of this Commission. I have not yet received for submission to Her Majesty either the names of the Commissioners or the terms of reference.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin County, N. (Mr. CLANCY), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the fact that to obtain a half-holiday on Saturday the employés of the Ordnance Survey Department, Phœnix Park, Dublin, are obliged to work an additional half hour on other days of the week during the summer months, whether there is any precedent for such a regulation; and, in any case, whether he will consider the propriety of giving a half-holiday on Saturday without any condition such as that mentioned?

I am afraid I can only refer the hon. Member to the replies given by me to the Questions put by him on this subject on the 22nd August last. As I then stated, the aggregate hours worked per week in the Ordnance Survey Office at Dublin during the summer months are 44 for the engravers, and 41 for the civil assistants. These hours do not seem to me to be excessive, and I do not feel that I should be justified in proposing their reduction. I am informed that the arrangement under which the civil assistants work for 7½ hours on each of the first five days of the week and for 3½, hours on the Saturday is made at the request of the majority of the assistants themselves.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Ministers, in advising Her to grant to Mr. Beit, with others, a charter with large powers of administration over a portion of the British Empire, were aware of his then being a German subject; whether there is any precedent for such devolution of sovereign powers to any alien by Her Majesty; and whether Mr. Beit has since then become a naturalised British subject; and whether, if not, in view of recent events, Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of advising the Chartered Company of South Africa to procure his resignation as a director of that Company?

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I am unable to answer the second part of the Question; but, of course many aliens have been employed in offices of trust by Her Majesty and her predecessors. Mr. Beit has not been naturalised as a British subject, but there is no necessity to take the course suggested in the concluding part of the Question, as Mr. Beit has already voluntarily tendered his resignation to his colleagues. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether Mr. Beit's resignation had been accepted?

I have no information upon the point.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have under consideration the immediate necessity of establishing a Board of Agriculture for Ireland; and whether a select Committee will be appointed to expedite the matter?

I have already stated in reply to Questions addressed to me that the introduction this Session of a Bill dealing with the establishment of a Board of Agriculture in Ireland must depend upon the condition of public business. I do not think the appointment of a Select Committee would expedite the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will introduce the Bill to provide the promised grant of not less than £15,000 for the establishment of a Veterinary College in Dublin, before Whitsuntide?

I am afraid I cannot give the undertaking required by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether any portion of the Royal Artillery has been ordered to Africa; and, if so, whether it is intended for active operations in the Soudan campaign, or for what other purpose?

The only Royal Artillery proceeding to Africa are the drafts required to complete batteries already there. No fresh batteries have been ordered to Egypt or the Cape.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that a representation for the erection of a cottage, under the Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) Act, duly signed by thirteen ratepayers, was forwarded to the Monaghan Board of Guardians by a labourer, named Owen M'Manus, and that the Board passed a resolution shelving the consideration of the question for twelve months; and, is he aware that M'Manus recently made a fresh representation, duly signed by the requisite number of ratepayers, and that the Guardians declined to entertain that fresh representation; and, if so, will he order a Local Government Inquiry to ascertain the validity, or otherwise, of this labourer's claim to a cottage under the Act of Parliament?

I have already replied to two Questions relative to this man's application for a cottage. The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member, but the case does not appear to be one in which the Local Government Board should hold an Inquiry as suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if it is a fact that four British subjects, recently convicted of high treason in the Transvaal and sentenced to death, have been reprieved by President Kruger; can he state the terms on which the death sentences were commuted; and, can he inform the House if the present prison treatment of these four convicts is similar to that accorded to ordinary malefactors undergoing terms of imprisonment in the Transvaal?

Four gentlemen were condemned to death as stated in the Question, and I believe that three of them were British subjects. I have not yet learned what punishment is to be substituted for the death penalty. I have no official information as to their present treatment, but the newspapers report that they and the other 59 political prisoners enjoy certain indulgences. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the official Report of the evidence given before the Departmental Committee on the Post Office Establishment is accessible to Members of the House of Commons; whether proofs of the evidence are submitted to witnesses before being finally printed; and was a proof of Mr. Lewin Hill's evidence submitted to and altered by him; whether the attention of the Postmaster General has been drawn to the report of Mr. Hill's evidence as printed verbatim in The Postman's Gazette, and to the passage in it reflecting on Irish candidates; whether Mr. Hill was correct in stating in his evidence that the appointment of postmen was a matter within the scope of his duties; and, what officials Mr. Hill purported to speak for when he said they would often much rather have an Englishman or Scotchman who could not pass the examination than the Irishman who could?

I have no doubt that if any Member of the House of Commons is desirous of seeing a copy of the printed evidence given on any particular occasion, and will apply to the Secretary of Lord Tweed mouth's Committee, a copy will be supplied to him. As the hon. Member is aware, it is the usual practice with Parliamentary and other Committees for the evidence to be submitted to the witnesses for correction, and this practice has been observed by Lord Tweed mouth's Committee, Mr. Lewin Hill, in common with all the witnesses, having corrected his evidence when in print. The attention of the Postmaster General has not been drawn to the report of Mr. Hill's evidence in. The Postman's Gazette. I am informed that Mr. Hill denies the accuracy of the report in question, and that he did not state that the appointment of postmen was a matter within the scope of his duties. He did not speak for any officials.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the increase of rabies in Ireland from 353 cases in 1890 to 771 cases in 1895, as stated in the Bluebook recently issued by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, and of the fact that barely half of the Unions in Ireland have enforced muzzling orders, he will request the Lord Lieutenant to issue a general order for the whole of Ireland as a means of stamping out the dreadful disease of hydrophobia?

I would refer the hon. Member to the somewhat similar Question which he put to me on the 17th April. A Departmental Committee on which the Irish Veterinary Department is represented has been appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into the working of the laws relating to dogs, and when the Report of this Committee shall have been issued the question of taking further measures with a view to the stamping out of rabies will be considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Government have yet considered the petition recently presented to this House by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Dublin, in favour of an amnesty of the Irish treason-felony prisoners, now undergoing penal servitude in English gaols; if the petition has not yet been considered, can he say when it is likely to receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and, will he be good enough to impress upon the Government the desirability of giving the petition an early and favourable consideration?

It is my duty to give careful consideration to any petition addressed to the Crown for the exercise of the prerogative; but the petition in question was addressed to this House, and is one, therefore, for the consideration of the House.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would feel it his duty to bring this matter before the House?

No, Sir, it is not my duty to bring it before the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Report of the Congested Districts (Ireland) Board for 1895–6 will be issued?

The Report is now being prepared, but I am afraid it will be some considerable time before it can be issued.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1)—whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Irish Land Commission have, in a circular widely distributed by them describing the advantages of spraying potatoes with "Bordeaux mixture," drawn attention in particular to one variety of it manufactured by a Mr. Strawson; (2) what their reason for this singling out one English manufacturer in this way is; (3) whether he is aware that in the recent report of the Land Commission as to the experiments in spraying potatoes made by them, they stated that besides Mr. Strawson's preparation they also used two others, viz., Harrington's powder and Harrington's paste, made by a Cork firm, and that no advantage could be traced to the use of any of these preparations as compared with the other, and that the Cork preparations were cheaper; and (4), whether under these circumstances, he will request the Land Commission either to withdraw the circular in question or to amend it by putting all manufacturers on an equal footing?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, might I ask him if it is not the fact that Mr. Strawson's mixture was recommended to the Irish Land Commission by the late Chief Secretary the Member for Montrose (Mr. John Morley) and tried very successfully for three years, and whether the other mixture was not tried for the first time last year?

The circular referred to was first issued by the Land Commissioners in May 1895, and before the preparations of the Messrs. Harrington of Cork were placed upon the market. The Commissioners, in this circular, directed attention to the powder known as "Strawsonite" for the reasons indicated in the circular, and because at that time they were not aware that any other similar specific preparation which had been submitted to practical test by agriculturists was generally procurable by the public. In their Report, recently presented to Parliament and largely circulated otherwise, the Commissioners referred to Messrs. Harrington's powder in the terms mentioned in the the third paragraph. It is now too late to act on the suggestion contained in the last paragraph, but the Commissioners, in the event of the issue of similar circulars or Reports hereafter are of opinion it would probably be undesirable to refer specifically to any of the various compounds which may be offered for sale.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has now received any communication from the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, relating to the publication of their statement on the subject of the Education Fee Grant as a Parliamentary Paper; and, whether he can state what course he intends to take in the matter?

A communication has been received from the Commissioners and has been forwarded by the Irish Government to the Treasury for consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, in view of his statement of 2nd March, he can now tell the House whether India is to boar any part of the charge for the expenses of the Indian force recently sent to Mombasa?

As regards the cost of the employment of Indian troops at Mombasa, Her Majesty's Government do not propose that any charge shall, in connection with their services there, be made on the revenues of India, and therefore, according both to law and precedent, no resolution is necessary to authorise their employment beyond the external frontiers of India. Her Majesty's Government propose that the ordinary pay and allowances of the Indian native troops under orders for Suakin, should continue to be borne by the revenues of Indian, and I will, therefore, give notice of my intention to move a Resolution, in accordance with precedent, to give effect to that decision.

When will the motion be put upon the Paper?

Very shortly.

Are we to understand that the ordinary pay is to be borne otherwise than by India?

No; there is no charge upon the revenues of India in connection with the employment of that force outside India.

I understood that; but does that mean that the ordinary pay of the troops is not to fall upon India?

Yes.

I think I ought to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for asking him the question I have put upon the Paper. I have only done so in consequence of the misrepresentations which have been so industriously circulated. [Cries of "Order!"] I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether Sir George Errington, who is now in Rome, has been charged by the Government with a secret mission to the Vatican, in connection with the subject of marriages in Malta?

On a point of order, is it not the fact that an hon. Member cannot ask any questions unless he vouches for the accuracy of the facts he states?

said, he understood that the hon. Member was not stating facts, but was merely asking for information. [Laughter.]

There is no truth in the report to which my hon. Friend refers.

I thought not, Sir. [Laughter.]

I should like to ask you, Sir, whether it would be consistent with the printing of the Papers for the House, if a Statement was put down every Friday stating the number of days which have already elapsed of the 20 which the House has resolved to appropriate to Supply. I think it would add very much to the convenience of Members if you would sanction the printing of that Statement either upon the Notices of Motion or upon the Votes, so that we may know how far we have gone towards the desired goal?

I see no objection to that course, if it meets with the general approval of the House.

said, he desired to direct the attention of Mr. Speaker to an erroneous report in the Votes and Proceedings of an incident which had occurred in Committee.

referred the hon. Member to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who immediately afterwards took the Chair.

called the attention of the Chairman of Ways and Means to the fact that, during the course of the discussion on the Agricultural Rating Bill on the previous night, the right hon. Member in charge of that Bill rose twice in his place and asked leave that the question be then put, while in the official account of the proceedings it appeared that he only did so once. He would, therefore, ask that some direction might be given to make the official account correspond with what actually took place.

In my opinion the right hon. Gentleman did not move the closure twice. He moved it on the first occasion, in the proper form, and I then declined to accept the Motion. Subsequently, the right hon. Gentleman exhibited indications—[much laughter]— of a desire to renew that Motion; and as, I suppose, he gathered from my appearance that I was not prepared to accept the Motion, he did not get as far as moving the exact words. Therefore, I directed the Clerk at the Table not to enter it.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman did not rise in his place. [Cries of "Order!"]

The right hon. Member certainly rose in his place, and that was what I intended by saying that he exhibited indications, but he did not make the Motion.

expressed his great regret at the order in which the Votes were put down. The Vote which the Committee took the greatest interest in was Vote 8, dealing with shipbuilding and contract work, which had not yet been discussed. He should like to have an assurance from the First Lord of the Admiralty that he would take an early opportunity of placing that Vote before the Committee, otherwise it might be brought on at the end of the Session, or after the 20 days had expired, and they would not, in that event, have had the opportunity of discussing a matter which was of vital interest to the nation.

said, he gathered that it was the general opinion the Vote should not be taken to-day. It would be taken shortly after Whitsuntide.

expressed his satisfaction with this arrangement.

drew attention to the fact that the Committee had very little information given to it about ordnance. There was just now a great transformation going on. They knew little indeed about the new guns. They did not know their velocity, their charges—in fact, they knew nothing about them. They knew little, also, about their ammunition. He urged his right hon. Friend to give some full details of these guns, so that the Committee might form an opinion about them. A few days ago he asked his right hon. Friend if the Admiralty had fully apprehended the unfortunate explosion on the Admiral Duperré. It appeared a cartridge exploded owing to heat development; he did not know the facts, but it seemed to be a matter of the utmost gravity. He did not know whether high explosives were being supplied to the Navy. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman, could say whether screens were likely to be useful.

thought that the conclusion to be drawn from the explosion on the Admiral Duperré was that one high explosive when it exploded did not explode the others. If the Admiralty could give them information on the subject of the use of high explosives, it would be a source of satisfaction to the Committee. They all knew that the most progressive school in the French Navy had got their way in the use of high explosives in place of powder, and that they were being carried on the French ships to all parts of the world, and no danger seemed to have resulted. Our supply of these was very defective. He complained that the Royal Naval Reserve were still being drilled with old guns. They had just spent £350,000 on the refit of two ships which still had the old muzzle-loaders. We lagged behind other nations. A great many of our ships still on the list were armed with the old-fashioned muzzle-loading guns, because, it was said, there was great difficulty in supplying them with new armament. It seemed to him the Committee could reasonably ask that more rapid progress should be made in turning out sufficiently large ordnance for our ships and for all our needs.

said, he was unable to give any information as to the explosion to which reference had been made. If there had been delay in the supply of high explosives, it had been owing to the absolute necessity of proceeding with the greatest caution. The necessary examination was now complete, and in the present Estimates provision was made for the supply of a very large number of high explosive shells within the present year. That supply would put us on an equality in the matter of explosive shells with any other naval Power He asked the Committee not to require the Government to state the number of shells which had been ordered, though if they wished to have the information he would give it; he hoped they would be satisfied with the assurance that the number was very large. As to ammunition generally, he could not pledge himself as to details. He would go into the question fully and see what information could be given. With regard to the supply of guns, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had stated that we were behind any other Power. One reason, no doubt, was that when a new gun was invented we had an enormously larger force of ships to supply than any other single Power. The total amount the Admiralty asked for this year was £2,500,000, and therefore he hoped the Committee would admit they were making a great effort to overtake the arrears.

agreed with what had been said as to the lack of information, and said the wire gun had produced a revolution in the armaments of our ships. That gun had brought about an enormous improvement. It was questionable whether cordite was the best ammunition we could have, and as to the armament of the torpedo-boat destroyers, he remarked that competent authorities had condemned the 12-pounder guns and recommended the use of 6-pounders in their stead. He would be glad to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman had been advised that that change could be carried out not only in the new destroyers but in the present boats. Another great defect in the destroyers was that they had only got one torpedotube. As it was impossible to say on which side an attack would be made, such an arrangement was absurd and wrong. The system of one-tube torpedoes, making it necessary for the weapon to be shifted from one side to the other, was absurd and unpractical, and he hoped the point would not be lost sight of officially. It was only on an occasion like this that hon. Members who were interested in naval matters had an opportunity of making suggestions and obtaining reliable information, and insisting on changes which the officers who had to command the ships—and, after all, the opinions of the men who would have to fight them were deserving of some consideration—thought to be necessary. [''Hear, hear!"] Then, with regard to the torpedo-school at Portsmouth, he thought the arrangement of placing the two instruction ships side by side was inconvenient; the vessels should be moored end on so as to secure the most light, freedom of movement, and the greatest safety. He would repeat that he hoped the Admiralty would not lose sight of the points he had referred to, especially with regard to the use of the non-erosive ammunition.

was understood to say that, the old muzzle - loading guns having become obsolete—valuable only as old iron—the machine-gun had become a necessity, and for the safety of the country we must consent to whatever expenditure was necessary to equip our fleet and ports with the newest and best form of armament. In this regard he wished especially to draw the attention of the Admiralty to the necessity of fully arming our cruisers with the most effective weapon, and especially those vessels in the Mercantile Marine which were subsidised as cruisers for use in time of war. In the event of hostilities breaking out, those vessels might be dispersed over all parts of the world. It was obvious, therefore, that it was of supreme importance that those vessels should be equipped for immediate service, and that not only in our arsenals at home but at all our naval stations abroad there should be an ample reserve of quick-firing guns of modern pattern and of the necessary ammunition. Unless steps in this direction were taken, much of the money asked for would be absolutely wasted. The question of the whole equipment and manning of those vessels was so important that he was extremely desirous the Admiralty should give attention to it. The Admiralty seemed to be somewhat reticent about the question of explosive ammunition, and although he recognised that it might be impolitic to give precise information, yet it appeared strange that they should have information of what was being done by the French, Germans, and Americans on these matters. But the point on which he desired to be satisfied was that the Admiralty were making efforts to place the country in a proper position in those matters.

I have already said so. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, he was glad to receive the assurance. Passing to another point, he said he thought the sum of £23,000 put down for the conveyance of guns from one point to another in the country was excessive, and that economy might be exercised in this direction by utilising the many steam tugs belonging to the Service. An equally important point was that of training and exercising the men of the Naval Reserve with modern guns instead of with the obsolete weapons that were now used in many cases, and he urged the First Lord of the Admiralty to give particular attention to this matter.

said, he congratulated the Admiralty on the amount they had asked for and proposed to devote to the expenditure and supply of explosive ammunition. But the point to which he particularly wished to direct the attention of the Admiralty was that of the under-arming of our ships, and especially our cruisers. There was a very general feeling that some of our cruisers were much under-armed, though he admitted that an important step had been taken of more heavily arming vessels of the Renown class. Practical experience had shown that the best and most powerfully armed vessel had the best chance of success in action. Efficient arming took preference of coal endurance, and even of power of protection. It was said that you could not have coal capacity, power of protection, and full armament together; that to some extent one must be sacrificed to the others. It was the view of practical men that power of armament was the last condition that should be sacrificed—["Hear, hear!"]—and he was bound to confess that he had seen foreign cruisers of equal displacement and coal endurance as our own, yet much more heavily armed. There was, he believed, an absolute consensus of opinion that they were sacrificing the effective gun-power of their ships to other qualities. They were always in the position of people who had to force actions, while foreign navies were not in that position, and it would be most serious for, their naval officers if they found, as they would find over and over again, when they had to go into action with their existing cruisers against ships nominally of the same class, that they were out-classed in the number of guns. He therefore pressed this matter on the right hon. Gentleman. He should like to say a word with regard to the obsolete armament of the Monarch. That splendid vessel was now armed with the worst gun in the Navy—the old 25-ton muzzle-loader, which was never a good gun, and which was now in a much worse condition than when it was first placed. He believed it was contended that the stability of the ship would be interfered with if the new guns were put no board, but the opinion of those engaged in the construction and completion of the ship was in absolute contradiction of the statement that it could not be re-armed with modern guns without interfering with its stability. He believed the problem could be solved, and he would ask the First Lord whether he would not invite some further expression of opinion as to the possibility of doing so. He thought the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland—the supply of guns to the cruisers—demanded some attention. He knew what those guns were, and that information made him aware of the fact that a great many of the guns were not what they ought to be, and that they were not in places where they ought to be. He thought the 4·7 guns could, with the very greatest ease, be carried in the holds of these ships without interfering with their ballast, and they could be placed on board in a short time in case of need. They were not carried on board, and in a great many cases they were not put in spots where they could be utilised when the ships were called upon to take up their commissions. There was one further very essential matter A great many of these subsidised vessels did not even carry the fittings they would require when they were called upon to take up their commission, and it would be very inconvenient that they should have, wherever the ships might be, to call upon artisans and smiths to undertake the whole of this work and to do at the last moment what ought to be done now. This was a small practical reform which might engage the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he was not satisfied with the present arrangements in regard to the subsidised cruisers. [''Hear, hear!"] He should be very glad if some improved arrangement could be made by which more guns could be put upon those ships. He was bound to say that the situation in regard to the number of guns signed to the merchant cruisers was unsatisfactory. They were able to arm all the fastest and best cruisers with the 4·7 guns. They had 104 of these guns ready for these cruisers. They had eight sets of these guns at Devonport; four sets of a somewhat inferior breech-loading gun at Hong Kong; a certain number of sets at Portsmouth, some at Sydney, and some at Woolwich. This was a matter which certainly would not escape the attention of the Admiralty. As regarded the Monarch, he did not think his hon. Friend would expect him to give a precise answer without first consulting his advisers. Generally with regard to those old ships and their armament, it was a question of how far the value of the improved armament was worth the immense cost of reconstructing the ships. In the case of the Monarch, he, understood, the ship would have to be taken to pieces. The expense would be very great indeed, and that, of course, applied to many of the old ships. His own personal opinion was that these old ships would probably prove a most useful reserve in the end, and would come into play and have a great part to perform if, after a very severe war, the finer ships had been disabled in part. He thought that, though their guns were obsolete as compared with the modern guns, there was still a good deal of value in them for subsidiary purposes in certain circumstances. In coming to a decision on this matter they should do their utmost to balance, carefully the value of the ship and the value of the guns and examine, whether or not it was worth while to deal with them if they had to reconstruct the whole ship. The hon. Member for Belfast, speaking of the number of guns on their ships generally, expressed the opinion that they were under-gunned. There was no question that gave rise to more controversy than this. His hon. Friend said he had been proved to be right in a great many cases. He would not dispute that, and he would not speak with any kind of official or personal dogmatism on the matter, because he was aware that both in the House and out of it many differences of opinion existed on all these questions, on which there must be some compromise. There was one consideration to which he was sure every one must attach the greatest importance, and that was that their ships should carry sufficient ammunition as well as sufficient guns. Their sea-going power must be great enough to force an attack, and they must be able to carry the necessary amount of ammunition, as they would not be able to replenish at home ports. They must be got to where the action was to be fought with very great speed, and consequently they must carry more coal than their adversaries. It was one of the drawbacks imposed on their ships that they must have a full coal supply, and it would be a daring policy to sacrifice to any great extent that which was of first necessity in getting their ships to the place where they were to fight. Then, in addition to the question of the necessary amount of ammunition and the necessary amount of guns, there was also the question of the arrangements by which the ammunition would be brought safely to the guns while under attack. That was a point to which possibly some, of their naval constructors attached more importance than some, of their foreign rivals. They had thought it necessary, and one of the most essential matters in naval warfare, that the, ammunition should be safely and quickly conducted to the guns. That involved a certain amount of room, and the number of guns had to be adjusted in connection with that most important question. Then there was the question of the protection of the guns. They could not have as many guns in casemates as they could have guns without casemates, and the question was whether on the whole the advantage would not lie with the, ship with fewer guns with casemates and which was able to fight longer, both because the guns and the ammunition supply were protected as they were not in other ships. But he did not wish to dogmatise on the matter. He always looked with the greatest interest to see what really could be done in the matter of multiplying the number of guns on their ships. A good deal had been done in that direction. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend also spoke of the first-class cruisers not having sufficient guns, and instanced the case of the Renown. The six-inch quickfiring gun was a gun which was considered of the greatest advantage, and it was thought it would be better to have more guns of the six-inch type than a few of the nine-inch type. He could assure the Committee that every effort, was being made to increase the number of guns. Attention had been called to the question of the exclusive use of high explosives. On that point he had to say that there were eminent authorities who held that high explosives ought not to be carried exclusively on our ships, and the Admiralty did not intend that such explosive should displace wholly other kinds of ammunition. Of the behaviour of our torpedo-destroyers he had received very satisfactory accounts.

said, that he had listened with very great interest to what had been said with reference to high explosives. Great risks were run in storing these explosives in men-of-war, and they must always be handled with the greatest care. They were composed of very treacherous material, and he trusted that the question of their use would always be approached in this country with deliberation and caution. With regard to the remarks that had been made as to the insufficiency of the armament of our cruisers, he would remind the Committee that the question of the number of guns that could be put upon a ship was determined by the design of the ship. The number of guns which a ship was designed to carry could not be exceeded. When comparison was made between the number and character of the guns carried on a British ship and the number carried on a foreign vessel with the intention of showing that the latter carried more and greater guns, the comparison was generally faulty in this respect—that the ships compared were not of the same class. The armament of the Monarch and similar ships had been referred to. The question of re-arming these ships must be considered from a business point of view. A vessel built 10, 15, or 20 years ago was practically an obsolete ship, and it might cost much more money to alter that ship so that guns of the most recent design might be put upon her than would be required to build a cruiser of respectable dimensions. These old vessels were bound to go to the hammer sooner or later; in the meantime they could be used for coast defence and subsidiary purposes of that kind. He was very glad that the Admiralty took such a practical view in regard to the armament of the Monarch and her sister ships.

had no criticism to offer on the replies which the First Lord of the Admiralty had given to the various questions that had been addressed to him. He wished, however, to supplement what the right hon. Gentlemen had said as to the inexpendiency of incurring the enormous expense that would be necessary if old ships like the Monarch and the Sultan were to be rendered capable of carrying modern big guns. The expense of altering the Sultan so as to enable her to carry big modern breech loading guns was considered by the Board of Admiralty of which he was a member, as well as by the Board which preceded it, to be absolutely prohibitive. The problem which presenter itself to the late Government was which of three coursed should be adopted. The old ships might have been condemned as absolutely obsolete, and not worth spending any money upon; or they might have been partially reconstructed, fitted with quick firing guns, and thus given a good secondary armament so that they might take their place in the second or third line of defence and be useful which other ships had played their part; or at enormous expense, as advocated by many people outside, they might have been re-constructed so as to replace the old guns with modern big guns. The third course would have rendered necessary such totally different arrangements from those existing in the ships, that it was difficult to convey an idea of the enormous expenditure that would have had to be incurred in reconstruction in order to make the ships serviceable. On the whole it was deemed best not to adopt either of the two extreme courses and he was quite satisfied that the middle course was the most prudent in the circumstances. With regard to the amount of information furnished on certain subheads he had felt since he left office that, while with respect to ships it went almost beyond what was necessary with regard to armament it was very meagre.

said, it was desirable they should know whether the guns for Canada were really in existence. [Mr. GOSCHEN said they were.] Many naval officers had called his attention to the urgency of recognising the importance of screening as a defence against quick-firing small guns, by which so much execution had been done in the naval war between China and Japan. He congratulated the Committee on the fuller consideration that had been given to the arming of the mercantile cruisers, because one of our greatest sources of strength would be the granting of temporary commissions to merchantmen. We ought to be prepared not only with crews but also with armament ready at hand if commissions were sent by telegram; and if it were possible mail steamers in the Pacific should have armament stored in the hold.

said the statement of the First Lord was extremely satisfactory. As regarded cruisers, it was somewhat of a surprise that matters had gone so far. The sum spent upon the refitting of the older ships was a large one, and it was doubtful whether, if you had to alter the armament and supply them with quick-firing guns, it was worth spending upon them so much as £200,000 each. It seemed a very large sum to spend on a ship which would only be of secondary utility; and in case of a war lasting we should manifestly rely upon torpedo destroyers rather than upon obsolete ships of this kind. One point on which explanation was not quite satisfactory was the armament on the ships used for exercising the men of the Royal Naval Reserve, for, although important additions had been made, some men never saw a shot fired from a modern gun, and others never saw a shell fired at all. This made the drilling a very imperfect preparation few service in war.

asked whether, after searching inquiry, the Admiralty were satisfied as to the suitability of Esquimalt as a naval base. He also wished to know who would be responsible for the guns when placed there, and whether the surrounding, and works were satisfactory in the minds of the authorities.

asked whether the distribution of Lee-Metford rifles in the Navy had been completed? Experience seemed to show that for the special purposes of the Navy the Lee-Metford rifle was not satisfactory. Although it was wise to have guns on cruisers, he did not think much reliance could be placed on armed cruisers for the needs of the Navy.

replied that the doubts that formerly existed as to the suitability of the Lee-Metford rifle for the needs of the Navy had disappeared. With regard to Esquimalt, the Admiralty were not responsible for the supply either of guns or ammunition. The War Office supplied these by arrangement with the Canadian Government.

said, with regard to the new powder brought before the Austrian Government, that, unless it was shown that there could be an improvement in the powder now possessed, it would be a serious thing to take up a new powder for introduction in the service.

pointed out that the chief increase in the Vote was £800,000 for the production of ordnance. For artificers and labourers' wages there was only an increase of £300,000 or £400,000. He supposed that the reason wages formed such a small part of the Vote was that the guns were obtained from the War Department, and the Committee only dealt with the extra amount paid, and the Admiralty were not responsible. The wages of 1,100 or 1,200 artificers were in the Vote, and 400 of these were employed at Woolwich. He complained that the recognised minimum wages for ordinary labourers were not paid at Woolwich Dockyard. The late Government gave the men 1s. or 2s. per week extra, but he believed that even now their wages only averaged 22s. 6d. a week, whereas 24s. were the average wages of ordinary labourers. He also wished to know whether the eight hours day initiated by the late Government had proved satisfactory.

explained that the number of artificers who came under the Vote was so small compared with the bulk of the labourers employed, that it would be more convenient to discuss the points raised by the hon. Member under the Vote for labour. The great bulk of the expenditure under this Vote went either to the War Office or the trade, and the employment of workmen was not relevant.

observed that there was a considerable change made in. the aspect of the Vote by reason of the large works contemplated last year now being provided for out of the capital account. They had relieved the Vote of a very large charge that would have appeared upon it for many years to come, and he was inclined to think that those who administered the Department at the Admiralty had rather sought out a means of expending the money so saved by discharging the capital account with probably not always the same eye to economy that was shown in previous days. For instance, at Plymouth he found it was proposed to construct a new boiler shop at a cost of £45,000, while the machinery to be placed in it would only cost £6,000. His experience of the works under the Admiralty was that there was an inclination to expend an unnecessarily large sum of money for the buildings that were to house the plant. At Keyham a very large sum had been practically wasted in building houses for a comparatively moderate amount of machinery. No private firm would ever think of spending such a sum as was indicated in this Vote merely for housing £6,000 worth of machinery. He hoped that the Civil Lord would be able to tell them that care had been exercised in providing this protection for machinery, and that no unnecessary expense would be incurred. ["Hear, hear!"] He observed that at Devonport a new machine shop was to be erected at a cost of £12,500, to cover machinery which was apparently only to cost £3,000. These sums for the buildings seemed very large, having regard to the purposes for which they were to be devoted, and he should be glad if the Civil Lord would give them some explanation. He also noticed that at Southampton there was to be an expenditure on the part of the Admiralty, for boom defences, of £21,700. He should like to know whether this expenditure was being incurred by the Admiralty of their own action or by the War Office, which of the two Departments was responsible for the defence of Southampton, and what class of attack this was proposed to provide against?

although he did not intend to move any reduction of the Vote, would like to call the attention of the Admiralty to the item relating to Haul-bowline Dock. At Cork harbour millions of money had already been spent on the defences, but the authorities had dawdled over the dock for years and years. Very little had been expended on the dock, but what had been so expended had been practically thrown away. He meant by that that the dock was absolutely useless at the present moment for any practical purpose, as they had neither the plant nor the people to do any repairs. This he regarded as a matter of first-rate importance. This harbour and dock were the furthest to the west and north-west of any part of those islands. He thought it was generally admitted that one of the most important factors in the next naval war would be the power of coaling their ships as well as of preparing them, and there was no means of coaling vessels at Haulbowline. If they were not going to make it a dockyard for repairing ships, it should at least be made a coaling station where ships, instead of having to go up the English Channel, could take on board a coal supply to enable them to keep at sea for another fort night or three weeks after their own supply had been burned out in action. He trusted the Admiralty authorities would give some consideration to this most important question.

observed that it was quite true that this year a certain amount of money was set apart in the Estimates to be spent at Haulbowline, but the sum was altogether inadequate, and he thought the Admiralty would find in the long run it would be more economical, as well as more satisfactory all round, if they dealt with this dockyard at once in a liberal and generous way instead of proceeding by their present methods. He commented on the fact that of the amount annually voted in the Navy Estimates very little was spent in Ireland, which was a circumstance giving rise to much dissatisfaction. In regard to Haulbowline, it was clearly in the interest of the service and of the Admiralty that the dockyard should be put in an efficient state of repair, so that employment might be given locally, and some indication conveyed to the Irish people that there was a desire to act fairly in the matter. He had over and over again protested against the way in which Ireland was treated in regard to this expenditure. He had on the Paper to-day several Amendments; he had frequently divided on previous occasions against various items with a view to emphasise his protest, and although he did not intend to divide the Committee on the Amendments he had put down, he wished once more to reiterate his complaint as to the unfair way Ireland was treated in this matter.

congratulated the First Lord of the Admiralty no the announcement with regard to Haulbowline—namely, that he proposed to carry out the expenditure in connection with Haulbowline as recommended in the Committee's Report, and so to make that yard an emergency yard, which would be of great value in time of war, and a repairing yard in time of peace. He had always contended that it was most desirable that there should be one or more yards on the west coast of the United Kingdom. At present, all the repairing yards were east of the Land's End, although the next great fight was certain to take place west of that point; and it seemed to him most important that the yards should be in the locality where the fighting would take place. Haulbowline and Pembroke were essentially the two yards that should be improved, and he was glad to think that the former was to receive consideration. At the same time he much regretted that a larger amount of consideration was not to be given to Pembroke. It seemed to him that a dockyard without a dock was hardly sufficient there. It was essential to have a yard there in which vessels could be made ready for sea again after being damaged in action. Considering the small amount of dock accommodation there was, and that money was to be spent on increased accommodation at the eastern ports, was it not fair to ask that something should be spent in improving the yard that would be most useful in time of war? He did not ask for more now, but he hoped that in the next Naval Works Bill this matter might be considered.

was extremely glad to hear the appeals made on behalf of Haulbowline by his hon. Friend opposite and by his hon. Friend near him, and he desired most cordially to support him. He rose, however, to ask a few questions in connection with the Report of the Committee which had just been issued. The recommendations of that Committee went far beyond the outlay sanctioned in their Vote; but he would confine his inquiries to items which were stated in the Report to be essential to make Haulbowline efficient even as a repairing yard. He wished, therefore, to ask the First Lord whether the various recommendations of the report, including electric lighting, were covered by their Vote; and, further, whether the offer of the Queenstown Commissioners to supply Haulbowline with fresh water had been accepted? He would also like to know what sum it was proposed to allocate annually to the maintenance of Haulbowline, and whether the recommendations of the Committee as to strengthening the permanent staff would be adopted? He would further suggest that a general statement as to the future intentions of the Admiralty with regard to this yard was extremely desirable. He would also call attention to the vital necessity of carrying out the works promptly and expeditiously. Delay was quite as injurious to the interests of this country as to those of Ireland. Replying to a Question of his the other day, the Civil Lord stated that while no definite pledge could be given as to the total amount of their Vote being expended within the present financial year, the works would be carried out as rapidly as possible. He wished to urge that they should be commenced as speedily as possible, because until Haulbowline was properly equipped England was deprived of an admirable harbour of refuge, and in the present unsettled state of foreign affairs, no one could deny that such an addition to the naval resources of the country would be of great value. He trusted, therefore, that some assurance; would be given that the utmost dispatch would be used in beginning and completing these works.

thought that this would be a convenient time at which to reply to the various questions that had been put. He wished to assure his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that the Admiralty was fully alive to the great advantages presented by Queenstown. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the condition of our foreign coaling stations should have the most careful attention of the Admiralty, who would see that they were so kept up that they would be efficient for the purpose of coaling Her Majesty's ships in time of war. With regard to the money which it was proposed to spend upon Haulbowline dockyard, he might say, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Clare and the hon. and gallant Member for Cork, that the money was proposed to be so expended in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee on Dockyard Accommodation, which was a very efficient Committee. That Committee included several gentlemen of the greatest experience, and they had carried out their work in an admirable manner. Any one who had read the Report of that Committee would see that no pains had been spared by them to lay all necessary information in relation to the matters they had to inquire into before the Admiralty. The Admiralty were taking steps to make Haulbowline an efficient emergency dockyard in time of war. He could not state at that moment what was proposed to be done in the way of electric lighting and similar matters at that dockyard, because the Admiralty had as yet not arrived at a definite decision with regard to them. The Admiralty, however, fully endorsed the views which had been put forward with so much ability by the Committee on Dockyard Accommodation, the importance of which they recognised.

said, that, in his view, there was nothing in connection with this Vote which required prolonged discussion. He should like, however, to express his concurrence in the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with reference to the value of the labours of the Committee on Dockyard Accommodation, the Chairman of which had done his work with great ability and sagacity. He was not aware, of course, whether the Admiralty intended to carry out the whole, or which of the recommendations of that Committee, but he had no doubt that those recommendations would receive careful consideration. With regard to some of the suggestions which had been made, there was nothing more noticeable that occurred during the recent General Election than the constant attempts at various seaport towns to make political capital out of proposals to spend large sums upon our dockyards. He was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Admiralty would set his back against proposals of that kind from whatever quarter they might come.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken into consideration the great advantages that would result from lengthening one of the docks at Sheerness which would be of extreme advantage in time of war. He did not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily; but he felt strongly the necessity of bringing the question forward in the hope that the matter would be carefully considered by the Admiralty.

pointed out that Pembroke Dockyard was situated in one of the finest natural harbours in the world, steps should be taken to improve that dockyard, and that money could be found for that purpose.

said that, in his opinion, it was a pity that hon. Member after hon. Member should get up and attempt to turn the discussion on the Navy Estimates into a means of making political capital. He had never proposed that King's Lynn should be turned into a Government dockyard, although, perhaps, he might have had fairly good grounds for doing so. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would concern himself solely with matters that concerned the welfare of the Navy, and would not pay the slightest attention to any suggestions which hon. Members might make in favour of their particular localities. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any intention to give superintendents of works any gratuities or percentages in respect of the large extra works now to be carried out?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman there is no such intention.

said, that he was glad to hear that that was the case, because he should have been bound to have brought such a matter forward if it had come to his knowledge. With regard to Jamaica he thought that it was useless for dockyard purposes, but he thought that it might be of some value as a coaling station. He wished to know why £17,000 was going to be expended on the water supply of that island. He had already reminded the House that the Admiral on the station reported against the maintenance of Jamaica as a dockyard. A local committee had been appointed, he supposed to carry out the recommendation of the Admiral, and if there was any defence to be made for Jamaica as a dockyard he should be glad to hear it. He should also be very glad to hear why this very large expenditure of, £17,000 was being incurred for the water supply.

said that the hon. Member for King's Lynn was not, he thought, altogether correct in interpreting the effect of the Report of the Admiral on the station. The present Board had given the most careful attention to the question of Jamaica, and had come to the conclusion that it would be a great mistake to do away with the dockyard there. In the opinion of their expert advisers the position of Jamaica was one of very great strategic importance. At present the water supply of the dockyard was not sufficient, and was procured in a very costly and unsatisfactory way by means of water-tank vessels. This expenditure on water supply had for its object the bringing of a permanent supply of spring water in pipes to the dockyard, the result of which would be, he was convinced, a saving in the annual expense.

asked if the springs were in the Blue Mountains?

said he was afraid he could not answer that question, but they wore getting the same water as was now being used. It was proposed to bring it by pipes.

Across the harbour?

said he thought so. The subsidies to various docks were for dock extensions which were in contemplation, and by means of which, owing to private interprise, the Admiralty would be spared expense.

Where are they?

said Colombo was a case in point. With regard to the items for Portsmouth and Devonport he pointed out that the sum of money which appeared on the Estimate for Machinery did not represent the whole machinery which was to be put into the new buildings, as there would be transfers of machinery from existing buildings. The boom defences at Southampton would be erected by the Admiralty.

asked for an explanation of the following entries:—A new shed for slabs at Sheerness, £6,000; a new electric shop at Sheerness, £15,000; a new machine shop at Devonport, £12,500; a new boiler shop at Gibraltar, £22,000; and a new coppersmiths' shop at Malta, £2,900. He should like to know what kind of shops these were for which such large sums were asked. Then there was a still more startling entry under the head of Portland:—coaling arrangements, £87,960. What were these arrangements?

said that money had been nearly all spent. All they were asking for in that case was £500 to complete the works.

said he was very glad to hear that that was the case, but he should like an elucidation of the other items he had referred to.

said, he had visited on behalf of the Government every harbour in the West Indies, and although he did not speak from the export side, having considered the matter from the financial point of view, he was able to say in favour of Jamaica that it was the only harbour in those parts which was out of the usual track of hurricanes, and for this, and other reasons, it was useful not only as a coaling station, but as a dockyard. If the harbour had been removed to a different position as they had suggested, this large expense for water supply would have been obviated. There was a large item for reclaiming land for coal stores at the Cape of Good Hope, he presumed that was in Simon's Bay. It was followed by a Vote for survey and preliminary expenses for docks, and he would like to ask whether the Admiralty had fully considered the site of Simon's Bay for these purposes. To his mind sufficient importance was not attached to Table Bay, as just as they no longer used Torbay, but went to Portsmouth, so they ought to use Table Bay, instead of Simon's Bay, as the headquarters; and a short distance north of Table Bay there was one of the finest harbours round the whole coast. He observed one item for magazine accommodation at Sierra Leone, which was a much neglected place. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped there would be a grant of money which would make it a very strong naval station. He asked where the magazine was to be placed. He had recently been there, and the naval authorities were quite convinced as to where it should be placed.

agreed as to the extreme importance, of Sierra Leone, for any one who had studied the question at all had forced upon him this conclusion. He saw at page 122 that money was provided for guns at Ascension, and he wanted to know if that was not rather a new departure. Hitherto armaments on shore were in the hands of the War Office, but he should be glad if the new departure was extended further. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped the Admiralty was starting a policy of having control of the minor naval bases. He could not agree with what had been said by the Member for King's Lynn as to Jamaica. From his own experience down to recent times, it proved to be of the greatest value, and every one who noticed the change of routes and the general course of trade, must admit that the importance of Jamaica was rather increased than decreased. He was exceedingly glad that the Admiralty was spending what was necessary on the water supply, and he hoped there would be a pure and ample supply at the naval station at Port? loyal As to the Cape, he urged that they should have further information as to the survey, and he asked whether the £5,000 was for a survey within any particular territorial limits. Was it to be a general survey in Simon's Bay and elsewhere, or was it to be confined to a limited portion of the region? The Admiralty in Simon's Bay, or any of the waters of the Cape, had no local control, and he believed they could not get any statutory powers without the consent of the Colony. He instanced in support of this the case of Admiral Heneage in Canadian waters, where an action was brought and damages recovered. The Government of the Dominion of Canada had now given the Admiralty these powers, and there the Admiral, in those waters, had the actual jurisdiction which an admiral ought to have on every naval station and in all waters that were British. ["Hear, hear!"] He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could give the Committee an assurance that this matter had not been overlooked, and that before spending Imperial money he would see that the control of the Admiralty was absolutely secured, and that the Admiral on the station had that paramount power which he had at home. He would like to receive an assurance that although the Admiralty had come to the conclusion that dock accommodation was much needed in South Africa, he hoped they had not lost sight of the Falkland Islands. The same circumstances which would give increased importance to the Cape would give increased importance to the route round the Horn.

said he had often insisted upon the importance of Sierra Leone as a coaling station. It was difficult to discuss the question of our position at Sierra Leone because it arose on so many different Votes. It arose on this Vote in connection with new works. The importance of Sierra Leone was universally admitted. At one time it was suggested that that station should be abandoned, but now there was no difference of opinion as to the importance of the place. He asked that the Defence Committee of the Cabinet would turn their attention to the whole question of the position of Sierra Leone, both as to the works that had to be established there and as to the way the place was to be garrisoned and protected in view of a possible attack upon it.

asked the Admiralty whether they would have a Report made as to the necessity of providing a boat slip on the Tramore, County Waterford. There was a large coastguard there, and if the work of the men was to be properly performed a boat slip was absolutely necessary?

desired to echo everything that had been said as to the importance of the Cape. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth had raised a point which was entirely new to him. In his youth he served on that station for a considerable time, and he knew it never occurred to the Admiral or to anybody else that there was a doubt as to jurisdiction. If there was any doubt in the matter the sooner it was cleared up the better. He did not share the alarmist view as to Simon's Bay being open to attack As long as there was an adequate force there, there was no fear of any attack. Simon's Bay, however, did deserve to receive more attention from the Admiralty than it had yet received, and it would be better to have a dock there under difficulties than not to have a dock at all. He rejoiced to see that £5,000 was to be taken for preliminary surveys with regard to the dock. He trusted a similar sum would be taken for a like survey at the Mauritius. At both stations a dock was required; we were sorely in need of docks. He now came to items of less importance, and yet they were important. There was a reference in the Vote to the torpedo range, and he would like to know whether it was in contemplation to remove the torpedo school from Portsmouth to Portland; £2,300 was set down for a cottage hospital at Forton. He did not grudge anything for the marines, but it struck him as remarkable that they should want to put up a cottage hospital when there was a hospital 1½ mile away. There was a sum to be taken for schools at Forton. He always thought that the schools at the barracks were ample. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee why the money was wanted? Under the head of Keyham there was a sum of £4,000 for an engineer students' recreation ground. He suggested the desirableness of a private arrangement being made with Lord Mount Edgcumbe, who would be glad, on doubt, to grant some acres of land for a recreation ground. He next called attention to Sheerness and the gunnery school, pointing out that a rifle range was a great want here. He found that once a fortnight a batch of Marines were being brought from Devonport to Gosport Barracks, in order to carry out their rifle practice. That arrangement could not be carried out under £50 a trip, and he suggested whether arrangements for rifle practice could not be made at Devonport, without moving the men about in this way.

dealing generally with the Vote, assured the Committee that no Vote had been subjected to a closer criticism and examination before it was placed in the Estimates. The question of Keyham recreation ground had given rise to a considerable amount of trouble and annoyance, and it was not yet settled. Hon. Members were no doubt aware of the extreme difficulty of securing any good ground in this neighbourhood. The authorities had been in negotiations, but so far they had not resulted in anything decisive. It might be necessary for the Admiralty to resort to their compulsory powers in order to secure a recreation ground, which must be obtained for the exercise of the students, and the Department would not shrink from exercising those powers if it was impossible to obtain the desired end otherwise. The question which had been raised as to the torpedo range had nothing to do with the school of torpedoes; it was a range for testing the torpedoes; and, though they regretted that it should be necessary to propose a Vote of this kind, yet it was a matter of great importance and could not be over looked. As to rifle ranges, he stated that his predecessors and the War Office found great difficulty in securing such ranges, owing to the extreme expense. Great delay and annoyance had been created, but the Admiralty and the War Office were doing their best to secure the necessary rifle-ranges with the increased distance to which rifles carried. The political and strategical question raised by the larger questions of hon. Members was of very grave importance. The right hon. Baronet opposite was correct in saying that the question of Sierra Leone was one to which the Defence Committee must give its attention. Much progress had been made during later years in joint consultation between the naval and military authorities, and the question of Sierra Leone had been looked into by the joint Naval and Military Committee—a committee of experts. But constant difficulties arose with regard to the garrison of a place like Sierra Leone; and the Government itself would have to settle some of the questions which still remained, to a certain extent, open. Ascension had been handed over entirely to the Admiralty, and they were responsible for the land defences as well. An hon. Member argued that it would be a good plan if the Navy undertook the land defences of the naval stations in other places as well; but how far ought they to put a strain like this on the Navy itself? The naval authorities were generally averse from having anything to do with land defence. In the first place, they thought that they were not so competent to undertake that work as the military authorities; and, in the next place, what force ought to be put aside for the purpose? The use of Marines had been suggested; but the Navy was not anxious to lock up any body of Marines in Sierra Leone, or in any other naval station. This view had been consistently held by the Admiralty, and the authorities were rather inclined still to maintain that view against other authorities. It was a matter, however, upon which the military and naval authorities were at this moment more or less in friendly contest As to Simon's Bay, hon. Members were of opinion that the question of jurisdiction should be brought to an issue. The point relating to jurisdiction in time of peace as well as war was unquestionably an important one, and much might be said on both sides. But there appeared to be every disposition on the part of the colony to facilitate the desire of the Imperial authority with regard to the construction of a dock, and he hoped a satisfactory settlement would finally be arrived at. The question involved, however, was an urgent one, and the Admiralty were anxious that there should be no delay in carrying out the preliminary survey necessary to ascertain the best point, strategically and otherwise, at which the dock should be constructed. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew there was a difference of opinion on the matter, as to both the necessity and position of the proposed dock, but naval authorities generally expressed the strongest conviction that further dock accommodation at some point connected with the Cape was absolutely necessary, and that no consideration should be allowed to delay its construction. By passing the present Vote the House would not commit itself to the adoption of any particular site, but only to the fact that it was desirable that steps should be taken which, through obtaining ample information and expert judgment, would enable the Admiralty to fix upon the best site for a dock. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the importance of Falkland Islands as a coaling station, he might assure his hon. and gallant Friend that the matter had not escaped the attention of the Admiralty. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, he heartily concurred with the view that it would be unwise to lock up any portion of our naval forces at the naval stations. That was the opinion of the late Board of Admiralty; indeed, there seemed to be a consensus of naval opinion against such a policy which in time of war would tie any part of the naval forces to the ports. ["Hear, hear!"] The duty of the Navy was on the sea; garrison duty on land should be discharged by the Army. ["Hear, hear!"] The matter of providing proper recreation grounds for the naval students at Devonport and elsewhere was one of very great importance. Up to the present time the acquisition of land for many purposes had been attended with difficulties, due to the extravagant demands of local landowners, and it was with much pleasure that he heard the right hon. Gentleman hint that the Government would resort to the compulsory powers they new possessed if the necessary land could not otherwise be obtained. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that other countries recognised the responsibility of their navies for the defence of the naval bases. He hoped the Admiralty would give the point serious consideration.

said, no doubt there was a great deal of difficulty about the garrisoning of Sierra Leone, but the matter was a very important one, and it ought to be settled as soon as possible. The Army authorities, on the one hand, did not want to send a regiment there, for the climate was bad for white men, and on the other hand, the Naval authorities naturally objected to locking up a force of Marines there which might be urgently needed in time of sudden emergency. It was clear that some special arrangements must be made by the Government for the manning and defence of the station, and he did not see why it might not be possible to create a special force of black troops for the purpose. Some portion of a white force would, of course, be necessary, but it might be kept to a minimum. At the same time it could not be denied that the pressure of keeping a force at Sierra Leone came from the Navy, and in whatever special arrangements were made the Naval authorities must have a strong voice in them. In the circumstances, therefore, he believed the only way to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement would be by concurrence between the naval and military departments. He fully agreed with the opinion that the duties and work of the Navy were on the sea, and that it would be of the utmost importance, in case of emergency, that our fleets should be left perfectly free and not hampered in any way by garrison defence. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked for an explanation of the item "purchase and erection of new coastguard buildings and purchase of sites." In his opinion the policy indicated by this item was quite obsolete now that smuggling was a thing of the past, and he contended that the great bulk of the men in the coastguard service would be much better employed on board ship than in marching round the island night and day.

pressed for an answer to his question about the £2,000 for the new schools at Forton.

asked how it was that Portsmouth and Devonport were dealt with in two different places in the Votes, and whether in another year the expenditure could not be given under one head and fuller details furnished.

did not think it would tend to the better understanding of the Estimates if he were to follow the suggestion of the hon. Member. The cottage hospital at Forton had been much pressed upon the Admiralty as being most desirable in the interests of the health of the Navy, the present infirmary not being satisfactory. The charge for new schools was put down in order to meet the requirements of the Education Department.

wished to know whether the sum of £5,000 to be devoted to Pembroke Dockyard was to be regarded as an earnest of the work that was to be done there, and whether it was to be understood that the construction of a dry dock at Pembroke was contemplated in the future.

said, the Admiralty were not prepared, as at present advised, to make a dry dock at Pembroke Dockyard. The money was taken for a jetty, but he did not wish to give the impression that any great changes were contemplated at Pembroke Dockyard.

declared that in the statement just made the right hon. Gentleman had receded considerably from the position taken up by the present Secretary of State for India, and the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool.

who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, who regretted that he was not able to be present at the moment, had assured him most positively that that was not what he meant, and that, quite unintentionally, the hon. Member had misrepresented what he had said.

said, that as a matter of fact, he did not go one single word beyond the official report of the Debate, in which the noble Lord was reported to have said, referring to Pembroke Dock, "that it was the finest harbour, he supposed, in the United Kingdom. That being so, surely it was advisable that the naval dockyard there should be so constituted that in time of war it would be able to undertake the repair of every vessel that had to come into the harbour." The words were not susceptible of misrepresentation. The right hon. Gentleman had fairly said that, whether the noble Lord meant it or not, that at all events was not the present intention of Her Majesty's Government. Then he said the Government had receded.

said, the Government had not receded at all. He was responsible for these Estimates, and he accepted the responsibility for the decision they had made. What the noble Lord said at that time had no bearing on the policy of Her Majesty's Government when it succeeded to Office.

said, it had just this bearing that, on the eve of a General Election, when a statement was made from that box by the official spokesman of the Opposition, did the right hon. Gentleman mean to contend for a single moment that that had no moral binding force upon the Government which came into power almost immediately afterwards, and of which, when in Opposition, the noble Lord, who had himself been at the head of the Admiralty, was the spokesman. He approached this matter not as a political question, but on the grounds simply of national and naval policy, and on those grounds he said that Pembroke was entitled to have a repairing dock. He would draw attention to the argument by which the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool supported the position he took up last year. He said, with regard to Pembroke, that:—

"Naval authorities agree that for the purposes of construction, finishing and repairing of vessels, the dockyard was of the highest importance,"

said he did not at all agree with the contention of his hon. Friend, but he thought it right to explain what took place last year on this proposal with regard to Pembroke that arose on the Naval Works Bill. On that occasion the noble Lord, who was now the Secretary of State for India was understood to be the official spokesman of the Conservative Opposition, and they certainly understood on their side of the House, and the House understood, and Pembroke certainly understood what he meant by this proposal. He ventured to put to the Secretary to the Admiralty—he regretted the First Lord was not now in his place—that their proposals this year did not go beyond the proposals which were made last year—possibly not so far, but he would not press that. On the Naval Works Bill, they were met with this contention by Members for Wales, and on the part of the noble Lord, that Pembroke should be made a first class yard. He understood the noble Lord to be repeating a proposal which had been time and again made to the Admiralty and rejected by him. He thought it a matter of much importance that he, speaking officially as the Admiralty representative of the Opposition, should come down to the House and propose plans for the development of Pembroke which he, when in Office, rejected times without number. He did not say anything about it then, as they were anxious to get their Naval Works Bill. His recollection was that the noble Lord put on the Paper an Amendment to the Naval Works Bill, making the very proposal which hon. Members for Wales were now making, and though he did not move it, he supported Mr. Egerton Allen, who was then the Member for Pembroke, and spoke in favour of his Motion. If there was a Division upon the present proposal, he should be obliged to vote against his hon. Friends, but he had thought it right to state his recollection of what took place last year. There had been a serious misconception about the matter, but the statement which was made was taken, and was intended to be taken, in that part of the country as a promise.

who had re-entered the House during the closing sentences of the hon. Member's speech, said he, could not fancy that any responsible Member would come to the conclusion which the hon. Member stated. He seemed to think—he was aware that the hon. Member below the Gangway also thought—that the fact that a private Member, even a private Member in the position which the noble Lord occupied, made a statement with regard to a dock, compelled the succeeding Government, whether or not they thought it right, to spend public money for the purpose of some particular Measure.

said, he repudiated the notion that this was a promise binding on the present Government.

said that he would withdraw what he had said.

said, that they were now to understand that the Government did not hold themselves bound by their pledges made when in Opposition. There appeared on the Estimates an item of £5,000 for Pembroke Dock. A promise had been given, this Session by the Admiralty that a sum of £100,000 was to be spent on a jetty at Pembroke Dock; and he should like to know whether the £5,000 was for a survey or was merely the first instalment of the larger sum promised. In the latter case it was rather inadequate.

said, that the £5,000 was inserted before the Committee had reported on the subject. Now that the Committee had come to the conclusion that the jetty was to be built, there would be no delay in carrying out the work.

asked whether £5,000 was all that Parliament would be asked for in the present year?

Yes, unless there is a Supplementary Estimate. But that is not necessary, because the savings from other Votes can be devoted to this work.

was convinced that great economy for the Admiralty would be effected by the construction of this jetty, and the more quickly the work was carried out, the better.

called attention to the wages paid to the men in the victualling yard. The views of the dockyard constituencies had been placed very fully before the First Lord at a conference recently held; and various petitions had been presented to the Admiralty by the men asking for a larger rate of pay for the work, or for a change in the pension system. He wished to know whether any of these changes had been resolved upon, and particularly whether the remuneration of the coopers in the yard was to be raised in accordance with the scale submitted by them to the Admiralty?

said that he should prefer to discuss this important question on Vote 8. But he could assure the hon. Member that there would be no further delay in coming to a decision on the petitions which had been presented. Within the last fortnight some important decisions had been reached, but they must be reduced to writing; and he could not make any specific statement at that moment.

urged that this was another reason why an early day should be given by the Government for the discussion of Vote 8. He hoped that on the pension question the First Lord would be successful in his negotiations with the Treasury.

said, that he had only just discovered a great grievance in connection with the victualling of the Marines which he was sure the House would not allow to continue. It had always been the policy that the Marines and soldiers of the line should be on the same footing when on shore. Lately the soldier of the line was given free rations daily, but the same concession was not given to the marine on shore. He did, indeed, get an additional allowance of 1d. per day for beer, but he had 4½d. deducted for bread and meat which was not deducted from the soldier's pay. The Marines were a splendid body of men, who were, more or less, the backbone of the service, for they were all long-service men, and the House would not care to see them unjustly treated. Unless the grievance were remedied, the House should ring with it. He did not want the usual official answer that the matter should be looked into.

said that the grievance alleged by the hon. and gallant Member in regard to the Royal Marines, whose services were highly appreciated, would be carefully examined into by him, and he hoped on Report to be able to give a satisfactory answer.

said he knew, as a matter of fact, that the subject had been repeatedly referred to by previous Adjutants General of Marines. It had been burked, but it would be burked no longer.

complained that there was no head nursing sister at Malta, one of their most important hospitals. The nursing sisters formed one of the most delightful improvements introduced into the naval hospital system, and he hoped the deficiency at Malta would be supplied. He also complained of the toll charged at the bridge leading to Haslar hospital. He hoped that the Admiralty would consider the advisability of getting rid of this burning grievance, and that the iron would not be allowed to enter any longer the souls of the people visiting the hospital.

quite concurred in the remarks of the gallant Admiral as to the valuable services rendered by the nursing sisters, but he understood there was a head nurse at Malta hospital. As to the toll-bridge at Haslar, he was prepared to consider any representations that might be made, and, if there was any possibility of arriving at a settlement of the grievance, it would be done.

suggested that the Vote should be postponed to a later date.

drew attention to the Surveying Department, the men engaged in which, he said, received no extra pay for their extremely severe work. It was work, too, of a distressingly monotonous character, and, although he had several times pressed the claim of this branch of the service to more favourable treatment, he had never yet persuaded the Admiralty to take that view. He believed that there was great difficulty in getting officers for the surveying service, the reason being that they did not receive their fair share of promotion. In order to increase the popularity of this branch of the Navy, the Admiralty some years ago decided to give certain promotions, but these advantages had been taken away in recent years, and there was now so little chance of promotion that young officers would not go into the surveying service at all. This particular service accomplished work of the greatest importance all over the world, and the officers and men engaged in it ought to receive their fair share of promotion and other advantages, especially considering the arduous nature of their duties. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed that this matter had not been brought under his notice since he had been at the Admiralty, but he would make inquiry into the matter. He was quite aware of the importance and great value of the services rendered by the surveying staff. It was just one of those duties which they seemed to perform to the advantage of the rest of the world, duties which increased their Navy Estimates, which were not performed for themselves alone, but which were of advantage to all countries that had navies or maritime interests. He should be extremely sorry if the great advantages which had been derived from the services rendered to navigation in every part of the world by the surveying officers were not properly recognised. ["Hear, hear!"] He quite admitted they should do their best to secure admirable crews and officers for their surveying ships, and he would with pleasure make inquiries such as had been suggested, to see whether there were any drawbacks to this particular branch of the service. ["Hear, hear!"] In Rear Admiral Wharton, the head of the Hydrographic Department, they had a most capable and zealous officer, and he was aware how well the surveying service was performed. With regard to promotions, he was under the impression that there had been some quite recently in the surveying service, and he should be very sorry that any devotion to this scientific branch of the Navy generally should be held in any way to diminish an officer's chances of advancement in his profession. He would give every attention to the question the hon. and gallant Gentleman had raised. ["Hear, hear!"]

from his own knowledge of the service, stated that the custom used to be to give an annual promotion of a Commander's rank to the Survey Department. In the Report on Admiralty Surveys, by Rear Admiral Wharton, the Hydrographer, issued that day, it was stated:—

"Requests for surveys of a more modern character continue to be received, and are undoubtedly necessary to meet the requirements of the numerous large steam vessels which visit nearly every corner of the globe; and the increasing traffic caused by expansion of trade, in waters where, but a few years ago, hardly a vessel was to be met, demands, in many cases, detailed surveys on a large scale."

said that on August 9th an eclipse of the sun was appointed to take place—[laughter]—and the Royal Society were fitting out an expedition for the observation of that important event. At the instance of one of the members of that society, he appealed to the First Lord of the Admiralty to see whether he could in any way help in this expedition by sending one of the ships of the Navy to the spot where the observation was proposed to be made.

asked for an explanation of recent changes in the staff at Greenwich Observatory. There were now two chief assistants instead of one, and four additional "computers" were employed. The expenses of drawing and engraving charts was £1,250 more this year than last; £19,000 a year was spent in preparing charts, and only about £10,000 a year seemed to be realised by their sale. The amounts should correspond more closely.