sion? I do not think it could be done | I am convinced that war, and a sudden now; but unless we know from the direc- war, is quite possible. We have been tions given by qualified persons what the told by the Secretary of State for War, system is and what can be done-unless although it is not necessary for us to be the instructions given are laid upon the told that by a Minister of State, as we Table by the Admiralty, and action is can see it for ourselves, that there is taken upon them in the course of a cause for very grave anxiety, and that week or two after they are received, I a sudden emergency might arise. Then am afraid we shall make no real pro- if there is cause for anxiety there is an gress. I cannot but say that a great additional reason why the House and deal of the failure to complete the pro- the country should see that our defences gramme from year to year, and a great are adequate for the task they may be deal of the inaccuracy which prevails called upon to perform. It is essential in the figures, is due to the want of that we should be secure in our homes, cordiality in the working which exists in our trade, and in our commerce, and within the Admiralty itself. It arises that there should be no interruption to from a vast number of zealous officers the native industries of the country, or in their several Departments, working to our food supply. It is the duty of most conscientiously no doubt to the the Admiralty to see that their arrangebest of their ability in the discharge of ments and provisions are adequate to their several duties, being brought to- the necessities of the case. I speak gether to decide matters which from strongly and plainly, because I feel their very conscientiousness they are deeply the responsibilities of the Adprevented from deciding, and which pre- miralty. I feel deeply our own responvents them from arriving at positive con- sibility. I know that the provisions clusions, simply because their decision which exist are not adequate, and has to be given upon work altogether out- therefore it is that I express my earnest side their several provinces. The result is hope that the Government will take such that matters of real importance to the steps as are necessary to bring order out country are seriously delayed or sacri- of chaos, and to re-assure the country ficed. What we want is a man of vigorous that the Navy, as far as the matériel grasp, with a will to control, direct, and and the personnel are concerned, if the order; with a sense of personal and in- actual service of the country required it, dividual duty and responsibility, who are perfect, and that they deserve the would be responsible for having every- complete confidence and trust of the thing done for the country without loss people of this country. of time. It should be the work of one man, and I think it is the duty of one man to undertake the task. I am asking this not in panic or alarm, but with a deep sense of responsibility. The Navy exists for the country-it is not a mere expensive toy; not a mere matter of display; but if there were not a possibility of war, if there were no probability of war, if there were not almost the certainty that some time or other the Navy would be required to protect the country there would be no excuse for a Navy at all, and no justification for spending £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 a-year in order to keep up the Navy. But I do insist that if the Navy is to be maintained, as many ships as are necessary should be maintained in a state of efficiency. I am convinced, in my own opinion, that the Navy is not ready to perform the duties it might be called upon to discharge in case of war, and more particularly of sudden emergency. Mr. W. H. Smith LORD HENRY LENNOX said, that those who were acquainted with his career in the House of Commons would believe him when he said that he had no intention of making a speech at that hour of the night (1.15). Still less did he intend to enter into the elaborate criticism which had been undertaken by his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith); but he hoped when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose that he would at least give some hope of affording him (Lord Henry Lennox) an opportunity, on a future day, of stating the objections he entertained to these marvellous Estimates which he would refrain from stating that night. If he did not feel that he was more or less responsible for the excitement which had been created in the public mind in regard to the state of the Navy he might have remained silent; but as he felt that his speeches and humble they would be able to get over the difficulty of deferring the Vote for Men and the first Money Vote until a future day. He, therefore, asked the Committee to agree at once to the Vote on that distinct understanding. MR. A. F. EGERTON said, he had only one question to ask-namely, when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to renew the discussion? It was very important that it should be renewed as soon as possible; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some idea of the day upon which the Navy Estimates would be resumed. efforts had had something to do with | first Vote for Money at once, on the clear the arousing of public attention to the understanding that the discussion should subject, he felt that he would be want- be continued on an early day on the ing in his duty if he did not rise at once next Vote, and also, so far as shipbuildand tell his hon. Friend the Secretary to ing was concerned, on Votes 6 and 10, the Admiralty that he had listened to which came later. If that understandhis speech with alarm. He maintained ing were arrived at, and it was the that there had been nothing more nor understanding that was followed not less than a deliberate breach of faith in only last year, but in previous years, his regard to the engagements deliberately noble Friend would have a full opporentered into with Parliament last De-tunity of making his comments, and cember. The Secretary to the Admiralty, with his usual ability, had tried to conceal it, by contrasting the expenditure of money the Admiralty were going to undertake this year with that of France. Hon. Gentlemen must know as well as he (Lord Henry Lennox) did that labour in France was much cheaper than in England; and the contrast, which his hon. Friend had considered it desirable to make, was altogether a fallacious one. He had only one thing more to say, and it was this. He desired forcibly to point out to the Committee that, after all that had been stated in December last, all that was promised now was four new iron-clads-two by contract, and two in the Dockyards-and they had the high authority of the Secretary to the Admiralty himself for saying that the two to be built in the Dockyards had scarcely been commenced, and that they were really nothing but paper ships. All that he desired at the present moment was to draw the attention of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to that point, and also to ask whether he was right or wrong in pointing out that, according to Vote 6, No. 10, the number of men employed this year, as compared with the number employed last year, notwithstanding the provisions which had been made, was really 47 less? He might have made a mistake; but he would appeal to the Secretary to the Admiralty to put him right. Keeping to his promise, he would not say one word more, except to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold out some hope that this discussion would be resumed at an early day. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS) said, that he had been about to make an appeal to the Committee in the sense of what had fallen from the noble Lord. It appeared to him that it was desirable upon this, as upon previous occasions, that they should take the Vote for Men and the THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS) said, the course which was pursued last year would be followed this; and the Navy Estimates would be taken, after Easter, on the earliest day consistent with other urgent Business. MR. W. H. SMITH remarked, that if the course adopted last year were practically and substantially followed this year, he thought the Committee would do well to agree, at once, to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. Question put, and agreed to. (2.) £2,728,100, Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines. CIVIL SERVICES. CLASS VII.-MISCELLANEOUS. (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,409, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances.' MR. LABOUCHERE said, there was an item contained in this Vote upon which he should ask the Committee to divide-namely, the item of £548 98. 4d. for Fees paid on the Installation of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS) said, he was afraid that by the Rules of the House it would be necessary to decide upon one MR. LABOUCHERE wished to know whether, in that case, he would be precluded from moving the reduction of the Vote by the minor sum? THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be in Order in moving the reduction of the larger sum first, and of the smaller sum afterwards. Ernest Albert of Wales as Knight of the | Exchequer would prefer that the deGarter. There was another item of a simi- cision of the Committee should be taken lar objectionable kind-namely, an item upon the two items together. of £360 for special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons. He thought it was ridiculous for the country to be called upon to pay a large sum of money to some private individual when-item at a time. ever Her Majesty bestowed the Order of the Garter upon him. He would not object to Her Majesty conferring the Garter upon any Member of the Royal Family, or upon the whole country if she chose; but what he did object to was that when Her Majesty took occasion to confer the Garter upon a Member of the Royal Family the country should be charged the sum of £548 98. 4d. He supposed that these fees went to the Garter King-at-Arms, or some other officer who ought to be wiped off the face of the earth. As he had said before, it was perfectly ridiculous that the country should be called upon to pay these sums of money. If they were necessary at all they ought to be paid by the person upon whom the Order of the Garter was conferred. He would, therefore, propose to reduce the Vote by the sum of £548 98. 4d., and also by the next item of £360. THE CHAIRMAN pointed out that the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote by two separate items at the same time. MR. LABOUCHERE asked if he would be precluded from afterwards moving the reduction of the item of £360 in the event of the Motion for re ducing the Vote by £548 98. 4d. being negatived? THE CHAIRMAN asked what was the amount by which the hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce the Vote? MR. LABOUCHERE said, he proposed to reduce it by two separate sums which amounted to £908 98. 4d., but he had received an intimation that it would not be competent for him to propose the reduction of the two items together; and as the first item was the larger sum, he wanted to know whether, if his Motion were negatived in regard to that sum, he would then be precluded from asking the Committee to agree to the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £360, which constituted the second item? Personally he had no desire to take two divisions, especially at that late hour of the night, and probably the Chancellor of the Mr. Labouchere MR. LABOUCHERE said, that, under those circumstances, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £548 98. 4d. MR. SEXTON wished to know, as a point of Order, whether the Motion to reduce the Vote by £548 98. 4d. would preclude any other Member from moving the reduction of the Vote by a larger sum? He himself desired to move the reduction of it by the sum of £1,147 188., payable to Surgeon Wheeler for attendance on Mr. Shaen Carter, in pursuance of a verdict against the Crown, given in the Court of Exchequer in November, 1883. THE CHAIRMAN said, it would still be competent for the hon. Member to move a reduction to that effect. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £548 9s. 4d., for Fees paid on the Installation of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales as Knight of the Garter, be omitted from the proposed Vote."-(Mr. Labouchere.) MR. HIBBERT said, that though it had always been the practice to include these fees in the Estimates, there was the strongest reason for doing so in the present case, which was that of a Royal Prince. The fees themselves varied from £130 down to £1, and were paid to Garter King-at-Arms and other officers who attended the installation. MR. LABOUCHERE remarked, that, if his hon. Friend could give no further information upon the matter, he should certainly divide the Committee against this item. MR. PICTON said, he did not think that the Secretary to the Treasury had improved matters by the explanation he had given. There was a strong feel ing throughout the country that the public money ought not to be voted to individuals except in return for work done, and the work done ought to represent value received. The matter was very different now from what it used to be in olden times, when these fashions and ceremonies were of much more importance. [Cries of "Oh!"] He knew that whenever an hon. Member alluded in that House to the opinions of the millions outside, a large number of whom were about to be enfranchised for the first time, he was received with something like ridicule. Nevertheless, the opinion of these people was of great importance, and would prove to be of the highest importance hereafter. However foolish it might be thought within that House, nothing created so much irritation of feeling in the minds of the working classes as these petty Votes on behalf of distinguished persons who were not believed to have done any work that would justify the payment. He would certainly support the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in an earnest protest against this Vote. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury rather aggravated than mitigated the absurdity of the first item in the Vote. It only required the explanation of the hon. Member to make the whole proceeding much more extravagant than the wildest creation of Mr. Gilbert and Sir Arthur Sullivan. What was the Vote? It had been described as one that was necessary in order to carry out an ancient custom, and the money appeared to have been expended in buying banners, helmets, and swords-exactly what the stage manager at the Savoy did in placing upon the boards one of the operas of the two distinguished gentlemen he had had just named. He wondered how an expenditure of this sort could be tolerated with patience by any enlightened Assembly. He thought everybody would acknowledge that they had now made a certain progress in civilization, and that it was not necessary to adopt nowadays the dress and customs of the Middle Ages. What would be thought of the hon. Gentleman himself if he took it into his head to come down to the House preceded by banners, wearing doublet VOL. COXOV. [THIRD SERIES.] and hose, and accompanied by all the paraphernalia which might have distinguished a Secretary of State in the days of James I. He saw that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) laughed at that suggestion. He would ask the Committee to imagine the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) presenting himself to their notice at the Bar of the House in a "nodding plume," with his casque down, with retainers bearing banners, helmets, and swords, and all of it paid for out of the public money! The whole thing belonged to the region of opera bouffe, and not to the civilization of the 19th century. He hoped the Committee would strike a blow at such ridiculous absurdity. MR. HEALY said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had referred to the late Secretary to the Treasury. That hon. Gentleman had had the advantage of defending these Votes when he occupied a seat upon the Treasury Bench; but now the Committee were able to look upon him in a different light from the seat he at present occupied below the Gangway. He certainly should like to know what were the present views entertained by the hon. Gentleman. They knew very well what his views were when he sat as a Minister above the Gangway, and they were very anxious now to watch his performances from the seat he occupied at present below the Gangway. He certainly hoped the Committee would receive some guidance from the hon. Gentleman, and that he would be able to assure the Committee, in continuing to support these Votes, that he had no sympathy with the opposition which was raised by the Radical Members. Personally, he (Mr. Healy) did not think that if they got good government it ought to be too cheap, and he would have no objection to pay £3,000 or £4,000 by way of extras in order to secure good government; but, at the same time, he thought it was desirable that they should thrash a matter of this kind out to its logical conclusion, and see what it was they were called upon to vote. While there was a Monarchy, it must be taken for better or worse. If it were necessary to have banners and helmets, he should vote for them; but he rather fancied these things were out of date. 2 X Question put. The Committee divided:-Ayes 25; Noes 56: Majority 31.-(Div. List, No. 54.) Original Question again proposed. the distinguished persons could pay the amount themselves. When the distinguished persons went to the Continent, they started generally from Charing Cross; it might be that they travelled by special train, but whether that was so or not, they paid for it. He did not see why these absurdities should continue year after year in the shape of calls upon the House for payment, and, therefore, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £360, the amount of charge for the special packets. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £360, for Special Packets for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons, be omitted from the proposed Vote.”—(Mr. Labouchere.) MR. LABOUCHERE said, that, no doubt, the persons conveyed across the Channel in special packets, and for which service the sum of £360 was charged, were very distinguished persons; but the House had never been told on what ground those distinguished persons had special packets provided to convey them between Dover and Calais, and why, if they desired those special facilities, they should not pay for them themselves. He was aware that it had been said before now on the Treasury Bench, and would be said again that MR. MOLLOY said, he should like to evening, no doubt, that Her Majesty know why the Royal Yachts were not had power to use the ships of the Royal used for this service? He would ask Navy for this purpose, and that it was the Secretary to the Treasury whether cheaper to hire a special packet for £40 it was not a fact that the three Royal rather than to have a man-of-war to Yachts were at the present time under carry Members of the Royal Family repairs as usual? He believed that in across the Channel. But he would point the Estimates of last year they were out that the practice of employing men- charged for the repair of each of the of-war would not exist very long, be- Royal Yachts. He should like to hear cause everyone knew that there would from the hon. Gentleman if the Royal be proposals for a reduction in the Navy Yachts were under repair when this exif any of them were used for the pur-pense was incurred, and, if not, why pose. There was in the Estimate a charge of £40 for conveying the Duchess of Mecklenburg from Calais to Dover, and a charge of £40 for bringing her back from Dover to Calais. With the highest respect, he did not see why the country should be called upon to pay £40 whenever this lady wished to visit this country. She was born, it was true, in this country, but he believed she had married a German Prince and that she was living in Germany; moreover, he believed that Parliament had voted her an income. The charge he was referring to, under the circumstances, rather hampered the pleasure felt at seeing the Duchess of Mecklenburg in this country. He hoped that the protests which were always raised on the part of Members of that House in regard to special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons might be listened to. As an hon. Member (Mr. Picton) speaking on the last Vote had said, it was these little things which made the people angry. It was because the sums were small that they thought they were not employed for carrying these distinguished persons across the Channel? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS) said, that when this Vote was discussed last year, it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that he promised to look into some of the questions connected with it, and particularly with regard to the point just raised. He had gone carefully into the question, in order to see whether it would be possible to substitute for the special packets employed one of the Royal Yachts, and he would state to the Committee plainly what was the result of his inquiry. He found that for a very long time it had been customary for Members of the Royal Family, going to or returning from the Continent, to be conveyed in vessels of the Royal Navy, and formerly two or three sailing ships were used expressly for that purpose. Hon. Members would remember that in the early days of the use of steam, there were no contract steamers, but small steam vessels of the |