The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-14 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF DIVORCE.

A somewhat remarkable action for divorce came
before the First Division of the Court of Session at
Edinburgh, last week, for judgment. Mr. John
M'lver, banker in Dingwall,Ross-shire, and Provost
of the burgh, is the pursuer (plaintiff) in the case,
and seeks to obtain divorce from his wife on the
ground of adultery. Suspicion against his wife
was first presented to his mind by a letter written
and placed in his hand by his wife's sister, Ellen
O'Doherty, on the 25th of February, 1857, which,
while professing deep sorrow and repentance for
having aided her sister in corresponding and
meeting with her alleged paramour, discloses cir-
cumstances of a painful nature, and leading to
the assumption that, in a pre-arranged interview
between Mrs. M'lver and Dr. Gordon, of Port
Stewart, Ireland, in the Royal Hotel, Belfast, on
the 12th of July, 1856, an act of adultery
had been committed. It would appear that in
early life Mrs. I'lver, then Miss Eliza O'Doherty,
became acquainted with Dr. Gordon, and that a
strong and evidently pure attachment had arisen
between them—an attachment which seemed
on both sides to survive the separation of their
fortunes caused by circumstances, and even
the marriage of both the lovers to different part-
ners. Dr. Gordon' who first met Miss O'Doherty
in 1837, addressed her under the romantic name of
" Una," in songs and sonnets (one of which appeared
at the time in the Dublin University Magazine),
and also in highly romantic love letters. But the
course of their true love did not run smooth. Dr.
Gordon married another lady, whom he describes
in his correspondence with the defender as his
loving, true, and faithful wife ;" and by her he
had three children. Mrs. M'lver marred the pur-
suer in 1843, and is the mother of five children.
Twice during her married life she met Dr. Gordon,
once a few months after marriage, and the second
time on the occasion above referred to. Dr. Gordon,
who had for some years been in declining health,
died in 1857, about a year after the alleged adul-
tery. The statement of Ellen O'Doherty is that, on
her sister's account, and at her instigation, she kept
up an occasional correspondence with Dr. Gordon,
and was the medium of conveying love messages
between him and her sister; that in May, 1856, Dr.
Gordon, who then proposed to go abroad to recruit
his failing health, expressed a wish to see Mrs.
M'lver before doing so ; that, on pretence of Ellen's
illness, the two sisters went south to Edinburgh,
professedly to consult Dr. Simpson, and that while
there, they found that Dr. Gordon was unable to
come so far, and that he appointed Belfast as the
place of meeting. The following is Miss O'Doherty's
description (given in the letter referred to) of the
scene that took place in Belfast :
"We got there at four next morning (Saturday). Dr.
Gordon arrived the night before, and slept at the Royal
Hotel, where we went by appointment ; he came to the
room we occupied, and there they met. Eliza was not in
the room when he came in, but she came in a few minutes,_
and immediately on entering they were locked in each
other's arms ; soon after this went to a bedroom, and re-
mained there nearly two hours. I was horrified at what I
had done, and the conduct of both. Eliza came in, looking
flushed, and she said, Poor Bob has gone out for a little ;
it was very kind of you to leave us for such a length of time
alone—we had much to say to each other ; poor darling
Robert, how ill and thin he is.' I said to her, ' Where is
your brooch ? Your chemisette is quite open.' She re-
plied, ' Bob does not like it, so he took it out.' . .
Well, to continue, the day was wearing on, I saw her with
him as I would be ashamed to be or see any one, and was
there a long time. She was crying when she came out, and
when I said What is wrong ?' she said,' Oh, poor Bob is
in such a state about parting with me. Oh, if I had not
been married. Oh dear, what will I do, my darling Robert ?
I have a husband and five children, but I could desert them
all for you in your loneliness, and his love for me now is
proved.' This and much more she said, and I was thank-
ful when we got into the steamer that night for Glasgow
again. . . . She cried the whole day, and talked of her
darling Robert and her broken heart. She said to me
there, what she afterwards repeated at Fortrose, that she
left me every opportunity of making up to you, John, for
the love she could not :give you—a pretty speech to a
a yong girl of her husband—and that she had never em-
braced you, or 'slept in your arms, but with the thought
for ever in her heart that you were Gordon."
A miniature of Dr. Gordon belonging to Mrs. M'lver
was conveyed by Miss O'Doherty in the same pac-
ket with the above letter, and various other infe-
rential proofs of her sister's guilt vere pointed out.
The above letter was the groundwork of the present
action, and evidence was taken by commission in
the case, and was laid before the court in a volu-
minous record. The Judge-Ordinary in the case
(Lord Benholme) found Mrs. M'lver guilty of
adultery, and granted divorce, but the case being
brought under review of the Judges of the First
. Division, they decided by three to one that not
only was there no legal proof of the wife's guilt,
but that the evidence did not even amount to moral
proof.
Lord Ivory stated his opinion at some length-'1
pointing out that several of the witnesses, including
Ellen, appeared to be animated by a strong feeling
of hostility to the defender, and that a very unusual
intimacy appeared to subsist between the pursuer
and Ellen, and that Ellen had actually abstracted
from the custody of others some of the proofs she
now offered of her sister's guilt. After reviewing
the circumstances of the previous history of the
defender and Dr. Gordon, his lordship referred to
the interview of 1856, and said he was never more
convinced of anything than that that visit was un-
dertaken without any unchaste purpose, whatever
might have taken place afterwards. It was a visit
of friendship, of old regard—not an ordinary assig-
nation ; more like a passage in an extravagant
novel than a matter of real life. She went, believing
she was never to see him again. In the hotel their
conduct did not excite suspicion. The chambermaid
thought the defender was courting him for the
young lady, and she did not observe that the bed
had been used, though she would not have re-
marked it much, as he was so delicate. One waiter
saw her in the doctor's bed room—the two stand-
ing together looking out of the window, and half an
hour after he looked through the keyhole and saw
them at the window still, Gordon standing with his
arms behind his back. This was very inexcusable
on the part of Mrs. M'lver, but it was not proof of
guilt. That was the whole case without the evi-
dence of Ellen O'Doherty. It was artful, self-pos-
sessed, very clever ; but, on analysis, it was not
sound, and it did not agree with her letter. She
was for years an accomplice, and latterly a betrayer;
and her-letter, which she professed to have writ-
ten in a fit of repentance, was a clever memorial
of the whole case, and it was marked by a strong
spirit of hostility to the defender, whose jealousy
of her with her husband had given her offence.
She had unduly possessed herself of the minia-
ture and documents ; she had destroyed some
and preserved others, and she Plad given up to
the pursuer those things which she had received
from the defender to keep from his sight. He had
no confidence in a single word this witness spoke,
and would not use it against her sister on so heavy
a charge. She professed great purity, and was
shocked at what she saw pass between her sister
and Dr. Gordon, but she was equally free with the
pursuer, her brother-in-law. When in Edinburgh,
even on the business of the present suit, he was
constantly kissing her, and calling her " dearest
Nelly," and she was calling him " dearest John."
They were seen together in the theatre, and, in
short, the conduct of the two sisters was remarkably
alike, and they helped to explain each other. He
was casting no imputation upon the chastity of
Miss Ellen. He entertained no such notion, but
he thought that she might excuse in her sister
what she innocently practised herself. The letter
of Dr. Gordon to the defendant, of which so much
has been made, was exceedingly Irish, and exceed-
ingly absurd. It read like a chapter from the
" Sorrows of Werther," and, with all its bombast,
was far from an incentive to lust. On the whole, he
thought there was proof enough of much bad taste,
but he considered moral delinquency very doubt-
ful, and it was not upon evidence like this that a
woman was to be divorced from her husband and
throw- a
victim of poverty and helplessness upon
the world.
Lord Curriehill took the opposite view. He would
not have considered the retirement to the bedroom
conclusive
ei
jit hadnot been proved that the de-
fender had
entertained impure feelings towards
Dr. Gordon. That letter of his was tainted with
sensuality, and it
i
which had no doubt the smen
answer to one from her,
character. It was a
letter couched in such
glowing and amorous lan-
guage that no married woman could receive it from
feeling any man but her husband without being compro-
mised by it, or her virtue insulted. They
went to the hotel in Belfast on the understanding
that they were to pass as brother and sister, and
conceal their intended conduct by that falsehood.
Her confessions to more than one witness, that she
never embraced her husband but in the imagination
that it was Dr. Gordon, and her admission to her
sister that she had permitted the removal of her
brooch and the manipulation of her person, together
with the whole character of the written clandestine
correspondence, led him to be clearly of opinion
that the retirement to the bedroom took place to
consummate their guilt.
Lord Deas expressed the same opinion as Lord
Ivory, and even in stronger terms, and stated that,
within his own knowledge he knew of a case in
which an early attachment, which had ceased to be
a passion, had remained a deep-seated feeling; and
he believed that had a like meeting taken place, as
for 40 years it was wished for, no meeting could be
more free from sensual thoughts, nor could the
nature of the sentiment still subsisting be better
described than in Dr. Gordon's letter, in which he

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YORK, March 11.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
George Plant, aged 32, was charged with the
wilful murder of William Wilson, of Sheffield, on
the 26th of January last.
Mr. Blanshard and the Hon. F. S. Wortley pro-
secuted, and Mr. C. Foster defended the prisoner.
The prisoner in this case, it appeared, is a
brewer's traveller in the employ of Messrs. Bradley
and Son, of the Soho Brewery, Sheffield, and living
in Towncross-lane in that town. The deceased was
a brass-fitter, and on the night of the 26th of Ja-
nuary he went to the Red Lion public-house, in the
Hartshead, Sheffield, at about 12 o'clock. There he
asked the landlord if there was anything to do at
the pumps. He was told that two required clean-
ing. He did his work and got some drink, and
afterwards left at about one o'clock. When he left
it was evident that he had had some liquor, but this
generally made him good-natured and desirous of
shaking hands with persons with whom he came in
contact. Nothing was seen of him from the time
he left the public-house until a little after
one o'clock, when a man named George Norton, who
was in company with another named Hawksworth,
were passing down the market place, and heard
some quarrelling between two men at the bottom of
the Hartshead. They crossed the road to the two
men, when Norton asked the prisoner, who was one
of the men, if he had been stopped. The prisoner
replied that he had, and the deceased, who was the
other person, then ran off the footpath into the
road, and said he had taken the prisoner for a friend
of his—a cabman. The plaintiff then said he could
have taken the stick from Plant's right hand, upon
which the prisoner replied that in return he would
have given him the knife. The deceased then took
hold of the stick as if to show how he could have
taken it from him, upon which the prisoner put his
hand back, which contained a dagger, and gave the
deceased what appeared to be a slight stab. On
being stabbed, the deceased reeled a little and fell
down. He afterwards got up, walked to the kerb-
stone and sat down. Norton then advised the pri-
soner not to leave the deceased, and he and his
friend then left. They had not, however, got more
than 15 paces from the spot where these circum-
stances had taken place, before the prisoner passed
them, when, as he was doing so, Norton noticed
Plant put a dagger into his pocket. Norton and
Hawksworth proceeded up Watson's-walk, while
the prisoner went down Angel-street. The deceased
remained sitting on the causeway edge until he at-
tracted the attention of two men who were passing,
and who, on finding his condition, carried him out of
the rain, which was pouring down at the time,
under the cover of the post-office passage, which is
just opposite. The deceased was eventually taken
down to the Town-hall, and attended to by Mr.
Booth, surgeon, who, on examination, found upon
his body a small wound, which appeared as though
it might have been made by a knife or dagger.
The deceased's bowels were protruding from the
wound to the'size of a man's hat. The bowels were
replaced, but inflammation shortly set in, and the
man died. The learned counsel, in opening the
case to the jury for the prosecution, stated that
every homicide was a murder, and that it lay
with the party accused to reduce the offence by
evidence to the less crime of manslaughter.
To constitute a murder, malice, expressed or im-
plied, must be shown. As against the deceased the
prisoner probably had no particular malice; but he
should show that he had recklessly conducted him-
self with the dagger, and had shown it to the peo-
ple and brandishd it about in such a manner as to
indicate general malice to all who came in his way,
and it was contended that if death resulted from
his act while so conducting himself, it was murder.
The prisoner had drawn out his dagger to a
policeman shortly before he was with the deceased,
and asked him if he wanted his number. ' The
policemen replied "Oh no, sir," and walked on.
Very shortly after this he accosted a woman in the
street, and said he was not afraid of any one insult-
ing him, drawing out and exhibiting his dagger-
knife at the same time. These facts showed areck-
lessness in dealing with such a weapon with which
his subsequent conduct to the deceased was in keep-
ing, and if the wounds on the deceased were so in-
flicted it was murder.

These facts having been proved, it was elicited
on cross-examination that the deceased when drunk
would run up and shake hands with every stranger,
and force himself on those who did not want his
company; that when taken into custody the pri-
soner had concealed nothing, but had at once ad-
mitted that he had a dagger-knife at home, where
it was found, and then stated that he had got into
a conflict with a man who had stopped him as he
was going home past midnight on the night in
question ; that he had purchased the knife for his
protection, having frequently to go home late with
large sums of money upon him, which he had col-
lected in the outskirts of Sheffield as traveller for
Messrs. Bradley and Son, who had a great business
as brewers, and that he had bought the knife be-
cause he had been alarmed at the numerous garotte
robberies which had taken place in the neighbour-
hood of Sheffield. It was elicited that this was
not a foolish fancy, or fear, as there had been many
such robberies.

The prisoner's statement before the magistrates
was then read, and was as follows :—" My name
is George Plant, formerly of Doncaster. Late
last Wednesday night I was going home, and when
I had got down High-street, against Richard's,
the draper, I met a man named Wilson, coming
rushing out of a passage. He took hold of me, and
without saying a word, knocked me down. I kept
him off while I was down with a small stick I had
in my hand. When I got up again, I said, What
have you done that for ? If you don't be quiet I
will give you:something ? ' He replied, I'll let you
see what I have done it for.' During that conver-
sation the two gentlemen, Norton and Hawksworth,
who have given evidence, came up. I said to them,
" You see this man has attacked me.' While I was
saying so, he ran round at me again, and tried again
to get hold of me. In doing so he made a rush at
me, and fell upon the knife which I held.before me.
He screamed out' Police, and I replied, ' I will stay
until the policeman comes. I stood up in my de-
fence ; it was your own fault.' I then said to the
two witnesses, I have only stood in my defence, as
you see ; I will stop until the police come, and go
with him.' They walked away, and I, thinking it
was no use staying by myself, went direct home. I
communicated to my wife what had happened. I
had next morning to go to Manchester on business,
and did not hear anything of the occurrence until
I saw an account of it on Friday morning in the
Manchester Guardian. I returned from the jour-
ney at half-past eight o'clock on Saturday evening.
My wife told me the man was dead. I bad been
in Mr. Bradley's service a fortnight. I bought the
dagger the day before I entered his service, and
carried it with me for protection, having been once
stopped on the Barnsley-road On Monday morn-
ing I went to my work as *usual. I bought the
knife for protection, as I have to travel in country
places for money."
Mr. Foster then addressed the jury for the de-
fence. He adopted the definition of the learned
counsel for the prosecution of theerime of murder,

Mr. Huddleston Q.C. and Mr. Davis appeared
for plaintiff; and Mr. H. James for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, Mary Ann Earp, was
the eldest daughter of a respectable police-constable
in this county, formerly residing at Audley. The
defendant, George Tomkinson, was a wheelwright
and joiner by trade, living with his father, who was
a small farmer and malster, in the same neighbour-
hood, having eight children. The present action
was brought against him by the plaintiff to recover
damages for the breach of a promise of marriage ;
in answer to which he pleaded, first, that he did not
make the promise, and, secondly, that a reasonable
time for fulfiling it had not elapsed before the
action was brought.
It appeared from the evidence of Mrs. Earp, the
plaintiff's mother, that the defendant had made the
acquaintance of her daughter at one of those " tea
parties" for which the neighbourhood of Audley
and other parts of this county are noted. It was in
the month of October, 1855, that the defendant first
saw " Mary Ann." At that time he was about 30
years of age, and, in the opinion of his intended
mother-in-law, " not very bright." Mrs. Earp was
also of opinion that the defendant was ‘`.a.ther soft,"
and, she added, that he was " a bigger fool than a
rogue," expressions of opinion at which, of course,
everybody laughed. The defendant, being then 30
years of age, "rather soft," and a joiner by trade,
fell in love with Mary Ann, who was said to be
very pretty, and the latter, being only 20, naturally
fell in love with him. All this having taken place
at the " tea party," and the defendant having, at
his own request, been introduced to the plain-
tiff, he became her admitted suitor. Another
young man, whose name we spare to mention,
was rejected by the plaintiff in favour of the
suitor who was " rather soft," and " a bigger fool
than a rogue." The defendant continued his atten-
tions to the plaintiff, particularly at the " tea par-
ties" given at the National School for charitable
purposes ; and he also made it his practice to visit
her at the house of the police constable, her father,
every Sunday night. It was not long, under these
circumstances, before " George, the joiner," and
" Mary Ann, the policeman's daughter," entered
into what is termed a " contract of marriage." This
was clearly proved, not only by the mother of the
young lady, but also by her sister Eliza, who
seemed to have a special insight into the nature of
the contract, arising from the circumstances that
she was also being courted by another young man,
and all four were in the habit of walking out and
going to tea meetings together. It was soon arranged
that the defendant was to marry Mary Ann " at
the next Audley wakes ;" but the deceitful joiner
broke his promise. " The Audley wakes" came,
"but the joiner, false was he." The contract was
again renewed, and Christmas was appointed for
the wedding; but Christmas worked no charm, and
again the marriage was fixed for " the Audley
wakes." Thus matters went on till, it was said,
Mary Ann became ill. The reason was that the
defendant had given her up, and two nights after
he came again, and said he had promised not to call
any more, but he had called that once to bid her
good bye for ever. Mary Ann became ill, and a
change of air was recommended, and tried. This
seemed to touch the " joiner's" heart. He came to
Eliza, who told him how ill her sister was, and that
it was all through him, because he would not keep
his promise. The defendant seemed quite touched at
the recital of the mischief he had caused to Mary
Ann's health, and faithfully promised Eliza that, if
her sister would but come home, he would marry
her forthwith. On this assurance Mary Ann re-
turned to her father's house, and the four lovers
took another walk. On their return home, Eliza
was talking to her lover in one room, and ob-
served to him that she could hear the plaintiff
and defendant "making it up" in the adjoining
room. The defendant was now, for the first
time, entertained at dinner at Mrs. Earp's, and
dined there off " cod's head and shoulders." Still
the joiner would not marry, though, of course,
everything had been got ready. At length the
plaintiff's father, a powerful-looking member of the
Staffordshire constabulary force, was called in to
assist in getting the fatal knot tied. The policeman
being thus called in, defendant began to make ex-
cuses, and said he had got no house. He said he
meant to take a publichouse, but he meant to have
a good one ; and none of those which were men-
tioned to him were good enough. The constable
found three houses, all in good situations, and told
the defendant plainly, by letter, that he must de-
cide, and marry. But as the vacillating joiner would
not, and the policeman could produce no impression
where Mary Ann herself had failed, the constable
applied to an attorney, and directed him to write to
the defendant, and to say that, if he would not
marry the plaintiff without delay, he would be
" visited with all the penalties of the law." This
brought the matter to a crisis, and this action was
brought on the 15th of January,
1859, after more
than three years of courtship. It was stated that
defendant had £3OO in the savings bank, but no
specific evidence was given on this point, his power
to pay damages being inferred from his being a
joiner by trade and the son of a maltster. It ap-
peared that on Wednesday, the 2d inst., defendant

The debate and division upon Lord Clarence
Paget's resolution on Friday last may be taken as
a fair demonstration of public feeling on the subject
of our dockyard expenditure. Notwithstanding
that the proposal itself was conceived to be ineffec-
tually framed, and that attempts were made to
avert the conclusion by representing the professional
merits of Sir Baldwin Walker as involved in the
matter, a majority of 20, in a house of more than
200, was all that could be mustered against the
motion. This is a most significant fact, and we
entirely concur, if not with the terms of the resolu-
tion, at any rate with the purport of the arguments
on which it was based. It is absurd to maintain
that the question carries any attack upon Sir
Baldwin Walker's reputation. That reputation
was acknowledged in language of uniform praise,
and we believe with perfect justice, on all sides of
the house ; and, in fact, if such inquiries as these
implied any reproach, the reproach would have
been conveyed already by the investigations which
Ministers have instituted after their own fashion,
and which they pleaded in bar of Lord Clarence
Paget's proposal. The more sensible course, how-
ever, by far is to disconnect the question from all
personal imputations, and to regard the system
alone as put upon its defence. If the reader, after
perusing what we now subjoin, does not think it
high time this system was reformed we shall be
very much mistaken.
This point of the discussion, briefly stated, is
this, that whereas we spend upwards of
£1,500,000 a-year in the construction and repair
of ships of war, exclusive of steam machinery, we
do not get an equivalent return in the standing
efficiency of our fleet. This assertion Lord Clarence
Paget endeavoured to substantiate by an elaborate
analysis of Dockyard accounts for the 11 years
which have elapsed since 1848. According to the
figures he produced, the aggregate sum voted
during this period for the purposes in question was
£19,399,944, while the aggregate cost of the work
actually turned out could not be estimated at more
than £14,000,000, so that in the short space of 11
years as much as £5,000,000 had vanished without
consideration or return. He did not pretend to say
that malversation had been going on. On the con-
trary, he gave the Dockyard officials all credit for
honesty and zeal, and proceeded presently to ex-
plain what he meant in saying that this money—
more than 25 per cent of the whole amount voted
—had been sunk and lost. He traced the deficit
to the capricious and. incessant changes of con-
struction which every vessel underwent—to the in-
terminable transformations through which a ship
was carried before she was finished, and to the absence
of definite responsibility by which the system was
characterized. The money for all this work being
voted in a lump, without any specification or dis-
crimination of obje sts, Boards of Admiralty were
enabled to do just what they pleased, and vessels
were accordingly shortened, lengthened, split, ex
panded, and converted until their cost became
twice what they ought to have been. This was
done, too, not with old standards alone but with
perfectly new ships. The Howe, for instance,
was oily laid down the other day, and yet " the
dockyard people were now pulling her down to put
a new bow upon her." Sometimes vessels com-
menced to measure 400 tons arrived at 700 tons
before they were launched. One frigate, he declared
—a real model for symmetery and beauty—had
positively passed away by transmigration or other-
wise into some state of existence where she could
no longer be identified, and Sir John Pakington
was fain to confess that he could give no account of
her. This makes a case against something or
somebody. Lord C. Paget thinks it is against the
dockyard system ; Sir C. Napier against the Board
of Admiralty. Sir J. Pakington attributes the
result, or at least so much of it as he admits, to the
rapid progress of naval architecture. The public, we
suspect, will be disposed to take a verybroad view of
the question, and to require money's worth for its
money, without much attention to small items of
recrimination or exuse.

We believe the complaint thus made to be substan-
tially well grounded. That Lord Clarence Paget's
figures should admit of correction is extremely
probable, for -anything like absolute accuraey in
such calculations would be out of the question ;
but we need not go further than Sir J. Pakington's
own reply and Sir C. Wood's commentary to dis-
cover that there must be truth at the bottom of the
argument. The First Lord on this occasion intro-
duced us to a definite principle or two. " The
theory," said he, " of our Dockyard expenditure is,
that you can launch every year three line-of-battle
ships, three frigates, six sloops and smaller vessels.
The rest of the Dockyard labour is devoted to fit-
ting ships and accidental expenditure." Here,
therefore, is a piece of official information from
which we may draw some pertinent conclusions.
As it was stated in this very debate that a line-of-
battle ship costs about £115,000, a frigate about
£90,000, and a corvette about £40,000, all being
first-rate specimens of their class, we find that
three line-of-battle ships, three frigates, and six
corvettes could be built for about £250,000, or
about half our annual vote for these purposes. It is
also plain from these statistics that in the space of
11 years there should have been added to the Navy,
over and above the fleet existing in 1848, as many
as 33 line-of-battle ships, 33 frigates, and 66 cor-
vettes ; whereas Sir C. Wood's return gives as the
actual addition only 24 line•of-battle ships, 21
frigates, 35 corvettes and sloops, and 22 other vessels.
Moreover, we know that at this moment, or at least
a few weeks ago, our entire strength in ships of
the line was less than that which since 1848 should
have been gained by fresh additions. This leads
us to another infereice. It will be observed
that, according to the official statement, little more
than one-half of the annual vote for the construc-
tion and repair of ships is allotted to new vessels,
even supposing this programme to be always fully
carried out. What, then, becomes of all the rest ?
Lord Clarence Paget thought it went for chopping
and changing ; Sir John Pakington says it goes to
" fitting for sea and commissson," or, as he else-
where phrased it, " fitting ships and accidental
expenditure." We humbly conceive that this ex-
planation is about as little satisfactory as the other.
Knowing, as we do, the nature of the system under
which a ship is pulled to pieces as soon as she gets
into good condition, in order that another ship may
be got into condition and pulled to pieces in her
turn, we'tre fully prepared to believe that "fitting
for sea and accidental expenses" do indeed, as the
First Lord now frankly admitted, " run away with
the greatest portion of the labour of our dockyard."
But even this is not all. Sir J. Pakington first,
and Sir C. Wood after him, plainly declared that
the programme or "theory" of dockyard expendi-
ture, as regarded shipbuilding, never was carried
out, and the chief argument, indeed, against Lord
C. Paget's proposition for a stricter regula-
tion in future was that such regulation
would never be carried out either. Perhaps
this is the truth ; but we can only say that if
" accidental expenses" are understood to swallow
up half, and in fact swallow up more than half, of
our annual votes for the maintenance of the navy,
the conclusion is just as bad as if all Lord
Clarence Paget's assertions had been allowed to
stand. _ _

On behalf of the public, however, we must look
at the matter more broadly still, Here is the plain
fact that in 11 years we have provided just about
£20,000,000, for ship-building, and this, be it re-
membered, is entirely independent of all votes for
machinery. It represents simply and purely our
expenditure during this period upon timber, masts,
deals, and stores, the wear and tear of these com-
modities, and the labour of artificers employed upon
them. It does not take into account any percentage
upon the dockyard plant, upon those " works,
which figure so heavily in the estimates,—it
is solely the cost of materials and labour. In return
for this what have we obtained? Look at the
successive emergencies since 1848. When we
wanted to send troops to the Cape what was the
condition of our transports ? When India was in
a flame how many ships were at hand to do what
was done by the Shannon? Our fleets in conitinc.