SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

HC Deb 16 July 1883 vol 281 cc1528-651

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £937,400, Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, that when the Committee were last engaged in discussing the Navy Estimates it was upon the Vote for Pensions, and Progress was reported at a late hour of the night. They had now to go back to the second Vote—the Vote for Provisions—on which Business the Committee were engaged some time earlier in the Session. On this Vote it was perfectly regular to go into a review of the personnel of the Navy. He thought that, on the whole, and with certain qualifications, they had every reason to be very much pleased with the personnel of the Navy. No doubt, there were certain grievances in the Service; but, with these qualifications, it was not too much to say that, in the main, our Naval Service was a contented and happy, as well as an efficient, one; and the recent campaign in Egypt had shown that our seamen had by no means deteriorated, in any way, from what they used to be, many years ago, in the time of the old naval wars. But he was sorry to say that in one particular there was some little reason for dissatisfaction; and that was in regard to the discipline of the Service. Anyone who heard, or read, Lord Northbrook's speech in "another place," a short time ago, must have been struck with the noble Lord's statement that the discipline of the Service had not been maintained at such a satisfactory point as he could have wished; and Lord Northbrook specially alluded to the great increase that had taken place in the number of cases of mutiny and of offences against discipline, such as cases of striking a superior officer, &c. Two years ago, he (Captain Price) asked for information from the Admiralty upon this point, and the information he obtained showed him that these particular offences in the Service had been of late years rapidly increasing. Some years ago, this Parliament, in its infinite wisdom, abolished the punishment of flogging in the Navy. He had no wish to see that punishment introduced again, if it could possibly be avoided. His idea had always been that we should, at all events, try to do without it, and that if such a punishment was retained in the Service, it should only be used in time of war, or in very exceptional cases. But they had now to look at what had been the results of the alteration in the punishment. He had called for a Return on this subject a short time ago; and that Return, which was now before the House, showed a rather remarkable state of things. It was a Return of the offences tried by court martial since the year 1870, and of the number of cases of corporal punishment inflicted during that period. From that Return it appeared that the number of cases of offences against discipline tried by court martial in 1870 was 153; whereas the number so tried last year was 402; and in 1881 the number rose to so high a point as 454; but that seemed to have been a very exceptional year, for there were a great number of crimes of all classes committed in that particular year. The number of corporal punishments during that period of 10 years decreased from 57 in 1870, to 4 in 1880; and there had been none since; so that while there was a rapid decrease in the number of cases of corporal punishment since 1870, there had been an increase in just the same proportion in the number of offences against discipline during the same period. The cases of striking, or attempting to strike, a superior officer increased from 28 in 1870, to no less than 96 in 1881, and 83 in 1882. The whole number of cases of striking a superior officer during the 11 years had been no less than 695; and the same held good of other offences, such as using threatening language to a superior officer, which increased from 3 in 1870, to 28 in 1882. The crime of wilful disobedience increased from 30 in 1870, to 103 in 1881. The crime of behaving with contempt to a superior officer rose from 27 in 1870, to 66 in 1881; and the cases of what was termed prejudice of good order and naval discipline increased from 11 in 1870, to 70 in 1881. This was, he thought, sufficient to show that there had been a very remarkable increase in this particular class of cases in Her Majesty's Navy. The punishment which, to some extent, had been substituted for corporal punishment was penal servitude; and the Return showed that out of the 695 cases of striking a superior officer, during the 11 years from 1870 to 1881, 78 had been punished by penal servitude. Out of the 78 men so punished, 30 were of good, or very good, character before their sentence, and their average age was only 23 years. What they had to learn from this was, that a large number of young men, many of them having previously borne good, or very good characters, and of only the average age of 23 years, were lost to the Service for a period, in some cases, of seven years, but generally of five years, for some act done by them, in most cases hastily, and without any forethought. These young men were very useful men in the Service, and their services were lost for a period of five years. His right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) intended, he believed, to call attention to this matter in detail; but he (Captain Price) had felt it his duty to make some reference to it, as he moved for the Return now before the House, which Return showed that the mischievous agitation which had been produced throughout the country had had the effect not only of spreading disease, but of spreading crime throughout the Forces of Her Majesty. Her Majesty's Navy contained, no doubt, a good body of men and officers; but there were some points on which, he felt it his duty to express the dissatisfaction and discontent which reigned in certain classes, and more especially in one branch of the Service, which was a growing and important one—he referred to the steam branch—the officers of engineers, and their subordinate engine-room artificers. He knew that the case of this branch had been brought before the House several times; and the reason why it was brought up again was because little or nothing had been done to remove their grievances. The Committee were aware that in the year 1875 an important Committee was appointed by the Admiralty to sit upon this particular question. That Committee was presided over by Sir Cooper Key, an officer of vast experience, and it was a well-appointed one. It attended to its labours with a great knowledge of the question, with a determination to be perfectly fair, and with a due regard to the wishes and feelings of the Treasury. That Committee reported in 1875, and in their Report they, speaking of the engineer officers, that the age and length of service at which a chief engineer attained promotion was increasing every year, and that whereas in 1866 the period of service spent in attaining that rank was about 12 years, it was then—in 1875–19 years and a-half. It was because matters had not been mending since the date of that Report—now eight years ago—that he (Captain Price) felt bound to say a few words upon the subject to-night. That was the Report which the Committee made as to the slowness of promotion. About that time, or, perhaps, a few years before—in 1870—a certain clause was inserted in the Queen's Regulations, which stipulated that no engineer officer—and officers of other grades too—should count his whole service for pay and retirement until he had served 11 years. That clause operated very unfairly upon engineers, for it almost effectually debarred them from ever reaching the higher scale of pay or retirement. To prove the correctness of this view he would just call attention to these figures. In 1877 there were 180 chief engineers in the Service, and of these 180 chief engineers 55, or about one-third—he would not pledge himself to the exact figures; but these were sufficiently near for the purpose—were receiving the higher rates of pay—17s. per day and upwards. At the present time the number of chief engineers was about 218, and of those only 17, or about l–13th of the whole number, were receiving the higher rates of pay. He thought that was the exact state of the case, and if it was anything like true, there was some reason for saying that the engineers were in a much worse position than they were in in 1877. That "Eleven Years' Clause," as it was called, did not operate unfairly when it was introduced in 1877—he willingly admitted that—but, of course, at that time there were a much larger number of engineers who were receiving the higher rates and who could receive them, and the circumstances now were wholly altered. He would not say anything more on this point, which was thoroughly understood by the Secretary to the Admiralty; and he hoped that hon. Gentleman would announce tonight the determination of the Admiralty to make some modification in that clause which would enable these officers to serve their time as they hoped to do, and, after a certain amount of half-pay for two or three years, to obtain the full scale of retirement. There was only one other point with regard to the engineers, and that was as to their messing. It had been the policy of the Admiralty to introduce these officers by degrees into the ward-room, so as to mess with the ward-room officers, and that had been pretty fairly carried out. But at the Naval College at Greenwich there were a very large number of engineers, and they were not allowed to mess with the other officers. He thought this was a great mistake, because it was just there, at the Naval College, where the experiment—for it was an experiment—of allowing the engineers to mess with the ward-room officers could best be carried out. It was a very large mess, and questions of social difficulty were swamped in a large mess of that kind; and as these young officers studying at the Naval College by-and-bye expected to take their places in the ward-rooms of Her Majesty's ships, it would be a good thing if they were to commence in the mess at the College. Another very important section of the steam branch of Her Majesty's Navy was that of the engine-room artificers. A Circular had recently been sent out from the Admiralty which was supposed to give certain benefits to this class; but there were also certain points in the Circular which were not looked upon as at all satisfactory in any degree. One part of the Circular dealt with the time for which these men might be called upon to serve for their pensions. Formerly they were called upon to serve for 20 years; but now they were called upon to serve for 22 years. Of course, that provision had not been made retrospective; but the Circular was sent round to these engine-room artificers asking them whether they would consent to the terms. When they came to look at the Circular, they found that not only was the term to be extended for two years, but they were not to receive any increase of pay, or an increase so slight that it could hardly be seen; and there was inserted in the Circular a clause rendering them liable to disrating. That was a thing they had never been liable to before. He would not advance any opinion as to whether they should or should not be liable to disrating; but the fact was that hitherto they had not been, and they were asked now to submit to this condition for a small amount of extra pay. He wished now to draw the attention of the Committee to the results of this distribution of the Circular. A Question had once or twice been asked of the Secretary to the Admiralty as to how the Circular had been received by the class to whom it was addressed, and they had not been able to get any definite answer to those Questions, because his hon. Friend had merely said that all the Returns were not yet sent in. But he (Captain Price) wished to ask to-night whether the hon. Gentleman had not received very nearly the whole of the answers—he might say nine-tenths of them, because his information was to this effect, that 600 answers had been received. He was told some weeks ago that 600 answers had been received from the engine-room artificers, and that positively only 11 of those men consented to the new Rules, and even those 11 were men holding official positions—"comfortable billets" as they were termed—which they were unwilling to give up on any terms, even on the terms of the new Circular. He thought they ought to hear to-night whether it was the case or not, because, if it were, it showed that the class were thoroughly dissatisfied with the proposal, and that something must be done towards withdrawing the Circular. He had said something about the small increase of pay that was offered to these men, and it was so very small that he must ask the Committee to consider what it really amounted to. There were some very clever men at the Admiralty—clever mathematicians—and when they drew up a scale of this kind, it looked very agreeable and pretty at first sight; but when it was examined, they would find that it did not really cost the Treasury anything. There were some modifications made in the scale of pay, and the first one was to offer the men 3d. a-day more on first entry. But, unfortunately, when they got their first rise in pay, it was postponed for two years later than it used to be, so that the whole benefit amounted to this—that when a man had served for 20 years the whole increase of pay which he received was £3 6s. 8d. That was what it all amounted to during a man's full service of 20 years. Then there was the clause inserted in the Circular which rendered a man liable to disrating, so that, if an officer wanted to curry favour at the Admiralty, or the Treasury—he did not say that there was any such officer in the Service—all he had to do was to allow an engine-room artificer to commit some small crime, and then disrate him, when all the sum that he had been working for for 20 years would entirely disappear. This punishment of disrating, if carried out, would have this effect—that no extra money would be required for this class. That was the case of the engine-room artificers, and it completed the case of the steam branch of the Service. He would only say this in conclusion—that the late Mr. Ward Hunt, in discussing these matters, distinctly stated, when giving some slight improvement in pay, that this was only an instalment of what was recommended by the Committee of 1875; and he (Captain Price) thought they were entitled to ask whether any, and what, further instalments were to be given, considering that this matter now was eight years old. As to the Vote immediately before the Committee, he only wished to say one word. It was the Vote for Provisions, and he felt bound to call attention again to the large amount of difference which existed between the value of the ration to the British seaman and the small sum of money that was paid him by way of savings. He put a Question to the Secretary to the Admiralty the other day, and was told in reply that the Government saved between £60,000 and £70,000 by not giving the men the full value of their rations. Now, a man's ration was really part and parcel of his pay. He agreed to serve for so much pay—so much in money, and so much in provisions. The value of these provisions amounted to him to 11½d., and if he did not take up the ration, he was paid about 6d., or little more than half the value. They were told that this was done for the advantage of the seaman—that, with the small saving which he got, he was able to buy certain luxuries at the sea-port towns, such as soft bread, vegetables, fruit, and so on. But he asked them to compare that advantage with what the Government got. It was not only the £70,000 which went back into the Exchequer, but, if the Admiralty were obliged to serve out the whole ration to the seamen, it would cost them a great deal more, because they would have to pay the freightage and storage, and they could not keep their ships so long at sea. It was, therefore, very difficult to estimate the exact advantage which the Government obtained; but if hon. Members would look at the Report on the question, which was issued some few years ago, they would see that all he had stated was borne out by that document. He wished to ask the Admiralty again whether it would not be fair and ordinary justice that Her Majesty's seamen should get something like the full value of their ration? They asked, some few years ago, that the large sum of money which the Government obtained by this transaction should be thrown into a fund to provide pensions for their widows. There seemed, however, to be some difficulty about that; but, if that could not be done, the money might be returned to them in the form of pay, and then the men might reconsider the matter of providing pensions for their widows out of their own pay. As the question would come again before the House in another form, he would say no more upon it at the present time.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that, having listened to the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend who had just spoken, he would not trespass upon the subject to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had addressed himself in his closing observations. But the Return to which he had called the attention of the Committee was one of extreme importance. The discipline of the Navy was a matter which must be interesting to the House, and the opinions of those who had served as naval officers must be more valuable on such a point than the opinions of the Civil Members of the House. The hon. and gallant Member for East Derbyshire (Admiral Egerton), whom he saw opposite, would, he trusted, give them his opinion. He (Sir John Hay) had served in 17 ships, and commanded five, and he had some experience on the subject. This Return was a matter of the greatest interest both to the Admiralty and to the country. In it they found that a proportion—a small proportion—of the men of the Navy were in the worst possible state of discipline; that the crime of striking a superior officer was increasing so rapidly, that something must be done with the view of putting a stop to it. From a Bill which had been introduced into the other House, but which, as the Order for it had now been discharged, he might refer to, they had some knowledge of this, for they found that that Bill provided that three officers—three young-officers of a ship—might form a court, and might sentence to death any man who struck an officer, and their finding, with the approval of the captain of that ship, was sufficient to cause the death of the person who had so offended. The Committee must see that when a Bill of that severity was introduced and passed through the other House, and withdrawn only in consequence of the lateness of the Session, the Admiralty must be aware that the discipline in the Navy was not what was desired, for they had had recourse to a measure of singular stringency in order to restore the discipline. Communications which he had received from gallant officers, some of them holding the highest commands, led' him to believe that they felt alarm at the condition of discipline in the Navy. The Return to which his hon. and gallant Friend had alluded showed that in the past year 13 men were sentenced to penal servitude for five years for striking superior officers; but that in 1870 there were only two such offences followed by penal servitude; in 1871 only two; in 1872 only three; in 1874 only one; in 1875, four; in 1876, four; in 1877, seven; in 1878, 15; in 1879, four; and in 1880 seven. After the suspension of flogging in the Navy the number increased to 17 in 1881; and last year there were 13. His hon. and gallant Friend had stated that corporal punishment had been abolished; but that was not the case. The House had not abolished corporal punishment, and he hoped the House was too wise to do so. The House had accepted a statement by the Admiralty that they were able to govern the Navy without that punishment; but they did so at their own risk and on their own responsibility; and, even in the cases of aggravated crime, they did not sanction that form of punishment. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, stated, in 1881, that in view of that statement by the Admiralty the Bill for the abolition of corporal punishment would not be proceeded with, but that a Circular would be at once issued to commanders and senior officers, informing them that the Regulations authorizing the use of the lash were to be considered cancelled; but, as the powers of a court martial to award a sentence could only be removed by legislation, they were to take care that those powers were not carried out without reference to the Admiralty in each case. That was the authority under which corporal punishment was at present suspended. He wished to call attention to the result of that suspension. In the first place, he wished to ask how any hon. Members would like their sons at Eton or Harrow, or elsewhere, to be sentenced to penal servitude for five years for striking a Master? Would they not prefer that the boys should be birched? In the Navy now, instead of being birched, boys of 17 and 18 were sentenced to five years' penal servitude. The lad Louis Price, whose case had been referred to, had been of an exemplary character. He was 18 years of age; and it appeared that after having had his grog he lay down to sleep in the sun, and, being roused by the gunner's mate to attend drill, he struck that officer twice. He was tried by court martial, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. The Admiralty had reduced that by two years; but still that boy was sent to penal servitude for three years. But that was not the only case, for of those cases given in the Return 13 were the cases of boys of 18 years of age. The country thus lost their services; and many of those youths had, previous to the particular offence, had good characters. Surely this system must be bad for the Service and for the men themselves. It could not be of advantage to the country that after these men had been carefully trained for the Service of the State, they should be sentenced to punishments which degraded them to the position of felons, and made them wretched members of society ever afterwards. When he first belonged to the Navy, about 50 years ago, the discipline was severe, and, no doubt, the lash was more frequently used than would accord with modern ideas; but in such a case as a boy striking a gunner's mate, he would get a good rope's-ending and licking from the mate, and nothing more would be heard of the matter. But the House had taken the control of the methods of discipline and punishment in the Navy; and this boy Price, instead of being punished there and then on the spot, in such a way as he would never forget, and which would do him good for ever, was placed in irons, made a felon of, and while he was deprived of his character the country lost his services. In a ship in which he served 48 years ago there were on board a boatswain's mate who had served on the Shannon, and a petty officer who had been on the Chesapeake, and there were factions on the lower deck. The commander took two of these men who had been fighting, and, ordering their left hands to be tied together, with a reef-point tied to their right hands, told them to lick each other, and threatened that the first man who stopped should lose his grog. There was no more fighting after that. Discipline in those days was maintained by severe but excellent means; but all that was now stopped. A gunner's mate might be struck, but he must not return the blow. Striking a superior officer was an offence which must be punished; but there was no punishment that would stop violence of that sort so readily as a good whipping. Many hon. Members could remember what occurred 20 years ago. An hon. Member of that House, when returning home one night, was garotted, and a Bill was brought in in hot haste, by which Members protected themselves, and under which any person garotting anyone else would receive 150 lashes. The result was that none of them had been garotted; but he ventured to say that the protection of an officer of the watch, or a petty officer in the Service of the State, was more necessary than the protection of Members of that House. It was most unwise that the House should insist on the Admiralty not using the power they possessed; and, speaking with all respect of those holding high rank, he thought they ought to have the courage of their opinions, and to authorize corporal punishment for crimes of violence. If they would do that, he would undertake to say that the offences would drop down to a very low number, and no more would be heard of the loss of valuable men, who were now sent like criminals and felons to endure penal servitude. It was absurd that a seaman might garotte an officer of one of Her Majesty's ships and not be flogged; while if he himself were to garotte the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), for instance, who was expressing dissent, he would get 150 lashes. He was only kept back by the knowledge of that penalty. He was sorry there was no naval officer present representing the Admiralty; for although the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey) was as competent as any naval officer in regard to navigating, he had not had the same experience of seamen as the hon. and gallant Member for East Derbyshire (Admiral Egerton). He felt it right and just to the country and to the Committee to say that, having this power, the Admiralty failed in their duty if they did not give authority to courts martial to inflict corporal punishment for crimes which were disgracing the Navy; that being the only punishment that would restore seamen to their right senses, and, at the same time, preserve these valuable men for the service of the country. The proposal made in the Naval Discipline and. Enlistment Act Amendment Bill was entirely contrary to all safeguards for good discipline and fair trial which had hitherto prevailed in the Navy. Prior to 1866, a court martial consisted of 13 officers of high rank, each drawn from a different ship, and all drawn, if possible, from ships in which the offence was not committed. The officers of the ship in which the crime was committed were the prosecutors; and an independent court of 13 officers, all independent of each other, were brought together to try the criminal. No doubt, the sentences were sometimes severe; but the court was as independent and fair and honourable as anyone could desire to be tried by. But the proposal in this now Bill was to compose the court from the ship in which the offence was committed. The captain, who was the prosecutor, was to select three officers of the ship as a court; if they were unanimous they could condemn a man to death, and the captain would sanction their decision. The great naval officers who were First Lords of the Admiralty from 1703 to 1806 would have been astonished beyond measure at such a proposal. They would have scouted it with the scorn which it deserved. He regretted that the Admiralty had introduced this hanging Bill; but if they had not the courage of their opinions, and would not extend the Garotting Act to the Navy, he would wash his hands of the business and allow them to pass their Bill next year. He hoped, however, that the country would be saved from that disgrace. In no country in Europe, nor in the United States, was there such a savage measure as this; and it was rendered necessary because the Admiralty would not tell Parliament and the country that the condition of the Navy, and the practice of striking officers, was going from bad to worse. The offences were increasing in number and in character, and the punishment of penal servitude was doing nothing to stop the offences. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) and others would, no doubt, attribute Price's offence to grog. The country must decide whether seamen should have grog or not; but, so long as grog was part of a seaman's rations, the authorities must take care to protect officers and the men themselves from the violence of a few men such as those whose conduct was now under consideration. He could not ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, or the Civil Lord, whether they approved or disapproved of grog being served out, because hon. Members of the Committee were not themselves aware how naval discipline should be conducted. It was the positive duty of naval officers who knew the condition of the Navy not to be afraid of stating their opinions, and urging the Committee to insist upon the Admiralty using the means they possessed for maintaining discipline in the Navy.

MR. CAINE

said, that, noticing the comments made in "another place" on the case of Louis Price, he took steps to obtain accurate information as to the circumstances which led to that offence. From a high authority he had received the following statement:— The truth is as follows:—Louis Price was a boy of very good character on hoard H.M.S. Triumph, who reached the age of 18 in March, 1882, was rated an ordinary seaman, placed in the first class for conduct, and with a 'good' character. The captain considered him the most promising young seaman in the ship. At once they began to serve rum to him, half-a-gill a-day. One day in April he was 'cook of the mess,' and it was the custom of the rest of the mess to let the cook have a very large share of the rum allowance. He gave some to his friends; but thoughtlessly drank much more than he ever did before. He then went on the forecastle, and fell into a heavy sleep under a burning sun. He was suddenly roused to drill when the offence was committed (striking a gunner's mate); but he remembers nothing until he came to himself when he was in irons. The offence was solely due to the Admiralty Regulation of serving out rum to such young lads, and to allowing boys of 18 to be cooks of messes, with this rum privilege. He was sentenced to penal servitude, involving dismissal with disgrace," &c. Now, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he could explain how this lad of 18 got the rum ration at all, because the last Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan) had told him, in the debate in 1881, that in future they would withdraw that ration from all boys and men below 20 years of age. If this lad had been so treated, he would not have committed this offence and incurred five years' penal servitude. The hon. and gallant Member had discussed the question whether or not such offences should be punished by flogging. He was of opinion that prevention was better than cure, and had it not been for this rum ration Louis Price would not have been in this disgraceful position. Had the promised Regulation ever been in force? Had it been discontinued, if it had been enforced? If that pledge had not been carried out, he should move to reduce this Vote by £5,000.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

wished to call attention to the case of some classes of men employed in the Navy, which had been brought before the Admiralty and the House on more than one previous occasion. The Secretary to the Admiralty had done much to remedy the grievances under which these classes laboured; but he wished to say another word or two in the hope that, before a final decision was come to on the different Memorials presented, the Admiralty would give some further consideration to these classes. In the first place, there was the question of warrant officers. Some time ago they sent out a pamphlet, stating that they had grievances which the Admiralty ought to repair. There were nine grievances mentioned; but he would not go into them all. In the changes he had made, the Secretary to the Admiralty had gone upon too limited a scale; and he was told that all the warrant officers detained in harbour did not obtain the benefit of the relaxation given by the Admiralty. Sea-going pay was not given to warrant officers in harbour, except to those holding Admiralty appointments. Then, the warrant officers thought they were entitled to a certain distinctive mark with regard to their uniform. Everyone knew how distinctive marks were valued, and he hoped the Admiralty would grant this desire, for it would not put the country to any great expense. A third point was the question of Greenwich pensioners. He did not like to go into a comparison of the number of Greenwich pensions they had relatively to other branches of the Service, because that would be invidious; but there were 51 retired warrant officers, and only 50 of them had pensions of £5 each. They suggested that they should have a certain number of pensioners on retirement; and he trusted that this claim, which seemed to him very natural and not unfair, would receive favourable consideration from the Admiralty. Another class whom he wished to mention were the naval engineers, whose principal grievance was the 11 years' rule. Alterations had recently been made by the Admiralty to meet the case of these men; but he fancied that the amelioration granted had not been given to men who had joined the Service after 35, and that the men who had joined under 25 had not been allowed the improved position accorded to those who had joined the Service after that age. The artificers and petty officers also had certain grievances which they had represented in a Memorial to the Admiralty, which had not yet received a reply. He trusted that in consideration of the different Memorials sent up the Admiralty would pay some attention to the grievances of these various classes.

MR. STEWART MACLIVER

said, he would not go into the question of pensions to officers in the Dockyards on that occasion; he rose simply to express his cordial approval of the proposed increase in the pay of engineers which was included in this Vote. He had, on a former occasion, called attention to the position of engineers and artificers in the Dockyards; and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty then said he would take the matter into consideration; while, at the same time, he expressed his admiration of the skill and ability of the men, as well as his appreciation of their services. He trusted that steps had been taken to place these men in a satisfactory position. He would also be glad to know from the hon. Gentleman and the Civil Lord, who had visited the Dockyards, if they were in a position to state what it was proposed to do in the case of the shipwrights, engineers, and riggers? He believed the subject had boon under the consideration of the Board; and he trusted that the result of their deliberations would be favourable to the men in question. He would, at another opportunity, refer to the pensions of the naval engineers.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he did not intend to go into the interesting question which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, although he considered it one of the most important that could claim the attention of the Committee. Had the Bill referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman been proceeded with, there was no doubt that a discussion might have arisen on it which would have been fruitful of results. But he thought, after the expression of the opinion of Parliament on a former occasion with regard to flogging in the Army and Navy, that the Government was bound not to take any further action whatever, unless they had reason to believe that the opinion of the House had changed. The one great point which they ought to secure was the raising of the character of the personnel of the Army and Navy; and he held that, as far as possible, that result could be secured, not by the effect of the deterrent of punishment—although he was willing to admit that punishment must exist—but by moral means—by the withdrawal of temptation to excess, and in other ways tending to raise the moral standard of those engaged in the Service. By those means he believed it would be unnecessary for the country to resort to the punishment in question. At the same time, he agreed that this was a matter which must be considered at an early date, because he presumed that the present state of things would not be allowed to continue without some measures being taken to improve it. Turning to the Vote immediately before the Committee, he pointed out that it made provision to a very large amount for the victualling and clothing of Seamen and Marines, and that the Vote had, through a series of years, gone on increasing, although, in the particular Vote before them, there seemed to be a small decrease. But, notwithstanding, that there was a decrease on the whole amount of the Vote, there was an increase on one or two significant items. Under Sub-head B there was an increase of £1,800 on a total charge of £154,000 for provisions not taken up; there was also an increase in the charge for fuel, seamen's clothing, soap, and tobacco, amounting to £3,928. All these increments seemed to require some explanation; but he rose principally to call the attention of the Committee to the first item he had alluded to. His reason for doing so was that recently circumstances had come to light which proved that the system of victualling, as now carried on, was defective, and one that had led to considerable fraud and peculation. He had no doubt that some of the increases he referred to were due to the irregularities committed under the present system of victualling ships. On a former occasion he had asked the Secretary to the Admiralty a Question in regard to a court martial held on board Her Majesty's ship Cambridge, in June, 1882, upon the paymaster, ship's steward, and assistant ship's steward of that vessel. At this inquiry a number of facts transpired which proved that a system of very serious irregularity and gross dishonesty had been practised in the victualling department of the Cambridge. At that time he asked his hon. Friend if he would lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to this court martial; but his hon. Friend replied that the documents in question were confidential, and that it was impossible to lay them upon the Table. He (Mr. Rylands) said that, where irregularities occurred in connection with Her Majesty's Naval and Military Services, the House of Commons should be the first to be made acquainted with the facts; but, instead of that, the circumstances attending this particular case had been carefully kept from the knowledge of the House of Commons. The Admiralty had appointed Mr. Martin and Mr. Laycock, two gentlemen of ability, to ascertain whether the system of frauds and defalcations which came to light had been going on for some time previously. Their instructions were to ascertain whether the accounts of the Cambridge for the previous three months had been regularly kept; and, as that was a matter of great importance, they were instructed to recommend any change which they thought necessary with regard to those accounts, and to produce a Report. That Report he had asked for; and, as he had already stated, his hon. Friend declined to lay it on the Table of the House. But he held in his hand the Report that Messrs. Martin and Laycock had made to the Admiralty, which he found had been published in The Army and Navy Gazette. Now, he said that the Committee of the House of Commons ought not to be compelled to trust to surreptitious documents given to The Army and Navy Gazette, in order to judge whether the administration of the Naval and Military Services of the country were carried on with a due regard to economy. But, supposing the account which he held in his hand to be true, it was clear that the system of victualling Her Majesty's ships was open to grave objections, inasmuch as under it serious frauds and peculations were committed. Well, the gentlemen he had named examined the account of the rations issued in the case of the Cambridge during the three months previous to the court martial. Hon. Gentlemen would be aware that when sailors were away on leave their rations were not issued. As a matter of fact, then, if no proper account was taken of the men away on leave, the rations would be issued in excess of the quantity actually required. Messrs. Martin and Laycock found that no proper account of the men away on leave was kept. He believed that during the three months referred to the rations issued were 4,863, against which there were 488 rations allowed for, leaving a net quantity of 3,385 rations in excess. It seemed impossible that such a state of things could have occurred on one of Her Majesty's ships. The fact was that in July the whole of the quantity of fresh meat was actually paid for as savings—that was to say, the men were paid for not using their rations; and, in addition to that, there was absolutely twice as much fresh meat paid for as the total amount of rations which the ship had a right to receive. The Report of the Examiners said it was scarcely possible to conceive that such clear frauds should not have been discovered before the commander left the ship. The result of their further inquiries was to find that no regular system existed of giving notice of leave—that was to say, the men could go out of the ship without their leave being properly checked. Hon. Members might ask this question—" If all this meat was provided for rations, what became of it? "But he understood there was no difficulty in that matter; on the contrary, there were great facilities for the disposal of ships' stores. In this case, the meat was taken off the vessel, and sold to the butchers on shore. There seemed to be no check whatever on the taking of rations out of the vessels. Now, he ventured to suggest that the system under which Her Majesty's ships were victualled was altogether wrong. He observed in the Report that Messrs. Laycock and Martin said there was reason to believe that the crews of men-of-war were the only class of persons known who were paid the value of provisions which they did not consume, owing to their being on leave. That was one objection to the system. He said that no man ought to be allowed to leave a vessel without a careful account being taken of his absence, and without the steward's mess being checked, so that he had not an opportunity of charging for provisions which were not consumed. The absence of such accounts and checks, was another objection to the system; but he would go farther, and say that the victualling account of ships ought to be periodically investigated. His hon. Friend would, perhaps, say—"Of course they are investigated." He agreed that when they reached the next Vote they would find a charge for auditing accounts; there was an Accountant General, and the country paid a number of clerks in his office, on the supposition that they were employed in auditing the accounts. But that Department had not only audited, but had passed the accounts of the Cambridge; and, under those circumstances, he said that the audit was a perfect farce. They paid for an audit, it was true; but they did not give the Department the materials necessary for a proper audit; they had certain accounts sent to them, which they examined; but the accounts in the case of the Cambridge were utterly fallacious; and, on such conditions, the accounts could only be passed in the most perfunctory manner. Messrs. Laycock and Martin pointed out that, even on the face of the accounts of the Cambridge, there was such an extraordinary discrepancy that they could not imagine how it was possible they could pass the audit. Now, those gentlemen suggested that there should be some means taken for checking the victualling of ships on the spot. He entirely agreed with that suggestion; but it seemed to him that, in order to check irregularities of the kind which had occurred in the case of the Cambridge, there ought to be a better system of arrangement with regard to rations. He thought there should be an official on the spot to see that the books were properly kept. It was suggested that the paymasters-in-chief, now retired officers, might be attached to ships of the several squadrons at home and abroad, and that it should be their duty from time to time to go through the Meet and see, as inspectors, that the victualling accounts were properly kept, and that the books necessary to check those accounts were properly entered up. He thought there ought to be some means taken by which an officer of some experience and judgment could, from time to time, be sent on board vessels for the purpose of thoroughly overhauling the books. At all events, this state of things could not be allowed to continue, because, although they had had the curtain lifted a little by the surreptitious publication of the Report, they were able to see under that curtain that there was a great deal in this Department of the Admiralty of the most unsatisfactory character. When he reminded the Committee that these charges for victualling had gone on increasing during the last 10 years, while other portions of the Vote had been kept down, he thought it would be seen that there was a grave reason for suspicion that the increased expenditure had arisen in a variety of ways from the irregularities and peculations which were possible under the present system. He felt sure that the Board of Admiralty would take this matter into their careful consideration, and he had no doubt that they were now taking steps which would prevent the recurrence of such abuses. But he would remark that, had it not been for a mere accident, the House of Commons would have known nothing of the circumstances he had described—a fact which made one afraid that, perhaps, in other Departments, with regard to which they were quite in the dark, there might be mismanagement, leading to the misapplication of public money. Therefore, he was of opinion that while it was quite right that such matters should be brought before the Admiralty—first of all in the shape of a confidential Report—it was, at the same time, also right to insist that a subsequent Report, containing full particulars, should be laid on the Table of the House, so that Parliament might be kept thoroughly advised as to what was occurring in the Department, and of the steps the Admiralty were taking to prevent the recurrence of abuses, and to secure economy. He would ask his hon. Friend in what way the abuses in question came to the knowledge of the Admiralty in the first instance, and what were the sentences awarded by the court martial?

MR. PULESTON

said, he believed that all they heard of the grievances of the different classes of men in the Dockyards largely arose from the piecemeal attempts at reform which were constantly made in matters relating to these Dockyards. It was assumed that wherever a grievance was claimed to be redressed it always meant an outlay of money. However true that might be sometimes, it was not always the case. The complaints of the Dockyard shipwrights and other artificers related to the great difference which existed between their pay, and the number of hours which they had to work, as compared with the pay and hours of work of others, whether on the Establishment or not, doing similar work, and, perhaps, giving less time. Their desire was that they should be placed more on an equality. The hired men, after a service of 20 years, received a bonus of £20; whereas the men on the Establishment received as much as £30 a-year, which was equivalent to a bonus of £500. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had once said that anyone who could show a decrease in the pension list hereafter would do a great service to the State, by removing what he termed this dead weight. That was quite true; but these pensions must not be regarded as altogether dead weight, because, while the men appeared as pensioners on the roll, it must be remembered that they were paid less wages than they would have received in private yards, because they were entitled to pensions. With regard to the naval engineers, he pointed out that in 1876 a Committee, presided over by the present First Sea Lord, sat to consider their case, and made certain recommendations. Now all that the engineers had asked from that time to the present was that the recommendations of that Committee should be carried out. That was the general position occupied by the naval engineers, and he could not see that in making that demand they were asking too much, especially now, in view of the greatly-increased and increasing importance of their duties. The Committee referred to consisted of men who thoroughly understood their work; and he recollected that the late Mr. Ward Hunt expressed regret that he could not give more than an instalment of what they recommended, although, as he said, the rest would come in the course of time. An improvement had been effected in the position of the engine-room artificers; but it had been done in that jerking way of which he complained—that was to say, that in endeavouring to produce contentment in one quarter they had given rise to discontent in another, by the way the alterations had been effected; and now the cause—and the just cause—of discontent was greater than ever, by reason of the terms of the recent Circular. The subject of this class, and of that of naval engineers, had been referred to over and over again; it had been spoken about and written about; and letters had been addressed to the Admiralty on the subject, so that he ventured to say there remained nothing new which he could bring forward with regard to it. These questions, although difficult in themselves, were easy of solution, if taken into consideration as a whole and thoroughly threshed out; and he believed that if the Lords of the Admiralty and his hon. Friend opposite would carry out that practical and feasible suggestion, they would hear less and less on the floor of that House of those grievances which were constantly being dinned into their ears. They had the benefit of an easy approach to the Civil Lord and Secretary to the Admiralty; but still the First Lord sometimes wielded the authority, and when he occupied a seat in the House of Commons they had been in the habit of approaching him. They had not now that privilege, and they were obliged to say in Committee that which they would not need to say had they the privilege of approaching the First Lord, which they considered they ought to have. When grievances were brought forward by those who represented the Dockyard interest, people were too apt to say that they did so because they were the Representatives of Dockyard men. As a matter of fact, he (Mr. Puleston) had hardly ever brought before the Admiralty that which he had not thoroughly digested himself; and he had often received their approval and concurrence when he introduced a grievance, though they might have said that it was difficult, for various reasons, for them to meet the grievance brought before them. The question of engine-room artificers particularly was a grievance. There had been some change made now to increase the time a seaman might serve; but that did not affect those already enlisted. In the case of engine-room artificers the Admiralty said—" We will improve their position in our own way," and the engine-room artificers argued—"You are improving us backward." Those men were required to work in a heated atmosphere, and 20 years' service for them was a very much longer service, comparatively speaking, than 25 or 30 years in any other branch of the Navy. He, therefore, thought that if some hon. Members wanted to bring forward such matters as that, it was quite right they should do so, and have the credit of doing so from an entirely right motive. When he spoke upon a former occasion, he referred to a Report made by the Committee of which his hon. Friend the Civil Lord (Sir Thomas Brassey) was Chairman. That Committee made inquiries as to the constructors; and he (Mr. Puleston) would like to know whether it was intended to lay on the Table a Report as to the Constructor's Department of the Navy? He also hoped some information would be given to the Committee as to the pensions of seamen's widows. He desired also to bring under the notice of the Committee the position of the warrant officers and naval schoolmasters. What the warrant officers really wanted was a step in rank on retirement, and to be put in the same position as those in a relative position in the Army. It was certainly not asking too much that warrant officers should be put on the same footing as corresponding men in the Army. The case of the naval schoolmasters was a very small one, yet a very important one. The position of the naval schoolmaster was not nearly so good as that of the marine schoolmaster; for instance, while the naval schoolmaster only got £91 a-year, the marine schoolmaster received £120. There was also some difference between the two men with regard to pension. Why should there be that difference? Surely there were no more efficient men in the whole Service than the naval schoolmasters; and, therefore, why the difference he had referred to should exist he did not know. But as long as it did exist, as long as there was that great discrepancy between class and class in the Dockyards, and between men like warrant officers and others, and those in a relative position in the Army, between the naval schoolmasters and marine schoolmasters—just as long would they have the men complaining, and complaining, as he thought, justly, and requiring that their grievance should, at least, be considered. Once more he would say that he believed much good would be done for the interests of the men, as well as of economy, from the administrative point of view, by having a Committee to go exhaustively into the subjects to which he had referred.

MR. D. JENKINS

said, he was glad that flogging had, once for all, been abolished in the Navy. He did not think, as was contended in some quarters, that corporal punishment—degrading punishment like flogging—was of a reforming character. He hardly thought it was fair for hon. Gentlemen opposite to compare flogging with the cat-o'-nine tails with flogging with the birch rod. Anyhow, the days of flogging had gone by, and some other means of punishment must be adopted. He could not help thinking that the acts of insubordination which had been referred to had in many cases been caused from want of experience, or want of tact and management on the part of officers, rather than from any fault of the seamen.

MR. T. C. BRUCE

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) that the position of the engineers and warrant officers required serious consideration. It was found, by a Commission which inquired into the subject, that the engineers were entitled to certain privileges. The Commission, however, was appointed nearly eight or ten years ago; and certainly the position of engineers, not only in the Naval Service, but in the Mercantile Service, had not diminished in importance, but had rather increased in importance, since that time. Now, there was no reason to be surprised that under the circumstances the engineers should feel themselves, to a certain extent, aggrieved that the privileges which the Commission considered ought to be accorded to them had never, so far, been granted by the Admiralty. They were granted in part by Mr. Ward Hunt; but then that part was only given in instalments. He (Mr. T. C. Bruce) could not think his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would ever have the engineers with him unless the privileges recommended by the Commission were fully conceded. His hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) had made a kind of an apology for speaking on these subjects, because he was a Member for a Dockyard borough. Now, he (Mr. T. C. Bruce), as a Member for a Dockyard borough, thought he was perfectly entitled to speak of matters which came directly under the observation of his own constituents, and which so peculiarly affected his constituency. He did not intend to speak of the different classes in the Dockyards, because if he had any observations to make he presumed they would be more in Order on the Dockyard Vote. Neither need he refer to the classes whom his hon. Friend (Mr. Puleston) had mentioned. There was only one matter he wished to say a word about, and that was the position of the warrant officers. What these men asked would not cause any great expenditure, and he could not help expressing his opinion that everything ought to be done to maintain a contented spirit amongst the warrant officers, for in the Navy there were no more valuable officers than those men. If we had, as we should have, in case of war, to make a sudden increase in the number of men, the maintenance of discipline in all minor matters would really depend upon the warrant officers, and the petty officers under them; and he could not help thinking that it would be an unwise economy, if economy there would be in it, to do anything which would render that service less acceptable to the men, and which would render the warrant officers less contented than they deserved to be.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, before the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) replied to the various questions which had been put, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) wished to say a few words on the Vote itself, and upon the discussion which had taken place on a subject of the greatest importance for the discipline and well-being of the Navy—he referred to the remarks which fell from his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), and to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price). There was no more grave question for the Committee or the country at large—and certainly for the Admiralty—to consider than the maintenance of discipline, and the mode by which discipline should be maintained in the British Navy. The Returns which had been presented were certainly Returns of a very grave character. If hon. Gentlemen would look through the list they would see that, in the great majority of cases of those who had been sent into penal servitude, the character beforehand had been "good," "very good," "fair," "very good," "good "—in other words, that the general character of the men who had been, for breaches of discipline, sentenced to various terms of penal servitude, averaging from five to ten years, had been "good"—that was to say, there had been no marks against them. Their conduct had been good on board ship; indeed, had been such as would entitle them to be considered good members of society. There was another very sad circumstance connected with the Return, and that was that in almost every case—no; he noticed there were cases in which men of 25 years, and 37 years, and 31 years, had been sentenced to penal servitude—but, in the majority of cases, the men who had been so sentenced had only just emerged from boyhood—were, in fact, 20 and 22 years of age, and, in some cases, only 17 and 18 years of age. He thought it was a most unfortunate circumstance that, in order to maintain discipline in the British Navy, for acts which certainly would not involve punishment for anything more than a few days' detention under any other case, and in any other employment, it had been necessary to inflict penal servitude upon the men, and to attach to them for life the character of felons. That was a very grave fact indeed. He was one of those who could not undertake the responsibility of abolishing corporal punishment, and he could not do that because he felt that it was necessary there should be some powerful deterrent against the crime of insubordination. Everybody knew that corporal punishment was inflicted with the greatest possible care on board ship; the average of cases, he believed, was less than one a-year. [Sir JOHN HAY: Two in the last year.] But the result undoubtedly was to deter men from the commission of those naval crimes—Service crimes—which would not be called crimes in the ordinary acceptation of the term. Now, they were told that they were compelled to class the men who were guilty of offences against discipline, and of no other crimes, with criminals—to compel them to herd with criminals in the case of imprisonment with hard labour, for unless they were sent to Lewes Gaol they must herd with prisoners, and they must associate with them in a common gaol. He believed he was right in saying that, and in asserting that if the Bill which was presented to Parliament had become law, and powers were obtained to send the men to ordinary gaols, their condition would be still worse, for they would be consigned to gaols where there were no powers of separation, no power of distinguishing one description of criminals from another. He only referred to this to impress upon the present Board of Admiralty the great responsibility they incurred if they did not find some mode of inflicting summary punishment for offences against discipline. He was as conscious as any naval officer, or as any person who had anything to do with the sea could be, that discipline and obedience to orders, and good conduct on board ship, were of the very first necessity. But he did hope and trust that if, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Falmouth (Mr. D. Jenkins) said, it was quite unnecessary to inflict corporal punishment for offences of this kind, those in authority would find some method of deterring men from the commission of crimes against discipline and good order in the Naval Service without making the men criminals, without attaching to thorn for life the brand of criminals, and without completely ruining their prospects as British sailors and British subjects. He concurred with the observations which fell from his hon. Friend opposite who spoke as to the desirability of aiming at a higher standard of men. That, no doubt, had been the object of succeeding Boards of Admiralty, for the system by which boys were now trained was a system which was, in the best sense of the word, paternal, and produced the best possible effects. He believed those who had studied the present condition and the past condition of the British Navy would fully admit that there had been, and there was now, a growing improvement in the character of the men; but, if that was the case, it would be a monstrous thing that a boy who, overcome by temptation, lost his temper, should, in order to be properly punished for an offence he might have committed, be made a criminal for life. Reference had been made to the case of the Cambridge court martial, and he was inclined to second and support the suggestion which had been made in the course of the debate. He thought that if anything had gone wrong in the Service after the Admiralty had fully and fairly considered the confidential information which they had received, and after they had dealt with the matter upon their own responsibility, it was well that information should be given to the House of Commons, and to the country. He had no doubt his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would fully admit that that was the principle which would strengthen the hands of the Department and his Colleagues in dealing with a question such as that arising in the case of the Cambridge, and would have a very useful effect throughout the Service generally. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) did not think it was at all desirable at any time to endeavour to hush up, or hide, any serious troubles that might arise. It was a great misfortune that irregularities should occur; but it was impossible, taking human nature as a whole, that here and there trust should not be betrayed, and that some screw would not be found to be loose in the system under which business was conducted. It was, however, always better that a clean breast should be made by the parties concerned, because they all knew it was absolutely impossible for any Department of Government, or any set of men, to devise a system of management which would at all times be proof against failure, or against the dishonesty of persons who had to carry it out. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) would be the last to find fault with the Department who found it possessed dishonest servants. He knew that irregularities and misconduct would occur; but when they did it was well to see as much as they could of the cases which had led to unfortunate results, so that they might do their best to rectify them in future. He thought the House of Commons would always be inclined to strengthen the hands of a Department of Government which sought to give full information. There were one or two points in this Vote on which he would like to have information. In the first place, he wished to know whether the blue-jackets and marines under this Vote were now up to the strength which had been voted? It was most necessary that the Committee should be assured, at least, that the reduced numbers were fully maintained. He wished also to know whether there was a sufficient reserve of stokers and engine-room artificers in the event of its becoming necessary to commission one or two ships in a hurry, as was sometimes the case? He knew that at one time there was a deficiency in the supply of stokers, and he was inclined to lay some stress on the matter, because everyone knew that trained and experinced stokers were as necessary for the economy and successful navigation of our ships of war as our blue-jackets; perhaps they were, on the whole, rather more necessary than blue-jackets. He would like also to know whether the present Board of Admiralty were satisfied with the conditions under which they obtained officers for the Marines? The question had been frequently discussed, and he confessed that he had great doubt as to whether the system which he left in existence was a satisfactory one. Without saying anything in the slightest degree offensive to the officers who joined the Marine Service, it might be said that the Marines obtained the leavings of the Army to a very considerable extent, and that that had an injurious effect upon the self-respect and the self-esteem of the officers of the Corps. If some means could be found of separate examination, separate competition, and separate nomination, so that gentlemen could enter the Corps without having first of all striven to enter the Army and failed, there would be a greater sense of self-respect and independence, and there would be all the advantages which belonged to the condition of a great Service which had rendered most valuable assistance to the country in the past. The Marine Service was a Service which ought to be considered of higher importance to the Navy than as a Service to the Army. It had been frequently looked to as a reserve to fight our battles when difficulties had occurred, and when the Army had not been strong enough to do its proper work. The first duty of a Marine was to be on board ship, and be efficient there; and therefore he (Mr. W. H. Smith) was anxious to know whether the Regulations laid down with regard to prizes for shooting; whether the gunnery pay suggested some time ago had been earned and issued; whether, in point of fact, the present Board of Admiralty were seeking to make the Marine rank and file thoroughly efficient as artillerymen on board ship, and as a constituent part of the British Navy? Parliament had discussed at different times the treatment which the Marines received in connection with the Egyptian Expedition, and he would not now refer to that further, for it was past and gone; but anything that could be done to maintain the Marine Force in complete and thorough efficiency ought to be done. The Marines were a valuable addition to the strength of the British Navy; and if we were compelled suddenly to commission a number of ships, the Marines ought to be, and would be, of the highest value and of the highest importance to the country, and he should regard any decrease in the efficiency of that body as a great misfortune to the country. There was another point to which he desired to draw the attention of his hon. Friend—namely, the credit sub-head was larger by £19,000 than it was last year. He did not wish to suggest the reason of this; but it looked as if the expenditure had been estimated at the least, and the receipts at the highest, possible amount, which was sometimes the case. Perhaps his hon. Friend would give him some information on that point. But the subject on which he was most anxious to obtain information was as to whether the seamen and Marines were now up to their strength, and whether there was a sufficient supply of stores to meet any demand which might arise?

MR. GORST

said, he entirely supported what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) with reference to the Corps of Royal Marines. It was always valuable to hear the opinion expressed on subjects of this kind by Gentlemen who had filled the Office of First Lord, because, while they were in Office they were so much under the influence of the permanent officials at the Admiralty that they were unable to express their genuine opinions in the House; when, however, they sat upon the Opposition Bench, they were, so to speak, unmuzzled, and able to state the views which they entertained. Therefore it was with pleasure that he heard the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Corps of Royal Marines, for he was sure that those opinions were the result of the experience he had gained when he was First Lord, and which, as First Lord, he would hardly have ventured to express to that Committee. He believed nothing could be more unsatisfactory and more mistaken than the present position of the Royal Marines; that Corps was admittedly one of the finest in the Service; everyone praised them, the public Press lavished upon them every description of laudation, and yet they were never treated as they should be in actual fact. They had the disadvantages of both Services and the advantages of neither. He could not help recollecting how they were treated in the Egyptian Campaign, when a large Force of Royal Marines were employed, and when the services which that Force rendered became even the subject of Royal eulogy; yet, notwithstanding this, the large Force of Royal Marines on shore in Egypt was not allowed to have a General of its own, but was officered by a General of the Army. The officers who commanded the Force were not even able to discipline their own men; and, in many cases, superior officers had to be landed to go through the defaulters' list and inflict the necessary punishments on the men. So remarkable was the treatment of this Corps that in the first account which came to this country of the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir they were not even mentioned; those who read the telegrams did not think that the Corps had taken any part in the engagement; and it was only when the list of the killed and wounded arrived that the engagement of that Force was known to the country. It was of no use for the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to express his opinion with reference to the Royal Marines, because he was under the influence of the Board of Admiralty; but through him he asked the First Lord to take the position of this Corps into the most serious consideration, because if they were to be maintained as a valuable Force they must cease to be officered by the leavings of the Army. He believed it was the custom to send round people to the young gentlemen at their military examinations to tell them they could join the Royal Marines if they failed to pass. Such a practice as that was quite enough to undermine the reputation the Corps at present enjoyed, and to lower it in the estimation of the public, although it ought to be regarded as one of the crack Corps in the service of the country. He did not know what course the Admiralty might think of taking; but he knew it was becoming the opinion of a great many of the most experienced officers in the Royal Marines that it would be far better, if the Admiralty would not do them justice, to become amalgamated with, and form part of, the Regular Army of the country. He knew that his hon. and gallant Friend behind him was strongly opposed to that idea; but it was one which was as strongly engrafted in the minds of officers of Marines, in consequence of the injustice done them by the Admiralty. They thought that if they were made part of the Army destined for service, in case of need, on board ship, they would get the benefits of the Service; their pensions being regulated on the Army scale and having an addition to their emoluments when they were ordered on service at sea. He offered this to the Committee as the idea which was working its way among the officers of Marines, to show the necessity of making the rewards of this Corps commensurate with the work they had to do and the praises they received.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, that he would go a step further than the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst), and say that the Admiralty should make themselves certain of this—that the widest and deepest feeling of dissatisfaction existed in the Marine Corps as to the way in which they had been treated. He thought that, seeing they were praised by the Admiralty and by every newspaper correspondent for their gallant deeds, some more substantial recognition than had been afforded to them, up to the present time, should be given of their position in the Service. He would not trouble the Committee at any length on this subject, but would simply impress upon the Civil Lord, and upon the Secretary to the Admiralty, that, until there was some more direct means of communication with the Board of Admiralty than now existed, the dissatisfaction in the Marine Force would increase, and end in destroying, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had said, the very existence of the Force, whose praises they had heard so loudly sounded.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the Committee would remember that in the early part of the Session they had had a considerable discussion on this matter, upon the Motion brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and on that occasion he had done his best to explain what it was that had been done for the Royal Marines, and what the Admiralty were prepared to do for them in the future. Some of the points which were most complained of had been, he believed, fully met. In the first place, they had given that amount of brevet-promotion among the officers which was called for, in order to put them on an equality with their brethren, in the scientific corps in the Army. In the second place, as to the point of discipline of which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham complained—namely, that the officer in charge of a detachment of the Force could not administer discipline without the assistance of superior naval officers coming to supersede him, and placing him thereby in an invidious position in the eyes of his comrades of the Line, that was effectively met in the Naval Discipline Bill which the Government had been reluctantly compelled to withdraw, owing to the opposition of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay). The fault, therefore, did not lie with the Admiralty. He would mention this fact also—that a Committee had been sitting for some time at the War Office, of which Sir Francis Festing was a Member, who would be regarded by all as a competent representative of the Force, for the purpose of considering such arrangements as should seem proper for a larger employment of Marine officers on the Staff of the Army, and in connection with the Auxiliary Forces. Now, he thought there was enough in these two facts to prove that the Admiralty were not slow to remedy any grievance complained of, and that they were anxious to do justice to a distinguished Corps, in whose praises he need hardly say he entirely concurred. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (MT. W. H. Smith) had alluded to the manner in which officers were admitted to commissions and were entered for the Royal Marines. Of course, there would be a great deal to be said in favour of a change in this respect, if it were proved in any sense that the young officers whom they obtained were, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had said—of course, without meaning offence—the leavings of the Army. But he had in his hand a few facts with regard to the recent appointments of officers to the Marines. He found that in 1881, at the July examination, when only three commissions were given, they were taken up by candidates who had been successful for Sandhurst—Nos. 48, 89, and 94, out of 105 Army appointments, so that they stood well with reference to the Army in this matter. In July, 1882, there were 73 appointments to Sandhurst, and 12 commissions in the Marines; three of which were taken by Nos. 1, 9, and 78 of the successful candidates for Sandhurst, and the other nine were given to unsuccessful candidates for Sandhurst, the gentleman who stood lowest being No. 94; there were 530 competitors. In December, 1882, there were 75 appointments to Sandhurst, and Nos. 6, 8, and 53 of the successful candidates applied for commissions in the Royal Marines. He thought these facts would show that the Admiralty did not obtain for Marine commissions the refuse of Sandhurst as had been suggested. As to the Vote more immediately before them, his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had asked him a question as to one or two items. The reason of the increase in Sub-head I., for seamen's clothing, soap, and tobacco, was that no surplus stock was available, and provision had also to be made for boys' clothing and the cost of making it up, which was formerly charged direct against the boys' pay. A corresponding increase was made in the credit subhead. With regard to the clothing of the Royal Marines, in which item there was an increase of £7,473, that was due to the introduction of the new Army valise equipment for the Corps, and to the large number of blue helmets required. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had asked why the credit subhead had considerably increased? This item was, of course, very much a matter of estimate, depending upon the experience of the past year. Under Subhead A there was less required for provisions, mainly on the ground that the extra stocks purchased for the Egyptian Expedition were not all consumed; and there was an anticipated increase in the charges against the wages of seamen. Now, with regard to the very important question of the irregularities or frauds, as they deserved to be named, on board the Cambridge, he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had brought that matter before the Committee; but he altogether took exception to some of the phrases which the hon. Member used, and he wished at once to set himself and the Committee right on the subject. He had declined to lay a certain document on the Table of the House, because it was confidential, whereupon the hon. Member for Burnley said he was hoodwinking the House; and his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), if he did not actually charge him, in so many words, had at least intimated, in a significant way, that he was attempting to hush up the matter. No doubt, that was not the right hon. Member's intention; but his words implied that there was a disposition on the part of the Admiralty to smuggle away from the cognizance of Parliament transactions of this kind. Now, the Paper which the hon. Member for Burnley asked him to lay on the Table of the House was a Report made by an officer of the Admiralty, and a gentleman who acted in a legal capacity, under the authority of the Admiralty, who were asked to inquire into the matter after the trial had taken place. The first thing which happened was the publication of the trial, and there was no concealment of the facts, because full reports appeared in the public newspapers. At the trial which took place, the steward was sentenced to a certain term of imprisonment, the assistant steward being acquitted on the ground of his being under the instructions of his superior, while the paymaster was severely reprimanded and dismissed his ship, because he had not taken proper pains to discover the irregularities that were being committed. The two gentlemen he had referred to furnished their Report; and that Report, he regretted to say, had appeared, to its full extent in a newspaper. How that newspaper obtained possession of a document of a confidential character he could not say, and of this he would leave others to judge. The only objection the Admiralty had to producing a document of that sort was, in the first place, that the gentlemen who drew it might have been much more reticent had they known that their Report was to be made public; and, in the second place, it was very undesirable that it should have been made public until the Admiralty had come to a conclusion upon it.

MR. RYLANDS

said, his hon. Friend had attributed to him a charge which he had no intention of making. He had said that the fact of the non-production of the Report would be to hoodwink the House of Commons.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he was quite sure his hon. Friend did not mean to be personally offensive; but he must not suppose there was any desire to keep the Report from the House for any longer period than was necessary for the Admiralty to take action upon it. Having received a Report of the complicated circumstances of the case, the first thing the Admiralty had done was to request the Accountant General of the Navy to go down to the several ports, and inform them of what changes of system, either as to audit or book-keeping, he would recommend. The Report of the Accountant General had only been received within the last three days; it was of a voluminous and important character, and was now under consideration. But he was quite agreed that the present state of things was one which called for some effectual measures to prevent the recurrence of the irregularities that were possible under the existing system. He thought that a stricter and better check should be kept on men coming into, and leaving the ships, in order that it might be known at once who were on leave, and who were not. His hon. Friend was not quite right in saying that men were paid for provisions when they were absent; the men, in the strict sense of the term, were not paid, because the saving went to the mess to which they belonged, and not to them personally, until the accounts of the mess were settled, as they were periodically, when there might be something over for them. In the next place, there was no alteration in the number of rations issued, on account of the men who were not absent for more than 48 hours—that was to say, if a man went away on Saturday, and returned on Monday, his absence was not supposed to make such a material difference in the arrangements of the mess as to justify the stoppage of rations on his account. He wished, in justice to the Department, to state that in this particular case the officers employed at the Admiralty in auditing the accounts were not remiss, inasmuch as the accounts of the Cambridge did not come under audit at the Office before the inquiry was made, and the facts of the case had come out. He agreed that there should be a system of inspection established, and that this would probably be the most efficient check upon these irregularities. He believed that Banking Companies which had branches throughout the country managed their affairs by sending down inspectors who dropped in at irregular times at the branches, and examined the accounts, and that this system was found to be efficient in preventing the occurrence of malpractices. He had said enough to show hon. Members that this matter was not escaping the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government; and he need hardly say that they were fully aware of its importance. He now came to the question raised by the right hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir John Hay), and partly touched on by other Members of the Committee, as to the state of crime and punishment in the Navy. He was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) say that the Navy was a contented Service, as well as an efficient one; and he thought there were many facts from which they might conclude that the class of men who were now being brought into the Navy was, at all events, not inferior to those who preceded them. He was very much struck the other day by a page or two of the Report on the Education of the Navy. Now, any improvement in the education of the Navy might be due to the general advance of education throughout the country, and it was none the less satisfactory on that account; but he believed it showed that they were really getting a better class of men. Of petty officers, in 1866, 75.6 per cent could read well, and 4.3 per cent not at all; in 1880, 87 per cent could read well, and 0.9 not at all. In 1866, 62.5 per cent could write well, and 6.1 per cent not at all; in 1880, 78.8 per cent could write well, and only 0.5 per cent not at all. Of seamen in 1866, 61.8 per cent could read well; in 1880, 74.1 per cent; in 1866, 9.2 could not write at all; and in 1880, only 2.9 per cent. In 1866, 50 per cent could write well; in 1830, 65.5; in 1866, 11.5 per cent could not write at all; and in 1880, only 3.4 per cent. In reference to the boys also, there had been great improvements in the same direction. In 1866, 72.5 could read well, and 61.8 could write well, as against 76.2 per cent. and 75.1 per cent in 1880. He thought that was enough to show that there was a great improvement in the education of the men, a fact which was, after all, one of the greatest tests of the improvement of the condition of the Navy. But allusion had been made to the Return regarding crime and punishment in the Navy; and the first observation he had to make as to that was that, although they had every reason to believe that unfortunately there was an increase in the offence of striking a superior officer, and other offences against discipline, yet the Return did not give an accurate test of the increase of that offence, because it was a Return only of the offences tried by courts martial. The courts martial had apparently increased, and the summary punishments had diminished, and they did not know what the offences were which were treated by summary punishment. It would be a very large and intricate matter to get that out; but, until they knew the result both of courts martial and summary punishments, he could not give an absolutely certain opinion on the subject; but, undoubtedly, it was the case that, so far as the courts martial were concerned, these offences had increased, especially within the last two years. The right hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir John Hay) said the increase was entirely due to the cessation of corporal punishment; but he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was not quite sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had made out a complete case. Corporal punishment for these offences might be said to have been last administered in any number of cases in 1878, when there were seven cases.

SIR JOHN HAY

There was a fear of it—there was a threat as to the power of its application.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that, though the cases were not numerous, there was a fear of the punishment which had its effect upon the men. Well, under the influence of that fear, what was the course taken? He would state the number of cases which had occurred between 1870 and 1880, when the last case of corporal punishment occurred. The numbers between these years, while seamen were still under the influence of that fear which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to, were 28, 31, 37, 40, 33, 51, 43, 57, 75, 55, and 66; so that the number of cases had increased from 28 to 66 under the operation of that corporal punishment and the fear of it, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite believed to be a cure.

CAPTAIN PRICE

The practice was dying out, consequently the fear became much less.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, that not only, then, would hon. and gallant Gentlemen like to have the power of flogging, but they would like to see much more flogging than there used to be. He simply quoted these figures to show how difficult it was to say that it was in consequence of the abolition of corporal punishment that this crime had increased. In 1880 the number was 66, in 1881 96, and in 1882 83. It was true that these were very largo figures; but it had shown a tendency to increase, and had readied a formidable level, under the state of things to which hon. and gallant Gentlemen would have the Government to revert to. But upon this question of corporal punishment he did not think there was much to be said to any good purpose. It could not be seriously contended that they should go back to it. He spoke pretty freely on this matter, as he had supported it so long as he found that the Government, who were responsible for the discipline of the Army and Navy, said it was absolutely necessary; and it was only when it was given up in the Army, in regard to those offences for which it was most suited, that he came to the conclusion that it was undesirable to continue the obvious discredit and stigma on the Navy—as it would have been if it were retained in this Service after being abolished in the Army. There was no doubt whatever of the deterrent influence of this punishment; but, at the same time, he would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) whether, after it had been abolished in the Army, and did not exist in any foreign Service, it was right that the discredit and stigma of its continuance should be put upon the British Navy? No; and he, therefore, hardly thought this was a serious discussion. He could quite understand the feelings of naval officers who had seen, as they imagined, the good effect of this punishment; and, no doubt, in the sense of its being a deterrent of crime, its immediate good effect in the maintenance of discipline. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had devoted a considerable part of his speech to a description of the enormities of the Bill which had been brought into the House, but which had since been withdrawn. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman described that measure, which was a measure to amend the Naval Discipline Act, as one of singular stringency; in fact, he had called it "a hanging Bill." Since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had introduced the subject, he (Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman) would tell him something about it. As a matter of fact, there was only one clause which contained the powers to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman took exception. That clause conferred upon the officers of the Navy the same power of maintaining discipline in this Service which, two years ago, the House of Commons conferred upon the officers of the Army, with this difference—that it was considerably modified on the side of leniency. In the Army the summary court could be called together, and had the I power of death under similar conditions to those proposed for the Navy, only the court did not require to be unanimous; but in regard to the Navy it was required that the court should be unanimous. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of having a court martial brought together, consisting of 13 officers from various ships. What would they do in the case of a small vessel hundreds of miles away from any other ship? Where were they to get their 13 officers to form a court martial, if there were some serious attempt at mutiny, some serious outbreak and breach of discipline—what would they do if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion were adopted? It was clear they should have some sort of substitute for the power of flogging, and the substitute which was considered preferable was that which had been adopted in the case of the Army. It was only right and proper that the system adopted in the Army should be extended to the Navy. What he wanted specially to point out was that, unfortunately, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman having taken such a strong view as to that one clause, the Government were effectually stopped from proceeding with the Bill, which contained, altogether, 22 clauses, many of which went altogether in another direction, and mitigated instead of strengthening the provisions of the existing law. For instance, it conferred the benefit he had already alluded to upon the Marines; it enabled courts martial in many instances to give an intermediate sentence instead of inflicting the extreme sentence; and it largely extended the power of officers to try offences summarily, in order to save courts martial. But the measure containing all these things had been sent to the limbo of dropped Bills, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends objected to one clause.

SIR JOHN HAY

It was the principal clause in the Bill.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he doubted if it was the principal clause in the Bill. The subject of that clause was a fit matter for discussion in Committee; but, at any rate, there was no use in discussing it now, as the Bill had gone for this year. As to the case of the man Price, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) altogether disputed the idea of the House of Commons being the proper place for going into the particulars of individual courts martial. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman very properly said that he did not wish to go into the question of the wisdom or propriety of the court martial in this case. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was bound to say that the offence was a grave one, the culprit being by no means what they would call a boy—being, in fact, 18 years of age. The young fellow was asked to fall in for drill, and he deliberately laid down his rifle on the deck and knocked down his superior officer, and when his superior officer tried to rise he attempted to knock him down again. The offence was a heinous one; therefore, it was necessary to inflict upon the offender a heavy penalty, possibly not so much by way of punishment—Heaven forbid that should be their object in giving severe sentences—as with the object of deterring others from doing anything of the same kind. The fact of the offender being under the influence of liquor was not brought out at the trial; there was no evidence of anything of the kind. He sympathized with what was said by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) on the point, and he wished the hon. Member was present at this moment in order that he might tell him that the Admiralty had issued a Circular of the kind which the hon. Member said they had proposed to issue—a Circular to the effect that after the date of that document, which was November, 1881, no one was to receive a ration of rum until he was 20 years of age; but that would only apply to boys who joined after the issue of the Circular. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that the gunner's mate should have knocked Price down.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that probably the hon. Member would allow him to disabuse his mind on that point. What he had said was, that the officer was debarred by his position from acting upon a natural impulse of retaliation.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he had understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that officers in these cases should have some power of retaliation in order to prevent these outbursts against discipline. But to come to the different classes of men whose case had been brought before the Committee. First of all, they had the engineers and the engine-room artificers. As to the engineers, he was not able to give a promise that any change would be made in their condition. The rule as to engineers was that their full junior time was not to be counted until they had served a certain number of years in the higher ranks, and that worked hardly on those who had obtained their promotion at a later period. It was introduced with the view of promotion being given much earlier, and that remark applied to the other classes of officers who came under the same rule. The system was one he was not much enamoured of as it stood; but he was told it was a very desirable thing that there should be some scale of the kind, and he could only promise to keep his attention fixed on the matter, and if it was found to cause any serious injury to the men affected, he would be ready to see what could be done, but he was not prepared to make any proposition on the subject at present. As to the engine-room artificers, it was quite true that the Department had not received all the answers they had expected to the Circular they had issued. They had received a great many replies; and, undoubtedly, the vast majority declined to accept the new terms. There, again, he thought they must wait to see if the state of things complained of continued. They ought not to be asked hastily to alter what had been adopted after long deliberation. In matters of this kind, when pressure was put upon them to make changes, they were always met by the awkward fact that they could really get as many men as they required, and men as good as those now in the Service. It was natural, therefore, that there should be reluctance on the part of the Admiralty and the Treasury to grant any fresh boons to a class of whom that might be said. He made these remarks, not with the view of speaking hardly against these classes, but simply for the purpose of expressing his belief that there was no great prospect of any change being made in this matter for the present, at any rate. He was quite aware that a Committee had sat some time ago, and had made wide recommendations. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) thought that the whole matter should be referred to a Committee—the hon. and gallant Member had said that he would hand over, not only these classes, but the whole question of the men of the Dockyards, to the consideration of a Committee. Well, what did that mean? According to his (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's) view, it simply meant that the Admiralty should hand over its own proper functions and responsibility to a Committee. A Committee was not directly responsible to the country, to the taxpayers, and to this House, as was the Board of Admiralty; and then it was very easy for a Committee to recommend a very generous extension of pay and pensions, because a Committee would not afterwards have to face the difficulty of obtaining the money with which to carry out such alterations. With regard to what had been said by the Dockyard Members, he did not wish to question their motives—in fact, it would not be proper for him to do so. The Dockyard Members called attention to the grievances of their constituents, as they had a perfect right to do, and he had no doubt they were perfectly satisfied that there was ample foundation for the claims they made. What, however, might be said was that these hon. Gentlemen would be less likely to take into account the general question of the public interest than the individual merits of the cases brought forward; but the Admiralty were bound to look at the matter from both points of view. An hon. Member had asked when the Committee on the Constructors' Department would publish their Report. Well, that Committee, which had been presided over by his hon. Friend near him, had made a very long inquiry, and had come to a conclusion, and had presented a most interesting and valuable Report. It had only just, within the last two or three days, come back from the Treasury, and it would be laid shortly on the Table of the House, so that hon. Members would have an opportunity of seeing what it contained. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought he had now dealt with all the points that had been raised which required an answer. Many things had been said which he had not answered; but those he would look into. The general question as to petty officers and warrant officers was being inquired into by the Admiralty at this moment, and if they found that the points which had been made in their favour were good, and could be maintained, of course they should be ready to meet them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Price) had made a statement, on a former occasion, which he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) found afterwards was inconsistent with the experience of the Admiralty. He had said that there was a difficulty in getting men to take the position of chief petty officers in the Navy. [Captain PRICE: No, no.] Well, he understood from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that was not so; at any rate, it was not the fact that there was any difficulty in getting chief petty officers to accept that position.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, with regard to corporal punishment, he must say he did not think what had fallen from the Secretary to the Admiralty could be considered very satisfactory. It had been pointed out by his right hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir John Hay) that it became the duty of the Admiralty to establish some alternative punishment when corporal punishment was abolished. He (Mr. A. F. Egerton) ventured to say, without the least committing himself to the idea that it was possible to go back to corporal punishment, that the result of its abolition had been very far from satisfactory. Why, the Returns from which the hon. Member (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) quoted showed at once that the particular crime that was most dangerous to the discipline of the Service—namely, that of striking superior officers, had been materially on the increase since the deterrent punishment had been abolished. When he (Mr. A. F. Egerton) held the Office now held by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), he had been obliged to defend corporal punishment to the best of his ability for several reasons, and a very unpleasant duty he had found it. The ground upon which they had gone at that time was simply that it was almost impossible to devise a punishment that could take the place of flogging. They had never been able to devise an alternative punishment; and the present Admiralty had had to try its hand, and, he was sorry to say, without much success. However, it was quite plain that they could not return to the punishment which had been abolished by the House of Commons. They must make the best of the existing state of things, and he certainly hoped the Admiralty would endeavour to do so. There was one question on which the hon. Gentleman opposite had said nothing, and it was one which it appeared to him (Mr. A. F. Egerton) had caused a very considerable amount of dissatisfaction in the Service—he meant the question of the admission of officers of the Royal Marine Artillery. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman or his Colleagues wished to make any change in the condition of the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery; but, perhaps, he would give the Committee a little information on that point. As to what the hon. Gentleman had told them—and very interesting information it was—with regard to the numbers in which officers had been recently appointed to the Royal Marine Light Infantry, and the numbers who had passed out of their examinations, he thought the state of things was, to a certain extent, satisfactory; but still, though some of the gentlemen who had passed out with high honours had selected the Marines, it was the fact that there was this year some 12 or 13 rejected at Sandhurst, who had, since their rejection, been appointed to the Marines. So long as such a practice as that existed, it could not be considered to be satisfactory; and it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) was quite right in drawing the attention of the Committee to the manner in which these officers were at present admitted. There was one other point to which he should like to refer before sitting down. He should like to ask whether, at this moment, the recruiting for the Navy was well kept up? Did the numbers recruited tally with the numbers voted? By the last Returns, which were now upwards of three months old, the condition of things appeared satisfactory enough; and if the Admiralty could give any newer Return as to the mode in which the Navy and Marines were being maintained, it would be of advantage.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

was understood to say that, at the present moment, the number of men in the Navy was 410 under the number voted, and the Marines 200 under the Establishment. The Engine-Room staff was five over the Establishment; and, speaking generally, he thought he might say there was no great falling away. With regard to the Marine Artillery officers, he had no figures in his hands to begin with; but he would look into this matter, and also other matters the hon. and gallant Member had referred to.

MR. GOURLEY

said, he was very glad to hear that there was no fear of a recurrence to corporal punishment in the Navy. To his mind, nothing more degrading than flogging could be applied to the class of men the Navy was now becoming composed of. In the old days he had witnessed flogging himself, and he had no hesitation in saying that there was nothing more objectionable, and nothing more detrimental to the character of the man who was punished and his fellows, or anything more detrimental to his conduct and to the maintenance of discipline on board a ship. With the increased amount of education with which the men were now furnished, any return to flogging would be the means of introducing a far lower kind of discipline than that which had been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. His opinion was that a great deal of the insubordination and bad discipline which they saw in the Navy arose from the over-severity of many Commanders. The time had come when Commanders in the Navy should give more personal attention to the wants of the men on board their ships. He had not the slightest doubt that those officers who exercised the highest discipline were sure to have the most insubordination; but, on the other hand, if the officers would pay more attention to the susceptibilities of the men, and give more consideration to their personal wants and the comfort of their lives on board ship, and their recreation, he was sure that everything in the shape of insubordination would very soon disappear from the Service. He would make a suggestion to the Admiralty with regard to their treatment of the men on shore. They found, as a rule, that the seamen when paid off had placed before them as their only recreation the lowest class of public-houses. He was quite sure that hon. Gentlemen, who had been to Portsmouth and to Devon-port, would bear him out when he said that the quays of the Dockyards were literally crammed with public-houses of the worst description; and he was satisfied that the first thing they ought to do, if they thought drinking habits were a cause of insubordination, should be to root out a great number of these drinking shops, and, in the place of them, provide some buildings for rational recreation—there was no reason in the world why that should not be done. Why could not the Admiralty set up reading rooms in these places? There were places where accommodation could be made for providing recreation for 300, 400, or 500 men. Let the Admiralty provide these places; let them supply the men with all the daily papers and with some light literature. [Laughter.] Hon. Members seemed to despise that suggestion; but they forgot that they had just heard that the men were now better educated than they used to be. The more they developed the intelligence of the men in the Navy the better it would be, and the way to do that was for the Admiralty to provide them with good reading matter and the means of rational education. Let the Admiralty provide them, not only with literature, but with music and the means of physical recreation. They found themselves one of the best means of recreation was lawn tennis—why not let their sailors have that amusement? It was exceedingly inexpensive, and it would be the means of preventing the sailors from frequenting the public-houses, which was a great cause of mischief. He would not detain the Committee; but he wished to say one word as to the Naval Discipline Bill. He was exceedingly glad that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay) had succeeded in preventing the Secretary to the Admiralty proceeding with that Bill. Of all the measures ever introduced into this House as a substitute for flogging, he had never heard of one so severe in its form and character as that of the Secretary to the Admiralty. It simply amounted to this, that the lives of the seamen on board our ships in the Navy would have been placed in the hands of young men—young, inexperienced officers of only 20 or 25 years of age—and he felt convinced of this, that, if it had passed, it would have been attended with the most serious evils; but he did not believe that it ever would have passed the House of Commons. If the Bill had been brought before the House, the objectionable clause to which attention had been called would never have passed. He believed that it would be much better even to revert to flogging once more than to pass such a clause as that.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he had already addressed the Committee once; but he hoped he should be allowed indulgence to make a few observations, as a naval officer, upon something that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He hoped the hon. Member did not mean what he had said with regard to the increase of crime in the Navy; but what he did say was, that all this increase was due to the fact that the officers in command of Her Majesty's ships did not pay any attention to the requirements of the men under their charge—that they were not in the habit of showing a conciliatory spirit, and that a great deal of the crime in the Navy was due to that fact.

MR. GOURLEY

said, he had been anxious to convey this, that the men in the Navy, in consequence of improved education, required to be treated in a more conciliatory spirit, and that it had become necessary for Commanders to pay more attention to their personal wants. He had maintained that by doing that they would secure better discipline. He had not for a moment intended to say that the officers on board Her Majesty's ships exceeded in anyway their duty in administering punishment; he must not be taken as having accused the officers of undue severity.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he was glad the hon. Gentleman had modified his statement; but he had certainly understood him to say that the increase of crime in the Navy was due to the severity of the commanders. He (Captain Price) was sure there were no men in the country more humane than the officers on board Her Majesty's ships. They were in the habit of doing all they could for the comfort of their men; they encouraged every kind of amusement, and were constantly anxious for the well-being of the men under their charge. He was sure it was not at all due to any want of attention to the requirements of the men that this particular class of crime was increasing. He should like to ask the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gourley) upon what ships he had obtained his experience?

MR. GOURLEY

said, he had not had the honour to serve upon one of Her Majesty's ships; but the statements, he had made had been the result of reading and of observation.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £182,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, that before the Committee passed this Vote he felt it his duty to move a reduction of the salary of the First Lord. He would propose that the salary of the First Lord should be reduced by £1,000. He took it to be the duty of the First Lord of the Admiralty, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Ministers, to see that efficient arrangements were made for the protection of British interests in various quarters of the globe—especially to afford protection to the shipping of this country. Questions had lately been addressed to the Representatives of the Admiralty in this and the other House, with a view of ascertaining what further steps had been taken for the protection of the British interests on the Coast of Madagascar. There could be no doubt that British interests were seriously threatened at the time when these Questions were asked, and that our Naval Force on that station was altogether inadequate to the demands of the Public Service. He was speaking to the Question in considering whether the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Government had discharged their duty on this particular matter—and he did not intend to go into details on the questions connected with Madagascar which were now agitating the public mind. It would be necessary to wait for fuller information than they had at present; but he wished to bring before the Committee and the Admiralty the importance of strengthening, and materially strengthening, our Naval Force on that particular station. The Naval Force at present on the Coast of Madagascar—that was to say, at Tamatave—consisted only of two ships; indeed, it was doubtful whether there were two. Probably there was only one small vessel there, one having been sent to Zanzibar with despatches. At the outside, these two ships were the Dryad steamship of nine guns, and the Dragon, a composite ship of six guns only. These were the only men-of-war in that part of the world to defend the interests of British commerce and to defend British subjects. On the other hand, we knew that France had a large and important Squadron, numbering seven or eight vessels, some of them very powerful. What was done when we were involved in a difficulty with what might be called a semi-civilized nation—when we were in dispute, for instance, with Egypt or Turkey, or Powers of that kind? Why, the Navy was immediately strengthened with overwhelming force directly the interests of England were threatened, as had been done at Alexandria.

MR. D. JENKINS

wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in going into these matters on the Vote before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

I must say I hardly think the state of the French Fleet at the Island of Madagascar has anything to do with the Vote for the Admiralty.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, that before he had taken this course he had consulted Members of experience, and had been told that he would be perfectly in Order, on the Vote including the sum for the First Lord's salary, to raise the question of Naval Policy; and he would ask the Chairman whether he was not in Order, in supporting a Motion for the reduction of this Vote, by demonstrating that the First Lord had not performed his duty, but had neglected to despatch a sufficiently powerful Squadron to Madagascar?

THE CHAIRMAN

I would remind the hon. Member that we have already devoted three or four nights to the discussion of the Naval Policy of the Government. It was only by means of an understanding arrived at in the Committee—to my mind a very irregular understanding—that the same privileges should be granted upon this Vote as were allowed upon Vote I. We have had a full discussion upon the Naval Policy of the Government; and now the hon. Member, on Vote II., for the Admiralty Office, proposes to raise another discussion upon it—upon the policy of the First Lord of the Admiralty in not having sent a larger Force to the Island of Madagascar. It seems to me that to go into that subject would be to exceed the limits allowed on the Vote. Of course, I must judge as to whether or not the hon. Gentleman is in Order according to the observations he makes.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he had not made these observations on Vote I., because it had seemed to him it would be more convenient that he should make them upon the present occasion. He would remind the Chairman that the question he was discussing did not arise whilst the Votes the right hon. Gentleman had referred to had been under discussion. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) would now confine himself, however, to merely moving that reduction on the grounds he had stated—namely, that the existing Force at the Island of Madagascar, consisting of two small ships only, was altogether inadequate to defend the honour of the British Flag, which had been grievously affronted, and to defend British commerce against the injury which had been inflicted upon it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £181,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."—(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett.)

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he was prevented from making any reply, as this subject was obviously out of place on the present Vote. The question of the particular strength of a Squadron was settled by the Government, and not by the First Lord of the Admiralty himself—it was rather a question of Foreign Policy than of Naval Policy. As he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) apprehended, what the hon. Gentleman said was not this or that, but that he had not received sufficient information. Her Majesty's Government were perfectly alive to the necessities of the case, and knew the means which should be taken to meet them much better than the hon. Gentleman.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he hoped that the Committee would not be put to the trouble of a Division on this question. The grave occurrences to which the hon. Member had called attention were of such import, that the House was hardly in a position to discuss them on the present occasion. He, for one, would not like to take the responsibility of doing so, and therefore he would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, that, of course, he should not think of dividing the Committee in the face of an expression of opinion from such a quarter; but he must protest against the idea that he desired to go into any political question which might be at issue between themselves and the French Government. He had merely wished to discuss the question of our Naval Force at Madagascar, and, before attempting to do so, he had taken the best advice he could get on the subject. [Laughter.] He saw the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) laughing, and he was at a loss to know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should receive his remarks in that fashion; he certainly had not sought the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he had taken that of other and higher authorities.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) £195,800, Coast Guard Service and Royal Naval Reserves, &c.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he wished to ask a question upon this Vote. Under Sub-head 3, he saw the Reserve of Seamen and Marines was increasing, and doing fairly well; and provision was now made for 1,750 for this year. Had the Admiralty considered the matter, to which he had alluded on one or two previous occasions, as to the means of inducing men to join the Pensioners' Reserve? One means of inducement, which he disapproved of entirely, was by paying pensions at the age of 50, instead of 55, out of the Greenwich Hospital Fund. He was not quite sure whether the question ought to be discussed on this Vote or on the Greenwich Hospital Vote; but, as the item occurred in Vote III., he thought it would not be out of Order to put the question.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the question which the hon. Member put was, whether they had considered the point of there being a sum to induce the men to join the Reserve, which should be charged upon the Navy Estimates rather than upon the Greenwich Hospital Fund? He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had looked into the matter very carefully, and, besides that, it had been fully considered some years ago, when the late Government were in Office. There had been a large amount of correspondence upon it, and the final decision arrived at was that the charges should be left as they were, there not seeming to be any sufficient reason for making an alteration. That was how the present Government found it, and he did not know that they were disposed to alter the position of the matter.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, that, in accordance with a Notice he had put upon the Paper of the House, he wished to call attention to the present condition of the training of the Royal Naval Re-serves; and it must be understood that in whatever he said he was not in any way actuated by a desire to be unduly critical. He had no remark to make against anyone in regard to the Force under discussion; but he thought that when they had a Service which cost so much money it was necessary for them to consider whether its means of utility might not be greatly increased in the event of its becoming necessary in time of war. They all knew, or most of them knew, that the First Class Naval Reserve was established in 1858, and that the Commission which led to its establishment distinctly pointed out that the men who composed the Force should be those who did not live a long way from the port from which they hailed. He had no doubt that his hon. Friend the Lord of the Admiralty who had sat opposite to him (Sir Thomas Brassey) would entirely agree with him when he said that instead of being taken from the class who were coming away from the port from which they hailed, they were virtually selected from those men who were scattered all around. If he had had any doubt upon that point—which he had not—that doubt would have been removed by the very able Report which had been made by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, on the close of his command of the Reserve Squadron. At the close of his Report, His Royal Highness said he thought it was a question whether the practice of rating seamen from ships of the Mercantile Marine on the outbreak of war might not prove disastrous to the trade of the country, and it might be a matter to which consideration should be given, in that distinct connection, whether it would not be well to reduce and restrict the enrolment of the First Class to a select number of good seamen. In that he (Lord Henry Lennox) entirely agreed with His Royal Highness. First of all, let them consider what was the expense of this Force. They got an annual retainer of £6, and the cost of their uniform, and so on, amounted to £10 4s. The men of the First Class Reserve had to go through 26 days' drill, and, therefore, the country paid 8s. 2d. per day for that drill—and a very large amount he considered it to be for any defensive Force whatever. As he had already stated, the great object of this Force was to provide the means of defence in the event of sudden war; but it was entirely drawn from the Merchant Service, and was, therefore, at all times scattered all over the world. In the case of a sudden emergency, it was a matter of extreme doubt as to how many of the men they could collect together. His Royal Highness, in his Report, made it appear that the number would be infinitesimally small. The next point he (Lord Henry Lennox) had to refer to was that the men in the First Classs numbered 11,100, whilst the Second Class was only to be 5,500; so that they were keeping up a large Force which would, on an emergency, be away from the country, and, at the same time, keeping up the Force which would be always at home at a very much smaller figure. He ought to remind the Committee that the Commission which sat in 1858–9 declared that there were some 100,000 merchant seamen from whom Her Majesty's Government could select 30,000 men. But experience showed that, instead of having 100,000 men to choose from, they had not more than 30,000, and that instead of getting 30,000 men they could not get more than 12,000 out of the 30,000, and that out of that 12,000 they could not count on more than 5,000 being available in case of sudden war. The Lord of the Admiralty opposite (Sir Thomas Brassey) entirely agreed with him in his opinion that it would be entirely upon the Second Class Reserve that they would mainly have to depend, and that that Class should, therefore, be largely increased in number. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, referring to this Class, had declared it to be the finest body of men he had ever seen. He had stated that they were brought up to hab its of sea-fishing and sailing, and to the management of sea-going boats, and he said that if these men were properly trained and disciplined they would counteract any feelings of anxiety with regard to the defences of the country. How was it that they were not more efficient than they might be if they were properly disciplined? The Duke of Edinburgh's Report was well worthy of attention on this matter. It was said that the reason of the great disorganization was that there was not some place to which the men could be attached. His Royal Highness considered it very important that large bodies of men should be drilled together in one place, and contended that such training was better and far less expensive than the training of small detachments; and he was further of opinion that in this way the men would be more easily got ready and would be found to be more useful when their services were required on an emergency. He would suggest to the Government whether they could not establish in connection with these Reserves some large depôt where large bodies could be drilled together; and he would also suggest that a better opportunity should be given to the officers for rendering the men efficient. Lastly, he would press upon his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Thomas Brassey) whether he did not think that the time had come when some definite scheme should be prepared to show how these men were to be made use of in the event of a sudden war, particularly of a great war. At present, there was no scheme whatever. The men were going about here and there, and there was no plan by which they could be utilized in the event of danger to the country. There was another remark he desired to make, and that was with regard to the Flying Squadron. Was it well that young seamen should be sent off in the slow ships which composed the Flying Squadron, and should be flying about the ocean for three years? He maintained that they ought not to be away so long, and that we ought to have small squadrons of fast ships. If the Committee could only persuade the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to bring forward for Commission the Shah and the Inconstant, and other really fast frigates, and send them out as a Flying Squadron for three months, a great deal would be done to improve the efficiency of our Second Class Naval Reserve; and he was sure we should have a much more valuable system for our money than we got at the present time. He felt that this matter was quite safe in the hands of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), for he was quite aware of the interest the hon. Gentleman took in the subject, having had the privilege of a private conversation with him appertaining to it. He knew how much the hon. Gentleman had at heart the rendering of this Service efficient. He (Lord Henry Lennox) did not wish to do any more on this occasion than to draw the attention of his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to this matter, and to ask him whether he would kindly give the Committee and the country some assurance that he was taking this matter in hand, and that in the course of the next year we should have this Force more eligible for the service of the country?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) was fully justified in the confidence which he expressed in the First Lord of the Admiralty and his Colleagues. He could assure the noble Lord that nothing on their part would be wanting to increase the efficiency of the Force. The noble Lord expressed some doubt as to the numbers of the Naval Reserve which would be available for service if they were required. He (Sir Thomas Brassey) was sorry he had not in his possession the exact figures which would be necessary to supply the Committee with the information which was asked for by the noble Lord; but he had had a very recent opportunity of going over the Returns, which were in the possession of Sir Anthony Hoskins, who was now absent with the First Reserve Fleet; and he (Sir Thomas Brassey) was able to state that a very large proportion of seamen in the First Class Reserve were engaged in the home trade, in the trade with the Baltic, in the Mediterranean, and in the great Steam Service in the North Atlantic. In point of fact, the introduction of steam, while it had, to a certain extent, diminished the opportunity of training large bodies of men in the art of seamenship, had given some compensation in the facility which we now possessed of bringing the Naval Reserve together if their services were required. With regard to the immediate wants of the Navy for the equipment even of a large Fleet in operations of war, there were ample numbers in the Regular Service of the Navy; and the conviction of those who were directly responsible for the efficiency of the Navy was that men would undoubtedly come in from the Naval Reserve as fast as ships could be prepared in which they could be embarked for service. Although the noble Lord expressed some doubt as to how far we should be able to lay our hands on the men of the First Class Naval Reserve when we wanted them, he did not go so far as to say we could afford to dispense with the First Class Naval Reserve; and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, in his Report, while pointing to the difficulty which might be experienced in bringing the First Class Reserve men together in large numbers at the moment they were wanted, did not propose to dispense with the First Class Reserve. What he (Lord Henry Lennox) did recommend was an increase in the Second Class Reserve. That was, in point of fact, the main suggestion in the very valuable Report prepared by His Royal Highness on resigning his command as Admiral Superintendent of the Reserve; and he (Sir Thomas Brassey) had, in a previous statement in the House, informed hon. Members that the Admiralty had sanctioned an increase in the Second Class Reserve, as proposed by His Royal Highness, and that they intended to raise the strength of that Reserve to 10,000 men. They were confident that this number could readily be raised, and they were certain that such a Reserve would prove most valuable. The noble Lord pointed out the great advantage of drilling the Naval Reserve men in large bodies. Wherever the Admiralty had an opportunity of doing so, they were anxious to carry out the instruction in the manner recommended by the Duke of Edinburgh; and he believed that, in those parts where the largest number of the Second Class Naval Reserve were enrolled, they would be able, especially in the winter months, to secure the attendance of a large number of men for drill. At Stornaway, at Kirkwall, and at Lerwick it would be found by the noble Lord that the training of the Naval Reserve, especially in the winter months, would be highly satisfactory. The noble Lord stated that no scheme had ever been matured for availing ourselves of the services of the Naval Reserve. He (Sir Thomas Brassey) was not called upon to enter into details; but he believed that a scheme was prepared by his Predecessor in Office for embarking the Naval Reserve, in case the relations of this country with Foreign Powers, during the anxieties of the Eastern Question, had rendered it necessary to equip a large War Fleet. With regard to numbers, when the Admiralty had completed the Second Class Reserve, the total strength of the Reserve would not be less than 20,000 men. That represented an increase of 3,000 men over the maximum strength which had hitherto been enrolled; but, as it fell short of the numbers which were considered necessary by the last Royal Commission, to whom the question of the manning of the Navy was referred, it might be a question how far the Force, as now proposed, would really be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Navy. The subject was at this moment receiving the most attentive consideration of a Departmental Committee, under the guidance of Captain Tryon. The labours of that Committee were still incomplete; but he was able to put the Committee in possession of the general results. For the ships now in commission we required a Force of 27,000 men and 4,800 Marines; for the ships which could be commissioned in three months we should require an additional Force of 16,000 seamen and 2,600 Marines; for the ships which could be commissioned in 12 months an additional Force of 10,000 seamen and 1,500 Marines would be required; and these figures provided for an ample Supplementary Force for gunboats, torpedo boats, and a considerable number of Mercantile Auxiliaries. The total requirements, therefore, for an immediate emergency would be, as he had stated, some 63,000 men. To meet these requirements we had now serving in the Fleet of the seamen class, 31,000; Coastguard, 4,000; in the Naval Reserve, 17,000, to be increased, as he had said, to 20,000; Seamen Pensioners' Reserve, 17,000; Naval Volunteers, who would be valuable for harbour service, 1,400; and Marines, 12,000. In addition, we had in the Pensioners' Reserve, under 50 years' of age, a force of 4,000. These figures showed a total force of 72,000 men, or 10,000 in excess of the extreme requirements on the outbreak of war. In regard to ships, a considerable number now in commission could scarcely be regarded as fighting ships; and, for the Mercantile Auxiliaries, it would not be necessary that the crew should have received the high training which was given to men on a man-of-war. For ships of this class we might with confidence look to the Mercantile Marine to supply both the officers and the crews which were required. The noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) referred to the training of our seamen. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the question received the most anxious attention of the Board of Admiralty. It was admitted that there was a certain lapse of time between the completion of the training and the appointment of young seamen to a sea-going vessel. He did not hesitate to say that such a Flying Squadron as the noble Lord recommended would be an admirable school of seamanship, and that it would be of the greatest service to the Navy if the voyages were loss extended, and if the squadrons returned at more frequent intervals. He hoped the information he had given would be satisfactory to the Committee.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, at the bottom of page 26 he found the following note:— 20,000 has been for some years the recognized number of men to be raised to the Royal Naval Reserve; the number now enrolled is 17,183, and it is probable that the total number borne during the year will not exceed 18,000. If he turned to page 5 of the Duke of Edinburgh's Report on the Royal Naval Reserve, he understood it was intended to increase the Second Class Naval Reserve to 10,000 men. It would be seen, however, that the First Class Reserve was not to be increased this year so largely as was recommended, namely—up to 20,000. As he understood, the reason why the whole number of men were not to be enrolled was the necessity for further preparations in the Isle of Man and the Orkneys. He desired to say that from personal knowledge of the matter, and from inquiries he had made, he was aware there was no difficulty whatever in enrolling men in the Isle of Man. He did not know what the result of the inquiries was as to the Orkneys. He would, however, like to be informed whether the preparations necessary had been made; whether arrangements were being made for drill sheds at Kirkwall; and whether, when the sheds were completed, the additional enrolments in the Second Class Reserve would take place immediately? He would, also, like to know whether next year the Committee could calculate on the First Class Naval Reserve being raised to 20,000 men, at which number it was recommended the Force should be maintained in future?

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, there was no more valuable station for the Naval Reserve than Stornoway. He understood from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) that a battery was being made there. He (Mr. A. F. Egerton) would like to know how soon the battery would be completed, so that the actual organization of the Reserve might be completed also?

MR. STEWART MACLIVER

said, that various applications had been made for enrolment in the Naval Artillery Volunteer Force, and, hitherto, those applications had met with a direct negative from the Admiralty. He was anxious to know in what position the Naval Artillery Volunteers stood; and whether the Admiralty were now prepared to receive applications for enrolment?

SIR JOHN J. JENKINS

said, that the matter raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Macliver) demanded serious attention. There was no doubt that the Naval Artillery Volunteers had distinguished themselves in the short time they had been in training; and if the Government would give them the same encouragement as was given to other Volunteers, he had no doubt that the Naval Artillery Volunteers would become a most valuable Corps for the protection of harbours and coast defences in the Kingdom.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, he was glad to be able to inform his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton) that the batteries to which they referred were in progress, and that everything would be prepared for the drills of the Reserve next year. As soon as the preparations were completed the numbers which were proposed would be enrolled. That statement extended to the Isle of Man. The Naval Artillery Volunteers was a Force in which he had taken a lively interest, and he regretted that some disappointment should be felt at the refusal of the Board of Admiralty to make the capitation grant. Before any change could be made in the constitution of an extremely patriotic, and, he hoped, a useful Force, it was necessary to receive the final decision of the Committee, who had long been engaged in considering the whole question of the defences of the commercial harbours. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) and his hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir John Jenkins) would hot be disappointed when he said that the Admiralty could not entertain the idea of a capitation grant, which on the first constitution of the Force was distinctly refused by the Volunteers, unless the necessity of making a grant was confirmed by the opinion of those high authorities to whom the question of the defences of the commercial harbours of the country had been referred. He should like to say that one concession had been made to the Naval Volunteers this year, which, he was sure, was very highly appreciated by the members of the Force. His hon. Friends would be aware that last year, and the year before, the Admiralty were not able to place at the disposal of the Naval Volunteers the gun-boats which they had previously provided during the summer months. They had, however, been able to make that provision this year; and he believed it was appreciated by the great majority of the Naval Volunteers to a far greater extent than the capitation grant would be.

MR. D. JENKINS

said, he hoped it was not the intention of the Admiralty to reduce the First Class Reserve. For the Reserve, they ought to secure the best men who could be got out of the Merchant Navy; and, from an economical point of view, he questioned the advisability of increasing the number of the Second Class Naval Reserve.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £113,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he was sorry to see that the cost of the Coast Survey had this year been reduced by £391. In his opinion, the expenditure on the Coast Survey was the most legitimate expenditure of public money that could be authorized by the Committee. At present, the Crofters' Commission were investigating certain subjects in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, and in the Shetland Islands alone there were 14 dangerous rocks, none of which had been buoyed, marked, or duly guarded. We had lost one ship already on that coast; and, under all the circumstances of the case, he could not consider that the saving of £391 for Coast Survey was an economical arrangement. Perhaps his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would say something as to the reason of the saving?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he understood that the officers employed in the survey of the Coast had recently been changed, and he imagined that the reduction of £391 was merely accidental, and did not in any way affect the efficiency or completeness or extent of the Survey.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he meant to cast no reflection upon anyone, and no one deserved more respect than the Hydrographer; but he regretted to see economy in a direction in which he thought some increased expenditure would have been wise.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he should greatly regret any diminution in this item, for we could not too carefully attend to our coasts, and to the bed of the ocean. But this year the sum of £18,000 was deducted on account of appropriations in aid; and, unless this was watched, great confusion would arise through there being an apparent reduction, whereas there had simply been a sale of stores in aid of expenditure. And if this sale-money failed to be realized, then the balance available would not be spent on the Surveys. He would take the opportunity of saying that a promise had been given that Members should have a statistical book connected with the Navy similar to that in the Army, and he thought that was very necessary, as without it Members could not speak on the subjects which were brought forward with that minute accuracy so necessary for efficient control. He hoped that book would be produced this year; and, seeing the great importance of the financial part of the question, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would also supply financial information, so that every Member might have the details of past years' transactions at his command.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

wished to ask a question with respect to the Australian service. In 1878 or 1879 there was some dispute between the Colony of Queensland and the Admiralty as to the expenses to be shared with respect to the Surveys of the Torres Straits, and the coral reefs on the coast of New Guinea. He wished to know whether those Surveys were in progress, and whether the matter had been settled?

MR. GOURLEY

said, he objected to the system of training engineer students, and he believed that quite as good engineers could be obtained at less expense.

SIR JOHN HAY

asked for information as to Lighthouses, and as to the Surveys in the Red Sea, which the Secretary to the Admiralty had had under consideration?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he should be very glad to co-operate with his hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir George Balfour), for he knew the value of the Statistical Abstract issued with regard to the Army, giving at the beginning of every Session the latest information as far as possible. He had made an attempt to ascertain how much of this information could be got together with reference to the Navy, and he had made some way in the matter. He was not without hope of being able to go a little further another year; but he did not wish to make any definite promise, because the hon. and gallant Member was so strict in holding him to promises. He understood that the Australian Surveys were proceeding, and that the arrangement was that the Colony should pay half the cost. With regard to engineering students, the whole system was no doubt very elaborate, and in some sense expensive, but as far as the Admiralty could judge it was very successful. They were anxious to get the best scientific engineers into the Service, and for the last examination there were 218 candidates for 25 vacancies. That showed that the position was a good deal sought after, and the class of candidates was considered quite satisfactory by professional officers. As to the Lighthouses, he could give no information, as they were not under the Admiralty. [Sir JOHN HAY: They apply to the safety of Her Majesty's ships.] The Admiralty were not responsible for them; and with respect to the Red Sea, all he could say was that a ship was being expressly fitted out for the Surveys in the Red Sea.

MR. GOURLEY

asked what was the cost per head of the engineer students?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

replied, that he could not at the moment state the exact cost.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he was as far off as ever. He wished to know how it was that in 1881–2 there were no appropriations in aid, and now there was this large sum of £18,000 taken?

MR. D. JENKINS

said, he thought the item for engineer students was very large. He could not see why the country should be put to such expense.

MR. JAMES STEWART

asked what arrangements were made for the distribution of marine charts to the public?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the agent who had been employed for many years (Mr. Potter) to manage that work had recently died. The question of what was the best way of supplying charts to the public was the subject of a correspondence going on now between the Board of Trade and the Admiralty, and he had no doubt some conclusion would shortly be arrived at. Mr. Potter's son was continued in the post provisionally.

MR. GORST

said, he should move the reduction of this Vote by the item for the maintenance of the Britannia, as that was the only way by which he could call attention to the unsatisfactory condition of that school for boys, which the Admiralty persisted in maintaining at such great cost to the country. This was the most expensive school in the country. The net cost was £280 for each boy, and that was far in excess of the most expensive public school, and of the £280 only £70 were paid by the parents; so that the country had to pay £210 for every little boy before he was of any practical value. Not only was this a very expensive school, but there was good reason to believe that it was an exceedingly bad school in regard to education. No doubt the old-fashioned usher, who used to grind a great deal of knowledge into boys, was a thing of the past; and the modern assistant-master was a very different person, his chief object being to teach boys to instruct themselves, and to save himself as much trouble as possible. He had no hesitation in saying that if any boy picked from any English public or private school was compared with a boy from a German gymnasium he would be found extremely deficient in education. He did not suppose that one out of 20 English boys was educated according to the examination which every German boy was required to pass before he could become a member of any intellectual profession. But, bad as our schools were, the Britannia was worse than any of them. The last official information available on this school was contained in a Report made by an Examiner five or six years ago, in which he said the boys could not construe French or Latin, and could not use their dictionaries. In 1880, the first year of the present Government, Lord Dalhousie, then a Member of this House (as Lord Ramsay), having been Commander of the Britannia, told the Committee of Supply of that Session that the whole education and management of that ship was exceedingly bad. He said our officers were worse educated and trained than the officers of any other nation; and he generally gave such an account of this ship that it attracted the attention of the Admiralty and of the House. The reason why he now persisted, as some Members might say, in referring to this question, was that it was an example of the contempt with which the Admiralty regarded the House of Commons. It showed how completely helpless the Committee of Supply was; what very little effect they could produce on the Admiralty, and how they regarded the Committee with the most consummate contempt, and would not permit their designs and plans to be in any way influenced by the judgment of the House. In 1880 there was a discussion on the subject, as he had said, in which this remarkable speech was made by Lord Ramsay; and the First Commissioner of Works, who was then Secretary to the Admiralty, promised an inquiry, with a view to a reform, and stated that the training of naval cadets was a matter to which the Admiralty were most keenly alive. In 1881 nothing had been done, and the then Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan), who was himself distinguished for his knowledge of, and interest in, educational matters, really took the matter so much to heart that some Members were, at the time, deceived, and thought some steps would be taken. Among other matters then discussed was the question of examinations. The very unsatisfactory nature of the examinations which had been passed by boys on the Britannia was pointed out, and the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was called to the fact that all the public schools submitted the boys to examination by Examiners appointed by an officer of the Cambridge Syndicate, and that a Report of the results was laid before the school authorities and the boys' parents, and that the public also had access to it. In that way what the boys were doing could be seen. In 1882 the present Secretary to the Admiralty was now in his Office, and he could not be pressed too severely on the subject. There was very little discussion last year, but strong hopes were entertained that the hon. Gentleman would signalize his advent to Office by some vigorous measure of reform. Certainly, he thought most hon. Members were willing to believe that something was likely to be done; but their hopes were greatly dashed at the beginning of this Session by an answer given by the hon. Gentleman to a Question respecting Examiners. He was asked whether examinations had taken place according to the pledge of his Predecessor, and whether the results could be laid upon the Table. His answer was that examinations had taken place, but that the Admiralty did not consider it advisable, in the interests of the Public Service, that Members of this House should have access to the results. He really thought that that was, on the part of the Admiralty, one of the coolest and most impudent attempts to hoodwink the House of Commons ever committed. He should like to know who had a right to see the state of education on the Britannia so much as the people who paid for it? Did the Admiralty think they were keeping up this ship with their own funds, and that it was impudence on the part of Members to ask for information? The school was kept up by the taxes of the people whom hon. Members represented. This sum of £20 per boy was taken from the earnings of working men and tradesmen; and it was the duty of Members to see that the money was properly spent, and that the school was efficient. For the Admiralty to send a message to this House saying that they had had the examinations made, but that the Report was not to be made public, was one of the coolest proceedings he had ever heard of. He had, therefore, no other course open to him but to move for the reduction of the whole amount asked for, in order to raise a question which ought to be answered, to show whether this school was more efficient than it was two years ago when Lord Ramsay made his speech. If the Admiralty would not lay the Report on the Table, as they ought to do, at all events they might tell the House whether the Report was favourable or not, and whether the boys were still unable to construe French and Latin, or to use their dictionaries. There was another matter connected with this subject. At the same time, when the condition of this school was brought under the notice of the House of Commons, a question was raised as to whether we were right in being the only nation in the world to appoint boys to be naval officers at the extremely tender age of 10 and 12 years. There was not another Naval Power in the whole world which appointed boys as officers until they had attained the age of 16 or 18 years. We never thought of appointing a boy to be a Marine officer until he was 18 years of age, or to be an Artillery or Engineer officer until he had attained the ripe age of 17 or 18 years. The question was asked whether it was possible to appoint our naval officers at an age more like that adopted by other nations, when they could go to sea and learn their profession. It was the greatest mistake to suppose that there was anything taught on the Britannia that could not be taught in any other school. There was some navigation taught, and the boys learned the names of a few ropes; but he had no doubt the education given in the Greenwich School was quite as nautical. No answer was given to this question, and the matter had been allowed to drop. This was no fancy of non-naval men; the matter was started by men of great weight; but it was treated by the Admiralty, like other matters, with the most sovereign contempt, and he supposed no notice had yet been taken of the subject. In order to enable the Secretary to the Admiralty to answer this question, he begged to move the reduction of this Vote by £9,181, the cost of training cadets on board the Britannia.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £103,919, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."'—(Mr. Gorst.)

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he hardly knew what answer to give the hon. and learned Gentleman, because whatever he might say would probably be taken as a fresh instance of the sovereign contempt with which the hon. and learned Gentleman said the Admiralty was in the habit of treating the House.

MR. GORST

I did not say the hon. Gentleman; I said the Board of Admiralty.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised two points, the main point being whether the Admiralty were right in taking boys into the Service and training them at an early age. He had spoken of this as an easy question to solve, and as if it had been settled all on one side by the opinions of naval officers. But, unfortunately, as far as they could make out, the balance of opinions amongst naval officers was all the other way—that was to say, it was in favour of this early entrance of cadets in the Navy. No doubt, foreign nations followed a different system; but he was always very suspicious of contrasts with foreign nations in matters of this kind, and he did not think they should necessarily follow the example of foreign nations in this ease, which had been so clearly and forcibly stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman found fault with the Admiralty, because they had not submitted the cadets to the examination of the University Syndicate. If he were not afraid of being considered disrespectful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and, at some future time, as having broken a promise, he would say that his personal feeling was in favour of that course. But he would take care that what the hon. and learned Member had put so forcibly should be brought before his Colleagues. He did not see any objection to an independent examination of the kind indicated; but, as a matter of fact, there was an independent examination conducted by gentlemen who had taken honours at the Universities. Those gentlemen were quite independent; they held their position for two years, and their papers were not subject in any way to supervision by the Admiralty Education Department. Although the present system had prevailed for a good many years, he thought, perhaps, they might go a little further, and that the School at Dartmouth should be subject to a similar examination to those of other schools in the country. Those were his personal views; but, after what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, he thought the ground too dangerous to travel over any further on that occasion.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, this matter had been fully considered in that House only two years ago, and the opinions then expressed would doubtless be in the recollection of the Committee. He fully endorsed what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), as well as what had fallen from Lord Ramsay in that House on the subject of educating naval cadets two years ago. He had, last year, moved for a Return, showing the expense incurred in the education of naval cadets on board the Britannia, and that Return showed that the total cost for each cadet was £245, irrespective of the amount paid by the parents of the youths. He thought that this great cost to the country ought to be entirely saved by the boys who entered the Service as cadets being educated at the cost of their parents, instead of at the cost of the State. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty was hardly correct in saying that the balance of opinion was in favour of boys entering at an early age. If the hon. Gentleman would look at the report of an interesting lecture given at the United Service Institute a few years ago, he believed he would find that the balance of opinion amongst naval officers was rather in the opposite direction. He remembered that Admirals Ryder and Good-enough, two officers who had made this question their study, gave opinions that were opposed to the entering of naval cadets at the early age sanctioned by the present system, and recommended that they should commence their education in a public school, and enter the Navy at a much later date. He had himself entered at the age of 13; and although he did not want to present himself as a specimen of inefficiency, he was bound to say that for the first two or three years he learnt nothing, while he had unlearnt a good deal that he had learnt at school. He had always been sorry that he had not remained at a public school until the age of 17, and he was frequently informed of officers in the Service who also regretted that they did not remain at a public school for a longer period. He thought it would be well that the cadets should be kept at school until they were 16 years of age, and then sent to sea, mostly in small ships, so as to get a thorough grounding in seamanship, after which they might be sent at 19 years of age to a Naval College, where they would receive that amount of scientific instruction necessary to fit them for the Service.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he could not conceive why the Government did not lay the Report upon the Table of the House unless it was that they were ashamed to do so. The Committee wanted to know how far the expenditure bestowed upon the Britannia was justified or not by its results, and to ascertain how far the system was suitable for the Public Service. He thought the Admiralty should have no hesitation in producing the Education Reports, because if they were bad, the House of Commons would endeavour to introduce a system which would produce better results. The House of Commons, which voted a large sum of money every year for the education of cadets, ought to know how far that money was beneficially bestowed.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, if the system on board the Britannia was so bad, he was at a loss to understand why the Mercantile Marine should have imitated it. They had instituted as training schools the ships Conway and Worcester, on board which, however, the age of entry was 14 years, as against the earlier age in the case of the Britannia. So far from the results being unsatisfactory with respect to these ships, he understood that the Liverpool shipmasters were delighted if they could get the boys who had served on board thorn into their ships. He thought that if the Merchant Service found it advisable to enter boys for the Conway and Worcester at the age of 14, it was one reason why the Admiralty should do the same. For his own part, he was not in favour of entering boys for the Navy at too early an age. He thought the age should be 14, instead of 12 or 13, because he believed that the boys suffered very materially in health from the cramming they had to undergo in the preliminary schools. He thought that a system which was found good enough for the Merchant Service, would be equally good fur the Royal Navy.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, the Board of Admiralty worked in the dark in matters of this kind; but hon. Members had fortunately been enlightened by the discussions which had taken place in that House. With regard to the differences of opinion alleged to exist amongst naval officers on this subject, he pointed out that it would be for the Committee to throw its weight either into one scale or the other. He did not see the desirability of paying £250 a-year for the education of a naval cadet, because he believed that the extravagance of the proceeding rather unfitted the boys for the discharge of their duties afterwards. The more economical and the more severe their education, the better officers they would eventually make, and, therefore, he said that nothing was more desirable than the abolition of the present system of extravagance. He concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), that the Report was one which the Admiralty were not pleased with, otherwise they would have laid it on the Table of the House. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would go to a Division, to show that the House of Commons were, above all other Bodies in the State, entitled to know the actual facts.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he thought he had gone as far as he could in saying that the suggestion of an independent examination was a good one, and that he would see whether it could be brought about. With regard to the presentation of the Reports he did not suppose there would be any objection to their being laid on the Table of the House, except that those who prepared them did not expect that they would be so dealt with. If he were to say, on the part of the Admiralty, that they would take into consideration formally the sense of what had been urged upon him that evening, and that they would see that there was an independent and extraneous examination of cadets, he hoped that would satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. With regard to what had been said about the cramming of the cadets and the evil effects of it upon their health, whatever might be the case with regard to the age of the boys, all the evidence which he possessed was against their being injured by their studies. The Report which he held in his hand stated that since the establishment of the Britannia the health of the boys had been most satisfactory. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had referred to the general cost of the Britannia; but he pointed out that part of this was attributable to the wages of persons necessarily employed on board ship, which would form a charge upon the public whether she was used for school purposes or not.

MR. GORST

said, he hoped he should not be unreasonable in not accepting the offer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, because it left those who desired reform in this matter in precisely the same position as they were two years ago; indeed, the reply of the hon. Gentleman was almost in the same terms as the answer on this subject, which he then received from the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman would pledge himself to the independent examination of the cadets and the production of the Report, he should not have to trouble the Committee to divide; but in the absence of that pledge he should be compelled to take a Division as a protest against the non-production of the Report. He would venture to say two things with reference to the Conway and the Worcester; first, the expense of educating a boy on board those ships was nothing like £280 a-year; and, in the next place, the reports of the examinations were open to the parents, who paid the cost of the education, and to the public.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he thought the Committee ought to remember that when the Britannia was established in place of the Naval College at Portsmouth, it was understood to be a temporary arrangement. There had been hardly a year elapse since then in which the extravagant expenditure in connection with the ship had not been raised. He would not go into the question as to whether the original arrangement was a good one; but the Britannia was eventually established, because it was imagined that by sending the youths on board a hulk they would learn their duty at sea. But now that everything was done by steam in the Navy there was absolutely nothing which a lad could learn on board a hulk, that he could not learn better at a Naval College on shore. He had had the honour of being consulted by the Admiralty on this subject, and had made a Minute which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would, no doubt, find in the Office. In that Minute he had ventured to point out, even at the time he referred to, how great would be the advantage if a more general education were given to the lads before they went to sea, and if they were sent in sailing vessels to learn seamanship after being on shore a certain time. The best naval officer he had ever had the honour of knowing—Lord Dundonald—did not go to sea until he was 18 years of age. He repeated that there was now no training to be given at sea to boys of 13 or 14 which they could not get ashore; and there was this objection, among others, to the present system, that on board ship the studies of the boys were constantly interrupted; they were taken away from the schoolmaster and put on other work at the very moment, perhaps, when they were getting interested in his instruction, and vice versâ. Therefore, he said, it was better that the youth of the country should receive a thorough education before they went into the Navy. He did not think the argument held good that boys were not so likely to get disgusted with the Service if they were caught early, because his experience was that if they liked the sea they would take to it just as well at 18 as at 14 years of age. Under the system he suggested, the youths would get valuable information and knowledge where it could be most properly obtained, and which would make them better men for the Service they had chosen. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price), and he was not by any means sure that he was not then advocating the wishes of many officers in the Navy, who were competent to express an opinion on the subject. Those two officers, Admirals Ryder and Goodenough, were distinctly in favour of this view, and the Committee would know that there were no higher authorities on questions such as this. He regretted very much that during the last 18 or 20 years nothing had been done to establish a College suitable for the education of these young men. In conclusion, he would recommend that a later age should be insisted on for going to sea, and that a College should be established on a proper foundation on shore where the education of cadets would be carried out at their own expense.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, whenever he came down to consider these Estimates, be asked himself why on earth Gentlemen on those Benches had turned out the last Government and put the present Government in Office? It seemed to him that there was exceedingly little difference between the two Governments. They had Gentlemen from the Admiralty coming down and asking them to give £280 for each boy on board the Britannia, when everyone knew that the education in schools of this kind could be done for £70 or £80 per head. Notwithstanding this, the education given on board the ship was so bad that the Admiralty were ashamed to present the Reports of their own Commissioners concerning it. He said they ought not to give one shilling for the Britannia until they had the Reports, and until they were assured that the cost of the education in future would not be more than one-third what it was at present.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he would venture to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to undertake, on behalf of the Department, to give the Reports asked for. He believed the noble Lord would readily concur in their being laid on the Table of the House. He thought the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman were such as to render it absolutely necessary that the House should be satisfied as to the character of the education given to the naval cadets.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he would inform the Committee how the nominations for admission to the school were made?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the nominations were given by the First Lord of the Admiralty on each occasion. He usually nominated three candidates for each vacancy, and the principal object of that was to limit the number of candidates, so that the strain upon them might be diminished. Another object was that nominations might be given to sons of deceased officers, and persons who had claims on the Service. The present system of competitive examination was introduced when the obsolete system of pure nomination was put an end to. With regard to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he could not go so far in the direction of giving a distinct pledge as the right hon. Gentleman indicated. He could only repeat that he would have an inquiry into the school, and lay the Report on the Table.

MR. GORST

said, that, on the distinct pledge given in the presence of the Prime Minister that the Reports on the education of the cadets should in future be laid on the Table, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,556,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, that, although this Vote usually occupied a good deal of time and discussion, the Committee might congratulate itself to-night on the probability that the usual crop of Dockyard grievances would be very little touched upon, that being due to an act of policy on the part of the Admiralty last year. After the visit of the Lords of the Admiralty to the various Dockyards last year, the Secretary to the Admiralty went round to the Dockyards and received deputations of all the different classes of men in the Yards, and heard everything they had to say. Whether that act of policy was due to what had been considered the rash pledge given by the present Chief Commissioner of Works a few years ago, or whether it was really a new policy on the part of the Admiralty, he was unable to say; but the action of the Secretary to the Admiralty had given great satisfaction in the Dockyards, not only through the courteous way in which the hon. Gentleman heard all that the men had to say, but because he heard everything most thoroughly and exhaustively, and showed that he quite understood the various matters laid before him. He said this much, because it encouraged him, and he thought, also, other Dockyard Members, to hope that this policy would be continued. How far it was to be continued he hoped the Committee would learn to-night. The Chief Commissioner of Works, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, deprecated the discussion of Dockyard grievances in that House, because, he said, it was the invariable custom of the Lords of the Admiralty to themselves go round and hear from the men what they had to say upon the various matters. He believed that at the Admiralty it was considered somewhat rash of the right hon. Gentleman to make that speech; but they determined, at all events, to look upon it as to some extent a pledge, and last year they fulfilled that pledge. That was a policy which ought to be carried out in the future. He did not say that every man in a Dockyard, or every man representing a class, should be allowed to come before the Lords of the Admiralty and make a long statement of grievances; but he did think that on special occasions such as last year, when some of the most important classes of men in the Dockyards had not been able to state their grievances in any way for many years, subject to certain restrictions, and to the advice of the Admiralty Superintendents in the Yards, they should at certain times be allowed to do what they did last year. Another consideration was, that that course had disposed of a great deal of discussion in the House, which was, perhaps, a very good thing; and so it happened to-night that instead of the Committee having at great length to discuss these various grievances, they were hoping to hear from the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the result of his labours of last year. With regard to one particular question—that of the Constructive Departments—they were told that a Committee had been sitting, and that their Report was about to be issued. He should like to know whether that Report was to be considered of a confidential nature or not? [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It will be laid on the Table.] It would be laid on the Table at a time when it could not be discussed; but he did not wish to discuss it this Session. What he wanted to know was, what would be the result of these Reports, because very often Reports which were presented were followed by no results. There were many other matters outside the Reports, and what they particularly wanted to know was, what the hon. Gentleman had to say upon them. For instance, the case of the shipwrights, a most important class in the Dockyard, he supposed, would be dealt with by the Reports. The hired men and the factory men were on a different scale altogether from that of the Establishment labourers, and they had considerable grievances, as they were obliged to retire at the age of 60 years with no pension and only a small gratuity. These questions were thoroughly gone into by the Secretary to the Admiralty, and the Committee were hoping to hear what he had to say on the matter. The grievances having been all discussed at the Admiralty, he thought this was a good opportunity for the Secretary to the Admiralty to give some idea of the conclusions arrived at.

MR. BROADHURST

wished to call attention to the unsatisfactory outcome of the Motion he made 18 months ago in reference to the employment of shipwrights in fitting engines into war vessels. On that occasion the Secretary to the Admiralty held out some hope that some better conditions would be arranged with regard to these men; and one of the promises then made was that an eminent engineer was to be engaged and made a member of the Board of Admiralty in London, in order, as he understood, that the engineering interest should have more representation at the Board than hitherto. It was true that a gentleman had been added to the Board of Admiralty of great engineering eminence; but he very much feared that, as usual, the Admiralty had absorbed that engineer, and he had done nothing in the way of reform. The remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), as to the power of the Admiralty over the House of Commons with reference to the training ship Britannia, were perfectly true, as far as he could gather, in regard to every other matter under the Admiralty. The Admiralty governed the House of Commons, as well as the whole Admiralty administrative system, and the House ceased to have its due weight in the Admiralty policy. On the occasion to which he was referring, he thought he had satisfactorily proved that it was next to impossible for shipwrights or workers in wood to engage in the fitting of delicate and complicated machinery; but the Admiralty had answered his Motion by increasing the number of shipwrights engaged in the various Dockyards; and, in order to justify the assertions made on their behalf in the House of Commons, there had recently been issued from the Admiralty an Order that shipwrights and apprentices should, in future, devote part of their time to the work of engine fittings and the fixing of machinery. This Order was issued early in the year, and had become part of the Dockyard system. A more extraordinary proposal than this had seldom been made; and what he wanted to know was, whether the Government could conceive anything more inconsistent than that a skilled workman, who had devoted four years to shipwright work, should be suddenly required to become also a proficient fitter of machinery and an engineer? The thing was so utterly absurd, that it would not be listened to for a moment in any private shipbuilding yard. He feared there might be some slight suspicion in some quarters that in drawing attention to this subject he was taking an interest in some branch or other of Trades' Unionism. That was not exactly the fact, and, even if it were the fact, it was, notwithstanding that, quite impossible to have men jacks-of-all-trades in the highly skilled profession which was now required in the construction of our wonderful pieces of mechanism called men-of-war. The fact was that the Admiralty were so possessed of the idea that ships must be constructed and finished by shipwrights, that no amount of modern facts—such as the fact that our ships were no longer of wood, but were floating palaces of machinery—could drive it out of their heads. If all the statements that reached him from time to time as to the waste of time and money in the Dockyards were true, this Vote of £1,500,000 ought certainly to be reduced by more than one-half; and then, under proper management, we could obtain greater results than we now did with this enormous expenditure. Early in the year he sent a copy of a Memorial to the Secretary to the Admiralty, which had reference to pattern making in Chatham Dockyard. In that Dockyard there was a large pattern-making shop, which was mainly carried on by properly-trained pattern makers. Although they had their own staff of men, who had devoted their lives to pattern making, quite recently they had set up another pattern-making shop, with all its costly machinery, not to supply any additional demand for patterns, but in order to have a shop in which they could teach the shipwrights—grown men as well as boys—the art of pattern making, if that was possible. What he wanted to ask the Committee was, whether they, as custodians of the public money, should wilfully, and with their eyes open, vote away money year after year in order to minister to the "fads" and fancies of the Admiralty, over whom they had absolutely no control whatever? The Admiralty was one of the last strongholds of the worst form of old Toryism which modern ideas had been unable to storm; and there would never be a satisfactory administration of that Department of the State until the whole system had been overhauled, not by a Committee of that House, but by a Royal Commission, composed of the most capable men in the country, whether Members of that House or not, who should have full and complete power to examine the whole of the arrangements, and report upon them to the House. He was certain that such an examination would disclose a state of things which the country would not permit to continue in existence one year longer. His firm conviction was that this Vote might very well be reduced by £500,000, and that greater results would be obtained if this Department were administered as private works of the same character in this country were. He wished to ask whether, unless the present system was altered, the Admiralty could expect to produce in one person a proficient knowledge of two or three distinct trades and professions, when every other set of employers and trainers of labour had utterly failed to do anything of the kind. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give some assurance that he would insist on a more thorough inquiry, and that in future he would see that men should be appointed to their respective trades, and should not be allowed to encroach upon, and interfere with, other departments for which they had no training and no capacity, and were by no means fitted to undertake.

MR. GORST

said, he was not at all surprised at the hon. Member for Stoke being stirred by the arrangements of the Admiralty; but if the hon. Member had had as much experience as he had had of Dockyard management, he would know that it was the peculiar pleasure of the Admiralty to put men into departments to which they did not belong. It was the peculiar idiosyncracy of the Admiralty to employ every man in some capacity other than that for which he had been trained. He understood that this had been the subject of personal inquiry by the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and that they had listened to all the representations of the different classes, and were now engaged in framing a scale of wages and regulations which might give satisfaction to the different classes of men; but what he particularly wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to-night was, whether the Admiralty could make some arrangement in the Dockyards by which the pensions which the Establishment workmen earned, after long periods of service, could be given them in a shape which would be more satisfactory than the present form? The Committee must remember that what was called a pension was not, in the proper sense of the word, a pension at all. It was simply deferred pay; and it was not for the interest of the men themselves, but for the interest of the nation, that there was this deferred pay. Of course, so far as the men themselves were concerned, if they were paid the same wages in the Dockyards as they would get in private yards—the Admiralty dismissing and hiring men as they pleased—they would have nothing to complain of; but as it was the interest of the country to keep permanently a number of workmen who could not discharge themselves, and upon whom the country could depend in the event of war, or in any other sudden emergency requiring great pressure of work in the Dockyards, the Government, instead of paying the ordinary rates of wages, paid something less, and gave the men the difference in the shape of a pension after serving a certain number of years. Until recently, the Establishment class of skilled labourers in the Dockyards—the class established only about six or seven years ago—only received 19s. 6d. a-week per man; whereas the hired class of men, doing the same kind of work, but earning no pension, received an average of 24s, a -week; so that the Establishment skilled labourer received 4s. 6d. a-week less than the fair commercial value of his work. For that difference, after a certain length of service, he got a superannuation allowance, which was called a pension. The fault found with this system was that, in the first instance, a great number of people never got any pension at all. A man might have served up to the last year which would entitle him to superannuation; but if he died during that year not a single penny was given to his family. A man might serve many years; but if he found other and more profitable labour he would lose the money he had foregone. Again, a man might have bad health; he might have injured himself in the Service; but if he retired he could only take the superannuation allowance for his own life. Could not the whole matter be put on a footing at once more just to the public and more satisfactory to the men? Why not cease to call it pension and call it what it really was—deferred pay? They might easily keep an account against all the men employed in the Service, an account of the amount of deferred pay they had earned. Of course, if they left the Service before the end of the period for which they were engaged, they would forfeit their deferred pay; but if, instead of leaving the Service, they were obliged to be discharged on account of accident, or for some other just reason, why not give them, upon their so leaving the Service, that deferred pay which they had earned, and to which they were justly entitled. When a man had completed his service, why make him take his deferred pay in the shape of superannuation for his own life? Why not give a workman who had served his time his deferred pay in the form he liked, and in the form which would be most advantageous to his own interest. He (Mr. Gorst) believed that if the present system of pensions were entirely put an end to, and if every man serving in the Dockyard understood he was serving on deferred pay, and if a regular account of that pay were kept so that the sum could be easily ascertained; if a man was aware that in case of death or discharge from the Service that pay would be honestly paid to his family or to himself as the case might be, or that he would be able when he had served his time to take the money in the form he desired, there would be less discontent in the Dockyards than existed at the present moment. He (Mr. Gorst) hoped he had said enough to make his meaning clear to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman); and he trusted that the subject might be taken into consideration, with the view of ascertaining whether some such plan as the one he had suggested could not be matured.

MR. GOURLEY

, in moving the reduction of the Vote by £20,000, said, he would state at the outset that he took this course for the purpose of raising a question of the expenditure incurred in upholding the dignity of the Royal Family. He asked Parliament to agree to the reduction of the Vote he proposed, because he held that the amount which was now being spent in the maintenance of the Royal Yachts was far beyond what was necessary, seeing that, by the Return which they had had placed before them, the Royal Yachts were very rarely used, either by Her Majesty or by any Member of the Royal Family. In addition to the enormous sums which these yachts cost the ratepayers of the country annually for their maintenance, it was now proposed to expend a very large sum in repairing the Victoria and Albert. Indeed, it was proposed to spend £50,000 or £60,000 upon this wooden vessel. He maintained that when the money had been expended upon her she would still be an old vessel, fitted only with machinery of a very old type. He contended that the money proposed to be spent on this vessel would be absolutely wasted. They had it on the authority of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed), who had been engaged 12 years ago in making a survey of the Victoria and Albert, that the vessel was totally unfit for repairs. If she was then unfit for a large expenditure, what must she be now? The experience of all practical men with regard to Estimates as regarded the repairing of old wooden vessels amounted to this—that the eventual cost always exceeded very largely the Estimates. That he believed to be the experience of all shipowners who had old ships; therefore, he maintained that the Estimates placed before Parliament with respect to the Victoria and Albert would be greatly exceeded before the repairs were completed. He thought it right to tell the Committee that this vessel in maintenance cost the country, in round figures, something like £28,000 a-year. Before, however, going into details with regard to the annual cost of the vessel, he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the original cost of the vessel. The original cost of the vessel, in accordance with a Return he moved for some time ago, was £136,441. Information as to the gross registered tonnage was not furnished in the Return; but there was only given what was called the builders' tonnage. By comparing, however, the builders' tonnage with the new tonnage of a similar vessel, he had arrived at the conclusion that the gross registered tonnage of the Victoria and Albert was something like 1,700 tons, so that the cost of the vessel to this country was something like £80 per ton. Now, £80 per ton was a much larger sum per ton than was paid by, perhaps, one of the most extravagant Monarchs of the world—namely, the late Viceroy of Egypt, upon his yachts, which were furnished with work of the most extravagant design. The Committee would be able to arrive at a correct opinion as to how the Admiralty spent its money, when he stated that the original cost of the masts, spars, and rigging of the Victoria and Albert was £19,530. Now, in order to ascertain what extravagant sums were paid in sparring this ship, he thought it right to call attention to what it would cost for a vessel of similar size. The masts and spars of an East Indiaman of 1,700 tons—the whole masts and spars complete, and with a set of sails—would cost something like £8,500. The best outfit which could be put on board of an East, Indiaman of 1,700 tons would not cost, at the present moment, more than £5 per ton; whereas the cost of the outfit of the Victoria and Albert was no less than £12 per ton. By these figures hon. Members would see how the money of the taxpayers had been thrown away by those who had had the management of the Admiralty. Having said this much with regard to the original cost of the vessel, he would now call the attention of the Committee to the details of the annual expenditure connected with the Victoria and Albert. He found, by the Return to which he had previously referred, that for repairs to cabins, machinery, masts, and spars, the annual cost for the past 10 years had been £7,734, pilotage £5 per year, coals £440. He desired the Committee to pay particular attention to the item of £440, because he should have to allude to it subsequently, as proving how seldom the vessel had been used by Her Majesty, or by the Royal Family. The wages of the officers and crew of the vessel amounted annually to £13,106. the victuals to £5,271, and 75 riggers £2,160. Thus it would be correct to say that the cost of the maintenance of the vessel was £28,766 per year. Hon. Members must understand that the sum of £28,766 was the direct cost; but it did not represent the real cost to the country, because the vessel every now and then was placed in a Government dry dock, and retarded other and more necessary work. Now, they found also, by a Return before them, that on one occasion the Victoria and Albert was docked for repairs for no less a period than six and a-half months. As a matter of fact, he knew that the Royal Yachts were very often placed in dock to have repairs done to them of the most trivial character, and that men were removed from other and more important work to do the work required on the Royal Yachts. He thought hon. Members would see that the annual sum spent on the Victoria and Albert was a sum altogether beyond what was necessary for the purpose of maintaining a vessel of her class. Now, he had no doubt it would be contended that the Royal Yachts were necessary for the private use of Her Majesty; but he, on the other hand, contended that four yachts, which Her Majesty now had at her disposal, were not necessary, either for her private use or for State purposes. Take, for instance, the Victoria and Albert. He asked, some time ago, for a Return of the number of times the Victoria and Albert had been used by Her Majesty during the last 10 years, and the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) told him he could not give such information. The only way in which they could arrive at an idea of the number of times the vessel had been used was, by taking into consideration the amount of fuel consumed annually. Now, the annual cost of coal for that vessel was £440. The Victoria and Albert was fitted with very old machinery and boilers of very large power, and the conclusion he had arrived at was this—that when under weigh, and in full speed, she would consume from 80 to 100 tons of coal per day. Thus, estimating the cost of coal at £1 per ton, it would be seen that the Victoria and Albert had only been used four times per year, and that for the conveyance of Her Majesty or some Member of the Royal Family on four days per year the taxpayers of this country were charged annually over £28,000. He was confident hon. Members would agree with him that this was a sum far in excess of what was necessary, and that it ought to be abolished. It was said that for State purposes Her Majesty ought to have the use of these yachts; but it so happened that for State purposes these vessels were very rarely used. Indeed, they found fixed charges in the Naval Estimates for conveying the Royal Family from time to time across the Channel. In other words, sums were constantly being paid to the London, Chatham, and Dover and other Companies to have vessels placed at the disposal of the Royal Family. Again, he found in another part of the Naval Estimates, Vote 14, page 227, Class I., Sub-head 2, Miscellaneous Expenses, that there was every year an annual charge for the expenses connected with the conveyance of Members of the Royal Household. Now, he contended that if these yachts were to be maintained at this enormous expense to the country, they ought, at least, to be engaged in some practical work. On the contrary, it was found that there was always a special expenditure connected with the movements across Channel of the Members of the Royal Family, or the Members of the Royal Household. As a matter of fact, he found that the sum this year charged for the conveyance of the Members of the Royal Household across Channel was £1,746 19s. 10d. Every year there was a similar charge, which he maintained ought no longer to be allowed. Then, again, he found in the Naval Estimates a charge for entertainments on board the Osborne and Bacchante, and other charges and allowances to the warrant officers on the different Royal Yachts. Hon. Gentlemen would see that, in addition to the direct charges returned with regard to the maintenance of the Royal Yachts, there were other charges in other parts of the Estimates which Parliament was called upon to vote every year in connection with the movements of the Royal Family. He felt assured of this— that this enormous expenditure was an expenditure which was not made with the consent or the countenance of the Queen. On the contrary, he believed that it only remained for the Members of the Government, especially those connected with the Admiralty, to bring this enormous and unnecessary expenditure under the notice of Her Majesty, to cause Her Majesty to command that such expenditure should he at once abolished. Well, it was now proposed to spend upon the Victoria and Albert, as he had said previously, between £50,000 and £60,000. If it were necessary that this money should be spent—if the Queen asked for another yacht, what he would in the name of common sense ask the Admiralty to do would be, not to go tinkering and patching up this old vessel, which, when patched up, would still be an old ship fitted with obsolete machinery, but in lieu of this vessel build a new one of modern type. He contended that a new vessel could be built for the money which the Committee were now asked to vote for the repair of the Victoria and Albert. In his opinion, first-class builders in this country would undertake to provide the Admiralty with a steam yacht, furnished with steel boilers, and furnished with every modern improvement, and with much better ventilation than that which Her. Majesty had on board the Victoria and Albert, for something like £25 per ton, or, in other words, a ship of 1,500 or 1,600 tons could be obtained from eminent builders for the sum now proposed to be spent in the repairing of the Victoria and Albert. And, moreover, a ship having all the modern appliances for the purpose of its working would, for maintenance, not cost more than £2,000 or £3,000 per year, instead of the £28,000 which the maintenance of the Victoria and Albert cost. Hon. Members would not fail to see that the policy, which it was now proposed by the Admiralty to adopt, with respect to the Victoria and Albert, was nothing more or less than suicidal. Having said so much with regard to the Victoria and Albert, he would like to detain the Committee a moment or two by making a few observations with regard to the Osborne. The Osborne was only eight years old; but its annual cost in repairs was £10,885, and the cost of its annual maintenance was no less than £26,955. Now, the Osborne, like the Victoria and Albert, and the other Royal Yachts, seemed, according to the Return which had been placed upon the Table, to be always in dock. Besides being in dock for a considerable time every year, she had, for 10 months, on board 36 riggers at a very great cost. What on earth 36 riggers could find to do he could not possibly tell; but, in his opinion, 36 riggers would be sufficient to send out to sea, at least, 30 or 40 ships. Therefore, the only conclusion he could arrive at with regard to these riggers was, that they were employed merely for the purpose of looking at each other, or, possibly, to play hide-and-seek on the vessel. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £20,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,536,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."—(Mr. Gourley.)

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he was not surprised that his hon. Friend (Mr. Gourley) had raised this question; or that, on the occasion of the Victoria and Albert requiring repairs, there should be the feeling expressed, which had been expressed by some of his hon. Friends, that instead of her being repaired a new yacht should be provided. No doubt there was some surprise in many quarters that advantage had not been taken of this opportunity to provide the Queen with a yacht which should be representative of the height which the shipbuilding art had reached in this country, and which should be worthy, in every respect, of the mercantile position of the country. He need hardly say that this view of the question was fully present to the mind of the Members of the Board of Admiralty when they came to the conclusion to repair the old yacht. It would have been a satisfaction to those who professionally advised the Admiralty to have had the opportunity of designing a new yacht for the Queen; but the Admiralty came to the conclusion that they ought to repair the old yacht, after the most thorough examination of the Victoria and Albert with her engines and boilers out, and on the deliberate advice of their professional advisers. Although she was an old ship, her defects were found to be so small, and the state of her hull was pronounced to be such, as to make it most desirable to repair her, instead of building a new yacht. It must be remembered by hon. Members of the Committee that the Victoria and Albert was an exceptionally fine vessel, and most suitable in every respect for the purpose to which she was devoted. Indeed, she was almost without a rival. She had a high speed and light draught; she was extremely easy at sea, and contained the spacious accommodation which was necessary for the Queen and her suite. In all these respects she was a perfectly suitable vessel for Her Majesty's Service; and it had been calculated that, after the repairs which were proposed to be made, she would be a good ship for 12 or 14 years to come. On the other hand, a new yacht of iron and steel, although more modern in its construction, might not combine all those advantages to such perfection. For one thing, the degree of sub-division which would be necessary to make a steel yacht safe would be incompatible with the large and spacious apartments which ought to be provided for Her Majesty. He was sure if the two conditions—namely, sub-division and large accommodation—were combined, the size and the cost of a new vessel would be extremely great. These were the considerations which had led the Admiralty, on the merits of the case, apart from the expense of a new yacht, to conclude it was desirable that the present yacht should be repaired. As to the question of expense, however, they were advised that a steel yacht, fulfilling the conditions necessary, would cost about £120,000 or £130,000, without the fittings and upholstery, which existed in the present yacht, and which, to a large extent, would be sacrificed, if any attempt were made to transfer them to a new ship. The repairs, which included a complete refit with new boilers, steam cylinders, and the addition of steam starting gear and general repair of engines, would cost £50,000. So much as to the cost of the repairs. They now came to the general question of the maintenance of the yacht. His hon. Friend (Mr. Gourley)—and, no doubt, other hon. Members—were of opinion that the present number of yachts, which had been maintained without any change for 20 or 30 years, was excessive—namely, two principal yachts and two tenders. As to the number, he had to say that, although the Admiralty did not share that view, it appeared to them that, when this yacht was completed, the second yacht, the Osborne, when not actually required by Her Majesty for her own use or that of Her Family, should be at the disposal of the Board of Admiralty. An arrangement of that kind had existed before, and he was authorized to say that Her Majesty concurred in its being now again adopted. Another matter which had been the subject of some criticism was the cost incurred annually in the maintenance of these yachts. His hon. Friend had gone over several points in connection with the Victoria and Albert. Undoubtedly, vessels of this kind were of a costly description, their boats and appurtenances, as well as the yachts themselves, being finished in a way which put them out of comparison with any other vessel. The hon. Gentleman had said something regarding the expenses in connection with the Royal Household; but the items to which he referred, as shown on page 236 of the Estimates, were the particulars of the expenditure incurred in 1881–2, and had nothing to do with the current year. They included some charges in connection with the entertainment of the young Princes on board the Bacchante, which necessitated extra expense to the officers of that ship. Then there were expenses in regard to the transit of the Royal carriages and horses to and from the Isle of Wight on their way to Scotland and back. These were not services that could be performed by these costly and elaborately-fitted yachts. Another item was that of allowances of wardroom officers of the Osborne. That allowance was a customary one, which was made whenever the officers were in attendance on the Queen or the Royal Family, on such occasions representative duties being east upon them. The amount was only £1 9s. 7d. He was anxious not to detain the Committee; but with regard to this matter of the annual cost of the maintenance of these vessels, he had to say that he was sure that every Member of the Committee would wish that the yachts should be always maintained in such a condition as to be worthy of the use of Her Majesty, although it was possible that the work might be done at a less expenditure. The existing practice had gone on for many years under successive Boards of Admiralty, and the present Board were of opinion that the charges should be reviewed, in order to ascertain whether or not they could be reduced. It was a question, for instance, whether the expenditure could not be reduced in the matter of docking the vessels. At present they were docked every year; and it was a question, while retaining the perfect seaworthiness of the vessels, whether they could not, to some extent, reduce the expense of the repairs. He was in a position to assure the Committee that the Queen was most desirous that no unnecessary expenditure should be allowed to take place in regard to these matters. That was the statement that he had to make to the Committee on this subject. He had given reasons why they preferred, on the whole, after much hesitation and deliberation, to continue the present yacht for 12 or 14 years, rather than to build a new one; and he had stated that when the Osborne was not absolutely required for the Royal use it would be at the disposal of the Admiralty. Further than that, he had stated they were about to institute an inquiry into the whole question of the expenditure on the yachts, in order to see if some substantial reduction was not possible. He did not know whether the statement he had made was satisfactory to his hon. Friend; but, at any rate, he could assure him that the course they had taken was the one they thought most consistent at once with the dignity of the Crown and the interests of the country.

MR. CROPPER

asked how many times the Victoria and Albert had been used in recent years? Was it not the fact that it had only been employed, on an average, four days a-year during the past 10 years?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, that the vessel was maintained for the use of the Queen, and he did not think it would either be seemly or desirable to inquire how many times it might have been the pleasure of Her Majesty to use it. He had no information on the subject.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he hoped, after the explanation given by the Secretary to the Admiralty, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) would not think it necessary to divide the Committee. For his own part, he wished to express the satisfaction with which he had heard the hon. Member's statement. It appeared to him that the Admiralty had very fully considered all the bearings of the case. Speaking from his own knowledge, he could say that the question of a steel yacht had been under the consideration of the Staff of the Admiralty for years, and they did not think it an economical experiment to make to place a steel yacht at the service of Her Majesty in place of the Victoria and Albert. If they had taken an opposite view, a plan would have been prepared, and, no doubt, carried out. The cost would have been much greater than that which was now to be incurred by the Admiralty; and, after all, it was doubtful whether the accommodation would have been so great as that furnished by the Victoria and Albert, and whether the results would have been equally satisfactory. He was glad an assurance had been given that the present Board of Admiralty had determined to review the expenditure that had occurred during the last few years for the maintenance of these yachts. He was sure some substantial economy could be effected without, in the slightest degree, diminishing the accommodation which was made for Her Majesty. There had been a system of frequent docking, which was not useful or necessary, with regard to yachts maintained in the most perfect condition; and he had no doubt that a most substantial reduction could be effected. As to the Osborne being of public service generally whilst not in use by the Queen, the fact that the Board of Admiralty would make use of it would be of great advantage, as it would amount to this—that Her Majesty would have but one yacht, which would be maintained exclusively for her service, with the two tenders; whilst the Osborne would be retained for any service that the country might require.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend would divide the Committee, for by so doing he would encourage the Admiralty to persevere in the good intentions which they would like so much to see carried out. He did not know that it had ever entered into their wishes that either this yacht should be preferred, or that a steel yacht should be built. He had been under the impression that Her Majesty possessed sufficient yachts without the Victoria and Albert. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had said that it was unseemly and not desirable to ask how many times a yacht which was set apart for the service of the Queen had been used. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere) could not at all see that such an inquiry was unseemly. An hon. Member had asked how often the Victoria and Albert had been out during the past 10 years; and surely he, or any other hon. Member of the Committee, was at perfect liberty to put that question, to find out, if possible, whether the yacht had been required or not, for the only way of arriving at a settlement of the question of the utility of the vessel was to get at the number of times she had been out. Let them take a few figures from him upon this subject. During the past 10 years the Victoria and Albert had actually cost the country, including the £54,000 which it was now proposed to expend in repairs, £418,000, or nearly half a million of money. It had been ascertained that, during the past 10 years, the Victoria and Albert had been out 40 days. They knew that, practically, the Victoria and Albert had not been used during the whole of that time, as Her Majesty and the Government had been perfectly satisfied with the Osborne and its two tenders, and had not required that yacht. If he was not misinformed, the time of the officers serving on these Royal Yachts was reckoned as war service, and their scale of pay was better than that of the other officers of the Service. Well, these officers, it appeared to him, were just those who should not have that increased scale of pay. They did absolutely nothing, remaining the entire time in port. Only for four days in the year were they expected to go out—they hung about Southampton, having a good time of it; and because they had that enviable position, they were absolutely paid and promoted above the heads of the other officers of the Service. Such a thing was absolutely monstrous. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had said that if Her Majesty did not use the yacht it would be at the disposal of the Board of Admiralty. But what did the Admiralty want with another yacht? Surely they could move about on much cheaper terms than these? His hon. Friend might say it was not seemly to inquire as to how many times the Admiralty might use the yacht, or to inquire what the Admiralty might do. The Admiralty had the Enchantress—what were they going to do with that? Were they going to have two yachts? There had been a strong feeling displayed in the Press upon this subject. It was really felt, without any disrespect to Her Majesty, that these sums were excessive and wasteful. It was not considered at all necessary that the Osborne, which, by the way, had cost £344,000 during eight years, should have any other large sum spent upon her. It was felt that these enormous payments were not required for the dignity or comfort of Her Majesty. He did not believe that Her Majesty really required them; he believed they were relics of the past—relics of a bad system, and were merely maintained because there had always been this number of yachts. The Secretary to the Admiralty said the Osborne was one of the most perfect vessels in naval architecture, and seemingly it was to be kept up simply as a model of what yachts should be; but he could only say that gentlemen who knew a great deal about this yacht were of opinion that it was absolutely unseaworthy. Surely, hon. Members did not wish Her Majesty sent to sea in a vessel which, in a heavy sea, would stand a great chance of going down? He was sorry they were not able, on this Vote, not only to record a protest against the expenditure of this £50,000, but also to record a protest against the spending of £25,000 every year.

MR. D. JENKINS

said, the First Lord of the Admiralty had experience in this matter, and he knew it was impossible to estimate the amount of these repairs. During the last Administration three times the amount of the Estimate had been spent. The hon. Member had referred to the yacht not being as risky as a steel yacht, on account of the divisions; but bulk-heads or divisions were not carried on right up to the main deck—therefore, they would not take away room from the cabins. He was of opinion that if they spent £50,000 on this yacht, even then they would not have a seaworthy vessel; and he questioned whether a ship, 25 years old, would be able to make a trip during the winter over the Bay of Biscay to the Straits of Gibraltar without going to the bottom. By all means, if they wanted a good yacht for Her Majesty let them build a new steel one, so that they would have good value for their money.

MR. RYLANDS

said he wished to call attention to a point which he thought was well worthy of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. It was quite clear, from the Return, that the Victoria and Albert had hardly been used at all for Her Majesty during the last 10 years. It should he borne in mind, as an important fact, that the Osborne had been used on many more occasions than the Victoria and Albert. The Osborne had not been very frequently used; but it had been substantially used, evidently for the convenience of Her Majesty. The Victoria and Albert had practically not been used; and, that being so, why should it be repaired? They professed to have the interests of economy at heart. Why, then, should they spend £50,000 in repairing a yacht which was not used? Could there be any pretence why they should have this yacht for Her Majesty? The hon. Gentleman said that, when not in use by Her Majesty, the Admiralty would be able to avail themselves of it. But there had been no necessity shown for it so far as the Admiralty were concerned; and it seemed to him, therefore, that the case of the hon. Gentleman had entirely broken down. The Osborne, which was apparently now in good condition, was maintained for Her Majesty's use, and was being used by Her Majesty whenever she had occasion for its use, and, no doubt, would continue to be used. But the Victoria and Albert, during the last 10 years, had only been used, on an average, four days a-year. That being the ease, why should they spend upon it such a large sum as was now proposed? If a Division were taken on this point he should certainly vote for the reduction of £20,000, as a protest against the country being called on, in a year when the expenditure was exceptionally high, to spend so much upon a vessel which was useless. It was not necessary to spend this money, and they ought not to be asked to charge the taxpayers so much for that which really had no practical value.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) would go to a Division upon this question. He had no doubt that the Secretary to the Admiralty had made as good a defence as it was possible to make out of the materials at his hand. But, to his mind, it was no defence for this wanton extravagance and waste of public money, the like of which was never heard in that House. It was perfectly amusing to Members below the Gangway on the Ministerial side to hear the ready manner in which hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench had echoed and re-echoed every excuse which had been put forth by hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Ministerial Bench. One could quite understand that those who supported the Government in their expenditure on these yachts were mainly those who had themselves been on the Treasury Bench, and still would go. They had a lively regard for future difficulties in which they might be placed if they did not take a proper course upon this question. He had been very anxious to hear a word or two in support of the hon. Member for Sunderland's proposal from the Democratic Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and also from the Radical Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), who had been very attentive during this debate. He (Mr. Broadhurst) had been anxiously waiting for these financial reformers to give some assistance to those who opposed this Vote. He hoped a Division would be taken upon this question, and that the Motion would receive a large amount of support; so that, at any rate, if they could not stop the present waste of money in this direction, it might act as a warning in future years that this thing could not be trifled with, as it had been in the past. Before he sat down, he would remind the Secretary to the Admiralty that just before this interesting debate had commenced he had taken the liberty of saying something about fitters in the Dockyards, but had received no response.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he had thought it desirable to confine himself to the one part of the Vote on which the Motion was made. He should have another opportunity of speaking upon the subject to which the hon. Member alluded.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he thought that the offer of the Admiralty to use the Royal yacht Osborne, when not employed in the service of the Queen, really aggravated the matter. Surely the Committee had a right to object, if the Admiralty were going to house themselves in a floating palace. He objected to the view of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty that it was too much to ask whether this yacht had been used by Her Majesty more than, on an average, four times a-year during the past 10 years. It would have been, to his mind, much wiser and much more satisfactory if this information had been given in the Return. It would be a most extraordinary thing, if they were told there was no record of the number of days this vessel had been at sea. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had made a calculation that the Victoria and Albert had had steam up about four times a-year; but they had no assurance, even then, that Her Majesty was on board. When it transpired that the yacht, upon which so much had been expended, and upon which they were asked to spend so much more, was only used on an average four or five days in the year, surely the House of Commons was entitled to come to the conclusion that the maintenance of this yacht was unnecessary and extravagant, and should be put a stop to. He felt confident that, by maintaining the Osborne in an efficient state of repair, everything that the Royal Family would require would be met. There was no justification for the maintenance of two yachts, when one would be quite sufficient for the Royal Family; and, as he had said, the statement that the yacht could be used by the Admiralty, when not required by the Queen, only aggravated the evil.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 113: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 204.)

Original Question again proposed.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked for information as to the distinction made between the classes of men in the Dockyards in the matter of holidays?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, that the difference in question arose from the fact that some of the men originally worked in the yards under private employers of labour, and contractors' men did not receive pay for holidays. When these men ceased to work under contractors, and were employed under the Works Department, they continued under the same conditions; and thus arose the inequality between them and the regular Dockyard workmen. He had every disposition to meet that grievance, because he thought the claim for holidays was a very fair one. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had asked him for information as to the result of his visit to the Dockyards. He (Mr. Campbell-Banner man) had gone to Devonport and Chatham, and his hon. Colleague near him (Sir Thomas Brassey) had gone to Portsmouth, where they had interviews with the men. They heard a statement of their case, and he was very much struck with the intelligence and fairness with which their case was stated. An elaborate account was taken of all that was said; and although he could not say they had been engaged in looking over it ever since, he assured the hon. and gallant Member that he had not been idle with respect to it during the seven months which had elapsed, and he hoped soon to announce the decision of the Department. With regard to the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), he understood and believed that the work of the shipwright, so-called, was no longer the pure carpentering work that it used to be; it was so mixed up and identified with that of the fitter that it would require a person with the skill of his hon. Friend to tell the Committee which was the shipwright and which was the fitter. At any rate, he apprehended that their work was very much alike, and that the two kinds of work greatly overlapped each other. They had arranged that the fitter apprentice should go for a period to work under a shipwright, and the shipwright apprentice under a fitter; and in that, he believed, they had pursued a judicious course. There was no privilege enjoyed by either over the other, the great desire being to put an end to a distinction which, in practice, no longer existed. He was not sure that this statement would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend; but it was the best he was able to make on this technical subject. He came now to the interesting statement of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), proposing a new scheme for the pay of Dockyard labourers. With regard to pensions being simply deferred pay, there was a fallacy in the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. He himself was no great friend of the pension system; but the system existed in this country, and it must be worked. The hon. and learned Member said the pension was nothing but deferred pay, and that men were paid less wages because they had pensions to look forward to; and, therefore, he urged that what was called a pension should be given, not only to those who survived a certain number of years' service, but to everybody in proportion as he had earned it—to the man who retired before the end of his time, and to the representative of the man who died while in the Service. If that was to be given strictly as deferred pay, he should have no objection to it. This was what was called deferred pay in the Army; that if a man was paid at the rate of 20s. he should get only 18s., and 2s. would be put to his credit with the Government, and the accumulation would be at his disposal. That was the Army system; but did the hon. and learned Member propose that every man should get, in the shape of deferred pay, as large an S allowance as he now got in the shape of pension? That would be a proposal for a sort of tontine in which all members should get something. The principle upon which pensions were arranged was the supposition, not that every man was to reach a pensionable ago, but that only a certain proportion would do so; and the hon. and. learned Member's proposal would either enormously increase the charge upon this Vote for deferred pay—because everybody would share in the pensions, instead of only those who happened to survive; or if only the amount of the present Vote were divided among the men in the way he proposed, the result would be so small to each that it would not be very acceptable to them. If they were starting with a tabula rasa to erect a new scheme, he should be very much inclined to consider favourably some such plan as that suggested by the hon. Member; but to set it before the Committee in substitution for the pension system without any alteration either in the amount of money to be voted on the one hand, or, on the other hand, in the amount of money the individual men were to receive, impracticable both from the point of view of the House and of the workmen. Therefore, he was afraid he could not hold out any hope that the Government would adopt that system. Pension was not deferred pay; it was deferred pay treated in a certain way, and based on the chance of a man surviving. The hon. and learned Member seemed to wish that it should be a tontine, in which all the men were to get prizes; but he did not think that it would be feasible, although he agreed with the hon. and learned Member, in the main, that the present state of things was not satisfactory.

MR. RYLANDS

said, this Vote had continually increased during the last 12 years, until it was now nearly double what it was in 1870–1. In that year the Vote was £878,352; but now it was £1,556,858; and he had a very strong conviction that the country did not get anything like proportionate results for this enormously-increased expenditure. Did we get now, as the results of this expenditure, 50 or 100 per cent more than we got in 1870–1? The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) bad recently called attention to the unsatisfactory state of the Navy; and although he did not agree with the noble Lord's conclusions, still he would quote the noble Lord to this extent—that, notwithstanding that we were spending twice as much now upon our Dockyards as we spent 10 or 12 years ago, we were not getting results in the proper proportion. But were we getting anything like proportionately-increased results, considering the increased expenditure? He challenged the Secretary to the Admiralty upon that, and believed the hon. Gentleman would have great difficulty in proving that we were. So far as the tonnage of vessels was concerned, he found, by the Returns laid before Parliament, that it was very little more than it was in 1870–1, when the expenditure was very much less. His impression was that it was in the nature of the old system of Dockyards, which were, of course, great manufacturing establishments, and were, or ought to be, carried on as private dockyards were, that there should be extravagant expenditure, and the employment of many more men than would be employed in private yards for the production of an equal amount of work. He should have been glad to support the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) if he had urged the Government not to make some change in the pension system, but to get rid of pensions altogether. For every 20s. paid as wages we paid 5s. as pension. That might be satisfactory to the men, but it was certainly not satisfactory to the taxpayers, and if he was correctly informed the Establishment men were not as good workmen as hired men were; and he did not believe we got as good work, or as much work, from the Establishment men as would satisfy a private shipbuilder. He observed that there was a comparison between the average cost per ton in the Dockyards and the average cost per ton by contract; and he found that while the cost in the former case for unarmoured vessels ran from £73 to £78, the cost for purchased vessels by contract was from £65 to £73. So that, in fact, there was a considerably lower charge per ton for vessels by contract than for vessels manufactured in our own Dockyards. It was only the old story, that Governments were the worst manufacturers in the world; they could not manufacture inexpensively. They were subject to influences to which private yards were not exposed. How would it be possible for a private manufactory to carry on business economically if exposed to constant pressure by Gentlemen in that House for the increase of wages? In every direction Governments were embarrassed by pressure put upon them from various motives to increase the expenditure in connection with their manufacturing operations. Yet there was no mystery in Dockyards. Their operations were spoken of as though they were different from the ordinary operations of shipyards; but they were not different, except that we put at the head of a Dockyard a gentleman who did not understand the business he was conducting. We kept him there three years, and just when he was becoming a little acquainted with the work we removed him. Speaking of dockyards as large manufacturing establishments, it was not necessary to have naval knowledge, and it was utterly impossible to carry on any business economically under the conditions under which our Dockyards were conducted. So it was with regard to a number of small articles of manufacture in the Dockyards. In the case of a great Vote of this kind, it would be a desirable thing if it could be referred to some body of men, either a Royal Commission or a Committee, for investigation. He believed that if means were taken to ascertain what were the facts connected with our manufacturing operations, the result would be the realization of considerable economy. At present the expenses of the Dockyards amounted to £1,500,000, and it was quite possible that there was absolutely wasted £300,000 or £400,000 a-year. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) had estimated the waste at £500,000 sterling a-year. It must be borne in mind that year after year there were 1,000 or 2,000 tons of shipbuilding estimated for, but not completed; and yet we spent as much money as if they had been completed. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had alluded to the fact that during the last 10 years there had been 20,000 tons estimated for in the different annual Estimates of the Government, but not completed; and he (Mr. Rylands) saw that some absurd statements had been made in certain newspapers to the effect that the Admiralty, by some nefarious proceeding, had taken possession of the money. The truth was that the Estimates had been wrong. The Admiralty had expected that the appliances they had arranged would produce a certain amount of tonnage, whereas less tonnage had been produced. He only complained that while we produced less tonnage we did not spend less money. Now, if a great manufacturing concern produced less than it estimated, and if its expenses remained exactly the same, it was very likely indeed that bankruptcy would ensue. Although they might not at this moment be able to carry on the discussion in an exhaustive manner, he hoped the Committee and the Admiralty would take the affair into serious consideration, because when they talked about great economy in the management of the country, the greatest economy might be effected without lessening the efficiency of the defences of the country.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I am sure we all desire to effect economy in the public expenditure, and I join heartily with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in a desire to effect any economy in the Dockyards that may be possible. But I am afraid that the true reason for the increase of this Vote is to be found in the enormously-increased cost of the instruments which are now admitted to be necessary for naval warfare; the ship itself, the armour, guns, fittings, and everything about a ship is very different from the ship of 12 years ago; indeed, there is very little by which we can compare one with the other. Now-a-days a ship of war is a vast piece of costly machinery, and even the form of a ship for the purposes of war is changed. Other countries and other Powers have furnished themselves with these tremendous engines; and it would be absolutely suicidal on the part of this country if we were not as well equipped, and even better equipped, than other Powers. If the House of Commons is not prepared to meet the absolute necessity of the case in providing the best material that can be provided for a ship of war, then I say the proper course to take is at once to abolish our Navy, and give out to the world that we are not prepared to hold the position of the greatest Maritime Power which we have hitherto held. That, of course, is out of the question. What we have to see is that the funds of Parliament are properly and economically applied, in order to produce the best possible results according to the light, and intelligence, skill which we possess at the present time. I regret we have come to discuss, at 10 minutes to 1 o'clock, the most important Vote which, I think, has to be submitted to Parliament during the whole course of the year. It is deplorable that no time could be found for the proper investigation of matters of this high importance, excepting in the small hours of the morning, when very few Members are present. Now, Sir, we have had already some discussion upon the policy of the Government and the policy of the Admiralty as to the amount of provision which should be made, and as to the way in which the funds are appropriated. I am, however, bound to repeat a Question which I put to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) on a recent occasion. I wish to know what the policy of the Government is with regard to the ships which are intended to be used, and on which the country must rely in case of war, and which are awaiting repair in the Dockyards? I have insisted on more than one occasion that if a ship were not intended to be used the sooner she is struck off the list the better. We ought not to rely upon that which is a mere phantom, or, at least, a mere "paper ship;" and I say that that is a mere "paper ship" which is incapable of moving out of a Dockyard and taking her place in our line-of-battle Fleet. There are many such ships in the Dockyards at the present moment. Of the ironclads there are the Black Prince, the Iron Duke, the Resistance, and the Triumph. Then there are other ships which, though not yet out of commission, are in a very bad state, and will require considerable repair. For instance, there is the Warrior, and there is a large number of unarmoured ships in the same condition. I have no doubt I shall be told by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty that if those ships were taken in and repaired it would interfere with the shipbuilding programme which the Admiralty have laid down. I maintain that it would lead to economy, and that it would be no more than the discharge of their duty on the part of the Admiralty, if they intend to repair these ships, to do so at once. No one charged with the responsibility of maintaining the Fleet, no one charged with the serious responsibility of attending to the defence of this country, ought to allow those ships to remain a single week in the Dockyards unrepaired if they have the means of taking them in hand and of causing them to be repaired. I maintain, Sir, that the responsibility of the Admiralty and the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in maintaining a force which ought to be available in case of sudden emergency is a very grave and serious responsibility; and it must be remembered that the ships now unarmoured could not be made available for many months after they might be taken in hand. Of unarmoured ships there are many awaiting repair. We are told that they are too large to place in line-of-battle; that they are not now battle ships, but are only cruisers; that they carry a very large number of men; and that, therefore, it is not desirable to expose them to the risk which would be involved in an engagement. They are, however, exceedingly fine ships, and it is intended to repair them at some time or other. It must, however, be remembered that they are deteriorating every day because they are not repaired. I believe they could be made most serviceable as training ships, and most valuable ships would they be for a Fleet to possess in time of peace. The policy I would recommend is that ships of this kind should be used in times of peace, and that ships of the fighting class, which are exceedingly costly, should be used as little as possible, but should be held in reserve in case of war whenever it should unfortunately arise. The Inconstant, the Raleigh, and vessels of that class cannot be excelled as training and cruising ships. They offer every facility for qualifying both officers and blue-jackets for the discharge of their duties. But ships like the Inflexible and the Thunderer have cost enormous sums of money; and so long as they are kept in commission they are deteriorating every day, and when they require repair the country will be put to very great expense, and will have to submit to very great delay. I would strongly advise the Admiralty to take the best possible care they can of our powerful fighting ships, and to use in times of peace all the unarmoured ships that are available. Then there comes a question which is of still greater moment—namely, the strength really required for Her Majesty's Fleet. In "another place" the First Lord of the Admiralty expressed a view which I am sure is shared by all his Colleagues, and which Her Majesty's Government, as a Government, must maintain; and that is, that the English Fleet must be superior to any other Fleet, and be ready to discharge any duty it may be called on to discharge. I take it for granted that that is the view which the House of Commons will not only accept, but will insist upon. What are the duties which the English Fleet is called upon to discharge? The English Fleet is, I would first say, dispersed all over the world. We must have a squadron in the North American Seas, another in the Pacific, another in China, a third in the East Indies, a fourth on the East and West Coast of Africa, a fifth at the Cape of Good Hope, and a sixth in the Australian Seas. Now, Sir, in considering the strength that is required in time of war, you have first of all to consider what will be required on these stations. After that, you have to consider what strength you will require for the Fleet in the Mediterranean, the Channel Fleet, the Reserve Fleet, and to supply the casualties that war would be certain to bring about, and for coast defence, and you have to consider what strength you require in the way of cruisers for the defence of our commerce. After carefully considering these matters, desirous of leaving full responsibility upon Her Majesty's Government, and with every wish to give every support and assistance to Her Majesty's Government in the course they have felt themselves bound to adopt, I say I am obliged, looking at the progress made during the last few years by Foreign Navies, and at the strength at which they have arrived, to state that our strength at the present moment is not adequate to the duties which may be required of it. I say this with the greatest possible reluctance, and I say it with regret; but I say it because I feel I have a responsibility in this House, sharing that responsibility with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that silence on my part would be a great neglect of public duty. It is in discharge of a public duty that I now express the belief and the strong feeling that the force which we possess is not adequate to the responsibilities which attach to this country, and not adequate to the safety of the country, having regard to the great development of the force which has occurred within the last three or four years on the Continent of Europe. I will say no more on this point. The responsibility for the course which will be taken must rest with Her Majesty's Government alone; but I do feel this—that that responsibility is a very great and a very serious one. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will, perhaps, complain that if our Naval Force is to be developed the Estimates will have to be increased, and in answer to that I would say that the Estimates certainly must increase, unless some other means can be found for providing the materials and the ships for the defence of the country and the assertion of its position and rights, and for the protection of the vast commerce of this country on the high seas. Decidedly increased Estimates will be necessary unless other means can be found to supply ships for this purpose. I do not see how it is possible to reduce the charges in regard to the Navy in order to increase this Shipbuilding Vote. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) suggested that more contract work should be undertaken, and I cordially agree with him. I think great advantage would in every respect be derived by the Public Service if a larger amount of this work were given out than has been given out during the last few years. It is not merely on the ground of economy that I recommend this; but it is because I believe that good work could be done in private yards, and because I believe we have great resources that ought to be availed of in this country. In a matter of emergency, no doubt, the experience obtained in building war ships in private yards would be of great service to the public interest. I have no doubt I shall be told that in the event of our being engaged in war we have great resources in the Merchant Navy. Well, if it were not so, our position would, indeed, be very serious. We have a very great Merchant Navy; but we cannot rely wholly upon that resource. It is one upon which I and my Colleagues in the previous Administration counted, and for which provision had been made. It would take, however, some months to equip the merchant ships that would be required for the protection of the commerce of the country, if war overtook us and should come suddenly upon us without much notice. These merchant ships would be available for the protection of the commerce as against other ships of a like character; but they would not be of the slightest value against armoured ships or protected cruisers, or against any of the war ships that might be brought against us by Foreign Powers. I, therefore, feel most strongly that further provision than that which has been made is necessary under the present circumstances of defence and the increased armaments of Europe, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will see their way to make that provision. Probably the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) will be able to answer the question that I have addressed to him with regard to the supply of armoured and unarmoured ships, and I will reserve until another opportunity any further observations that I might wish to make upon this Vote.

MR. PULESTON

said, the argument of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) practically came to this—that they should close the Dockyards altogether. The hon. Member would surely not venture to suggest that they should maintain all the property and material they had in the Dockyards, keeping them and the workmen idle whilst they got their naval work done by contract. In addition to the cause already stated to the Committee for that addition, it might be mentioned that 12 years ago there had been very little work, comparatively speaking, in the Dockyards, and that a great deal had been done in the private yards. It had since, he was glad to say, been found to be to the interest of the Public Service that the Dockyards should be employed instead of lying idle, and from that time to this they had had nearly their full complement of work. In order to explain the figures which were put down for the large increase, they must put against them the lesser amount paid to private yards, and then they would see that the Dockyard Vote, as now presented, did entail an increase on the general expenditure. Did the hon. Member for Burnley know the amount of capital and stock-in-trade they had in the Dockyards? Would he not allow that it was better that the Dockyards should be fully occupied than that they should be idle, just as it was better that the hon. Member's manufactory should be working instead of standing still?

MR. RYLANDS

said, if he could buy cheaper than he could make he should be content to keep his place standing.

MR. PULESTON

said, the Government had come to the conclusion that they could not buy cheaper than they could make. Reference had been made to the pensions which were granted to the Dockyard servants, and they were referred to as a dead weight when the Government put their naval work out to contract. He had argued that the words "dead weight" were hardly such as could be applied to pensions. His argument had been that these pensions were really not a burden, because the amount they cost was practically saved in the decrease which they brought about in wages. The Government paid so much less to the men, because they subsequently gave them pensions, than was paid to men in the private yards of private contractors. The pensions paid by the Government were not, therefore, a dead weight in the aggregate, because we paid no more than the private shipbuilders paid for having our work well done. One reason why they should give the Dockyard labourer full work was because in time of emergency we could not always depend upon private yards, and it was necessary, in order to depend upon their services, that they should be fully employed. There was one other remark of the hon. Member for Burnley he should like to refer to, and that was that the serious charge with regard to men on the Establishment should be reduced, because they did their work less efficiently than they should do. If the hon. Member would allow him to say so—and the Secretary to the Admiralty would bear him out fully—no class of men had worked more efficiently than the men on the Establishment in the Dockyard. The experience of every Lord and Secretary to the Admiralty, and every Member who had had experience of Dockyard constituencies and of shipbuilding in private yards, was that the established men of the Royal Dockyards turned out work second to none in the country. No doubt, the hon. Member would admit that he had made rather too sweeping a charge against a body of men who deserved well of their country.

SIR MASSEY LOPES

said, he obtained a Return some time ago, showing the Naval Expenditure year by year for the last 20 years; and from that Return he found that less was being spent on the Effective Service of the Navy than was the case 20 years ago, notwithstanding the great and costly improvements that had taken place in the mean-time. When the Secretary to the Admiralty introduced the Estimates, he told the Committee the Government were going to expend £2,750,000 on the direct Effective Force of the Navy; but he (Sir Massey Lopes) confessed that that seemed to him but a trivial sum. Though comparisons were odious, and it was not politic to be always comparing ourselves with other nations, it was unwise to live in a fool's paradise, not attempting to see our position clearly. He admitted that gun for gun our Navy was quite as strong, and perhaps stronger, than that of many other countries; but it should be borne in mind the duties and responsibilities of our Navy were vastly greater than any other Navy; and, therefore, a comparison of figures merely was no comparison at all. The Secretary to the Admiralty said he deprecated international naval rivalries, and there might be truth in that; but, bearing in mind that France had set the example, it would be most dangerous, when France or any other country was making an unusually large Naval Expenditure, if we did not do our best to bring ourselves into competition with them. The Secretary to the Admiralty, when he introduced the Estimates, told the Committee that this year would give an actual increase of £130,000, and he thought it necessary to express regret that this application had been made to Parliament; and he said it was only after careful deliberation it had been resolved upon; but such a small increase needed no such apology. The House and the country would willingly give a much larger sum if the Admiralty gave its opinion that such was absolutely necessary. The comparative strength of our Navy was not to be estimated by the number of ships, but by the duties and responsibilities those ships had to undertake. If we compared our merchant shipping with that of other countries, it would be found that Great Britain owned 22,500,000 tons of shipping; France, with a Navy equal to ours, 3,650,000 tons; Italy, 4,500,000; Germany, 3,400,000; and Russia, 2,000,000 tons. Great Britain carried more than half of the commerce of the whole world; 'and last year, out of 7,000,000 tons which formed the sea trade of the world—4,000,000 tons sailed under the British flag. That showed how absolutely necessary was our naval strength for the security of our commerce; and though the cost of our Navy was considerable, we must bear in mind the vast interests we had at stake, that the amount of the premium was comparatively small, and that the increase in our Navy had not at all gone on in proportion to the increase in our wealth and population.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, right hon. Gentlemen had put forward their views with great gravity and circumstance; but he hoped they would not be guilty of the inconsistency of denouncing the Government out-of-doors for the increase of expenditure, while indoors they were engaged in forcing expenditure upon the Government.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, the hon. Member must have paid but slight attention to what had been said by his right hon. Friends out-of-doors if he had not heard them for the last two years urging—cautiously, perhaps—but still urging on the Government, the necessity for increasing our Naval expenditure, more cautiously, perhaps, than he (Sir John Hay) had, as befitting their greater responsibility. But they had both urged upon the Government the necessity of watching carefully the increase in the naval strength of Foreign Powers, ever taking care that that strength did not exceed ours. At the present moment, the expenditure on the Effective Service of the Navy was lower than it had been for many years. The Return the hon. Gentleman had placed on the Table showed that the cost of the Effective Service just now was £8,549,300; in 1861, it was £10,735,000; in 1877, it was £10,433,000; in 1878, £9,000,000; in 1879, it was £8,098,000; and last year it was £8,725,000; while this year it was £8,549,000. When it was known that the expenditure in a neighbouring country, which he trusted would continue our friend, was double in shipbuilding items, according to the French Estimates, surely it was time we should awaken from our lethargy and increase the number of our ships to our requirements. Our Dockyards were' sufficient, no doubt, to maintain the repair of our Fleet, but not, at the same time, to complete the building of the Fleet. The Secretary to the Admiralty would, no doubt, reply as to details which had been raised; but, before he did so, he (Sir John Hay) would like to ask whether the Defence was one of the ships he considered efficient, for public service, and in what state were the Bellerophon, Black Prince, Resistance, and other ships named by the hon. Gentleman? At the time when our iron-clad Fleet was first established, it was considered by the House desirable to encourage private trade in the building of iron-clad ships, and down to 1869–70 a largo proportion of the iron-clad ships of this country were built by private trade. On the Clyde, on the Mersey, the Tyne, the Thames, at Hull, at Belfast, we could build 12 iron-clads, if we desired to do so, and only one was being built by contract. It would be no such great expenditure to lay down 12, and if the contract was to build a certain number at a certain rate of progress, they would be approaching completion, and in the event of necessity they could be hurried on to completion. Until something of this kind was done, the country would be in the defenceless condition described by his right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith). This country was not spending sufficient in shipbuilding; and he believed that until some arrangement was made with our Colonies—which they were themselves ready to enter into—for assisting in the construction or manning of ships under certain regulations, it would be perfectly impossible to protect our enormous trade alluded to by his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes). He would not detain the Committee at such a late hour; but this was a matter of serious importance to the country. The Chairman very properly would not allow the Committee to travel into affairs in Madagascar; and he would only say that there were events occurring in various parts of the world which behoved us to keep our eyes open, and not to live in a state of false security.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, before the hon. Gentleman replied, he would like to ask what guns would be supplied to the Benbow?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, it had been decided to supply the Benbow with two 100-ton guns of the same pattern as those tried by the Elswick firm—not the identical guns, but guns of that principle and typo. He was somewhat surprised at the discussion which had taken place, because there was a full discussion, or at least a very long one, on the 7th May, on the general question of the shipbuilding' policy of the Government and the state of the Navy, in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) took part, and yet he then expressed nothing of that alarm he had now expressed. He was never more surprised than to hear the right hon. Gentleman come forward as the advocate of a largely-increased Naval Expenditure. He was not there to object to encouragement to spend more money in building ships, for the Admiralty could not object to the opportunity of such expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman said, not what was said by the gallant Admiral, that we should be in a woeful plight in 1885, when the French had completed their programme. As to our position in that year, they had on a previous occasion stated their opinion, and his hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Brassey) had given facts and figures to combat the view taken. But the right hon. Gentleman now went further and said, not in reference to what it would be in 1885, but at the present moment, our Meet was inadequate. If it was not adequate, where was the responsibility? By the vessels which the present Admiralty had laid down, they could not have added a single ship to the Navy during the time the present Government had been in Office; and if there was any deficiency in the iron-clads of to-day it was not duo to any neglect of the present Government, but because the right hon.' Gentleman and his Friends did not make sufficient provision five years ago. There was nothing he disliked more than recriminations between two Administrations, and he tried to avoid the profitless tu quoque argument; but, as a matter of fact, while they were told they were not building enough, he had showed, when he introduced the Estimates, that the Admiralty were gradually, tentatively, and prudently increasing the amount of iron-clad tonnage they proposed to construct, not suddenly increasing expenditure, but gradually and substantially adding to their strength. Last year the figures were 11,466 tons; this year the amount was 12,281 tons; in 1881 it was 9,235 tons, and, coming to the last year the right hon. Gentleman was in Office—1880—it was only 7,387 tons. He was, therefore, greatly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should come forward, not to say, as he might have said, that 1885 would find this country in a bad plight because shipbuilding had been neglected, but that our Navy was not adequate at the present moment. He was not finding fault with what the right hon. Gentleman had done in the past; but when the statement was made that such a state of things existed, and that the present Government were responsible for it, when the right hon. Gentleman gave the weight of his authority and experience to such a statement, and his Colleague agreed with him, then he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was compelled to give some sort of statement in reply to re-assure the Committee, and to show that the country was not in such an altogether bad position. Without going into the question of classes of ships, or of the time when those in construction would be built, and without going into the merits of ships included in the Navies of other countries—all of which may be matters of controversy— he would say that we had 25 iron-clad ships in commission, and eight in the First Reserve—a total of 33; and, taking four of the Great Powers of Europe together, the total was 34, so that we were within one of the total number of iron-clad ships that could be put on the sea by the four Great Powers—France, Russia, Italy, and Germany; and this would show there was no ground for the sudden alarm exhibited by his right hon. Friend. He was especially astonished at the remarks about the strength of the French Navy. His right hon. Friend was not so much alarmed a few weeks ago, when the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) made his statement, and he seemed then to take a calmer view of the case; but something must have happened since to occasion his unusual alarmist mood. It was necessary, at all events, to point out that, if the Navy was in so inefficient a condition at the present time, it was not from any remissness of Her Majesty's present Government. The right hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir John Hay) proposed that the building of 12 iron-clads should be at once commenced by contract in as many shipbuilding yards; it was no great affair, he said, for much need not be done to them in the current year. Now, that was a plan which, when adopted by Foreign Governments, had a most imposing effect in speeches in the House; and if he wished to make a great impression in the French, Italian, or German Assembly, he should make contracts for 20 such ships, with very little progress to be made on them in each year, for they would all probably be quoted as effective ships of a most formidable kind. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said—"Let them be laid down, but do very little to them." Now, he confessed he was a mere tyro in such matters; but he had already learned that the maxim to follow was—" When you begin, finish as fast as you can." And again and again had he been called upon to defend delay in the finishing of ships, and sometimes he found difficulty in justifying it. But why should the Admiralty, with their eyes open, rush into the very mistake which was said to be the most fatal that could be made in shipbuilding? One thing which the hon. Baronet (Sir Massey Lopes) said he wished to correct; the Return he quoted from was not the corrected Return, and was not quite accurate; the correction had been laid on the Table, but, perhaps, had not yet been distributed. The last two years were not completed years, only estimated sums, and did not include extra receipts. Of course, the whole sum, including the amount of the extra receipts, was spent on the Effective Service; so that the Return as originally presented was misleading. It had now been put right. Then his hon. Friend said last year less tonnage by 1,500 tons was built; he quoted the figures, and said the money was spent otherwise. But the reason, as had been fully explained, was that the "tons" cost a great deal more than was expected; the money was all honestly spent upon the ships; but the result was not so great as was expected. As to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) said about repairing ships, in theory it was right enough; he quite admitted that ships ought to be repaired as soon as possible, and that in times of peace certain classes of ships should be used to save the wear and tear of expensive iron-clads; but it was not always possible to carry out the theory. With regard to the Black Prince and the Resistance, the Admiralty had not yet determined what should be done with them; if the decision had been arrived at, it would have been provided for in this year's Estimates. There was an opportunity, if it was thought worth while, of converting them into useful efficient ships at a probable expenditure of over £100,000; but there were other ships the Naval Advisers of the Admiralty put before them, and the question was for a time in abeyance. In the preparation of next year's Estimates, it would be the duty of the Admiralty to consider whether these ships should be taken in hand. The repairs to the Iron Duke were in hand, and would be well advanced this year. This was a case in which, contrary to the usual experience, the cost would fall below the Estimate. The Thunderer repairs were nearly, if not entirely, completed at Malta. The Triumph would be repaired at Portsmouth. The masts of the Warrior had proved faulty, and, for the moment, she would not be taken in hand; the Raleigh would be completed. With regard to the Defence, the scientific opinion was that her boilers could be worked at a pressure of 15 instead of 30, and the diminution in speed did not correspond to the diminution in power. The Bacchante would be completed this year.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, of course, when he spoke of shipbuilding, he was quite aware that it took five years to build an iron-clad, and he referred especially to progress which was being made elsewhere. He did not wish to do so in any invidious form; but it would have been a great neglect of duty on his part, if he did not seek to convey to the Government that progress in Foreign Navies was so considerable that it became the duty of the Government to take further steps in regard to the Fleet. He made no charge or complaint against the Government, so far as our Fleet was concerned. Anyone with experience knew that it took five or six years to build an effective iron-clad; and, that being so, the responsibility was the greater, and the more important was it that stops should be taken in sufficient time to meet any emergency that might arise. The Secretary to the Admiralty had referred to the tonnage under the late Administration; but had said that there would be no advantage in entering into recriminations. He might answer that by further references; but all he wished to say was that he made no complaint whatever, but simply wished to impress upon the Government, as he did in May last, the responsibility that remained with them, and to express the opinion which had been growing in his mind that it was essential for the security of the country that further additions to the Fleet should be made.

MR. BIGGAR

said, before the Vote passed, he would once more draw the attention of the Admiralty to the claims of his friend John Clare. He would not go into the merits of the case, but would merely point out this. By the decision of the Grand Committee on the question of Patents, it was provided that where a patent was used by the Crown, the Crown should investigate the claims of the patentee, and give the compensation which was thought right; and all he asked was that that principle, to which the Government assented, should be applied to the case of Mr. Clare. No doubt, the Government had had that gentleman's plans and drawings. Then let him bring forward proofs of his claim, and let the claim be investigated and decided on its merits by an impartial tribunal, not an outside tribunal. His former contention was for a Select Committee; but all he asked now was that the Government should decide upon the principle laid down by themselves for all patents generally.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he thought the case of Mr. John Clare was practically dead. He was not at all sure that the proposal of the hon. Member for Cavan would be feasible, that legislation now proposed in regard to patents should be made retrospective; and that all parties who might think that their rights had been infringed, or their patents adopted by the Crown for many years back, should be entitled to all the benefits of the Act on the opinion of an outside tribunal.

MR. BIGGAR

said, no; not an outside tribunal; he only asked that the Admiralty should investigate the claim.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the case had been so often investigated by successive Boards of Admiralty, and so often the subject of discussion in the House, that further investigation would add nothing to it. A Judge in a Court of Law, too, had made some strong observations upon the subject—in words which he could not at the moment quote—and he was in hopes, as he said last year, that Mr. Clare was satisfied, because that gentleman had sent no more letters. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) said then that, if that was his way of thinking, probably more letters would be sent; but he had been spared that hitherto, and as Mr. Clare had allowed the matter to sleep so long, he really thought he might be excused for declining to re-open it.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had saved the hon. Gentleman from any more of Mr. Clare's letters. He had brought the case before the House so repeatedly in former times that he would not trouble the Committee with details. But he had never heard the Representative of the Admiralty declare that he personally had investigated the merits of the case; it was always said someone else, on a former occasion, had done so, and that he believed Mr. John Clare had no case. All he asked now was, that the hon. Gentleman should himself investigate the case. Mr. Clare would probably be satisfied with that, and investigation on the merits of the case, not by an outside tribunal, but by officials of the Admiralty.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he did not think he went through the whole of the case himself, and, therefore, would express no opinion; but throughout the voluminous Papers he had seen pencil annotations in the handwriting of his Predecessor, and he could, therefore, safely say that it had been investigated. He would promise to look through the Papers again; but he must ask the hon. Member to ask Mr. Clare not to send any more of them.

Question put, and agreed to.

(6.) £71,000, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.

(7.) £64,900, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.

MR. BIGGAR

thought it was desirable the Chairman should now report Progress.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, the remaining Votes were not of a contentious character, and more might well be taken. If not, then it was probable Navy Estimates would not again be heard of until the end of the Session approached.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £22,300, Marine Divisions.

(9.) £1,062,500, Sec. 1, Naval Stores for Building and Repairing the Fleet, &c.

MR. W. H. SMITH

asked whether the hon. Gentleman really wished to take that Vote that night?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, it was desirable to take as many as possible for the reasons he had stated. Probably if Votes were postponed they would, under the pressure of Business, be put off to a late period of the Session.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the items under Sub-head "B" required a little explanation. There would seem to be a decrease in metals of £63,500.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the decrease referred to was only apparent, as, on reference to page 115 of the Navy Estimates, it would be seen that a sum of £21,700 for electric light apparatus had been transferred from Sub-head "B" to a new Sub-head, "F." A saving in prices was expected to the extent of £29,000 under Metals; and, in addition, they had commenced the year with, a better stock of the articles provided for in this sub-head. He might say this Vote, generally, was carefully gone into, and all the items were thoroughly examined.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he trusted the armour for the ships would be ready, whether paid for this year or not. He could understand that the time for payment might not have arrived; but the programme could not be fulfilled unless the supply of armour was kept up.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, it had been very carefully considered.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, if this £63,500 were carried over to next year, and if more rapid progress were to be made with the ships, there would be a swelling of next year's Estimates under this; head.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, there was always an overlapping of one year on to another.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, there had been some delay in the mounting of the 6-inch guns. Had the pattern for the carriages of these guns been decided?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, that it had not been finally decided.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he would make this the subject of a Question later on.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he should like to know when the Benbow would be completed?

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, nothing had been set down for torpedo boats, either first or second-class. Were the Admiralty satisfied that past Estimates under this head were sufficient as compared with Foreign Powers?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the contract for the Benbow was that she should be delivered in October, 1885, and launched in January of that year. It was found a few days ago that the contractors were a little behind time; but it was not supposed this would seriously delay her completion. She would be fitted at the Dockyard in the year following her contract date of delivery.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, there were no Estimates for new torpedo boats. Those estimated for last year were being completed.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) Sec. 2. Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,052,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Machinery and Ships built by Contract, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884.

MR. WARTON

said, the Chairman really ought now to report Progress. Votes were being passed without consideration at the rate of £1,000,000 every two minutes.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, most of the Votes had already been the subject of discussion, and there was nothing debatable left. Members interested were present, and if the Votes were not taken now they would probably have to be relegated to a late period of the Session.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, a long discussion was likely to arise on the next Vote but one (Martial Law, &c); and after hon. and gallant Members had waited so long it would be hardly fair to enter on a discussion that must take up a considerable time.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, probably there would be no discussion upon the next Vote (New Works, &c). It might be sufficient to take the Votes up to that, and then report Progress.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, it had been agreed to postpone the Vote which had relation to the working of the Contagious Diseases Acts, in order that any discussion on that subject might be taken upon the analogous Army Vote. He would suggest that they should also postpone the following Vote (Martial Law, &c), and take the others.

CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERON

said, this would be convenient. It would be his duty to call the attention of the Committee to a question affecting the character of a relative of his, and it was desirable that he should do so at a time when his remarks could be made public.

MR. PULESTON

asked why should discussion in reference to the Contagious Diseases Acts be now avoided?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, an undertaking had been given by the Prime Minister to that effect.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £462,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Now Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, and Repairs, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he would like to have some information as to the completion of the works at Chatham, and also what steps the Admiralty were taking as to the extensions at Portsmouth. There was a great deal of work to be done yet, and a Vote was before the Committee for barracks for the convicts to be engaged there. Was it proposed to finish that work before the convicts were removed?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, it was so intended, and the work would be carried forward with all possible despatch. He agreed it was most undesirable to keep such work hanging on.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he also desired to know if the works at Keyham would be proceeded with vigorously? With regard to works at Malta also, he desired to put a similar question. There was some question as to the particular site, and he understood the Admiralty had sent out an officer to determine where it should be. There was no work more important to the Public Service than the Docks there; and he would urge on the Admiralty the importance of coming to a determination, and proceeding with the work vigorously.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, his right hon. Friend had anticipated him with a question in reference to Keyham Yard. Would it not be possible to push forward that work a little more rapidly? The works had now got to such a point in the building that with a little augmentation of the grant the work might be finished in a few months. Then, he would like to ask about the extensions at Haulbowline. The House was given to understand they would be completed by this time; but there was a Vote for £30,000 this year, and a note indicated that a further Estimate for completing the work was under revision. What was the meaning of that? Were the works to be still further extended? There was certainly an impression two or three years ago that the works by this time would be completed.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, no doubt there had been delay in the completion of the barracks at Keyham, the principal cause of which was the death of the contractor. There was no probability of their being completed until next year. With regard to the Dock at Malta, the Admiralty had had the question seriously before them, and he had accompanied the Director of Works and his Colleague last winter, when a site was selected. But since that time representations had been made by the officer of the Royal Engineers with reference to the exposure of the site to the fire of an enemy outside, and it had been thought prudent to examine another site adjacent to the Somerset Dock. The matter was now ripe for decision, and the work would be proceeded with vigorously. The delay in the works at Haulbowline arose out of the difficulty of employing convict labour. Reliance was placed upon obtaining a larger number of convicts than were actually obtained. Quite recently it had been decided to remove the convicts altogether from Haulbowline. The Admiralty were anxious to expedite the works. The removal of the convicts would necessitate a supplementary appropriation of about £4,000, in addition to the £30,000 provided in the Estimates, in order to supply free labour, in lieu of the convict labour withdrawn. He anticipated the work would occupy two years more before the Dock would be fit for use. Certain engineering difficulties had been encountered, which were not anticipated when the work was undertaken.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, the time had now arrived when, after a long Sitting, the Chairman should report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he thought that it was understood that, with the exception of the Votes mentioned earlier, the remaining Votes should be taken. The "Half Pay" Vote had been taken, and those left would give rise to no discussion.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, if there was to be no discussion, the Votes might as well be taken with the other postponed Votes.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, there was Notice of an Amendment to this Vote.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the substance of that Amendment had been brought before the Committee up on Vote 6, when he answered the points raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), so that Amendment might be considered as disposed of.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 48: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 205.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(12.) £119,600, Miscellaneous Services.

(13.) £876,900, Military Pensions and Allowances.

(14.) £329,700, Civil Pensions and Allowances.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he did not know that strictly it had any bearing on the Vote; but he would like to ask when it was expected the Greenwich Hospital Estimates would be laid on the Table? They were usually presented with the Naval Estimates, and it was important to have them before the Greenwich Hospital Bill was discussed.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, they would be presented very shortly.

Vote agreed to.

(15.) £136,300, Extra Estimate for Services not Naval.—Freight, &c. on Account of the Army Department.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.