SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 16 April 1860)

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he had one or two observations to make upon 1852 the Vote under consideration, but before doing so he would proceed to reply to the various points that had been referred to by the hon. Members who had addressed the House during the evening.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he rose to order. He wished to know whether the noble Lord was entitled to make a general statement in Committee when a particular Vote was before them?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that it was not usual or convenient that general statements should be made on a specific item, but, no doubt, the noble Lord, the Secretary to the Admiralty, would exercise a sound discretion relative to the explanations which he might think proper to make. He would only requst the noble Lord, in order somewhat to limit the discussion, to confine his answers to the particular votes before the House.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, that the Committee was placed in an awkward situation in consequence of the noble Lord declining to answer the various questions put to him by various Members until the right hon. Gentleman had left the chair, and the first Vote was proposed in Supply. He thought that the course taken by the noble Lord was rather unfair towards the House.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, that no exception could be taken as to the shape in which the rule of the House was explained by the Chairman. The course taken by the noble Lord was most objectionable. They had had a long debate in the course of the evening in which several questions of serious importance had been raised. He submitted that it was the duty of the noble Lord representing the Admiralty to have given frank and direct answers to those questions put to him before the House went into Committee, and he was bound to enter into those matters with that freedom which he could alone do in the course of the debate. He (Sir J. Pakington) maintained that it was a complete departure from the rules of the House for the noble Lord to enter into a general statement at that time, The noble Lord had sat through a long debate and had heard a variety of matters discussed upon the question of the first Order of the Day. To his (Sir J. Pakington's) astonishment the noble Lord rose and said that he should make no answer then to the questions that had been put to him, but that he should reserve the statement he had to make until the Speaker had left the chair. The noble Lord now proposed on another question altogether to- 1853 deviate from the old established practice and the recognized rules of the House; to offer explanations to all those matters that applied only to the former debate. The Chair-main he (Sir J. Pakington) was bound to say had placed the question of order in its proper light, and had pronounced his opinions on the rules of the House, in accordance with the judicious manner which characterized his deportment generally as president of Committees. The rules of the House laid down that in Committee of Supply no hon. Member could refer to any Vote, except that immediately under consideration. The noble Lord was, therefore, not now at liberty to enter into that statement which he should have made in the course of the evening's debate, when he had a legitimate opportunity of doing so.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he could not concur with the observations of the right hon. Baronet who bad just spoken. It was quite true that, according to the strict rule of the House—a rule which it might be sometimes very convenient and proper to adhere to more closely than was done—no hon. Member ought to speak except upon the question actually before the chair. If that rule were strictly enforced, when the Chairman moved the adjournment of the House with a view to the discussion of some topic or other which was totally unconnected with the question whether the House should adjourn, hon. Members ought to be stopped and called upon to reason only upon the question why the House should adjourn. If the strict rule of the House were to be enforced, the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty would have to discuss the establishment of the Admiralty, but it would be perfectly competent for the House in discussing the Vote before it to allude to anything that might be said for or against the constitution of the Board, in regard to every branch of the service. His noble Friend, in adopting the course he had done, had consulted the convenience of the House, and was perfectly entitled to discuss and to answer upon that Vote of the Committee anything that might have been said in the course of the evening in regard to the good or bad management of the naval service. In his (Lord Palmerston's) recollection nothing was more common than that a person charged with the conduct of any branch of the public service should defer his remarks till the House went into Committee. Surely no hon. Member who had sat in the House more than one Session could fail to recollect fre- 1854 quent occasions in which a similar course had been pursued with regard to the Army Estimates and other matters. To Members, such a course gave an opportunity to repeat their objections, and to discuss and consider the answers which were given in Committee—and he would undertake to say, from his personal recollection, that the course was perfectly usual. If his noble Friend had replied before the House went into Committee, hon. Members' mouths would have been closed, whereas they would now have an opportunity of making a counter reply. With all submission to the Chairman, he must take leave to say that the charge of the right hon. Baronet was wholly unfounded, and that the noble Lord, in the course he was taking, was acting within the strict rules and practice of the House.

§ LORD LOVAINE
remarked that if the views of the noble Viscount were correct, the judgment pronounced by the Chairman must be wrong. The hon. Gentleman stated that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty was bound according to the rule of the House to limit his observations to the particular Vote before the Committee, whereas the noble Viscount insisted that he was at liberty to refer to the thousand and one questions which had been alluded to in the course of the evening.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, when he called attention to the point of order, he bore in his mind a circumstance that had occurred on a former occasion, when an hon. Gentleman who was now in India (Mr. Wilson) had the conduct of the Civil Service Estimates in that House: a general discussion arose upon the subject, and many explanations were sought for in regard to them. The hon. Gentleman to whom he referred, however, declined to answer the objections made on that occasion until the House went into Committee. The consequence was that a general debate arose, which occupied the entire night, and ended, if he remembered right, in an adjourned debate. He mentioned that fact to show the inconvenience of such a course. If it were regular for the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty to enter into a long statement then, and to refer to the various topics brought under discussion that evening, it followed, as a necessary consequence, that other hon. Members could also enter into a discussion of all those points. He put it to the noble Lord whether he was really consulting the interests of the Government in laying down such a 1855 doctrine. If the noble Secretary were now permitted to discuss de omnibus rebus et quibusdem aliis, the same course would of course be open to hon. Members generally on every Supply night, and the most voluminous debates would therefore be the consequence. He submitted it was the duty of the Committee to adhere strictly to the immediate subject before them.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, it had been his duty on former occasions to bring forward the Army Estimates, and at those times, and when upon the first Vote, he had entered into a detail of all the Votes, and had explained everything connected with the Army Estimates. Surely, therefore, his noble Friend was entitled to make any observations he pleased as to the conduct of the navy, and answer any objections which had been made as to the manlier in which that department of the public service had been conducted.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, he wished to remind the noble Viscount that the noble Secretary to the Admiralty had already made a statement, and had gone largely into the first Vote. He presumed, therefore, that the noble Lord would have an opportunity of discussing each Vote seriatim.

ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE
contended, if the noble Secretary of the Admiralty were to be allowed the indulgence claimed for him by the noble Viscount, other hon. Members should have the same opportunity of entering into all those subjects in reply.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, his only object had been to study the convenience of the House. He did not wish to shirk any explanation, nor to decline entering into or answering any questions that had been put. If he had erred it had been rather through ignorance than from bad intention. The first duty he had to perform was to take notice of the Motion which his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone) had made in reference to the reserve captains of the navy. The hon. Baronet had made his observations, if he might be allowed to say so, with a great deal of adroitness, and had spoken in very strong terms for the benefit of those officers for whom he was interested, and he believed there was scarcely a Member of that House—

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, he again rose to order. He could see nothing in the Vote before the Committee which in any way related to the subject referred to by the noble Lord.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he would defer the explanation he had to offer in regard to the case of the reserved post-captains, although he regretted to do so, as many Gentlemen were naturally anxious to hear it. He hoped he would be in order in replying to the observations of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley).

§ LORD LOVAINE
remarked, that the subject of timber came under Vote 10.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
Very well, then I will confine myself to the Vote before the Committee, and simply move that the Vote for the expenses of the Admiralty Office be allowed.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, he wished to draw attention to the fact that the Vote for the Admiralty Office was continually on the increase. This year it was larger than it was the year before by £143,230. His great objection to the Vote, however, arose from his conviction that the constitution of the Admiralty was incompatible with the proper management of the naval business of the country. As long as the Admiralty was presided over by a man destitute of practical experience of naval life, the same absence of order and economy would be observable as at present. The First Lord had to discharge duties which, as a civilian, he could not possibly know anything about. The professional man who acted as a sort of "dry nurse," being generally selected by the First Lord himself, was as likely to be inefficient as not, and even if fit for the post his advice was often disregarded, or perhaps not asked for at all. Each member of the Board had a particular department allotted to his charge, but general questions were discussed by the whole Board. Very often, however, the First Lord gave orders which his colleagues knew nothing about. When the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) was First Lord, and assumed the responsibility of acting in that manner, Sir J. Pechell, a very conscientious officer, protested against it; but all members of the Board were not equally independent. The perpetual changes in the Board which took place under the present system could not fail to be prejudicial to the service. There had been six First Lords in ten years, and even the naval Lord was changed like the rest. He believed that one of the chief causes of the discontent which had prevailed in the navy for some time past was that the sailors were confined too closely to drill at 1857 Portland, and debarred from the privilege of going ashore, which they used formerly to enjoy. Drill was always irksome to a sailor. When carried too far, it invariably produced discontent; and when the men were called off from "leave," the irritation was sure to be increased. The patronage of the Admiralty was practically in the hands of the First Lord, and it was not easy to see how that was to be prevented. The First Lord claimed a certain share of the promotions and appointments as his own private patronage, and indeed seldom asked advice as to the disposal of any of it. The Duke of Somerset was the present First Lord, and how had he distributed the patronage? He had bestowed a command on Admiral Milne—a very excellent officer certainly, who, while captain, had been in constant service, but had been for eleven years a Lord of the Admiralty. Admiral Milne was a canny Scotchman, and had retained his seat at the Board under both Whigs and Tories. He was now despatched to the North American station. Then there was Admiral Bruce, a very excellent officer too, who had had three commands running. He had commanded on the coast of Africa, was removed thence to the Pacific, and was now installed at Portsmouth Dockyard. Admiral Bruce was a very good officer, as he had said, but then he was not the only good officer in the service. The next was Admiral Fanshawe, who had held four previous commands, and had not remained in any one of them long enough to complete his time. He was, no doubt, a very excellent officer; but he was not the only good officer in the service. They were doing everything they possibly could to prevent the Commander in Chief or the Secretary at War constantly keeping the same officers in each department of the army, and the same thing ought to be done with regard to the navy. The next appointment of the present First Lord was Admiral Elliott, who was removed from the Channel squadron to Portsmouth, then to the Admiralty, and now to the Mediterranean. He had not the least objection to any of those officers, but it was very hard that officers who were equally as good should not have a chance of gaining experience. It might be necessary to change the First Lord with each change of Administration, but the other Lords should be put in for a certain time — say five years — and one changed every year, so as to keep up a constant supply of experienced men. It 1858 was not his intention to oppose the Vote, but he should take an early opportunity of submitting a substantive Motion upon the subject.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
asked what was the reason for the amount of this Vote being larger by £14,000 than it was last year?

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
remarked that one source of the increase was the employment of temporary clerks. But there was one item, the last in the Vote, which required explanation. It was for "fees and expenses of the marshal of the Admiralty Court, and for disbursements of the solicitor in law suits." Three years ago the sum voted was £4,000; last year, or the year before, it was increased to £6,000; it was now £7,000. How, he asked, did the increase arise?

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, that some explanation was also needed of the increase of charge for clerks, from £18,732 last year to £19,210, when it was remembered that the packet contracts had been transferred to the Post Office. He would take the opportunity of stating that Mr. Clifton, the head of the steam department, brought under his notice the whole of the documents relating to the Churchward contract, and consequently that he was not amenable to the censure which the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) had passed in the course of a recent debate, under the supposition that he had not done so. He believed Mr. Clifton to be a most active and intelligent public servant.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he thought the gallant Admiral had fallen into the very same fault for which he had called him to account. He had not only wandered away from this Vote No. 3, but had gone into the army. The only fault which the gallant Officer appeared to find with the patronage of the Duke of Somerset was that he promoted good officers.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
explained that what he found fault with was the keeping of some good officers constantly employed to the exclusion of others who were equally good.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, when they had got a good man to take a command, he thought it best to give him another command when the opportunity occurred. The Duke of Somerset, however, had not appointed any officer to a command without consulting and obtaining the unanimous approval of the professional members of the Board. The noble Lord had asked 1859 what was the cause of this increase from £18,732 in the year of 1859–60, as regarded clerks, to £19,210 this year. The increase was from several causes. First of all, there had been an addition to the second-class clerks, and a reduction of the third-class clerks, in fact making them into second class, and the next was, the progressive increase of salaries. The noble Lord spoke highly of the superintendent of the packet service, an eulogium which the gentleman well deserved, and he stated that they had transferred the packet service from the Admiralty to the Post Office. He presumed the noble Lord thought there ought to be a corresponding reduction in the expense. No doubt, under ordinary circumstances there might be a reduction, but the work which had been entailed upon the clerks, both at the Admiralty and Somerset House, by the augmentation in the fleet, and by the immense increase of work going on in the dockyards, had obliged them not only to keep up the establishment, but to appoint a vast number of temporary clerks. It might be said that the strength of the establishment was below the exigency of the service, but they trusted that the present pressure was only temporary, and he should be very sorry to suppose that they were likely for the next few years to employ 20,000 men in the dockyards. As long, however, as this extraordinary amount of work was going on they must be prepared to increase their establishments in a commensurate degree.

ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE
said, he thought it would be truer economy to increase the establishment at once, than to go on employing temporary clerks by whom the work would be only imperfectly done.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, as he had received no reply to his question, he would move that the Vote be reduced by £1,000.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, he begged the hon. Baronet's pardon. He had forgotten to state that the law expenses were remarkably heavy this year. There was an old dispute relating to the dredging of the harbour of Milford Haven, which had been referred to arbitration, and which of itself had cost about £1,000.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, the explanation of the noble Lord as to the increase on the Vote over last year was not at all satisfactory to him, and he would, therefore, move that it be reduced by the whole 1860 amount of £14,323. He believed there was no other way to check this constant tendency to increase than to refuse passing every Vote for which they did not receive a satisfactory explanation.

MR. LYGON
reminded the hon. Gentleman that £1,700 of this increase was caused merely by the transfer of £1,700 from Vote No. 11 to the present.

§ MR. WHITBREAD
reminded the hon. Gentleman that the clerks whose salaries he thus proposed to refuse had been engaged on the faith of an Order in Council.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, he wished to know whether the 9,500 men borne on the Coastguard service were all seamen who might be depended on to be called out as a reserve; because Admiral Martin, who had been for two years at the Admiralty, had stated in a pamphlet to which he put his name that this was a mere delusion, and that in point of fact there were only 3,200 men who were fit to go on board ship. Then he observed there was £100,000 voted for the Royal Naval Reserve, he wanted to know what number of men there were in the Reserve, and how it was proposed that this money should be spent. He also wished to know if it was the intention of the Admiralty to send really good and effective men of war to the different ports in room of those lumbering and inefficient block-ships that were a disgrace to the navy. If he did not receive satisfaction on these points he would divide the House against this Vote.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, he believed that a code of regulations had been issued with regard to the Reserve, which was far too complicated for the purpose. Admiral Martin, who had paid great attention to this question, made several valuable suggestions with respect to this force in his pamphlet. He suggested, among other things, that the definition of able- 1861 bodied seamen was not complete, as it at present ranged from the man who could steer a river steamer to the man who was a complete and thorough seaman. The regulation of this Reserve was placed under the management of the shipping-masters, which he believed was one great cause that prevented the success of the scheme, for sailors never looked a shipping-master in the face without having to pay him a shilling; and therefore they never went near him if they could avoid it. The rational way would be to put this force under the control of an officer of high qualifications, with an efficient staff under him. He would urge on the Admiralty to create a new department for the special management of this force, and he had no doubt they would soon get plenty of men, for he believed the system had never yet had a fair trial. With regard to the Coastguard, he recommended that all who were not real seamen should be got rid of as occasion served, and that their places should be filled with able-bodied sailors. He thought it was hard that they did not allow the officers of the Coastguard their full sea time. The duty of a Coastguard man was also extremely arduous, and he probably went through more work than a seaman on board a man-of-war. The only advantages which that service offered were those which arose from enabling them to live with their families. In order to render the Coastguard thoroughly efficient as a naval reserve, he recommended that a large addition should be made to its numbers, and that the men should be thoroughly trained and drilled, so as to fit them for the position of captains of guns, in case they were suddenly required to embark.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
inquired, whether he was correct in believing that out of 7,200 Coastguard men, 1,500 or 2,000 men had no pretension to the character of seamen, and could not be relied on in an emergency.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he hoped the noble Lord would also be able to state how many Naval Coast Volunteers were now enrolled, and to what extent they had come forward for drill during the past year.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, on the 1st instant there were on board Coastguard ships and tenders 3,206 men, which, with 3,438 serving on shore at the different stations, made a total of 6,644 seamen available for the fleet. Besides these, there were 1,386 landsmen, whose places would, 1862 however, be filled by seamen as rapidly as they were pensioned off. He did not mean to deny that there were able points in the pamphlet of Admiral Martin, but he must add that he dissented from some of its details. That hon. and gallant officer complained, for instance, that men with forged certificates and unfit for their work were received into the Naval Coast Volunteer force; but he (Lord C. Paget) believed that no additional security could be provided for ascertaining whether a man was really an able seaman. The man on presenting himself was first examined by the shipping-master; and, as an additional security he could not be admitted without being taken before the naval officer for the district, who put such questions with regard to reefing and steering and the marks of the lead, as must sufficiently test his ability as a seaman. In fact, if a defect existed in the scheme, it was, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that the preliminary examination was too searching. Admiral Martin was a most excellent and efficient member of the Commission, but he maintained that the statement in which he took pains to show that the men who were being entered could not be depended on was, as regarded the Admiralty, very unfair and unjust. Without incurring the risk of being called to order, he could not refer to the case of the commanders of the Coastguard; but he might state that they were included in the scheme of the retirement of officers, which he was most anxious to have an opportunity of laying before the House.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
complained that this question still remained unanswered, and that the noble Secretary to the Admiralty had given a very poor answer to Admiral Martin's pamphlet. The noble Lord represented that there were 6,000 men ready to go on board ship, while Admiral Martin limited the number to 3,200; and he further stated that there were only 1,300 landsmen in the Coastguard, while Admiral Martin held that there were 4,000, who ought to be got rid of as quickly as possible. The noble Secretary further informed the House that nothing could be done by the shipping-master in reference to the enrolment of volunteers without consulting the naval officer, but in a letter which he had received from an officer well acquainted with the nature of this reserve, it was stated, "The sailors complain that they do not understand the regulations— 1863 that the shipping-master tells them one thing, and the naval officer another. When men come forward to volunteer they wish to be drilled at once, and not to have it hanging over their heads. Many now regret that they have joined the Reserve, and prevent others from doing so; while efficient sailors are often turned away by the foolish questions which are asked." The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty might be a very good sailor, but if he were to put before him the shear-block of a line-of-battle ship, and ask him what sized rope he would strop it with, he might feel equally at a loss with Jack to give an answer off hand. The fear of punishment by the lash without previous trial by court-martial likewise operated injuriously on the volunteer force.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, he wished to know whether any disinclination to enter the Coastguard had been manifested from a belief that the retiring allowance was not as attractive as in former years.

MR. LINDSAY
said, he hoped some explanation would be given of the discrepancy between the statements of Admiral Martin and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. It was very desirable to ascertain whether those 6,000 men were all really able seamen, or whether any portion of them were mere landsmen, who had been put into the Coastguard through favour or patronage. As to the mode of entering seamen for the navy, if they were to be obtained from the merchant service the usual shipping-masters were more likely to get them than naval officers. He believed one of the greatest discouragements to entering the naval service was the objection seamen felt to the present form of the Articles of War, that inflicted the penalty of death for comparatively trifling offences, though, of course, the punishment was very rarely carried into effect. When a man knew that he might be stripped and flogged at the order of some haughty post-captain, he shrugged his shoulders and would not enter the service. Until those regulations were altered they could not hope to get large numbers of men to enter the navy from the merchant service. He begged to ask what had been done with the £100,000 voted last year for the Coast Volunteers; and what would be done with the same sum asked for in the present Estimates?

MR. HENLEY
said, he wished to offer an observation on this question of the Naval Reserve, for it did not seem to work very well at present. He had always thought 1864 that if the regulations were simplified seamen would be more likely to come in, because then they would understand them, but as they then stood it was not possible for any human being to do so. He could not for the life of him see why the Admiralty would not let the men who entered the navy serve for a month on trial. If a man entered as an able seaman, and if in the course of that month he was found to be inefficient they ought to tell him that he could not be rated as an able seaman, but that he might take his month's pay and go about his business. The thing was as simple as possible; they might, perhaps, lose 4s. or 5s. on the month's service, but it was worth while to spend that in making the trial. They were all very glad to give something to try a horse or anything else they wanted to obtain. The fact was, that able seamen did not like all the questions put to them. It was a sort of school-boy examination, and nothing else. When a man knew himself to be a good seaman he was disgusted at such questions being put to him, and would not expose himself to being so interrogated. He would say that he knew himself to be a good seaman and an honest man. At present he was talked over by some shipping-master and sent to a lieutenant to be questioned, and he was not sure—which was worst of all—that his rating would not be touched, for there was nothing to secure that if he entered on the rating of an A B he would continue to be so rated when he went to sea, because it would be open to any commander of a ship to change the rating. Those were some of the difficulties which prevented men entering the navy, and they might depend upon it that there were plenty of sea lawyers to place them before the men. If they admitted them on probation, their officers would soon see whether they were good seamen or not. After that was ascertained their rating should be secured to them at once, so that they might, if called upon, be in a condition to enter the service permanently. He made these suggestions because he believed that the regulations were to a great degree in fault, for he was certain that if he were a seaman he should not be able to understand them, and that nothing would induce him to enter the service under them. Sailors were not such fools as many took them to be. They could understand what was plain as well as anybody. He believed that if proper and simple regulations were adopted, they would have very little difficulty in getting men to enter the service.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that the gallant Admiral had admitted that one of the great drawbacks to men being willing to enter the navy was the use of the lash. This disgraceful punishment did not exist in the French Navy. [Sir C. NAPIER: But the men are shot.] It was only four or five months since a sailor in the British Navy was shot for striking an inferior officer; so that we retained both punishments. But let the lash be abolished in the navy, and there would be no doubt about the Queen's ships being well manned.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
said, he wished to know what were the qualifications of the men who were to be enrolled as Naval Coast Volunteers.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
also inquired what number of men were absolutely enrolled in that force.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, in reply to the question of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, the number of Coast Volunteers enrolled was 6166. Of these he believed 4,000 were under drill. With regard to the sum of £100,000, about which the hon. Member For Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) had inquired, a very small portion of it had been spent, and the rest was returned into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The £100,000 intended to be voted this year would be immediately expended in fitting up the two ships to be used as training ships for volunteers; each ship to be a school for 2,000 boys. The gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) asked whether they were about to station efficient line-of-battle ships as Coastguard vessels. He could only say that that question was still under the consideration of the Admiralty. As to the number of the Naval Reserve, he believed it to be about 800.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, he would beg to ask the noble and gallant Lord whether he believed in his conscience that the 6,000 men of whom he had spoken were really fit to go at once on board a man-of-war? If so, the noble and gallant Lord's statement was directly opposed to that of Admiral Martin, who had been at the Admiralty longer than he had, and who said that only 2,300 of the men were fit for service.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that his hon. and gallant Friend was pushing him rather close. From there turns he had received it appeared that 3,438 of the men were first-rate seamen, who had been placed on the Coastguard; and 3,260 had 1866 been placed on board Coastguard ships. Of these, some 500, he believed, were on board tenders. He could not venture to say that all these men were first-rate seamen. It must be remembered that this was a great nursery for our seamen; and as men were drafted off into the navy others were taken on board the ships. Men were at first induced to go on board the ships which they saw lying off Dundee, Leith, and other places; and then, finding a seaman's life not so disagreeable as they expected, they went on hoard the Queen's ships. He believed, however, that all these men would be available for the manning of the navy.

§ SIR CHALES NAPIER
wished to know if these men were all returned to the Admiralty as "fleet men."

§ LORD LOVAINE
asked whether there was as great a disposition to enter the Coastguard service now as formerly?

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that the truth was, the advantages held out to seamen were so great, that there was not the same anxiety as formerly. Married men were still desirous of joining the Coastguard, as they had the comfort of a cottage on shore; but active seamen preferred remaining in the fleet.

MR. LYGON
said, he wished to call attention to the large amount of the item for cottages for the Coastguard men. The sum of £33,000, was an excessive one, and he believed, on examination, that the rent of each cottage was as much as £8. He should not object to the item this year, but unless some change were made be should move a considerable reduction next year. He also observed an item of £190 for the spiritual instruction of Coastguard men. That had not been included in any previous Estimate. If it were intended to represent the whole of the spiritual instruction given to the Coastguard, it was ludicrously small.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, that according to a return just made to the Admiralty it appeared that the number of men in the Coastguard ships and tenders was 3206, and for service on shore at the stations, 3438; these were seamen.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, that noble and gallant Lord had not answered his question.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
The number of civilians at employ stations on shore was 1,386.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, he knew from personal experience that re- 1867 turns had been made of what were called "fleet men;" perhaps the noble Lord was not aware of this fact. With reference to the block-ships, he intended to move that in the opinion of the House efficient ships should be substituted for the various block-ships now in use. This question had been under consideration, as the noble Lord said it now was, for the last three years, and nothing of a substantial nature had been done. The block-ships would make excellent school ships, and efficient ships of war, ready for active service, ought to take their place at the different stations they occupied.

ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE
said, the hon. and gallant Member was not competent to move the Motion he had made. He (Admiral Duncombe) thought with regard to the Naval Reserve that the present regulations were not such as would induce men to enter the service. The articles of war might very beneficially be revised, and the system of flogging so far modified as not to be permitted without the authority of a court-martial. He thought the value of the article—able seamen—was underrated, and hence the reluctance of such to enter the service.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, as he could not make the Motion he desired, he should move that the Vote for the Coastguard service be reduced by £4,000.

§ LORD LOVAINE
said, the evidence given on the Merchant Shipping Committee proved that there was now no such thing as an "able seaman" in existence in the merchant service; the number of able seamen had diminished during the last twenty or thirty years beyond all precedent, and many witnesses in that Committee had recommended that Parliament should enforce a system of apprenticeship. No matter, therefore, what bounty was given it was impossible to get an able seaman.

§ SIR CHARLES NAPIER
said, he would with the permission of the House withdraw his Motion, as he thought it better to bring it forward as a substantive Resolution on a future occasion.

MR. LINDSAY
said, the noble Lord's (Lord Lovaine's) statement that the number of seamen had decreased was not correct. [Lord LOVAINE: Able seamen.] Whether a man was a seaman or able seaman was matter of opinion. During the last thirty 1868 years the tonnage of British shipping had increased to 2,800,000, and of course there must have been a consequent increase in seamen; and it was a fact that there had been an enormous, increase. He protested against a compulsory system of apprenticeship, and contended that there was no necessity for such a measure being adopted, for there were at present a larger number of seamen in the merchant service than was ever to be found in the merchant service before.

§ LORD LOVAINE
explained that he had said there were not able seamen in sufficient numbers in the merchant service in proportion to the number required for the navy.

§ MR. LIDDELL
said, he begged to call the attention of the Committee to the increase of steam-ships in the merchant service, a circumstance which rendered the service of able seamen to a great extent unnecessary. This, he thought, accounted for the fact that there were fewer able seamen in existence now than formerly, though ordinary seamen could be obtained in any number.

MR. H. B. JOHNSTONE
asked, whether it was true that at one of Her Majesty's dockyards an immense number of shipwrights had been discharged and had gone in great bands over to France, that they were asked to give their addresses, because they might be called upon very soon to return, and that they replied that they did not choose to do so, as they were going over to fulfil engagements in the French service?

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
asked, whether it was intended to have so many as 1,000 boys in each school-ship, for he thought it was a bad plan to do so, and that the practice would have a very injurious effect. The block-ships would be good training ships.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the block-ships did not contain the required accommodation. It was intended to have only 500 boys in one ship.

MR. H. B. JOHNSTONE
said, he must press for an answer to his question.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, it was not a question relevant to the present Vote.

MR. H. B. JOHNSTONE
said, he would move that the Chairman report progress.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
replied, that he had not heard the rumour alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, though it was true that a reduction in the number of men 1869 had taken place in consequence of a reduction in the Estimates.

MR. BBNTINCK
asked, whether any change was proposed to be made in the mode of supplying chronometers to vessels. At present, if a captain of a vessel had none of his own, he had one given him; if he had one of his own he was allowed two; and if two of his own, he was allowed three. It was a most absurd system, and should be modified.

§ ADMIRAL WALCOTT
suggested that it would be an act of justice that the chronometers which had been purchased by captains and commanders, and which now they would have no further use for, should be sent to Greenwich, and paid for at a fair price if the owners chose to sell. He hoped also that such officers might in future be relieved from the expense of purchasing chronometers.

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, there would be no objection to the course proposed. It was a common thing in former days when officers were about to quit the service and to part with their chronometers, for the Astronomer Royal to give to the officers the value. In reference to some other observations which had been made, he might state that three chronometers would be allowed to each line-of-battle ship, frigate, and troop-ship, two to each sloop, and one to each gunboat. He would add that he should be happy in future to relieve the class of officers who had been referred to, many of whom were by no means wealthy, from the cost of supplying their own chronometers.