Commons Sitting of 3 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Gunpowder, &c; Church Temporalities (Ireland) Acts Amendment; Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland).

MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses 10 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19, (Notice of accidents in Mines to be given to Secretary of State).
MR. CROOKsaid, that an accident might be very serious, and yet might not result in death. In Kirkless colliery a sum of £500 a year was stopped out of the wages of the men to provide for accidents, and accidents had occurred there which, though not resulting in death in some cases, had yet entitled some of the men to receive nearly £7. Now he proposed to make it necessary for the inspector to report all accidents of a definite kind. He would, therefore, omit the word "serious," and make it necessary for the inspector to report, whenever a man received such an accident that he did not return to his work before nine o'clock on the following morning.
MR. JACKSONsaid, many accidents that were really of very trifling character might prevent a workman from returning to his work next morning. He saw no good in the clause.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought the effect of the Amendment would be that the most trifling casualties would be reported to the Secretary of State, and the object they all had in view would be defeated, for serious cases would be buried under the heap of unimportant accidents.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it was merely intended to transfer a clause to this Bill which already existed in the Factory Act. He was afraid there was a disposition to think lightly of any accident which did not terminate fatally, or nearly kill the party.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, it seemed to him a very absurd thing that every slight accident should be made the subject of a report to the Secretary of State.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 20 and 21.
Clause 22 (Punishment of workmen violating the rules.)
MR. FREELANDproposed to leave out the following words:—
"Or to be proceeded against and punished according to the Provisions of the Act 4 Geo. IV., c. 34, intituled an Act to enlarge the power of justices in determining complaints between Masters and Servants."
He referred to the Petition of the wives and relations of seven colliers, in the Morning Star, of April 5, 1860, the colliers being at that time in Derby, six of whom were stated to have been convicted by one magistrate on the preceding 15th of March. They had refused to go down into a pit by a rope which, as they alleged, was unsound. A Petition was, as they all knew, an ex parte statement, and he would not therefore discuss the merits of the particular case. On inquiry he found that the law was in accordance with the statement contained in the Petition. He thought it a monstrous thing that, under the provisions of the Act of George the Fourth, which might be put in force under the clause as it stood in the Bill, one magistrate should have the power of issuing his warrant and of hearing the case, though he might be himself a mine-owner, and committing men to prison for three months. He thought that the Act of George the Fourth was an arbitrary Act, conferring powers which could not safely be entrusted to a single magistrate, and he trusted that the Committee would not confirm it by incorporating any part of its provisions in the present Bill. He hoped to see that Act repealed at no very distant day. He believed that no changes were so beneficial as those which produced among the working classes entire confidence in the impartiality with which justice was administered throughout the country.
After a short conversation the Amendment was agreed to.
MR. FREELANDthen moved that the following Clause should be added as a Proviso:—
"No Justice of the Peace being himself the owner of Mines, or the father, son, brother, or agent of any owner of Mines shall, if objected to at the hearing of any complaint in charge, act as a Justice of the Peace for the purposes of conviction in adjudication in any cases of difference or dispute between persons engaged in working mines and their employers, in which Justices of the Peace have jurisdiction."
He quoted as Clauses having a similar object in view the 5 Geo. IV. c. 96, s. 12,—the Truck Act, 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 37, s. 21,—the Proviso in the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 40, s. 25, and 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, s. 71.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had no objection to the exclusion of the owner of a mine where the dispute might have taken place, but he could not agree that every mine-owner should be excluded at the hearing of complaints. He thought they ought to follow the precedent set forth in the Factory Act, where the parties interested in a factory in which the offence occurred were not allowed to adjudicate on the matter. He should therefore propose to amend the proviso by the insertion of words which would assimilate it to the clause in the Factory Act.
MR. FREELANDsaid, his object was to prevent a person having a class interest from adjudicating when an objection was raised against his acting in the case.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to shut out from the adjudication all the magistrates who understood the question, and to leave such disputes to be decided by persons who knew nothing of the trade. Instead of benefiting the men, he believed the suggestion would do them serious injury.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he was familiar with a district in which cases of dispute were constantly adjudicated on by coal-owners only—a magistrate acting in a case precisely analogous to one in which his own property might be concerned. He knew an instance of a number of men having refused to descend by a rope which they believed to be in a bad condition, being committed to prison for a long period by a magistrate, a mine-owner. It was afterwards discovered that if the men had descended it would have been at the risk of their lives. He thought that the Committee should accept the Amendment.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he still thought that the restriction should apply only to the owner, or relatives of the owner, of such mine as the offence set forth might have occurred in.
MR. FREELANDsaid, that in accordance with what appeared to be the opinion of the Committee, he would reluctantly accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.
Clause amended and agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 (Extent of Act).
MR. H. H. VIVIANproposed the insertion of words to make the Act perpetual, instead of for five years, as proposed.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment, which would

1333
not prevent the House reconsidering the whole subject at a future time if that was thought necessary.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he was in favour of continuing the temporary character of the Act, as it afforded an opportunity for renewing and amending the Act at stated periods.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. FREELANDproposed the following clause:—
"The presence of two justices of the peace shall be required for the purposes of conviction or adjudication in all cases of difference or dispute between persons employed in working mines and their employers in which one justice is now by law empowered to convict or to adjudicate; provided always that any person, being a stipendiary magistrate, shall have and exercise all such powers as he would have had and exercised if this Act had not been passed."
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the fault he found with this clause was that it did not refer to offences within the Act. It was merely a partial repeal of the provisions of another general Act, and had no special reference to the Bill.
MR. CLIVEsuggested that the clause had better be brought up on the Report, as he believed the object was already effected in the 25th Clause.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANtrusted the clause would be pressed to a division. It was of the greatest consequence to the miners that two justices should be required to preside.
MR. FREELANDsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment, and to consider the propriety of bringing it up on the Report.
MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved a clause providing that the payment of wages should in no case be made in or contiguous to public-houses, but at an office to be appointed for the purpose; and further, that every man should be paid the exact amount of his own earnings. In relation to this latter provision, he stated it was not uncommon to give a £5 or a £10 note to a number of men, who were obliged to go to the public-house to get change.
MR. CLIVEsaid, the 5th and 6th Vict. already provided that wages should not be paid within public-houses, and he could see no use in employing the words "contiguous to" any public-house, proposed by the hon. Member.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the words "contiguous to" were most important, as the clause of the 5th and 6th
1334
Victoria was most inefficient. The workmen sustained great loss and injury by the prevalence of the practice referred to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and it was a source of great disaffection and discontent.
MR. JACKSONsaid, he considered the Amendment necessary. It was essential to the well-being of the men that they should not be paid in or near to a public-house. On this point he could speak from personal experience.
Clause agreed to.
On the Preamble,
MR. H. B. SHERIDAN MR. H. B. SHERIDAN moved that the provisions of the Bill should apply to limestone pits and quarries.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the provisions of the Bill would not apply to limestone pits and quarries, and to insert these words in the Preamble would only make nonsense in the Bill.
Amendment negatived. Preamble agreed to,
House resumed; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]

TENURE AND IMPOVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 (Hearing of Case).
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he thought they ought to give a larger compensation in the case of erecting houses than in the case of a common agricultural improvement. He should therefore propose the insertion of words which, in the case of the erection of houses, would establish a perpetual annuity at the rate of 4 per cent per annum for every £100 of expenditure for improvements.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Bill allowed an annuity of £7 2s. for twenty-five years for every £100 laid out, which would repay the tenant his whole capital, and give him 5 per cent in the meantime in the course of the twenty-five years. Any other arrangement would be productive of great inconvenience.
Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 41.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]

CADETS AT SANDHURST.—QUESTION.
GENERAL BUCKLEYsaid, he wished to ash the Secretary of State for War, Whether, at the recent examination of Cadets at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, forty having an examination fitting them for Commissions without Purchase, the Commander-in-Chief informed them only twenty could be provided with Commissions without Purchase, in consequence of the Secretary of State for War not putting more than that number at his disposal?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: Sir, the facts of the case are these. A certain number of Commissions are set apart to be competed for at Sandhurst, but that number it is quite evident must very much depend upon the number of Commissions without purchase which may be vacant. On the particular occasion to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question relates, it was announced that none of those young men who had not succeeded in obtaining 3,000 marks would be entitled to receive Commissions, even though they should be among the number of competitors who, under other circumstances, would be so entitled. Twenty Commissions were fixed upon and announced to the Governor of Sandhurst as the number to be competed for, and His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge stated at the recent examination that only that number could be alloted. The young men at Sandhurst seemed, however, to be under the impression that as it had been announced that those among them who had not succeeded in securing 3,000 marks would not be entitled to receive a Commission, the converse held good, and that all those who had obtained 3,000 marks would be entitled. Now, that expectation could not be realized; but I may state that since the examination eleven vacancies have taken place, and instead of there being only twenty there are now thirty Commissions to be allotted to the Cadets at Sandhurst, which is rather in excess of the number usually set apart for them.

COMMISSIONS IN YEOMANRY, MILITIA, AND VOLUNTEER CORPS.—QUESTION.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is allowable for Officers of Yeomanry Regiments to receive Commissions in Volunteer Corps?
VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he also wished to inquire, Whether it is allowable that Militia Officers should receive such Commissions?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, several applications had been addressed to him on the subject, and that the War Office had come to the decision—a decision which had, he believed, been acted upon by some Lords-Lieutenants of Comities—that as the raising of Volunteer Corps in many cases depended upon the exercise of the local influence of some particular individual, though some other person might eventually be placed in command of it when formed—that there would be no objection to allow Officers of Militia and Yeomanry Regiments to accept Commissions in Volunteer Corps, upon the understanding that when their regiments were called out for active service they should resign their Commissions in either the one force or the other.

ARMY (GENERAL OFFICERS.)

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, he rose to move—
  "For a Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the claims of seven major generals to the pay of general officers, who are now receiving only the half-pay of brevet majors, and who accepted substantive rank upon half-pay upon the terms and engagements contained in the House Guards Memorandum of the 25th day of March, 1826, and General Order of the 25th day of April, 1826."
  He had a short time since called the attention of the House to the subject, in the hope that the Secretary for War would meet his proposal with respect to it half way. Not, however, having obtained a satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, he felt the best way of dealing with the question was to refer it to the consideration of a Select Committee. Now, in order to give the House a just idea of the origin of the claims of which he was the advocate, he might mention that, so far back as 1824, promotion in the army had been described both by Sir H. Taylor, and in a memorandum of the Horse Guards as being at the time extremely slack in consequence of the great number of officers that were unattached. Some majors, it was found, had served twenty years in that rank, while promotion in the lower ranks of officers had also gone at an extremely slow rate. The consequence had been that it had been found necessary to allow the sale of half-pay Commissions, with the view of relieving the several regiments of old officers; and an order had been issued by the Horse Guards with that object, acting upon which

  1337
  a great number of officers had gone upon half-pay. After a year's experience of the operation of the order, however, it was not found to be beneficial to the service to the full extent desirable, inasmuch as there was a great number of brevet field officers serving in the rank of captain, whom it was expected to get rid of, but to whom no sufficient temptation to retire was held out. In April, 1856, an order issued from the Horse Guards, founded on a memorandum sanctioned by the Secretary at War and the Prime Minister, authorizing officers serving on full pay with brevet rank to go on half pay with substantive rank equal to that in which they were serving with brevet rank. The memorandum which established their position had been laid before the House; it stated that the whole question turned, first, on the convenience of the service, and, secondly, on the propriety of giving these officers some boon. It was, therefore, proposed that officers so circumstanced should have the option conferred without forfeiting their claims on the service, either as regards themselves or their families. This amounted to a pledge on the part of the Government that the officers who accepted half pay under the memorandum and general order would be entitled to put forward their claims under the regulations of the service. A rule was established in 1822 that six years' service as field officer should entitle to the pay of a general officer. But the memorandum was issued in the face of that order for the convenience of the service. There were only seven officers in the position he had described; three of them had been senior captains, and, he would ask, was it consistent with common sense to suppose that, being in the receipt of 13 s. 7d. per day, they would have accepted half pay of 9s. 6d. a day except with the hope, under the conditions of this memorandum, of returning to full pay, when their promotion would have gone on? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said that these officers were eating their cake and trying to keep it, and that when they accepted half pay they did so with all the conditions attached. But the conditions attached were those of the memorandum, and those conditions in their view of the question were, that they were to go back to full pay, if the Commander-in-Chief saw fit so to place them, and that, at all events, they were to be entitled at least to the minimum pay of the rank to which they advanced. The question was a finan-
  1338
  cial one, namely—whether they should continue to receive 9s. 6d. a day or £400 a year, and he moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the claims of these officers; first, because he conceived them to be founded in justice, and in the next place, because two great authorities on the question differed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War under the late Government, when the facts of the case were represented to him, came to the conclusion that the claim of the officers was a just and sound one, and sent it to the Treasury. The Treasury, however, declined to accept their view of the question, and the answer which they gave was based upon the system of unattached pay in general. He was not particular as to the constitution of the Committee. The Secretary of State for War and he might nominate one Member alternately, and the Committee of Selection might name three more. Two days would suffice for the whole inquiry. He hoped the House would accede to the appointment of the Committee.
  COLONEL NORTHseconded the Motion. The right hon. and gallant General the late Secretary for War had admitted that justice was on the side of the officers, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for War had owned that there was a doubt upon the subject. Under these circumstances these officers ought to have the benefit of the doubt, or, at all events, their claims should be submitted to the judgment of a Select Committee of that House. A bargain had been made with them, and whether it was a good or a bad one, it ought to be honourably fulfilled. He had himself examined the case, and he thought that it was one of great hardship.
  GENERAL BUCKLEYsaid, he thought the House ought to grant the Committee of Inquiry, as there appeared to be some doubt about the question. It seemed to him rather an unfair thing that these old officers, having taken their promotion at the time they did, should find themselves no better off when they arrived at the rank of general officers than they were as majors.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he fully agreed with what had been laid down by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that as far as this was a matter of bargain, the bargain ought to be adhered to, and if justice required that those officers should receive an increase of pay they ought to have it.

  1339
  The claim was not one of very great magnitude, relating as it did to the case of seven officers only, receiving the difference between 9s. and 25 s. a day; but, as he did not think it founded in justice, he could not give it his sanction. These officers went upon half pay at their own option, and whether the arrangement was for the benefit of the service or not was immaterial, as they must be taken to have accepted it for their own advantage. They obtained a step in rank, having been made substantive majors instead of brevet majors. [Colonel LINDSAY: It was not a step.] A similar example had occurred recently. Certain officers who received brevet rank for distinguished services in the Crimea accepted the substantive rank of major in lieu of brevet rank, regarding it as a great boon to themselves, and of course expecting to exchange back upon full pay again, and so realize the benefit. Well, that was what these officers in this case did; and, although the state of the list made it more difficult for them to get back upon full pay, they took that risk upon themselves. They had one advantage which the Crimean officers had not in respect to the provision for their widows; and, although it was said none of them were then married men, they were not so old but that they might have married afterwards. The rule then as now existed, by which no man could rise to the position of a general officer, with certain advantages as to pay, unless he had served six years as a field officer. That regulation was established to insure the efficiency of the service; and it was putting a forced and non-natural construction upon its terms to say that that condition was to be suspended in favour of officers who had never served since 1826. The demands to be admitted to half-pay had been pressing and numerous. It was regarded as a great favour. Some of these officers had succeeded in getting back again upon full-pay; and of course no complaint was heard from them. Others had not been so fortunate; but they were no worse off than many officers in the navy who were anxious to get upon full pay, and could not. It was now proposed however, that, having had the benefit of half-pay, a step in rank, and a prospective provision for their widows, they should be placed upon the higher pay of general officers, as if they had served six years as field officers. That reading could not be fairly put upon the regulation. If he had said that any doubt existed on the point, it was
  1340
  simply because the right hon. and gallant Member opposite took a different view of it. But in his own mind there existed no doubt whatever on the matter, and he had, therefore, felt bound, on the part of the Executive, to decline to accede to the request of these officers. He must frankly say, too, that he did not think a Committee of that House a proper tribunal to decide the question. As long as the right hon. and gallant General opposite was in office no such inquiry as that was moved for; but, when another Secretary of State succeeded him, taking a different view of the subject, then the Committee was asked for. He had given his opinion on the question for the third time. To that opinion he firmly adhered, and he trusted the House would not accede to the Motion.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he had no wish to set his opinion in opposition to that of his right hon. Friend. He only claimed to have acted as free from bias in this matter as the right hon. Gentleman. He never heard of the case of any one of these officers until it came before him officially, and he did not act upon his own judgment alone in regard to the subject, but upon the advice that was given to him. He had no doubt in his own mind that these officers were entitled to be placed in the same position as the other officers of a corresponding arm of the service who had been put upon half-pay. They could not have imagined, from the terms offered them, that they would suffer any detriment by accepting the arrangement. There was no question as to the claim of their families, if they had any, at their death. If it could be shown that any of these officers had refused to return to full pay, of course they would not have any claim; but such was not the case. If the case against them was so strong, why should the right hon. Baronet refuse them the satisfaction of a Committee? He himself, when in office, assented to the appointment of a Committee to consider the claims of the Land Transport Corps, although he entertained no doubt upon the matter. He believed that this was a bargain, and although it was a bad one for the country, it ought to be carried out.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it appeared to him that Government had not kept faith with these officers. A good case required only a plain and complete statement, and the very elaborateness of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sidney Herbert) showed that his case was a bad

  1341
  one. If the gallant Colonel pressed his Motion he should go into the lobby with him.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was always unwilling to submit military questions to a Committee of the House of Commons; but as the late and present Secretary of State for War were at issue upon the subject, and he could not obtain a military tribunal to decide between them, he should support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the claims of seven Major Generals to the pay of General Officers, who are now receiving only the half-pay of Brevet Majors, and who accepted substantive rank upon half-pay upon the terms and engagements contained in the Horse Guards Memorandum of the 25th day of March 1826 and General Order of the 25th day of April 1826."
  The House divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 94; Majority 14.

CADETSHIPS (NAVY).

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  CAPTAIN ESMONDEsaid, he rose pursuant to notice to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the present system of nomination to cadet-ships in the Royal Navy. There was a general impression, that the navy was—especially as regarded the middle classes—a close service, and that there was not sufficient publicity or responsibility attached to the nominations to cadetships. It appeared from a Parliamentary return that during the five years ending in 1859 the entire number of nominations was 1,019. Of these twelve were given to the Colonies, fourteen to the Royal Naval School, and 248 to flag-officers and captains. The remainder (745) were distributed, as stated in the return, by the "Board." He wanted to know what was the meaning of that word "Board," and how the "Board" acted, whether individually or collectively, in the distribution of cadetships. In asking those questions he by no means desired to insinuate or assert that abuses existed. He should be delighted to find the Report of the Committee he wished to see appointed negativing the idea that any abuse existed. But he was entitled to make the remark that if there were no abuse existing, there could be no objection to inquiry, and if it turned out that there were, then the sooner it was remedied the better. He did not expect that the Government would offer any opposition to the appointment of the
  1342
  Committee, because he had a very good precedent for his Motion. The hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) had moved for a Committee to inquire into the present mode of examining candidates for appointments in the civil service. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury opposed the Motion, but said he did so only because the Government did not think the time had arrived when an inquiry of the kind could be fully acted upon. To that it was replied that the object of the Motion was simply to ascertain what the system was, and upon that, the Government withdrew all opposition. He therefore, placed his Motion on the same ground, and he wanted, by the appointment of the Committee, to ascertain the nature of the system under which the cadetships were distributed.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have told the House whether there existed, or he conceived there existed, any real ground of complaint as to the nomination to cadetships. He had heard none himself from any quarter. At the same time, he was aware that the introduction of a system of competitive examination had many things to recommend it; indeed, he had himself brought that question before the House, and he still entertained the belief that it would be advisable to establish a system of limited competition as regarded the entries to cadetships. But the subject was fraught with considerable difficulties. Boys of twelve years of age were eligible for cadetships, and every one knew that a competitive examination among boys of that age would be incomplete and unsatisfactory. It must necessarily be confined to the lower branches of educational subjects, and would afford no criterion of what the future abilities of the competitors might be. The Duke of Somerset had established a system of competitive examination with regard to the marine cadets, who entered the service at a more advanced age than the naval cadets, and if it succeeded the Board would doubtless consider the propriety of extending it to other departments of the service. In the engineering department he had himself introduced a purely competitive examination with respect to the factory boys, who, however, were not examined until they were close upon fourteen years of age. Under a system of competitive examination how would the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to deal with the nominations to Naval

  1343
  Cadetships now given to the Colonies? Were half-a-dozen boys to be brought from North America or Australia for the purpose of being examined in this country? One or two might probably be successful, but the remainder would be sent back again disappointed. The House would see, as he had already said, that the subject was surrounded by difficulties. He was not aware that any fault could be found with the Board of Admiralty for the manner in which they distributed the nominations at their disposal. Naval officers were badly paid, and there were many who depended entirely upon the pittance they received in the shape of half-pay. The only boon held out to them was that of having their sons put into the navy. It would be an act, not only of great injustice, but of great impolicy to subject their sons to a competitive examination. At present a large majority of the whole number of nominations were given to service claims. Considerable intricacy was involved in the question, and he thought the House would do well not to refer it to a Select Committee, but rather to trust to the Board to make improvements when they saw that these could be judiciously introduced.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, his noble and gallant Friend had refused to grant the Committee, but he had not told the House by what principle the Board were guided by their selections. He found from a Return which had been placed in his hand that out of 1,019 nominations between the years 1854–9, only twelve had been bestowed on young men from the Colonies. The argument of the noble Lord on that score did not therefore amount to much. He never made but one application to the Admiralty, and that was on behalf of the son of the late General Niel, who, having been abroad for twenty years fighting the battles of his country, wrote to him to see what he could do for one of his boys. He applied to the Admiralty for a cadetship, basing his request altogether on public grounds, as he believed that the favour would be readily granted to the son of so distinguished an officer, but the application was refused. Afterwards the wife of that distinguished officer came to London; she was a lone woman, living in a country place, knowing nobody. He (Mr. Lindsay) again made application to the Admiralty, and was again refused. That was the first favour he had ever asked of the Admiralty, and it should be the last. It seemed that there were 745 cadetships at the dis-
  1344
  posal of the Admiralty. How were they distributed?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he had stated that three-fourths were given to service claims.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that a portion of those were the 240 given to officers. How were the remainder disposed of? Unless he received a more satisfactory explanation as to how these nominations were given, and the principle which guided the Board, he should consider it his duty on public grounds to vote for the Motion.
  MR. TAYLORsaid, an instance had come to his knowledge, in which the ground of relationship to a distinguished officer was not recognized at the Admiralty as affording a claim to a cadetship, but fortunately the applicant possessed private interest, by which he was enabled to obtain it.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he could not conceive what grounds existed for granting the Committee, unless it were charged that these cadetships had been jobbed away. Did the hon. Member believe that boys were improperly admitted, and how did he propose to rectify such a state of things? Would he introduce competition, and was it to be limited or unlimited? Was it proposed to take away altogether from the Admiralty, and to vest in some other Board, the power of nominating to cadetships? The hon. Member had not told the House the grounds on which the cadetship that he applied for had been refused. It might be that he had delayed his application until in fairness to others it could not be complied with.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the names of the candidates for cadetships were put down on a very long list, and the object of the present Motion was to discover the principle on which the Government made their selection from that list. If the system was fair and above-board, there ought to be no objection on the part of the Board of Admiralty to the appointment of the Committee; if there were anything improper in the mode according to which these selections were made, the House, on arriving at the facts, would recommend some better mode of appointment. It was a matter of grave importance.
  MR. BEAMISHremarked that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty when in opposition brought forward Motions for inquiring into the administration of the Admiralty Department, with which he, as a naval officer, must have been acquainted,

  1345
  and the object of which, therefore, could only be to discover abuses if they existed, He could not understand on what ground the Government refused inquiry into the subject; and he should therefore feel it to be his duty to support the Motion of his hon. Friend if he went to a division.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, it would appear now-a-days as if everything were to be made the subject of inquiry. He must, however, confess he did not in the present instance think any good ground for inquiry had been made out, inasmuch as all the information which the supporters of the Motion seemed to require might be obtained by moving for Returns on the subject. Be that, however, as it might, he could from his own experience at the Admiralty undertake to say that officers had frequently, without any interest whatever and merely because of their own services, obtained nominations to cadetships for their sons. He might add that it was impossible to grant every application of the kind, and that he did not think it would be found sound policy to keep the whole of those appointments for the sons of naval and military officers, to the exclnsion of civilians.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present system of nomination to Cadetships in the Royal Navy."
  The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 81; Majority 57.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present,—Committee counted, and forty Members not being present;
  MR. SPEAKERresumed the Chair; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Eight o'clock.