MR. CORRYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty (in reference to Return No. 269, delivered on Friday last), The reason why, notwithstanding that Votes were taken for 10,000 Marines on shore in the Estimates for the year 1863–4 and 1864–5, the number actually borne on the strength of the divisions on shore at the end of 1863–4 was only 8,712 men, or 1,288 short of the Vote, and only 8,970 men, or 1,030short, at the end of 1864–5; whether, in preparing the Navy Estimates for the next financial year, the Admiralty would object to add to the tabular statement (now given in Appendix No. 1) of the number of men and boys "more or less borne than voted," on the first of every month, a similar statement in respect of Marines, distinguishing the number afloat from the number on shore; and whether there would be any objection to distinguish between the Coastguard afloat and the Coastguard on shore, in the tabular statement referred to?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that it was quite true that the number of Marines was considerably below the number voted on the 1st of April, 1864. There was a deficiency of nearly 1,000 men, and not 1,288 men, as stated by his right hon. Friend, the number voted being 18,000, and the number serving 17,061. Although the Marines on shore were below the number voted, yet of Marines afloat, including the number sent to Japan, there was a very considerable excess. The reason of the number being below the Vote was that there had been a considerable difficulty in procuring really efficient recruits at that time. With respect to the Return of 1865, he had to state that on the 1st of April the number serving was within fifty-five of the number voted. There would be no objection to placing upon the Estimates a statement of the Marines, as distinguished from the seamen and boys.