Commons Sitting of 21 March 1867

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Right Hon. Henry Thomas Lowry Corry, for Tyrone.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES [R.P.]
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Policies of Insurance* Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal.*
Second Reading-Consolidated Fund (£7,924,000).*
Committee—Lyon King of Arms (Scotland)* [44].
Report—Lyon King of Arms (Scotland)* [44].

ALLEGED EXCESSES IN JAMAICA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps the Government have taken in fulfilment of the pledges given by them on July 31, 1866—namely, 1. That any grave excesses of severity on the part of any officers, civil, naval, or military, after the suppression of the disturbances in Jamaica in October 1865 should be inquired into, with a view to the punishment of the offenders. 2. That the question of compensating those whose property, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, was "wantonly destroyed," should be referred to the consideration of the Governor of Jamaica. 3. That there should be a revision of the sentences of imprisonment and penal servitude passed upon certain persons on the charge of complicity in the disturbances?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he could assure the hon. Member that the Government had strictly fulfilled all the pledges which they gave to the House in July last. A great deal had been done in anticipation of those pledges, if with an inadequate result, still to the utmost of the power of Her Majesty's Government, in following out the measures taken by their predecessors, during whose tenure of office those lamen-
  276
  table events occurred. The inadequacy of the result of their measures was, just as much as the insurrection itself; and the excessive severities which accompanied it, attributable to the state of society in Jamaica, and the mutual feelings of hatred engendered there between the black population and the whites. Yet, not only had Her Majesty's Government done all in its power under the three heads referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and tried to redress the deplorable evils which had actually happened, but they had issued regulations which were intended, if possible, to prevent their recurrence, and they were still more intent upon introducing measures for the amelioration of the state of society in Jamaica, to which these sad events were mainly to Le ascribed. With respect to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question—namely, what steps had been taken by the Government to institute inquiries into any grave excesses of severity on the part of any officers, civil, naval, or military, after the suppression of the disturbances in Jamaica, in October, 1865—what had occurred on that point was as follows. But, first let him state that, in pursuance of the promise he had made, Papers would be presented by command in the course of a few days hence, giving the House every information on that subject. But with regard to what had been done—on the 30th of July, before these pledges were given, the Earl of Carnarvon issued instructions to Sir John Grant, the Governor of Jamaica, telling him that the Government deemed it a matter of primary importance that a thorough investigation should be made into any such cases as ought to be brought to trial, and requesting him to report immediately on what he had done, and also giving him general instructions that he was to take such measures as he might think best for restoring confidence to the inhabitants of the colony by the assurance that strict and impartial justice would be dealt out to all classes by Her Majesty's Government. On receiving, those instructions, Sir John Grant consulted his Attorney General, and they investigated all the evidence taken before the Royal Commissioners. The result was that Provost Marshal Ramsay was brought to trial for murder at the end of October, when the Bill against him was ignored. Then Woodrow was placed on his trial, being held to be the man most clearly guilty of very flagrant misconduct in the

  277
  flogging of women. He was tried at the same time, by the same court, and with the same result. There were four other cases in which depositions were taken for the purpose of indictment; but when these two bills against Ramsay and Woodrow were ignored, it was not deemed advisable on the part of both the Colonial and Home Governments to proceed further with those other cases then. The Earl of Carnarvon, however, wrote to Sir John Grant that if circumstances should afterwards arise showing that feelings in the colony had calmed down, and there was ally chance whatever of getting a fair trial, he was to resume those proceedings. A correspondence also took place between the Earl of Carnarvon and Sir John Grant as to whether those persons might not be brought home to be tried in England, and it was decided between them that it was not wise after the prosecution had been hanging over these men for more than a year, to keep up those deferred and protracted proceedings. It was thought that it would be against the spirit of British criminal jurisprudence to do so; and that, moreover—what was of even more importance—the keeping alive of agitation in flit island would probably be fatal to those important measures which Sir John Grout was carrying out for the social improvement and amelioration of the State of the colony. Those persons were therefore dismissed, and nothing further was done in their eases. So much for the civil officers, As to the naval officers, the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) referred to the Admiralty as early as the 18th of June the Report of the Royal Commissioners, and the Admiralty replied on the 5th of July that in their opinion the conduct of the naval officers at Jamaica was in every way approved as far as their service afloat was concerned, but that their service ashore on courts martial was deserving of disapprobation; but, at the same time, considering that in every ease they were young and inexperienced officers, and brought suddenly to the discharge of a most difficult duty, and that in the majority of cases the proceedings of the courts martial on which they served were confirmed by their superior officers, it was not considered necessary by the Admiralty to proceed against them. The Admiralty, therefore, sent a despatch to Vice Admiral Sir James Hope, who was in command of the fleet at Jamaica, approving generally the conduct of the officers afloat, but reflecting severely on the conduct of those
  278
  on shore, and also issuing instructions to guide naval officers in all similar cases which might occur again. With regard next to the military officers, in answer to a letter from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Card well), dated May 31, the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess or Hartington), on June 10, informed the Colonial Office that the Commander-in-Chief had sent instructions to General O'Connor directing him to institute immediate inquiry into the two cases of Ensign Cullen and Surgeon Morris. On July 24 the Earl of Carnarvon asked the War Office to state the result, and suggested that these men should be tried by court martial and that officers should be sent out from England to constitute those courts martial, in order to secure perfect fairness and impartiality. General O'Connor approved that suggestion, and officers were sent out by the War Office, with the Deputy Judge Advocate to assist them, and the result was that the two men were tried and both of them acquitted. With regard to the second portion of the hon. Gentleman's question which related to granting compensation for property "wantonly destroyed" during the insurrection, the hon. Gentleman seemed to have misquoted what he (Mr. Adderley) said last year. What he said was not that the Government would take the matter into consideration as to whether compensation should be paid, but that the question was one that should be left to the Government of the colony. It was at first suggested that compensation should be paid out of the Imperial treasury; but that Her Majesty's Government at once declined to do, and the matter was left, as he said it should be, in the hands of the Government of the colony. As to the general question of compensation, all he could inform the House was that no application from either side had yet been made for it. In answer to the last question, he had to state that his noble Friend the Earl of Carnarvon had instructed the Governor, Sir John Grant, to consult the Judge who presided at the trials, to have the notes of trials referred to, and to ascertain whether there were any grounds on which any remission of the sentences passed should take place. The result was that it appeared there were cases tried by Special Commission. Three prisoners had been discharged; two of them who had been found guilty had been executed, and the others had been sentenced to Penal servitude and imprisonment for

  279
  various periods. The sentence upon one of those prisoners, who was convicted of a minor offence; had been remitted to the extent of one-half his term, and that upon Bogle, who had been sentenced to penal servitude for life, had been remitted to ten years' penal servitude. In the other cases there were no grounds for interference.

AGRICULTURAL GANGS—CHILDREN'S EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether instructions have been given or will be given to the Children's Employment Commissioners with a view to the extension of the inquiry beyond "organized agricultural gangs commonly called public gangs" to "private gangs and other branches of agricultural employment," which the Commissioners describe in their Sixth Report (p. xxiv.) as "beyond the scope of their instructions," and whereon they consequently received evidence admitted to be "very limited and only incidental to the main object of their inquiry;" and, whether the Government intend to introduce during this Session a measure dealing with the grave evils disclosed in the recent Report?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reply, that he could not give to the first Question of the hon. Member a decided answer at the present moment, as the matter to which it referred was under consideration. In reply to the second Question, he would observe that he thought it would be better to allow the Report to lie on the table for a little time before he announced what course the Government might be prepared to take with respect to any legislation founded upon it.

MEXICAN BONDHOLDERS.—QUESTION.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has reached him from the British Representative at Mexico that the French authorities, who have assumed the administration of the Custom House at Vera Cruz, have refused to allow the agent to receive the 25 per cent hypothecated to the Mexican Bondholders, and have remitted the funds set apart for them to the Mexican Financial Commission; and, whether he will apply to the French Government for the
280
remittance to London of the 25 per cent now in the hands of the Mexican Financial Commission due to the Bondholders?
LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that no information of the nature mentioned in the Question of the hon. Gentleman had been received by the Government. The only allusion which he could find to the subject was contained in a letter from au unofficial person, which he had received six weeks ago, in which the writer stated that from what he had heard the French authorities were not inclined to retain possession of the administration of the Custom House at Vera Cruz. As soon au he had received any positive information on the matter he should be ready to communicate it to the hon. Gentleman.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS—REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS.—QUESTION.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Second Report of the Commissioners to inquire into the best means of preventing the Pollution of Rivers, which has been received from the Commissioners, will be presented to Parliament?
MR. WALPOLE, in reply, said, the Report relative to the river Calder, in Yorkshire, and the Lea, a tributary of the Thames, was printed and under the consideration of the Commissioners. He understood it would be presented to Parliament in the course of a few weeks.

CASE OF MR. CHURCHWARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Lord Chancellor has revoked the appointment of Mr. Churchward as a Magistrate at Dover?
  MR. WALPOLE: I think, Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman will sec the propriety of my forbearing to give a specific answer to his Question, until Her Majesty's pleasure has been made known in reply to the Address which was agreed to a few evenings ago.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS— NEW APPOINTMENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the Statement of

281
the Under Secretary of State for India, that the earliest period at which the India Office could ascertain the course which the Colonial Secretary was likely to pursue with reference to the new appointment in the Straits Settlement was the 18th January, he is aware that those appointments were authoritatively announced in the public papers long antecedent to that date; and, if so, whether he can explain to the House how this occurred? He must beg to explain that it was announced in, November last in the newspapers that the new Governor of the Straits Settlements and other officers had been appointed; but in consequence of a Question which he put on the 11th March to the Secretary of State for India, he found that the first time the India Office ascertained the course which the Colonial Secretary would pursue in making the appointments was the 18th January, and he wished to know how it was that the newspapers were enabled to publish the appointments so long before?
MR. ADDERLEYreplied, that it assuredly was on the 18th of January that the Colonial Office made the communication in question to the Indian Department. Whether previous information on the subject reached Colonel Ord through the newspapers he was not aware. All he could say was that he could have got no authoritative statement before that date.

ARMY—MEDICAL OFFICERS

  QUESTION.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, From what date it is proposed to give the increase of pay to Army Medical Officers; and if, in the new Army Medical Warrant, it is contemplated to change the denomination of, or to give any "brevet rank" to, Assistant Surgeons on completing their tenth year of service?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, the increase of pay of medical officers in the army would commence from the 1st of next month—the beginning of the financial year. As to the second part of the Question, there was no intention to make any change.

CASE OF THE "TORNADO"—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT COLLIERsaid, he would hog to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has received Copies of the Depositions of the Crew of the Tornado,
282
sworn before the British Consul at Cadiz on the 23rd February last; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the table of the House?
LORD STANLEYreplied, that he had not received the papers named by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had, however, telegraphed for them, and when he got them he would lay them on the table.

ARMY—SANITARY COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE STUCLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, What is the name and date of the appointment of the Civilian Member of the Army Sanitary Committee referred to in Vote 17, Army Estimates; why, with his travelling expenses he is to receive £1,200 per annum; and, why a Medical Officer of the Army cannot perform the duties required from such Civilian Practitioner?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that the name of the civilian member of the Army Sanitary Committee was Dr. Sutherland—a name well-known as that of a very eminent man. He was first appointed to serve under the War Department in 1855 by Lord Panmure, who sent him out to make inquiry into the sanitary condition of our soldiers in the Crimea. In 1857 he was again appointed by the same noble Lord a member of the Commission to inquire into the sanitary state of the army, and his appointment to the discharge of the particular duties which he now performed was made by Sir George Cornewall Lewis in 1862. In answer to the second Question, he must observe that his hon. Friend seemed to labour under a mistake at; which he could not wonder, because of the somewhat careless mode in which such entries were made in the Estimates. The salary which Dr. Sutherland received for the duties which he now performed was £1,000 a year, but he was a member of a Committee of which the other members wore unpaid, but to whom an allowance of £200 a year was given for travelling expenses. The charge, therefore, was one which was not peculiar to Dr. Sutherland. In reply to the last Question, he would simply observe that there might, no doubt, be many medical officers in the army who were quite competent to discharge the duties in question; but Dr. Sutherland was a man of the highest possible reputation, and in doubted whether there was in Eng-

  283
  land a higher authority on sanitary subjects, with which he had years ago been appointed to deal because of his very great eminence, and he thought his hon. Friend would be most unwilling to deprive that gentleman of his position.

ARMY—REWARDS TO MILITARY INVENTORS.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE STUCLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, How he proposes to divide the sum of £22,800 as a reward to Inventors; and, who are the Inventors to be rewarded?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that one of the most important portions of the Vote was the reward which was to be given to Major Palliser for his very valuable services in the application of chilled iron to military purposes. It had not yet, however, been decided what was to be the amount of the award; and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would excuse him if he did not, for the present, attempt to give a final answer to his Question.

TURKEY—CHOLERA AT CONSTANTINOPLE.—QUESTION.
SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, be would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Report of the Cholera Commissioners at Constantinople will be distributed?
LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that the Report had not yet been received; but it would be presented as soon as it should have reached the Foreign Office.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—FORTY SHILLING FREEHOLDERS;

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether a forty shilling freeholder, residing on his own freehold within a Borough, and paying rates, would not become a Borough Voter, and thereby lose his County qualification under the proposed Reform Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, he would become a borough voter if he dwelt in his own house, and he would then be subject to the regulations of the existing law. But, perhaps, I may remark that such a provision would have only a very inconsiderable operation, because five-sixths of the county voters in boroughs are non-resident.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN: Then he would, of course, lose hiss county qualification on becoming a borough voter.

TURKEY—CHRISTIAN SUBJECTS OF THE PORTE—CRETE,—QUESTION.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to lay before the House a Copy of the Despatch dated March 6th, from Lord Lyons to the Foreign Office, giving an account of promises made by the Grand Vizier of reforms in the treatment of Christians in Turkey; and, if he has received any intimation that Russia, France, and Austria have given advice to the Porte to cede Crete to Greece?
LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply to the first Question of the hon. Member, that on seeing his notice, he had brought down that despatch and it was now upon the table of the House. In answer to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman he had to state that he had been informed that advice of that nature had been given by the French Government, and he understood, although he did not know with absolute certainty, that it would be supported by the Government of Russia, while he was not aware that a similar course would be taken by the Government of Austria.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—QUESTIONS.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the conditions of voting in Boroughs, so far as they are affected by the Bill of the Government, are to be the same for occupiers of the value of £10 and upwards as for occupiers under £10; or, if not, in what respects they differ; whether it is intended by the Bill that the occupying franchise in Boroughs, which now depends upon the occupation of "any house, warehouse, counting house, shop, or other building," is henceforward to depend upon the occupation of dwelling houses exclusively; whether the total number of male occupiers stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on Monday consisted exclusively of the occupiers of dwelling houses; whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the table their estimates of the numbers of Voters to be enfranchised under the several Clauses of the Bill, together with the data, so far as they think fit, upon which such estimates are framed; and, whether an oc-

285
cupier claiming to be registered under Clause 34, when a composition or other reduced rate on the premises has been duly paid by his landlord, must, in order to be registered, pay the difference between such reduced rate and the rate which would have been chargeable upon him if directly rated?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it will be for the convenience of the House and to the right hon. Gentleman if I group the various inquiries made by him. The first two are, of course, fresh in the recollection of the House. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the conditions of voting in Boroughs, so far as they are affected by the Bill of the Government, are to be the same for occupiers of the value of £10 and upwards as for occupiers under £10;or, if not, in what respects they differ; and whether it is intended by the Bill that the occupying franchise in Boroughs, which now depends upon the occupation of "any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building," is henceforward to depend upon the occupation of dwelling-houses exclusively. It appears to me that these two Questions, which really refer to the same point almost, are framed rather under some misapprehension of the character of the measure we have introduced. That measure is entirely a supplementary measure; and it does not at all interfere with any privileges or conditions under the Act of 1832. Therefore, the conditions for voters in boroughs are not the same for voters of the value of £10 and upwards as for occupiers under £10. We follow precedent in that respect. The qualification of residence under the existing law is in round numbers it residence of one year; and the qualification for the new householders proposed to be enfranchised is to be a residence of two years. There is that difference at once. We follow in that j precisely the precedent set in the Bill of 1854, brought in by Lord John Russell under Lord Aberdeen's Administration, of which Government the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Member. That Bill proposed a considerable reduction in the amount of the borough qualification. It was proposed to reduce to a £6 rental. In consequence of that reduction the Government of Lord Aberdeen proposed a residence of two years as requisite to the qualification. That is the same period of residence as we propose, without connecting it with a £6 rental, There was
286
a proviso introduced into that measure that the rights and privileges under the Act of 1832 should not be impugned or affected by that arrangement; and there was a saving clause which I hope in more effective language is contained in the present measure—I think it is Clause 40—which entirely preserves all the privileges under the Act of 1832. So far as the present measure of the Government is concerned, that Act of 1832 is preserved in its operation without the slightest interference, I think that is an answer to the first Question. Then the right hon. Gentleman has asked whether it is intended that the occupying franchise in boroughs which now depends upon the occupation of "any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building" is henceforward to depend upon the occupation of dwelling-houses exclusively. My previous answer to a certain degree applies to this Question; because, of course, the qualification of a householder under the new franchise is limited to the possession of a house. Any person who occupies a warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building, and being qualified under the present law, would enjoy his franchise in that respect. The reason why we have limited franchise in the Bill to the occupation of dwelling-houses is because there are no warehouses, counting-houses, and scarcely shops at a rating which the Bill particularly deals with. As for other buildings, the including them as elements of qualification would probably lead to considerable fraud. Therefore, we have resolved that it should be a bonâ fide household qualification. The third inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman is, whether the total number of male occupiers stated by me in my speech last Monday consists exclusively of the occupiers of dwelling-houses. No. That is the number of occupations, including, of course, all the enfranchised qualified by the possession of warehouses, counting-houses, and other buildings under the existing law. The right hon. Gentleman inquires whether the Government will lay on the table their estimates of the number of Voters to be enfranchised under the several Clauses of the Bill. On Saturday morning, I have no doubt that every hon. Gentleman will have I in his hands the most complete information of the amount of the inhabited houses in every Borough, and every possible detail connected with that most important broach of the subject. I believe that to-

287
morrow, if not already distributed, there will be Returns relating to the amounts in respect to the less important franchises, the savings banks, and education franchises. I am not clear whether there are any official Returns as to the amount of franchises arising from property in the funds. It would hardly be convenient to lay on the table an official Return in reference thereto, and it is no great matter if such a Return is not laid on the table. The House, I will assume, will accept the figures on the authority of my statement; but, with regard to the number of voters which may be produced by direct taxation, it is quite impossible for us to give any formal statement to the House. It would take a considerable time to make it out; and even if we had the time, the expense would be so great, that we should hesitate before authorizing the preparation of the Return. There is before the House a variety of documents of considerable importance, which, though they do not form materials from which an estimate could be framed, are of great value and amplitude, and upon which hon. Gentlemen will find it not difficult to arrive at sufficiently satisfactory conclusions. With respect to the question whether an occupier claiming to be registered under Clause 34, when a composition or other reduced rate on the premises has been duly paid by his landlord, must, in order to be registered, pay the difference between such reduced rate and the rate which would have been chargeable upon him if directly rated, I have to state that he certainly would be called on, if he claimed the right to be registered, to pay the same rates as his neighbour. It appears to me that it would be a great injustice to confer upon him a privilege while he was exempted from an accompanying condition to which all other claimants were subjected.
MR. GLADSTONE: There is one point on which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman might make his answer more complete, if he will reply to the question I am about to put. I think, under the present law which relates to £10 householders exclusively, there has been a certain ruling that part of a house will be construed as a whole house; will that law apply to householders under £10, or in that case must the entire house be occupied?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Nothing in the Bill applies to houses under £10 which is not definitely
288
and distinctly stated; but, of course, everything relating to £10 and upwards remains as before.

TURKEY—FORTRESSES IN SERVIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a satisfactory settlement has taken place of the question of the evacuation of the fortresses in Servia by the Turkish troops; and whether, in the course of the negotiations, any guarantee has been entered into by any of the great Powers for securing the suzerainty of the Porte over Servia, farther than may be at present existing under the Treaty of Paris of 1856, or by any other diplomatic or treaty obligations.
  LORD STANLEY:Sir, I have received information within the last few days to the effect that the Prinee of Servia had proceeded to Constantinople for the purpose of ratifying the arrangement come to between him and the Porte. Of course, difficulties of detail may arise; but I have no reason to suppose that the arrangement will not be satisfactorily completed. With regard to the second part of the Question of the hon. Member; as to whether any guarantee has been entered into by any of the great Powers for securing the suzerainty of the Porte over Servia, am not aware that any such guarantee has been given, or is about to be entered into by any of the great Powers. I am quite sure that under the circumstances none has been or will be undertaken by this country.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE, SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for the Reform of the Representation in Scotland in the present Session; and, if so, when the Bill will be laid upon the table; and whether the Bill will include any additions to the representatives of that part of the kingdom?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir, it is our intention after the holydays to introduce a Bill for the Reform of the Representation of the People in Scotland, and we do contemplate an increase of its representatives.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Sir, after the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the Question put in relation to Scotland, perhaps I may be allowed to ask, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to Reform the Representation of the People in Ireland; and, if so, when?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, it is also our intention to bring in a Bill to amend the representation of the people in Ireland.

RAILWAY DEBENTURES.—QUESTION.
MR. EDWARDSsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the serious financial embarrassments in which many of the Railway Companies of this Country are at present involved in consequence of the recent decision as to the validity of Debentures as a security; whether any applications have been made to the Government for relief, and with what result; and, whether he will state to the House the nature of any such application, the extent of the relief sought, and the terms proposed by the Company or Companies who have applied for such relief?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am quite sure, Sir, it is impossible for any person who fills the place I now occupy not to have given long and most anxious consideration to the circumstances to which the Question of the hon. Gentleman refers. He inquires whether any application has been made to the Government for relief to railways, and especially with reference to debentures. Well, Sir, no doubt applications have been made to the Government for the consideration of the very perplexed circumstances which exist as regards that class of property; but when the hon. Gentleman asks what has been the result of those applications, and whether I will state to the House their nature, the extent of the relief sought, and the terms proposed by the company or companies who have applied for such relief, certainly I am bound to say, that at the present moment Her Majesty's Government have entered into no engagements whatever with any company. I am sure he will feel that communications of this kind are essentially confidential, and
290
it would not become me to announce the names of those companies who have applied, especially as the applications have not been conceded, or to refer at all to the terms proposed to the Government by those companies that sought for relief.

BRITISH COLUMBIA AND VANCOUVER'S ISLANDS.—CHURCH IN THE COLONIES,

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies Whether he can lay upon the table Papers relating to the Union of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, and the subsequent condition of the united Colonies; and, any Correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Governor of Natal, or the Governors of other Colonies, upon the subject of the position of the Church of England in Natal, and in other Colonies?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that two Papers relating to British Columbia had been laid upon the table the other day, and the Government would be prepared to communicate to the House without delay any further information they might receive with respect to that colony and Vancouver Island. In answer to the second Question of the right hon. Gentleman, he had to state that certain Papers which had been recently moved for in the House of Lords would be laid before the House of Commons; and when the further communications on the subject were completed they would also be presented.

TENANTS IMPROVEMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. BRYANsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he really intends to proceed with the Second Reading of the Tenants Improvements (Ireland) Bill?
LORD NAAS: I am exceedingly sorry, Sir, that it is not in my power to proceed with that Bill immediately. I will fix Monday week, when I really hope to be able to bring it on.

THE MUTINY BILL—FLOGGING IN THE ARMY—QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. OTWAY,
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I stated the other evening that I would give the most ample notice of the course I intend to take on this subject. I wish, with the

291
utmost fairness, to give the hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with him in opinion public notice when, after the second reading, I would take the Committee. I thought I had given due notice of the Committee by placing it on the Orders; but since coming into the House have learned that it is considered by some that I have not fully redeemed my pledge; but I desire to do so, and therefore will postpone the Committee until to-morrow night.
MR. HORSMAN: Will Supply not be taken to-morrow night? Perhaps the right hon. Baronet will not bring on the Committee on the Mutiny Bill after a tolerably early hour.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: There is no intention whatever to interfere with the usual arrangement with regard to Supply. Perhaps the best course will be not to take the Mutiny Bill till after eleven o'clock.
MR. AYRTON: Will the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for War be good enough to state the intention of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief to give effect to the Resolution of the House relative to flogging, before moving the House into Committee on the Mutiny Bill?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I can only say that neither now nor at any future time can I make any communication on the part of His Royal Highness which I am not authorized by His Royal Highness to make.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought the Secretary of State for War had not quite understood the meaning of the Question put on the other side—whether, on account of the division which took place the other evening, it was his intention to make any communication to the House, or on his own part to the Commander-in-Chief?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The only answer I can give to the Question of the hon. Member is that any communication I think it right to make to the House on this subject I will make at the proper time.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will consent to put off the Mutiny Bill until some night next week, instead of taking it to-morrow night at eleven o'clock? The Bill would give rise to a long discussion, and the Question could scarcely be fully argued at so late an hour.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I wish to act in this matter with the most perfect fairness. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware that the Mutiny Bill must be passed by the 27th of next month, and that therefore, looking at the state of public business, no time is to be lost in introducing it. However, I will proceed with the Bill on any day which may be agreeable to hon. Members; but I think that the best course to take will be to allow the arrangement I have made for to-morrow night to stand, when, if it is found to be inconvenient to take it that night, some evening may be named that will suit the wishes of hon. Gentlemen.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to remark that the right hon. Baronet had come down to the House on the night following the division of the House on the question of Corporal Punishment in the Army, and had announced that he intended to disregard the Resolution, inasmuch as it had only been carried by a majority of 1. The right hon. Gentleman had challenged the supporters of the Resolution to raise the issue again when the Mutiny Bill was discussed; and therefore every opportunity should be given to hon. Members for discussing the question when it was again brought before them. Now, as it was impossible that such an important question could be properly argued at the late hour proposed for to-morrow, he thought it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman would at once name some night in the next week for bringing on the subject.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I need scarcely remind the hon. Member that the attention of the House on Monday night is likely to be fully occupied, and that it is impossible to say how long the debate on the Reform Bill is likely to last. I can only repeat that, in my opinion, it will be better to allow the arrangement I have made with regard to to-morrow to stand.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he must bear testimony to the fairness with which the right hon. Gentleman had acted in regard to this matter. ["Order, order!"]
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Question he proposed to put.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he merely wished to say as much as would render his question intelligible. The question he wished to put to the right hon. Baronet was, whether, as the question which was to be raised tomorrow night was likely to

293
give rise to a discussion which would last three or four hours, it would not be better if hon. Members were saved the trouble of attending, by one day next week being named for bringing the subject before the House?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must decline to accede to the proposal.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—PARTS OF LINDSEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BANKS STANHOPEsaid, he wished to put a Question to Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to the omission of Parts of Lindsey from the Schedule of the Reform Bill owing to a typographical error, and would beg to ask, Whether it would be supplied in Committee?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had received a communication from his hon. Friend on this subject, pointing out the inaccuracy, with which he had not been previously acquainted. Perhaps the best explanation he could give would be to produce the original passage as sent to the printer on the authority of a gentleman known by the House, and whose word would be at once taken as a voucher for the truth of the statement—he meant Mr. Grieve, who draughted the Bill. There would be no objection to make the correction when an opportunity offered.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

NAVY PROMOTION.—RESOLUTION.
MR. HANBURY - TRACY,who had given notice to call the attention of the House to one of the recent promotions made by the present Board of Admiralty; and to move—
"That the promotion by the First Lord of the Admiralty of a junior Lieutenant in the Navy, without any special or distinguished service, over the heads of hundreds of meritorious Lieutenants senior to him in the Service, is prejudicial to the public interest,"
said: I must claim the kind indulgence of the House, feeling that I am touching on rather delicate ground, and that this subject bears somewhat of an invidious and personal a character. I can only say that nobody regrets more than I do the necessity which compels me to
294
bring it forward; and nothing would have induced me to do it had I not felt that it is a matter which affects so vitally the best interests of the service, and is one which strikes at the root of all discipline, that having been myself a naval officer I thought that I should not be doing my duty were I to allow a promotion of so unusual and unprecedented a character, which has justly caused so much discontent throughout the service, to pass by unnoticed and unchallenged. It will be, Sir, in the recollection of the House, that about two weeks ago I asked the late First Lord of the Admiralty a Question relating to this matter. I asked him if it was true that a lieutenant, whose commission as lieutenant dated from May 22, 1861, had been promoted over the heads of 370 of his seniors; and, if so, what special grounds could be assigned for so unusual a proceeding? It is, Sir, because the answer I then received was far from satisfactory, and tended rather to increase the glaring anomalies of this promotion, and showed on what a dangerous and slippery basis Admiralty promotions rest, that I have founded this Motion. The right hon. Baronet then informed me that it was quite true this promotion had taken place; but that the officer referred to was of unimpeachable character and professional reputation, and had served from five to six years at sea. Now, Sir, I have no wish either to impeach this officer's professional character or reputation, more especially so as I believe him from personal knowledge to be a very good officer, nor do I wish to blame him in the slightest degree; but what I want to point out to the House is this, that he had no special qualification whatever to justify his promotion over so many of his seniors, nor had he ever been placed in any position in which he could have shown any. How the First Lord could have stated that he had served from five to six years at sea, I am totally at a loss to conceive; as by the fairest calculation, giving him the benefit of a few doubtful days, I find that at the outside he could only have served at sea for the brief space of four years and one month. I am sure that the right hon. Baronet had no wish to mislead or give a wrong impression to the House, and that what he then stated he firmly believed, and that it must have been based on some eroneous information he had received. I sincerely trust that if he replies to this Motion he will also be able

295
to state that he was labouring under a wrong impression when he made this promotion, and had at that time no idea of what a glaring injustice he was perpetrating. Perhaps, Sir, before I go further, I had better state to the House on what grounds I consider this promotion most unfair and unjust. I find, Sir, that this officer, having no special qualification whatever, has been promoted over the heads of 350 lieutenants who had served at sea for a longer period than he had, and all of whom had every right to expect to be made commanders before him; that he has been promoted over 128 first lieutenants of ships in commission; over sixty gunnery lieutenants; over forty lieutenants in command of vessels; over two lieutenants who had received the Beaufort testimonial for their special qualifications on passing at the naval college; over the senior lieutenants of the ten different stations; and lastly, over a very large number of officers who have been specially recommended for their promotion by their admirals and captains. I hope that this statement, showing so clearly what a monstrous and glaring injustice has been done, is of itself a sufficient excuse for my having brought it forward. The figures which I have given I believe to be strictly accurate; and in order to render them so, I have gone most carefully over each name on the Navy List, and deducted all those who, from age and other causes, could not reasonably expect their promotion, and could not be termed effective officers. The Duke of Somerset, in his evidence before the Select Committee on Naval Promotion and Retirement in 1863, stated that he considered the dead-weight of the lieutenants' list to be about 100, and as I have deducted no less than 106, I hope the right hon. Baronet will not think that I have taken any unfair advantage of him. In the answer to my question the right hon. Baronet went on to say that it was for the benefit of the service to promote a certain number of young officers, and that promotions in the navy always are, and always must be, by selection. Now, Sir, I entirely agree with him that it is most beneficial to the service that young officers should be promoted, and young blood be occasionally infused into the service; but I apprehend that nobody can deny that if young officers are selected and promoted over the heads of so many of their seniors, it should be only for recognised ability and merit, and not for personal feeling and political in-
296
fluence. Promotion by selection has been so well described in the Report of the Select Committee on Navy, Army, and Ordnance Estimates in 1848, that I will, with the permission of the House, read a short extract from it—
"This power of selection is, indeed, a trust which must be exercised with justice and discrimination. The duty is invidious; but the faithful performance of it will ensure the constant promotion of officers in the prime of life to the highest rank in their profession. The public will be the gainers; great advantage will still be given to seniority; no injustice will be done if good service and approved merit be the rules, which shall guide the selection, and the greatest reward will be held out to signal gallantry and to exemplary conduct."
I take it, Sir, that there can be no doubt that promotion by selection ought and must be based on seniority, except in cases of special merit and recognised ability, If you merely say that promotion is by selection, the floodgates are at once open to all manner of interest and jobbery. Admiral Elliot, in his evidence before the Select Committee, showed very clearly that the service never complains of selection provided it is for conspicuous ability and merit.
"I think that the service would admit at once the great advantage of having some young officers coming forward; and if only a portion of the promotions was left to selection, I do not think that any branch of the service would complain, provided that the selections were for recognised ability and merit."
I hope it will not be thought that I am in favour of a pure seniority system; for, on the contrary, so strong am I in favour of promotion by selection based on seniority that, instead of wishing it done away with, I am inclined to go rather to the other extreme; and I do not think sufficient officers are promoted by selection for their special abilities and zealous conduct. The great advantages of such a system none who have seen the working of it can deny; and, Sir, it is one of the happiest contrasts that I know of to witness the difference displayed by our first and gunnery lieutenant in zeal and energy and that shown by officers of foreign navies, in which the service is based on the pure seniority system. On the one hand officers feel, or rather hope, that the eye of the Admiralty is upon them, and that their promotion is, to a great extent, dependant on their own individual exertion and energy; whilst, on the other hand, on the pure seniority system they know that they are certain of their promotion with-

297
out any special exertion on their part, and have therefore no inducement to work, and, to make use of a naval phrase, "they have only to sit down and allow the wind to blow them along," and their reward is certain. I hope, Sir, that the day is far distant when we shall have recourse to this system; but, undoubtedly, unless the selections are ruled with fairness and impartiality, we shall be obliged to adopt it. The right hon. Baronet, in his answer to me the other night, implied that, having been a naval officer, I should not have asked such a question; but, Sir, I apprehend that this is the very reason why I should have done so. I naturally know the feelings and the sentiments of the rank to which I lately belonged, and I know only too well that this promotion has given rise to an amount of ill-feeling, discontent, irritation, and grumbling which it will take many years to obliterate. Can anything inure heartrending or distressing be pictured than the sight of a zealous, arduous, and energetic lieutenant—one who has striven for a long number of years to earn his promotion, perhaps as first lieutenant, perhaps as gunnery lieutenant, or perhaps in command of vessels, on hearing of such an event. He naturally says to himself, What is the use of my continuing to devote my life to the Service in the manner in which I have been working, when an officer who is so much my junior, who has never been a first or gunnery lieutenant, is promoted before me? Is not such an event sufficient of itself to dishearten him for ever, and to make hint long to leave a Service in which his claims for promotion, founded as they are on professional study, perseverance, and ability, pursued in a path of honour and integrity, are put on one side, and the prize of the profession is handed over to social and political interest? Many years ago it was notorious that such a state of things existed in the most glaring shape; but I am happy to say that wise administrators, aided by public opinion and the press, have, to a great extent, put an end to these unjust promotions. I have no hesitation, however, in saying that the right hon. Baronet has, with one stroke of his pen, succeeded in upsetting the whole of this policy, especially that pursued by the Duke of Somerset. He has succeeded, in the short space of six months, in resuscitating that feeling of grumbling which used to exist and be so rife in the Service; but which the Duke of Somerset,
298
by distributing his patronage and promotions with a fair and impartial hand, succeeded in putting a stop to. Whatever may be said as to the Duke's policy in regard to the material of the navy, I am certain that no First Lord of the Admiralty ever bestowed his patronage with so fair and impartial a hand, or succeeded in giving so much content and satisfaction amongst all classes and branches of the Service. It is self-evident, from the Report of the Select Committee on Navy Promotion, that they abstained from malting any recommendations or suggestions as to the manner in which officers should be promoted, solely on the ground that the system, as carried out by the Duke of Somerset, was fair and impartial, for in the Report they express themselves in the following manner:—
"XII. Your Committee have already stated that the Naval Officers are generally in favour of the principle of selection as applicable to the promotion of Lieutenants to be Commanders, and Commanders to be Captains. The Committee think that the system as worked by the Admiralty is fair. It was thus described by the Duke of Somerset: With regard to promotions made at the Admiralty, I go over the lists with the services of the officers; and I see also what the recommendations of the officers in command of the different stations have been; I very often receive a private letter from the Admirals in command, pointing out such and such officers as being very efficient and zealous, and who are deserving of promotion, and whose promotion would be for the good of the service. We then take an opportunity to but them, if we can, into the next hatch but, at the same time, we take them, to a certain extent, from each station, so that the officers who are serving at a distance (serving, perhaps, in the Pacific) may not see the promotion going to some other station, and not getting themselves a little share of it. We try to divide the promotions between the different stations.' The Duke of Somerset has further described in his evidence, the precautions now taken to prevent officers from being unduly passed over. While this practice continues, it may reasonably be expected that deserving officers will not be neglected, and distinguished merit will meet with its reward. Your Committee can see no reason, therefore, for recommending an alteration in the system of selection as now applied to the lower ranks; and, when well administered, your Committee entirely agree with the Report of the Commissioners on Naval and Military Inquiry, that it offers the best security which could be desired for reinforcing and reanimating the Navy to any extent which the circumstances of the country might, on an emergency, render necessary.'"
I have endeavoured to show to the House that this system of fairness and impartiality on which the Committee relied has broken down, and I would now ask, Sir, if in the opinion of the House

299
some alteration should not be made, or, at any rate, some protest be entered against such an unhappy state of things. In the French navy there is a Conseil d' Avancement, whose duty it is, under certain rules, which are well established, to recommend officers for promotion; but I fear until a radical change is made in the constitution of the Admiralty, and permanent Heads of Departments are appointed, it would be useless to adopt this plan. The right hon. Baronet said the other night, that this promotion was one of a batch of five, and that he was unwilling to give an explanation about a single one without giving his reasons for the whole of these promotions. Sir, I believe that four these promotions were very fair and good promotions; but is it any reason that because a judge had made four just decisions, that he should make one unjust one? The right hon. Baronet would have us believe that four blacks make one white. I hope the House will not be deceived by a doctrine so new and unprecedented, and that they will remember that it is only about one of these promotions that I take. I am informed that it is intended to justify this promotion on the ground that a similar one was made by the Duke of Somerset. Sir, I will now say that the case they refer to was under totally different circumstances; and was an act of justice to an officer who was suffering from an Admiralty order which unintentionally had a retrospective action. But, Sir, in no case can it be shown that, even if this had been bad, that it was any excuse for its being renewed. I will not, Sir, any more take up the time of the House; but will only say that I trust the House, and the right hon. Baronet, will not think that I have brought this forward in any party or factious spirit, or with any ill will to the right hon. Baronet. I cannot believe that so good an administrator could have been guilty of so flagrant an act of injustice if he had known at the time the real state of the case. I sincerely trust that the right hon. Baronet will be able to show that this was really the state of the case, and that he had no intention of bringing back the melancholy reminiscences of former days, when personal and political influenee held such a withering sway over true ability and zeal. I have only to thank the House for the kindness with which they have heard me.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the promotion by the First Lord of the Admiralty of a junior Lieutenant in the Navy without any special or distinguished service, over the heads of hundreds of meritorious Lieutenants senior to him in the Service, is prejudicial to the public interest,"—(Mr. Hanbury-Tracy,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, the hon. Gentleman having thought it his duty to follow up the Question he asked on a former evening by a proceeding of a more formal character, I have to say that I am perfectly willing to meet it. I am bound to accept, and I do accept, the statement just made by the hon. Gentleman—that he has not brought this Question forward in a party spirit, or with a factious motive. I am further bound to believe that the hon. Gentleman is influenced solely and entirely by patriotic zeal for the interest of the naval service. Assuming that to be the case, I am only sorry the patriotic zeal of the hon. Gentleman did not equally influence him a very short time ago. The charge involved in this case is that I have promoted a lieutenant of five years and eight months' service to the rank of commander, that lieutenant being—I do not know whether this is a part of the charge—a son of the Earl of Hardwicke. [Mr. HANBURY-TRACY: I did not mention names.] Well, that is an omission which I think I ought to supply. I have to call the attention of the House and the hon. Gentleman to these facts:—The service of Lieutenant Yorke, as the hon. Gentleman has told us, was five years and eight months. The Duke of Somerset, when First Lord of the Admiralty, promoted a son of Sir James Graham from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander on five years and two months' service. He promoted a son of Sir Charles Wood, now Lord Halifax, from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander, on five years and two months' service. He promoted Lieutenant Fitzclarence, son of the Earl of Munster, from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander, on four years and eleven months' service. Therefore, whatever may have been the iniquity of my promotion of Lieutenant Yorke, in every possible respect those three promotions of the Duke of Somerset are worse. The services of the gentlemen pro-

301
moted were shorter; and those lieutenants had no peculiar distinction beyond that which is a common one. I believe in the cases of Lieutenant Wood and Lieutenant Graham—I know nothing of Lieutenant Fitzclarence—the officers were gentlemen of unexceptionable character and good service. But, if the promotion of Lieutenant Yorke be—as the hon. Gentleman says—entirely unjust and unwarrantable, I wish to know why the promotions of those three officers, who had not seen such long service, was not also entirely unjust and unwarrantable? Sir, do not let me be mistaken. I do not complain that no Member of this side of the House should have risen to object to the promotions of the son of Sir James Graham and the son of Sir Charles Wood. Provided that their characters were good and their services honourable, as I believe to have been the case, I think it was desirable that young blood should have been introduced into the higher ranks of the navy, and, accordingly, that young officers should have been promoted. I am not the man to say that the long public services of Sir Charles Wood and Sir James Graham should have been disregarded; neither do I wish to make the least attack on those promotions. The hon. Gentleman has paid a tribute to the spirit in which the Duke of Somerset conducted his promotions. I believe, notwithstanding the eases which I have mentioned to the House, the noble Duke was guided by what he considered to be the right principle. I never heard the Duke of Somerset's promotions complained of but on one ground—namely, that he did not make a sufficient number of promotions of this kind. The fault I have found with his promotions was that in promoting lieutenants he was guided more by the priniple of seniority in the service than the interest of the navy demanded. I will not appeal to gallant Gentlemen behind me, because, from the turn this case has taken, I feel that what they might say might be attributed to party feeling; but I see a gallant Admiral on the other side (Admiral Erskine), and I ask him whether it is not perfectly true that young blood should be introduced into the higher ranks of the navy. Gentlemen are treading on dangerous ground when they are undertaking to draw a distinction between one young officer of good character and another; and I think I have reason to complain of the manner in which this promotion of Lieutenant Yorke has
302
been brought forward for animadversion. The hon. Gentleman alluded to other promotions which I had made on the same day when I promoted Lieutenant Yorke; and he said that four honest promotions could not counterbalance this one. Will the House allow me to mention the circumstances. I was called on to promote four lieutenants? As a young officer of good character I promoted Lieutenant Yorke, but my next promotion was Lieutenant Fitzmaurice, with whom I had no acquaintance. I am not aware that I ever saw him in my life; but he had been selected for promotion by the Duke of Somerset. I believe he was deserving of it; but owing to the change of Government, his promotion did not take place, and I thought it would be a great hardship if he were deprived of it by that circumstance. As to the other three gentlemen, I do not know that I can recollect their names or where they came from; but I dived into the records of the Admiralty, and found men of the highest standing and reputation. All of them had at least ten or eleven years' service, and I do not believe that any officer in the navy wilt say that there could have been better or fairer promotions. Since then I have had the honour of making three or four more promotions, and I think the hon. Gentleman will exert himself in vain to find fault with them. In the terms of his notice, the hon. Gentleman states that the promotion of Lieutenant Yorke was made over the heads of hundreds of meritorious officers seniors to him in the service. So was the promotion of Lieutenant Graham; so was the promotion of Lieutenant Wood, so was the promotion of Lieutenant Fitzelarence. But that statement of itself is not what I complain of. What I complain of is that the hon. Gentleman; who was a navalofficer, and knows how these things are regulated [A laugh], should use language calculated to lead to an erroneous impression. I think hon. Gentlemen will do better if they restrain their mirth till they hear what I am about to say. The public are not aware of the fact, but the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact, that in every one of those eases of promotion numbers of meritorious lieutenants must be passed over. In the case of those three officers whom I selected for their service and their merits, and to whose selection the hon. Gentleman makes no objection, a number of meritorious officers were passed over. The state of the navy is such—the stag-

303
nation in promotion is such—that it is impossible for all the lieutenants to look forward to obtaining the position of commander. It was in consequence of that, that the Duke of Somerset, only a year ago, introduced a new regulation making provision for the retirement of lieutenants after a certain age, and under certain circumstances. The language of the hon. Gentleman would really imply that everyone of those meritorious lieutenants, of whom he states there are hundreds, might have been promoted to the rank of commander; but he knows they never could have been, however carefully the seniority system might have been carried out by the Duke of Somerset or any other First Lord. I have no further answer to make to the hon. Member, and can only add, as the case has been brought forward, that I am not in the least ashamed of any one of the promotions that I have made.
ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, it had not been his intention to take any part in that discussion; but as the Secretary of State for War had appealed to him, he must express his concurrence in the opinion stated by the right hon. Gentleman that promotion should not always be by seniority in the navy. Such a system would produce a stagnation in the service; it would not give them the best men, and, moreover, it would remove all responsibility from the heads of those who ought to bear it. One of the advantages of selection was that it admitted of the most searching inquiry into those promotions, and also imposed the heaviest responsibility on the person in-trusted with them. He feared, however, that he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the power by which that patronage ought to be exercised. Several years ago the right hon. Gentleman expressed an opinion that promotions given by flag officers to officers serving under them, which were called "haul down promotions," ought to be placed in the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman had also expressed the opinion that "Board promotions," which were given for special acts of good conduct by the representation of the Board, should likewise cease and be vested in the First Lord. He could not think that the possessor of political power must necessarily be the best judge of professional merits; and of all the functions of the Board of Admiralty, that of recommending officers for promotion on account of special services was one which it was best fitted
304
to exercise. As to the promotions made by flag officers he was very much of the opinion of the late Duke of Wellington, who, writing from Portugal in 1810, complained that he had not the power of making even a corporal, and declared that it was impossible the system then pursued could last; that it was absolutely necessary for the discipline of the army, and to stimulate men when under danger, that he should be in-trusted with the power of promotion, and expressed a wish to see adopted in that service a practice that would be in accordance with the usage of the British navy. There never was a wiser sentence written than that. The right hon. Baronet opposite, it was only fair to say, had shown no indisposition while at the Admiralty to recognise the services of officers who had received their promotion in the precise way that he had deprecated. During his term of office he had employed three flag officers—namely, first, Sir James Hope, one of the most distinguished officers in the navy; secondly, an officer whose appointment to the command of the Channel squadron everybody approved, Sir Charles Fremantle; and a third, whose selection might not command such general satisfaction, was himself. For the last he had always felt grateful to the right hon. Baronet. All those three officers had been promoted as flag lieutenants by the admiral under whom they had acted. If these promotions by commanders were more frequently allowed, they would hear very little of discontent in the navy.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had intended to justify what he had done in these cases by reference to the acts of his predecessors, he ought to have given them some notice that he meant to do so. In the case of Lieutenant Wood he was then able to offer a satisfactory answer to the right hon. Gentleman. That officer was a flag lieutenant to Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker; and it was an old rule that on striking his flag an admiral was entitled to a promotion for his flag lieutenant. That rule was felt to be open to objection. It was therefore laid down in 1864 by the Duke of Somerset, that no flag lieutenant should be promoted unless he had previously served three years. Within a few weeks of this order, Admiral Walker struck his flag, and applied for promotion for Lieutenant Wood. It turned out that the latter officer had only served two years

305
which reckoned as sea service, and two years as flag lieutenant, and did not come quite within the rule thus laid down by the Board. It was thought rather hard that the rule should act retrospectively in his case, and accordingly he was appointed to serve in the Excellent for one year, in that way making up the prescribed time for obtaining his promotion. He had no doubt that some similar explanation might be made in the two other cases to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred as having occurred during his predecessor's tenure of office, had notice been given that they would be mentioned. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion, but rest satisfied with the discussion that had taken place.
MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that Captain Fitzclarence had been flan lieutenant to Admiral Smart, who had been commander of the fleet. He had no desire to claim a monopoly of virtue for a Whig Board of Admiralty; but thought that, however satisfactory to the House might have been the reply of the right hon. Baronet in a party point of view, alleging as he did that he had made these promotions in the same way his predecessors had done, it would scarcely be equally satisfactory to the naval profession.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that having served en the Committee upon Naval Promotion and Retirement for a Session, he found that, the greatest difficulties stood in the way of a class of officers on whom the wellbeing of the service much depended obtaining employment—namely, those who were promoted from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander. He had never heard anything more distressing than the statements made by officers in the navy as to the course they had been compelled to take for the purpose of obtaining their promotion, which justice had denied them on their merits. One officer said he matriculated at one of the Universities to obtain a degree, in order that he might bring himself to the notice of the Admiralty; and another officer owed his promotion to the simple fact that he could speak French. He (Mr. Ayrton) put the following question to the Duke of Somerset:—
"Has the practice been entirely given up of Promoting officers from the rank of lieutenant to commander for the gratification of Lords of the Admiralty and other persons of influence?"
The Duke of Somerset's answer was—
"I think so. We have now a printed form, which we send back, telling the people that they
306
are not to interfere, and they are enabled to explain that the Admiralty do not intend to attend to their explanation."
The principle, in short, which had been laid down by the Duke of Somerset was that of seniority, qualified by the passing over of those at the head of the list, who, for one reason or another, were not considered proper objects of promotion, at the same time supplementing the list by choosing officers who had special recommendations in their favour which could be quoted as sufficient reasons for their selection. That was a principle which the Committee had accepted, and it had been clearly shown that whatever might have been the abuses in the navy in former times they had been abandoned by the Duke of Somerset, and that he had put the administration of its affairs on a better footing. If the present question had been brought forward as a mere party question, he for one should have abstained from entering into the discussion. Such, however, was not the ease, and when he found the right hon. Gentleman, the late First; Lord of the Admiralty, arrogating to himself the right of making every fifth promotion in the navy according to his own will and pleasure, and irrespective of any of those special qualifications on which the Duke of Somerset had insisted, he could not refrain from protesting against such a system. The right hon. Gentleman had, indeed, informed the House that Lieutenant Yorke was the son of a noble Lord, and that he had behaved very properly in the navy. Well, nobody supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would have put a person who had been a disgrace to the service over everybody else; but he should like to know what were the special recommendations from the Admiral on the station, or otherwise, which justified Lieutenant Yorke being placed over other officers on the ground of superior merit? If any such grounds were adduced he was sure his hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) would be delighted to accept the statement as satisfactory, and to withdraw his Motion. The only grounds advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, however, for the appoint, merit was that Lieutenant Yorke was the son of a noble Lord, and a political friend of his own, while he laid down, as he had said before, the doctrine that having made four ordinary promotions he was entitled to make every fifth promotion without regard to seniority. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: I laid down no such doctrine,] The right hon.

307
Gentleman had done worse; he had carried that doctrine out in practice. He must know that it was of the utmost importance that the First Lord of the Admiralty should set in that respect a good example. There could be no doubt that the tone of the promotions throughout the whole service—and the admirals had considerable patronage—must be greatly affected by any course which the head of it might think proper to pursue. He protested against the doctrine that promotion in the navy was to be regulated by personal friendship or political considerations. The instance in question was one he could not help thinking of a most pernicious character. It showed a tendency to return, notwithstanding the efforts of the Duke of Somerset, to the worst times of the navy; and it was, he thought, the duty of his hon. Friend to press his Motion to a division, and thus afford every hon. Member on both sides of the House who had a regard for the welfare of his country and of that great service in which they all felt so deep an interest, an opportunity of voting in its favour.
MR. BILLIE COCHRANEsaid, the great argument used by the hon. Member in support of the Motion seemed to him to be that Lieutenant Yorke was the son of the Earl of Hardwicke.
MR. AYRTON: I argued entirely without reference to his being the son of anybody.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, that the appointment would never have been commented on in that House had not Lieutenant Yorke happened to be the son of the Earl of Hardwicke. Was it any objection to a young and deserving officer that he was the son of one who himself had been distinguished in the service He must protest against the course which had been taken by the hon. Gentleman by whom the subject had been brought forward. None of the appointments which had been made by the Duke of Somerset had been so questioned. When the age of many of our senior naval officers was taken into account, it was best that the younger men should obtain promotion to the higher posts in the service.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the question at issue did not stand in altogether a satisfactory position. In meeting the charge with a mere tu quoque retort, Gentlemen opposite did not seem to attach to it the importance which it deserved. But when he made up his mind to adopt that
308
line of defence, it was incumbent on the right hon. Baronet to give notice to the Duke of Somerset, as to those who in this House would be likely to defend his acts, that he intended to impugn particular promotions made by him. On the other hand, lie thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) was asking the House to pronounce a decision en the question before it without those papers and that information which it was desirable it should possess. He would therefore suggest to him that he should move for Returns of the services of Lieutenants Wood, Graham, Fitzclarence and Yorke, of the recommendations in favour of these officers to the Admiralty, and of the regulations under which they were promoted. He did not think it would be possible for the House to pass the Resolution to which it was invited to assent on the bare statement—he dared say correct—of his hon. Friend, even supplemented by the reply of the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington). If therefore the right hon. Gentleman who at present filled that office (Mr. Corry) would give a promise that the papers to which he referred should be laid on the table, he hoped his hon. Friend would agree to the withdrawal of his Resolution.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to detain the House for a few moments, because he had taken great interest in the question of promotion in the navy, and he thought the House was in danger of being misled by the facts which had been brought out in the discussion. He was assured that the First Lord of the Admiralty would have no objection to give the papers just asked for, and when hon. Members had those in their hands they might come to a calm decision as to the merits of the appointment which was impugned. He wished, however, to allude to the advantage of promoting younger officers at certain times, so that it might not be rendered impossible that our fleets might be properly commanded. A naval officer was not promoted to be a lieutenant under the age of twenty, and it was not until after ten or fifteen years' service, or when he was about thirty-five, that he could become a commander; and if anything like the same proportion in promotion were observed, he would be fifty before he was a captain, mid seventy before he could be an admiral, so that promotion simply by seniority was not desirable in the naval profession. If, however, a lieutenant at

309
twenty-one were sometimes made five or six years after a commander, and five or six years after that a captain, he might perhaps hope to be in a position before he reached fifty to hoist his flag. How were the Admiralty, then, to select, when there was no opportunity for distinguished service? The only course to follow was to do what had been done by his right hon. Friend in this instance, and previously by the Duke of Somerset in several instances. Captain Yorke was an officer of good service, with everything in his favour. His hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire did not assert that any other officer of Captain Yorke's standing had higher claims; but what he objected to was that the gallant officer was promoted over the heads of senior officers.
MR. HANBURY-TRACYsaid, there were several officers of the same standing who had stronger claims than Captain Yorke.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, they were not those distinguished claims which would call for the attention of the authorities. He believed, if the papers which the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had asked for were laid upon the table, the House would agree that if young officers were to be selected for promotion, the Duke of Somerset and the right hon. Gentleman were justified by usage in the choice they had made. There was no feeling of jealousy in the profession with regard to the promotion of men like Lieutenants Graham and Wood when no other officers of their rank and standing had any higher claims. The son of an old and distinguished Admiral like Lord Hardwicke, who had also been a former colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, had a similar claim. As regarded the case of Lieutenant Wood, he (Sir John Hay) found in an official paper a statement that the sea time in the Excellent was not allowed to count, as Lieutenant Wood did not pass in the time allowed, which was eighteen months, though no blame was to be attached to Lieutenant Wood, who received his promotion with perfect fairness on account of the merits of the nobleman whose son he was.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the gallant officer had not served his time when flag lieutenant, and was promoted according to the ordinary regulations on account of the distinguished man whose son he was. He was happy to bear the highest testimony to the characters of both Commander Wood and Commander Yorke, who had both been midshipmen of his. Commander Wood was promoted a year before Commander Yorke, but no exception was taken to it; and when the papers were laid upon the table, it would be seen that his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) had made a promotion which, under existing circumstances, was exceedingly fair.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the question assumed a character of very considerable gravity. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) defended his conduct by saying that the course he had pursued was parallel to that followed by former First Lords of the Admiralty; and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) expressed an opinion that this question would never have been heard of if the gentleman whose name was brought forward to-night had not been the son of the Earl of Hardwicke. That was as much as to say that the hon. Member for Montgomery had taken up the question solely as a political partizan. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who last spoke laid down a principle as to promotion in the navy which merited the most serious consideration of the House. The hon. and gallant Member stated—and if the House passed over the statement in silence it might be thought that the House accepted it—that the sons of gentlemen of distinction on one side of polities or the other might on that ground be carried, without offence, over the heads of their seniors in service and of equal merits. That was an announcement of an exceedingly grave character. He confessed, with all deference to feelings audibly expressed in some quarters of the House, and after hearing the able statement of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Pontefract appeared to him a wise one. He did not mean to say that the statements of the hon. Member (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy), and of the right hon. Baronet, were not perfect, good, and valid as far as they went; but the effect of producing papers would be that, not only the attention of the Members now present, but also of the whole House, would be drawn to the subject,

311
and to the broad declaration of a Gentleman holding office in connection with the Admiralty with respect to the principle on which those promotions should be made. It was most desirable that all the facts of the case should be laid before the House, and then, however reluctant to enter into questions of this kind, he should not decline to give a judgment. It would be well to defer pronouncing a formal opinion until the subject was fully in possession of the House.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to say one word in explanation in consequence of the misapprehension of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who seemed to be under the impression that he (Sir John Pakington) defended Lieutenant Yorke's promotion, on the ground that the Duke of Somerset made three similar promotions. What he (Sir John Pakington) had said was, that Lieutenant Yorke's promotion was consistent with the interests of the naval service; but that that appointment had been made the subject of attack, while the appointments of the Duke of Somerset of a similar kind had been left unnoticed.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, he must enter his protest against the doctrines laid down for regulating naval promotion which they had heard that night. While they were endeavouring to clear the navy from political appointments, and to do that justice to it which it had never yet received, it had been broadly stated that because an officer was the son of an admiral, and the son of a Lord, therefore he was to be promoted. He hoped the hon. Member would take the sense of the House upon this question.
MR. HANBURY - TRACYsaid, he would ask for leave to withdraw the Motion, on the ground that the papers to be produced might strengthen his case, and on a future day he would call attention to the question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NAVY—NAVAL ENGINEERS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, he rose to call attention to the position of the Naval Engineers. Last year he took occasion to make some suggestions on their behalf, and since that time the Admiralty had allowed pensions to be given to the
  312
  widows of naval engineers, and a certain increase of pay was granted to the inspectors of machinery afloat. At the same time, no provision was made for giving the inspectors half pay on retirement. There was a considerable difference in rank between inspectors of machinery and chief engineers, the former ranking as post captains, and the chief engineers as lieutenants in the navy. The case of the chief engineers was deserving of attention. No engineer was allowed to enter Her Majesty's naval service until he was declared competent to enter on the discharge of his duties. He then had to serve for a period which averaged between thirteen or fourteen years before he became a chief engineer; and before he could attain the highest rank and the highest rate of pay he must show twenty-five years of service. He did not complain of this; but what he did complain of on the part of engineers was this, that having served for fourteen years in the lower rank, instead of being allowed to count that period, by the regulations of the Admiralty they were only allowed to count four years. Consequently, instead of having eleven more years to serve, they had twenty-one years more to serve after promotion before attaining the highest rate of pay. Thus, an engineer entering the navy at twenty-one or twenty-two, would be thirty-five by the time he was made chief engineer. When he got to the top of the tree as chief engineer, he would have arrived at the ripe age of fifty-six, and, as according to the rules of the service, officers must retire at sixty, ha would have only the intervening period between fifty-six and sixty for the full enjoyment of the rewards and rank he had a right to expect in return for his long and meritorious ser-vice of thirty-five years. It was very difficult to see on what principle these regulations were based. Considering the very strict examination he had to undergo before entering the service, the engineer was placed in a very inferior position to the assistant-surgeon and other officers holding corresponding rank. The assistant-surgeon was made a surgeon after ten years, and was allowed to count every year of that period of service instead of being, cut down to four years, as was the case with naval engineers. Last year, when he brought forward this matter, he was told that the case of the assistant-surgeons was exceptional owing to their long and expensive examination which must be passed by engineer students before

  313
  entering the navy, which, in addition to perfect competency and skill in engineering, and a knowledge of the properties of steam, embraced plane trigonometry, hydrostatics, mechanics, dynamics, and elementary chemistry, was quite equal to what was required of assistant-surgeons. He was encouraged to think that the Board of Admiralty were of opinion that the principle he advocated was a sound one; because by the Admiralty regulations, commanders and captains were allowed to count their time as sub-lieutenants, in order to qualify them to receive Greenwich Hospital pensions. He asked the same principle to be applied to the engineers which was applied to captains and commanders. There was another point on which concession would not increase the Estimates, while it would do away with a great deal of individual hardship. An increase of pay now took place at intervals of five years. What he ventured to suggest was that the increase, instead of taking place every five years, should be spread proportionably over that period. At present, if a man were compelled to retire shortly before he had completed twenty years of service, he would have a retiring allowance upon only fifteen years service, and the difference between retirement at twenty years' service and fifteen years was no less than £45 per annum There was therefore in this matter a case of considerable hardship. The increase of pay to assistant-surgeons, which had formerly been every five years, now took place every four years; while to paymasters the period was also reduced. All he asked was that in these matters engineers should be placed in the same position with naval officers of corresponding rank. Tie would ask also why the names of naval engineers were not inserted in the Navy List? Even the engineers coming from the Mercantile Navy, and entering the Royal Naval Reserve, had their names inserted in the Navy List; but naval engineers were the only officers in the service whose names were not to be found in the Navy List. This was a very invidious distinction, which had given rise to a great deal of heartburning and unpleasantness. Naval engineers messed in the ward-room with officers, and they were fully entitled to have what he asked for them. He trusted the courteous disposition of the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) would take their case into favourable consideration.
  LORD LENNOXsaid, that in
  314
  considering the questions of the hon. Baronet, he must in the first place state that, having received from him no notice as to what were the peculiar grievances he was about to bring forward, lie feared he should not be able to reply in full to all his questions, the more so as no memorial from this class of officers is before the Admiralty. But by reference to the debate of last year he had been enabled to gather what he presumed was the purport of the complaints. He would take the questions seriatim, as they had been put to him. First of all, the hon. Baronet wished that inspectors of machinery should be allowed to have increased half-pay. That question had been under the consideration of the Board, and no decision had been come to yet on the point. Secondly, the hon. Baronet asked that these gentlemen should be allowed to count the whole of their time. He could not well compare engineers with assistant-surgeons, chaplains, and naval instructors, who did enjoy that privilege, because assistant-surgeons paid for their own education, which was an expensive one, and the same remark applied to chaplains and naval instructors. The hon. Baronet might probably say that some of these engineers were taken from private yards, and thus had paid for their own education; but all connection with the private trade had now ceased, and all engineers in the Royal Navy were called upon to pass through the factories and dockyards, and paid nothing for their education. This being so, he thought that no aid could be granted them upon this point. As to the third matter, the hon. Baronet asked that the engineers should have an increase in their pay every three, instead of every five years. He could hold out no hopes of such an alteration in the rate of pay being made. It was not granted to any other class of officers. Then the hon. Baronet said that the engineers felt most keenly the implied slight offered to them by their names not appearing in the Navy List, and he requested to be informed of the reason for their being omitted. The hon. Baronet not having given notice of his intention to put a question upon this subject he could give him no distinct answer as to why the names of the lower grade of engineers did not appear there, The hon. Baronet, however, must be aware that the names of those in the upper grades of the engineers did appear in the Navy List. Having answered all the questions of the hop, Baronet, he must be permitted to point out to him that last year the pay of five in-

  315
  spectors of engineers was raised by £100 a year; and that the pay of others in the same branch of the service had been raised by £50. The present Board of Admiralty had also given to the engineers that which they had been so long anxious for—namely, the rank of commanders after fifteen years' service. If the hon. Baronet required further explanations upon the subject, he would be happy to communicate with him by letter or otherwise, and to afford him every information in his power.

NAVY—ROMAN CATHOLICS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rose to call attention to the provision for the spiritual wants of Roman Catholics in the Royal Navy; and asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, how far the recommendations approved of by Sir John Pakington in his Letter to Lord Derby, dated 1859 (see Parliamentary Paper, 10th February 1860, Navy) have been carried out By the principle acted on of late years all denominations of Christians in the Royal Navy were to be treated as on an equal footing. The proportion of Roman Catholics in the navy had been 16 per cent, and was now 12½ per cent. But while the total expenditure for religious instruction in the navy was £39,500, the allowance in respect of Roman Catholic clergymen was only £940, or less than 3 per cent of the whole. In 1859 a memorial in reference to Roman Catholics in the navy was laid before the Admiralty, and it was concerning the recommendations of Sir John Pakington upon this memorial that he wished to inquire. The first recommendation was, that when the Protestants were assembled for worship the Roman Catholics should be assembled separately, and prayers read by a Roman Catholic priest or officer. Secondly, that Roman Catholics should be assembled separately two or three times a week for instruction in their religion. Many of these recommendations could, of course, only be carried out when the ship was in harbour. Thirdly, that when a Roman Catholic was ill, he should, where it was practicable, be attended by a clergyman of his own persuasion. Fourthly, that Roman Catholics should, when in harbour, be assembled and marched to Divine service. Fifthly, that where a hospital ship was attached to the fleet, a Roman Catholic chaplain should form part of the staff.
  316
  Sixthly, that the small steamers which took the liberty men ashore should be employed to take men to the chapel ships. Seventhly, that when a man presented himself for entry to the navy, no question should be asked as to his faith until he should be pronounced fit for service, and that the religion should be added to the description of each seaman. Eighthly, that this description should accompany the man when he went into hospital, so that the chaplain might more easily know whom to visit. Ninthly, that when practicable, a Roman Catholic priest should perform the funeral service over members of that religion. Tenthly, that the authorities of naval hospitals should request the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority at the spot to name a chaplain to attend the sick Roman Catholics, and that this person should have free access to the hospital. Lastly, that arrangements should be made for performing Divine service and reading prayers in hospitals. Further, he wished to inquire into the position and pay of the Roman Catholic clergy in the navy. There were Roman Catholic chaplains at Sheerness, Portsmouth, and Devonport; their duties were such that they occupied their whole time, and yet their whole remuneration was £120 a year. Practically, these were permanent appointments, and the amount of pay certainly was not enough to permit these gentlemen to make any provision for old age. He thought that they were well entitled to a retiring allowance. In other ports very small payments were made to Roman Catholic clergymen. Last year there was an entry in the Estimates of £60 for Malta, but this year there was none. At Gibraltar and Hong Kong there were no allowances. At Bermuda, Jamaica, and the Cape of Good Hope the allowance was £20; and at Trincomalee only £10, At Haslar the Protestant clergyman received £620 and the Roman Catholic £30; and at Yarmouth £15. He would suggest that the naval authorities should take into consideration whether the system adopted in the army of payments per capita might not be extended to the navy.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the noble Lord was not at liberty to speak again, as he had already spoken in the course of this discussion.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he knew that the engineer officers of the navy were most grateful for the benefits which had been

  317
  conferred upon them. They would regard it as a further boon to have their names inserted in the Navy List. He wished to put a question with respect to the pay of dockyard labourers, which he had no doubt the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox), whose able statement the other night he had heard with satisfaction, would be able to answer. He had always understood that the late Board had increased the pay of the dockyard labourers; and lie wished to know whether the increase was to be confined to the class of labourers who received only 13 s. a week, or whether the augmentation applied to the higher classes of labourers?
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished Roman Catholic priests to receive such a liberal remuneration for their services to sailors in the navy as would render them more amenable to the rules and to discipline than their brother priests had been in regard to services in prisons. But he desired to know whether the services of Roman Catholic priests were to be appreciated by the importunity of their applications to the Government, and by the influence they exercised in that House, or were they to be regulated according to the exigencies of the service? He hoped the Admiralty would consider how far the services of Roman Catholic priests would conduce to the interests of the navy and to the safety of the country. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Reilly) that the remuneration of Roman Catholic naval chaplains should be at least on as liberal a scale as the pay of clergymen of other denominations. He might remind the House, however, that many clergymen of the Church of England had to live and maintain a respectable appearance on £80 or £100 a year; while, among the Dissenters, £100 or £150 was considered amply sufficient. In regard to Roman Catholic inmates of prisons, the attendance of the chaplains upon them was not compulsory under the Act of Parliament.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that it was from no feeling of disrespect to the House that he had been deputed by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) to reply to the questions which had been asked; but his right hon. Friend had only been in office a short time, and had been obliged to turn nearly the whole of his attention as yet to the mastery of details. He could assure the hon. Gentleman the Member fur Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) that the pay and
  318
  appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains would be regulated, not by the importunities of hon. Gentlemen who professed the Roman Catholic religion, but solely by the exigencies of the service, in the hope that the men would be taught their duty to God and their Queen. He would now answer the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. O'Reilly). The recommendations issued in 1859 had been carried out as far as was practicable. The first question was whether the Roman Catholic seamen who entertained religious scruples about attending the service of the Church of England might absent themselves from its performance. That permission was already granted; but as it was indispensable that perfect order and silence should be observed in the ship during the performance of Divine service, the men so absenting themselves were obliged to remain in the mess room. As to the boys assembling on board the ships for religious instruction, he had to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the fact that as the Protestant clergyman was always on board the ship be could summon the boys and administer instruction to them at times which would not only be convenient to himself but which would not interfere with the discipline of the service, while a Roman Catholic chaplain could not fix certain hours or certain days in the week without interfering somehow with that discipline which it was necessary to preserve. The hon. Gentleman asked whether Roman Catholic priests were sent for when Roman Catholic seamen were dangerously ill. That, he might say, was already the invariable practice where it was possible. No orders, however, had been issued on the subject, and the matter was, as a rule, left to the humanity and good feeling of the captain. With regard to the next question, whether Catholic sailors were allowed in harbour to attend their chapel and mass, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had nothing to do but to turn to the printed instructions and see that those sailors, when there was a Catholic officer, were marched under his orders to the chapel where their religious service was performed. Thus far all the recommendations had been carried out. In answer to the next question, whether chaplains should be appointed to the hospital ships of the fleet, lie might observe that there were no hospital ships, as a rule, attached to the fleet. On the next point, the hon. and gallant Gentleman laid considerable stress, labouring apparently

  319
  under the impression that the recommendation had not in this respect been carried out. But in the case of ships at Plymouth Sound, Spithead, and Portsmouth, a small steamer was employed on Sundays to collect the Roman Catholic sailors, to carry them on shore, and after service to take them back to their respective ships. [Mr. O'REILLY: Will the noble Lord state when the practice was introduced?] He thought about eight or nine months since, but had taken no trouble to ascertain the date, regarding the fact as the all-important matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman next asked whether persons on presenting themselves for entry into the navy were asked any questions about their religion, and whether Roman Catholic seamen taken to the hospital ship might not be placed in a separate ward, so that their minister might be able to attend better than he now could do to their spiritual wants. As to the first part of the question, the recommendation had been carried out in full, for no man was asked on entering the Royal Navy to what religion he belonged. The second suggestion it would be impossible to carry out, because the inmates of the naval hospitals were classified according to their diseases, and not according to their religion, and it was highly improbable that the whole of the Roman Catholics in a hospital would be afflicted with the same complaint. In answer to the next point, he would say that the funerals of Roman Catholic seamen were accompanied with the usual rites of their religion when vessels were in harbour, but with ships at sea, and no priests on board, such a thing was, of course, impossible. The Roman Catholic chaplain was permitted to read prayers to the sick on board, but he did not believe that there was any convenience for celebrating mass. Almost all the recommendations made in 1859 had been carried out by those who had succeeded his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) at the Board of Admiralty. He confessed that the position of the chaplains at Plymouth, Devouport, and Sheerness was, to a certain extent, anomalous, and that they ought to have a pension on which they could eventually retire. These gentlemen devoted a great portion of their lives to ministering to the spiritual need of the sailors, and they were, he thought, entitled, if possible, to a favourable consideration of their claims. The next point touched on by the hon. Gentleman had relation to the salaries given to Roman Catholic chaplains on foreign stations. He in-
  320
  stanced two places, Hong Kong and Malta, as stations at which the Roman Catholic priests received no pay. He was happy to undeceive his hon. and gallant Friend, for at Malta £110 were taken this year for the payment of the Roman Catholic priest; and at Hong Kong a sum of £33. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman expressed his opinion that the Roman Catholic chaplains in the navy should be placed in the same position as those of the army. He was happy to inform him that the Rev. Mr. Connor, at Haulbowline, was receiving salary under the capitation grant. Originally, when his congregation was very small he refused payment on this scale, and Lord Clarence Paget, then representing the Board of Admiralty, granted him an annual salary. Since then the numbers had increased, representations had been made which were felt to be perfectly reasonable, and the Board of Admiralty now in office had complied with Mr. Connor's request that he should be paid according to the capitation grant. The hon. Gentleman complained of the position of three chaplains sent to perform duties in various ports; but he must remember that they were on exactly the same footing as clergymen of the Established Church called on to officiate for small bodies of troops, and receiving exactly the same allowances. He had now answered seriatim the points put to him. He would only add that the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), recently Secretary of State for War, had been first to take practical action in the direction of endowing Roman Catholic chaplains in the army, and to give practical proof of the respect in which their services were held. He should feel glad if it fell to the lot of the Board of Admiralty, of which he was a Member, to complete this act of justice to Roman Catholic chaplains in the navy by the grant of retiring pensions. In reply to the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) he begged to say that the Establishment labourers, 885 in number, received 2s. 4d. per diem. There were 567 hired labourers of the first classs entitled to pensions who received 2s. 3d. a day. It was proposed to increase their pay 1d. daily, so as to bring them on an equality with the Establishment labourers. The hired labourers in the second class received only 2s. 2d. a day, and it was proposed that in the case of 2,142 men employed in the various dockyards 2d. daily should also be added to their pay, so as to bring them all up to

  321
  2s. 4d. a day. The whole cost of the increase to the country would be £7,750. He quite concurred in the belief that this money was well expended. He believed no class in Her Majesty's service was better deserving of recognition.

MUTINY BILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it would be for the convenience of the House that he should state, after what had passed that evening with regard to the Mutiny Bill, that it was proposed to postpone the Committee on the Bill until Thursday next.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Question again proposed,
"That 67,300 Men and Boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1868, including 16,200 Royal Marines."
MR. CHILDERS: Mr. Dodson—No one, I am sure, could have examined the present Estimates, and considered them by the light of the very interesting statement of my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox), without being impressed with their importance, especially with reference to their amount. I will subject them, in the first place, to the smile test of comparison which was applied by the gallant General the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) to the Army Estimates—that is, I will compare them with the audited account of naval expenditure for the last completed year—namely, 1865–6. The total sum now asked is £10,926,523. The audited account for last year amounts to £10,209,840. The increase from this point of view is there fore £716,683. Or I may compare these Estimates with the original Navy Estimates of 1865–6 and 1866–7. The former amounted to £10,432,610; the latter to £10,392,224. We may say, then, in general terms, that the present Estimates are about £500,000 in excess of those proposed on the last two occasions by the lame Admiralty, and £700,000 more than the amount actually spent. But, as a matter of finance, this is not the only consideration which should weigh with the House on
322
the present occasion. We have now on the table all the Estimates of expenditure for the approaching year; and it may be %veil to compare them with those of the current year. The House will be asked to vote £15,252,200 for the Army, £10,926,253 for the Navy, £8,202,953 for the Civil Services, and £5,852,428 for the Revenue Departments; in all £40,233,834. Last year the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was founded on the following amounts of the original Estimates:—£14,095,000 for the Army, £10,388,153 for the Navy;£7,856,836 for the Civil Services; and £5,842,866 for the Revenue Departments; or a total of £38,182.855. The difference, therefore, between the original Estimates of last year anti, this year is no less than £2,050,979. Nor is this all. Last year we had, in aid of the Budget, two considerable items of receipt—£500,000, a windfall in the shape of bonds from New Zealand, which have been converted into cash; and nearly as much on account of the China indemnity. Neither of these amounts will come into the approaching Budget; and the result must be, that if the expenditure proposed by the Government should be adopted by Parliamemt, improvements in revenue or in some other respects must be looked forward to, to the extent of above £3,000,000. Now the normal increase of the revenue cannot, at the very best, be taken at above £1,500,000, and the partial falling in of the Dead Weights annuity is sure to be balanced by inevitable Supplementary Estimates of expenditure. The Supplementary Estimates for the current year, proposed by the present Government, amounted to some £800,000. We shall therefore be, beyond a doubt, with reference to the finance of 1867–8, by £1,500,000 in a worse position than in 1866–7, and unless the revenue should be exceptionally buoyant, I fear that the country may be called upon to bear increased taxation. It is, on these grounds, of the greatest importance that the items of the several Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services should be jealously scrutinized; and that any increases not essentially necessary should be refused.
I now come to the Estimates themselves. They may be, I think, divided into those for the personnel of the navy, in the shape of pay, wages, and pensions; and for the materiel, in the shape of naval, victualling, and medical stores, ships, engines, and works. The first class is in-

323
cluded in Votes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, which are for Establishments, and also in the later Votes for Half-Pay and Pension. Now, having looked through these Estimates carefully, I am bound to say that, in dealing with the establishments, I can see no traces of that economical hand which is so much required in all the great spending Departments. There never was a truer remark than that made recently in the debate on the Army Estimates, to the effect that, while in particular branches or divisions of any service increases of expenditure will here and there be necessary, it is the special duty of a good administrator to discover, by constant watchfulness, where simultaneous reductions may be made. The Departments will be always pulling at, the Executive Government for more expenditure in every quarter; and if I notice no signs of reductions in some establishments, I am entitled to conclude that the watchfulness of which I have spoken has been dormant. Now, in these Establishment Votes, there is an increase over last year of about £35,000. There is also an increase upon a certain class of retirements to the extent of £3,200. I shall, however, allude more particularly to the details of these increases at a subsequent time. The great changes effected in these Estimates are in Votes 10 and 14. The first of these is commonly called the Store Vote, and contains in its two parts provision for the supplies required by the Controller of the Navy and the Storekeeper General. The increase on the cost of ships, building and to be built by contract, including engines built by contract, is £502,000. There is also an increase of £20,000 in the cost of building dockyard tugs; and in the Miscellaneous Vote there is a special item of £50,000 towards the construction of an armour-plated ship for the colony of Victoria. These items of increase amount to £572,000. On the other hand there are certain items for which less is asked this year, but none of them are establishments, all stores. There is a diminution of £46,000 for timber, of £15,000 for metal articles and iron, of £27,000 for hemp, canvas, paint, tar, &c. There is also a diminution in the Vote for coal, but I think that my noble Friend has made a mistake in saying that it was £100,000. His mistake arose, probably, from an alteration that seems to have been made in the arrangement of Votes 10 and 17. Last year the whole Estimate for coal was
324
stated in Vote 10, but this year the Vote for the fleet and the dockyards is kept entirely distinct from that for transport ships. The real decrease is not £100,000 but £26,000; and when it is considered that for many years past the coal Estimate has always been exceeded, I fear that even this small sum will not really be saved. Taking, however, the items according to the Estimates, there will be a decrease under the four heads I have named of £114,000; and deducting this from the £572,000 increase for shipbuilding, the net increase will be £458,000, or, with £33,000 increases on minor items, in all £491,000. My noble Friend has claimed several small economies, and has alluded to some minor changes adopted by the present Board of Admiralty, and to some of these I should like to refer. He said that they had reduced the number of cadets, observing that for some years past the first-class cadets have been entered in excess for the ranks into which they were to go. If so, I heartily approve of the reduction; but I should be glad to know whether, in speaking of this reduction, my noble Friend has taken into account the second-class cadets. The late Board of Admiralty discontinued the entry of second-class cadets, when they determined to let the Masters' line die out. The number of first-class cadets was therefore settled with reference to the increased number of lieutenants who would in future be required for navigating purposes. If, however, the present Board of Admiralty have reversed the decision of their predecessors, and have recommenced the entry of second-class cadets. I should like to know whether the economy claimed by my noble Friend has any real foundation. I entirely approve of the decision to enter and keep an additional number of boys, and, indeed, I think the number 418 might be carried much further. My impression is that, on an actuary's calculation, far more than the present number of boys are required to fill up vacancies in the number of men, and I am satisfied that you get more efficiency as well as economy by this means, than by entering men from the shore. I also am glad to hear of the increase in the number of trained gunners; but I should like to know how it is that no increase is proposed in the number of artificers of the fleet. No class is more required, and my belief is, that the Board of Admiralty might safely reduce the number of Red Marines (the

325
Light Infantry Marines), who are now comparatively useless afloat, and, out of the saving thus made, increase the number of artificers. Indeed, I would inquire why the policy of the late Board of Admiralty, gradually to reduce the number of Red Marines, has been abruptly reversed this year. My noble Friend has referred to the heavy charge for the freight of stores, and I am glad to hear that his Board has appointed a Committee to look into the Returns which he himself did not understand. I should be glad if this Committee would also inquire into the whole question of dockyard and victualling yard small craft, which, to my mind, is in a very unsatisfactory state. But while on the question of freight and transport, I would refer to an anomaly connected with the movement of troops from one part of the kingdom to another. When troops are moved by land, the cost falls on the War Office Estimates: when by sea on Naval Estimates. Each Department is thus interested in throwing the expense on the other when a regiment has to be moved between two seaport towns; and I think the time has come for looking into this question simply with a view to economy irrespective of the two Departments. I cordially agree with the policy of the Admiralty in increasing the provision required by the Contagious Diseases Act, which I am confident will conduce to economy in the end. But I am sorry I cannot say as much for the next item to which my noble Friend alluded. He spoke of a slight increase in the number of men placed on the dockyard establishments. I find in the Estimates that provision is made for fifty-two additional artificers at Woolwich, and for forty-three at the other dockyards; in all, ninety-five. The number is small; but the increase involves two principles to which I entertain the strongest objection. One is that, as what are called the established labourers die out, their places are to be taken by additional established artificers. On the contrary, I believe that our establishment of artificers is ample, if not in excess; and all that is necessary is to increase the number of hired labourers, instead of established labourers. My other objection is to the special increase at Woolwich. Upon a Report by a Committee of this House, the late Board of Admiralty had provided for the future abandonment of the dockyard at Woolwich, and no fresh building work was to be taken in hand there; but I fear that this
326
policy has been reversed, and I cannot approve a step which will only result in additional expense when the day for abandoning the dockyard arrives, as it most certainly will. My noble Friend has given the House some very satisfactory statistics in reference to the adoption of piece-work, and I entirely concur in the wisdom of the experiment that has been made. But while on dockyard economy, I should like to ask a question with reference to a statement I saw in the newspapers this morning, that it was contemplated to reduce or abandon the establishment of female spinners at Chatham. If anything of the sort is done, I can only say that it will be the very reverse of economy. After a long controversy, with the dockyard people and in this House, the late Board succeeded in introducing machinery for spinning yarn, both at Chatham and Devon-port, superseding the former expensive system of spinning by hand, If the result be that more yarn is now spun than is required, surely the reduction should be first made in the hand-spinning establishment still kept up at Portsmouth, and I think in part at Devonport, not in the women and girls at Chatham.
I have now gene through the smaller matters alluded to by my noble Friend, and running through the Estimates myself, I must say that I see but little noteworthy in the way of reductions, though I notice several petty increases. I do not mean so much increases of salary, to which I rarely take exception, as additional allowances and numbers. There is, indeed, one salary about which I should have asked a question, connected with the establishment of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I understand it is not to be acted upon. I notice, however, such increases as these:—Three additional clerks in the Secretary's office, Whitehall; an additional clerk at Greenwich, an additional inspector-general at Greenwich; additional house rent allowances at Chatham, Devonport, and Pembroke; and similar increases at several foreign stations. But the worst of these is, I think, the increase of Greenwich. I do not know which member of the Board of Admiralty looks after this establishment, in which I used to take much interest; but I am sure that a little pruning is very much required there. I find that, without taking into account the clerks who are employed at the Admiralty on Greenwich business, or the superannuations, the maintenance of the 380 old men left in

327
the Hospital costs no less than £42,500, or above £110 a man. Surely this is not the time to add an officer of the rank of Inspector General to this underworked establishment. I will now refer to a much more important item in the Estimates, in the nature, however, of a reduced charge, which the House ought to look upon with some jealousy. The expenditure for the extension of the Chatham and Portsmouth Dockyards has been made the subject of a distinct statute, and, according to the Estimate which was the foundation of this Act, the sums to be spent this year were to have been £205,000 upon Chatham, and £312,000 upon Portsmouth. In the present Estimates, however, the sums are given as £149,500 at Chatham, and £228,800 at Portsmouth, making a difference of £138,700 for the year. I do not say that this change of policy may not be justified, and I think I can guess what my noble Friend's answer will be; but when he explained so many comparative trifles, I think it is to be regretted that he did not allude to so important an alteration as this. I must also say a word about the extra receipts; and, in the first place, I deny altogether the doctrine that an increase in extra receipts is any justification for increased expenditure. If ships or iron, or stores, ought to be sold, let them be, whatever expenditure in other respects has to be incurred, and vice versâ. But I still want a little more information about the "pigs" of which we have heard so much. We know nothing as to the amount proposed to be sold, or as to the pavement which is to be substituted for that which now consists of iron ballast. Indeed, from the entire omission of any provision for new pavement, I very much doubt whether the experienced officials under the Board of Admiralty know any better than this House what is proposed to be done. At least, if they do, some carelessness has been shown in the preparation of the Estimates. I cordially approve of the proposition, as far as I understand it, to sell a large amount of timber and old ships, though I do not think that my noble Friend gave sufficient credit to the late Board for what it had done in these respects. I know that an opinion prevails that the late Board was remiss in allowing so large an amount of timber to accumulate in the dockyards; but if any hon. Member will refer to the debates in 1860 on the subject of the stock of timber, and especially to the speeches of the right hon. Gentle-
328
man the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), on the 16th and 19th of April, he will see that it was this House, and not the Admiralty, on whom the fault primarily rests. Indeed, the late Board, while I was a member of it, took upon itself the responsibility of stopping the delivery of timber, so that the present Government is only carrying out, and most rightly, the policy of their predecessors.
I now come to the great question of these, and for many years past, of all Navy Estimates: I mean the amount of shipbuilding proposed for the coming financial year. The policy of the Government may be stated in a line to be this: to spend the whole of the increase in the Estimates, £502,000, on additional shipbuilding and engine-building by contract. Their programme is as follows:—The two great ironclads, Hercules and Monarch, now building at Chatham, are to be advanced to 6/8ths and 4/8ths. The iron-clad Penelope is to be launched at Pembroke, and the armoured wooden ship Repulse is to be advanced to 6/ths at Woolwich. As to contract work, a £83,000 is to be spent on Captain Coles' ship Captain, and two new iron-clads on the half-turret principle are to be commenced. Passing now to unarmoured ships, the Inconstant is to be advanced to ⅜ths at Pembroke, and a new Inconstant is to be built by contract. Of the Juno class, which my noble Friend oddly enough described as "dear to the hearts of sailors," the Juno herself is to be launched, and the Thalia to be advanced 2/8ths. The Amazon class is to be made up to twelve in number, three being finished, and four laid down, at a total cost of £142,000. The Plover class of twin-screw gunvessels is, with the Myrmidon, to be made up to thirteen, six of which will be finished in the year, at a total cost of £144,000. Finally, not to speak of two or three smaller vessels, we are to build twenty China gunboats—ten in the dockyards at a cost of £139,000, and ten by contract. I think I have stated the programme fairly. Now, on this, one or two very serious questions arise. In the first place, I think some explanation should be given by the Admiralty why, in the present year, they have made so small an advance in building the Monarch and the Hercules. According to the programme published last year, the Hercules was to have been advanced on the 31st of this month to 4/8ths, and the Monarch to 4/8ths. According to the programme in the present Estimates, the Hercules will have only

329
reached on the same day 2/83/4 ths, and the Monarch 1/81/2ths. The difference between the two programmes is no less than 1,800 tons in the Hercules, and 1.600 tons in the Monarch, and I think that when, as I shall soon show, we are wasting both time and money on non-fighting small ships, the House ought to be informed why so great delay has been allowed by the present Admiralty to occur in the construction of our iron-clad fleet. Again, I regret that it is seriously proposed to commence a second Inconstant. These vessels be it remembered, are unarmoured ships of no less than 4,000 tons and ten guns of the largest calibre, with a complement of 600 men. This is, to my mind, like putting far "too many eggs into one basket." I do not object to the Admiralty completing the first Inconstant, which they are building at Pembroke Dockyard; but, until she is afloat and tried, I think they ought not to contract for a second vessel of such size, liable to be destroyed by a single shell. Coming now to the smaller craft, the proposals of the Admiralty appear to me very extravagant. It is intended to commence or finish in one year no less than thirty-five gunboats or gunvessels, of 700 tons or less. Now we have had no explanation as to the necessity for anything like so great a number as this being taken in hand in one year; and when the House considers that the construction of these vessels is the real cause of the increase in the Estimates; that it involves the reversal of the decision taken by the late Board, and virtually approved by the House, as to the gradual closing of Woolwich Dockyard; that it will interfere with the more rapid construction at Chatham of our iron-clad fleet; and that it will tend to perpetuate the policy of keeping up unnecessarily large squadrons in distant seas, I trust that they will pause before adopting the plan of the Admiralty. Let me point out the objections to building too many vessels of one class in one year. Not to mention the increase in the Estimates which it involves, it has this great fault; that all, or nearly all, these vessels will come for repair in one year; and I may say, in passing, that there is no part of the scheme of the present Board which I so highly approve as their determination to keep a due proportion between the cost of repairs and of building in our dockyards. The second fault is that, having exhausted in one year the demand for small vessels, we shall be obliged next year to find some-
330
thing new for the dockyards to do; and I confess I dread some new proposals for Inconstants, or other unarmed vessels. Our policy, it seems to me, ought to be vigorously to keep up, and even increase, the building of armour-clad or fighting ships in our dockyards, spreading the construction of our smaller craft, over a series of years.
I now come to a larger question. I wish to call the attention of the House to a subject which has been but little discussed for many years past; I mean the state and extent of our squadrons in distant seas. We have been so busy discussing the merits of different systems of armour and of gun, the economy of our dockyards, and the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, that we have almost lost sight of the main question, that is to say, what force is it necessary for us to maintain in all parts of the world? and it is this question which I will ask the House to discuss. Indeed, my noble Friend, in introducing the Estimates the other night, almost challenged us to take this course. On that occasion he said—
"While upon this subject I may, perhaps, though only a subordinate Member of the Government, he allowed to say that it is in my opinion a grave question whether the time has not come for the House of Commons and the country to consider what is the absolute necessity or advisability of keeping up large squadrons in all parts of the world of small unarmoured ships, which, when a more formidable ship than they approaches them, must what is vulgarly termed, cut and run.' At the present day, especially when, very properly, the principle of non-intervention is in the ascendant, no captain of one of these vessels would take upon himself, in the event of any dispute arising between British subjects and the Government of a country in whose waters his ship happened to be lying, to demand or exact immediate reparation. He could, in fact, do nothing until he received instructions how to act horn Her Majesty's Government at home."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1838.]
I cannot suppose my noble Friend used these very pregnant words without the entire approval of the Board of Admiralty; and the challenge thus thrown out I hope that both sides of the House will take up and debate with the moderation, and, at the same time, the interest, which the importance of the subject demands. As to the proposals which I shall make, while I have the satisfaction of knowing that they have the entire support of my hon. Friends near me, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), the noble Lord the Member for Ripon (Lord John Hay), and the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre), in concert with whom they have been pre-

331
pared, yet I feel strongly that persons who are not in office ought not to speak on a question of this sort with anything like the same certainty and positiveness as hon. Gentlemen opposite; who tone have access to many reliable and official sources of information. Any proposals, therefore, that we may make will be I hope received by the House only as suggestions put out tentatively and with modesty; and if, on any point, I may appear to dogmatize, I can assure the house that nothing can be further from my intention. What, let us consider, are the different kinds of fleets which this country has to keep up? They are three. The first comprises what may be called our stationary fleets, intended for defence at home, and, if necessary, for offence in Europe. The second, the fleets employed in the defence of our colonies, and in communications. The third, the fleets maintained for the protection of British commerce on the coasts of some civilized and all barbarous countries. (I omit occasional experimental or surveying squadrons.) In the first class are, of course, our Channel and Mediterranean fleets; in the second, those we keep on the coasts of our North American Provinces, in the East and West Indies, and in Australia; and the third class comprises our fleets in China, in the Pacific, on the West Coast of Africa, and on the East Coast of South America. Now, I will say at once, that in the present state of affairs, I do not believe that this country could give up any of these squadrons. I am not prepared to impugn the policy which carries the British flag to every part of the world, and which protects our commerce,' whether in our colonies, or with either civilized or barbarous foreign countries. But my object is to inquire, whether the extent which some of these squadrons have reached is, or is not, excessive; and to see whether, while we really strengthen our fleets, and the influence of England through them, we may not at the same time render them both more popular and less costly. Now, with respect to the first class, I mean our home squadron, so far from diminishing its strength or numbers, I believe our true policy, as l will show, is rather to augment it. But, with respect to the others, I will place before the House the figures at which they have stood in former years, and discuss the reasons for their increase or reduction. Let me premise by pointing out the general influences which are brought to bear on this question. There are two causes leading to the increase of our
332
squadrons. The first is that, after a war in any quarter of the globe, it is very difficult to return to the status quo ante. Nothing is so easy as to justify a sudden increase for fighting purposes; but when the fighting is over, a sort of vested interest is created, which it is not a little difficult to overcome. The second, and the greater, cause of increase is the pressure constantly exercised by the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office (who are not responsible for the expenditure) on the Admiralty, in the real or supposed interests of our increasing commerce. On the other side there are four reasons which point to reduction in the number of our sailors, being feasible and egredient. The first is the increased value of men compared with the tonnage and weight of broadside of our ships; the second is the saving effected by steam over sailing for our communications; the third is the increasing employment of the telegraph; and the fourth the inclination which our colonies are exhibiting to establish local means of self-defence, well exemplified as this is in the item of the present Estimates for the iron-clad for the colony of Victoria.
Let us now look to the strength of our fleets at the present date in 1856 and in 1846. I cannot, of course, give the exact figures at the present time; but I believe those I shall state are within a very few of those in possession of Gentlemen opposite. In 1846 our naval force in the East Indies, including China and Australia, consisted of 3,505 men; in 1856 of 3,331; in 1867 of 6,500. At the Cape and on the West Coast of Africa, we had in 1846, 1,428 men; in 1856, 2,232; and in 1867, about 1,700, besides the flag ship on its way. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: The total number is 2,085.] Our North American and West Indian fleet comprised in 1846, 2,457 men; in 1856, 4,346; and in 1867, about 5,400. On the South East Coast of America we had in 1846, 1,823 men; in 1856, 1,182; and in 1867, about 1,100. In the Pacific the number was 2,855 in 1846; 2,217 in 1856; and 2,700 in 1867. In 1846, therefore, the total strength of these stations was 12,068; in 1856 it was 13,308; and in 1867 about 17,400; showing an increase of nearly 5,400 during the last twenty years. I will now suggest, though as I have said before, with great diffidence, and with no desire to speak positively, what strength I believe we actually require on these stations. I will

333
take first the China, East India, and Australian stations, where as now we should have an admiral and two commodores. The China station proper includes the whole of the Eastern Coast of Asia as far South as Singapore. North of the Gulf of Pecheli we require nothing but occasional visits by the squadron. For Japan we require two vessels—a corvette at Jeddo, the seat of our Legation, and a smaller vessel at Nagasaki. Let me remind the House that Japan is now visited by mail steamers both from China and San Francisco, and does not require as large a force as it did. Coming to the Gulf of Pecheli, which would be visited periodically by the admiral, two gunboats will be necessary at Tien-tsin and Chefoo. At Shanghai and in the Yangtse river there should be a hulk or stationary ship for the senior officer, two gunboats, and probably two despatch vessels. At Foochowfoo a gunboat, and another at Swatow and Amoy. At Hong Kong we should have a receiving ship, a hospital ship (the Melville), an iron-clad for the flag, a corvette, and probably three gunboats for the suppression of piracy. At Singapore we should require a despatch vessel and a gunboat. This would make our fleet in the China seas consist of an iron-clad, two corvettes, four despatch vessels, nine or ten gunboats, three receiving ships, and one or two troop ships, in all twenty-one ships, with 1,900 men, as against thirty-six which we keep there now. The reduction may appear considerable; but let me remind the House of the special causes which have led to so great an increase during the last few years. Not only have we ourselves been at war with China, but we still appear, most unnecessarily, to have some fear of Russia in connection with the Amour, forgetting that, if we really were involved in hostilities with her, our fleet of little gunboats would be useless against a single iron-clad ship. But the main cause of the increase is the fact that we are keeping the entire police of the China seas. Considering that we are by no means the only traders to China, and that we have not even got the greater part of the river and inland sea trade either of China or Japan, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will, by agreement with the other Powers interested in China trade, relieve us from the Quixotic duty which we appear to have taken upon ourselves, that of sole protectors, in one quarter of the world, of the commerce of every civilized nation.
I come now to the East Indian station,
334
where we keep a frigate, two corvettes, a sloop, and three gunboats. Here we have two good grounds for prospective reduction. The first is that, at Bombay, the local Government are building Monitors for the defence of the harbour; and the second, that within the next year the new line of troop ships will be running for the conveyance of our soldiers between England and the East viâ Suez. Though not strictly vessels of war, they will carry our flag, and may be, if necessary, heavily armed, I think we may well reduce our force on this station to six vessels and 1,000 men; and, even then, I trust that pressure will be brought upon the Indian Government to bear some part of the cost of this force.
I turn now to the Australian station. When I was there in 1856, our strength was 230 men; we have now there five ships with 1,100 men. To what cause is this increase attributable? Solely, so far as I ant aware, to the New Zealand war, which is now entirely over. But two of the reasons which I assigned for the general reduction of these squadrons especially apply to this station: one is, that all the Australian colonies are now, I believe, connected by the telegraph; the other is the energy with which measures for naval defence are being adopted by the leading colony—Victoria; measures which I am glad to see that the present Admiralty, acting upon the views of their predecessors, are furthering; and which I believe will tend greatly not only to the strength of the navy, but to the increased attachment of the colonies to the mother country, The force on the Australian station may therefore very well, in my judgment, be reduced, say to three large corvettes: one to be stationed at Melbourne, one at Sydney, and a third at New Zealand; besides, if necessary, a surveying vessel. Our force on the station would still be about 750 men, or three times as many as we had there in 1856. The total effect of the reductions which I have proposed in the China, East India, and Australian stations, will be a decrease of 2,800 men, the difference between 6,500, our present strength, and 3,700, a number by 400 in excess of our force in 1856.
I come next to the Cape of Good Hope station. There we keep a corvette, a sloop, and a receiving ship, with 450 men; and, considering the requirements of the station, I do not suggest any reduction. But the next station, the West Coast of Africa, involves considerations of consider-

335
able difficulty, with which I shall deal very cautiously. My noble Friend said—
"I, for one, should feel the greatest satisfaction if the moment should arrive when Her Majesty's present Advisers or any other Government should deem it to be consistent with the interests of humanity and of the public service to modify or remove altogether the African coast squadron."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1838.]
I think I may interpret this language as meaning that the Government have under their consideration such a modification; and I will therefore limit my remarks to the simple expression of belief that, instead of the sixteen ships which, with the flag ship, now compose our force, we need only keep on the coast one corvette, eight despatch or gunboats, two small steamers, and two receiving ships, or altogether 1,000 men; thus effecting a reduction of 300, or including the flag ship, of 700 men.
I come across the Atlantic to a far more important station; our force on the North American coast, and in the West Indies. In the northern division, which has its head-quarters at Halifax, I propose no reduction; but I would suggest, for the consideration of the Admiralty, whether the number of our ships kept in the West Indies could not be, with advantage to the service, very considerably diminished. It is too large for the police of those seas. It is utterly useless for war. Should we unfortunately be entangled in a war with the United States, there is not a ship in the West Indies which would not be obliged, in the emphatic language of my noble Friend, to "cut and run." Well, we had on this station in 1846, 2,450 men; in 1856, 4,350; and in the present year the number is 5,400. I propose to reduce the squadron, without touching the part of it kept on the North American coast, to 3,000 men, and the distribution which I would suggest is as follows:—an iron-clad flag ship, a smaller iron-clad, three sloops, and three gunboats at Halifax; a sloop and two gunboats at Bermuda; a receiving ship, a sloop, and two gunboats at Jamaica; and two corvettes and two gunboats in the Gulf of Mexico, and at the other islands. In this way we should effect a reduction of 2,400 men.
Coming now to the South East Coast of America, I find that we have at present, under a separate admiral's command, nine ships—that is to say, the flag ship, one sloop, six smaller vessels of different classes, and a receiving ship. The station consists, practically, of two distinct divisions, one
336
of which protects our commerce in the River Plate, and the other is the force which we maintain on the Brazilian coast, as a sort of rear-guard to our African squadron. All we require for the station is a force consisting of two corvettes, two gunboats, a despatch-boat, and a receiving-vessel, with 800 men instead of 1,100; and we should be thus saved the great expense of a flag ship, which I venture to say, except for the purpose of carrying a flag, is, on this station, utterly useless at the present time. I pass now to the Pacific Station, which is in two divisions; the northern under an admiral in an iron-clad, and the southern under a Commodore in a 31-gun frigate at Valparaiso. We have there, besides, three corvettes, four sloops, two gunboats, and a storeship; in all, twelve vessels. This force may, I think, be reduced to a frigate, two despatch vessels, two corvettes (one at Panama and the other at Valparaiso), and three sloops for the service of the coast and across to the islands; or altogether to eight instead of twelve vessels. This would effect a saving of 1,000 men—the difference between 2,700 and 1,700. In passing, let me ask the Admiralty whether they have recently had under their consideration the propriety of abandoning the employment, of Her Majesty's ships, both in the Pacific and on the other side of Mexico, in the conveyance of treasure. I believe the use of the navy for this purpose to be the remains of a vicious system which, as it is often the excuse for increased force, I hope will be put an end to.
Let me now recapitulate the changes which we have suggested. In China, the East Indies, and Australia, we reduce 2,800 men, on the West Coast, 700; on the North American and West Indian station, 2,400; on the South East Coast of America, 300; in the Pacific, 1,000; in all, 7,200 men. But we still leave everywhere, I believe, a force sufficient to protect our colonies and our commerce, to restrain piracy, and to be at hand for general service. But that is not the whole of our proposal. Instead of frittering away our force at these distant stations, we propose as a substitute a powerful squadron, which would be, I believe, very popular with the navy; and in suggesting which we are only recurring to the policy of former times. Our naval strength would be, in our opinion, greatly increased by the formation of a new flying squadron, with complements amounting in all to from 2,500 to 3,500 men, consisting of six or

337
seven ships, some armoured and some not, with nearly equal sailing and steaming powers, with two flags (thus employing two more admirals), which, rendezvousing off Lisbon, would be ready at a moment's notice to be ordered by telegraph to any part of the world where an increase of our permanent squadron might be required. It is of great importance that such a force should be sent to sea at any moment with out weakening the Channel or the Mediterranean squadron; and I will say no more at present in its favour, hoping that the idea will be thoroughly discussed and weighed, both in the service and at the Admiralty. Taking the strength of this new squadron at something over 3,000 men, anti deducting that from the saving which I have suggested of 7,200 men, it will be seen that the total reduction proposed is 4,000 men. Let me repeat that I and my Friends near me throw out these suggestions tentatively and with diffidence, and I hope that they will be well discussed and criticised by gentlemen, whether in the service or connected with commerce, who have much more acquaintance than we have with many of our foreign stations.
I come now to the third and last question upon which I wish to address the Committee today. I mean the state of the navy lists. Nothing can be more unsatisfactory than the position of the questions connected with promotion and retirement in the navy. Every year the Board of Admiralty is besieged by officers asking that something may be done to "increase the flow of promotion;" and the usual result is the formation of a new list. Let any one wade through the little blue hook issued every quarter, and he will find that the number of these lists is so great as to Lave taken up all the letters of the alphabet; and I will venture to say that outside the Admiralty nobody, and inside it not half-a-dozen officials, really understand why they were created or what some of them mean. Now, it is high time that this question should be taken up, and that we should not postpone it till, in a financial point of view, bad dines come—when any sudden change would be attended by great distress to many deserving officers. Let me say at once that in all questions of this kind I am not for reductions of pay, but of numbers; and to show what we have reached as to numbers, will the Committee bear with me while I read to them some figures which I think will startle them. On the admirals' list we have 13 employed, whose pay is £32,700. But there are 82
338
admirals on half-pay drawing £48,300; 108 on the reserved list drawing £52,000; and 127 on the retired list drawing £55,400; in all, 317 unemployed admirals whose pay amounts to £155,700. On the post captains' list there are 114 employed whose pay amounts to £85,800. But there are 180 on half-pay drawing £38,100; 80 on the reserved list drawing £18,000; and 386 on the retired list drawing £93,700; or in all, 646 unemployed post captains whose pay is £149,800. There are 128 commanders employed afloat whose pay is £51,700; and 65 employed on shore in the coast guard whose pay is £23,700; giving a total of 193 employed commanders receiving £75,400 a year. But of unemployed commanders there are 214 on half-pay receiving £35,900; 78 on the reserved list receiving £13,900; 492 on a retired list receiving £63,600; and 256 retired as commanders from other lists receiving £41,000; or in all, 1,040 retired commanders whose pay is £154,400. Of generals of marines 1 only is employed at £1,400 a year; but 42 are unemployed at £26,500. To sum up all these ranks, there are employed 321, their pay being £195,300; and unemployed 2,045, costing £486,400. In other words, the case is this—if you name a commander, the chances are 6 to 1 that he has nothing to do; if a captain, 6 to 1; if an admiral, 24 to 1; and if a general of marines, 42 to 1. This is a state of things which I venture to say, when compared with the navy list of any other country in the world, or when judged by the rules of common sense, loudly calls for reform. But there is one, a very salient and marked case, which shows the impolicy of the present arrangements—I mean that of the younger post-captains. According to the navy list of the present quarter, there are 297 post captains on the active list, of whom 167 are of 6 years' standing, or less. Now, of these 167 only 35 are employed; in other words, it is about 4 to 1 that a captain, when posted, will have nothing to do for six years. But what does this mean? The average age at which an officer is posted is about thirty-five. Well, then, between thirty-five and forty-one, when a man is at his best, both as to physical strength and as to powers of command and organization, you turn round and tell him that he shall have nothing to do. This is a blemish, and I may say disgrace, to our system of administration, which absolutely requires the immediate attention of Government and of Parliament, Well, for these

339
evils what remedy do I suggest? All our, recent schemes for improving the flow of promotion as it is called seem only to end in giving additional retirement to the upper ranks for the moment, but not in permanently preventing the "block," and the disappointment of the younger men. Take, for instance, the Order in Council of last year—the most liberal scheme of retirement ever proposed. I hear already rumours about the lists being clogged, and some new relief and consequent expense to the country being necessary. What we really want is some means of enabling younger men, who are tired of the service or unsuited for it, to leave it. When a naval officer reaches thirty or thirty-five, he knows pretty well whether be will ever do any good in his profession. If not, or if he is tired of the service, the best thing would be to get rid of him. But our policy has been to give him a miserable half-pay, upon which he cannot live, but which prevents him from obtaining employment elsewhere. Instead of this, I would propose to buy him out with a sum of money down. The capital cost need not appear in the Estimates, as his half-pay might be paid over to the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, who should be authorized by law to make the commutation. I believe that in this way not only should we get rid of a number of nominal officers who clog the lists and interfere with the flow of promotion, but that by degrees we might bring down the numbers of the superior ranks to some reasonable proportion to the amount of employment for them. We might, I hope, reduce our admirals' list to 40; our post-captains' to 180; and our commanders' to 300; and, retaining the present system of age-retirements as applicable to these ranks, we should insure greatly increased efficiency, and prospectively considerable economy.
I have now, Mr. Dodson, discussed, at I hope not too great length, the three questions which appear to me of the greatest importance in these or in any other Navy Estimates. I have pointed out the saving which I think can be effected in the proposed programme for shipbuilding, in the numbers of our foreign squadrons, and in the lists of our officers. Towards the end of last Session, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) said of me, that I was always ready to defend Admiralty misdeeds, and that I should do better to indicate now fields of research for naval re-
340
formers. Perhaps the House will accept that suggestion as my apology for the proposals I have made. I have made them in no unfriendly spirit; for although I do not agree in polities with Gentlemen opposite, I am disposed to give a general support to the present Board of Admiralty. I beg to move, but only as a matter of form, that the Vote be reduced by 2,000 men.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That 65,300 Men and Boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1868, including 16,200 Royal Marines."—(Mr. Childers.)
MR. CORRYsaid, that as he was not concerned in the preparation of these Estimates he hoped that the House would not expect him to enter into all the details to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. It was not possible for him to be familiar with all the views which had influenced his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) in the preparation of the Dockyard Estimates, or that had guided the Cabinet in the distribution of the seamen and marines over the various home and foreign stations. But he desired to follow the hon. Gentleman in some of the criticisms which he had offered to the House; and there were some points on which he would give all the information in his power. The hon. Gentleman had complained of the considerable increase in some of these Estimates, and had intimated his suspicion that they were not prepared with a due regard to economy. He had no doubt but that his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) would be able to vindicate his own conduct in that respect. The hon. Gentleman had next adverted to what he alleged to be an erroneous statement that was made by his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox) in moving the Estimates, when he stated that a reduction had been made in the number of the naval cadets. The hon. Gentleman argued that this was incorrect, because the noble Lord had omitted to add the second-class cadets, who ought to have been added, in consequence of the decision of the present Board of Admiralty to keep up the rank of master by the entry of second-class cadets, which had been discontinued by the late Board. However this might be, and he had no doubt that his noble Friend could satisfactorily explain it, he desired to take the opportunity of saying that he heartily

341
concurred in that decision, for he believed that nothing could happen more disastrous to the navy than the abolition of the rank of master. The maintenance of that rank was absolutely necessary in his opinion, as well as in that of the vast majority of naval officers, to the safety of the ships belonging to the navy, and the late Board of Admiralty never made a greater mistake than when they decided to abolish it. There was hardly a naval man in the House who would not agree with him in that. The hon. Gentleman had complained that the number of artificers in the fleet was too small. He believed it was; but he could not concur with the hon. Gentleman that it would be wise to increase their number at the expense of the Royal Marines. He had felt it to be his duty two or three years ago to call the attention of the House to the reduction which it was then proposed to make in the number of the coast guard and of the Royal Marines, for He considered that it was most dangerous to diminish the strength of those two most valuable naval reserves. De was still of the same opinion. The hon. Gentleman had next criticised the discharge of a certain number of female spinners in Chatham Dockyard, a point of detail that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), the Superintending Lord of the Department, would be able to explain satisfactorily. The next cause of complaint advanced by the hon. Gentleman referred to the diminution in the Estimates this year, as compared with the amount which ought to have been proposed under the Treasury Letter of 1865. The Estimate for Chatham would have been, according to the letter, £205,000 instead of £150,000, as proposed to be voted, and £312,000 for Portsmouth, instead of £228,000 for the extension of Chatham and Portsmouth Dockyards. The Estimate for Chatham was £205,000 this year, against £228,000 in the previous one; and that for Portsmouth was £228,000, against £312,000 last year. This diminution, however, was not in ally way to be attributed to any disinclination on the part of the present Board of Admiralty to push forward the works in question. The fact was that, in consequence of the commercial crisis of last year, the late Board of Admiralty had not been able to complete all the contracts—some were even now incomplete, and therefore it was impossible to spend with advantage during the ensuing year a
342
larger sum of money than that now proposed. The hon. Gentleman must know that he (Mr. Corry) would be the last person to keep back these dockyard works, because it was in a great measure at his instigation that they were undertaken. He knew that they were not very popular in the House; but if hon. Gentlemen were only acquainted with the absolute necessity of making the dockyards suitable to the altered dimensions of ships of war, and conditions of shipbuilding, they would agree with him that no money could be better laid out. The hon. Gentleman had next proceeded to advert to the shipbuilding charges in the Estimates, and had condemned the policy of building another ship of the class of the Inconstant before that vessel herself had been tried. No doubt, in ordinary cases, it was advisable to proceed in these matters with caution. But it must be remembered that other nations were building ships of this class in far greater numbers than ourselves. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the American ships had not been so successful as was anticipated; but he thought, and had always thought, that it was essential for England to have a few ships of extraordinary speed—of course, not armourplated—for certain obvious purposes in the operations of war. He rejoiced, therefore, that it was proposed to build another ship of the class of the Inconstant. Two ships of this character were the very least we ought to have, and ho hoped the new vessel would be constructed as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman had next adverted to the delay that had taken place in the building of the Hercules and the Monarch. The present Board was not to blame for that. The cause of delay in the case of the Hercules was, he believed, that some of her plates had proved defective, and that a considerable time was lost before other plates could be supplied by the contractors; and the progress of the Monarch had been impeded by an accident to the caisson of the dock in which she was being constructed, which had necessitated the suspension of the work until the damage could be repaired. But the portion of the Estimates which the hon. Gentleman had most severely criticised was that which had referred to the intention to build a large number of small vessels. Now, if there was one proposal in these Estimates more than another that had his (Mr. Corry's) entire approval it was this one. For the last six years the

343
deficiency of small vessels in our navy had been a constant source of anxiety to him, for they were absolutely necessary for carrying on the service at our foreign stations, and also for the protection of our commerce in case of war. The hon. Gentleman had, asked why was it necessary to build so many in one year? The answer was because hardly one had been built by the late Government during the last three or four years, and the consequence was a great deficiency of vessels of this class because hardly one had been built in previous years. He did not make this a matter of reproach against the late Board of Admiralty, for they had had plenty of important work on their hands in constructing the armour-clad fleet. But it was the fact that the construction of these small ships had been almost wholly neglected for the last three or four years, and during all that time their number was being continually diminished by ships belonging to this class, being broken up or otherwise removed. From a Return which he held in his hand, it appeared that since 1860, 151 steam ships of various classes under the rank of frigates—namely, corvettes, sloops and gunboats, had been removed from the list; and all of these were vessels efficient for war though, perhaps, in want of repair. Besides that, seventy-three sailing ships had been removed, so that the total diminution in the six years of old men-of-war of the smaller classes was no less than 224. The consequence, he need hardly say, was that there was an alarming deficiency of those small vessels in the navy, and he entirely concurred in the proposal in the Estimates for the re-construction of vessels of this description, though he admitted that the number intended to be built was large. The hon. Gentleman had next referred to the state of our foreign squadrons, and had proposed a large reduction under this head. The hon. Gentleman had admitted, however, that he was well aware of the pressure always put upon the Admiralty by the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office; and he (Mr. Corry) was able to say, from his own experience, that this pressure was absolutely irresistible. As an example, he might mention that in 1843 or 1844, when they were on the brink of a war with France, the whole of the naval force in commission in the Channel for the protection of the English, Irish, and Scotch coasts, consisted of one second-class paddle-wheel steam frigate. And
344
this was no fault of the Board of Admiralty, which had for three years been endeavouring to organize a Channel squadron, but the moment a ship was reported ready for sea at Plymouth, or Portsmouth, or the Nore, or elsewhere, an application was immediately made for her, either by the Foreign or Colonial Office, on the ground of some specially urgent necessity that had arisen on some foreign station. The ship was accordingly sent off, and all the efforts of the Admiralty to form a Channel squadron were not successful until four years had passed away. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it was desirable that the Estimates for our foreign squadrons should be kept down as much as possible. But the hon. Gentleman had overstated, he feared, the extent to which the reduction could be safely carried. He had proposed to reduce the squadron on the China station, but they had an enormous trade to protect out there, and those seas swarmed with pirates. Their depredations had, indeed, been pretty well suppressed of late by our vessels; and four or five captured piratical junks were no longer seen at Hong Kong every month as used to be the case. Still, with such a trade the pirates had to be watched. Their imports in China were upwards of £20,000,000 every year; they had fourteen treaty ports in China, and five in Japan; and for the protection of these extensive interests they had a force of thirty-eight ships-of-war, thirty-five of which were almost of the smallest class; and the number of men composing their complement was 4,447. He should be very glad to reduce the cost as far as possible; and he would do all he could to effect that object. When his hon. Friend talked of the advisability of reducing the strength of their distant squadrons, he must remind bins that he had not proposed anything of the kind when he was in office. On the contrary, the force on foreign stations was larger when the late Government was in office than it was now. Exclusive of the Mediterranean, there were in 1860, 20,000 men on the foreign stations; in 1861, 22,000; in 1862, 27,000; in 1863, 23,000; in 1864, 24,000; in 1865, 21,000; and in 1866 and this year, 19,000. So that the force last year and this was less than in any year since 1860, and there was a reduction of 8,000 men since 1862. He was not prepared to say that some reduction might not be possible

345
on some of the stations; and he would give his attention to the subject, with the anxious wish to bring the force to the smallest possible amount. He did not, however, think it would be wise, under existing circumstances, to reduce the naval force much lower than it was. As to the suggestion of his hon. Friend, that there should be a larger squadron at home instead of a large force abroad, if the Government adopted that view, they would be at once entering into rivalry with naval forces of other Powers, who would also have their large fleets at home, and the old race of competition would be revived, which would not in the end lead to economical results. The foreign squadrons, also, were of the greatest possible use in keeping up the skill of officers and men; and in that respect it would not be wise to reduce them to too low a mark. Home squadrons never saw the same amount of real service at sea, and consequently neither officers nor men had the same opportunities of acquiring a know-ledge of seamanship as when serving on distant stations. With regard to the state of the lists nothing could be more unsatisfactory. In consequence of the scheme of Retirement of 1846, of which he (Mr. Curry) was the originator, and of that which was subsequently introduced by Sir Francis Baring, the captain on arriving at the top of the list from which he was promoted to the rank of rear-admiral, was twenty years younger than under the old system. In 1846, the senior captains were of thirty-eight years' standing which had been reduced to eighteen by the retirements to which he had referred; but although these and other retirements had relieved the list to a certain extent, they had encumbered the retired lists to an almost intolerable degree, until there were almost enough admirals and captains to man one of those fleets on the coast of China. This was an unsatisfactory state of things, and it should have his anxious attention. In considering the state of the lists he could have no better adviser than his hon. and gallant Friend near him (Sir John Hay), and it would give him great pleasure if some plan could be devised to meet the evils to which his hon. Friend had called attention. His hon. Friend had suggested a plan which he (Mr. Corry) believed was the plan proposed by himself in his evidence before the Retirement Committee in 1863. It was that instead of only retiring officers when they had attained to high rank, they should also
346
give encouragement to subordinate officers to retire, which would be attended with greater economy, while it would contribute to the comfort of the officers themselves, enabling some, perhaps, to settle in Australia, others to marry, or establish themselves in other lines of life. It might be more satisfactory to officers than putting them compulsorily on the retired list, which caused many of them to spend the remainder of their lives in grumbling. He would give his attention to this as to the other subjects which had been mentioned. Not having been concerned in preparing these Estimates, and, as his right hon. Friend wished to offer some remarks to the House, he would not intrude himself louver on the Committee, but he would be willing to give any further information that might be required during the progress of the discussion.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, that in round numbers £500,000 was asked for in these Estimates in excess of the amount asked for in the previous year. The state of the iron-clad navy at the close of last Session was by no means satisfactory, in July last he had called the attention of the House to its inefficiency, compared with the navies of foreign States—his views were generally concurred in, and he had the satisfaction of observing that the statement which he then made, pointing out the necessity of a very considerable increase in the iron-clad fleet, received the sanction of his right hon. Friend who, till lately, filled the high position of First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington), and who was responsible for the present Estimates. He had expected, therefore, to see in the present Estimates some suitable provision for an addition to that portion of our fleet; or, at all events, that any stun asked for the increase of the fleet would be principally devoted to this important object. He found, however, that of all the sums asked fur in the shipbuilding Vote, only the small sum of £570,000 would be available for increasing the iron-clad portion of the fleet beyond the previous provision made in last year's Vote. He wished the Committee to fix its attention on this important fact. No less than £2,751,000 was the amount which the country became engaged to spend in shipbuilding under their Estimates, and it consisted of the following items:—In the contract works £275,000 was to be spent for a turret ship en Coles' system; in screw ships and gun-

347
boats, £745,000; for engines, £634,000; making a total of £1,651,000; in addition to which the dockyards were to undertake works of great magnitude, to the extent of 23,544 tons of shipping, of which only 6,300 represented iron-clads, and this would give a further sum of £1,080,000, or a total of £2,730,000, which the country would be bound to pay now or hereafter. Of this sum the amount to be spent in the present financial year was £1,850,000, out of which only £744,000 were clue to iron-clads; but again this sum has to be reduced by £174,000, because the programme of Estimates of 1866–7 of the late Admiralty provided to advance the two iron-clads Hercules and Monarch 5,652 tons, while they have been advanced only 2,750 tons; and therefore after accepting the obligation of their predecessors, and the Money voted by Parliament to carry it out, they had reversed that policy and diverted the money to other uses, and £174,000 of the present year's money must therefore be spent before the iron-clads are advanced to a stage that we had a right to expect to find them at the present time; and the result is, therefore, that of all this enormous shipbuilding Estimate only £570,000 is applicable to the advance of the iron-clad fleet. Even last year many hon. Members agreed with him that the iron-clad fleet was not making enough progress, but this had thrown us still further back. The objection now was not only that the quantity of work had been diminished very considerably, but that the Vote had been diverted from the purpose to which Parliament intended it to be applied£namely, iron-clads—to a totally different class of vessels, a course only to be justified by a state of war, or by an emergency so sudden and so severe that no opportunity could be afforded to submit so serious a change to the House. Then there were thirty or forty vessels falling within the category of gunboats, and ranging between 600 and 900 tons, on which the Admiralty were about to spend £600,000. He might be told that the vessels to be replaced were rotten. If so, why restore them with vessels likely also to become so? These were wooden vessels. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Composite, with iron plates.] He doubted whether a composite ship was longer lived than a wooden one; because the injury resulting from contact between the wood and iron counterbalanced any benefit that might in other
348
respects arise. The restoration should have been in iron and not wooden ships, and it would have been better to have substituted vessels of 1,200 tons, carrying one or two cupolas, and covered with armour, by which means they would have had real fighting ships most use to in supplementing the navy as well as in acting independently on foreign stations. But the proposed vessels were precisely the description which were referred to by the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) as vessels to be avoided, because they could neither fight nor run away, and a great responsibility rested on those who had recommended the expenditure of so much money on vessels of such an ephemeral description. Again, with regard to the quantity of vessels proposed to be built, after what the requirements had been stated to be by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox), he thought the building of the thirty-five gunboats might have been postponed. The noble Lord referred to "two" vessels being wanted for Africa, and "some" for the Pacific, and in no way referred to the requirements for this class of ships as being of such magnitude as to necessitate thirty-five new vessels of this generally admitted objectionable class. Ho had not the same objection to make to the eight sloops of 1,250 tons, as they were vessels of moderate size and good speed, and therefore suitable to the protection of commerce; but he should not have expected that his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) would have magnified the Lilliputian navy at the expense of the iron-clads; anti looking to the objectionable character of the gunboats, to which he had already referred, it did appear to hint a responsibility of the gravest character to engage the country in an expenditure of nearly—750,000 in such craft, and he hoped Iris right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to tell the House when it reaches Vote 10 that he has re-considered this Vote with a view to its modification. While on the subject of wood vessels, he would refer to the noble Lord's statement of the Admiralty's intention to break up the old wooden first rates, which were treated by them as obsolete, and in accordance with which decision ten had been already sold to the breakers for £85,000. If they were pronounced rotten he should not complain of their being broken up; but reference was made to a proposal the

349
Admiralty had received to convert them into armour-cased turret-ships, which was at great length shown to be impracticable. Now he was not about to propose to convert these vessels into armour-clad turret-ships at once, but he was about to protest against breaking them (or at least many of them) up, and dispossessing the country of them—he had himself turned his attention to the advisability of converting those ships—he had subsequently abandoned that idea, from reasons wholly apart from any difficulty in the operation, but because it was doubtless better to add to the navy from time to time with iron hulls, which are much more enduring and better in every way; but the possession of the old first rates as a lay by and a reserve is invaluable in the event of war becoming imminent, because notwithstanding The condemnation and the declared impossibility of making any conversion of these ships, he had gone carefully into the matter in conjunction with Mr. Oliver Lang, and they both were of opinion that in twelve cases at least, a very satisfactory result would be obtained, and twelve most formidable vessels could thus be obtained in one-third the time it would take to build them, and for a cost of only £100,000 each, and though not possessing the durability of iron hulls, tow persons will doubt the advisability of having such a means of supplementing the navy on an emergency, and the impolicy of dispossessing yourself of it as it exists. The names of the vessels he thought would pay for conversion were (three-deckers) the Howe, the Victoria, the Marlborough; (two-deckers) the Bulwark and the Robust, which were building, the Anson, the Duncan, the Atlas, the Defence, the Renown, the Gibraltar, and the Revenge. To revert to the Estimates, it was also proposed to build two armour-clads of 3,700 tons each, which would be entirely armour clad, aid which would have semi-turrets on their upper decks. He regretted, however, to find that the Admiralty proceeded upon no regular system, all was shifting, there is no stability, no general character that guides and underlies all their productions, and forms a sound base for all their operations. Of the large vessels of our iron-clad fleet they had almost as many classes as ships. Twenty-four ships had been built and were building, and these were divided into six classes. Of the Warrior class there were four; of the Achilles and Bellerophon class, nine; of the Agincourt
350
class, two; of the wooden-plated frigate class, five; of the cupola ships, three wholly covered and one partially covered. They had in these two ships a seventh class, and now the House was called upon to sanction an eighth class—the Inconstant—in which the ships were altogether denuded of armour. He could not approve of this last class. Supposing that a vessel of the Inconstant class came in contact with one of the Agincourt class; the former of these was expected to make fifteen knots, and was supposed to trust to her great fleetness and her powerful guns; but the Agincourt had made fifteen-and-a-half knots, and was wholly plated, and carried guns at least as many and as powerful, with this important difference, that the Agincourt can attack them with shell, and their destruction will be both swift and certain; the Inconstant can only reply with shot, for shell will not penetrate her adversary's sides, and the unarmoured vessel can never live the time necessary to inflict even serious damage with solid shot. How, therefore, could the Inconstant hope to gain an advantage over such a vessel? He protested against placing English lives and English honour in such peril. He entreated the Admiralty not to be led away by the circumstance that some other nations were building similar classes of ships, ft was necessary that we should rely upon our own judgment. He thought the Departments ought to found their general policy on the experience of those whose duty it was to take a large range of view in reference to this matter. Last year he had suggested that a committee of scientific and practical men should be brought together for the purpose of devising some general policy; but if his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty did not approve that plan, he ought to use his own judgment, and to form a sound and broad policy on which the future re-construction of the navy might be founded.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that at the present time, when science was making advances hitherto unexampled, and when all the great maritime Powers were strengthening their navies, too great care could not be given to the subject of the construction of our vessels of war; economy and retrenchment in careful forethought should be observed before they were commenced, but only as compatible with the integrity of the national defences. Indeed, it must be obvious to all men of common sense and common observation that, looking to

351
the insular position of this country, to our mercantile strength and vast commerce, and to the distance between us and our numerous colonies and dependencies, this was a point of most vital importance. He was glad to say that the nation had always most willingly borne the expense necessary to maintain the navy in an efficient condition; all it at any time had demanded had been a rigid supervision of expenditure, and that under the vigilant eyes of this House the means placed in the hands of the Government should be employed in a manner deserving the cordial support which Parliament affords, and the enthusiastic unanimity of the country, which is its sanction. As regards ships of the Warrior class, his opinion was that their length was so great that they were not handy in rough weather and cross seas. Then, again, in consequence of their great length, a considerable number of men was required to man them. There was already a sufficient number of vessels of this class, and we required ships of not more than 4,000 tons, which would be far more handy, capable of carrying beyond failure their armament, easily to be turned either tacking or wearing—which these lengthened ships very imperfectly perform, and require much sea-room. And let him impress upon the Board of Admiralty, as a point of the first importance, that mode of construction to ensure an identity of speed both when under sail or steam. Some of our timber ships of war had been sold, in number thirteen; no less than 246 still remained. They jostle each other in a state of ordinary in Portsmouth, in Hamoaze, in the Medway. Sell these incumbrances; they only are formidable on paper, decaying piecemeal at their moorings, each year becoming of less value, each year increasing in necessity for repairs, whilst they give a delusive appearance to the strength of our navy. There bad been since the year 1827 no fewer than seventeen First Lords, seventy changes among the Junior Lords, and fifteen Secretaries, having held office under the uncertain tenure, the condition of membership of a Board of Admiralty. Every such change the late Controller of the Navy (Sir Baldwin Walker), when examined before the Royal Commission to inquire into the state of the Navy, conclusively proved had necessitated a different arrangement, and constant alterations in the Royal Dockyards. Economy in such a fluctuation of opinions he pro-
352
nounced to be a simple impossibility; and yet to such constantly changing Boards were committed the sacred trust of our navy, the very right arm of our National strength, with all its manifold departments—the manning of the fleet; supervision of dockyards; building, equipment, and repair of vessels; determination of the best modes and material of construction and naval architecture; supply of stores; control of expenditure; and in a word, the maintenance of our navy in a state equal to any emergency, indispensable to the security of our commerce, the safety of our shores, and the continuance of our honour and freedom as a nation. This plain statement of the mischievous results which are the consequences of the irresponsible constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the frequent changes at the Board, has a force of argument which no expression of his could deepen; and without party spirit or injurious reflection upon any individual, he could assure the House he merely had spoken for the welfare of a service whose wellbeing was bound up in that of the Empire itself. He believed that the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), though they had occasioned a smile, would be read by the country with regret that the feelings of honourable men had been—though unintentionally, of course—deeply wounded. How did it happen that there were so many retired admirals, captains, commanders and lieutenants living upon the taxation of the country? The reason was this, From 1791 to 1818 no less than 997 men-of-war were commissioned—a number which of course gave employment to a great many officers. When the services of these officers were no longer required they were placed on half-pay, where they remainded from 1818 until the Crimean War, when some of them were called for. They were thus prevented, the most of them, from rising in their profession, from seeking employment in other directions, achieving higher professional honours, while the solitary pittance which they received was not the sort of income which any hon. Member would wish his son to be compelled to live upon. Those men ought not to be treated in an indifferent manner, or to be spoken of as they had been, especially when it was considered and remembered that most of them were as old as himself. They could not live long, and if the country could not employ them they should not be spoken of disrespectfully. If they were

353
referred to at all, it should not be in a disparaging and ungenerous tone, as unwelcome as it Wag undeserved.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, there was no part of the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox's) statement on a previous night which did him so much credit and gave so much satisfaction as the statement with reference to the decrease of the amount for repairs. He trusted that the Board of Admiralty would feel that it was their policy to pursue that course, and at all times to give it their most earnest attention. Enormous amounts had been consumed in repairs, and unless great care was taken in the construction of our vessels, the result which the noble Lord had indicated, and which the House had much reason to hope for, would not be attained. The recent failure of France in her construction of wooden ships armour-plated—they having come home after severe weather in a most unsatisfactory condition—ought to be a lesson to this country. He believed that the real fact with regard to those vessels was that they were constructed of wooden frames, covered on the outside with iron armour. Four vessels, indeed, constructed by the French Government, and one of which was the Gloire, were, he believed, looked upon as inefficient, and that fact ought to set us a warning in the construction of our vessels. Such vessels needed constant repair. It was very undesirable that the stores and controller's departments should be distinct one from the other; because until the controller was entirely responsible for the stores, they would never obtain that responsible management which was necessary both for the efficiency and economy of the service; and he hoped the present First Lord of the Admiralty would give it his serious attention with a view to the amalgamation of the two departments under one responsible head. He was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) state that the accumulation of timber in the dockyards was owing to the pressure put upon the Department by that House. In 1862 and 1863, reductions of the Vote for Timber were moved in Committee. He had himself moved in 1863 to reduce the Vote on Account of the purchase of timber by £250,000; but although Lord Palmerston stated that no more wooden ships were to be built, there were at that time 112,000 loads of timber, sufficient to supply the navy for five years, taking the average con-
354
sumption as a data. It was a well-known fact that the Duke of Somerset purchased the whole of the timber that was now proposed to be re-sold with money that was distinctly voted for iron vessels, the conduct being justified on the ground that the money was voted under the head of stores The timber so bought without authority from the House was now being re-sold at an immense loss to the country, and this was the result of the manner in which the Duke of Somerset had employed money which was voted for the construction of iron-clad vessels. Such a mistake would, he hoped, be a warning for future Administrations, and no Board of Admiralty sitting on either side of the House would ever, he hoped, again take such a liberty—a liberty which, in this instance, had resulted is very great lass to the public. He had taken pains to inquire into the quantity of iron ballast in the dockyards, and from an advertisement of the sale found that there were about 35,000 tons, chiefly of Swedish iron, fit for malleable purposes, and worth, on the average, £4 a ton, and a further quantity of 35,000 tons used as ballast on board ships in ordinary. As to our colonial dependencies and foreign squadrons, He thought that a great reform was required, and he hoped that the Admiralty would consider whether there could not be a combination with other Powers, so that a joint policy might operate where protection of trade was required. This might, be thought, be done to put down piracy in China, where the French had a number of admirable steamers, and where also they had a large trade to protect. As to the African squadron, he questioned whether it would not be better to have several fast steamers upon the coast than having vessels, as at present, to ascend the rivers. He hoped, also, to see a combination of the offices of the Admiralty, instead of having one set of offices at Whitehall, and another set at Somerset House. He ventured to think that much of the correspondence pressing upon the Department to which the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) had alluded would be rendered unnecessary if Whitehall and Somerset House were brought under the same roof. On the minds of the members of the Committee which recently investigated that subject there had been a conviction no less strong in favour of the concentration of some of the dockyards. He trusted the recent change at the Admiralty would not deprive the House of the prospect held out by the right hon. Gen-

355
tleman (Sir John Pakington) of the reconstitution of that Department with a single Minister in a position of power and responsibility.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox) gave a clear and full explanation of these Estimates on a former evening. His statement has been followed up to-night by my right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry), so that very little is left for me to say. Inasmuch, however, as I was connected with the formation of the Estimates, I trust the House will allow me to offer a few remarks. In the first place, I would acknowledge the extremely fair and temperate manner in which, by every speaker on the opposite side of the House, these Estimates have been referred to, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). My hon. Friend, indeed, rather complained of the extent of the Estimates; but he hardly showed his usual fairness in mixing these up with all the other Estimates called for by the requirements of the country with which these have little to do. No doubt the Estimates are, on the whole, in excess of those of last year; but, while my hon. Friend naturally commented upon that fact, the Member for Tavistock complained that the Estimates were not large enough. [Mr. SAMUDA: The portion applied to iron-clad vessels.] I am afraid that if we had increased the building of iron-clad vessels to any extent it would have been impossible, owing to their great cost, to avoid a considerable increase of the Estimates. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract referred to the extra receipts of £450,000 in a tone of general approbation; but found fault with us for not making in the Estimate some charge for tramways, or whatever might be laid down in place of the iron taken from the dockyards. The only answer I can give to that complaint is that the arrangements for the sale of the ballast iron in the dockyard up to this time have hardly reached a point at which we are in a position to enter into an arrangement for repaving the dockyards with other material. At this very moment we are carrying on negotiations as to the best mode of bringing the iron to market; and the real point upon which I hope to receive the approbation of the House is, whether we are not taking a wise course in bringing this iron to market instead of leaving it where it is. I throw no blame on the late Board
356
of Admiralty for being misled, as I think they were, with regard to the value of this property. They made inquiries; in fact, they proceeded to sell some of this iron, and could get but a very small price for it; but that was in consequence of the mode in which they set to work. When we first commenced inquiries we were told by persons who ought to be very competent judges, by persons in the Arsenal at Woolwich, that they did not consider the iron to be valuable; but we followed up our inquiries by further investigation, and I think a very moderate estimate is made when I say that, after allowing for any expenses that may be involved in repaving the yards, we expect to receive into the Treasury a sum of no less than £100,000 for this iron. The hon. Member also approved our scheme of selling certain ships; but the hon. Member for Tavistock cautioned us with regard to the sale of ships, and conveyed the impression that these wooden ships could still be converted into valuable iron-clad men-of-war. [Mr. SAMUDA: On an emergency.] Even supposing he is right in his belief, let me remind him that there is no reason why we might not sell a considerable number of these vessels. There are now in our harbours between 90 and 100 line-of-battle ships and frigates; that is to say—58 line-of-battle ships, and between 30 and 40 frigates. A revolution has taken place within the last few years, and those ships are maintained at a cost of £1,000 a year each. They are deteriorating every year, and for the purposes of war they are practically obsolete. Clearly there is no necessity for retaining so many of them. Some of them, no doubt, will become useful for hospitals and other purposes; but we cannot think of retaining 90 or 100 of those wooden line-of-battle ships and frigates at a cost of £1,000 a year each. It was my intention if I had remained at the Admiralty to send more of them into the market, and I had hoped to realize not less than £200,000 in that way this year. But some of them I intended retaining, believing they might be turned to some useful purpose. In consequence of the strong statements published by Mr. Henwood, the Admiralty thought it right to refer the question to the professional advisers of the Board, who, as the House is aware, are very able men; and their opinion was that, looking to the construction of those ships, it would be a waste of money to convert them into armour-covered men-of-war. Then, as regarded the timber in the dock-

357
yards, my hon. Friend asks who is to blame for the large quantity in stock. It is rather late to enter into that question now; but, if I remember rightly, Lord Palmerston was the great advocate of keeping up a large stock of timber in our dockyards. Even in the days of wooden ships it was not thought necessary to keep more than 60,000 loads; but we found more than 100,000 loads in store. I think it will be the best economy to sell this before it is further deteriorated; and I believe that the total receipts to the Treasury on account of the sale of timber will exceed the estimated £400,000. [Mr. STANSFELD: What price will be obtained?] It will vary; but, as well as I remember, the difference between the buying price and the selling price is about one-third. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock complained very much that we had not built more iron ships; but if he looks at our Estimates he will see that we do propose to make a considerable addition to our fleet of iron-clad ships. We have just commenced the Captain, which will be for a trial of Captain Coles' arrangement of turrets. She will be a sloop of 4,000 tons, built entirely under the direction of Captain Coles. We determined that a large wooden man-of-war, commenced some years ago, and on which £50,000 had already been laid out, should be converted into an armour ship. We shall have two ships of 3,700 tons, whether they are to be ranked as first-class or second-class I do not know, nor do I think it matters much; but they will be very powerful. They are to have the half turrets on each side—a very valuable invention—and by means of this arrangement will be more effective than the ordinary broadside vessels built on the turret principle. I was very sorry to hear the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract on the second Inconstant. The building of the first ship was part of the policy of the late Board of Admiralty. When we came into office we found that she was in progress, and we had to address ourselves to the question whether she was not a class of ship which the country required. Looking at what was going on in other countries, we found that the United States were building twelve of this class. [Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE: They are building six of the larger class and six of the smaller.] I believe very much in the vigour of the United States, and when I had the pleasure of seeing the Secretary of the United States Navy in this country some time
358
ago, he made no secret of it that his department looked upon these ships as the most effective men-of-war, and capable of acting against the commerce of other countries. The Government of France also has adopted the policy of having ships of great speed, capable of going to sea as cruisers, and also capable of carrying, as far as their guns go, very heavy armour. As to the Agincourt, she is a very valuable ship; but she is a ship of 7,000 tons only, being 3,000 tons smaller than our Inconstant. Does my hon. Friend really think that such a ship would be as efficient as the Inconstant in protecting the commerce of this country? I wish to say a word respecting the complaint as to the number of small vessels which we propose to build cannot refer to this subject without making some; Illusion to an answer which I made in this House soon after I came into office last year, and which I am afraid was taken for what I did not mean it to be—an attack on the late Board of Admiralty. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) what was the state of our reserves. In reply, I could only say that our reserves were not in a satisfactory state. I had great difficulty in sending reliefs to foreign stations; and this arose from the want of small vessels. For many years there has been, end there still is, a regulation, that in our ports we should retain a certain number of ships as a reserve for emergencies. It appears, however, that the regulation had not been regarded, because when one vessel, the Bombay, was burnt, there was no ship to take her place, and when the Amazon was sunk, there was not one to take up her duty. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) called attention to the Minute of Sir Frederick Grey, which we found at the Admiralty. I regret that the hon. Member's unwillingness to take that Minute in the way it was offered, has prevented it from being laid on the table. I was not aware of the contents of that Minute when I made my statement; but when I saw it subsequently, I found that it confirmed the answer I had given to the hon. Member for Liverpool. It referred only to the small vessels; but as regarded those vessels it said that there was not one to send out. We are now building those small vessels. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) alluded to this point, and I wish to call his attention to these facts. The Board of Admiralty has now

359
only two sloops, two frigates, and three gunboats fit to send out as reliefs to foreign stations. In the years 1864 and 1865, twenty-five paddle steamers, twenty-two screw steamers, and five paddle steamers of a large size, making in all fifty-two vessels, were got rid of from the navy. Fifty-one gunboats were likewise got rid of within those two years, making together upwards of 100 vessels put out of the service as useless. I make no complaint of that; but I say the fact that upwards of 100 vessels having been got rid of within the period I have named, fully accounts for a deficiency. The policy of the present Board has been not to spend large sums of money in the repair of obsolete vessels. [Cheers.] I am glad to hear that cheer, and accept it as the Committee's approval of the Government policy, which has already been commended by the hon. Member for Pontefract. I think I should surprise the House if I were to recount the sums spent in repairing vessels which, after all, were not fit for the service. Compared with the prime cost of these vessels the sum spent in repairing them has been immense. We have, therefore, determined to abandon repairs of this nature, and devote the labour thus saved to the construction of new vessels of a better type. This is the answer to the regret of the hon. Member for Pontefract that we were proposing to build so many small vessels; it is necessary that we should build a good many in order to supply the place of others returning from foreign stations. I now come to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire upon a former occasion, with regard to the policy of maintaining our squadrons upon foreign stations, and also to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Pontefract upon the same subject this evening. The latter referred to three periods, giving the extent of our foreign squadron in 1846, in 1856, and in 1867. That, no doubt, answered the hon. Member's purpose very well; but I think it would be better, considering what has been said upon the matter, to give a full statement, and refer to what has been the policy of the country not at periods of ten years apart, but during the last seven years. I hold in my band a statement which I have had prepared of the number of ships and men and the aggregate tonnage of the ships on the 1st of January in each year, from 1860 to 1867 inclusive, and I should like to give the House a few of these items. This
360
statement, unlike that of my hon. Friend's, includes the Mediterranean and all foreign stations, and I find that, although from 1860 to the present time the change has not been very great, it has been in the direction of a gradual reduction, so that the amount of our force on foreign stations has been considerably less during this year than it has been during any former year since 1860. My hon. Friend adopted the plan of mentioning the number of men; I will mention the tonnage as well as the men. In 1860, then, omitting the tens and units, the men numbered 35,700, and the tonnage summed up 189,800. In 1861 the men numbered 38,500, and the ships' tonnage 202,400. In 1862, the men 48,900, and tonnage 209,300. In 1863, the men 32,500, and the tonnage 187,300. In 1864, the men 32,200, and the tonnage 190,300. In 1865, the men 28,900, and the tonnage 173,600. In 1866, the men 27,000, and the tonnage 167,500. In 1867, the men numbered 24,800, and the tonnage 160,500. Thus, the Committee will see that the aggregate force upon all our stations in the year 1867 is considerably less than it has been during the last seven years. Now, I will refer to that portion of the hon. Member's statement concerning a squadron which excites greater interest and greater doubts than any other—I mean the West African squadron. With regard to that we come generally to the same result. In 1860 the men on the West Coast of Africa numbered 1,900, and the ships consisted of 11,400 tons. In 1861, the men were 1,900, and the tons 10,800. In 1862, the men were 2,100, and the tons 13,700. In 1863, the men were 1,900, and the tons 14,700. In 1864, the men were 1,800, and the tons 14,800. In 1865, the men were 1,300, and the tons 14,300. In 1866, the men were 2,300, and the tons 17,900. In 1867, I find the men are reduced to 1,500, and the tons to 12,700. So that this year the West African squadron is smaller than it has been in any former year since 1860. [Mr. CHILDERS: Does the Return include the flag ship?] The figures I have quoted do not include the flag ship; but with that addition, even the comparison I have drawn would be very little altered. I have made these remarks, Sir, because the right bon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), referring to my noble Friend behind me (Lord Henry Lennox), alleged, as I understood him, that it was improper to

361
maintain a foreign squadron at so high a rate. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) has offered a shinier opinion to-night; but I ask him how it happens that, during the whole seven years in which he or his Colleagues were in office, similar doubts with regard to the propriety of these foreign squadrons seem never to have crossed their minds. The present Government succeeded to office only last summer, so that I do not wish to claim credit for having reduced the foreign squadrons to their present condition. But I wish to point out to the Committee that the recently announced views of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen were not declared until the invigorating air of the other side of the House prompted them to doubt the expediency of continuing these foreign squadrons, which they maintained in greater force and in greater strength during their term of office; though I do not in the least blame them and their Colleagues for having done so. The question, however, remains as to how far we ought to maintain these squadrons, and to what extent, if any, we can afford to reduce them consistently with carrying out the services they perform in contributing to maintain our position as a maritime Power. If we had not squadrons in various parts of the world, we should be unable properly to check piracy, nor should we be able to carry on other national objects. There is only one more point to which the hon. Member for Pontefract alluded, saying a great deal that is most painfully true, but which has been said very often before—namely, the encumbered state of the Navy List. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the immense burden we have annually to support on the half-pay, the retired, and the reserved lists, which, as he observed, extend over nearly every letter of the alphabet. He knows well how great is the difficulty connected with this subject; for when men have once served the country, you cannot cast them adrift. This state of things results from the great naval power which we were obliged to maintain during the great war; for on the return of peace we found our Navy List so large that we were never able to bring it within the limits that could have been desired. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion—namely, whether some plan might not be adopted for buying out these officers, and so effecting an economical settlement without doing them injustice, is not a novel one; and I confess I think it would be very well worth trying. But there is another thing
362
which it is incumbent on us to do, and that is to be very careful not to introduce into the navy a larger proportion of officers than is likely to be required for the service. Without wishing at all to deviate from that proper absence of party spirit which has characterized this discussion, I must say I think the late Board of Admiralty was not so cautious in this respect as it might have been. The first thing we had to do on coming into office last summer was to make a reduction of one-third in the number of cadets entering the service, through the list of cadets, midshipmen, and sub-lieutenants having become so crowded. We also found that the assistant clerks had been admitted to a very imprudent extent, so that the list was clogged; making it hopeless for them to rise in their profession or to have justice done to them; and we were therefore obliged to put an entire stop to the entry of them. I have felt it my duty, owing to my connection with these Estimates, to make these remarks; and I have to thank the Committee for the attention which it has accorded me.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask whether the addition to the second-class naval cadets would not really bring the numbers up to the point where they stood before the first-class cadets were reduced?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that when he spoke of the undue admission of cadets, he spoke not so much with reference to the aggregate of officers on the Navy List as with reference to the midshipmen and sub-lieutenants, and other ranks more immediately above them, which choked it up and prevented all hope of promotion.
MR. STANSFELDmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
MR. CORRYsaid, he would not then press the Committee to proceed further; and he would fix the resumption of the Navy Estimates for Friday evening. With reference to the flag ship on the African station, the Admiralty had been obliged to send so large a ship there because they had not at the time a smaller one for that particular duty. It was proposed, however, as soon as possible, to replace the Bristol by a smaller vessel, and transfer her to another station.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL BILL.—LEAVE.
MR. MACEVOYsaid, he moved for leave to introduce a Bill for the repeal of this Act. As he understood no opposition would be offered at that stage, it was unnecessary for him to trouble the House with any observations.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, no one could feel more strongly opposed to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act than himself—one of the first acts of his political life being to aid in depriving of his seat a personal friend who had not voted against that measure. He could not but ask, however, what would be the practical result of this Bill? If the hon. Gentleman were able to say that he had any assurance from Her Majesty's Government on the subject, or if he could hold out any hope of bringing the matter to a successful issue, he would have his best support and assistance. All, however, that the hon. Gentleman had stated was that the Bill would not be opposed at the present stage. He had been anxious to know what was the opinion entertained on this point by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authorities in this country and in Ireland, who felt most sensibly the injustice and pressure of the Act. He had accordingly had communications from the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin, and also from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, and he had communicated personally with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. He was therefore able to say that, much as they felt the injustice of the Act—and Dr. Manning had remarked how hard he felt it on him, as a Christian Bishop and an Englishman, daily to be obliged by a higher duty to violate the statute law of this country—the present proposal was no suggestion of theirs, and they did not feel it part of their duty to raise the question at this time. They feared that to do so would only lead to an idle agitation which would hinder more practical and serious measures. He could not express this feeling better than in their own words, and he would therefore, with the permission of the House, read two very brief extracts. The first was from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, who said—
"This is not the time to ask for a repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. That question can very well wait for a while. At present the Irish Members ought to concentrate their energies
364
upon the land, the Church, and the education question."
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh said—
"It should be repealed; but if the discussion of it just now would have the effect, as I believe it would, of drawing off attention from matters of much more practical importance to Ireland, it ought to be postponed."
In those sentiments he entirely concurred. The law was, he believed, useless and un just, and he hoped the good sense of this country would in time—and that a brief time—assent to its repeal. He saw, however, no good practical result which was likely to flow from raising the question at the present moment. If the hon. Gentleman could elicit from the Government a distinct expression of their opinion on the matter, then he might be doing good service. From those on his own side of the House, he required no such expression of opinion, because in 1851 they had the courage to stem the popular current, and to speak words of truth. If the Government were now merely to say that they would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, he held that such a statement would be no avail. He, under those circumstances, could see no advantage which was likely to arise from the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he should rejoice to think that there was any prospect of success likely to attend the Motion of his hon. Friend at the present time. They must all do justice to the generous motives which impelled him to make this Motion, to undo a great wrong inflicted upon a mistake and a misunderstanding. The Roman Catholic hierarchy of England and Ireland were stigmatised as guilty of a misdemeanour in doing that which was only their duty in accordance with their religious convictions. He believed a great mistake had been committed in passing the Act which it was sought to repeal—a statement the justice of which he hoped the good sense of the English people would lead them before long to acknowledge. He did not, however, think that public opinion was ripe for the change proposed; and he therefore thought it was desirable that his hon. Friend should not press on his Bill at present.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he understood that Archbishop—he begged pardon, he meant—Dr. Manning had expressed his regret that he was obliged to break the statute law of the land every day, and if

365
the House of Commons and the Government allowed the law to be so broken, he should be disposed to second the proposal for the introduction of the Bill. He wished to know whether the Government meant to support this Bill. He contended that the concessions which had been made by the present and previous Governments had never been fairly submitted to public opinion.
MR. GLADSTONE: I am only desirous of making remark which appears to me to be called for by the speeches which have proceeded from my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), and the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer). Primâ facie, this Motion is one for relieving from certain civil disabilities the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, and we have had rather a striking declaration on the part of Gentlemen, than whom no other two Members in the House can be better qualified to represent the opinions of those prelates—that although they are convinced that the law inflicts upon them a wrong, yet, in view of the public interests and of more pressing demands, they do not wish to see the time of this House occupied and the temper of parties embittered by discussions which may, after all, prove fruitless. And I will never sit still and hear a declaration so wise as that which the hon. Members have signified as proceeding from those affected by the Act, without doing them the simple justice of saying that it does them the highest honour both as regards their judgment and prudence. In respect to the Bill itself, I confess on this occasion, I have on one point the satisfaction of coinciding with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) who feels—and feels justly—that it is a very considerable scandal that we should have a law of this description, which law no man volunteers to put into execution. I do not depart in any particular from the opinions which sixteen years ago it was my duty to express in this House at the time of passing this Act. The question then was, whether what I, for one, thought was a grievance, should be inflicted. The question of grievance to the parties who were the objects of the Act was a very material point. Another material point was the evil which ensued when a law was permitted to exist, which law could not be enforced. But is the time favourable for the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman? That is the whole case I wish to represent to the
366
House, and the point to which it reduces itself, For if the circumstances are not favourable, surely it is not to be desired by any rational man, whatever his views may be, that he should stir up controversy and animosity unless he thinks a practical object can be attained. I ask myself, Is it to be attained? I confess the answer entirely depends on another question—which there is no one here to reply to—What are the intentions and views of Her Majesty's Government? I am unauthorized to speak for Gentlemen on this side of the House, or to utter more than the opinions I venture to form; but I do venture to form an opinion that as far as this side of the House is concerned, the hon. Member who makes this Motion will find little difficulty in the prosecution of his enterprize to a successful conclusion. But what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government? Will the second reading of this Bill and its later stages be supported or not by Her Majesty's Government? If they will be, then I say, by all means let us go forward with the Bill. If it will not be supported by the Government, then, in my opinion, having such adversaries in his face, the hon. Gentleman's undertaking so opposed will be rendered hopeless by reason of that opposition. If there is not the assurance of support, let the hon. Gentleman make his Motion, and I am not the man to oppose it, but it will be singularly sterile in its practical results. We cannot ask any Gentleman opposite, who is probably not in possession of the views of the Cabinet, to speak for them; but it would be desirable that my hon. Friend the Member for Longford and his friends should make it their business to ascertain the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to the course they mean to pursue with respect to the ulterior stages of the Bill.
SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, that during the last two days there had been floating rumours about the lobbies that Her Majesty's Government would support the Bill, and one of the organs of the Irish Executive, The Irish Times, had stated, on information received from this side of the Channel, that they were determined to do so. Now, in the absence of ally Member of the Cabinet, he should be glad to hear from the Solicitor General for Ireland whether there was any truth in those rumours.
MR. REARDENsaid, ho had not expected to hear such expressions as had fallen from the hon. Member for Longford

367
(Mr. O'Reilly) with regard to an Act which would be a disgrace to Roman Catholics as long as it remained unrepealed. He had more confidence in the support of Her Majesty's Government to this Bill than some Members on that side of the House. He could remember a time when the throats of Roman Catholic Members were very near being cut in the streets of London. From that time the Liberal party under Earl Russell had never been a strong one, and but for the influence of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), it would have been smashed up. They were as much buried politically as Lazarus was bodily, and the right hon. Gentleman accomplished their resurrection. If Roman Catholic Members did not support this Motion they would have a sorry account to give to their constituents.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he agreed in the opinion that the action of the hon. Member for Meath on this occasion would lead to no result. After the opinion expressed by the Roman Catholic prelates, who had taken a part on the side of law and order, he thought that the House had a right to know what course the Government—of whom he saw two Members though not members of the Cabinet present—would pursue in respect to the Bill.
MR. M'KENNAtrusted that nothing which had been said or quoted by the hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the introduction of the Bill would prevent its being read a, first time. It was not usual at this stage to press the Government for an expression of opinion; but as hon. Members had it quite in their power to elicit the opinion of the Government at another day, he hoped that they would not prevent the Bill from reaching the point when all would be able to test the disposition of Her Majesty's Government. For his own part, he could not help believing that much of the indisposition of hon. Members to the introduction of this Bill arose from tenderness of feeling towards the head of the late Government, whose supporters they were. The noble Lord the head of the late Government, who now sits in "another place," was the author of this disgraceful Act, now sought to be repealed, and it was perhaps a pardonable consideration for his feelings which induced the hon. Member, who had quoted letters from distinguished prelates, to write to them in such a strain as to elicit their most
368
commendable postponement of their own case to that of the laity; but for his (Mr. M'Kenna's) part, not having before him the communications which elicited these letters, he thought he would show greater consideration for the distinguished writers by giving his heartiest and most unqualified support to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath, and by doing his utmost to remove from the statute book an Act which was not only a perpetual insult to Catholics, but a reproach to any Administration which permitted it to remain on the statute book simply to offend the well-disposed, and to be violated openly.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the Bill would be very important. Those who valued the independence of the country, and the declaration made by Lord Russell on this subject, must object to the repeal of this Act. It was to assert that independence that the whole of the nation was roused. The people were most tolerant, but he believed it would be a rash act to repeal this law. The thirty Irish Roman Catholic Members were representatives of a foreign power in that House, and the people desired a reform of the House of Commons mainly because they found one party pitted against another, who were ready to throw out any bait to secure the votes of Irish Members. The feeling was growing strong in the country against that course of proceeding, and it was prudent on the part of the hon. Member to seek the repeal of this statute before the House of Commons should be reformed.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that no one would support the Motion of his hon. Friend sooner than he would, if he thought that his hon. Friend was the authorized representative on the occasion of the Roman Catholic body, or, if he saw any chance of its obtaining the support of Her Majesty's Government; but, in the absence of any Member of the Cabinet, be did not think it would be right to call upon any Member of the Government present to express any opinion on it. One of the most unhappy recollections of his Parliamentary life was connected with the passing of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which he had, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend near him, resisted. He would suggest that the second reading of the Bill should be fixed for the earliest day possible, in order to give the Government an opportunity of stating their views.
MR. ESMONDEsaid, he would ask the representative of the Dublin University (Mr. Chatterton) to express the opinion of Her Majesty's Government.
MR. BRYANsaid, he hoped to hear what was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the question.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he thought the Act wrong in its inception; but he doubted whether the Mover of its repeal was not unhappy in his selection of a time for proposing it.
MR. MACEVOYsaid, he had not anticipated that the Bill would have met with such a reception from his friends. One hon. Member (Mr. O'Reilly) had brought down upon him the authority of the Church, but, as far as one prelate was concerned, He believed his opinion had been somewhat exaggerated by the hon. Member [Cries of "Name!"]—he referred to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. He had had no opportunity of testing the views of the other prelates referred to. He still clung to the hope that the House would be prepared to allow the Bill to pass a first reading. He joined with every other hon. Gentleman who had spoken in the expression of anxiety to learn from the Government what course they would pursue when the Bill cause on for a second reading. The measure seemed to have fallen on hon. Members like a shell, almost like a Reform Bill. They all knew that there was no anxiety in the House so great as the anxiety lest the occupants of the Treasury Bench should introduce a satisfactory measure of Reform; but suppose the Government should take larger views than they were believed to entertain with regard both to Reform and this question, and deal with them in a liberal way. He had seen some changes in the opinions of Members of the House; and he was much inclined to think that the Government would disappoint the Gentlemen who had now made such telling speeches against him. ["Oh, oh!"] As far as he could judge, the speeches appeared to be directed against the course he had taken, and nothing had been left undone that could embarrass hint in what he had undertaken. He certainly did not expect that at that hour (twenty minutes past one) a debate would be got up against the wishes of the Mover of a Bill like that, when it was well known to hon. Gentlemen that the Government had no intention of opposing its introduction, and when it was well known that in all
370
probability no Members of the Government would be in the House, seeing that the first reading of the Bill was a mere matter of form. He was, however, willing to join them in expressing a desire to learn what course the Government would pursue, and he should be disappointed if the answer of the Government did not disappoint hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House.
MR. BRADYsaid, he did not think this subject should be allowed to be dormant, and he gave the greatest credit to his hon. Friend for the introduction of the Bill. He disapproved the way in which this Bill had been met by the Irish Members, and complained of the silence of the Government.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he thought the statute not only obsolete now, but obsolete from the time it passed.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON)said, that the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), and the right hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), understood his position better than to expect him to express any opinion upon a question like this. All that he could say was that he had no special communication with the Government on the subject. The only intimation be received was that the Bill would not be opposed on the first reading, and it was not expected that any discussion would take place. The question was not peculiar to Ireland; certainly, it was not in his department.
MR. COGANsaid, he thought it was due to the House that some Member of the Cabinet should have been present. He did not think that discussion was desired, and perhaps this was another part of the "organized hypocrisy." He hoped the Bill would be withdrawn. He believed it to be a political sham, though not so intended by his hon. Friend, likely merely to delude the country. He called attention to the opinion expressed by the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics on the subject.
MR. WHALLEY: I rise to order. I wish to know whether the hon. Member is not out of order in quoting a Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority.
MR. SPEAKER: The interruption of the hon. Member seems to me without foundation.
MR. WHALLEY: Is it in order to mention these ecclesiastical authorities?
MR. SPEAKER: There was nothing out of order in the speech of the hon.

371
Member, and nothing to justify interruption.
Motion agreed to.
Bill to repeal the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter sixty, intituled "An Act to prevent the Assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MACEVOR, Mr. M'KENNA, and Mr. LEADER.

THAMES EMBANKMENT—SHEILDS' PETITION.—MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
MR. LOWEsaid, that he also had an Irish grievance. He moved for a Select Committee to be appointed to inquire into the facts stated in the petition of Mr. Francis Webb Sheilds. That gentleman's plan for the Thames Embankment had been selected out of those of fifty-nine other engineers as the foundation of the plan upon which that great work bad been carried out under the superintendence of the engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Mr. Sheilds had been put to considerable trouble and expense in preparing his plans for the competition, for which he had received no compensation whatever. He thought the case was one which deserved to be inquired into.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Petition of Francis Webb Sheilds, C. E. [presented 8th March], relative to the Thames Embankment, be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations thereof and to report their opinion to the House."—(Mr. Lowe.)
MR. HUNTsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not object to the debate being adjourned in consequence of the absence of the First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners), who had left the House under the impression that the Motion would not have been made at that late hour (five minutes to Two o'clock).
MR. LOWEsaid, he must decline to assent to the adjournment of the debate. It was the business of the First Commissioner of Works to be in his place when such a Motion was likely to be made.
MR. HUNTmoved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hunt.)
The House divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 28: Majority 22.

THAMES EMBANKMENT—SHEILDS' PETITION.—MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.

  POLICIES OF INSURANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to render Policies of Insurance assignable at Law, and to enable assignees of such Policies to sue, thereon in their own name, ordered to be brought In by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Mr. Serjeant BARRY, Mr. VANCE, and Mr. PIM.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.