Commons Sitting of 15 July 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Registration of Partnerships* [249]; Military Manœuvres* [251]; War Office (Pensions)* [252]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act (1862) Amendment* [250]; Greenwich Hospital* [253]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* [254].
Second Reading—Military Forces Localisation (Expenses) [222], debate adjourned; Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment* [227]; Debtors (Ireland)* [228]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Supplemental* [238]; Judges' Salaries* [242]; Income Tax Collection (Public Departments)* [243]; Grand Juries (Middlesex)* [235].
Report of Select Committee—Epping Forest* (No. 306).
Committee—Pawnbrokers (re-comm.)* [233]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Courts of Law (Scotland) Agents (re-comm.)* [223]; Victoria Park (re-comm.)* [232]; Grand Juries (Ireland)* [226]; Galashiels Jurisdiction Act Amendment* [225]; Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000)*; Wild Birds Protection (re-comm.)* [247]; Masters and Workmen (Arbitration) (re-comm.)* [213].
Report—Epping Forest* [71].
Considered as amended—Bastardy Laws Amendment* [109], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended (re-committed)—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections* [86].
Third Reading—Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders Suspension* [219], and passed.
Withdrawn—Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland)* [73]; County Officers (Ireland)* [174]; Land Transfer (Scotland)* [89]; Juries (re-comm.)* [230]; Contagious Diseases Prevention* [42]; Master and Servant (Wages) (re-comm.)* [149]; Metropolitan Police Superannuation* [207]; Fires (re-comm.)* [199]; Municipal Officers Superannuation (re-comm.)* [154].

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1870.—QUESTION.
MR. PIMasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is not the case that, under the provisions of "The Married Women's Property Act, 1870," if a woman possessing property and owing money should marry without having any settlement effected, she transfers her property to her husband, but neither her husband nor she herself, nor the property which she has conveyed to him, is liable for her debts; and, whether, if this be the case, he will without delay provide a remedy for such manifest injustice?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that under this Act if a woman possessed

1125
of property and owing money, and marrying without having any settlement effected, transferred her property to her husband, neither her husband nor herself, nor the property was liable for her debts, and added that that was not the only, nor the worst, result which might follow from the present state of the law. He could not, however, on the 15th of July, undertake to introduce a Bill dealing with the injustices under the Act, when it appeared to him that there were many others which ought to be dealt with at the same time.

IRELAND—MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL STUART KNOX,in putting a Question to the Secretary of State for War, said, he wished to explain that he had taken the words from the leading journal, and that it appeared to him that it was the regiment which was aggrieved and not the lieutenant colonel, he having previously addressed an incendiary letter to a meeting of Dublin roughs. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he has any objection to state to the House the substance of the Report made to him by Her Majesty's Lieutenant of the county of Leitrim, in which he has stated that he informed the Right honourable Gentleman that he was successful in preventing his men (the Westmeath Rifles) being mixed up in that disorderly proceeding, viz., the burning Judge Keogh in effigy; and, whether the conduct of the regiment was such as to render it unfair (as stated by his Lordship) to mix up his name with that of the regiment he had the honour on that occasion to command?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the Lord Lieutenant of Leitrim is also colonel of the Westmeath Rifles. In that latter capacity he has reported what passed on the occasion in question. It appears from that report that the conduct of the regiment was free from reproach, and this opinion is corroborated by the resident magistrate in a like report upon the subject.

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BACKHOUSEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he
  1126
  has any information of a considerable increase in the Foot and Mouth Disease among Cattle, and if it has assumed a more virulent form; and, whether any further measures can be taken to prevent its spread?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, his Department had no statistical information with regard to the increase of the foot and mouth disease. The reason why they had no such statistics was, that they found themselves at the beginning of this year compelled to give up obtaining returns of the exact state of the disease throughout the country, in consequence of the reports which they received from many local authorities, to the effect that they did not wish to incur the expense of making those returns, and that they did not consider them necessary. The information in the possession of the Department showed that the foot and month disease was prevalent at the present time; but he was not aware that it was more so than on one or two occasions during the last two or three years. It was, however, prevalent, and was in some districts more virulent than hitherto. In reply to the second Question, he had to say that the only measures which the Department could take to prevent its spread were to remind the local authorities, which had been done by Circular letter, of the power which they had under the Orders in Council to make regulations with respect to the movements of animals, and to secure the more effectual disinfection of the premises in which diseased animals had been. A Circular had been sent out calling the attention of the local authorities especially to those provisions, and although in the latter part of last year, the different counties throughout the country had the power of issuing those regulations only about 50 per cent of them made use of them. It really lay, therefore, with the various districts throughout the country to take steps to put a stop to the disease. Two or three years ago the Department tried to make the issue of those Orders compulsory, but the opposition which had been met with from many counties rendered it absolutely necessary to replace them by permissive Orders. He could only, in conclusion, express a hope that the powers which they possessed would be used by the different counties.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAMS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LEAasked the Postmaster General, If he is yet prepared to reduce the charge for telegrams to six pence; if not, when he expects to be able to do so?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that the reduction of the rate for telegrams would naturally cause a considerable increase of work. At the present moment, at the head office in Telegraph Street, there was not room for a single additional instrument, and the clerks were overcrowded as it was. He could not say how soon the new building would be complete, and under the circumstances he did not think the time had come when he could give any more definite answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman as to the practicability of reducing the charge.

ARMY—MILITIA REGIMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended during the present year to take steps to raise the second battalions of Militia regiments referred to in Schedule (G) of the War Office Committee on Organization; whether recruits are in future to be enlisted for particular regiments or for particular brigades; and, whether it is intended to assimilate the clothing of Militia regiments (except facings and lace) to that of the brigades to which they are to be attached?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, it is intended that, as soon as the Act is passed, immediate measures shall be taken to carry the recommendations into effect, and no time will be lost in making the arrangements for the second battalions. Power has already been taken in the Mutiny Act to enlist for the brigade in cavalry regiments. It is, therefore, the intention that enlistment shall be for the brigade. It is intended to review the whole question of clothing in connection with the new arrangements.

  ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—DEPOT CENTRE FOR HEREFORD.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any decision has been arrived at as to the Depôt Centre of the district in which the
  1128
  county of Hereford will be included; and, whether any inspection of the various sites proposed has been made; and, if not, whether a final decision on the subject may be postponed until the respective qualifications of the several cities and towns eligible for the purpose shall have been reported upon?
  MR. CARDWELL: The Committee have reported generally, and their preference is for Worcester. Reports are now about to be called for from officers of Royal Engineers upon the detailed arrangements of the scheme in each district, so as to enable the Committee to arrive at their final conclusion. Until these Reports shall have been revised and considered, no decision can be regarded as absolutely final.

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACFIEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any negotiations with Foreign Governments are now in progress on the subject of copyright; whether these negotiations extend beyond literary and artistic copyright, and, whether they are based on the principle of exclusive privileges?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, a negotiation is now in progress with the German Empire on the subject of copyright. The proposed Treaty will be merely a consolidation of the existing Conventions with Prussia, and will not in any respect go beyond the present law of this country on international copyright, but it will have the advantage of extending to the whole German Empire. Several Bills have been brought before the Congress of the United States for authorizing arrangements of international copyright, which have not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government; but none have been passed, and it cannot, therefore, be said that we are as yet in negotiation with the United States on the subject.

BIRMINGHAM SEWERAGE BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that under the 63rd section of the Birmingham Improvement Act, 1851, the Council of the borough of Birmingham is authorized, with the sanction of

  1129
  a meeting duly convened, to make application to Parliament for the purposes of any Act relating to that borough; whether such meeting was not held on February 16th, 1872, pursuant to the provisions of that section, which authorized the application to Parliament for the Birmingham Sewerage Bill of the present Session; and, whether under these circumstances any liability for the expenses of that application attaches to the promoters of that Bill individually, as stated by him in reply to the honourable Member for Sheffield on Monday, July 1st, and then adduced as a reason for the Government affording facilities for the passing of the Municipal Borough Funds Bill?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the answer which he had given on the 1st of the month to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) with respect to the Birmingham Sewerage Bill was founded on the general law, and that the Act of 1851 had not been brought under his notice. He might add that he thought the argument would remain intact, in favour of the Bill of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman), because the municipality having to rely on the Local Act, to prevent its members from being liable as individuals for the expenses of such application, it seemed clear that the general law was deficient. At the same time, though it was no part of his duty to give a legal opinion, he was not satisfied that the Act would operate in the manner indicated by the hon. Member.
  MR. LEEMANasked the honourable Member for South Leicestershire, with reference to his Question to the Right honourable the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, as but for the special Act referred to in such Question, the cost of the Birmingham Sewerage Bill must have fallen on the Council of that borough, and that the Select Committee has refused to hear further evidence, he will withdraw his Motion "to refer the Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Bill back to the Select Committee," and so aid in conferring the like powers and indemnities on all other towns, as he alleges are possessed by Birmingham?
  MR. PELLsaid, he thought the two Bills were hardly compatible; but if he could satisfy the artless curiosity of the hon. Member for York he would. He would only say that having regard to
  1130
  the circumstances he, (Mr. Pell) felt himself justified in continuing his present course of obstruction.

THE LATE TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SYNANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Postmaster General has forwarded to the Treasury a recommendation to commute the pensions of the servants and clerks of the late Telegraph Companies; and whether the Treasury proposes to act upon such recommendation?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, a recommendation to the effect mentioned had been received from the Postmaster General, and the Treasury intended to act on that recommendation at once.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1871—PICKETING.—QUESTION.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consequence of recent convictions under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871, Her Majesty's Government will bring in a Bill this Session to amend and define the Law, or afford facilities for the discussion of a measure having that object. He must beg the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while he took a course he was not in the habit of taking, and made some observations in reference to his Question, concluding with a Motion in order to put himself in Order. ["Oh, oh!"] He knew the inconvenience of that course; but the urgency of the matter to which he was about to allude induced him to adopt it, for the Question he put concerned a matter which interested a large number of persons who were not directly represented in that House. It referred to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of last year. It was a notorious fact that since the passing of that Act there had been more than one conviction under it, which had produced great discontent to the whole class of persons affected and great hardship to individuals. It had also been admitted that those convictions were not founded on a just interpretation of the law, and that differences of opinion existed as to whether it was the fault of the law or of those who misinterpreted it. Early in the present year the Home Secretary was reported to have stated to a body of his constitu-

1131
ents that he would be prepared to support any Amendment which tended to remove from the Act the ambiguity of expression which led to conflicting decisions, or to restore the Act to the form it had been promoted by the Government. That statement, proceeding from an individual responsible for the administration of the criminal law was important, and led to the expectation that the subject would be dealt with during the present Session, for to cast a doubt or suspicion on an existing law, without attempting to deal with that law, was a very inconvenient course of proceeding. He was justified in saying that the Act was difficult to interpret, because the last decision under it by a stipendiary magistrate had been admitted by the Home Secretary to be wrong. He had some right, therefore, to appeal to the Government to deal with the subject; and though he could not, without violating Order, allude to a Bill now before Parliament, he, nevertheless, could ask the Government to deal with the matter, or, at all events, allow a discussion upon it. He might be told that the Government had no time to devote to the subject; but the Government had found time for other questions of less importance, such as the Thames Embankment, the Galway Election Inquiry, and the manning of the Navy; and it would be unfortunate if the country should next winter be left under the operation of this Act of Parliament, especially after the manner in which it had been interpreted. It was most essential that in respect to the questions which had arisen between capital and labour, everybody should feel that the law was clear and capable of being understood by those who administered it, and, most of all, by the classes affected by such legislation. It was, therefore, desirable that the Government should give an opportunity for the discussion of the subject, for the people outside that House would be more satisfied with an adverse result than with no discussion at all, and he would venture to suggest that Parliament should not be prorogued until the impression which existed had been removed. He would conclude by moving the adjournment of the House.
MR. MELLYrose amid cries of "Order!" to second the Motion, and immediately afterwards resumed his seat, when
MR. GLADSTONEthen rose, and said that he thought that the extension of the privilege of making speeches on Motions of Adjournment would be very inconvenient, and the practice of speaking upon seconding such Motions would be entirely novel.
MR. MELLYsaid, that he had intended to ask a Question.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would be most happy to answer the Question at another time. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) had greatly extended the privilege allowed upon Motions of this kind, for he had a Bill before the House standing for Wednesday next, and he now, without previous Notice, moved the Adjournment of the House, in order to raise a discussion on the question whether the Government would take up the subject themselves, or give some extraordinary facilities for a discussion on it. Now, he must say that if Motions of Adjournment were to be made in relation to Questions standing on the Notice Paper, the House must be prepared for an increase of whatever inconvenience attended the practice of moving Adjournments of the House without Notice. He was aware of the strong and patriotic motive which influenced his hon. and learned Friend; but there were multitudes of hon. Members under the influence of equally strong and patriotic motives, and it was only fair to admit that these Motions of Adjournment were always made under the influence of the strongest and most patriotic motives. Being perfectly aware of the importance and difficulty of the subject referred to by his hon. and learned Friend, he was sorry to say that the Government were not prepared to bring in a Bill that Session for the purpose of amending and defining the Criminal Law Amendment Act, or to set aside other urgent Public Business in order to allow of a discussion upon the subject of that measure. The difficulty of time was not the only difficulty in the way. Although there was much truth in what his hon. and learned Friend had said as to the inconvenience which had arisen from the want of a more perfect agreement as to the purpose and effect of the law, and the character of the sentences and decisions which had been given, it must be recollected that that was by no means the whole case. The attention of the Home Secretary had

1133
been called to about a hundred decisions which had been given under the Act, and of these were only three or four to which objection had been taken. His hon. and learned Friend had said that these decisions had not been founded on a just interpretation of the law. If so, it would remain for inquiry how far these questions had been carried to issue by appeals, and what was the result of those appeals. He must remind his hon. and learned Friend that the Government introduced their Bill with a clause against "picketing," which was made more stringent by the House of Lords. On the return of the Bill to the Commons the Government tried to restore the Bill to its original state; but the House overruled the decision of the Government, and maintained the Lords' Amendment. That showed the division of opinion in Parliament on this question; and, as the Act was only passed in 1871, the Government had not the least hope, if they were to introduce a Bill on the subject, that they would, after so limited an experience, be able to induce Parliament to reverse the decision already come to. On that ground he was reluctantly obliged to answer the Question in the negative.
MR. NEWDEGATEconsidered that this subject deserved an early discussion. It was notorious that the regulations which decided the course of Business were now such that it was utterly in vain for any unofficial Member to attempt to force a Bill through the House. The Government, as representing the Crown, had the whole initiative of legislation, and Parliament would soon have only a veto. He could not see how private Members could perform their duty without sometimes straining the usual order of proceeding before the regular Business of the day commenced, and he therefore thought the hon. and learned Member for Oxford was quite right in the course he had taken.
MR. AUBERON HERBERTwas afraid the course pursued by the Government in this matter would lead in winter to a very bitter agitation. There was no doubt that the trade unionists felt very strongly on this subject, and that they would feel exceedingly indignant if no consideration was given to the Bill after so strong a case had been made out on their behalf. He hoped that the Government would, at all events, afford
1134
an opportunity for discussion, for he thought that even an adverse decision would tend to remove the impression which existed, as showing that the matter had at least been considered.

BIRMINGHAM SEWERAGE BILL.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he believed the Motion which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) was somewhat irregular; but, as it had been made, he was quite in Order in addressing the House. He wished, therefore, to ask a Question relative to what had fallen from the President of the Local Government Board. He understood him to say that he adhered to the statement he made the other evening, and that the promoters of the Birmingham Sewerage Bill were individually responsible for the expenses occasioned by the promotion of that Bill. He should rejoice if they were held personally responsible, and he hoped sincerely the ratepayers of Birmingham would hold them so. He had been made personally responsible to a very large amount for expenses incurred in opposition to that Bill, and it was only fair that the promoters should also be held personally responsible. The question he wished to ask was, Whether he understood rightly that the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the statement he made the other night, that in his opinion the Act of 1851, called the Birmingham Improvement Act, under Clause 63, did not free the promoters of the Birmingham Sewerage Bill from individual liability in its promotion?
MR. MUNDELLAreminded the House that the statement of the President of the Local Government Board was made in reply to his (Mr. Mundella's) Question as to whether the whole funds and property of the Corporation of Birmingham was not liable to sequestration in consequence of the decision of that House, and since then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) had given notice of an application to the Court of Chancery with that view. The other Question was, whether individual members of the Corporation were personally liable for the expenses of the promotion of a Bill which was rejected by a very small majority—and, as he thought, illegally, because he believed

1135
it was a Rule of the House that hon. Members should not vote upon questions in which they were personally interested.
SIR ROBERT PEELobserved that neither he nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire had voted on the occasion referred to.
MR. MUNDELLAadded that they both "told," which was equivalent to voting. In answer to a case which he (Mr. Mundella) had submitted to him as to the question of the individual liability of members of the Corporation, the Parliamentary agent of the Sheffield Corporation gave it distinctly as his opinion that the clause referred to did not override the Municipal Corporations Act, and that the parties were personally liable. Therefore, Birmingham was in precisely in the same position as Sheffield, Edinburgh, and several other large towns.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, the right hon. Baronet had misunderstood the answers which he (Mr. Stansfeld) had given on a former occasion. He had expressed no legal opinion on the subject. When the hon. Member for Sheffield put the Question, he understood it to have reference to the Bill of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman). The Question was, whether he (Mr. Stansfeld) could deny that it was the law that individual members were personally responsible? His answer was, that he was not able to deny the statement of the law as laid down, and that it was the opinion of the Government that the Bill of the hon. Member for York was a reasonable one. He had been asked by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) if the members of the Town Council of Birmingham were individually liable for the expenses of the proceedings which they had taken, and in reply he stated that he could express no opinion on the subject. What he stated in the first instance was, that his former answer was based on the general law; and he did not doubt that under the general law, when applications were made to Parliament by municipal corporations, and they did not succeed, they would have to meet the expenditure as best they could, and therefore a clause was inserted in private Bills to cover the expenses. With respect to the Birmingham case, the Town Council were either authorized by the Improvement Act of 1851 to pay
1136
the expenditure, or were not authorized. If they were not authorized, the case remained with which the Bill of the hon. Member for York proposed to deal. If they were authorized, the case still remained, because it could not be a right state of the law that it should depend on the accident of a clause in a local Act whether the members of a town council should be protected from individual liability in such cases.
MR. BOUVERIErose to address the House, but the Speaker interposed.
MR. SPEAKER: It is right, before any farther discussion takes place, to point out to the House, very respectfully, the irregularity of these proceedings. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) moved the Adjournment of the House, and under cover of that Motion called on the Government to state the course the Government are prepared to take with respect to a Bill which this House has set down for consideration on Wednesday next. Since that we have had under cover of the same Motion a discussion on a Bill which this House has determined shall be read a third time three months hence. Not only that, but we are now adverting to Questions which have been put and answered in this House, and it is irregular to advert to them, as, in doing so, we are referring to past debates of the current Session.
MR. VERNON HARCOURTbegged to state that he had made no reference to his own Bill. He had only asked the Government whether they would not bring forward a Bill of their own to meet the case.
MR. J. LOWTHERrose on a point of Order. He wished to know if, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), any hon. Member could not speak on a question in which he was personally interested? He must say that the hon. Member had laid down a very wide proposition. It would have prevented any hon. and gallant Member from voting against such questions as the abolition of Purchase, or the introduction of the Commune into the country.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire were both entitled to vote upon the Birmingham Sewerage Bill, as they had no such

1137
pecuniary interests adverse to the Bill as would disqualify them from voting against it. It appeared to him that their pecuniary interests were rather in favour of the Bill passing into law than otherwise.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. V. Harcourt) was guilty of an irregularity in seizing the opportunity of asking a Question he had put on the Paper, to make a Motion for an Adjournment and a speech on the subject of the Question, as to which he had given a Notice of Motion—an irregularity which, if permitted to become a precedent, must have a most mischievous effect on the order of their proceedings.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NAVY—H.M.S. "EUPHRATES."

  QUESTION.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether instructions were not given that Her Majesty's ship "Euphrates," steam transport, was to have 400 tons of coal on board on her arrival at Portsmouth at the conclusion of her experimental voyage with invalids from Bombay to England round the Cape of Good Hope; whether, in order to comply with these instructions, the vessel had to take in coal at St. Vincent at a very high price; whether it is the case that deaths occurred on board at the rate of one in every two days during the voyage; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table full particulars as to this experimental voyage, including any instructions as to coal?
  MR. GOSCHENconfessed that he could see no connection between the two parts of the Question. The Euphrates went round the Cape as an experiment at the wish of the Government of India, who thought it would be for the advantage of the invalids that they should proceed round the Cape. With regard to the amount of coal, the captain was ordered to take in sufficient coal to enable him to keep 400 tons in store, so that in case of heavy weather the ship might at no time be too light, and those were the instructions which were usually given to these large troop-ships. The vessel, however, arrived with only 300 tons, instead of 400 as stated. The Euphrates brought home 664 invalids, and about 200 other passengers, and among the
  1138
  invalids there were 33 deaths, many of the invalids having gone on board in a very advanced state of disease.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE TICHBORNE PROSECUTION.—QUESTION.
  MR. EYKYNasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is able to state that Her Majesty's Government intend to carry to trial the indictments found by the grand jury at the Old Bailey against the claimant to the Tichborne estates?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALexplained that, although as the organ of the Government, it had been necessary that he should take certain formal steps in the matter, he had not the conduct of, and he did not interfere with the prosecution, which was in the hands of Mr. Hawkins. It had become a Home Office prosecution; and, as far as he knew and believed, the Home Secretary and the Solicitor to the Treasury did not intend to desist from the prosecution.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN: I wish, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, What arrangements the Government are prepared to make with respect to Business for the remainder of the Session? Since I gave Notice of that Question I have gone carefully through the Order Book, and I find there are now standing upon it ninety-eight Orders, in addition to Committee of Supply, which, I believe, will occupy at least four days. I believe the Government are also pledged to find other days; one for the discussion of the Keogh Judgment, and another for the Indian Budget. Under these circumstances, I think it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should make up their minds how they will dispose of that portion of the Business which belongs to the Government, and which, of course, comprises a large proportion of that standing on the Order Book?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot possibly find fault with the right hon. Gentleman for putting the Question. The period of the Session has certainly arrived when, if it be possible, we should endeavour to clear the Order Book of the House with respect to outstanding Business, so as to

  1139
  enable us to form practical views and expectations, with reference to a tolerably early termination of the Session. My right hon. Friend says there are 98 Orders of the Day relating to Bills, besides Committee of Supply, and I presume that of those 98 one-half are the Bills of private Members. [Colonel WILSON-PATTEN: More than one-half.] Well, I wish to be on the safe side; and taking it that half are the Bills of private Members, I would say with regard to the moiety for which the Government is responsible—I need not say with respect to a number of them—as always happens towards the close of a Session, that though they stand upon the list and take up as much room there as others, many of them are for objects comparatively minute, about which there is no difference of opinion, and they may be expected to pass without making any sensible demand on the time of the House. I shall confine myself to those which are of a more serious character. We are at the present moment prepared to announce our intention of giving up, with a good deal of reluctance, those which stand on the Orders for to-day as Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. There they are, arranged like a body of criminals ordered for military execution. They are the Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland) Bill; the County Officers (Ireland) Bill; the Land Transfer (Scotland) Bill—a Bill of great importance, which we are reluctant to part with; the Juries (England) Bill; the Contagious Diseases Prevention Bill, which involves a great difficulty, with which it would be quite hopeless to go forward at this period of the Session; the Master and Servants Wages Bill, and the Metropolitan Police Superannuation Bill. The Bills with which we are anxious to go forward, and which I think are of a more or less serious character, I had better also mention in a group. I do not any longer speak of the two Mines Bills; I consider them substantially disposed of. There are the Public Health Bill, the Licensing Bill, and the Corrupt Practices Bill, with regard to which we have stated we shall endeavour to find an opportunity of submitting our own proposals to the judgment of the House by moving the Speaker out of the Chair; though, undoubtedly, we do not think we ought to take upon ourselves to ask the House to go through the long list of Amendments
  1140
  to the Corrupt Practices Bill, which immensely extend the field, unless it be the desire of the House, in which case we shall be found ready to obey. There is the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, in the hands of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which will not be likely to lead to any lengthened discussion, although it will require some, and which we shall endeavour to improve with a view of carrying it. There may be the Inclosure Bill, which, if it should reach this House, we should desire for practical reasons to go forward with. There is the Thames Embankment Bill, in regard to which we have to thank the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) for having made an arrangement for the discussion of it on Monday evening at a reasonable hour after Committee of Supply, and the ground of discussion I hope will be much narrowed. There is the Merchant Shipping Bill, with which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is desirous of going forward; and, lastly, there is the Education Act Amendment Bill, which it is absolutely necessary to bring under discussion, and with regard to which we certainly hope it will pass without much discussion. Apart from Bills, as my right hon. Friend stated, there is the question relating to the Galway Election, in regard to which we are pledged to find a day for its discussion. I take this opportunity of stating that, looking to the condition of Business, I do not think it would be possible to find a night until the week after the 25th of July. I expressed a hope it might be on that day; but now, having reference to the state of Public Business, I hardly see how we could get it on earlier than the week—probably it would be an early day of the week—after the 25th of July. My right hon. Friend has truly stated that there will also be several days absolutely required for closing Committee of Supply. We are now upon the 15th of July. We have heard to-day another repetition of the complaint that private Members find so much difficulty in bringing forward and carrying through the House measures in which they feel an interest. I can assure the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that official Members feel very much the same difficulty. The question is really one for the judgment of the House; but I am bound to say the Bills I have

  1141
  enumerated will occupy, conjointly with Supply, so much time that I cannot look forward to any early termination of the Session—I may, perhaps, say any reasonably early termination of the Session—unless we are enabled to obtain a greater command of time than that which we already possess. I see the hon. Member for North Warwickshire looks aghast at that declaration. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Not at all.] We now stand in this position—I do not believe the competition of private Members as to Bills is real; the Bills of private Members have for the most part reached that stage when they have no longer nothing either to hope or fear. That being so, I take it they will be inclined to remove them from the Order Book, in cases where they have no reasonable expectation of passing them into law. In any case, I beg distinctly to point out, if we are at all right in thinking that all, or nearly all, the eight measures to which I have last referred, after the seven others have been given up, ought to be persevered with, and the judgment of the House definitely taken upon them, it will not be easy to accomplish that unless we are enabled to obtain not during the present week, but after it, some further command of the time at the disposal of the House.
  MR. DISRAELI: In continuance of the inquiries with regard to the course of Public Business, I must express my opinion that the highest interests of the country require that an early opportunity should be given by the Government to the House to express its opinion upon the decision of Mr. Justice Keogh. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, whether he thinks the statement he has made consistent with the expectation he held out upon that subject a day or two ago. On that occasion, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that upon a certain day—next Thursday week—he would take an opportunity of expressing to the House the opinion of the Government whether they thought it desirable on their part to ask the opinion of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the House is now in possession of the evidence, and he has stated that as soon as it was in that position, he would afford the earliest day for a discussion upon the subject. If, therefore, as I understand what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman to-
  1142
  night, he is not prepared to state that the Government are intending to ask the opinion of the House, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give a day to any hon. Member who would be prepared to come forward and solicit the opinion of Parliament upon that subject. I must express an opinion, which is not, I believe, confined to myself, but is held by the country generally, that the highest interests of the country demand that there shall be no delay in Parliament expressing its opinion upon that subject.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is really no change in the substance of the announcement I have made to the House, because the announcement I had made was, that we should be prepared to name the earliest day in our power after we had gone through the Public Health Bill and the Licensing Bill, and, upon being asked what day, I stated I hoped it might be by the 25th of July. We have no hope now—or very little hope indeed—that we shall have gone through the Public Health Bill and the Licensing Bill before the 25th of July, and it was on that account I stated I did not think it would be possible for us to find a day before the following week for the discussion. We thought it extremely desirable—especially with a view to the House of Lords, that we should dispose as quickly as possible of Bills of such magnitude and importance. It was for that reason we thought it better that the discussion should stand over, and it was certainly not from any disposition of our own to postpone it, but rather from a wish to consult the general convenience of the House, and we have no disposition at all to interfere with that convenience. It is entirely a matter for the consideration of the House, and if we have reason to believe that the House is of opinion that it is better to postpone the progress of the important measures I have mentioned in order that we may discuss the Galway Election, we shall have no objection to give the early opportunity for discussing it which we have already proposed to give.
  MR. BAGWELLasked, whether the Government intended at that period of the Session to press forward so important a measure as the Prisons (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was not a Government Bill, and he was not, there-

  1143
  fore, in a position to say what would be done with it.
  MR. BOUVERIE: An hon. and learned Member has placed on the Notice Paper a Motion for an Address to the Crown to remove one of the Judges of the land from the position he occupies; or, at all events, a Motion strongly impugning his conduct. Such a Motion, relating, as it does, to the administration of justice, is one of grave importance. If these imputations thus made upon the character of one of Her Majesty's Judges are deserved, some action should at once be taken with respect to them; if undeserved, they ought not to be allowed to rest upon the head of a learned Judge. I cannot help thinking it would be the wish of the House that an early opportunity should be afforded for the consideration of the question. The right hon. Gentleman said he was willing to meet that wish if it existed; but how is the House to express its wish? The House has no means of bringing forward a Motion to that effect.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not entirely agree with what has just fallen from my right hon. Friend, because in speaking on this subject before, I said we would not pledge ourselves to give any particular facilities to the particular Motion to which he has referred, but that we would give an opportunity for the general discussion of the subject. However, I do not wish to wait for any formal declaration of the wish of the House—the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) is an important element in informing us of what is the desire of the House, and the fact that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) concurs in that declaration assists in showing us what is the feeling of the House. If that be the general feeling of the House we will fix now the 25th July for the discussion. Let it be so settled, although we do not think that is the most convenient course, having regard to the progress of legislation.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell), stated that the Prisons (Ireland) Bill had come down from the House of Lords, and he did not think its discussion would take a very long time.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, there was no possible chance of the Irish Members agreeing upon that Bill, against which
  1144
  there was an universal outcry. The noble Lord would do well to satisfy himself upon the point, and formally abandon the Bill.
  MR. VANCEwished to know what would be done with the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Bill had passed the House of Lords, where it had been considered by a Select Committee. He hoped both that and the Debtors (Ireland) Bill would be read a second time that night, and would become law during the present Session.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had intimated that he was about to propose a further restriction upon the time allowed to non-official Members. He wished, therefore, to know whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to give Notice of such a Motion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to place the question fairly before the House. The question is between a longer Session with no more time given to Government Bills, and a shorter Session with more time given to Government Bills. It is for the House to make its election. Under the circumstances, I should have thought private Members would, almost with enthusiasm, have supplied the time which is necessary for an expeditious conclusion of our proceedings. I should be sorry to overbear in any way the wishes of private Members, and I shall not give any Notice of the kind indicated by the hon. Member, unless in accordance with the general feeling of the House. If such an arrangement meets the general feeling of the House, I shall make a proposal on the subject at the end of the week.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONasked if the Vice President of the Council could fix a day for taking the Education Vote and for the Vote for the Science and Art Department?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should take the Education Vote at a Morning Sitting on Friday next, and probably he would be able to take the Science and Art Vote on the same day.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXwished to know what would be done with the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONhoped the Government would be able to deal with that measure. It was not opposed by anyone.
  MR. WHALLEYasked what was the intention of the Government with regard to the Prison Ministers Bill?
  MR. BRUCE: The Bill is not in charge of the Government, and, therefore, I am unable to answer the question.

IRELAND—THE IRISH PRESS AND MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. O'NEILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has issued instructions for the prosecution of any of the newspapers in that country for the publication of inflammatory articles inciting the people against Mr. Justice Keogh?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland that one Irish newspaper has received a warning from the Government, in the terms of the law, with respect to certain language used in the case of Mr. Justice Keogh and the Galway Election, and the other cases are still under the consideration of the legal Advisers of the Crown.
  LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONasked what newspaper had received the warning in question?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE): The Tuam News.

INTERCOLONIAL TARIFFS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. J. SMYTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If there does not exist a disagreement between Her Majesty's Government and the several Governments and Legislatures of Australasia; if the matters in dispute do not press for immediate decision; and, if it be not desirable that there should be a discussion in this House of the important questions raised by the Correspondence with the Australian Colonies with reference to proposals for Inter-Colonial Tariff arrangements?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there had been a correspondence with certain Governments in Australia upon the subjects of intercolonial tariffs; but it would be wrong to say that any disagreement had arisen, until the correspondence was
  1146
  closed and the parties remained at issue. That state of things did not exist, and therefore there was no disagreement, though it was true that at the present moment, the Governments of Australia and the Home Government did not regard the question from the same point of view. The matters under discussion, however, were by no means of such a character as to call for immediate discussion here. If that were the beginning of the Session, and sufficient time were at the disposal of the House, no objection would be raised on the part of the Government to the subject being discussed; but as matters now stood, they were not aware of any reason why other Business should be postponed in order to bring on a discussion, upon the question which was not yet in a state of entire ripeness for the consideration of Parliament.

  TREATY ARRANGEMENTS WITH TURKEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'LAGANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been drawn to the Circular issued by the Government of the Viceroy, addressed to Agents and Consuls General in Egypt, dated Cairo, 7th October 1871, prohibiting the exportation of bones; and, if he is aware of this Circular, to ask, whether such a prohibition is in contravention of the Treaty between this country and Turkey of the 29th April, 1861?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, this matter has been brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and has been considered in communication with the Law Advisers of the Crown. The Treaty of 1861 permits the prohibition of the exportation of any article from the Ottoman Dominions, provided such prohibition is general—that is, extends to all foreign countries alike. Such is the case in the present instance, and, therefore, this act of the Egyptian Government is not in contravention of the Treaty of 1861.

NAVY—H.M.S. "ZEALOUS."—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to the condition of Her Majesty's ship "Zealous" by a recent Survey and Report; and, whether it is intended that that ship is to receive con-

1147
siderable repairs at Valparaiso to enable her to make the voyage home?
MR. GOSCHENreplied, that the Admiralty had received a Report with regard to the condition of Her Majesty's ship Zealous from the responsible officer of the ship, and likewise a statement as to the repairs which the Admiral was taking in hand in order to meet the case. Those repairs had not been made at Valparaiso, but the vessel had proceeded to Callao, where the Admiral thought there would be a better opportunity of dealing with the repairs. He had received two letters from the Admiral, extracts from, which he would read to the House. In the first, the Admiral said he should be able to make the ship quite safe for the voyage home, as that was the best time of the year for passing the Straits; and in the second, he stated he did not apprehend the least risk in the vessel going through the Straits. All the measures which had been taken were approved by the Admiralty.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH ESTABLISHMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, when the decision of the Treasury with regard to the Telegraph Establishment has been arrived at, he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence between the Post Office and the Treasury on the subject, including the voluminous Report to which he recently referred?
MR. BAXTERstated that the correspondence between the Post Office and the Treasury with regard to the Telegraph Establishment was quite confidential, and that, therefore, it was not intended to lay it upon the Table of the House.

LEGACY AND SUCCESSION DUTY DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Legacy and Succession Duty Department, which has been classed in the first rank of offices under the control of the Board of Inland Revenue, is paid not only much less than other offices of that rank, such as those of Solicitor and Secretary, but also much less than offices of as a lower rank, such as those of Accountant and Storekeeper; and, whether the Treasury have refused to increase
1148
the scale of pay for the first-mentioned office, although an increase was recently recommended by the Board as a matter of "bare justice;" and, if so, whether he will state to the House the grounds for such refusal, and also in what particular he considers the duties of the office in question inferior to those of the other offices in the Inland Revenue to which reference has been made?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the clerks in the Legacy and Succession Duty department, which had been classed in the first rank of offices under the control of the Board of Inland Revenue, were paid less than the clerks in other departments of that rank, and the Treasury had refused to increase the scale of pay for the first-mentioned office, mainly on the ground that no good reason had been adduced for such an increase. It was urged that the work of the office had increased; but that, though a valid reason for increasing the number of clerks, was no reason for augmenting the salaries of those already engaged. Secondly, it was said that the receipts of the office had largely increased; but that, again, was no reason whatever for raising the salaries, unless it were admitted that Government clerks ought to be paid on the principle of percentages. Indeed, if that principle were admitted, it would follow that if the receipts diminished the salaries should be reduced—a principle which the clerks would probably be loth to admit. As to the disparity between the pay of that and of other offices, it had not been understood that it was the duty of the Government to adapt the pay of one office to that of others. To do so would lead to endless discussions and heartburnings; and, indeed, he saw no more reason for raising the salaries of that office to the height of others than to lower others to their level. The question, moreover, was investigated in 1866, and everything then asked for was granted to the office. That application was renewed in 1871; but no fresh reasons for increasing the pay were advanced, and therefore he did not think it necessary to increase it.

IRELAND—CASE OF THE REV. PATRICK WALSH.—QUESTION.
MR. VANCEasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he has any in-

1149
formation that on Sunday the 30th of June a letter was read from the altar of the Roman Catholic Parochial Church of Castlebar, from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, prohibiting the Rev. Patrick Walsh from all sacerdotal functions within his diocese; and if he is the same Mr. Walsh who, in his evidence on behalf of the Petitioner, before Mr. Justice Keogh, stated that he was credibly informed he would be suspended for having refused to support the candidature of Captain Nolan; and, if any steps can be taken to protect Mr. Walsh under these circumstances?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. DOWSE)said, that when he first saw his hon. Friend's Question on the Notice Paper he ordered inquiries on the subject to be instituted in Ireland, and he had obtained some information which he would communicate to the House. The statement made by his hon. Friend as to the Rev. Patrick Walsh was not exactly correct, for on referring to the evidence given at the Galway Election Inquiry, he found that the gentleman in question said he did not expect he should be suspended, although a brother clergyman had told him that he would. He further said that he had been reported or misrepresented as having lampooned his Bishop in a letter, but that in reality he had done nothing of the kind, and he did not expect he should be suspended. Archbishop MacHale, on being examined, was asked whether he intended to suspend Mr. Walsh or not, and he replied—"I never entertained such an idea; I never even once thought of it." No official report had reached the authorities in Dublin with reference to the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Armagh; but he was informed that Mr. Walsh had written a letter to The Mayo Telegraph, which was re-published in that day's Freeman's Journal. He caused a telegram to be sent to Dubin asking what had appeared in the latter newspaper, and the answer he had received was as follows:—
"Mr. Walsh says that the statement that he had been visited by Dr. MacHale with ecclesiastical censure is false and malicious; that if he (Mr. Walsh) is about to leave the parish, it is of his own option and free will; and that if he should emigrate to America, he will only be following the example of thousands of his fellow-countrymen."

IRELAND—MR. JUSTICE KEOGH'S JUDGMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, am I correct in assuming that on Thursday, the 25th instant, it is the intention of the Government themselves to propose a Resolution in respect to the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh, or merely to give that day to the House in case they, after consideration, should wish to avail themselves of it?
MR. GLADSTONE: In regard to that subject I wait for my right hon. Friend's final report on his consideration of the evidence. I stated that we should do either one or the other—that we should either propose a Resolution ourselves, or give an opportunity to hon. Members of doing so. When my right hon. Friend has had a little more time—and it is only two or three days since the last portion of the evidence came—I shall be able to inform the House of the course we shall propose to take.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £173,767, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873."
MR. G. BENTINCK, in rising to move, That the Vote be reduced by the sum of £4,500, the amount of the Salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty, said, he wished to explain that he brought forward the Motion, not as a personal attack upon the right hon. Gentleman who held that position, but because he had been assured by the highest autho-thorities in the House that it was the only method by which he could, in accordance with the forms of the House, raise the question as to the advisability or otherwise of appointing civilians to the head of a Department concerning which they could not by any possibility know anything. In adopting that course, therefore, he disclaimed all idea of making any personal attack; he was attacking a system, and not individuals. So far, indeed, from desiring to say anything disparaging to the right hon. Gentleman at present at the head of the Admiralty or to his predecessors, his only regret was that men with so much

1151
energy and ability should be appointed to an office where their undoubted talents must necessarily be nullified, owing to their absence of experience on the subjects with which they had to deal. The present arrangement had existed so long, and was regarded so much as a matter of course, that he felt that any attempt on his part to induce the Committee seriously to entertain the point he had raised would be attended with extreme difficulty. Still, he would remind the Committee that a more important subject could not be submitted to their consideration, and the question at issue was, whether we were now under the best system for the government of the Navy of this country? He ventured to think that throughout the period during which the British Navy had existed—and especially within recent times, many cases had occurred which tended to show that there was a great defect in the management of our Navy which it was the duty of that House to remedy. No parallel could be found in any country in the world to the system upon which our Board of Admiralty was constituted, and he was convinced that when it should be abolished, men would marvel how such an absurdity could have been allowed. In 1855, during a discussion on the subject in "another place," Lord Malmesbury expressed an opinon unfavourable to the present system at the Amiralty, and deprecated its extension to the War Office. The practice in private shipbuilding yards was to seek out men who thoroughly understood the business, and to this circumstance was to be attributed the great success attending the operations of those yards. One cause of the enormous expenditure in connection with the Government Dockyards was the impossibility of any man at the head of affairs, whatever his talents might be, dealing with a subject with which he was not fully conversant. There were some civilians who were competent to discharge the duties of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but those were the managers of private yards; and as they could not be induced to relinquish their engagements in order to accept that office, the present system must be continued, or a sailor must be placed at the head of the Admiralty. Under the prevailing arrangement economy was impracticable, and there was often even
1152
great waste of life, though he would not now allude to the fate of the Captain, which had been mentioned so frequently. Take the case of the Megæra. If there had been a sailor at the head of the Admiralty, such a loss would never have occurred, for such a man would have deemed it to be a part of his duty to see the vessel properly surveyed; but while a landsman was at the head of the Admiralty, he naturally took the report of those about him. Thus, such a person had responsibility without knowledge. Then, as to the question of the expenditure of coals. He contended that the system which had been carried out of tying down captains of Her Majesty's ships to a small expenditure of coal was a system which would never have occurred to the mind of a sailor. The First Lord of the Admiralty was induced to adopt the system, with the best possible intentions; but the plan had led to loss of life and to the expenditure of money, for many of the greatest recent disasters in the Navy had arisen from the ill-ordered attempt to economize coal. If the First Lord of the Admiralty were a landsman, he could not properly understand this question. There was another mischief which arose from the same cause, and that was the dissatisfaction produced in the naval service from such a proceeding. Notwithstanding all the abilities of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) in other respects—and he must repeat that he was not attacking the right hon. Gentleman personally, but the system which he administered—a landsman could not administer the Department for the benefit of the country. He complained also that the Channel Squadron never had a moment's rest, because they got 500 telegrams a-day. [Laughter.] He was not speaking at random, because he had seen these telegrams. These might do no harm, but he was sure that they were unnecessary. There were statements to the effect that the Board of Admiralty was nothing but a hot-bed of confusion. It might be said that sailors could not administer the Department better—he was sure that they could not manage it worse. The report of the Megæra Commission showed that the business of the Admiralty was not carried on satisfactorily. Did not they show that the authorities of the Admiralty, whom he would at once admit

1153
as civilians were men of undoubted talent and ability, were trying to discharge business which, they could not understand. They were also told that the system had lasted many years, and that it had worked well; but the system which had worked well in former days was not the system which was in vogue at the present time, for then the First Lord of the Admiralty was merely the representative of the Department in Parliament and the naval authorities carried on the business, but now the First Lord of the Admiralty took all the responsibility of the Department on himself. These were not his own opinions merely; they were the opinions of men well qualified to speak on the subject. The late Sir George Cockburn, a man of acknowledged ability, who had been 17 years Senior Lord of the Admiralty, and during that time had acquired experience of the best means of conducting the affairs of the Navy, had written a pamphlet on the subject which he (Mr. Bentinck) accidentally became possessed of. He was informed that the pamphlet had been written by Sir George Cockburn with the view of leaving it as a legacy to his country. What did Sir George Cockburn say of the system in existence in his day, a system which differed from that of the present day, and which he condemned? He said—
"I have no hesitation in stating I consider the present system of that Board to be the most unsatisfactory and the least efficient for its purpose that could have been devised."
He went on to say—
"Secondly, as regards the proceedings of the Board when united for general business, I must premise that nothing can well be more contrary to reason, and I may say to common sense, than for a person to be selected to preside at such professional Board who is totally unable, and admits his inability, to understand three-fourths of the professional statements or even expressions contained in the various documents read on such occasions to the Board, and which, therefore, the professional members of the Board become obliged to occupy time in explaining and endeavouring to make him comprehend, which, nevertheless, cannot always be sufficiently done."
Sir George Cockburn proceeded thus—
"I experienced great difficulty and obstruction in carrying forward those objects which appeared to me essentially required and called for, and some of which I was obliged to abandon from the opposition of one or other of such disjointed ruling body; and such opposition in some instances sprung from parties having no real know-
1154
ledge of the professional matters under consideration, but objecting to them in consequence of something that might have been said to them by some irresponsible person."
But Sir George did not leave the matter there, but went on to suggest a remedy. He suggested that the Admiralty Board should be abolished, and that the management of the Navy should be transferred to a flag officer as Naval Commander-in-Chief, to be assisted by two naval officers, Vice or Rear Admirals, and that a leading Member of Parliament should be appointed by the Government—to be in the Cabinet or not as they might think best—who might be described as Controller, to be in constant and cordial co-operation with the Naval Commander-in-Chief, the said civilian Controller to be charged with submitting the yearly Estimates to the House of Commons, and answering all the questions relating to them. Thus what was said to be the great difficulty was at once disposed of—namely, having the Admiralty represented in Parliament. Sir George Cockburn held that the best system would be of no use as long as it was liable to be upset by frequent changes of Government. As to the objection to placing a naval officer at the head of the service because he was likely to show undue favour to those of the profession that had served with him, Sir George said he saw no more reason why this should be the case in the Navy than it was in the Army. He thought he had shown the Committee that he was not asking them to adopt any crotchets of his own. He had quoted what he might fairly call the highest authority on this subject—Sir George Cockburn, who for several years filled the office of First Naval Lord of the Admiralty. The faults and mismanagement of the present system were obvious, and the only argument he had ever heard urged in favour of it was that it was too good a thing to give up—it was one of the best plums in the pie, and no Minister would willingly give up such a valuable piece of patronage. That, they were told, was the real difficulty in dealing with the question. It would be well, therefore, if a Minister were to show that such a charge was not well founded, and that he was prepared to deal with the question solely on its own merits. He asked the Government if they were prepared to assert that the present system had worked well, and that it had not

1155
shown the grossest and most grievous errors; and further, if they were prepared to state any ground on which the practice which applied in other Departments of the Government, or any undertaking in private life, would be a monstrous and practical absurdity in the particular case of the Board of Admiralty? The hon. Member concluded with moving the reduction of which he had given Notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £169,267, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873."—(Mr. Bentinck.)
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I will endeavour to give an answer to the questions which the hon. Gentleman has very fairly put at the conclusion of his speech. The first condition of our refusing his Motion is, we are told, that we should be prepared to defend all that has occurred at the Admiralty for a good many years past. Now, I at once own that I am not prepared to defend all that has been done in the administration of the Admiralty for a good many years; neither am I prepared to defend all that has occurred in the administration of any other Department of the State. What the hon. Gentleman has got to show—and what I think he has hardly attempted to show, and entirely failed to show—is that the administration of the Admiralty is attended with a greater number of grievous errors and miscarriages than the administration of any other Department of the State. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has borne out that proposition. Neither has the hon. Gentleman, although he has quoted the opinion of Sir George Cockburn, in the slightest degree shown, so far as I can gather from his speech, that it is the desire of the Navy that the change which he recommends should take place. I do not mean to say that if it were the desire of the Navy such a fact would be a sufficient reason for the change, but it would at least be an element in the case; but no proof has been given by the hon. Gentleman that such a desire exists. The second question he has put to us is, whether we are able to show any precedent analogous to the case of the administration of the British Navy? Now, it is material to observe that the hon.
1156
Gentleman, who always acts with fairness, attempts to charge us with sophistry; and I, with Christian principle, retort with acknowledging his truth and fairness; but what the hon. Gentleman finds fault with is the established administration of the British Navy. It is not a rule of yesterday that he is attacking, but the established rule—a rule upon which, with certain very rare exceptions, the British Navy has been administered from the time of Queen Elizabeth until now; and I believe Sir James Graham stated to the Committee on the Admiralty that perhaps the most conspicuous defects which ever occurred in the administration of the Navy occurred during the administration of Earl St. Vincent, when he (Mr. G. Bentinck) must admit that a sailor was at the head of the Department. The hon. Gentleman, I think, overstates his case if he contends that there is no precedent. Does he not admit that, substantially, the case of the British Army is the same? I am not sure whether he admits it or not. But how far does it differ? It is the same in this essential respect—that the supreme control and administration is not placed in the hands of a military man ex officio, but it is generally, I think, placed in the hands of a civilian. What is the difference, then, in the case of the Navy and that of the Army? The difference is, that in the case of the Navy a Naval Board, subordinate to the First Lord, takes charge of matters purely professional connected with discipline and patronage, and that in the case of the Army these matters are always referred to the Commander-in-Chief, but subject always to the responsibility of the Secretary of State—differing in respect to this—that in the one case there is a Board, and in the other a very high officer, under the control of the respective Ministers; but agreeing with respect to that upon which Parliament above all insists—that for everything done in the Army and everything done with respect to the Navy a political officer sitting in Parliament shall be responsible. Therefore, we have got thus far in the argument—that the case of the British Army as to every substantial point stands the same as the British Navy. But the hon. Gentleman says that it is not the case with other countries. Well, now, here he has overstated his case. I will take the case of Ame-

1157
rica. The American Navy has not usually been a large Navy, but it has usually been a very efficient Navy, and the Navy which, ship for ship, could best look the British Navy in the face in the conflicts of former years. Well, there I believe I am correct in stating that generally—certainly to a very great extent—the American Navy has been under the charge of a civilian. On the Continent, I admit that it is more common that the Army and Navy are under the charge of a man professing to belong to the particular profession. But there are many exceptions even there. At the present time, I believe, the German Admiralty is under the charge of a civilian officer, and in France there have been repeated cases in the Administration when the Minister of Marine has been a civilian. I believe M. Dupont was a civilian, and he was one of the most successful Ministers of Marine known in the organization of the French Navy. So that if the hon. Gentleman can accuse me of sophistry, I can accuse him of error; he has not got up his case with the accuracy required in recommending such an extensive change in the administration of the Navy. Now, the hon. Gentleman comes before us with a recommendation, on the authority of Sir George Cockburn; and I agree with him that Sir George Cockburn was a man whose name is always to be mentioned with respect in naval matters. What is the case with Sir George Cockburn? He made a recommendation to which I will presently refer. But let us look, first, at his personal authority. He enjoyed the confidence of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington. The Duke of Wellington did not adopt the plan of Sir George Cockburn, but had a civilian for his First Lord. When Sir Robert Peel was Prime Minister he did not adopt the plan of Sir George Cockburn, but had a civilian for his First Lord; and Sir George Cockburn was perfectly content himself to live under and form part of the opposite system; and down to his old age—I do not know the date of his recommendation—
MR. G. BENTINCK: 1855.
MR. GLADSTONE: I thought Sir George died before that year.
SIR JOHN HAYexplained that it was found among his papers, and published after his death by his executor.
MR. GLADSTONE: That is the more
1158
remarkable, because Sir George Cockburn ended his public career under Sir Robert Peel as a Lord of the Admiralty, and, therefore, Sir George Cockburn's opinion condemning the system cannot have been a very strong opinion. If Sir George Cockburn only came to that opinion after the dissolution of Sir Robert Peel's Government—I do not remember whether he survived that Government or not—but if he came to it when he was 80 years old, I am not sure that his opinion when he was 40 or 50 or 60 years of age is not quite as worthy of consideration as that which he entertained when he was 80. And what does Sir George Cockburn recommend? It is that there should be a professional man at the head of the Admiralty, and that within the Admiralty there should be a Cabinet Minister, who should be responsible for the finances, and for representing the Admiralty in Parliament. My great respect for Sir George Cockburn must not prevent me from saying that the plan when tried by whatever test we may choose to try it by, is hopelessly and obviously impracticable, entirely beyond the spirit of our Constitution, and diametrically opposed to the whole purpose which the House of Commons and Parliament have been pursuing for years in reference to the Military Department, where its great object has been to establish the responsibility of the man who sat in Parliament and answered any attack on the Department in the face of Parliament. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman really asks of us, in quoting the opinion of Sir George Cockburn, is to reverse the whole of that policy, and to establish the rule that the Navy shall be managed supremely by a man who is not in Parliament, who has nothing to do with it, but who is to have under him a Cabinet Minister who is to answer to Parliament. That method of proceeding is absolutely and hopelessly impossible. Well, then, let us consider whether there is any other method of procedure. The hon. Gentleman said that if there had not been a civilian First Lord we should never have had the case of the Megæra. In what way does the case of the Megæra bring home responsibility to the civilian First Lord? If any inference is to be drawn from it at all, it is a very different one from what is drawn by the hon. Gentleman. He complains also that the

1159
Admiralty censures the naval officers in relation to stinting in the consumption of coal, and this stinting in the consumption of coal is owing to our having a civilian First Lord. As far, however, as I am acquainted with the authorship of those rules, a noble Friend of mine (Lord Clarence Paget), who has been Secretary to the Admiralty, was the main agent in giving the greatest stringency to them. [Mr. G. BENTINCK: He was only Secretary.] But there is no proof that any civilian First Lord was the main agent in bringing about the stringent rules as to the consumption of coal; and any First Lord, if he is a man of sense, however desirous he may be of economizing in that or any other matter, will be prepared to abide by the judgment of naval men in such matters. Indeed, distinguished naval men concerned in the administration of the Navy, have had most to do with the rules for restraining the consumption of coal. I must demur to the statement that the Admiralty has thrown on naval officers the blame of disasters occasioned by restrictions imposed by the Department. There is no proof that it imposed the restrictions, and they have not thrown blame on naval officers. They have but followed the opinion of courts-martial consisting of naval officers, and if in any case they have dealt with a point on which they did not follow such an opinion, they have done so in a manner agreeable to what they believed to be the evident dictate of the best naval authority. Well, the hon. Gentleman says there must be a naval officer at the head of the Admiralty. Now, my first proposition in reply is, that he must be a Parliamentary officer—with that I cannot dispense. It forms part of our Parliamentary system. The hon. Gentleman thinks that because a man can command a ship well he is sure to be a good Lord of the Admiralty. But what are the duties of the First Lord of the Admiralty? It does not follow that because a man is a good officer he will be more competent to direct the patronage of the Navy, or the training and direction of the Navy, or the manning of it, or the governing of the scientific men who are concerned in the shipbuilding department of the Navy; it does not follow that he will be able to govern the large establishments of the dockyards, for which establishments he
1160
is responsible as the head of the Navy. Still less does it follow that he will be able, better than others, to discharge those extremely important duties of the First Lord of the Admiralty which are strictly political duties. The First Lord is directly responsible for the Estimates he proposes and the amount of force he asks. He must be supreme judge of the distribution of the force; but the distribution of the force is not a scientific question; it is a political question; and a naval captain is not necessarily the best man to determine how the naval force shall be distributed over the surface of the earth. All those questions in relation to the conduct both of the admirals and officers in command of the ships abroad in cases of emergency like those in the China seas, which require the nicest consideration, come home for the consideration of the First Lord of the Admiralty, in conjunction with the Government. Now, I admit at once that the whole which the hon. Gentleman can fairly ask is, that if you can find a man who is possessed of every other necessary qualification, and is also a naval officer, it is an additional advantage that he is so. But you must keep in view that the field of choice is very limited. The number of naval officers in this House is very small, and it is impossible, when choosing who is to be First Lord of the Admiralty, to put out of view the important part he has to play in the discussions of the Cabinet, any more than you can put out of view the part he has to play in the discussions representing his Department in this House. I do not think the hon. Gentleman can ask more than that. I trust that the Committee will not accede to the Motion. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman represents any very widespread opinion upon this question; for it is a very broad statement to make that the man who governs the Navy should be a naval man, as if the man who is at the head of the Board of Trade should be a merchant, as if the man who is Secretary of State for India should be a man of large Indian experience, or as if the man at the head of the Foreign Office should be an old diplomatist. If, however, general qualifications are thus to be sacrificed for specialities, the result will be that you may make alterations, and find that you have broken up the whole machine, which, however defec-

1161
tive it may be, may bear comparison with that of any other country.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, there were various reasons which made it a matter of very great importance that the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. G. Bentinck) should receive the consideration of the House. The policy of having a civilian First Lord during great changes in the matériel of the Navy had been illustrated in a remarkable manner by the mistakes of the last few years. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had spoken of the rarity of professional First Lords; but be (Sir James Elphinstone) could mention from memory Lord Anson, Lord Keppel, Lord Howe, Lord St. Vincent, Lord Barham, and the Duke of Northumberland. There had been eminent civilians, none more eminent than Sir James Graham, than whom none committed greater mistakes in the course of his administration. He entered office upon the dawn of naval reconstructions, and selected Sir William Symonds, a man of great ability, but possessed by one idea, to carry it out; whereas had a sailor been First Lord, Sir William Symonds would not have been allowed so much latitude in building ships, which, though in many respects improvements, had such defects that they had gradually disappeared from The Navy List. The inexpediency of "swapping horses when you are crossing a stream" had been pointed out by President Lincoln, and we had experienced the full effects of neglecting that warning. When we began to reconstruct our Navy there existed in this country a School of Naval Architects superior to that of any country in the world, and our ships, which were built under the superintendence of men educated in it, were beautiful and effective. The Warrior and Black Prince were specimens of the vessels built under the superintendence of that School; but being called upon to go faster than the light of science would permit, the men who had been educated in that School were superseded by Sir Spencer Robinson and Mr. Reed, who were doubtless gentlemen of great ability, but who had had no experience in drawing the lines of ships, and the result had been that an immense amount of money had been spent in groping in the dark for principles which were perfectly well known to the School of Naval Architects which
1162
these gentlemen had superseded. Even at the present moment, after £20,000,000 had been spent on our ships, we had not a single vessel which could be regarded as the type of our future Navy. Such was the miserable result that had been attained by placing the administration of the Navy in the hands of civilians. The civilian knew neither fear nor embarrassment in the administration of the Navy; he rushed blindly on, and plunged into matters—of which he comprehended nothing. While, however, he admitted the necessity of having a statesman connected with the Navy, he thought that it should be under the direct management of professional officers, whose experience would preserve them from committing the blunders which had occasioned the disastrous accidents that had recently occurred to several of our ships. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that no man could be found in the naval profession who was capable of dealing with the construction, the manning, the education, and the distribution of our Navy. With that statement he could not agree, because he believed that men like Sir Alexander Milne were fully capable of undertaking the control of those matters. How had the education of the Navy fallen into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman himself? The manning of the Navy was now in as good a position as it could possibly be, while the construction of the Navy was at this moment in a state of the greatest possible uncertainty. As regarded the distribution of the Navy, he thought that a naval officer who had served in every part of the world with distinction was much better able to understand the requirements of the various naval stations than a civilian was. As it was, the civilian rule over the Navy had led to frightful catastrophes, for the withdrawal of our naval force from Greece, China, the Fiji Islands, and the Persian Gulf had been followed by massacres and disorders. Turning to a point with regard to which considerable controversy had arisen, he attributed the recent accidents which had occurred to several of our vessels to the penurious orders of the Admiralty with regard to the consumption of coal. He should like to ask those hon. and right hon. Members who were anxious to win their spurs by cutting down every species of expenditure to the lowest possible point, if

1163
they were aware how largely the safety of our vessels was affected by such orders? A huge iron-clad running at four or five knots an hour without adequate steam-power, was a danger not only to herself, but to all the other ships which might be in her company. In that way the disasters to the Agincourt and the Lord Clyde were caused. As to the Megæra, a naval First Lord would soon have discovered that there was a screw loose in reference to her, and probably she would have had her cargo taken out, and it would have been discovered what was the matter; and, certainly, he would not have sent her round the Cape when she could have gone through the Canal down the Red Sea, because she drew only 16 feet of water. Now, with regard to coal, the right hon. Gentleman denied that officers had been controlled in an undue degree in reference to the consumption of coal.
MR. GLADSTONEexplained that he did not say that; but what he did say was, that there was no proof that under civilian rule at the Admiralty the rules referring to the consumption of coal had been altered.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEproceeded to refer to the Report on the subject which had been published in April last, from which it appeared that Sir Thomas Symonds, Sir Alexander Milne, Captain G. O. Willes, C.B., and other men of eminence in the naval profession, had expressed strong opinions in favour of smokeless Welsh coal as compared with the North-country coal, which emitted vast volumes of dense black smoke, which rendered our vessels conspicuous at 30 miles distance, and which would prevent batteries being approached when to leeward, and signals being observed in the Fleet. He ought to mention, in passing, that in addition to the difference of cost attending the introduction of that abominable mixture which made it impossible for our fleets to manœuvre, and caused the destruction of the clothing and equipments of the men, the whole of the furnaces in Her Majesty's Navy had to be altered at a very great expense to enable them under ordinary circumstances to burn that coal, because, as was stated by Admiral Hornby, while jogging along at an easy speed, they might consume a portion of their smoke; but if they began to drive the ship at all, the smoke
1164
came out of the improved furnaces just as badly as it did before. Admiral Yelverton gave it as his opinion, from the difficulty experienced in the late evolutionary cruise in distinguishing either ships or signals, that the use of that description of coal in the hour of need might lead to national disaster. Again, Mr. Swift, Inspector of machinery afloat, wrote to Commodore Phillimore, that on a comparison between the two kinds of coal under the same conditions, the economy in favour of the Welsh coal by itself exhibited almost the unexpected amount of 22 per cent. Yet the officers in command of our fleets were not only forced to burn that rubbish, but were restricted in the speed at which they were to sail their ships. That he held to be a thing which would never have entered the mind of any sailor. The first object of a sailor was to keep his ship in command for all emergencies; and one officer, in whose opinion he concurred, said that, in order to be able to meet any emergencies, the speed ought not to be allowed to fall below six or seven knots. What was the result of the Reports of those gallant officers? Why, two or three letters of the most extraordinary special pleading from the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Controller—letters which might almost have led one to suppose, though he did not believe it was the fact, that those gentlemen had a personal interest in the consumption of that abominable mixture. He was sorry to see any Department use the language which had been used towards men, certainly superior in nautical knowledge, like Sir Alexander Milne, who was himself every way qualified to be their First Lord of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman said that the American Navy had always been administered by civilians. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, not always.] Well, no doubt it had generally; but then an American was a sort of amphibious individual, who could adapt himself to matters of this sort very rapidly. Moreover, in the American Navy there was much more left to the individual captain of the ship than in the British service. In the only period when the American Navy asserted what he might almost call its individual superiority to ours, the ships had been carefully built and specially prepared for some years for a particular contingency under the

1165
suggestions of the captains and officers who were to command them, and who knew that their ships were superior in weight of metal and in other respects to those which would be opposed to them. As long as that small American squadron existed, therefore, we had a difficulty in extirpating them; but we did extirpate them, and the war came to an end. The ground he took, then, was this—It must not be supposed because a man was a naval officer that he could not be an able administrator; and he believed that had the reconstruction of our Navy been placed in the hands of a professional man of the high calibre to which he had referred, the saving to the country would have been enormous. The Government had been lately arguing against the possibility of a Scotch Board managing the expenditure of £250,000 a-year, and yet they put into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) many millions to be made ducks and drakes of in the building of ships which could not float, and they had a Navy which, if it had to be concentrated for any practical purpose, could not carry 10 days' coal, or maintain itself off Brest Harbour in the month of March for a week.
MR. G. BENTINCKdesired to withdraw the Amendment, as he did not wish in the present state of the Committee to divide.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Government would prefer that it should be negatived.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
LORD HENRY LENNOX, in rising to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000—the amount of the Salary of the proposed Deputy Controller of the Navy—said, that it was on the 22nd of March that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty announced the change which he proposed to make in the Governing Body of the Admiralty; but unfortunately, in consequence of a new arrangement having been come to with reference to the conduct of Business, it was not until the Dog-days that an opportunity was afforded for discussing his proposals. That delay was to be regretted, and from what the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had said on a previous occasion, with reference to the importance of this Vote, it was to be presumed he
1166
joined in this regret. There was an increase on the Vote this year of £11,268, and, deducting a sum of £1,538 transferred from other Votes, the net increase appeared to be £8,730. That included the cost of an increase in the clerical staff, he believed; and to this he would have offered no objection, if rumour had assured him that the Department was better served in consequence. But questions connected with the office of the Permanent Secretary had lately come under discussion, and something had been said upon the question of the management of the Admiralty under this reformed system. The right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had commenced the changes. He had abolished the office of one Lord of the Admiralty and had divided the salary between two others; he had also abolished the office of Controller of the Coast Guard, formerly held by Admiral Tarleton, and had created the office of Chief of the Staff. He was very glad, for the best interests of the service, that the office of Chief of the Staff had disappeared; his was always an anomalous position, and a most irresponsible one. His emoluments were spread over several Votes, and great diligence was required to discover what were his duties. The Times, commenting upon the abolition of his office, had said that the duties of such an officer should be so important, that it was to be regretted he was not an officer included in the Board, so that everything he did and said would have the weight his position entitled him to. With reference to this point, he would mention that under the new regulation the Controller of the Navy would find himself in the same position as the Chief of the Staff, for he was no longer included in the Board, and therefore, according to the doctrine he had quoted, the decisions of the Controller of the Navy would in the future not have that weight and authority which would otherwise attach to them. He did not question the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to do the best for the service; but proposals more calculated than those of the right hon. Gentleman to bring about want of harmony he could not conceive. There was one point on which he had real cause to quarrel with the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that was the statement that his system was the same as that introduced by the right hon. Member for Pontefract in

1167
1869, and that he was only amplifying and extending it. He must contradict that assertion; and, in passing, he would take advantage of the opportunity to say that in all that concerned the dockyard arrangements, he much preferred the plan introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract to the new arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He could not understand the meaning of the continuous repetition of the statement as to there being no change in the system. Up to the year 1869 the number of the Lords of the Admiralty was five. The right hon. Member for Pontefract reduced them to four, and the present First Lord had restored them to the original number. In 1869 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty was a political person, had access to all Admiralty papers and documents, and was ready, in case of need, to take the place of the First Lord in that House. The right hon. Member for Pontefract did away with that arrangement, and made the Parliamentary Secretary a sort of head to the Purchase Department; and now, the present First Lord restored the Parliamentary Secretary—and very rightly—to the position which all Parliamentary Secretaries of the Admiralty had before held. The Board sittings, up to 1869, were continuous sittings; but under the right hon. Member for Pontefract those continuous sittings were done away with, and now the House was told that they were to be restored. Again, the position occupied by the Controller afforded a remarkable proof that the systems of the late First Lord and of the present First Lord were diametrically opposite. Up to 1869 the Controller was the servant of the Board, and after 1869 he was a Member of the Board; and now, again, he was to be a servant of the Board, without any compensating honour being given him. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) said that nothing should be done in the way of shipbuilding without consulting the Controller, it must be observed that that was no new arrangement. During the whole period when the Admiralty was presided over by the Duke of Somerset, the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), and the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), the Controller had ample opportunity of discussing all shipbuilding projects with the Board. The right hon. Gentleman the
1168
present First Lord proposed to establish a third Secretary to the Admiralty in the shape of a naval officer. He could not understand why there should be three Secretaries to do the work which two had always done very well before. He admitted that there was much to be said in favour of the present Permanent Secretary being a naval officer, for that secured a permanent naval element in the Board; but that did not justify, in his mind, the appointment of a third Secretary. To the proposed appointment of a Deputy Controller, however, he had only the most unqualified opposition to give. The object of every Board of Admiralty from the time of the Duke of Somerset had been to draw closer and make more intimate the connection between the Controller and the dockyards, for then the more strict the responsibility, the greater was the security for the efficiency of the service. Moreover, the chief object of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract when presiding at the Board had always been to endeavour to carry out that policy; but the present First Lord did not, however, seem to appreciate the advantage of it. He (Lord Henry Lennox) would appeal to the heads of business firms whether they would employ a person to design an elaborate ship, and then leave it to the dockyard people to carry it out as best they could? Under the Board of Admiralty with which he had been connected several Orders in Council were issued giving facilities to the Controller of the Navy in his relations with the dockyard workmen; and, in his opinion, the connection of the Controller with the dockyards could not be too close. It was said that the business of the proposed Deputy Controller would be to attend the dockyards, and deal, without reference to the Controller, with those questions which merely touched the administration of the dockyards. Now, what were those matters which could be safely trusted to a subordinate officer without reference to his superior officer? He thought when the design of a ship had been made by the Constructor and approved by the Board of Admiralty, the work of the Constructor was only commenced; until the ship was in commission it was not at an end. With the rapid strides of science and information as to the strain upon the work in one part of the ship and the material necessary to meet it in another, there must be

1169
a constantly changing process going on in the mind of the Constructor; so that, unless he saw, watched, and directed everything, he could not be responsible for the designs he recommended to the adoption of the Board of Admiralty. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman intended to remodel the instructions he announced on the 22nd of March, and the appointment of Inspector of Dockyards should be given up. He did not see what that officer could do that the Controller of the Navy could not do already. If they gave the Controller full responsibility in charge of the dockyards, he could carry out the duties of his office; but if there was an officer under him who could give orders without reference to him, it would be far from satisfactory. He would ask, also, what position Captain Hood would occupy as Director General of Naval Ordnance? There was nothing more important than that the connection should be intimate between the gentleman who designed a ship and the gentleman who had charge of the ordnance that ship was to carry. With regard to the Controller of the Navy, he was very glad to observe by a statement in the paper to-day that his gallant and highly-esteemed friend Admiral Houston Stewart was to have £1,700 a-year, and that he would be able to retain his half-pay; but he very much feared that he would not be able to enjoy his half-pay with his salary and emoluments. He had not seen his gallant friend for the last six months; nor had he had the slightest communication with him or his friends, but he hoped that a point would be strained if necessary, with a view to such an arrangement.
MR. GOSCHEN: There was a difficulty; but the Law Officers of the Crown have come to a different conclusion.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he was very glad to hear that the difficulty had been overcome, and that he had been fortunate enough to draw from the right hon. Gentleman the announcement. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter to which he (Lord Henry Lennox) had referred; that he would remember that he proposed largely to increase the Vote; that he was appointing new officers that would increase the cost to £4,900 a-year for work that was done under the old Board for £3,200 per annum, and under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract for £2,900 a-year. He
1170
wanted to see the service placed on a solid and durable basis, and not made the subject of constant debates in that House; and he could assure his right hon. Friend that he was firmly convinced that if he persisted in the appointment of a Deputy Controller, it would only tend to produce a clashing of authority and a weakening of responsibility in the Department, and to content himself with those changes, both in the constitution and in the procedure of the Admiralty, which he had already enunciated. He would move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £172,767, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1873."—(Lord Henry Lennox.)
MR. T. BRASSEY: Sir, in his interesting speech, the noble Lord who has just sat down has severely criticized the appointment of a Surveyor of Dockyards. If the relations between that officer and the Controller of the Navy were intended to be such as the noble Lord has described, the expediency of the appointment would be extremely doubtful; but if the duties of a Surveyor of Dockyards are laid down with judgment, he would be able to render valuable service. If a comparison be made between the constitution of the Admiralty and a commercial establishment charged with the control of a business of equal extent, the cost of the Admiralty Office bears an exaggerated proportion to the amount of business which it conducts. Yet, notwithstanding the large amount of the expenditure, the Department seems to be weak in its administrative power, while the clerical staff is unnecessarily large. Facility for the tabulation of returns and records will not secure good administration. It was well observed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers), in the course of his examination before the Megæra Commission, that—
"No mechanism which the thought of man can devise will be perfect, unless those who have to work it do work it thoroughly. If somebody neglects his duty, there is no system of duplication or triplication which will effectually detect it in all cases. Responsibility is the keystone of good administration."
The higher officers of the Admiralty are overworked; but if you want to relieve them of some portion of their burden, you must employ as their assistants

1171
persons of high qualifications, and with that technical knowledge, without which the management of a manufacturing business cannot be successfully conducted. In his examination before the Megæra Commission, Sir Spencer Robinson quoted a passage from a Memorandum, which he had addressed to the Admiralty in January, 1861, in which the necessity for such assistance is strongly urged. Having explained the increase of work, he had stated that he did not propose to their Lordships any increase in the number of clerks, but did most earnestly submit for their consideration, that the proportion of superior clerks should be increased. To the same effect, in another portion of his evidence, he said that each department of the Admiralty should have a secretary who should be under the general superintendence of the Chief Secretary. "As to each of the Departments," said Sir Spencer Robinson—"I can say confidently that the want of a secretary almost kills us; it wears us to death." The cry of despair, which was uttered by the late Controller of the Navy, has been sent forth before by many an exhausted official. The redundance of clerical, the deficiency of administrative power, which may be observed in every Department under Government, have been criticized by all who have examined the constitution of the public Departments in a comprehensive and philosophical spirit. In an able article in The Quarterly Review for July, 1869, three principal reforms are described as being urgently required in every branch of the public service—namely, greater concentration, fewer clerks, and higher pay. The reviewer very judiciously urges that while the clerks for the mechanical duties should be chosen from a class which could not aspire to high posts, the other class should consist of young men trained by the best education England can afford, desirous of a somewhat easier and surer life than the struggles of the bar offer; preferring administrative work, or conscious of administrative ability. How many such men are there in the Admiralty? This class is hardly represented at all, while the mechanical class is far too numerous. The justice of these criticisms is apparent when the expenditure under Vote 3 is carefully examined. The total amount of the Vote is £174,000, of which salaries re-
1172
present £160,000. For so large an outlay the very highest administrative talent, and constructive and mechanical ability, which the country affords, should be at the command of the Admiralty. Setting aside the Parliamentary officials and the naval officers at Whitehall, who are not responsible for the naval architecture of the Navy, or for the workmanship or expenditure in the different yards, how is the professional class, which is really responsible for these things, represented? With an expenditure of £974,000 for labour in the dockyards; £971,000 for stores; £690,000 for machinery; total, £2,635,000, in the current year, we have only two professional or civilian officers in the constructive and engineering department receiving £1,000 a-year—the Chief Naval Architect, and the Surveyor of Dockyards. This distribution of the Vote is the more extraordinary, because there are 22 salaries at the Admiralty of £1,000 per annum and upwards, and because the professional officers, whose responsibility in respect of the naval expenditure is so great, are not paid in prestige like the officers of the Royal Navy. Commercial men know well that the salaries paid to the civilians at the Admiralty are not sufficient to attract men of very high qualifications from the private shipbuilding yards. The locomotive superintendent at Crewe, until lately, received a salary of £5,000 a-year. The responsible agents in charge of a railway contract receive much higher pay than the civil officers of the Admiralty. The argument for higher salaries is not urged in the belief that the confidential managers of the private shipbuilding yards will be induced to leave a good employ, with which they have many ties: but a more liberal remuneration would be the means of preventing the most promising members of the Civil Staff of the Admiralty—men who have been for many years receiving a most valuable practical education at the public expense—from quitting the service when the time had arrived when their services were becoming most valuable. In endeavouring to strengthen their constructive staff, by the creation of a new and highly-paid, appointment, the Admiralty are pursuing a most judicious course. The appointment of a Surveyor of Dockyards, as a medium of communication between the Controller of the Navy and those establishments,

1173
should be the means of considerably reducing the too voluminous correspondence which is now conducted between Whitehall and the naval yards. The cumbrous nature of the present system cannot be appreciated without a few figures. Sir Baldwin Walker informed the Committee on the Management of Dockyards in 1860, that in the surveyor's department, in 1834, the number of letters amounted to 3,698 with 4 clerks; in 1848, to 6,758 with 7; in 1850—when the steam department was transferred to the Surveyor of the Navy—to 10,650 with 11; in 1854, to 22,259 with 11; in 1856—the period of the Russian War—to 32,178 with 16; and in 1859, to 36,296 with 16. Sir Spencer Robinson has recently made a statement to the Megæra Commission showing how the correspondence had steadily increased in recent years. He said that in 1863 the number of letters in his department was 60,000, and the number of clerks 29; while in 1870 the letters were 70,000, with 30 clerks. That such an increase should be allowed in the correspondence is conclusive evidence that the system of concentrating the management of the dockyards in the office of the Controller in London had been carried too far. If by the appointment of a Surveyor of Dockyards the immense mass of correspondence now conducted by the Controller can be diminished, a very valuable reform will have been effected. The Controller will be enabled to pay more frequent personal visits to the dockyards, and all who have had experience in administration know that the presence of the master's eye will infuse a vigour into the work which is being carried on, which cannot be secured by any other means. The necessity for strengthening the department of the Controller with an additional professional officer, holding a high and confidential position, has been recognised by many high authorities. Admiral Smart's Committee on the Management of the Dockyards, which was appointed in 1859, stated in their Report that they were of opinion that if the dockyards were frequently visited by a practical shipwright, and a practical engineer officer, representing the Surveyor of the Navy, it would be attended by many beneficial results. Better judgments would be formed of the persons most fit for the promotions which are constantly occurring in the different grades. The
1174
energies of the officers, from the principal officers downwards, would be more advantageously drawn forth. In 1861, in his evidence before the Committee of the Board of Admiralty, the Duke of Somerset said that the Controller, being at Whitehall, could not really know sufficiently well what was going on in those various distant dockyards, and had not the means of sending some one frequently enough to ascertain. In consequence, he had attached to the department of the Controller another shipwright officer to assist in those inquiries. In view of these recommendations, I trust that the Motion of the noble Lord may not be carried. I myself most anxiously desire to see an officer of the rank of Deputy Controller at the head of every yard; but even when we have improved both the position and the pay of the principal shipwright officers, an additional inspecting officer on the staff of the Controller is equally necessary. For his wise decision to increase the administrative power of the constructive department of the Admiralty, and to substitute for a redundant correspondence a more effectual system of supervision by personal observation and control, the First Lord of the Admiralty deserves the warm commendation of this House.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, without going into the whole question raised, he stated shortly what he proposed should really be the functions of the Surveyor of the Dockyards and how far his proposals corresponded with the representations made by the noble Lord. He wished it to be most clearly and distinctly understood that the appointment of a Surveyor of Dockyards was not in the slightest degree to interfere with the authority of the Controller of the Dockyards, and it was not to diminish the responsibility of the Controller. No one could attach greater importance to that power than he did. As in time past, he wished the Controller to retain absolute power with regard to the dockyards; but he was certainly anxious that the Controller should be aided and helped by an officer whose special function it should be to concern himself with what might be called the administrative part of the management of the dockyards, in the same way as the Controller was assisted by the Constructor, who designed

1175
ships. It was precisely in an administrative point of view that the Controller's department was at present weaker than the others; its constructive ability was very great. Hitherto the officer whose duty it had been to occupy himself with the highest scientific questions of the day connected with the designing of ships, and to follow the processes of shipbuilding in other countries, had also had to attend to the very smallest questions of administrative policy—such as the adjustment of the rate of pay between different classes of workmen. That had always appeared very undesirable to him, and he was anxious there should be in the Controller's department an officer whose continuous attention should be given to these administrative questions. It was impossible to insure that the man would be both the best naval architect and the best administrator that could be selected, for the capacity for building ships was distinct from the capacity for administering dockyards; and he thought no one would maintain that the man whose duty it was to produce designs for iron-clads should determine that the rate of pay between caulkers and joiners was properly adjusted. From considerations of this kind, it had appeared to him that this plan, which had caused him the greatest anxiety for the last three or four months, ought to be adopted. He had considered it in all its details, and the noble Lord opposite would not expect him to abandon it in consequence of the expression of a few adverse opinions. What he wished to secure was the presence in the Controller's department of a high officer, who, though he might be thoroughly competent to design ships, should consider it his main duty to deal with the particular class of questions which arose in regard to the administration of the dockyards—questions as to whether the various dockyards were producing the same quantity and quality of work in proportion to their resources, whether the number of men on the Establishment bore a proper proportion to the number not on the Establishment, and questions as to pay and promotion. He did not wish this officer, however, to deal with such questions without consulting the Controller; but, as the Controller had the Naval Architect and the Chief Constructor to assist him in de-
1176
signing, he ought also to have some one to investigate questions of this kind for him. One reason why he did not wish to bring this question before the House at an earlier period was that he might have the advantage of conferring with the present Controller on the subject. During the last three months he had listened to the representations made to him by the Constructors—that they thought his plan, as originally framed, would interfere too much with their power and control over the building in the dockyards. He informed them that if they thought the administrative officer would be placed in too high a position as compared with the Constructors, he was willing to waive that point, as he did not wish him to take the place of Deputy Controller in the sense of being second in the whole office, and having authority over the others. What he wished was to have an officer to discharge this particular class of duties, for the performance of which he would, under the Controller, be held specially responsible. He must point out to the Committee that there was at present a Council of Construction, the arrangements in regard to which differed to a considerable extent from those which existed when the noble Lord opposite was in office. Formerly the Chief Constructor made some designs without consulting any of his colleagues, but at present the plan adopted was as follows:—Though one Constructor designed a ship, all designs were submitted to the President of the Council of Construction and his colleagues. They met together and discussed each design in all its details before it was submitted to the Board of Admiralty, by which means they believed they insured more correctness, and each Constructor got the advantage of the opinions of the others, although, of course, he was himself the author of the design. Now, he proposed that the new officer should also be a member of the Council of Construction, in order that he might hear all that was going on in regard to construction, and give his opinion on the mode of carrying out the designs. He expected this Surveyor of Dockyards to relieve the Constructors from a portion of the work which, in his opinion, interfered with their higher duties at present, and to give them more time for working out their designs. The noble Lord opposite

1177
was aware that there was one Constructor less than the number which existed in his time, owing to Mr. Reed's place not having been filled up. He proposed to leave the number of Constructors as it was at present, but to maintain the strength of the department by separating the duties of the administration of the dockyards—to make one man responsible for them, giving ample authority to the Naval Architect and his colleagues to proceed to the dockyards, and to have the same control over the execution of the designs as they now exercised. He denied that the adoption of the plan would cause an increase of £1,000 in the Estimate, as far as the Surveyor of Dockyards was concerned, for in such a contingency it would not be necessary to appoint another Constructor. The noble Lord opposite had asserted that this Vote increased the Estimates by £8,000, and he mentioned the circumstance in connection with the reorganization—although it was true he did not say it was due to the reorganization. Of that increase of £8,000, no less than £3,000 was paid for the rent of certain houses which the Department had been obliged to occupy. [Lord HENRY LENNOX said, he could only take the figures as they were laid upon the Table.] The noble Lord, if he examined the Estimates, would find the details of this sum of £3,000 there set forth. Then a further addition of £3,000 was owing to the progressive increase in the salaries of the clerks, though he might mention that there had been no increase in the number of clerks employed; and only the balance of £2,000 odd was due to the reorganization. There was another change which he hoped would commend itself to the Committee. At present there was but one Engineer, although the sums passing through the hands of the Admiralty for engines, boilers, machinery, &c., in the dockyards were enormous. It was proposed, therefore, to appoint an Assistant Engineer. The cardinal point to which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) attached so much importance was, that each man at the Admiralty should be responsible for his own work, and that it should not be done jointly by a Board. Formerly the executive acts were the acts of the Board of Admiralty. His right hon. Friend separated the work, and made every
1178
man responsible for his own work, the First Naval Lord being personally responsible for the personnel, and the Controller for the matériel of the Navy, while the other Lords were responsible to the First Naval Lord. The noble Lord said he (Mr. Goschen) had reestablished the Board. But he had not re-established the executive functions of the Board, and each man was responsible in precisely the same way as he used to be. The responsibilities of some persons might have been widened, and the responsibilities of others modified; but the fact remained that each was responsible for his work, and that it was not the action of the Board of Admiralty. They had their daily meetings every morning. The various Lords and the Secretaries met and heard the most important of the letters read, so that they had every information as to what was going on, and had the opportunity of communicating freely. That was not the old system. Under that system the Secretary was present when the Board assembled, and he minuted a number of decisions. At present no man was relieved from his responsibility by saying that the Board met or had come to a certain decision. To the responsibility of individual members of the Board he attached the greatest importance, and he could not allow that the value of the reforms introduced by his right hon. Friend had been in any way diminished by the changes he had made. He had been anxious to explain to the Committee the spirit in which he wished to arrange the appointment of the Surveyor of Dockyards. He was convinced it was an appointment in the public interest, and he must decline to accept the advice tendered him by the noble Lord opposite that he should drop that appointment.
MR. CORRYsaid, that in the earlier part of the Session he asked the House to agree to a Resolution affirming that the Order in Council of January 14, 1869, had tended to the disadvantage of the Naval Service, and ought to be reconsidered. He then pointed out the particulars in which the Order in Council had worked badly—namely, in regard to the disuse of Consultative Boards—the combination of the office of Controller with that of a Lord of the Admiralty—the reduction of the number of Naval Lords, and the change which reduced the position of the Parliamentary

1179
Secretary to that of a mere head of a department. These were the whole changes made by the Order in Council of 1869. The First Lord, in reply, conceded the whole question, and consented to revise the Order in Council in all those respects, and it was upon that undertaking that he allowed his Motion to be negatived without a division. The First Lord introduced each of these concessions with much circumlocution, and wished it to be understood that no change in principle had been made. He did not blame him for letting down the late First Lord, as sailors would say, "handsomely." He did not blame him for that. It was sufficient for him that the Order in Council had been subverted root and branch. The right hon. Gentleman said that his Predecessor had made great changes in the right direction. All he cared for was that he had reversed the Order in Council, which had introduced those changes, in every particular in which it differed from the old system. The right hon. Gentleman still asserted that there had been no departure in principle from the system established in 1869. If he thought that to be the case he should not be so satisfied with the changes made as he was. Although, however, the modifications now made in the Order in Council were a great improvement, there was still too much of the old leaven left. There was, especially, too great an attempt at adherence to the departmental system at the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman said that under the system introduced by the late First Lord each man was responsible for his own department. That was, however, also the case under the old system as it had been left by Sir James Graham. Each Lord brought his own business to the Board, and each was responsible as now, and there was a permanent officer at the head of each department. The First Sea Lord of the present Board, Sir Sydney Dacres, in his evidence, laughed at the idea of his responsibility being any greater now than under the old system, when he served with himself (Mr. Corry) at the Admiralty. At the Admiralty the departments were so dovetailed into each other that it was impossible to draw a hard-and-fast line between them. The most salient development of the departmental system was the appointment of three permanent Secretaries—one to each de-
1180
partment—for the Controller was to sign as a Secretary in his own department. Such a regulation could lead to nothing but confusion. There would be one set of men attending to one set of letters and one class of business, and another set of men to another class of business. There were to be two co-equal Secretaries—one to look after the personnel of the Navy, and another to attend to the financial business; while the Controller was to be virtually a third Secretary, responsible for the correspondence relating to the matériel of the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the new system to the House, said—
"After this arrangement has come into operation, I hope there will be no longer any doubt as to who is responsible for letters which leave the Admiralty."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 211.]
He, on the contrary, thought that no one would ever know who was responsible for the letters leaving the Admiralty, and that it would be difficult to know where to find a letter. Formerly there was only one Permanent Secretary, and Mr. Romaine was not overwhelmed with work. He was responsible for all, and there was but one Record Office. Sir John Briggs, who had served a life at the Admiralty, said—
"If I was called upon to find a paper, it was brought to me in a minute, because all papers passed through one hand."
That was the hand of the Permanent Secretary of the Admiralty. What did Sir Sydney Dacres say before the Megæra Commission?—
"Since the Admiralty was centralized so much more papers are lost in a day than in three months before. You never know where they are gone to. They go to the Store branch—they go to the Controller's branch—they go here and there."
That was the difference between letters passing through one and many hands. Great hilarity was excited when Mr. Lushington, in his evidence before the Megæra Commission, talked about a "phantom Board," and said that the business was done "here and there." But that was the inevitable consequence of this diversity of Secretaries, each in charge of a separate Department, and he was certain it would be found that the three-Secretary system was one which would work as badly as possible. [Mr. GOSCHEN: There were two Secretaries—a Parliamentary and Permanent Secretary—under the old system.] Yes; but all letters passed through one hand—that

1181
of the Permament Secretary. There was now no one person in the Office who had his hand upon the whole business of the Office, as the Permanent Secretary used to have. Some time ago he wrote to a gentleman—not Sir John Briggs, whom he had so often quoted—of very great experience in Admiralty administration, and asked him what he thought of this division of responsibility between the Secretaries. He replied—
"With three Secretaries presiding over different departments, it would be self-evident there would be three acting independently of each other's acts, and probably not in unison. In the Admiralty all matters are so dovetailed together that departmental organization must be a failure. The Secretaries ought to be in subordination one to the other—the first Parliamentary, the second financial, the third assistant."
He cordially concurred in that view. As long as all the business passed through one hand, that hand was competent to deal with everything. But when one man knew nothing about the personnel, another knew nothing about the matériel, and another knew nothing about the financial business, everything would fall into confusion. To make the Controller the signing officer for matters relating to matériel appeared to him a most extraordinary arrangement. The Controller had something else to do besides wasting his time in signing papers. He could speak from experience, for at one period of his service at the Admiralty half his time was taken up in signing papers, and he could not describe how much it bored him, if he might so speak, and how it interfered with his attention to the real business of his department. And was the Controller's precious time to be taken up in that way?
MR. GOSCHEN: He is to have the right of signing such letters about matériel as he wishes; but he is not bound to sign them.
MR. CORRY: What became, then, of the departmental system? and who was to sign the other letters relating to matériel? In former times the Controller was the servant of the Board; the late First Lord of the Admiralty made him a Member of the Board; but under the system established by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Controller was neither servant nor member. That being so, on whose behalf was the Controller to sign? How was it that an officer, who was neither servant of the Board nor member of the Board, was to exercise
1182
the functions of the Board? He had objected to the arrangement of the right hon. Member for Pontefract, which made the Controller a Lord of the Admiralty; but in this respect it was better than the present arrangement. Here was a man who was neither a member nor a servant of the Board, but a mere abstraction, and yet the whole details of the matériel of the Navy were to be regulated by him, and he was to sign letters relating to the whole business of the dockyards; by what right, he was at a loss to understand. There was another part of the present arrangement to which he should attach very much importance if he did not know that the whole thing was, to use a vulgar word, "bosh," from beginning to end. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract had attempted to establish the principle that there was to be no intervening influence between the Controller and the First Lord; that no one of the Naval Members of the Board—not even the First Sea Lord himself—was to have any right to interfere with the Controller. But he defied the right hon. Gentleman to carry on the business of the Navy on such a system. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform him that Sir Sydney Dacres never interfered? The instance of the difference between Sir Sydney Dacres and Sir Spencer Robinson, in the evidence before the Duke of Somerset's Committee, respecting the building of the Raleigh, would be recollected, in which Sir Sydney Dacres not only interfered, but said the notions of the Controller ought not to be considered. He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) when he dwelt this evening on the danger of having a civilian First Lord of the Admiralty. But if the First Lord was to take the superintendence of the whole business of the Controller into his own hands, the question would assume a different aspect. The First Naval Lord always had, and always must have, a direct right of interference. What did the right hon. Gentleman's own Order in Council say? It said this—
"The Naval Lords shall be responsible for all business relating to the personnel of the Navy and to the movement and condition of the Fleet."
Who on earth was it that put the Fleet into a condition to be moved but the Controller of the Navy, and how could the First Naval Lord be responsible if

1183
he had no right to interfere? He had reason to believe, however, that things were managed pretty much as usual. He met a distinguished officer the other day who was likely to know something of the matter, and he told him that things were carried on now very much as they were in former times, which he thought creditable to the good sense of the First Lord. The question, therefore, was really hardly worth discussing. There was one appointment to which he meant to have taken very strong objection, but for the fact that it had been so fully and ably dealt with by his noble Friend the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), and that the matter had been explained to-night in a more or less satisfactory way by the First Lord of the Admiralty. He referred to the office of Deputy Controller. The Deputy Controller was stated by the First Lord in his opening speech on the Estimates to be one
"Whose special business is to attend to the efficient working of the dockyards and to deal, without reference to the Controller, with most of those questions which touch merely the administration of the dockyards."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 208.]
He was glad, however, to find that the strict subordination of the Deputy Controller was to be provided for. He did not think, however, that the appointment was likely to conduce to the interests of the service. One argument used in favour of appointing a Deputy Controller was that the Controller was so overworked that he had not time to perform his proper functions. But the right hon. Gentleman himself and his predecessor were the cause of that by throwing on the Controller business with which he ought to have nothing to do, and adding to his proper duties those of the Storekeeper General, whose office had been abolished. The Controller of the Navy was responsible for the success or failure of such enormous and complicated ships as the Devastation, the Sultan, and others—vessels upon which millions of money had been spent. And was an officer, whose attention ought to be devoted to these most important duties, and to the economical and efficient working of the dockyards—was he to be mixed up with the petty details of the purchase of stores, and such miserable questions as whether "Baxter's Mixture" was to be used on board Her Majesty's ships or not? There
1184
was another very unsatisfactory arrangement. When he was commenting on the defects of the system introduced by the right hon. Member for Pontefract, he ventured at some length to speak of the confusion which prevailed in the Admiralty in the absence of the First Lord. Sir Spencer Robinson, in his evidence before the Duke of Somerset's Committee, speaking on this point, said—"When the First Lord has been away nobody has known to whom to apply." In fact, there was no captain of the ship. It was, then, every man for himself, and God for us all. He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to put an end to this unsatisfactory state of things. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"In the absence of the First Lord, the First Sea Lord will have the chief authority concerning the Fleet, and he will be the head of the whole Admiralty, in connection with the Parliamentary Secretary, on all other questions."—[Ibid. 210.]
But what if the First Sea Lord also was away? In nine cases out of ten when the First Lord of the Admiralty was absent on official business, he would have the First Sea Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary with him. Who then would have the chief authority at the Admiralty? When the late First Lord hoisted the Admiralty Flag in command of the Channel Squadron, Sir Sydney Dacres was naturally the Lord who accompanied him, and the Parliamentary Secretary would almost necessarily be present at the visitations of the dockyards. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have a morbid apprehension of a Board as a governing body; but was it not a most reasonable proposition that, in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the work of the Admiralty should be carried on by the Board? He was glad to say there was one part of the arrangements made by the First Lord of the Admiralty with which he cordially agreed, and that was the restoration of the office of Chief Engineer. He thought that the abolition of that office in 1869 was a great mistake, and the substitution of an Engineer Assistant, with a reduced salary, was a most lamentable piece of economy. The best men ought to be put over the Constructive and Engineer Departments, and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) that in securing the services of the best men for those offices money ought to be no object.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, he had hoped from what happened on the last debate on the Navy Estimates that an opportunity would have been given on the present occasion for a discussion of the general question of the administration of the Navy, and he confessed that he was greatly disappointed in finding that instead of a general discussion on that subject only fragmentary propositions were the subjects of debate. The topic that ought to be the subject of this debate was the re-organization of the Navy, not the condition of details with regard to it. When the Navy Estimates were introduced, he gathered from the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty that the Chief Constructor was to be merely in the position of a naval architect, and not interfere in the construction of works designed in his office. He (Mr. Samuda) ventured to think there could not be a more reasonable proposition than that the Chief Constructor should confine himself to the scientific portion of his duties apart from the Administrative. But if the Chief Constructor was to be confined simply to the work of designing and of scientific construction, without having the advantage which naturally flowed from directing the execution of that which he had designed, he would never improve in the production of work. He thought, therefore, that the connection between the construction department and the Executive departments could not be divorced without most serious injury, and that confusion, imperfection, and other serious mischiefs would certainly result from doing so. [Mr. GOSCHEN said, the hon. Member had misapprehended what he had said with regard to the Chief Constructor.] He was extremely glad to find that he had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. It was not advisable that this Committee should go further than to suggest what should be the particular character of the Admiralty Board, and he thought the Government had made a mistake when they accepted the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, and vested responsibility in regard to Admiralty matters in a single head. It was of the utmost importance to the country that a Board should be formed upon which the Government and the country could rely for possessing the greatest possible amount of professional knowledge, and
1186
for ensuring a continuous improvement in the character of the work performed, and he was opposed to the hand-to-mouth system that now existed. He admitted that the matter was a difficult one, but the difficulty was increased by the attempt to concentrate power in one man, and he was glad to hear that that policy was to be changed. A single Member of that House could not possess sufficient knowledge to take a comprehensive view of what was required, and instead, therefore, of carving out the work into several departments, there ought to be a Board comprising men experienced in naval knowledge, gunnery construction, and engineering, presided over by a statesman acquainted with the requirements of the Empire, who could lay down a plan of operations for 10 or 12 years. Instead of a change of system on every change in the Administration, a complete programme of the number of ships to be built, the proportion of each class, and money to be spent during the long period referred to ought to be drawn up which should not be lightly departed from, and which an incoming Minister must either adopt or give good reasons for deviating from. It would be a fatal mistake to do nothing for a few years, and wait for the experience of the next naval war, because, possibly, attack would become so much more formidable than defence, that armour-plating might have to be thickened and ultimately abandoned altogether. The country required a good state of defence, should be always preserved, and required that the Navy should always be the best that the knowledge of the day could supply, and it was undesirable either to look too far ahead or to reject any improvement. The First Lord should have colleagues able to furnish him with the best information, and supplementing that by information from outside, he with his Board ought to lay down a comprehensive plan, in which case many of these discussions—which were of little use, for if they affected one Government they did not influence another—might be dispensed with.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought the Committee were bound, before voting £174,000 for Admiralty administration, to see that it was satisfactory, which he feared was not the case. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) urged on a former occasion that, under the pre-

1187
sent system, work being done separately, it could be ascertained by whom anything was done; yet it took an able Commission four months' labour and 17,000 questions to find out, not by whom the necessary work on the Megæra was done, but by whom it was left undone. He doubted whether, should a necessity unfortunately arise, it could be traced by whom work could be done or left undone, and he was convinced that the blame in the Megæra case had not been placed on the right shoulders. He believed the responsibility of her leaving our shores in her actual condition rested on the Minister who boldly and manfully assumed that responsibility at the time, yet it had never been brought home to him, and every one, except the right man, had been censured. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the business being divided into three principal departments—the personnel, headed by the First Sea Lord, the matériel, by the Controller, and the finance. The great fault in the recent Admiralty system—if, indeed, it were not the fault of the present system—was a straining for over-consolidation. Sir Charles Trevelyan, in giving evidence before Lord Strathnairn's Committee, had stated, in reference to military matters, that when consolidation was carried beyond a certain point it ceased to be consolidation, and became dangerous and unmanageable accumulation. If that were true with regard to the Army, why was it not equally true with regard to the Navy?
MR. GOSCHENexplained that the appointment which was to be provided for by this Vote was intended to obviate the inconveniences of too great consolidation.
MR. LIDDELL: If that were the case, its proposal was a condemnation of the existing system. With reference to the proposal to appoint a Surveyor of Dockyards under the Controller, he begged to remind the House of a Report published 20 years ago by a Parliamentary Committee of the French Chamber appointed to inquire into the whole system and scope of Admiralty administration and organization as it then existed in France. The French nation were entitled to special credit for their aptitude for organization, and any conclusion they came to on such questions was deserving of great weight. The Committee to which he had referred
1188
were of opinion that if an officer were appointed to the headship of any Department, who was to take the place of his chief in any administrative function, either jealousy would arise between them if the officers were equal in ability, or the more able would absorb the authority of the less able officer, who would become a nullity. That was precisely the danger that was to be apprehended from the present proposal. How was it to be ascertained that the gentleman to be charged with the administration of the dockyards was not a superior man to the Controller, in which case jealousies would be sure to arise between them? Nothing could be more fatal to the administration of the dockyards than that a conflict of power should occur between these two officers. Before sitting down, there were one or two statements that he wished to refer to; the first was, that the Prime Minister had attempted to draw an analogy between the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty, but there was no analogy whatever between those officers. In the first place, the Commander-in-Chief was a military man of the highest possible position and experience; and, secondly, he was a permanent officer, while the great defect of the Board of Admiralty was its want of permanence. Another point of difference between them was that the personal status of the Commander-in-Chief was far higher than that of the First Naval Lord, and his weight and personal authority proportionately greater. Doubtless, the right hon. Gentleman who held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty with great ability and energy, would in the course of a few years render himself thoroughly conversant with the requirements of the Navy, but just when he had obtained the knowledge he would be superseded by some person who might be as ignorant of them. That was one great blot on our Naval administration, and he thought they ought to take a leaf out of the book of the sister service and appoint a permanent head of the Navy. A permanent First Lord ought to be insisted upon by the House of Commons—a permanent head, though under the control of the Secretary of State for the Department. Another point was this—that the naval element in the Board of Admiralty was unrepresented in the

1189
House of Commons. [Mr. GOSCHEN: Hear, hear!] That used not to be so. When he first entered the House, two—and he had even known as many as three—naval men connected with the Admiralty sat on the Treasury bench, and were able to afford the House whatever information it desired on naval matters. But now—though hon. Members might hear rumours of conflicts of opinion between the civilian and naval Members of the Board—they were able to obtain only the civilian version of the controversy through the lips of the civilian First Lord. Lastly, although he believed that the manning of the Navy in time of peace was all that could be wished, still he was of opinion that the system was very defective in not providing for manning the ships in sudden emergencies. The general condition of the Naval Reserve, including the Coastguard, Naval Coast Volunteers, and short-service Pensioners, was a discredit to the Government, and a source of apprehension to the country. The whole of those Forces were at a miserably low ebb, and the Royal Naval Reserve was also in a declining condition in point of numbers; and it must have been with pain and apprehension that the country heard the statement last year of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, that out of 500 men required to make up the deficiency in the Fleet, only 50 had been obtained in six months. He wished to know what steps had been taken since that time to establish efficient Reserves.
MR. RYLANDSpresumed that the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) had no intention of dividing the Committee on the proposed reduction of the Vote by £1,000 after the explanation which had been given, and therefore the question before them reverted to the main subject of Admiralty administration. He must enter his protest against the observations of the last speaker with regard to the office of a First Lord of the Admiralty. It was, no doubt, a blot in the system when the First Lord of the Admiralty was not a man who had had previous experience in the Department; but it would be unfortunate if the position of head of the Admiralty were confined to naval officers. Under the present system statesmen of great capacity and industry were, no doubt, appointed, and after the necessary period of appren-
1190
ticeship succeeded in becoming well acquainted with their duties; but by that time either the Government of which they were Members had run its course, or internal changes of the Cabinet had to be made, the result being that the affairs of the Navy were handed over to some one else, who had to learn the very rudiments of his new duties. The right hon. Member for Pontefract—the late First Lord—had previous experience of the Department before being placed at its head, and he administered the affairs of the Admiralty in a manner which, in his opinion, left nothing to be desired. They wanted a system that, while it would be efficient and economical, would insure a sufficient measure of responsibility. It appeared to him that they did not now secure that responsibility. Again, the cost of the Department, apart from its efficiency, was gradually increasing, and the First Lord had not given quite a satisfactory explanation of that increase. It appeared from Returns that that expenditure had risen nearly £12,000 in the last two years; and if it went on increasing every year they would soon lose all the benefit they expected to derive from the changes made by the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Childers), and those changes, instead of ending in economy, would be followed by a considerable loss to the public. He did not want to cut down salaries, but to get rid of unnecessary and inefficient officials, and a great portion of the increase of expenditure was owing to the increase in the number of appointments. He agreed with the hon. Member for Hastings that they should have a first-class man at the head of each department of the Admiralty, and that to secure his services they must be prepared to give him a good salary. The present administration of the Admiralty was not satisfactory, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) would impress on his subordinates a sense of responsibility.
SIR JOHN HAYdesired to congratulate the First Lord of the Admiralty on the changes which he had made, and on what he trusted would be the restoration of the Board to a more efficient state. The changes which the right hon. Gentleman had explained to the Committee showed that although he had not yet fully determined upon having the consultative aid of the Board on all occa-

1191
sions, still he proposed to avail himself of constant meetings with the Board, and to obtain from them the information that was necessary to enable him to conduct the affairs of the Navy. Of the changes made by the late First Lord (Mr. Childers), the one which brought the greatest difficulty upon himself, and which proved most disadvantageous to the conduct of public business, was the doing away with too many heads of different departments. The permanent heads of departments ought not to have more business thrown upon their departments than they could fully look after and control. He would recommend the present First Lord, instead of endeavouring to draw a hard-and-fast line between personnel, matériel, and finance, to place permanent officials at the head of great departments, which would require the whole time and attention of one man. If they assigned to a man more than he could possibly control, they could not expect him to be fully responsible. There were, he thought, 14 departments at the Admiralty, at the head of each of which there ought to be a permanent official. The manning and the discipline of the Navy certainly required a permanent official to superintend them. The Coastguard and the Reserves also required the constant attention of a separate officer. Then the Marines, of whom there were 18,000, ought to have at their head an officer who was in direct relation with the Board of Admiralty. The Director General of the Medical Department ought also to be an entirely distinct officer, and in direct relation to the Admiralty. So likewise should it be with the Accountant General, the Storekeeper General, and the Controller of Victualling. There was nothing so likely to lead to disaffection among their seamen and men who were serving their country, as the supposition that the food and the clothing with which they were to be supplied were not of the best description, and that there was not to be an officer who should be personally responsible for the excellent quality of all those articles. Therefore, the Controller of Victualling ought to be a separate officer. Then there should be a Registrar of Contracts—an officer who should see that all contracts for the Navy were made in a proper form and with proper persons. The office of Controller of the Navy should be subordinate to the
1192
Board; he disliked the ambitious name of Controller of the Navy, and would prefer the old name of Surveyor. The office of Chief Engineer ought to be a separate one, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman was about to re-introduce it. The office of Director of Naval Ordnance was created at his own suggestion, when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich was at the head of the Admiralty, and ought to be continued in an independent position. The office of Director of Transports must be continued, as well as that of the Hydrographer. This, with a proper system of record, would make a good working system of administration. If there were 14 departments—and 10 of them now existed—with a permanent officer at the head of each, responsible for details, he believed there would be no difficulty in attaching responsibility for everything to the proper officer. It would be for the First Lord to decide which of the Lords of the Admiralty should superintend and consult with these principal officers, who ought to be brought into direct contact with the Board on all important occasions. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman, having made such considerable changes, would frankly accept the counsel and advice of the naval members of his Board, and if he did so he would, no doubt, avoid a recurrence of disasters such as had recently happened. The hon. Member for Warrington had scarcely given the information to be desired from the Return to which he had alluded. In 1868–9, when the right hon. Member for Tyrone was First Lord, the charge in the Navy Estimates for the aggregate salaries of the town department was £186,292; the aggregate salaries at the dockyards amounted to £177,920, and pensions to £91,435, making a total of £455,647. There were many reductions during the year, and some were due to the closing of Deptford Dockyard. In 1869–70, when the Estimates were moved by the right hon. Member for Pontefract, they showed a reduction of £59,013; this was partly due to reductions made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and partly to the reductions made by the right hon. Member for Tyrone. The salaries in the two departments amounted to £167,213; those in the dockyards to £146,434; and the pensions to £82,987, making a total of £396,634. In 1870–71 a further re-

1193
duction of £9,131 was made, but the pensions were increased from £82,987 to £114,893; the town charges were £156,773; those for the dockyards, £115,837; and, with the pensions, the total was £387,503. In 1871–2 the total was increased to £406,045, and the pensions rose from £114,893 to £121,736. In 1872–3 there was another increase to £410,034; so that between 1869–70 and 1872–3 there was an increase of £22,531. He had no reason to suppose that appointments were made unnecessarily; but there would have been economy in employing those who were enjoying pensions, through having been withdrawn from the public service, for he doubted very much whether the class of gentlemen who now performed the duties were equal to the old and skilled officers who had been pensioned off. The Returns showed that the saving which had been effected by the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor was not so great as had been supposed, and that because the pension list had received such enormous additions. In conclusion, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman opposite upon having so far reversed the policy of his predecessor.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that that class of Votes for the last two or three years had been of that nature that he could hardly refrain from saying a few words on them. With true liberality Parliament had been attempted to be muzzled, but whether successfully or not he did not know; at all events, that afternoon they had had the advantage of a free fight. When the Suez Canal was opened there were some of our ships went out red-hot from Admiralty training, and went bump ashore. There were criminations, recriminations, and a Report on a bad misfortune to the Captain; and then there was an old tin-kettle with a hole in her bottom, and the Admiralty were not men enough to find out the cause of that hole, she was run ashore, and then they had a Commission. What that Commission revealed as to the reign of the blessed state of confusion in that Department he did not think it was possible to conceive, but for the graphic way in which these facts had been brought out. He did not blame either the present, or the late, or any particular Board of Admiralty, for those who had been in the habit of watching these matters for some years could not help seeing that the dis-
1194
solution of the unity of the Board began at least 14 years ago, and that was the opinion expressed by Sir James Graham in the year 1861. Indeed, Mr. Burnaby, when examined before a Committee, stated that the whole Board of Admiralty as to information on the matter of the Megæra, was in a fool's paradise. But that was not the most curious thing which came out on the Commission. In 1870, what was called an "untoward" circumstance broke out, and when it appeared that there was very likely to be a war, the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Controller of the Navy were at loggerheads as to the state of preparation we were in. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had been misreported; but so far as he (Mr. Henley) recollected, no explanation had been given on that point. The First Lord and the Government of which he was a Member had always assumed the responsibility of all that had been done; but, curiously enough, in 1869, not satisfied with the traditions of 170 years, the Government established that responsibility by a curious Order in Council. Nothing could be more definite on paper than the Order in Council of January, 1869, but during the criminations and recriminations which were consequent upon the disasters that happened, the then First Lord gave an interpretation of the Order which, in his judgment, differed materially from the spirit and meaning of the Order itself. According to the Order, the First Naval Lord was reponsible to the First Lord for advice as to the personnel of the Navy, and the Controller was to be similarly responsible in matters relating to construction and material; but then this responsibility was limited by the right hon. Gentleman only so long as these and other officers whose functions were defined by the Order in Council faithfully performed the duties of their departments, communicating with each other when necessary, and advising the First Lord and taking his decision upon all matters requiring his authority. This was a queer kind of responsibility, fined down as it was, and only existing while those officers "faithfully performed their duty." The existing confusion need not be wondered at. It was the natural result of the system. Each of the officers whose responsibility was thus marked out would naturally be jealous. At the

1195
Admiralty there had always been an almost insane jealousy of any man taking an order from anybody else; and so it seemed in these matters. It suggested the old and trite simile of the bundle of sticks—strong when bound together, but when separated showing exactly the weakness and the confusion which had existed at the Admiralty for the last few years. He hardly wondered when he remembered the changes which had occurred—from sailing to steam vessels; from paddles to screw; from wooden screws to iron; from iron to iron-clads; and, after all these changes, a new Commission issued to see whether we were not all wrong, to find that it was helplessly divided in opinion, and actually recommended nothing. He believed that, instead of weakening the Admiralty by dividing it, prudence would have suggested that its strength should be increased and its different parts bound closely together. This separation into different departments, each department standing on its own legs, had its rise in a pamphlet called Faults and Defaults, but whither had it lead us? The old plan had stood us in good stead for something like 170 years, and had never failed us, though whilst it lasted some things might have been more expensively and less rapidly done than they were now. The last trial of the old system occurred at the beginning of the Crimean War. Those who were in Parliament before that period would remember how the House was exercised night after night by old Sir Charles Napier, who told the House that the French were far quicker than we were, and would sweep the Channel if war occurred. But what happened? War did break out. A sudden necessity arose. The English and French Fleets were to proceed on a joint expedition to the Baltic. Who were there first? The English Fleet. Had it been a war of another kind we, therefore, should have swept the Channel; and though Sir Charles Napier complained of his men, and said many of them were cabmen and people of all sorts, Sir Michael Seymour's evidence was that the crews were less raw than the French, and that the Fleet was able to do good service. In his evidence before the Megæra Commission, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract said, in effect—"See my position, with some of the de-
1196
partments at Somerset House, and others at the immeasurable distance of Spring Gardens!" The right hon. Gentleman did not use the word "immeasurable," but if such a complaint as this were made in a time of profound peace, what would happen during war? Under the old system no such complaint would have been dreamt of. Then the Controller said that 70,000 letters passed through his office in a year, and he had only 30 clerks to answer them, and no first clerk to tell him what to write. What a humiliating statement, again, in a time of profound peace! He could not conceive anything more painful to an Englishman. It was bad enough five or six years ago, when the present Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer—to induce the House to adopt some financial scheme of his—said we should never have the mastery of the sea which we had before. This was a painful statement; and the disorganization of this great Department was painful too. It was equally painful when those who were appointed to consider the best form of ships dwarfed down their inquiry by saying they supposed they should have to consider the maintenance of a naval force capable of meeting that of any one Power. Good gracious! what premises to start from! Formerly, when we were as a nation only half what we were now, we had the pluck to meet successfully the whole world. Some little change seemed to be occurring at the Board, but he believed it was better to go upon the experience of the last 170 years than to set up these ninepins to be tumbled over so easily. Our first line of defence was the best, and, if we did not keep masters of the seas as we did once, he doubted whether anybody would think it worth while to come here, but we should be kept like rats in a cage. Nobody would think it worth while to put his hand in with the risk of being bitten. Considering how we depended on foreign countries for corn and for the money to pay our workmen, he was anxious that our first line of defence should be a good one, so that we could not only encounter all comers, but thrash them. Unless the Government could manage naval matters better than they had done for the last few years, they ought to revert to the old system, and restore the unity of the Board, for by that course of conduct they would be

1197
restoring its strength, and so enabling it to turn its attention to those matters only which concerned its well-being. The tendency now at outports was to shirk responsibility and to smother the Admiralty with details, whereas it ought to be kept free from these and enabled to attend to greater matters.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that but for a sentence which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) he should not have wished to take part in the debate, for with regard to the proposals of his right hon. Friend, though there were some which he did not think superior to the arrangements he should have desired, while in others he cordially concurred, he would willingly waive any doubt as to details in his right hon. Friend's favour, for he (Mr. Childers) knew the immense difficulties with which a First Lord had to contend, and the constantly fluctuating character of the questions with which he had to deal, and he was ready, therefore, to give him a steady support. He did not intend to enter into the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire about the business of the Admiralty during the last 14 years, either as to the amount of details—which he was happy to say were much reduced while he was in office—or as to the pamphlet mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the merits of which he would leave him to settle with three or four hon. Gentlemen sitting near him (Mr. Henley) opposite, who were, on its appearance, zealous advocates of its principles. It would not, however, be respectful to the Committee if he omitted to notice the quotation unexpectedly made by the right hon. Gentleman from his own Minute on the Court Martial which sat on the loss of the Captain nearly two years ago. He had the misfortune of being unable to take part in the debates on that and two or three other subjects last Session—a misfortune which he felt to be irreparable, since it allowed statements of great importance made by persons of weight to go forth to the country without any power of challenge on his part. That misfortune he must bear; but the right hon. Gentleman having without notice alluded to a particular sentence in his Minute, and founded thereon an imputation against him, he felt bound even at this late stage of the debate to give
1198
at once as clear and precise an explanation as he could. The right hon. Gentleman had construed that sentence as implying that he had in some way endeavoured to escape from or lessen the responsibility which he from the first had claimed and assumed as to all the business of the Admiralty under his charge. Now, he wished to be allowed, though it was somewhat foreign to the question at issue, to state distinctly that that had never been his intention, and that he did not think his words were reasonably open to such a construction. The whole policy of the change which was made at the Admiralty in 1869 was that the First Lord assumed towards the House and the country the entire responsibility for all the administration of the Department. He assumed that responsibility with a full knowledge of the gravity of the task which he was undertaking, acting solely from a sense of duty, and he believed he abided by it to the last. If, therefore, there was any expression of his which could bear a construction inconsistent with that view, it was quite opposed to his intentions. He could not at the moment refer to the Minute, but he believed the expression referred to was to the effect that, having laid down that responsibility in the strongest possible words, he added that the First Lord was responsible for all decisions connected with the Naval service when the servants of the Admiralty brought the facts before him and sought for his decision. Now, that was obviously a sound view of responsibility. No head of Department could be responsible in any case for the acts of his subordinates when he had no knowledge of them, and no means of having that knowledge. He was responsible for them when he had knowledge of them afterwards, and had means of bringing those concerned to account. He was responsible for punishing or excusing them, or, at any rate, for the decision which he arrived at upon their acts. He must repeat, that without being able to refer to the exact words used in the Minute referred to, he had distinctly accepted and still accepted the entire responsibility for all the decisions of the Admiralty while he was First Lord. He had never shrunk from it or thrown it upon others, and should never think of doing so.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that before withdrawing his Amendment, he

1199
wished to say that were he to enter into the question he might differ from the conclusion drawn by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken from the words he had employed; but he had always felt that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled on such a subject to much consideration, and he did not intend to depart from the rule on which he had acted. He had moved the rejection of a Vote for the salary of a gentleman who was to have the official dealing with the dockyards and was to be entitled, without reference to the Controller, to carry on the administrative details of those establishments; but he was happy to have elicited from the First Lord an explanation that no such power was to be entrusted to him. He trusted from what he had heard that that official would have nothing to do with the administrative duties of the dockyards, with the construction or repairs of ships, and the other objectionable duties to which he had before alluded, and he would, therefore, ask the Committee to allow him to withdraw his Motion, and thus to add another phantom to what had been described as "the phantom Board of Admiralty."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
MR. CORRYsaid, he should like to know when the Navy Estimates were coming on again, and whether the Government would appoint a Morning Sitting in the course of the week for their further discussion? It was now the middle of July, and the House had as yet no opportunity of discussing the great question of naval stores.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he thought they had treated the Government that year with very great forbearance. That was the 15th of July, and they had not yet finished the Navy Estimates. He was informed by a most competent authority that the Navy Estimates were ready to be submitted to the House by the middle of April or beginning of May, and the House was perfectly ready at that time to discuss the various questions that came before them. There should be some little consideration shown to private Members who remained there during the greater part of the year, and gave as regular attendance in the House as they could. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the same course would not
1200
be pursued next year, for they would not spare Government next Session, [Laughter.] He meant what he said, and they would make more stringent efforts than they had during the present year.
MR. GOSCHEN, in reply to the right hon. Member for Tyrone, stated that it was perfectly impossible that the Navy Estimates could be brought on again in the course of the week. They could not be brought on before Friday week.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

MILITARY FORCES LOCALISATION (EXPENSES) BILL— [BILL 222.]
(Mr. Bonham-Carter, Mr. Secretary Cardwell, Sir Henry Storks, Mr. Campbell.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CARDWELL, in rising to move "That the Bill be now read a second time," said: Sir, the question has been so much discussed on former occasions, and, owing to the Reports which have been laid on the Table, is so well understood, that I shall not think it necessary to occupy you at any great length in moving the second reading of this measure, the object and purpose of which is to raise the money necessary to give effect to the scheme of Army Reform proposed by the Government. It is well known to the House that all the Land Forces of the country have been placed under one control; and that although first appointments in the Auxiliary Forces will be still made by the Lords Lieutenant of the county, yet promotions will be made founded upon considerations of efficiency, in a manner corresponding with the military system already existing, and submitted to Her Majesty, like promotions in the Regular Army by the Commander-in-Chief. All officers will be required to give certain proofs of efficiency, and to attain that end an Inspector of Auxiliary Forces has been appointed; schools have been established for training officers, and other measures adopted for carrying the system into effect; and it is intended that, while service in the Militia shall be one of the qualifications for a commission in the Army, that a certain number of officers in the Regular Army shall hold commissions in the

1201
Militia. With regard to recruiting, it is well known to the House that all recruiting, both for the Regulars and Militia, is in the hands of a general officer in every district; that the commanding officer is invited to encourage men who have been enlisted in the Militia to pass into the Line; and the Militia Reserve has been readily raised up to the full number of 30,000 men sanctioned by the vote of Parliament; and that the Army Reserve already numbers between 7,000 and 8,000 men. Although it has been said in some quarters that we cannot rely upon these men being forthcoming when wanted—["Hear, hear!"]—my hon. Friends opposite say "Hear, hear"—the number of men who have been absent at the appointed periods is remarkably few, and by the latest Returns between 16,000 and 17,000 have already entered the Army, on condition at the expiration of a limited service of going into the Reserve. By the Mutiny Act, which the House has passed during the present year, recruiting is for the future provided to be for the brigade rather than the regiment. I was asked in the early part of the year by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. F. Stanley), what are to be the relations of the officers of the linked battalions? That subject has occupied a great deal of the consideration of the Commander-in-Chief and the military officers by whom we are surrounded; but I shall not be able, until final arrangements are made, and until it is exactly known what regiments are to be linked together, to announce our decision on the subject. All I can say is, that it is our earnest desire to draw the connection as close as can be accomplished, without breaking down those feelings and traditions which every regiment of the Army so warmly cherishes. I hope my hon. Friend and the House will be satisfied with that statement in the meantime. Now, these arrangements being made for drawing together more closely the Auxiliary Forces and the Regular Army, it is also perfectly manifest that local arrangements must be made for carrying it into effect. For any plan of this kind it is obvious that the union of the brigade is absolutely necessary; that localization for the purpose of recruiting, so as to give a local attachment and feeling; and that subdivision into manageable districts, under experienced officers of the Regular Forces, are essential conditions
1202
of the success of the system. Accordingly, 66 brigade centres are to be established in the United Kingdom, and they are to be military head centres of each brigade district. A brigade will consist of two battalions of the Line, two of the Militia, and the Volunteers that reside within the district. The depot battalions will be localized there, and also the Militia, and, so far as convenience will permit, the Volunteers; and the recruits both for the Line and the Militia will be trained there. The officers in the Militia and the Volunteers will obtain instruction there; and the arms of the Militia, and, so far as convenience will allow, those of the Volunteers will be stored there. As to what the personnel of the brigade centre will consist, the House will find that fully explained in the Report of the Committee that has been already laid upon the Table. It will be sufficient for me to say that there will be a selection of non-commissioned officers on whom the efficiency of the system will very much depend—that they will be very carefully selected, and many of them will be married men living in quarters selected for the purpose, and that they will be the very best men to give instruction to recruits both for the Army and the Auxiliary Forces. This proposal has met from the country generally the most favourable reception, and we have had a great number of applications from towns and places desirous of being selected for brigade centres. There have been some few exceptions, but they have been only a few, and the general feeling has been exceedingly favourable to their reception. There have, however, been some exceptions, and those exceptions did not come generally from this part of the United Kingdom, where the proposed organization will be a county organization, but from Ireland particularly; and in other parts of the country where more counties than one are associated in one brigade centre similar representations have been made. Take, for instance, Limerick, where the grand jury say—"We have expended a large sum of money in preparing accommodation out of the county funds for our own county Militia; and we object to have the whole of the Militia entirely removed to a centre at a distance from us." In a supplementary Report the Committee have met that difficulty where only it exists—in cases where there

1203
are more than one county associated with one brigade centre—that they have done in the Report which was circulated a week ago. They have been exceedingly careful not to convey the impression that they mean to break down in the slightest degree the principle of the centre organization. The system which is applicable to one part of the United Kingdom is not always exactly applicable to every other part, and what may be perfectly applicable, for instance, in Sussex, may not be applicable in four or five Irish counties associated together and joined to one brigade centre, and therefore the recommendation of the Committee is, that in the latter case we should proceed tentatively, and that, at least, in the first instance, we should not withdraw from the other counties the head-quarters of their Militia regiments. They will be equally under the command of the colonels commanding the Regulars at the depôt centre—all the principles of the system will be maintained; but by arrangement, the head-quarters of the Militia being for the time left within the county, opportunities will be taken in many instances to train the recruits not at the brigade centre, but at the garrison of the Regular troops that may happen to be within the county. I will not fatigue the House by entering into longer explanations how the arrangement is to be carried out, for I presume the Report is familiar to all. It is sufficient to say that the scheme will receive its exact application in almost all the counties of England, but in some instances—and especially in Ireland, where more counties than one will be associated—it is proposed to proceed tentatively, to ascertain whether the local convenience will be best suited by leaving the head-quarters of the Militia regiments in their own county. That being the scheme, the object of the present Bill is to enable us to raise the money to carry it into effect. I have seen it stated that this is a measure that presumes that we shall always rely on the Militia to the extent to which we rely on it now, and that we shall therefore not rely entirely upon the Reserves of men who have passed through the Army on short service, and who have afterwards gone into the Reserve. The hon. Gentlemen opposite who distrust the Reserve altogether will not be less pleased with the scheme on that account. But what I wish to observe on this occasion is this—that the necessity for this
1204
localizing principle does not depend upon whether you rely upon the Militia or the Reserves—that it is equally applicable to both. It is not the proposal to build barracks to train the Militia, for the county Militia are to be trained under canvas; and if you rely upon the Reserves, you would not require these centres less, but rather more; for I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot), that to rely upon the efficiency of an Army of Reserve you must have a localized system; because in order to enable you to find the Reserve men when you want them, they must be divided into their several localities, and be sought for where they are known. If you suppose that the day will arrive when you will cease to rely upon the Militia, that would render the measure even more necessary than it is now. The proposition for recruiting and localizing the interests of different regiments in different places is essential to any system, whether you rely upon the Militia or upon the Reserves. But there are other objects which we have in view. The billeting of the Militia is to be abolished, and on that I insist as one of the greatest boons we can have. I know nothing more fatal to discipline than the system of billeting the Militia. I know nothing more injurious in a moral and social point of view than the habit of billeting the Militia. And I know nothing more oppressive to those on whom they are billeted, or more unjust than the practice of billeting the Militia. Whether, therefore, you wish to preserve discipline, or to make the Militia efficient, or to produce good moral effects, or to do justice to those upon whom an unjust tax is now levied, I am sure you would cordially agree in the plan for abolishing the billeting of the Militia. Another object of the Bill the House will observe is this—There are charges which by law are now cast upon the locality. You passed an Act to place all the forces under a central control; and when you did that, the time had gone by for levying charges of this kind upon localities. Another object is, that we should decentralize our system, so that instead of all the burden resting upon the central office, you might be able, upon the occurrence of any emergency in any locality, to have your forces at once under arms. That is an object that we have in view in the present Bill. I have, however, seen it stated

1205
that in the present measure we do not provide a complete tactical arrangement throughout the country. That this is so to a certain extent I will not deny; but I will give my reasons for it. In the first place, I am informed by General MacDougall, the Chairman of the Committee, that if a complete system, at all approaching to that which prevails in Prussia, had been the object of the present measure, it would have been necessary for me to ask you not for £3,500,000, but for a sum more nearly approaching £12,000,000. That is a proposal which would, I think, have been entirely unjustifiable, and one which I should never have ventured to propose. I explained on a former occasion how entirely different were the requirements of Prussia, and of this country. In Prussia they have compulsory service; they have not, as we have, half their battalions engaged in foreign service; and they have a large Army. In this country out of 140 battalions 70 are always abroad, and of the remaining 70 some must be collected at training stations like Aldershot; and in the event of war, our insular position requires that we should not move our Army as the Prussians do, in large bodies collected and travelling by rail; but our troops must all converge at some port of the country, in order to be put on board ship, and find their base of operations at some foreign port. These circumstances are so entirely different that it would not be a matter of wisdom and good judgment for us to follow implicitly the Prussian practice. In making the compensatory arrangements that we were required to make through employing barracks now occupied by Regular troops for the purpose of training centres, and, therefore, being compelled to provide compensatory accommodation for our Regular troops, we have considered how the best tactical arrangement could be made, and I hope you will find that the proposals laid on the Table are calculated to bring about the best result. The result will be that our colonels will be able in every district, when called upon by instructions from the central authority, at once to place under arms and equip all the Regulars, Auxiliary Forces, and Reserve, with all their personal appliances; and every general officer will at once be able to concentrate all his Forces, completely equipped for service, with their camp equipage and military stores, without any
1206
reference to Woolwich, or to the War Office, so that the assembling of an Army would be only a matter of hours. The £3,500,000 which I now ask for, besides completing the brigade centres and barracks for the continuous training of the Militia in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Staffordshire, and Essex, will give a new tactical station in Yorkshire, complete the tactical stations of Shorncliffe and Colchester, provide for a brigade of infantry always under training for siege operations at Chatham, provide a regular depôt for stores in Yorkshire, and a new training ground for the Regulars and Volunteers in London. The sum which I ask for is, I believe, the maximum, for I wish to be free from all danger of having to come with a supplementary charge on a future occasion. No one can speak with certainty on a matter of this kind, and I have had some warning from the extraordinary rise in almost all prices that has taken place since I made the arrangement; but I remain of opinion that I have asked for a maximum sum. The money is to be advanced by the Treasury from the Balances, with power, in the usual way, to recruit the Balances by loans raised upon Terminable Annuities should they afterwards require it. If we take the charge as a permanent annual charge, probably 3¼ per cent is the rate at which we ought to estimate it, and the annual charge for all time would then be £113,700 a-year. We have already voted for billet money £113,000, £6,000 for the movement of depôts, and £1,000 for drill-grounds for the Militia, making together £120,000 a-year, for charges which at first sight this sum of money would appear to supersede; but it would not be a fair calculation to take the whole of the amount, and I shall make some important abatements from it. There will be a sum, which I estimate at £40,000 a-year, out of the £113,000 for lodging money; a sum equal to a charge of £15,000 a-year for the wear and tear of camp equipage owing to the great encampment of Militia; and another sum, which is scarcely, perhaps, a fair deduction, amounting to £12,000 a-year for fuel and gas, which we shall have to expend, but which is now charged upon those who are unfortunate enough to have the Militia billeted upon them. They, from their 4d. per day, have been compelled to meet these charges which we shall have to pay hereafter, but

1207
which have hitherto been a most oppressive and unfair tax on a special portion of the Queen's subjects. These deductions will make £67,000 a-year, which, taken from the £120,000, leaves a balance of £53,000, which represents the actual saving effected by the change under these heads. Then we relieve the counties of the charges which they have been in the habit of bearing, and I have endeavoured as well as I could to find out exactly what they were. For the last eight years the average charge on the counties in England only has been £24,000 a-year. I have not been able to obtain precise accounts from Ireland and Scotland. It would not, however, be fair to take the whole of that £24,000, for a portion of it is the repayment of money formerly expended in buildings, which will in time cease entirely; and I am now taking it as if it were an expenditure for all time, but I am only making a fair estimate when I take £20,000 a-year for the whole of the United Kingdom, instead of £24,000 a-year for England alone. That brings the £53,000 up to £73,000 a-year, which we shall save in return for the £114,000. That accounts, then, for £2,250,000 out of the £3,500,000, and if that were all that could be said, I think that for the additional £1,250,000 an ample equivalent would be found in the great advantages gained by the scheme in recruitment, in discipline, in the abolition of billeting, and in other matters. But there is another circumstance to be taken into consideration. You have now in the country 70 battalions, where four years ago you had only 46. You have adopted this mode of distribution for purposes of high political importance, but also for purposes of economy. You have withdrawn the forces from the colonies, and you have centred them at home, and the result has been the development of great defensive power, and a great feeling of independence on the part of the colonies, without any diminution—and I believe with an increase—in their feelings of loyalty and attachment to this country. But you have obtained it by a very great economy. It entails, however, the necessity of providing additional accommodation in barracks in this country, and at the same time a great increase in the space requirements for the accommodation of each individual man in the Army has been rendered necessary by the new sanitary
1208
requirement of 600 cubic feet per man, and although, in some cases, the number of men in these returned battalions has been reduced, the cadre has in all cases been maintained, and as the battalions pass from one barrack to another, no barrack can be deemed sufficient which will only receive a battalion at its minimum strength. Judged, then, strictly in accordance with a pecuniary view of the matter, the scheme cannot be held to be extravagant, for the result of all this has been that you would have had to provide additional accommodation for about 9,000 men, and to place an additional sum of money in your Estimates for that purpose. I therefore think you will consider the £1,250,000 fairly accounted for if these objects have been attained. I take no credit for the reductions in the permanent Staff, which I feel sure will result from this system of concentration, or for the selling of any of the smaller barracks, which may be disposed of when the system is carried into effect; and I think I have shown you a very fair pecuniary case for the measure which I ask you now to read a second time. When the scheme is accomplished, we shall have in every district under competent officers of the Regular Army a portion of that Army and all our Militia and Volunteers. We shall have in every sub-district training grounds available for the training of recruits, both for the Regulars and the Militia, and for training the regiments of Militia and Volunteers in connection with the Regular troops. Our recruiting will be made systematic under one control, and there will be power to every colonel to put the Army, Militia, and Volunteer and Army Reserves under his command on foot immediately on notice. There will be storehouses in every district for the arms of the Regulars, Militia, and of the Volunteers, so far as their convenience may induce them to make use of them. There will be power to the general officer to combine the whole Forces within his district whenever ordered, including camp, equipage, and stores, without having recourse to the War Office. There will be a large tactical station in the North with barracks to train the Militia in those counties where, owing to the state of the labour market, the continuous training of the several Militia regiments is possible, such as Lancashire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire, and Essex. These barracks will be avail-

1209
able in winter for the Regular troops. We shall also have a metropolitan exercising ground for the Regulars and Volunteers. The billeting of the Militia will be abolished, and although we have not got that complete tactical arrangement which some hon. Gentlemen recommended, and which the example of Prussia favoured, we shall have in this country complete tactical stations in Yorkshire, at Aldershot, at Dublin, the Curragh, Shorncliffe, and Colchester, and we shall have at Chatham the means of assembling always successively a complete brigade of infantry to be undergoing training in siege operations under the officers of the Royal Engineers. This seems to me to be as complete a system as the necessities of the country require, or as a reasonable regard to economy justifies. This has not been made the ground for an increased charge which would have amounted to many more millions, but in completing the brigade centres, having to provide compensatory arrangements for the Regular troops, the House will have kept in view the purpose of expending sums of money necessary for the compensatory arrangements in the way best calculated to secure the best tactical arrangements for the Army—both Regulars and Reserves. These are the objects which this Bill has in view, and I trust that the House will consider that the financial arrangements have not been prepared without a due regard to economy. I now beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Secretary Cardwell.)
MR. RICHARDsaid, that although professedly incompetent to pronounce an opinion on the Bill from a military point of view, he would venture to assert that the scheme would prove exceptionally popular if in two or three years hence it was not assailed by the representatives of the service as wholly unsatisfactory, if not absolutely worthless, for such had been the fate of every modification of our military establishments during the last 25 years. The advocates of large armaments were always, like a spoilt child, crying for some new toy. It was, therefore, inexplicable to him how the right hon. Gentleman could labour under the delusion that the scheme would lull the country into a sense of safety, and extinguish those ignominious panics to
1210
which we had been so frequently exposed. He (Mr. Richard) objected to the Bill because it involved a large expenditure on a doubtful experiment, and also because it covered the country with a web-work of military institutions, the tendency of which was to make us what we have always deprecated—a military nation. At one time the Conservative party distinguished themselves by their hostility to large standing Armies, and some of its members were still faithful to its ancient traditions. As a proof that they still retained that opinion, he would instance the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who, in his great speech at Manchester last April stated that we had a large standing Army established in England, contrary to all the traditions of the land, and that by a Liberal Government and with the warm acclamations of the Liberal party. For his own part, he objected to large military establishments, not only on account of their enormous cost, but because they tended to foster a spirit of war, and were too often schools of immorality and vice. The moral condition of our Army and Navy was simply appalling. Wherever, indeed, a body of soldiers was stationed, it became a corrupting and demoralizing agency. In support of this statement he could cite the testimony of Colonel Dickson, once a Member of that House, as to the Aldershot camp being a seat of corruption and iniquity; a letter written by a clergyman in The Times three years ago, characterizing the camp at Colchester in similar terms; and the Report presented last year by the Royal Commission on Contagious Diseases. He thought, however, they were not required, for the Contagious Diseases Acts were in themselves a confession of the immorality of our Army. Our military system tended to foster vice and immorality by taking men in the full vigour of youth, and dooming them to a life of laborious idleness. He also thought he was justified in referring to the provisions of the Mutiny Act, exempting soldiers from the burden of contributing to the support of their illegitimate children, and had no hesitation in characterizing them as offering a premium upon seduction and desertion. In fact, he had the authority of Sir John Bowring for stating that there had been 70 illegitimate children born in Exeter in one year owing to the presence of a single regiment in

1211
that city. He felt bound under these circumstances to protest against the establishment of these military centres, which would spread immorality around them in every direction.
COLONEL BARTTELOTobserved that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have undergone some modifications, and the modifications were no improvement on the original scheme. The scheme had been well canvassed by the public, and he could not say it was now so well received as it was when it was first introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. In the early part of the Session of 1870 the right hon. Gentleman had informed the House that we had never been so well prepared in a military sense as we were then, and yet shortly afterwards, in obedience to a panic, he had asked for 20,000 additional men, entailing a further expenditure on the country of £2,000,000. Here the same want of information might exist, and it might eventually turn out that we had not got regiments for each of the depôt centres, and in that case the cost of attempting to carry out this scheme would be entirely thrown away. With regard to billeting, while for his own part he quite agreed that it ought to be abolished, he could not help thinking that, if land had to be purchased for the proposed new centres, the proper business plan should be adopted of asking Parliament annually to vote as much money as was required, for then the House and the country would be able to ascertain whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to carry out his scheme in practice as he had shadowed it forth in theory.
MR. CARDWELLsaid he had already stated that a circular had been sent out to the Militia officers to that effect.
COLONEL BARTTELOTremarked that it would be necessary to press the matter still further in order to ensure the arrangement being carried into effect. With regard to the Volunteers, he thought it would be far better to order them to go out to the centres for four, six, or eight days successively every year, because then they would be known to the commanding officer of the depôt centre, and would know with whom they would have to act in case of emergency.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had already taken a Vote for that purpose.
COLONEL BARTTELOTwas aware of that, but considered that it would not be
1212
sufficient to give the Volunteers permission to go, for unless the direction was enforced, more than two-thirds would not go. He wished to know how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to connect the Militia with the Line regiments at these depôt centres. But the main question was, whether the right hon. Gentleman could get an Army Reserve or not. The right hon. Gentleman at first proposed a three years' enlistment, and when he opposed it, the right hon. Gentleman was backed up by the Prime Minister. But now the right hon. Gentleman was enlisting men for six years in the Army and six in the Reserves. He (Colonel Barttelot) was told, however, that the men would prefer to enlist for a much longer period. He was further told that the men we were getting as recruits were an inferior class, such men as we wished to get rid of before. He had letters from officers stating that desertion was on the increase, and that many of the men who deserted from one regiment enlisted in another. He would like to see a Return of the number of men who had deserted, the number who had turned out bad soldiers, and the number who proved to be good. If the short enlistment scheme had failed, as he maintained it had, it would be for the House to say whether it was not better that this should be a tentative scheme, and that the money should be voted from year to year.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the House was placed at a disadvantage in being asked to approve a Bill for a sum of money before they knew how it would be applied. As representing the University of Oxford, which had presented a memorial against the establishment of a depôt near that University, he wished to avail himself of this opportunity of protesting against such a plan being carried out upon the mere ipse dixit or decision of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. This was a subject of interest not merely to one town, but to the whole country. The House had recently determined to make the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge more national than they had hitherto been, and to open them to the whole youth of the country. If that was done, numbers of young men would be sent to the Universities whose discipline would require great care. When the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, spoke as he had done of the necessity

1213
of having married non-commissioned officers and married officers, he at once admitted that there were some difficulties connected with the establishment of these depôts, and that an extreme amount of discipline would be necessary. At present, Oxford University was wholly free from the kind of association which might be introduced by the establishment of a depôt. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that the deputation representing those who had been proctors in the University, which came to him, had assured him that even when the Militia were in the City for a short time it was almost impossible to maintain discipline in the University. It was, therefore, evident that if they brought into the neighbourhood of the University a set of young men—although they might be few in number—who lived in a different sphere, having other associations, and admitted to their fellowship those who were at the University, much difficulty would be experienced in preserving that good feeling which was essential to order in the University. He had no wish to make too much of this question, but he desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the subject once more, in the hope that he would give an undertaking that he would not come to a final decision on the subject until the University had reassembled, or perhaps until Parliament had met again.
MR. PEASEsaid, he was unable to approve of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, because he entertained a strong feeling with regard to the proposed establishment of a depôt in a division of a county which so far had been free from barracks as his own, and because he was unable cheerfully to assent to the grant of so large a sum as would be taken by this Bill, for the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he could not secure for £3,500,000 the accommodation he had at first contemplated, and it was possible that he would not be able to obtain it for £4,500,000. Moreover, there was now in the country barrack accommodation for 135,000 men, and although the whole of it could not be recommended by military authorities, there must be a considerable margin remaining, which might be used for the purposes of this scheme, and in reduction of the amount in the Bill now before the House. It had been said that the object was the localization of regi-
1214
ments, which he supposed was the placing them in districts from which they were likely to be recruited. Now, he protested against that being likely to be the case, for the districts from which they were likely to be recruited were those in which the labour market was the lowest. No man could shut his eyes to the fact that wherever there were 90 per cent of men in a state of celibacy great demoralization must be the result, and the fact that 14,000 persons had petitioned against having a depôt at Sunderland was a proof that the feeling of the inhabitants was strongly opposed to the measure. He regretted to find that this monstrous military expenditure found so much favour with the Government, and believed that it would create a most uncomfortable feeling throughout the country against a Government which came into office professing totally different views.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was sorry that a Bill of such importance should be discussed at that late hour—nearly 1 o'clock. There was one thing, however, that he wished to say in particular upon the subject, which was that he entirely concurred in the objection of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) to the clause which saved soldiers who were the fathers of illegitimate children from the consequences to which others who did not belong to the Army and were the fathers of illegitimate children were subject. He deeply regretted that exemption. Such a measure ought not to be passed or rejected without full consideration. He must, however, be allowed to state that the Bill had not been objected to by Parliament. The plan had been proposed many months ago, and favourably received by the House, and he believed, notwithstanding what had been stated, that it was regarded favourably by the country also. As no one had thought proper to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, he did not see how the House could refuse to grant the money to carry out the plan to which it had assented. But he must be allowed to advert to one part of the policy of the Government from which he wholly dissented, and that was the colonial policy on which the Bill was partly founded. He did not himself like the policy of concentrating such large bodies of troops in this country, and he thought the time would soon come when

1215
there would be an outcry against it, but as the plan had been undertaken he thought the House could not do otherwise than vote the money necessary to carry it out.
MR. HOLMS MR. HOLMS moved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. CARDWELLhoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion, for an adjourned debate on the Bill at this late period of the Session would be excessively inconvenient.
LORD EUSTACE CECILsupported the Motion for adjournment. A Bill of such importance ought to have been introduced at an earlier date, so as to have afforded proper time for its discussion.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHalso thought the House would be justified in insisting on an adjournment. He wished to know how the money required for the Bill was to be provided?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his intention was to raise it out of the Balances without incurring any debt at all.
MR. RYLANDSthought that if there was not sufficient time to discuss the Bill it should be thrown over to the next Session of Parliament. We were in no imminent danger, and therefore there could be no necessity for pressing the measure forward with such haste.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

REGISTRATION OF PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
On Motion of Mr. NORWOOD, Bill to enforce the Registration of certain Partnerships and of persons carrying on business under names or styles other than their own, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. BARNETT, Mr. TURNER, and Mr. WHITWELL.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 249.]

MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Bill for making provision for facilitating the manœuvres of Troops to be assembled during the ensuing autumn, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CARDWELL and Mr. CAMPBELL
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 251.]

WAR OFFICE (PENSIONS) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, Bill to amend the Law relating to the grant of Pensions and other compensations to certain workmen who entered the permanent Civil Service of the War Department between the passing of "The Superannuation Act, 1859," and the seventeenth day of December one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CAMPBELL and Mr. Secretary CARDWELL.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 252.]

GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1862 AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend "The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862," ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. ADAM.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 250.]

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
On Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bill for making further provision respecting the application of the Revenues of Greenwich Hospital, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE and Mr. GOSCHEN.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 253.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (NO. 3) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board, relating to the districts of Bristol, Cardiff, Ealing, Idle, Lincoln, Newport (Monmouthshire), Shipley, Warrington, Wigan, and Wrington, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 254.]

PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL.
Message from The Lords,—That they do not insist on their Amendments to the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill to which this House disagrees; and agree to the Amendments made by this House to the Bill with Amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at Three o'clock.