Commons Sitting of 17 April 1874

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Preston, v. John Holker, esquire, Solicitor General.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Explosive Substances, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY PURCHASE—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Ordered—First Reading—Parliamentary Voters Registration (Ireland) * [72]; Agricultural Labourers' Dwellings (Ireland) * [73]; Barristers (Ireland) * [74].
First Reading—Attorneys and Solicitors * [75].
Second Reading—Municipal Franchise (Ireland)* [34], put off.
Considered as amended—Mutiny*; Marine Mutiny *.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—AYR BURGHS AND ISLE OF WIGHT.
MR. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received from the Judges selected for the Trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 18G8, Reports relating to the Elections for the Ayr District of Burghs; and the Isle of Wight. And the same were severally read to the effect following:—
Ayr Burghs Election—Lord Neaves reported that "an application having been made by the Petitioner to withdraw the Petition, the parties were, by previous appointment, this day heard upon the application before me, and after due notice no other party having appeared proposing to be substituted as Petitioner, the Petition was held to be withdrawn, the Petitioner being found liable to pay the costs of the Respondent, in terms of the Statute: and that the withdrawal of this Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement between the Petitioner and Respondent."
Isle of Wight Election—Mr. Justice Grove reported "that on the fifteenth day of April 1874," a Summons came on to be heard before me in the matter of this Petition, on behalf of the Petitioner, for liberty to withdraw such Petition, and upon hearing the Attornies or Agents on both sides, and upon reading the affidavits produced before me by and on behalf of the respective parties, and upon examining the Agents for the Petitioner and Respondent respectively upon oath, I ordered that the Petitioner be at liberty to withdraw such Petition, and that he should pay to the Respondent his Costs." And that "in my opinion the withdrawal of such Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement, nor in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition."

LEGISLATION—RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce, during the present Session, any legislation for the bettor prevention of accidents on Railways?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: I expect to have soon to introduce a short Bill supplementing the Act of last year amending the Railway and Canal Traffic Act. As to any measure requiring railway companies to provide greater security against accidents, I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday—that the subject is engaging the best attention of the Government, and I hope shortly to be able to make a further statement upon it.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—THE "ELLEN CONSTANCE" AND THE "VITTORIA."—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any Correspondence has taken place between the Government of this Country and the Spanish Government relative to the running down of the British merchant vessel "Ellen Constance "by the Spanish ironclad" Vittoria "on the coast of Spain; and, when that Correspondence, if any, will be laid on the Table of the House?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The Ministry of Marine in Madrid have ordered an inquiry into the collision between the British ship Ellen Constance and the Spanish iron-clad Vittoria, off the coast of Spain, and so have the Board of Trade, who are now awaiting the result of the Spanish inquiry. There has been some Correspondence on the subject, and there will be no objection to lay it on the Table when the inquiry is ended.

INDIA—THE BENGAL FAMINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government has any objection to communicate to Parliament a Report of the proceedings of the Council of State for India during the three months ending the 31st day of December last, and thus to enable Parliament to judge of the influence exerted by the Council during that critical period of preparation against the impending calamity of the Bengal Famine?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONin reply, said, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that all the executive and administrative business of the India Office was transacted by the Secretary of State in Council the discussions and deliberations of the Council were secret, except when individual Members dissented from the conclusions arrived at by the majority and recorded their dissent, together with their reasons for it. But the results of the proceedings of the Secretary of State in Council were contained in the despatches and telegrams which were sent by the Secretary of State to the various Indian Governments. The
  712
  greater number of the telegrams and despatches that had passed between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy with regard to the Bengal Famine had already been presented to the House, and the remainder would shortly follow; therefore, even if the proposal of the hon. Member were practicable, which it was not, he would object to it on the ground that it would result merely in the transmission to the House, in a clumsy shape, of information which it already possessed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—STRANDING OF THE "KRON PRINZ."

  QUESTION.
  MR. WAITasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been directed to the stranding in the River Avon, on the 1st instant, of the screw steamer "Kron Prinz;" and, whether it is the intention of his department to institute an inquiry into the causes of such disaster?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: The casualty to the Kron Prinz happened in the River Avon, while the ship was in tow. She went up with too little water, struck the bottom, and keeled over as the tide ebbed. There is, therefore, no intention to hold an official inquiry into the loss of or casualty to this ship, as no question of seaworthiness arises, and the matter is purely one for the harbour authorities and the shipowner. It being a foreign ship, moreover, the Board of Trade would have no power to deal with the master, officers, or owners, even if they were to order an inquiry in such a case.

LEGISLATION—REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS.

  QUESTION.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to introduce this year a Bill for the Compulsory Registration of Births and for the better verification of the causes of Deaths?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he intended doing so, and he hoped to introduce the Bill on Thursday next.

IRELAND—PUBLIC WORKS LOAN COMMISSIONERS—LOANS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.—QUESTION.
MR. POWERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Public Works Loan Commissioners are prepared to grant money to Local Authorities in Ireland for sanitary purposes, the object being approved, at the same rate of interest as granted to England at the same time, and subject to the same period for the repayment of such loans?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he did not know the nature of the advances to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He, however, wished to point out that the Public Health Act, to which the question seemed to refer, and under which advances were made at a lower rate than that at which the Public Works Loan Commissioners could usually lend money, was confined to England, and therefore that it was not in the power of the Commissioners to make advances under that Act to local authorities in Ireland. It was intended, however, to introduce a corresponding Bill for Ireland, and the hon. Gentleman would then see what provisions were proposed on the subject.

THE ASHANTEE WAR—HONOURS TO OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, with reference to honours distributed to Officers of the Naval and Military services who were engaged in the late Ashantee War, Lieutenants Royal Navy, when gazetted in Despatches for distinguished conduct in the war, are on promotion to higher rank eligible for the honour of C.B.; and, if not, if he would explain to the House why they are excluded from a privilege accorded to Medical Officers Royal Navy, and to Military Officers holding the same or junior rank?
MR. HUNT: Sir, by the statutes in force relating to the Order of the Bath lieutenants of the Royal Navy are not eligible for the honour of C.B. When promoted to the rank of commander they become eligible. Great consideration was given by the Admiralty to the claims of all officers serving on the Gold Coast, and the recommendations to Her Majesty were made according to the best judgment that they were able to form.
714
Because, however, no officer of the rank referred to by the hon. Member was selected for the distinction, it would seem hardly proper to say that the class was "excluded from the privilege," in the terms intimated in the Question.

LEGISLATION.—ACCIDENTS TO RAILWAY SERVANTS.—QUESTION.
MR. BASSinquired, Whether the President of the Board of Trade has any intention of providing compensation for Railway Servants, in respect of injuries produced by want of care or improvidence on the part of their employers?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, that the subject was under consideration, but that at present no measure was prepared upon it.

SUEZ CANAL—SUSPENSION OF NAVIGATION.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any information has reached Her Majesty's Government with reference to the reported telegram from Constantinople, in which it is stated—
"That several Embassies have received advices from Alexandria that Mons. Lesseps has informed the Khedive that, being unable to work the Suez Canal under the conditions imposed by the Suez Canal Commission, he would dismiss the pilots, extinguish the lighthouses, and thus virtually close the Canal;"
and, whether Her Majesty's Government have considered this contingency in connection with the establishment of an alternative route to India, as recognized by the Report of the Select Committee on this subject last Session?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, there have been of late frequent communications respecting the affairs of the Suez Canal, and it is quite, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, true that among several telegrams which have been received, there is one announcing that M. Lesseps had informed the Khedive that, being unable to work the Canal under the conditions imposed by the Commission, he would dismiss the pilots, extinguish the lights, and thus virtually close the Canal the Porte, however, has instructed the Khedive to insist on the complete fulfilment of those conditions; and knowing M. Lesseps myself, knowing also that he is a man of sense, I have for my own part very little fear that he will not yield to the circumstances of the case. We

715
have to-day heard from Paris that the French Government have made very strong representations to M. Lesseps, over whom they naturally exercise great influence, and have suggested to him that he should at once comply with the tariff fixed by the Commission, reserving his objections for future consideration, and, of course, that he should not resort to the violent proceedings which he had threatened to take. I look upon the telegram respecting the intentions of M. Lesseps as representing what may be regarded as a momentary irritation on his part, and therefore I would hope the determination it reports need not be viewed in the serious light in which my hon. Friend seems inclined to take it. With regard to the second part of the Question, as to whether Her Majesty's Government have considered this matter in connection with the establishment of an alternative route to India, I have only to say that if that subject comes before the House in a formal manner, I shall endeavour to give the views of Government upon it, but I do not think it would be either desirable or convenient to attempt to deal with it when put in the shape of a simple Question.

ARMY—PURCHASE OFFICERS' COMMISSION—THE REPORT.—QUESTION.
MR. GODDARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can inform the House when the Report of the Purchase Officers' Commission will be laid on the Table?
MR. HUNT: Sir, the Report of the Royal Commission will probably be presented to Her Majesty by the end of this mouth or early next month. After such presentation no time will be lost in laying it on the Table of the House.

PATENT MUSEUM.—QUESTION.
MAJOR BEAUMONTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Government has had its attention drawn to the fact that more than eighty thousand pounds a-year are derived from surplus Patent Fees, while the Patent Museum affords totally inadequate accommodation to the unrivalled collection of machinery and models now exhibited there; and, whether he can hold out any hopes that suitable premises will be provided?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, the Government was aware of the facts mentioned
716
by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that more than £80,000 a-year was derived from surplus patent fees, and that the accommodation was not altogether satisfactory in the Patent Museum. The subject was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

IRELAND—LEGISLATION—THE FRANCHISE.—QUESTION.
MR. MELDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to facilitate the registration in Ireland of persons entitled to the franchise, and to prevent the making of frivolous' objections?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The hon. Member himself has given Notice of his intention to introduce a Bill for the purposes to which he refers, and, as the question has not yet been considered by the Government, and is full of difficulty, I should like, on the part of the Government, to have an opportunity of making myself acquainted with the provisions of the Bill so to be introduced by the hon. Member, on a subject to which he has devoted so much attention, before deciding whether I myself will bring in a Bill on the subject.

IRELAND—MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT, 1870.—QUESTION.
MR. MELDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session applicable to Ireland for the amendment of the Married Women's Property Act, 1870?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill of this Session to amend the Married Women's Property Act, 1870—which he believed had passed the second reading—had for some reason, of which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was not aware, introduced a clause providing that it should not apply to Ireland. If the hon. Member for Kildare would propose in Committee to omit that provision, he knew no reason why the Committee should not assent to that proposal.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that the word "Ireland" in the Bill was a misprint for "Scotland."

LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is able to name the clay on which he proposes to introduce the Government Bill for amending the Licensing Laws?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he hoped to be able to bring in the Bill on Monday week.

ADEN—RELATIONS WITH THE ARAB TRIBES.—QUESTION.
MR. BOURKE, in reply to an hon. Member, said, several communications had reached Her Majesty's Government with regard to the tribes near Aden. The Turkish Ambassador had informed his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the son of the Aliwee Sheikh was released. The Resident at Aden had been instructed to report how the affairs of the tribes in the neighbourhood of Aden now stood.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE SUGAR DUTIES.—QUESTION.
MR. GRIEVEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he had any objection to alter the day for the abolition of the Sugar Duties from the 21st of May to the 21st of June?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I named a day, of which I spoke yesterday, for reducing or abolishing the duties on raw and refined sugar respectively; but of course, without having had an opportunity of any communication with the gentlemen connected with the trade. I have to-day received a communication from the Chairman of the Sugar Refiners, and I have promised that I will consider the subject. I shall be prepared on Monday to give an answer, if the hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question.

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

FAMILIES OF CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE CROWN.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE, in rising, to call the attention of the House to the circumstance that there is no power to grant any pensions to the widows and families of those civil servants of the Crown who die while in the performance of their duties, whatever may have been the duration of their public service, and more especially with reference to the Foreign and Colonial Services; and to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the alleged grievances of the widows and orphans of those civil servants of the Crown who die in the service of the Country are worthy of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government,"
said, he believed that was the only country in Europe in which no provision was made for the widows and children of men who died in the service of the Crown in the performance of their duties. In contra-distinction to that practice, there was a provision for widows and for orphan children in Franco, in Austria, and in Prussia. The necessity of what he asked for, was shown by the fact that Mr. Farr, of the Registrar General's department, stated in 185G, that there were then living about 2,300 widows of deceased Civil Servants, and an unknown number of fatherless children. Beyond that there was the further consideration that the children of persons of property were naturally provided for, and the children of those whose income was derived from their industry generally enjoyed the same privilege, while the source of income depending on the Civil Servant's life, the children were liable at any time to be thrown on the community, which was in the highest degree pernicious. There were many cases of gentlemen who had died after considerable service in public departments, in which applications had been made to the Treasury for pensions for the families; but those applications had been invariably refused, the answer being that there was no fund in existence out of which such pensions could be granted. He would instance some of these cases. Mr. Keith E. Abbott, who had been 35 years in the service of the Crown—for 27 years in Persia, and afterwards for five years as Consul General at Odessa—died in 1872, leaving a widow and eight children entirely unprovided for; but he

719
believed nothing had been done for that family. Mr. Erskine, senior clerk of the Accountant General's department, served for 35 years. He died in 1872, after a brief illness, caused by overwork. The application of the Admiralty to the Treasury for an allowance to the widow and a large number of children—who, he believed, were left unprovided for—was immediately rejected he had for 17 years paid his contribution to the Superannuation Fund, but, notwithstanding that, nothing was done for the widow and children. In the case of Governor Keate, who, after having been 30 years in the employment of the Government, was sent out to the Coast of Africa, and died within seven days, no provision had been made for his family. Then there was the case of Mr. Tomline, who was a clerk at Devonport Dockyard for 25 years. He died after six weeks' illness, caused by overwork, and not a single sixpence was given to his wife or family. Many years ago it was the custom to make some allowance in these cases; but in 1829 an alteration was made, and members of the Civil Service had to contribute out of their salaries towards a superannuation fund. Salaries under £100 paid 2½ per cent. and salaries above that sum 5 per cent. and the former system was entirely abolished. Perhaps the House would allow him to give the opinion of the late Sir Robert Peel, who, on being examined before the Select Committee of 1856, said—
"It was some time ago the practice in the Civil Service of this country to allot pensions to the widows and female relatives of public servants who died in the discharge of their public duties: but that practice, speaking generally, had for some, time passed into desuetude. In the whole range of the Revenue Service of this country, no pensions were allotted to the widows or female relatives of public officers who died in the discharge of their duty; in the case of clerks in public offices, men who performed the greatest service to the country, and who died in the public service, after continuing in it 30, 40, or 50 years, Parliament had allotted no means of making provisions for their widows or female relatives. In the Army and Navy pensions were given in many instances; in the Civil Service men were cut off in the prime of life, and no means existed of making provisions."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out that Sir Robert Peel died before the year 1856.
MR. BAILLIE-COCHRANEexplained that the extract he had just read was from a letter of Sir Robert Peel, which was submitted to the Committee
720
of 1856. The French law enacted, in Section 3 of the Act of 1853, that—
"The considerations of justice and public utility which have regulated the pensions in the State Establishment are not less important in all Establishments, and this rule should be applied to the Departments and Communes as well as to the State itself; the Government, therefore, invites the Departments and Communes to set aside funds for the families of the Civil Servants."
The House would feel, he hoped, that there were strong reasons why he should ask attention to the subject, for it must be well aware that the cost of living had greatly increased of late years, and that consequently Civil Servants were unable to make provision out of their salaries for their wives and families. That was more than ever the case at the present time, when, although everything was doubled in price, their pay remained the same, and he thought, therefore, that the country could not do better, seeing that it was in so prosperous a condition, than to sot aside a sufficient sum to meet these cases. There were no more meritorious class of men than the Civil Servants of the Crown, and he believed their case ought to be fairly considered; he therefore left the matter in the hands of the Government in the hope that they would give their attention to the subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the question to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) has directed the attention of the House is one of great interest, and everybody must feel that the motives which induce him to bring it forward are of an excellent character. At the same time, it leads us into very extensive questions, because a proposal to provide pensions for the widows and families of all Civil Servants who may die in the service of the Crown is a proposal either very considerably to increase the remuneration which the Civil Servants now receive, or else it is a proposal to modify and alter the terms upon which they receive their remuneration. Of course, it is clear that if you give a man a certain salary, and attach to it a grant of a superannuation pension, you are doing something more for him than if you gave him a simple salary only as long as he is employed, and told him he must make provision for his own superannuation. Again, if you say "We will give a pension to your wife and family after your death "you are materially in-

721
creasing his remuneration. It would seem at first sight to be far the simplest manner of remunerating our officers to pay them for the time they actually devote to the public service, and to let them make provision for themselves in their old age and for their wives and families; but for reasons which I hold to be sound and good reasons, that is not the system which is adopted in this country. Instead of giving a man a certain amount of pay for the time during which he serves the country, and then sending him adrift when he is no longer able to serve, we provide that he shall be entitled, after a certain term of service, to a certain pension for his life. That is a matter which has been repeatedly considered by Parliament in various forms. For instance, there was the Select Committee to which my hon. Friend refers. I then only recently had the honour of a seat in this House, but I was a Member of that Committee, and I remember some of the proceedings before it. I do not, however, remember the quotation he refers to as having been made from the opinions of the late Sir Robert Peel, though I have no doubt the quotation is a correct one. At the same time, I should hardly like to say what amount of authority that opinion would bear with reference to the question in the form in which it is now submitted to us; for one would like to see under what circumstances Sir Robert Peel delivered the opinion which has been quoted. I would remind my hon. Friend that besides that Committee which sat in 1856, there was appointed a Royal Commission, also in 1856, to inquire into the whole subject of superannuations. The Commissioners presented a Report in which they went very carefully into the subject, and they decidedly recommended the continuance of the system of superannuation to Civil Servants, and they at the same time made some remarks upon the point to which my hon. Friend has drawn our attention. But before I state what those remarks were, let me state that the Civil Servants of the Crown then received, as they now do, superannuation allowances after a certain number of years' service, but not over and above the nominal salaries attached to their appointments. The nominal salaries attached to their appointments, however, were at that time, subject to a reduction of a certain percentage, which was supposed to be carried to
722
a fund out of which their subsequent superannuation allowances were supposed to be provided. At the time when the Royal Commission sat, that system was in operation. That being so, and the Royal Commissioners having given it as their opinion that it was desirable to maintain the system of superannuation allowances on three grounds, they proceed to consider how far those three grounds could apply to the case of pensions to widows and families. The first ground was, that it must be recollected that incapacity caused by illness or other infirmity cannot be provided against by means of insurance, and that it was important that a Civil Servant should be set at case in his mind as to his position in case his health unexpectedly broke down. The second ground was, that supposing an assiduous and devoted public servant who had spent the best part of his life in the service of the State became suddenly incapacitated, public opinion would not allow such a man to starve. The third ground was, that in many cases the hardship of removing a public servant, if no provision were made for him, might lead to men being retained in the public service when they were no longer fit for it. Then the Commissioners go on to say, that in some countries the provision which is made by the State for its servants has been carried still further, and has included widows and children. The Commissioners proceed to say that, none of the three reasons apply to this case. In the first place, widows and children can be provided for by means of insurance. Secondly, they say that the difficulty which would arise from the pressure of public opinion if Civil Servants were allowed to starve, would not apply to the family and widow as a general rule, although they admit that in certain cases there would be a pressure of public opinion. Under the system I have mentioned, the Civil Servant's superannuation was supposed to be provided out of a fund formed by the reduction of his own salary, and it is always to some extent an equitable ground of complaint, that in some cases, after contributing to this fund for a length of time, men died and their families derived no benefit from it. But that ground of complaint has been removed by the alterations soon after made. Very shortly after that Commission reported, a Motion was carried in

723
the House by the late Lord Mayo which dealt with the system of deductions to which I have referred, and from that time the superannuation allowance of Civil Servants has been provided out of the public funds, in addition to their salaries. Under those circumstances, the case, which did not appear to be a strong one to that Commission, is decidedly much weaker than it was then, because there is no doubt it is perfectly competent for a Civil Servant to make an assurance on his life for the benefit of his widow and family, if he have any. There is the further consideration, that if you adopt the system of giving pensions to the widows and families of your Civil Servants who may leave widows and families, and alter the scale of salaries with a view to that object, you would be doing an injustice to those who have no families, because you would have to regulate the whole scale of salaries on that system. The result would be, you would have to give smaller salaries than you would otherwise give, because you would be providing by a Post mortem system for the families of Civil Servants who might survive them. I do not think that a good mode of making provision for Civil Servants, or that it would be acceptable to them. There are, no doubt, exceptional cases—cases in which a Civil Servant is called upon for service of peculiar danger—and then it is desirable and right that his mind should be set at case by the assurance that if he loses his life in the performance of that peculiar service, some consideration will be shown to his widow and family. That is a case which it has been attempted to meet by a Treasury Minute, one as late as the 22nd of December last year, applying to particular classes—persons employed in the Convict Service and other departments, in which, if a Civil Servant should meet with death, either directly or indirectly, from injuries received in the discharge of his duty, power is given to the Treasury to make some allowance to his widow and children. I do not think you could carry the matter beyond that, or that you could fairly adopt the general principle of giving allowances to the widows and families of all your Civil Servants. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Does that also apply to ill health?] It only applies to injuries received during the service. The terms of the Minute are these:—"Special
724
pensions in the case of severe bodily injury occasioned, without his own default, in discharge of his public duty." In the case of death from exposure to unhealthy climate no provision is made or can be made; it would introduce a great difficulty if you were to attempt it, because you would have not only to provide for the cases to which my hon. Friend has referred, but to apply the principle to all Civil Servants, to police, postmen, Customs officers, and so on, so that the proposal of my hon. Friend would both lead to a great deal of expense, a point I need not dwell upon, and would occasion dissatisfaction in the Service itself. What I think a proper system to adopt is to pay our servants fairly and liberally for the work they are called upon to do, and leave them to make their own provision for those they leave behind them.

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. T. BRASSEY, in rising to call attention to the organization of the Royal Naval Reserve and the importance of establishing a close connection between the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine, said, the House need not approach the subject with any misgiving as to the great extent of the naval resources of the country. The number of seamen and seafaring persons employed on board ships entering and leaving the ports of the United Kingdom was not less than 407,000, and in that estimate he did not include the vast number of ships flying the British flag in colonial and foreign waters. He believed he was correct in saying that if we had a maritime conscription such as existed in France we should be able to muster a force of not less than 700,000 men to man our fleet. He did not think, therefore, it was necessary to submit a formal Resolution on the subject. Our available naval reserve was of enormous extent as compared with that of other nations, and it would be unreasonable to expect that the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had so recently taken office, would be prepared to declare his adhesion to any definite policy on the subject. As a means of comparison, he would quote a few figures from an interesting speech delivered last year by Commander Goodenough at the United

  725
  Service Institution. It appeared that the maritime conscription in France comprised a force of 172,000 men; but the whole of those men were not fit for active service at sea. For some years before the Franco-German War, the number serving on board the French Fleet was about 15,000, while 7,000 men were in reserve in barracks. The men of the Reserve were double the number of those in active service, and would constitute a force of 65,000 men, from 20 to 36 years of age. Commander Goodenough also stated the strength of the Naval Reserves of the North German Empire to be 80,000 men, but only a small proportion of that total was composed of men who had actually served in the North German Navy. At the present time there were about 5,000 seamen employed, and the Reserves might be taken at 15,000 men. The United States had no Naval Reserve whatever, and the absence of such Reserve had been frequently deplored by the Secretary of the United States Navy in his Report to Congress, while, in regard to Russia, the number of ships of the Russian Navy engaged in active cruising was too limited to afford the means of highly training a large number number of men as sailors, and the Mercantile Marine was comparatively insignificant. It would therefore appear, in comparing our position with that of other nations, that we required nothing but a good organization combined with that completeness which marks the preparations of other Powers, to establish effectually the security of this country from naval attacks. With regard to this subject, Sir Frederick Grey had expressed an opinion that for our war Navy we should require 84,000 officers and men. Admiral Sherard Osborn, in his recent pamphlet, had recommended approximately the same numbers; and those estimates would not seem exaggerated when we took into view the extent of our commerce and the necessity of our being able to protect our colonial possessions. There seemed, therefore, no reason from the recent changes in naval warfare for going back from the recommendations of the Royal Commission, of which Lord Cardwell was the Chairman, that we should enrol 20,000 seamen in our Naval Reserve, and establish a force of 12,000 fishermen for coast defence. It, however, had been said, that the Naval
  726
  Reserve was a Force on which they could not rely, and that our seamen were deteriorating; but that opinion was one which was not shared by those who were most competent to form an independent opinion on the subject. This was shown by the report of Sir Cooper Key who took the Naval Reserve to sea a few years since. His report of the 1,700 men of the Reserve embarked in the fleet for a month's cruise at Whitsuntide, 1869, was decidedly favourable, and it was much to be regretted such cruises were not more frequently repeated. The complaints we heard in the present day were not made now for the first time. Before the repeal of the Navigation Laws in 1849, the incompetency of the officers and the want of discipline among seamen were the theme of constant complaints among shipowners, and when assertions of that kind were made, it was desirable to know how far they were supported by facts, and accordingly the Board of Trade in 1872 sent Mr. Grey and Mr. Hamilton to the principal seaports, to inquire if the character of the Mercantile Marine had undergone any such depreciation, as was reported to have taken place; and their Report was to the effect that they had not ascertained any fact to establish such an allegation, but that on the contrary a great improvement had taken place in the condition of our seamen. Although, undoubtedly, there was a proportion of black sheep among them, the fact was that since the introduction of steamers, the best men had been attracted to the steam service, leaving an inferior class to man the sailing vessels. The inferior scale of wages in sailing vessels as compared with steamers was the cause of the difficulty in manning sailing ships. There was no general complaint among the owners of steamships. The Inman Company, as stated by Mr. Inman at a conference lately held in Liverpool, made it a rule to give no advance note, and to take only married men, if they could get them. That had proved to be an excellent rule. They never wanted men, and they had many men in the service who had been with them 15 years. Steamers in fact not only offered higher wages, but also the great boon of shorter absences from home, and the employment was, in many cases, a continuous service. In the Royal Navy, with the like object of securing

  727
  a superior class of seamen, it had been found necessary to introduce the continuous-service system. It might be said the profits of the trade were too small to allow of additional charges being placed upon the employers of seamen, but in that case the public must bear the charge by paying higher freights; and the improvement in the seamen would have the happy effect of diminishing the loss of life and property at sea. He believed that if all were done which might fairly be claimed on the part of the seamen, it would have a sensible effect in promoting their efficiency and elevating their moral character. The reduction in the premiums of insurance would compensate for the expenditure upon wages. Shipowners would derive no benefit from the intervention of the State in encouraging apprenticeships to the sea and subsidizing training ships so long as the wages of skilled workmen on shore remained so much higher than the wages of seamen. It was a well-known fact that at the present time a large number of seamen who had been carefully trained were serving, not as seamen, but as firemen, being induced to take that disagreeable task by the somewhat superior wages which they received in that capacity, while many left the sea altogether, because their experience as sailors had given them an aptitude for many employments on shore in which they earned better wages than they could command either in steamers or sailing vessels. Higher wages, however, were paid in our own merchant service than in another, except, perhaps, that of the United States. Thus far, the nations which had been the builders of ships had furnished seamen to man them; and, as the United Kingdom enjoyed an undisputed pre-eminence as a shipbuilding country, we might be confident that our sailors could hold their own, if they chose, with the sailors of other nations. He desired that the question should be looked upon as a national question. It was quite clear that if there was anything in the spirit of the law prejudicial to the interests of the sailor, that state of the law should be at once considered with a view to its amendment. There was one point of considerable public importance to which he would invite the attention of the House. He referred to the practice of issuing to seamen advance notes upon
  728
  their being shipped for service on board vessels of the Mercantile Marine. That point had been repeatedly brought under the consideration of the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, and it had been argued that the practice was a serious cause of deterioration among our seamen, and also gave rise to the loss of property in shipping. The seaman could not cash his advance note, except at a heavy discount; the money raised by the transaction was too often squandered in debauchery; in many cases not a farthing was laid out in providing an outfit of clothes for the intended voyage; and seamen were the only class of labourers who received an advance of wages before any work was done. The allotment note, on the other hand, was most advantageous to seamen and their families, and should receive all possible encouragement from shipowners. The Commission also reported that it was exceedingly desirable that sailors' boarding-houses should be licensed and under inspection, and that no such boarding-houses should be allowed in connection with beer-houses and public-houses. He hoped that the Government might feel justified in adopting the suggestion. It was further urged that we should come to some understanding with foreign Powers as to the restraint of crimping in seaports abroad, and that it might be feasible to make crimping by a British subject on a British vessel in a foreign port, penal. Might it not be possible, by Consular Convention, to insure to shipowners that agreements made by the seamen in this country should continue binding upon them in a foreign country? Shipmasters scarcely did their duty to each other in the mutual endeavour to obtain good crews. In the discharge note it was a practice to endorse the seaman in the conventional words as "very good," when he deserved a totally different character. Even in the Reserve, he believed, might be found some very bad bargains for the country, and if any such existed there should be no hesitation on the part of the responsible officers in weeding them out. The retainers were so liberal that none but efficient and well-conducted men should be allowed to remain in the Service. The expense of £12 per man was far too large to admit of inefficient men being retained, and he suggested that a different arrangement should be

  729
  made in regard to seamen entering the Reserve for the first time. The uniform retainer was £6 for every man, irrespective of attendance at drill or proficiency in chill. By a recent regulation an addition of 1d. per day was given, but as the men served for only 28 days, it did not involve a large extra expenditure, or offer any great stimulus to improvement. If, however, they fixed the minimum sum at £5, with an additional scale of pay up to £6 for efficiency in drill and good conduct, a greater stimulus would be given to the men to acquire a knowledge of their duties. The expense would not be much greater than at present, but even if it were he did not think it would be grudged by the country. No doubt, recruiting for the Reserve had been checked by the increase in steamers, which, especially those in the coasting trade, were so short a time in port that the crews could not attend drill without losing their regular employment. The steamers, however, were a bad school of seamanship, but there was still an ample fleet of sailing vessels to form a nursery for the Naval Reserve. It was very much to be regretted that we had failed to keep up the Reserve to the standard recommended by the Royal Commission, or even to the number it reached only a few years ago; and even if we had to incur a certain expenditure for such a purpose, the money would be well expended. If such an expenditure led to any tangible result, the country would gladly bear it, for it was the insurance fund of the nation. The Royal Commission recommended that the Force should be composed of trained seamen, and it was to be recruited in the first instance from adults. As a temporary measure 20,000 men were to be enrolled from the merchant service; but, as regarded future supply, school ships were to be established, capable of accommodating from 100 to 200 boarders in each ship, of whom 100 were to be supported by the State. Two thousand four hundred boys would thus be supplied annually to the Mercantile Marine and the Reserve, and it was recommended that £40,000 should be voted annually for the maintenance of the ships. No Vote had ever been taken to carry into effect this recommendation, nor had any Vote been taken to supply the place of the Naval Coast Volunteers. There were at present, it was true, eleven training ships
  730
  at different ports; but, in so far as they were to be regarded as training vessels for the Reserve, all except the Warspite were upon a wrong principle. Seven of the training ships were intended to receive street Arabs, and, under the Industrial Schools Act, they had received a total subsidy of £11,870. These ships could accommodate 1,900 boys, and the actual number on board was 1,250. There were also three reformatory ships: they could take 750 boys, the actual number being 647. They had received £8,906. The Government, however, having only subsidized industrial schools or reformatories afloat, had done nothing to help poor but respectable parents to train their sons for the sea; and he would therefore suggest that, as an experiment, they should take over one of the ships stationed in the Thames and one in the Mersey; that the boys should be of the same class as those admitted into the training ships of the Navy; and that the expense of the ships taken over should be met by a contribution in equal thirds from a special Vote to be taken, as for educational purposes, by a contribution from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and by another from the Admiralty, out of the Vote taken for their general training-establishment. The contribution from the Admiralty should be payable only on the completion of the training and upon the boy's qualifications being tested by examination. It should be a further condition of the Admiralty grant that the boy should consent to serve in the Navy for one year. The cost of maintaining boys in the existing training ships was on an average £20; but assuming that the instruction was made more perfect than at present, it would probably be safe to take the expenditure at £30 a-head. In each of the ships in the Thames and the Mersey there should be accommodation for 250 boys. He ventured to insist strongly on the importance of passing through the Navy, boys intended for the Reserve, because it was quite certain that mere drill without discipline would not prepare a young seaman for naval duties. It might be urged that the crews of our men-of-war were already composed in such largo proportion of boys and ordinary seamen that it would be impossible to pass any additional number of boys through the Navy; but the problem might be solved by commissioning such a ship as the

  731
  Ariadne specially for the purpose of training the ordinary seamen passing through the Navy into the Reserve. He had omitted to mention that he would make the age of admission 16, and the period of service in the training ships two years. The duties of the officers appointed to the Ariadne would he arduous; but the number of lieutenants might be doubled, and devotion to the duty should be duly recognized by the Admiralty. It had been proposed by several local Marine Boards that the Government should encourage apprenticeship to the sea, by offering a premium of £10 to every boy on completing an apprenticeship of four years, on production of a certificate of character, and passing an examination in seamanship. He did not see why the suggestion should not be adopted, provided it was stipulated that all apprentices receiving premiums should serve a year in the Navy as ordinaries, receiving a further gratuity of £10 on leaving the Navy and passing into the Reserve. If they remained in the Reserve until 50 years of age, they should be entitled to the same pensions as seamen in the Navy. If a full Reserve could be formed from the boys thus trained, the necessity for the Reserve paid by annual retainers would, as Mr. W. S. Lindsay had pointed out, no longer exist. He need not again enlarge on the importance of forming a Reserve for coast defence among our 150,000 fishermen. It would be worth while to commission a few more gunboats, to be employed in visiting the fishing stations in the slack season of the fisheries, thus affording the fishermen the opportunity of learning their gun-drill without travelling to an impossible distance from their homes, and avoiding the necessity of keeping up several permanent drill batteries on shore, where there was often a most scanty attendance. The employment of a few gunboats on that service would be useful, if only to increase the opportunities—so rare at present in the experience of naval officers—of becoming acquainted with our coasts. Further, no more honorary commissions in the Naval Reserve should be given, except to owners of yachts who succeeded in persuading all their men to join the Reserve. The white ensign might be used by any owner who could bring 50 men, bonâ fide yachtsmen, into the Reserve, and the privilege
  732
  should cease unless substitutes were found for any men in the original batch of 50 who withdrew from the Reserve. Cadetships in the Naval Reserve had been given to young gentlemen from the Conway and Worcester, and that should be followed up by giving them a short course on board the Excellent. Officers of the Volunteers were invited to go to Aldershot, and for the same reason, no more commissions should be given in the Naval Reserve except to officers of the Mercantile Marine who had duly qualified. The value of the Naval University at Greenwich would be immensely increased as a national institution, when the officers of the merchant service were allowed to participate in all the advantages it afforded. Lastly, he urged the appointment to the Reserve, at an early date, of a competent Staff of officers with an Admiral at their head. Until a recent date the Controller of the Coast Guard devoted a portion of his time to the Reserves; but there was work for a considerable staff of officers, if the duty of increasing the numbers and efficiency of the force was to be properly done. Without an officer of high rank and considerable influence at the head of the Reserve, its requirements would never be duly represented to the Admiralty. But they wanted not only an Admiral at the head, but at all the great ports a local representative of the Navy, who, by constant residence, would acquire influence over the seafaring population, who would induce them to join the Reserve and personally superintend their drills. In conclusion, the hon. Member said he had only to thank the House for the patience with which it had listened to him.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, he was glad that his hon. Friend, than whom no man was more fit for the task, had directed the attention of the House to that subject the question of the Naval Reserve had been neglected or deliberately set aside by the late Government, as was shown by the Tote for it diminishing for several years past. He was also fortified in that assertion from the circumstance that the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking publicly somewhere last winter, said that—
  "the defence of our shores is only a remote and unlikely duty for the Fleet to be tailed upon to perform." We should expect them to he

  733
  on the coast of any enemy who might attack us, and for this reason our Admiralty authorities have always been less anxious to spend money on defensive armaments than on the construction of ships, which might on every ocean and in every quarter of the globe assert our moral supremacy."
  That was a very important and also a very candid and straightforward statement, but he ventured to dissent from it. He thought that 40,000 able trained seamen were, as a weapon of defence for this country, infinitely more valuable than six, eight, or ten unseaworthy iron-clads. In the face of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, he said that that great question had been "shunted" to let a very heavy train come up. Therefore it was very desirable to press upon a new Ministry and a new Parliament, the present state of our Naval Reserves. During the discussions on the Navy Estimates last year the late First Lord told them that the seamen and marines for whom they were then providing were sufficient at any moment to man the sea-going fleet. He was glad to hear that. He believed they had a noble body of trained seamen at the disposal of the Admiralty. And why were they efficient? Because they had been trained from early youth to their profession, and the system of training boys for the Navy was admirable. The number of ships in commission last year was 226, one-half of which they might put down as, strictly speaking, ships of war, from iron-clads to unarmoured cruisers, gunboats, &c., and the rest were transports, store-ships, troop-ships, and other vessels engaged in miscellaneous services. On Monday next they would be asked to vote 47,000 men, blue-jackets, marines, and others. Consequently, according to the statement of the late First Lord, that number was sufficient for the purposes of the seagoing fleet.
  MR. GOSCHENexplained that his statement was that the seamen and marines were sufficient to man not only the ships in commission, but the ships which would be put in commission, there being ships of the Reserve which would be put in commission within a reasonable time.
  LORD ESLINGTONpresumed that if the ships in commission were doubled, the number of the Reserve would be approximately arrived at, and that half
  734
  of them were ships of war and the other half transports, &c. Now, what was to be voted in the shape of Reserve men, and what were the means of manning at any moment a War fleet? The Coastguard had fallen to 4,300 men, though the Manning Commission recommended a strength of 12,000; about 12,000 merchant seamen were enrolled as a Naval Reserve, but it was a question whether we could at any moment lay our hands upon anything like that number; £1,000 was to be voted for the Pensioners, and it was taking a sanguine view to say there were 1,000 Pensioners available for a Reserve; and finally, there were possibly about 700 men enrolled in the newly-created Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, in which his hon. Friend (Mr. Brassey) had taken so prominent a part. There were thus somewhere under 18,000 Reserve men at our disposal. Were these sufficient even to man the Reserve of the fleet, and convert it at any moment into a War fleet? [Mr. GOSCHEN: Yes.] Then it was the minimum number, but there was a a question beyond the bare requirements of the Fleet. This country was becoming more and more dependent every year not only for the supplies for our manufactures, but also for the food of the people, upon the produce of foreign nations, and he wanted to know what means we had at our disposal for the protection of that trade. He was not going to say anything in favour of the old Navigation Laws; but what were the spirit and object of those laws? They were to encourage the growth of ships and seamen for the defence of the State. Those laws were held to be obstructive to trade, however, and were swept away, and our commerce had grown in an immeasurable degree in consequence; but in precise proportion to the growth of our commerce ought to be our means of defending that commerce. What were those means? He believed they were nil, so far as an effort had hitherto been made on the part of the State to develop them. There was a larger amount of property, floating on any given day upon the sea, belonging to the British nation than to the whole of the Continental States of Europe put together. Our weak point was our property at sea. That would be the quarter which would be attacked in the event of war, and we

  735
  ought to be prepared at any moment to defend that amount of property in ships and goods. Looking at the Naval Re-serves from that point of view, he repeated that in his opinion the means of protection which they furnished for our trade by sea were practically nil. Let us put our House in order therefore in a time of peace and see—for it was more a matter of organization than of expense—whether we could not improve our position by organizing properly the means at our disposal. The Manning Commission—in which Lord Cardwell took a deep interest, that noble Lord having been an active member of it—recommended a Reserve Force of 60,000 men, involving an addition to the Navy Estimates of something under £600,000, this including 12,000 Coastguard men and 20,000 adult merchant seamen at first. That seemed a large sum; but practically it was only equivalent to the cost of about two second-class iron-clads. Little, however, had been since done in order to give effect to the recommendations of that Commission. In fact, it was the contrary, and although he believed that the 4,300 Coastguard men had been carefully weeded and were reliable seamen, yet there ought to be besides these a body of well-trained able seamen, on whom we might rely at any moment; not men who carried false "A.B." certificates in their pockets, though they were the reverse of A.B.'s, but real sailors and men trained in the use of heavy artillery and competent to handle the cutlass or the carbine. The Commission, therefore, intended the present Naval Reserve for a temporary expedient, wishing to stimulate, by a Vote of £40,000 a-year to school ships in our chief ports the training of boys, for the merchant service, and to render them available for the Royal Navy in emergencies, but nothing had been done to carry out that, their chief, recommendation. Industrial and reformatory ships were certainly aided by the Home Office, but he was sorry not a penny had been given to assist in the training of the children of honest parents. The Warspite and the Chichester had turned out admirably trained boys; but many of those belonging to the latter were disqualified for the Royal Navy by a ridiculous Admiralty Regulation, requiring them to produce cer
  736
  tificates of birth, which, being children of destitute parents, they could not do. He could not help thinking that a most absurd piece of red-tapeism. The Warspite had trained, since its establishment in the last century, 50,000 or 60,000 boys, but captains hesitated to take them because they had never been to sea. If they had a cruise now and then, they would get their sea legs. For his part, he should like to see a Warspite in all the principal ports of the United Kingdom. His complaint against the Admiralty was, that they had not taken counsel with private shipowners. Had they done so, he could not but think that they would have received their valuable advice. Private owners felt the want of able seamen so much that he was sure they would be glad to meet the Government upon fair terms in regard to this matter of training seamen. Moreover, if the State aided the training ships which the Royal Commission recommended, they could claim in return for the assistance to the early training of the boys the rig-lit of availing themselves of their services as Reserve men in case of emergency. He did not, at this early period after their accession to office, urge the Government for an answer at that moment. It would not be reasonable to do so, for they must have time to give their mind to the solution of the matter; but the question was a thoroughly national one, and he trusted Her Majesty's Government was alive to the importance of having a real and reliable Naval Reserve.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was as glad as the noble Lord who had just sat down that his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had taken an early opportunity of bringing the subject of the Naval Reserve of this country under the consideration of the new House of Commons, and he trusted that the new House would look with favour on that most important Force, and that when hon. Members brought the subject forward with the industry, accuracy, and talent of the hon. Member for Hastings, the House would always receive thorn with the attention they deserved. The noble Lord who had just sat down had charged him (Mr. Goschen) with intentional neglect of the Reserve Forces of the Navy.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, he had not spoken in an offensive spirit at all. He

  737
  had quoted the right hon. Gentleman's own words.
  MR. GOSCHEN, in continuation, said, the noble Lord had not only quoted his words, but had put a gloss upon them which he ventured to say, without desiring to use an offensive expression, and confining himself to Parliamentary language, differed entirely from their real meaning, and was calculated to convey a totally false impression of what he (Mr. Goschen) had said. He thought that the noble Lord could not be perfectly serious when he charged him with neglecting the Reserve Force, or that he had not done him the honour to listen to his remarks on previous occasions, when he (Mr. Goschen) not only expressed the interest he took in the matter, but proposed schemes to the House for increasing that Force he had drawn up regulations with respect to these Reserves, and in the last year the Royal Naval Reserve, so far from falling off, had been increased by 2,000 men. It was scarcely fair, therefore, of the noble Lord to put such a construction on what he had said. The noble Lord had quoted two circumstances in favour of the construction which he put upon his views. The one was the reduction of the annual Vote, and the other certain words he (Mr. Goschen) had used with regard to the defensive measures adopted by this country. With regard to the latter, he would state to the House and the noble Lord what his feeling was. What he had said in effect was that naval authorities had been more anxious with regard to the offensive powers of this country than with regard to defensive measures, and if he was not much mistaken he first gave expression to these views—which he distinctly avowed—when referring to the anxiety which was manifested on the subject of coast defence as compared with that of sea-going ships, for during late years the amount of public attention which had been concentrated upon defending harbours in England was, he thought, somewhat unworthy of a great maritime nation. What he meant to express was this—that for a country claiming to be supreme on every sea, to be always speaking of and confining its attention to defensive measures was a thing which could not be generally approved. Further, what he was speaking of was not with regard to Naval Reserves as com-
  738
  pared with ships, but with regard to the view the public seemed to take on this question. Then with regard to the Estimates, he deplored as much as any man in the House could, the fact that the numbers of the Naval Reserve had not for several years come up to their expectations. Two years ago he stated to the House the measures which had been taken to increase the numbers of the force. Last year it was found that the Reserve was not yet efficient, and he undertook to revise, and did revise, the then existing Regulations. The result, he was happy to say, was, that the Naval Reserve had been increased by 2,000 men, for when his hon. Friend brought this question before the House last year the numbers were a little under 12,000, and they were now a little under 14,000. That was a gratifying circumstance in itself, and was a proof that neither he nor his naval Colleagues had neglected the important subject under consideration, He also fervently joined in the wish which had been expressed, that the present Government would give the attention it deserved to this important Force, and that they would do as he had done, namely, from month to month watch its numbers with the greatest anxiety with the view to see what further measures were required for increasing its efficiency. The difficulty which had always been felt in obtaining men for the Reserve was less the pay and the pension—because it was generally agreed that these were adequate—than the objections the men felt to tying themselves to 28 days' drill in the year, as they were afraid that doing so would interfere with their other engagements. The limitation to certain places at certain times had been found to work inconveniently: and measures had been adopted for dividing the drill, so that the men would not be called upon for so many days at the same time, and also for making the places of drill as far as possible suitable to them. They had further especially endeavoured to maintain the efficiency of the First-class Reserve, even, as he was ready to admit, at the expense of numbers, by weeding it and keeping the standard as high as possible, so that they should not have a Force which looked well upon paper, but upon which they could not rely. An opportunity, however, was afforded to men of the Second Class who served well to obtain promotion into the

  739
  First Class. With reference to the penny a-day given to those who had done well it was given and valued as a mark of distinction, and not as a pecuniary reward. "While differing from the views expressed by the noble Lord as to the efficiency of the Reserve, this he said distinctly—that he would cordially welcome any measure which would extend the Reserve, and he quite agreed with the noble Lord that it was more a question of organization than of cost. He had alluded to the disinclination which sailors entertained to tying themselves to certain days and places, and he should add that shipowners were also disinclined to engage men who were liable to be called out in the Naval Reserve. The noble Lord said that counsel had not been taken with shipowners, but in that, too, he was mistaken. They had consulted shipowners. The Board of Trade had examined most carefully into the disposition of the shipowners to accede to some regulations by which the supply of seamen might be at once increased, and additional men at the same time enrolled in the Reserve. There was, however, great difficulty found in making a regulation by which the Mercantile or any other Fund could be spent upon training-ships in connection with the Navy. One of the difficulties experienced was this—that if there were two young sailors, one of whom was free and the other liable to be called out as a Reserve man, the shipowner would naturally select the sailor who was free. These difficulties existed, and it was fair and right that they should be candidly stated. It would certainly be most desirable if shipowners could be induced by some means or other to engage men who were engaged in the Naval Reserve. He could not at first sight concur in the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings as to the expediency of having the men drilled once for all. He thought all naval authorities would agree with him that it was desirable the men should be drilled from time to time. Changes occurred in the navigation of ships and other matters, and though it was not absolutely necessary that the men should be drilled every year, he thought that they should be drilled periodically, whatever the interval might be. As to the numbers of the Reserve, he had no wish to under-rate in the slightest degree the importance of that
  740
  Force, but he must remark that the number of blue-jackets required for manning our ships was not so great now as it was in 1859. At that time our line-of-battle ships required 1,000 men to man them, whereas the more powerful ships of the present time only required 500 men, and in the case of the Devastation only 300 men. In other words, the power of each individual man had increased in proportion to the power of the ship. Therefore, 5,000 men would go much further towards manning a fleet now than they would have done in 1859. He made that statement, not with the view of discouraging the idea that our Reserves should be large, but to re-assure those who might be frightened by the statements that had been made on the subject. The noble Lord opposite had compared the 47,000 men who manned our sea-going ships with the 18,000 men in reserve, but he forgot that all but 19,000 of the former number were stokers, engineers, artificers, and bandsmen, while the 18,000 men in the Reserve were sailors, so that really there was not much difference between the number of blue-jackets in the Navy and that of the sailors in the Reserve. The men, moreover, who would be required to act as stokers, &c., were not included in the numbers of the Reserve; and he should wish the House to remember the distinction between the mere artificers of the fleet and the pure blue-jackets, who formed its fighting force. The Reserves consisted of men who had been trained at the guns, and were used to the navigation of the ships, and such men were limited in number, while there was an abundance of men who were fitted to discharge the duties of the other class. It must, also be taken into consideration that we had 7,000 Marines on shore, who in time of war would form a most valuable addition to the force of our fleet, as they were all trained to the use of guns. He was aware how important it was that our Naval Reserve Force should be kept up, but at the same time he did not think that the fears that had been expressed with regard to it were in any way justified; and the comparison instituted by the hon. Member for Hastings between our naval force and those of foreign countries should not have too great weight attached to it, because it was

  741
  impossible for us to ascertain how much of their naval force consisted of real sailors, and how much of the other classes to which he had referred. It was impossible in time of peace to keep up such a force of men as we should require to man our ships in time of war, but in case of necessity, he believed that we should be able to find men as fast as we were able to provide ships for them, and that even at starting we should be able to man a very large number of ships. At the same time, he trusted that the Government would keep their eye upon this question of the Reserves, and would take into their best consideration the many important suggestions which had been made. He was afraid, however, that no course that could be followed would be successful until the shipowners themselves saw the necessity not only of taking an interest, as they had done, in our training ships, but of facing the inconvenience of having Naval Re-servo men on board their ships for the sake of public advantage the late Government had thought over the proposition of taking a certain number of boys and passing them through the Navy, but the question arose, what could be done with them afterwards? The least that could be expected from boys so trained would be that they should give the country a quid pro quo by consenting to servo in the Reserve and to put up with the inconvenience of drilling at certain times and seasons he begged distinctly to state that the late Government never intentionally reduced the force of the Royal Naval Reserve, and that its reduction was owing, not to the lowering of the terms, which indeed had been improved, but to the difficulty of drilling. He, however, trusted that the increase of 2,000 in the Force which had taken place mainly during the past six months marked the beginning of a better time for it. He ought not to sit down without thanking the hon. Member for Hastings, not only for raising so interesting a discussion upon the question, and for the interest he had taken in that House in the Naval Reserves, but for the great service he had done out of the House in initiating in a great measure the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, which he hoped would become a large Force, which certainly would prove most useful in case of necessity. There were great difficulties to be over
  742
  come in organizing such a Force, because for men to go to sea was much more difficult than to go to drill in Hyde Park, the personal sacrifice and inconvenience being greater, and more time being required. So great, however, had been the energy displayed by the hon. Member and others in the matter, that these difficulties had been in a large measure overcome, and it was hoped that the movement had now obtained a fair start. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would see in the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers an important, although a small Force, and that the movement would continue to receive the assistance and attention of the Admiralty.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he did not feel called upon to reply at length to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), because it could scarcely be expected that he should be in a position to do so, having held office for so short a period. He might, however, venture to assure the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) and his noble Friend on his right (Lord Eslington) that the subject of our Naval Reserves was of the greatest interest to him, and that he should fool it to be his duty to devote a considerable time to the examination of the various questions which related to them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was quite right when he said that the Naval Reserve had increased in number since he brought forward the Navy Estimates last year. In April 1873, when the hon. Member for Hastings addressed the House, the Royal Naval Reserve consisted of 11,500 men, whereas it now consisted of 13,900, showing an increase in the number of men in the force of 2,400–2,000 of that number were men who had joined the Second Class of the Reserve, and he be believed about 700 of them were men who had formerly belonged to the Royal Naval Coastguard he could assure his noble Friend that, although it was impossible for him to take up this question at once, still he should make an effort to render our Naval Reserve system as perfect as possible. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had pointed out the difficulties in which men of the Royal Naval Reserve and shipowners also found themselves in consequence of the men being obliged to drill at certain times. The great remedy for those difficulties

  743
  would, he trusted, be found in dividing the drill into as many periods as possible, but, in order fully to carry out that object, some such system would have to be adopted as that proposed by the hon. Member, under which boys should be induced to go through a certain amount of training, after which a very few drills would keep them in a state of efficiency. The suggestions made by the hon. Member were well worthy of consideration, and he could assure him that they would receive every attention at his hands.
  MR. MACGREGORsaid, he was surprised to hear that it was believed the shipowners of this country were averse from employing men who had engaged in the Royal Naval Reserve. As a shipowner himself, he had many such men in his employ, connected with the port of Leith, and he employed them only too willingly, and he could testify to the preference given by other shipowners to such men. He believed that if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty would only put himself in communication with the shipowners at the different ports, and fix various periods of drill, so as to suit the different trading seasons, he would find no difficulty in largely increasing the Reserve.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the very valuable proposal which had been made by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey). Although they would all desire to give credit to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) for the fact that during the last 10 months the Royal Naval Reserve had increased by more than 2,000 men, they could not lose sight of the fact that the Navy during the last five years had diminished from 69,500 to 60,000, of whom nearly 3,000 were bluejackets. It was to be hoped that the 2,000 men who had joined the Reserve included many of those who had been discharged from the Navy. He should be glad to see the Education Department brought into closer contact with the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. If the Admiralty would establish training ships and employ officers at the different ports, and the Board of Trade encourage shipowners to employ the boys who had been trained, the ships themselves might be
  744
  used for the purposes of educating those boys, whose education devolved upon the country. The Navy could then have the first pick, and the Mercantile Marine the next, and those boys who did not go to sea at all would by the education they received be converted into respectable members of society. Nothing could be more advantageous to a naval country like this than increasing the number of training ships at our seaports, and using them as schools for education of boys for the Navy. Looking at the great deterioration of the character of our merchant seamen, the Mercantile Marine would be only too glad to employ such boys, and, he believed, sanction their afterwards becoming members of the Reserve.
  CAPTAIN G. PRICEthanked the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) for the lucid explanation which he had given to the House, and cordially agreed with the object he had in view—the increase of the Naval Reserve. As an officer of some experience he wished to call the attention of the House to one point. He thought the Royal Naval Coast Volunteers, which, as had been said, were composed almost entirely of fishermen, might be advantageously merged into the Royal Naval Reserve. The naval coast defence consisted of ships of the newest type, large turret ships and a new class of gunboats; but both alike carried very heavy guns, which could only be worked by men specially trained. If, therefore, we had to man our ships at a notice of a month or six weeks it would take some months, or even a year, for any respectable number of Naval Reserve men to be made efficient enough to man these ships. In his opinion the men upon whom we should have in time; of difficulty to rely for this purpose were the Coastguard, the Pensioners, and the Royal Marines—more particularly the Royal Marine Artillery. For that reason he would suggest that a greater number of marines should be kept on shore, and that the body generally should be augmented and instructed in gunnery. There was also a large number of young men in our Dockyards who were doing nothing, who might be sent to sea and made efficient in their drill. Every endeavour should be made not to make the drill of the Reserve irksome to the men, and, as they might be supposed to be fairly in-

  745
  structed in seamanship, they should be trained in gunnery, in which, on account of its novelty, they might be induced to take an interest.
  MR. NORWOOD, who had a Notice on the Paper to call attention to the desirability of extending the terms of the Warrant constituting the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, so as to include the Inquiry into the character and condition of the Crews of British Merchant Ships, and into the best means for ensuring in the future a supply of efficient officers and seamen, and also the Inquiry into the constitution, procedure, and powers of Courts of Inquiry into Wrecks and Casualties, said that the subject which he wished to bring before the House was so intimately connected with the one under discussion that they might advantageously be considered together, for it was evident that upon the condition of the Mercantile Marine depended the number and quality of the Royal Naval Reserve. He regretted that he did not share the sanguine views which the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) took of the state of the Mercantile Marine, which from careful inquiry, as well as from personal experience, he believed to have greatly deteriorated of late years. The physique, the stature, and the health of the men were by no means so satisfactory as formerly, whilst in seamanlike qualities and in subordination there was a decided falling off. These were serious allegations to make, but he felt sure that the masters and pilots who used the three ports of Liverpool, London, and Cardiff—those ports where a promiscuous body of seamen were to be found—would confirm what he had stated. So little were many of our seamen acquainted with the duties of a seafaring life that shipmasters were frequently heard to declare that out of the crews now engaged scarcely one in three who shipped themselves as A. B.'s was really efficient when out at sea. The practice of breaking articles was also far too common. There was now a certain number of defaulters on the departure of almost every long voyage-ship, and when the master arrived at Gravesend he was obliged to get the assistance of the crimps, who made up the number anyhow, and the master went to sea with a crew anything but efficient. That was a great source of
  746
  evil, because it tended to disgust the good and honest seaman, who was compelled to do more than his just share of work, owing to the inefficiency of the men thus engaged. In a debate on the manning of the Navy in 1871, the late Mr. Graves expressed a strong conviction that there was a deterioration in the character and condition of the crews of British merchant ships, and quoted the opinion of the Liverpool Shipmasters' Association; and Sir Edward Hornby, who for some time was Judge of the Consular Court at Constantinople, and was now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of China and Japan, in a letter addressed by him last year to Lord Shaftesbury, and communicated by his Lordship to the Board of Trade, said that though no doubt instances could be found of overloaded and badly-found ships, many of the losses which occurred were the result of incompetence, idleness, insubordination, and the habits of drunkenness in the crews. Sir Edward Hornby doubted whether the "British tar," as he was formerly known to us, was not becoming a thing of the past, and, without taking quite so serious a view of the subject, it must be admitted that the matter was well worthy of the consideration of the House. He (Mr. Norwood) had made a careful investigation, and found that we had now about 400,000 seamen, including 150,000 fishermen, who, he thought, were as good, or better, than they ever were. That was the class it was desirable to obtain for the Royal Naval Reserve, and he thought greater facilities ought to be given to the fishermen on our coasts to congregate together for the purpose of drill. There were about 150,000 grownup sailors, about 20,000 boys, 9,500 petty officers, 21,500 engineers and firemen, 11,000 apprentices, and 38,000 certificated masters and mates. There were certainly some good sailors amongst them; but the large majority were not so efficient as they ought to be. It was a remarkable fact also that amongst our seamen there were 20,000 foreigners, implying a necessity for our employing them. The best sailors were to be found in the regular liners and steamers. Many of them were married men, who preferred employment which enabled them at certain intervals to return to port to their wives and families. The physical condition of many of

  747
  our seamen was unsatisfactory, and a report on the 31st of December, 1872, from Dr. Patteson, of the hospital at Constantinople, stated that, among other complaints, constitutional syphilis in every form was frequently found, and Mr. Henry Leach, in a recent letter to The Times, asserted that, owing to the bad sanitary condition of our sailors, scurvy was re-appearing among them. Another proof of the importance of the subject was that in the Civil Service Estimates of last year there was an item of £32,000 as the cost of sending home distressed English sailors from foreign ports; and in the course of the three years ending 1873 the amount paid for that purpose was upwards of £100,000. Medical men strongly recommended compulsory examination of the men on shipment, and power was given by the Mercantile Marine Act to the owners to enforce it, but that power had become a dead letter owing to the difficulty of getting respectable men on any terms, and if the medical examination were insisted on the difficulty would be increased. The consequence of no such examination being held was, that seamen were shipped who were unfit to encounter the hardships of a voyage. Much of the existing evil had been traced to the abolition of the law of compulsory apprenticeship, and to the great increase in the number of steamers, which consumed, but did not produce, good sailors. Much was said now-a-days about the want of technical knowledge on the part of our artizans and workmen, and the fact that we had to go abroad for many articles in common use because they were better designed and executed in foreign countries; but in his opinion there was no class of persons so utterly neglected and devoid of technical knowledge as the seamen of our Mercantile Marine. He confessed that his views of political economy were entirely upset by the facts connected with the question. He had thought that in this country a demand would create a supply of anything that might be wanted, but that was certainly not the case with good seamen. The fact was that an able-bodied seaman was a valuable article, not to be had every day. The only way in which a supply was to be had was by an early training to the life. Unless a lad took to a seafaring life while quite young he was never likely to become a good sailor;
  748
  but at present, a large number of those who went on board did so only as a last resource, after having exhausted every means of living on shore. They scrambled through their duties in a lubberly fashion, and then described themselves as "able seamen." He had come to the conclusion arrived at by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), that there ought to be in every large town an endeavour made to obtain youths at an early ago to be trained as sailors. The shipowners would be most happy to support a movement of this kind. He would add that he did not think the Government should be called upon to bear the whole cost of such training, but they might at any rate pay a portion of it, say one-third. To carry out this idea he should wish to see training ships stationed at all our ports to be managed by a committee of shipowners and of Government officials, and lads introduced into those Ships of from 14 to 15 years of ago, who, after serving a couple of years would be readily taken by the owners of vessels, and the lads might be allowed to receive a reasonable amount of remuneration wholly for their own use. There would, he believed, be no difficulty found in obtaining employment for them afterwards on board merchant ships, for owners, seeing the risk to which their property was exposed, owing to the inefficiency of navigators, would be only too glad to engage trained hands. Much had been said of the causes of casualties and the loss of life and property in the Mercantile Marine, of which the shipowner had been freely accused of being the sole cause, by his carelessness, neglect, and even criminality. His (Mr. Norwood's) belief was, that there were ten times more lives lost by the incompetency of the crews and the carelessness of officers than by the laches of owners. In the three years 1870–72–73, there were 376 Board of Trade inquiries into losses of ships, including 423 lives, excluding collisions. The verdicts given showed there were duo to defects in building, equipment, or stowage, the losses of 25 vessels and 10 lives; whilst to neglect or bad navigation on the part of the master, pilot, or crow, there were owing the losses of 231 vessels and 187 lives. Of cases attributed to the weather, ordinary sea risk, and unknown causes, there were 120 ships and 226 lives lost. Thus, the loss of life trace-

  749
  able to the condition of the ships was 2·36 per cent. whilst that traceable to negligence, or incompetency of the crews, was over 44 per cent. There had, it was true, of late years been a considerable improvement in the class of masters of ships, but there still remained very unsatisfactory men amongst them who ought not to hold certificates, and he attributed this very much to the manner in which Board of Trade inquiries were conducted. The Courts of Inquiry were to his mind unconstitutional, and the punishment awarded often either too severe for mere errors of judgment, or insufficient in cases of gross carelessness. The captain of a ship had his certificate taken from him before the inquiry commenced, he was treated as a criminal, and his mouth was closed during the proceedings; whilst, on the other hand, the seamen were taken charge of by officers of the Board of Trade, and very frequently they gave evidence which was not warranted by the facts. Their interests also were often diametrically opposed to those of the master and the owner. He should urge the expediency, therefore of entirely re-modelling those tribunals. Let the Board of Trade carefully examine into each case, and if it arrived at a deliberate conclusion that any master or officer had seriously neglected his duty, then a prosecution for misdemeanour might be ordered, and the man might be tried in the ordinary way before a Judge and jury. The present system, under which an officer's certificate was suspended for a lengthened period, was frequently productive of great hardship. As to the owner, he ought to be liable to punishment if he knowingly permitted the existence of avoidable risks to life and property. In conclusion, he thought that when the Report of the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships was published, it would probably be found that shipowners had not been so guilty as they had been considered by well-meaning, but ignorant persons, who had been carried away by exaggerated and sensational reports.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had introduced a subject of equal importance with that brought forward by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), because there could be no doubt that the deterioration of the character of the men of the Mercantile Ma-
  750
  rine must affect the manning of the Navy. He was sorry to say he agreed in thinking that there was great deterioration in the quality of the seamen of the Mercantile Marino, and that for some years past there had been an increasing amount of misconduct and want of discipline among them; while with regard to foreign sailors, he thought they were often a better disciplined set of men than our own, and the fact that we were obliged to employ them was a proof of the present deterioration, but not, in his opinion, a cause of it. "What lay at the root of the evil was, not the abolition of the system of apprentices, as stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull 'Mr. Norwood), but the want of discipline in the merchant service. Things that had been said both in this House and out of it had done a great deal to loosen the bonds of discipline. An attempt had been made, no doubt with the best intentions, to persuade the country that a considerable proportion of the owners of English ships were wilfully prepared to send bad vessels to sea, for the sake of making money by their loss, and at the risk of losing the lives of the crew. That such cases had occurred was, no doubt, true; but they were very exceptional. Another cause of the want of discipline was an erroneous notion that prevailed that "Jack," as he was called, was all that was honest and simple-hearted. The fact was, that there was no set of men better able to take care of themselves—better "up" in all the tricks by which they could gain advantage over others—than the seamen of the merchant service, and many of them lived by their frauds on shipowners. A sailor who had got an advance-note would desert with the cash, and if he was caught—which very likely he would not be—his punishment—if it could be called a punishment—would probably be a month's imprisonment without hard labour, which was no punishment to these men. The result was that this practice was not merely a system, it was a trade, and there were thousands of men constantly following this avocation, and no improvement of the character of the seamen could be expected till Government took this matter in hand, and insured that those malefactors received the punishment they deserved. It seemed to him that, with regard to the suggestion

  751
  of the hon. Member for Hastings, no money could be better spent than in keeping up training ships for boys at the principal seaports. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) in thinking that the Courts of Inquiry required, if not abolition, at least re-modelling, as at present they were composed of men who had not been to sea for 30 or 40 years, who know nothing of modern seamanship, and who were, therefore, not competent to sit as assessors; while with regard to the masters of ships, he thought the whole system of suspending certificates was objectionable and a mistake, because hundreds of them had no certificates at all, and might go on offending as much as they liked. Some other penalty ought to be inflicted, and if an offence was committed that proved a man to be incapable of commanding a vessel, his certificate ought to be wholly taken from him. To suspend it merely was to force him to stay on shore in a distressed condition, and to enable him, when the period of suspension expired, to return to sea, when probably less qualified than before for the duties of a master. A man who undertook the responsibility of managing a merchantship, if he were convicted of an offence before a proper tribunal, ought to be subject to penalties, whether he held or not a certificate of the Board of Trade, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would recognize the great importance of rigidly inflicting penalties on the masters of merchant ships who failed to perform their duties. He believed that an alteration in that respect would do more good than anything else towards improving the condition of the Mercantile Marine. He also hoped that when they came to deal with the Navy Estimates, the remark which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) would not be forgotten, and that the House and the country would understand that the defence urged by the late Government for not having a larger Naval Reserve was, that if it had existed there would have been no ships for the increased Reserve to man.
  MR. PALMERsaid, it was an undoubted fact that the seamen in our Mercantile Marine had seriously deteriorated of late years, and that great difficulty was experienced in obtaining a sufficient number of seamen for our
  752
  merchant ships. He hoped that this important question might be referred to the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, as the evidence and Report of that Commission would certainly be incomplete and unsatisfactory unless it dealt with the causes and remedy for this state of things. There were some who took a more favourable view of the condition of the Service, and it was quite possible to reconcile the different opinions on the subject, for while the seamen in the regular lines of steamers might be as efficient and as well disciplined as formerly, the men in the general Mercantile Marine had undoubtedly deteriorated. He had known ships sent to sea, whose crews, with the exception of the captain and officers, consisted entirely of foreigners, and after sailing the confusion on board was grievous; It had also been stated in evidence that only one-fifth of crews were able to steer, understood the compasses, or were competent to perform the ordinary duties of seamon; and he had been told by one captain that, having encountered bad weather shortly after sailing, the only man he could trust to take the helm was one from a training ship. Nautical science had done much for the construction of ships, and for general improvement in naval architecture, but nothing appeared to have been done towards keeping up a good supply of seamen, and giving them a better nautical education; which was the more desirable, considering the large value which was now put in one ship. The difficulty of obtaining trained seamen would increase in proportion to the displacement of sailing ships by steamers, and all parties agreed that training ships were the only means of obtaining for us trained sailors. In his opinion, there should be three classes of training ships; the first, established under the Industrial Schools Act of 1866, for taking from the streets such boys as were exposed to misery and crime, and likely to be eventually committed to prison. This class commended itself at once to public attention, and ought to be established in every-port in the kingdom. A second class of ships should be instituted for training boys of the artizan and labouring classes for, say, two years after they had been educated in national or other schools. But a still higher education was required for the middle and upper classes; and

  753
  this could be supplied by establishing colleges similar to the Worcester and the Conway. There was a great opening in the Mercantile Marine for young men belonging to the upper classes, and a large number of such young men might obtain high salaries and honourable employment in the Mercantile Marine. In his opinion, a large proportion of our losses were for the most part caused by ignorance in navigation, and not by the construction or overloading of ships; and the want of this nautical science on the part of the captains and officers, and the deteriorated condition of our seamen was the limit to which the dimensions of our steamers could be extended. The improvement of our seamen, therefore, became a matter of great importance, and he trusted it would be referred to the Royal Commission now sitting.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the tenor of the last few speeches rendered it necessary for him, as being connected with the Board of Trade, to say a few words before the debate closed. He thought the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), who introduced what he might call the second part of the debate, exercised a wise discretion in bringing his subject forward in the discussion raised by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), rather than separately by itself, for it was germane to the subject of that hon. Member's speech, and inadmissible as a distinct proposition. It proposed that the condition of our seamen, and procedure of our wreck Courts, ought to be referred to the Royal Commission which was now investigating the subject of Unseaworthy Ships. The fact, however, was that both the subjects had been referred to them, and were within the terms of the Royal Commissioners' Warrant. Indeed, they had taken extensive evidence on both of them, and had even expressed, to a certain extent, an opinion on both subjects in their preliminary Report which was presented to the House last Session. That circumstance rendered it difficult, and perhaps unwise, for any one to pass a decided opinion on either of those subjects as still being under the judgment of a very competent tribunal. Of course, nothing could be of more importance than the condition of the seamen in our Mercantile Marine, which was the basis of the vigour and prosperity of this great commercial
  754
  country. It was likewise the basis on which our Naval Reserve rested. Nobody could say with regard to it, that the condition of the British seaman was such as we could wish it to be, and although there existed a great difference of opinion as to the deterioration of the British seaman, yet all must agree that a great deal remained to be done in order to better his condition. If, while he (Sir Charles Adderley) was at the Board of Trade, he could do anything to promote an amelioration of his condition, there was nothing he could do that would give him greater satisfaction. The Royal Commissioners had expressed their opinion very guardedly, and had chiefly confined themselves to giving a summary of the evidence adduced before them. The general opinion of shipowners seemed to be that there was a deterioration in the character of the British sailor. The hon. Member for Hull had supported that statement, and, as he was interested in the steam service, his opinion carried great weight, because that service had carried off the best sailors from the sailing service, and in that way apparently had produced the deterioration. The opinion of the officers of the Board of Trade was, however, rather opposed to that of the shipowners. Those officers assigned good reasons for any appearance of deterioration, and on the whole they denied that their character had deteriorated, and he (Sir Charles Adderley) could not help trusting that the official Report would be found more reliable than the opinion of the shipowners, spreading as it did over the whole extent of the service. In their preliminary Report the Royal Commissioners cited some important suggestions made by the Liverpool Association. The first was, that every seaman should have a certificate of character, but he confessed he did not see how that proposal could possibly be earned out. A certificate of character might be given to a seaman on discharge, but how certificates could be always obtained on first engagement, it would be difficult to understand. Even certificates of character given upon discharge were not always safe, as it was notorious that there was more or less of a traffic in them. The second suggestion of the Liverpool Association was that there should be licensed lodging-houses for crews on their discharge. That was a

  755
  very important proposition, and every attempt ought to be made to carry it satisfactorily out. Sailors' homes, he believed, had not been very successful, because seamen disliked to be confined on getting ashore after a long voyage, as it were, in barracks; but anything which kept them from the horrible system of crimping, by free and well-regulated lodging houses, would be at the root of improvement of their condition. In connection with this part of the subject, the Commissioners themselves said, that if there was any deterioration in the character of the British seamen, the first-object should be to withdraw them from the hands of crimps. The proposition which seemed to have taken more than any other with those who had spoken that evening was, a larger nursery of seamen trained from boyhood in training ships. That, in his judgment, was the most important proposition of all; but with regard to reformatories and industrial schools, whether ashore or afloat, it was a great misfortune that we allowed a stigma and degradation to be connected with them. If we could get rid of the stigma attaching to reformatories ashore and afloat—if criminal children after punishment were supplied with education as other children—we should find it to be of the greatest advantage, and we should then be able to draw a large supply of seamen from the neglected boys thrown for education on the State. As it was, the employment of such boys was much restricted and lost to the service. Connected with that subject was the question whether it would be possible to revive that great resource which we formerly possessed, but which had now dwindled down to such inconsiderable proportions—he meant the system of apprenticeship in the merchant service. Some means might, he hoped, be adopted which would enable us to apprentice boys taken from our training ships, not compulsorily, but by premiums, and the proposition of the horn Member for Hastings on that subject was a most important one, though, as far as he had heard, nobody had as yet suggested a mode by which the means could be supplied. It would be to the interest not only of the merchant service, but of the State, that the thing should be done, and therefore the State might justly contribute part of the expense; parents and
  756
  friends might supply a contribution; but how to raise the remainder, which the merchant service should contribute, nobody had pointed out. He apprehended it must be done, not compulsorily, but by bonus, and the question was how the bonus was to be forthcoming. The last suggestion, which was a very important one, was that by Consular Conventions in all parts of the world we might be able to carry out effectual arrangements with a view of putting an end to crimping, and he trusted something might be done in this way. One word as to the other subject which the hon. Member for Hull had introduced—namely, Courts of Inquiry into Wrecks. He quite admitted there was much to be said against the constitution and procedure of these Courts. But it seemed to him, as it did to the Commissioners, that however umconstitutional and theoretically imperfect the procedure of these Courts might be, very little if any, injustice had accrued from them, and as a fact, those witnesses who had given the strongest evidence against the constitution of these Courts, when challenged to adduce a single instance of in justice which had resulted from their decisions, had failed to do so. It was perfectly true these Courts were open to all the theoretical objections stated by the hon. Member for Hull, for in the first instance they were meant to be inquests into the causes of wreck, and by a very natural process they had become criminal Courts; but the mixture of the two processes of inquiry and of criminal prosecution was adverse to their claims as Courts of Justice. He had no doubt, however, that one result of the labours of the Commission would be some suggestion for the separation of those two functions, so that the Court would be confined to their functions of Inquiry, and persons who might in the process of inquiry appear to have been culpable would then be prosecuted in a Court of Law. All these matters, however, were under discussion by a body whom the hon. Member must allow to be very competent both to collect evidence and to give an opinion. Under these circumstances he would abstain from pronouncing a decided opinion upon any of those important subjects; he would content himself with saying that, in his opinion, the debate introduced by the hon. Gentleman, as well as that which the hon.

  757
  Member for Hastings had initiated, would be of use both to the Navy and the merchant service of the country.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he thought it was desirable the Government should nominate a Select Committee to consider the relations of the Mercantile Marine with the Navy The question had previously occupied the attention of the Government and of the country in consequence of the difficulty there was in obtaining good seamen to man our ships at the time of the Crimean War. Inquiry was then made both by a Royal Commission and by a Select Committee, and the Committee recommended the further consideration of the manner in which our Navy ought to be manned in times of emergency. From that time little attention had been paid to the actual necessities of the country in the event of our being engaged in another war of a similar character, and that, notwithstanding the relative positions of the Navy and Mercantile Marine were unsatisfactory to the Admiralty, to shipowners, and to seamen. For instance, in foreign ports, in case of emergency, the commander of a man-of-war could board merchant ships and remove men from them, thus jeopardizing the ships and inflicting injury on their owners. That was a matter on which shipowners would pronounce a very decided opinion in favour of an alteration of the law. If we were to utilize the immense force which existed we must endeavour to blend the two services into one harmonious whole in such a manner as to satisfy both shipowners and seamen. He questioned whether there were 700,000 available men in the Mercantile Marine; but he computed that there might be 500,000—a force quite sufficient to give the country the security it ought to possess. There must, however, be something radically wrong when there were only 13,000 men in a Reserve which ought to number at least 100,000 men. With regard to the drill for the Reserve, he thought there was too much of what might be called drawing-room drill. The Naval Reserve ought to be sent out, year by year, on board ships such as they would be engaged in if on actual service, and the men should be exercised as fighting men. When European States were organizing their land forces, England as the leading maritime Power in the world should be careful to organize
  758
  and conserve that force which must be her first line of defence, and if our Navy were efficient in ships and properly manned we should be prepared for any emergency. There were many causes for the present condition of our seamen; but he did not go so far as his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) in thinking them so much deteriorated. In the North of England seamen were now as good as they were 50 years ago; but in the South any broken-down butcher, baker, or tailor could engage as an able seaman; but in the first gale of wind, instead of proving themselves sailors, they turned into their bunks and the ship was left in the hands of the officers and two or three seamen. If they would have good seamen they must have boys trained on the apprenticeship system; but the compulsory system of apprenticeship was abolished with the repeal of the Navigation Laws, although some shipowners were still in the habit of earning apprentices, but they refused to do so without a premium. The Board of Trade should abolish this premium system, which was only another form of advance notes, and establish training ships in our different seaports for the Mercantile Marine. In addition to training received on board ship, the boys ought to be voyaged up and down the coast in colliers, the time so spent being counted as service at sea. That would very much improve the quality of our seamen. They must also abolish the crimping system, under which sailors on coming home from a long voyage with £10 or £20 were laid hold of and robbed under pretence of being clothed, lodged, and fed, and compelled to seek another vessel in order to obtain an advance note to free them from their difficulties. He thought also it was desirable that this country should have a Consular Convention with the United States to remedy the evils arising out of the desertions of seamen, inasmuch as we had in Now York alone an annual desertion of 20,000 men. In his opinion, we must, as far as possible, inculcate habits of sobriety, by offering inducements to all seamen to locate themselves in Sailors Homes; and we must also give the men improved accommodation on board our ships.
  MR. BATESsaid, they must all admit that the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had treated the sub-

  759
  ject of his Motion with great success, yet there were one or two statements made by him in which he could not agree, and which should not go forth to the country uncontradicted. The hon. Gentleman stated that the advance notes which a sailor received previous to the commencement of his voyage were only discountable at a ruinous rate; but he failed to show how he arrived at that conclusion. To make that more clear to those hon. Members who had not in these troublous times the misfortune to be shipowners, he (Mr. Bates) might say that an advance note was a bill of exchange, a promissory note, and was generally drawn by the master or the owner of the ship, and it ran thus—"Ten days after (say) John Williams, A.B., sails in the ship So and So, I promise to pay to his order (say) £3 10 s." That note the sailor generally took to his lodging-house keeper and, perhaps, had to pay 2s. in the pound for cashing it. Now, for that sum, the lodging-house keeper had to run the risk of John Williams not joining the ship. If he did not join—and they all knew that Jack often got into difficulties when he had a little money in his pocket—the discounter of the note had for his £3 or £3 5s. of hard cash, a piece of paper in his possession not worth the stamp it was written upon, because, the sailor not having joined the ship, the master or owner was not liable. Now, was there anything very exorbitant in that. He ventured to think there were few hon. Members in that House who would discount such a Bill at any price. Again, the hon. Member stated that advance notes were a source of great evil. He (Mr. Bates) would admit that; but the hon. Member had not shown them how that could be remedied. He (Mr. Bates) had been a shipowner over a quarter of a century, and had as yet been unable to find a remedy. An advance note was a necessary evil, for Jack must have a pea-jacket, warm stockings, &c.; and if he did not get an advance, how was he to acquire them? It was simply impossible. He had doomed it his duty to make these few observations in justice to his constituents, a large number of whom discounted these very documents.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £657,800, Army Purchase Commission.
COLONEL BARTTELOTasked whether it was really necessary to take the Vote at that moment, because there was to be a Report from a Royal Commission from which great things were expected, while the present Vote led one to expect that little was to be done by that Commission. The impression existing on that subject might be very erroneous, but-still it was rife, the Vote being so much less than it was last year; and it would be more satisfactory to those interested in the question, if the Report of the Commission was laid on the Table before that Estimate was proceeded with. Supposing the Royal Commission recommended an increase of expenditure, would the Government take that recommendation into favourable consideration?
MR. STANLEYsaid, the Vote was proposed in pursuance of the Act of 1871 which enabled officers to obtain the price of their commissions which might otherwise have been obtained by sale. As to delaying the presentation of that Estimate till the Report of the Commission was before the House, the Commission were still sitting, their Report had not yet been finally settled, and according to an answer which had been given early in the evening by the First Lord of the Admiralty, under any circumstances it would probably be a month before it could be laid on the Table. He had no further means of knowing what the Report might be than the hon. and gallant Member; but the matter referred to the Commission involved questions of great complexity, and the recommendation which some might wish them to make would no doubt lead to a large expenditure of public money. Meeting, as that Report would no doubt do, with the fullest considerations from the Secretary of State and others who were concerned, even if it were received at an early date it would be practically almost impossible to deal with it in a satisfactory manner in the latter half of the Session, so as to admit of its being brought before the House.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £36,984, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
MR. DILLWYNsaid, there were many items in this Vote which he thought might he reduced, and that he proposed to move its reduction in order to test the opinion of the new House as to whether it was their duty to reduce the expenditure or not. What he complained of in this case was that the officers of the other House were paid much more than those of the House of Commons, although their duties certainly were not more onerous—either they were overpaid, or the officers of the House of Commons underpaid. He did not blame the Government for adopting the Estimate of their predecessors, but he hoped they would consider the propriety of a reduction. The Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords received £2,500, while the Chairman of Committees of this House, whose duties, he believed, were much more arduous, received £1,500. Seeing no reason for that difference, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £35,984, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he must complain of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury substituting without Notice one class of Estimates for another. Had Class No. I. been brought forward instead of No. II. they might have had notice of the intention of the hon. Member who made this Motion; but that was not done. He was sure the Secretary to the Treasury would endeavour in future to give due notice of the Business to be brought on. As to the Amendment, the question was rather whether the salary of the Chairman in this House was sufficient than whether the other salary was excessive.
MR. MONKsaid, that while anxious for reduction where a case could be made out, he could not support the Amendment. Lord Redesdale had held the office many years; he had been admittedly able and indefatigable, and he was not overpaid. The difference between the two salaries was fair matter of remark, but perhaps that of the Chairman in this House was not sufficient.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, the Committee could not increase a Vote, and their Chairman's salary, though, perhaps, lower than might have been expected, was one of those settled by a Select Committee. The House of Lords had not considered their salaries in the same way, and he wished they would refer this and other points to a Joint Committee.
MR. GREGORYsaid, that having been a practising Parliamentary solicitor for many years, he could fully appreciate the labours of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords. He had most arduous duties to perform. Private Bills were every day more complicated and difficult to be understood, and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords had to make himself acquainted with the history of the transactions and of the undertakings to which they related. There never was a more zealous or better Chairman than Lord Redesdale, and his remuneration was not more than was adequate for the labour he had to perform. He concurred in the remark that the salary of the Chairman of Committees of this House was much too low.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would endeavour in future to give the House the fullest notice of the business to be brought on. Circumstances occurred at the last moment which made it inconvenient to the Committee to consider Class I., and hon. Members on both sides had been aware of the intention to proceed with Class II. That was comparatively a new Vote, as far as the House of Lords was concerned, for until four years ago that House retained the power which they had possessed from time immemorial of fixing the salaries for their own establishment. Their surrender of it and of the fees out of which the establishment had been paid was an act of grace, and it would be assuming a false position towards them for

763
this House to turn round and reduce the salaries. There was no more efficient public officer than Lord Redesdale, whose services in defence of public and private rights were invaluable, and his salary was not excessive, whatever that of the Chairman in this House might be. The fees surrendered by the Lords were adequate to the cost of the establishment, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not divide on the question, as to do so would appear to place the House of Commons in a false position in relation to the other House.
MR. BUTTsaid, he deemed it beyond the province of the House, in the absence of any complaint, to express an opinion on the services of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. His remuneration was very moderate, and it was almost absurd to put forward a reduction of £1,000 on the ground of economizing the expenditure.
MR. DODSONexpressed a hope that his hon. Friend the member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would content himself with having called attention to the subject of his Motion, and would not divide the Committee. He trusted he would not be suspected of an undue sympathy with the office of Chairman of Ways and Means, when he said that it was somewhat anomalous that the holder of that office, whoso duties were more onerous than those of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, should be paid so much lower a salary than that paid to the noble Lord who filled the latter office. As had been very justly observed, the noble Lord who occupied that position had discharged the duties of his office for many years with very great distinction, and the salary ought not to be disturbed so long, at any rate, as the noble Lord filled the office in question. "When, however, a change was made, it would be fair matter for consideration whether the salaries of the two Chairmen ought not to be reviewed. It appeared to him that, when that time came, without adding to the taxation of the country, the salaries of the two officers might be put together and equally divided between the Chairmen of Committees respectively.
MR. DILLWYNassured the Committee that in taking the course he had adopted he had done so on principle, and in persisting in it, he did so without meaning anything personal towards the noble Lord, for whom he had the highest
764
respect. As to the great work with regard to Private Bills which Lord Redesdale had to do, there was some years ago a reason to be found in it why he should be paid a much higher salary than the Chairman of the House of Commons' Committees, because all Money Bills and Private Bills originated in the Lower House, and the noble Lord had the power of vetoing them, and thus had greater duties to perform and greater responsibility; but now many of those Bills originated in the House of Lords, and the Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons had equal power and concurrent jurisdiction with the noble Lord. He could not adopt the view that because certain estimates were placed before them the Committee were bound to accept them, and had no right to vote against them. He considered that he should not be fulfilling his duty if he did not divide the Committee.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 125: Majority 103.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYexplained that he had given his vote not for the purpose of reducing the salary of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, but in the hope that the House of Commons would take a more just view of the position of its Chairman of Committees and of its other officers, as in his opinion they were very much underpaid.
(3.) £41,559, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.
MR. MONKsaid, that no doubt those were the Estimates of the last Government, and were framed under the impression that the House would meet on the 5th of February. As a matter of fact, however, it did not meet till six weeks later, and no Committees had sat before Easter. Notwithstanding that fact, he saw an increase in the Vote for Witnesses and Shorthand Writers, &c., employed on Committees, and he wished to know, therefore, whether the hon. Gentleman would consent to a reduction in the Vote to the extent of £550, the amount of the increase.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he could not do so. The Estimates had been printed before he came into office, and he could not revise them. The slight

765
addition to the Vote had been made by the right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, because it was found last-year that the sum taken was not sufficient. If anything was over at the end of the Session it would be paid into the Exchequer, and no outlay would be incurred which was not deemed necessary by the Chairman of Committees.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £47,558, to complete the sum for the Treasury.
MR. WHITWELLinquired why there were now three Lords of the Treasury appointed in the place of the two who sufficed under the late Government?
MR. W. H. SMITHreplied that it was the usual custom that there should be three Lords of the Treasury, and in adopting that number the Government had been only following that custom.
MR. BUTTcalled the attention of the Committee to what he called a change in the constitution of the Lords of the Treasury. Formerly it was customary to appoint an Irish Member one of the Lords of the Treasury, which was to a certain extent a convenient arrangement; but that course was now departed from, and he understood that it was intended systematically to depart from it.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick is under a complete misapprehension upon this subject. There is no rule that there should be a Scotch or an Irish Lord of the Treasury, neither is there a rule that there should be an English Lord of the Treasury—indeed, there is no reason why the three Lords should not all be Irishmen. In the first Treasury, in fact, of which I was a Member the majority were Irishmen. It depends upon their fitness, not upon their nationality whether hon. Members are appointed to fill those offices, and I should be glad to have the assistance of any Irish Gentlemen thus qualified who wish to support Her Majesty's Government, but who at present do not. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that he is labouring under a false impression, and that there is not any fixed rule by which we deprive ourselves of the services of our Irish Colleagues in this House. The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) has also made an observation upon the change that he states has been made in
766
the constitution of the Treasury. There are three Lords in the present patent, but that is the number which the Committee of this House which sat on Public Offices decided was the expedient one. When the Ministry of 1868 retired there were then three Lords of the Treasury; but I believe that when the late Government came into office there was a re-construction of the Treasury, and that one of the three Lords had, under another title, a larger salary. "When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, revised the service of the Treasury, he reported to me that the re-constructed office, with the larger salary, was, in his opinion, quite unnecessary, and he recommended that we should recur to the more economical system. We have, consequently, now three Lords, as originally.
MR. DODSON: I should like to say one word with reference to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly correct that recently under the late Government there were three Lords of the Treasury, one of whom did receive a larger salary than the others; but it should be borne in mind that at that time there was no Chancellor of the Exchequer, apart from the Prime Minister, he having undertaken that office in conjunction with his own; a third Lord was thereupon appointed to assist the Financial Secretary. I wish to point out that so far, therefore, from there having been any additional expenditure, there was some saving.
MR. DISRAELI: I would only remark that I believe the arrangement was made before the late Prime Minister became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, it took place when the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was first formed. I do not wish to dwell upon the point, I only desire to show that the course which the present Government have taken is a regular one, and that in appointing three Lords of the Treasury we have only followed the rule laid down by the Committee which sat on Public Offices.
MR. BUTTsaid, he did not attach much importance to the point except as an indication of the progress of centralization, which he conceived to be most injurious if earned out in its entirety. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was no fixed rule that one of

767
the Lords of the Treasury should be an Irishman. No doubt that was the case; but, at the same time, it had been the practice for a long period of time that an Irishman should be appointed to one of those offices, and he distinctly understood that that practice was to be departed from in future. He only hoped that the English Lord of the Treasury, whoever he might be, would deal with Irish affairs as well as though he were an Irish Lord. It was not for him (Mr. Butt) to speak of the capabilities of his own Friends, the question was one for the discretion of the Government, and, of course, it was for the right hon. Gentleman to decide whether, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman's Irish supporters were fit or unfit for such an office. It had been said that the only duty of the Irish Lord of the Treasury was to keep a House and to cheer the Ministry, and the right hon. Gentleman might think—although for his part he could not acquiesce in such an opinion—that his Irish supporters were not qualified for the office. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman said so, he (Mr. Butt) would not dispute his word. It was the right hon. Gentleman's own description, and not his (Mr. Butt's). He would only add that if the right hon. Gentleman wished for the support of the Irish Members who now sat on the Opposition side of the House, he would only obtain it when he came to be of their opinion as to the mode of governing Ireland as it ought to be governed.
MR. DILLWYNwished to know something about the office of Auditor of the Civil List, whose duties could not be very onerous?
MR. W. H. SMITHreplied that the office was hold by the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury.
MR. DODSONsaid, he had no wish to continue the discussion on the Treasury, but he wished to state that when he acceded to the office of Secretary to the Treasury last autumn there were at that time only two Lords of the Treasury, and had been but two for a considerable time. When the Prime Minister became Chancellor of the Exchequer a third Lord was appointed to assist him.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that at a still earlier period there was a third Lord, with a salary of £2,000; indeed, there were four Lords, for a noble Lord
768
acted as a fourth without any salary. The constitution of the Treasury now was the same as it was before the late Government was formed.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £71,212, to complete the sum for the Home Office.
(6.) £51,713, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.
(7.) £26,890, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
(8.) £26,276, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.
(9.) £91,916, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.
MR. NORWOODsaid, he took exception to the provision of the sum of £5,000 for the costs of inquiries as to ships that were alleged to be unseaworthy, fearing that it indicated an indisposition to enforce the provision which enabled the Board to require the deposit of securities for costs from informants against the condition of vessels should charges be made with insufficient reason. Last year the Board of Trade took action against certain vessels upon false information and incurred expenses in consequence. There was also an entirely new item of £400 for inquiries into shipwrecks.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYexplained that the item of £5,000 was a rough estimate of expenses connected with proceedings taken under the Act passed last year, the provisions of which would be steadily enforced. If the whole amount were not spent, of course the balance would be returned to the Treasury. The item of £400 appeared for the first time, because until this year the expense of inquiries had been borne by the Treasury. He hoped the sum would not be required, though it might be if there were three or four cases like one which had occurred already.
MR. WHITWELLasked in what department of the Board of Trade there was an increase of £2,000 for salaries. He also wished to know whether the £500 charged for maintaining the rights of the Crown to the foreshores represented expenses incurred over and above the ordinary expenses?
MR. J. W. BARCLAYremarked that the Board of Trade, in ordering the detention of vessels, carried out the Act

769
indiscreetly. Honest shipowners wished it enforced in a rigorous, but at the same time discreet, manner. He objected that Government surveyors were frequently sent to ports where the local surveyors might easily have performed the duties.
MR. THOMPSONwished for an explanation as to the increase of salaries in the Department?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the office had been re-organized by the late Government, and there were annual increments, in accordance with a Treasury Minute, which applied to all the salaries of the Department.
MR. BUTTsaid, he had been under the impression that the Civil Service Estimates taken that evening would be confined to a particular class; otherwise he should have been prepared to show that there was a very strong feeling in Ireland, even among those who were outside the Home Rule party, in favour of having a branch of the Board of Trade established in Dublin to attend to local matters, which could be better disposed of there than by the Central Board in London.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,222, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1375, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
MR. DILLWYNsaid, that having just asked the House to reduce the salary of a Nobleman who had important duties to perform, he should now ask the House to refuse the salary of a Nobleman who had no duties whatever he had always taken exception to the Vote, although he was prepared to admit the sense of the House was invariably against him. It was said to be necessary that the Prime Minister should have some one to assist him who had no departmental duties to perform, but he would rather vote the money to a Minister without portfolio than keep up a sinecure like that of the Lord Privy Seal. The Lord Privy Seal, as he said before, had nothing to do, and he had a large establishment to help him in doing it. For those reasons, he (Mr. Dillwyn) objected to the Vote in toto, and should move its rejection.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it appeared that the hon. Member did not object to the Prime Minister having assistance, but he only objected to the title of Lord Privy Seal. [Mr. DILLWYN: And the establishment.] The salary was £2,000 a-year, and the establishment was £600 a-year. Successive Governments had rccognized the advantage of maintaining an office held by a Member of the Cabinet who was not so fully engaged by departmental duties as some of his Colleagues, and who might assist the Cabinet upon questions requiring special consideration, and the late Prime Minister himself had borne testimony to the value and necessity of having a Member of the Cabinet who was almost without portfolio, but who, by his experience and knowledge of Parliamentary life and public business, might give important assistance to the great work of governing the country. He therefore trusted the present Parliament, like its predecessor, would see the wisdom of following the same course.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes G4: Majority 71.
(11.) £16,458, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.
MR. NEVILLE GRENVILLEhoped that for the future the expenses of the Commission might be defrayed out of fees charged upon the charities with which the Commissioners dealt, with so much advantage to the public, so that it might be made, as it onght to be, self-supporting.
MR. MONKsaid, he was of the same opinion, and hoped the Government would give the hon. Member an answer before the Vote was passed.
MR. W. H. SMITHthought the Committee would hardly expect him to give an undertaking on so important a question. Several years ago the late Government undertook to do something in the matter, but they fouud it encompassed with difficulties with which they were unable to grapple. All he could say was, that the question should be considered.
MR. M'LARENremarked that a very small percentage on the schemes adjudicated by the Commissioners would defray the expenses. Many of the charities were of questionable utility or were mismanaged, and the Commissioners having

771
diverted many, no doubt wisely, to other objects, might defray their expenses in the way he had suggested.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £16,408, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.
(13.) £15,395, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.
MR. WHITWELLasked whether this body had yet become self-supporting?
MR. M'LARENmentioned that a Motion had been passed several years ago at the instance of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), to the effect that there should no longer be a charge on the public in respect of the subject of this Vote and he considered that Resolution ought to be attended to.
MR. GOLDSMID, remarking that the Tote, like nearly all the rest, included charges for "copying and writers," inquired whether it was intended to do anything with a view to ameliorating the position of the writers in the various public Departments? They were a body of men who deserved consideration, and if their duties were uniform and monotonous, still they required care, intelligence, and accuracy, and a considerable amount of information.
MR. HANKEYagreed with those who objected to any charge whatever being made on account of the matter to which the Vote referred.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHpointed out that the Commissioners who had to deal with the matter they were discussing were in a sense public officers, seeing that they acted as a kind of intermediary between the State and the Corporations which were the holders of public property. Their net cost to the State was only £4,000, and he thought this fairly represented the value of their services. With regard to the Resolution passed in 1868 to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had referred, it seemed to him that its requirements had been satisfactorily met.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to remind the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), who had referred to the case of the writers, that a Commission had been appointed to consider that subject and the organization of the
772
public offices generally, and he added that until that Commission had reported he would not be in a position to make any proposals on the subject.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) £7,150, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts; Imprest Expenses.
(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £33,319, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which, trill come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer."
MR. DILLWYNremarked that he thought the Audit Office ought to be entirely independent of the Treasury, and under the control of this House. The audit could not be satisfactory if the Treasury had any power in the office; the Treasury being the accounting department whose accounts had to be audited.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he also was of opinion that unless the Audit Office was made thoroughly independent of the Treasury and vested with ample powers for the performance of its duties, every shilling that was voted for the office was thrown away. The tendency of modern legislation was to put everything under the Treasury, and the Treasury was an encroaching office, which ought to be strictly watched. No Act of Parliament was passed even on local matters which was not stereotyped with the words—"With the consent of the Lords of the Treasury." When people saw those words used in connection with any matter they naturally supposed the Lords of the Treasury had considered it; but the fact was, "with the consent of the Lords of the Treasury" meant with the consent of a clerk who was paid something between £100 and £150 a-year. Until the Audit Office was made independent of the Treasury, it would be perfectly useless. He would take every opportunity of bringing this matter before the House.
MR. M'LARENagreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) that a reform was needed in this matter, but he dissented from his opinion as to the services of the clerk who was paid £150 a-year.

773
He believed the officers of the Treasury were the real watchmen of the public purse, for it appeared in a recent Report of the Audit Office that the Treasury had allowed millions of money to be spent without any audit at all, and then sent three years' accounts to the Audit Office at once to be audited.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, if the hon. Baronet would look at the various Reports of the Committee on Public Accounts, he would find they gave ample testimony of the great efficiency and zeal of the Auditor General, and his officers. Nothing more satisfactory could be conceived than the mode in which he analyzed and exercised authority over the public accounts in respect of sums voted by the House.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERdenied that he had said anything derogatory of the Auditor General or his clerks. He believed the Auditor General discharged his duty admirably, and that all the other officers did the same. But the Audit Office had not power enough. If it had, those scandals which had occurred would have been prevented. He had read the Papers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and he had come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the zeal of the Auditor General and his officers, the Audit Office was perfectly insufficient and was a blot on the administration of the country. The right hon. Gentleman took the course which was usual with all officials—["Divide!"]—of praising things as they were—["Divide!"]—and endeavouring to prevent their improvement. Since the Committee would not listen to him, he should move that the Chairman report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir George Bowyer.)
MR. W. O. GOREhoped the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion. Hon. Members were justified in interrupting observations which he had made at least half a dozen times. Peculation was going on in France, and the French Audit Office was totally inadequate to detect that peculation. He hoped that whatever was done, our Audit Office would not be made like that of France.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, the hon. Baronet did right in moving that Progress
774
be reported. No offensive Amendment had been proposed, and the hon. Baronet ought not to have been interrupted when he was speaking on so important a question as the auditing of the Public Accounts.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that too much heat had been imported into the discussion. He was of opinion that the hon. Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) was right in asking whether the Secretary to the Treasury would not consider this matter with a view to making the Audit Office more independent of the Treasury, and thereby more able to discharge its duties. The experience of the past year had certainly shown that this was a subject of great importance.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there was every disposition to make the Audit Office as efficient an instrument as possible for the purpose for which it was designed. It was entirely independent of the Treasury, and any differences between the two were settled by the Committee on Public Accounts. Its staff was recruited under Orders in Council by the Civil Service Commissioners, but occasionally it was required to absorb redundant clerks, just as other offices were required to do, on the score of economy.
MR. M'LARENsaid, it was not so much a question of independence, as of power to remedy wrongs such as were set forth in the Report issued that morning.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that six months ago the Audit Office was unable to get the clerks necessary for its work, owing to the obstruction and tyranny of the Lords of the Treasury. It had lost the power to do that which was necessary which was possessed by any auditor of a company.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
MR. BUTTsaid, he should move to report Progress, in order that he might bring on the first of two Irish Municipal Bills which he had introduced. He claimed the privilege of interrupting Supply at that time (20 minutes to 12 o'clock) because he had put the Bills off three times to meet the convenience of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Butt.)
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) hardly fair, because the Bills had been put down for a second reading before they were printed, and for days when they could not come on.
MR. BUTTsaid, he differed entirely from the right hon. Baronet, who had asked for postponement because he was not prepared to meet the Bills, but his want of acquaintance with Ireland was no reason why the progress of the Bills should be impeded. If they were to be obstructed, he would obstruct Supply.
MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the Committee would go on with Supply, and thought the hon. and learned Gentleman should have made his Motion during the presence of the Prime Minister, who had just left the House on account of the state of his health. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there would be ample time for the discussion of the measure referred to.
MR. BUTTsaid, he was not asking for much, only for 20 minutes, because Supply ought not to go on after midnight, and the first Bill had already passed a second reading twice, and had been defeated by obstruction and the half-past 12 o'clock rule. But, under the circumstances, in the absence of the Prime Minister, if an undertaking were given that some facility would be afforded him for bringing on the Bills he would not persist in his Motion.
MR. VANCEthought the complaint of the hon. and learned Gentleman was without foundation, because he could not have brought the Bills on at an earlier period.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsuggested that, as the Government would not probably proceed with Supply after 12 o'clock, the hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw his Motion, and he could bring on his Bills after that hour.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(16.) £1,998, to complete the sum for Registrars of Friendly Societies.
(17.) £309,699, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.
MR. THOMPSONobjected to the sum charged for the travelling expenses of the inspectors of the Board.
MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that these were paid by Act of Parliament and therefore could not be altered.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) £12,435, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.
(19.) £44,050, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.
(20.) £14,238, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,701, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges which will coma in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, connected with the Patent Law Amendment Act."
MR. DILLWYNasked for some explanation with respect to this Vote. A very large sum was paid under this head to Law Officers in Scotland and Ireland who did absolutely nothing for the money. Not only that, but if the Patent Law Amendment Act was carried out at all it should be carried out in its entirety, and that Act required that Special Commissioners should be appointed for the purpose of carrying it into effect. If that was done, the Patent Law would give much greater satisfaction than it did at present he should move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £3,450, the amount paid to the Law Officers of Ireland and Scotland.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £15,251, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, connected with the Patent Law Amendment Act."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
MR. WHITWELLsaid, he wished to remark that no less than £130,000 had been received in the Patent Office during the past year, and after all expenses were paid a balance of £81,000 was left. Notwithstanding that large surplus, it was an acknowledged fact that the Museum of Patents was in a not very reputable condition. He suggested that either so much money should not be drawn from the pockets of patentees or that the surplus should be voted to some useful purpose in connection with the subject.
MR. EARPasked on what principle the payments were regulated. He found that 13 clerks were kept in this Department at £150 a-year, while one clerk, a copying clerk, was returned at £52 a-year. If that clerk happened to be a man with a very large wife and a small family he would ask how he could be expected to conduct himself as a man should in the employment of the Government?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was unable to withdraw the items to which the hon. Member for Swansea objected, as they related to sums of money which helped to make up the salaries of the officers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 34.]
(Mr. Bull, Sir John Gray, Mr. Bryan, Mr. P. J. Smyth.)
MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 34.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BUTT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its principle had been accepted in two Sessions of the late Parliament; that it had received the support of the then Ministry, and that it was defeated solely by that obstructive power which the Rules of the House placed in the hands of individual Members. The Bill involved the question whether that new Parliament was prepared cordially and honestly to concede to Ireland the free principles of the British Constitution and of British laws, or whether it intended to administer the affairs of Ireland on the old principle of coercion and distrust. The object of the measure was merely to assimilate the franchise in the corporate towns of Ireland to the franchise which existed in England. As matters stood at present in Ireland, no one could be a burgess in a corporate town, unless he occupied a house rated at £10, though the Act said the sum might be reduced by allowances for insurance and repairs. That reduced the
  778
  amount practically to a house rated under the Poor Law at £8, which was equivalent in many towns to a house of £ 12 or £15 rental. He would ask all lovers of municipal institutions how this difference between the two countries could be justified? Let hon. Members contrast that with the state of things in England. As to the number of municipal electors in Ireland, there were in that country only 10 corporate towns. In Belfast, with a population of 174,000, there were only 4,300 burgesses; in Cork, with a population of 100,000, there were only 2,000; in Waterford, with a population of 23,000, only 700; in Limerick, with a population "of 40,000, only 1,100; in Kilkenny, with a population of 13,000, only 275; in Deny, with a population of 25,000, only 600; and in Drogheda, with a population of 14,000, only 283. Contrast that, again, with the state of matters in England, where such a town as Bristol, with 180,000 of a population, had 18,500 burgesses; Carlisle, which, with a population of 30,000, had 4,600 burgesses; Lichfield, which, with 7,000 of a population, had 1,026 burgesses; Cambridge, which, with a population of 33,000, had 4,300 burgesses; Chester, which, with a population of 30,000, had 6,300; or Macclesfield, which, with a population of 35,000, had 4,700. It might be said that this was a small thing; but a nation's life, like a man's life, was made up of small things, and this was one of the differences in the two countries which made the Irish people dissatisfied, because they had not the same privileges that the English people had. Looking at such inequalities as these, could any Englishman lay his hand on his heart and say that any Irishman ought to live content under the present system? Some persons had challenged the Irish Members to bring forward measures of redress. He (Mr. Butt) now endeavoured to do so, and he hoped that this, and all other Irish measures, would receive more attention than they had hitherto done. In 1849, it was found that the Corporation of Dublin did not fully represent the citizens in consequence of the peculiar division of the wards; and an Act was passed giving the Corporation additional powers, and assimilating the franchise to that of England. In 1864, the Corporation of Belfast asked for larger powers; but the Bill was refused. Now, in Ireland,

  779
  the Parliamentary franchise in towns was a rating of £4, so that a man could vote for a Member of Parliament, and, at the same time, he was considered unfit to vote for a member of his Corporation, who, in turn, elected the chief magistrate. Was that a proper state of things? An Irishman left Limerick, and resided at Liverpool, and his rating there gave him a municipal vote; but if he returned to reside in Limerick he became degraded. He asked seriously, was that a proper system of government for Ireland, and ought it to be tolerated? If some of them entertained opinions in reference to a division of the two countries in regard to certain matters, let the Government and the House come forward and pass measures which should unite more strongly Ireland with England. If they passed this Bill, it would be taken sincerely and cordially as a good omen; if they refused to pass the Bill, it would be regarded as an earnest and indication that they were prepared to deal with Ireland with a high hand. Was the present system of exclusion to be continued in Ireland? It was indefeasible to have the municipal franchise higher than the Parliamentary franchise and he challenged the verdict of the House on this one issue:—Were they prepared to tell the people of Ireland they should not enjoy the privileges of the British law and Constitution, because they were unworthy to enjoy them? Let them accept this Bill as an earnest and a pledge that they would legislate for Ireland in the true spirit of the British Constitution. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in conclusion, moved the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Butt.)
  MR. VANCEsaid, he could not help thinking the hon. and learned Gentleman had pursued a most inconvenient course, having persisted in bringing forward the second reading of this Bill in the necessary absence Of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Claude John Hamilton), who had given Notice that he would oppose it, but who had accompanied the viceroy to Ireland. After the Report of a Commission in 1835, a Bill was brought in and passed, conferring an £8 municipal franchise on the larger boroughs, and a £1 or £5 franchise on
  780
  the smaller boroughs, which came under the Improvement Act. Subsequently, a re-distribution of the wards in Dublin took place, and the franchise was lowered to £4 in that city, and an arrangement was made that the Lord Mayor should be alternately a Protestant and a Roman Catholic. It was also understood that the Corporation should be for municipal purposes, but it became Radical stronghold. Not very long ago they petitioned the House to remove Judge Keogh, and for Home Rule and, in fact, every extreme measure that could possibly be devised had been supported by this Corporation. It had raised the rates to 10 s. in the pound, and, instead of attending to the proper municipal government of the city, its time was taken up with political squabbles. The Corporation of Belfast, on the other hand, was composed of the highest burgesses of the place, and was one of the most useful bodies in Ireland. The same might be said of Perry and other corporations; but if the franchise was degraded these corporations would become, like Dublin, hotbeds of disaffection, and he thought the House ought to consider well the consequences of passing such a Bill, for which no demand had been made or Petition presented. He should move its rejection.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Vance.)
  MR. SULLIVAN, in supporting the Bill, said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) had put the Corporation of Dublin upon its trial, and had made the most unfounded charges against it. The argument of the hon. Gentleman amounted to this—that although the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick might be unanswerable, the Corporation of Dublin had not represented the political views of the hon. Member for Armagh. With regard to the alleged agreement that the Lord Mayor should be alternately a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, the hon. Gentleman was labouring under a delusion, for no such compact ever existed. It was certainly true that the Catholics of Dublin for a long period in alternate years voted for a Protestant gentleman, and had put him into the civic chair—a pro-

  781
  ceeding which was represented by the party who acted with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh as having been achieved by a "compact." He (Mr. Sullivan) emphatically objected to that statement, and affirmed that the Roman Catholic majority in the Dublin Corporation had allowed that course to be taken as a matter of generous and wise toleration, but when the friends of the hon. Member were in a majority there and elsewhere they never gave the Roman Catholic minority a chance of electing a Lord Mayor or doing any other act of justice. That was proved in the present instance, for here they saw a Bill brought in which would simply effect an act of justice, and yet the hon. Gentleman opposed it, and would keep the people of Ireland still in chains. Further, the hon. Gentleman's memory seemed to be very bad, for in the 10 s., or rather 9s. 8d., in the £1 rate of which he complained, were included the poor rate and the police rate with which the Corporation had nothing to do, they being only responsible for 5s. 8d. of the whole rate. He scorned also to have forgotten that when the reformed Corporation of Dublin came into power they found that the friends of the hon. Member opposite had brought the City to bankruptcy and beggary. They found the mace in the hands of the bailiff, and the mayoralty house about to be sold, and each of the new members of the Corporation had to subscribe £300 a-piece to purchase it back to the citizens, which sum had never been repaid to them. The whole question came to this—no one could deny that the affairs of Belfast were well-managed, and he would ask why should the great majority of the people of that city be deprived of the franchise which the Bill was intended to confer upon them, and why they and the residents of other large and important places should not enjoy equal municipal privileges? If the measure were rejected because the House sympathized with the opinions of the hon. Member (Mr. Vance), the lesson learnt by the people of Ireland would be a bitter one, and perhaps the fruit of it would not be less bitter. But "let justice be done though the heavens should fall." Let the facts and figures now produced be confuted if it were possible; but let there be no more false issues on this important question.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he did not want to be included in the stigma which the hon. and learned Member for limerick laid on all those who opposed the Bill. It was said to be simply a measure to place the municipal franchise of Ireland on the same footing as that of England, but the slightest glance at the statistics would show that it was nothing of the sort. When the franchise of England was changed to household suffrage, it rather more than doubled the previous number of electors, but what would be the effect of this measure in Ireland? Taking the seven towns of the Province of Leinster, exclusive of Dublin, he found that there were now 3,210 persons possessors of the franchise under a £4 rating; but the Bill of the hon. Member would increase that number to 9,764, or three to one. And when they analysed these new voters they would find that of these a large number—about 3,000—would be holders of tenements under 20 s. a-year, nearly the same number that had the franchise now, who would be swamped by them. However respectable in their station they might be, the result would be to hand over the administration of the municipal funds to a class of which a large proportion were only rated at 5s. per annum. It was clear, then, that a different state of things would be produced from that resulting from household suffrage in England, and he should accordingly support the Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that was a Bill which did not relate to a large portion of Ireland, but was a matter of great importance to the 11 places which were affected by it. In discussing it he hoped to steer clear of the public and private conduct of the Corporation of Dublin, which in a few hours would be engaged in giving a loyal reception to the Representative of Her Majesty in Ireland. He wished to speak of that and of all the other corporations with respect; but neither from them, nor from any town in Ireland, had there been a single Petition in favour of the Bill, nor had there been any meeting held in its support. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick proposed that as the first of a series of measures to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England; but he would remind the hon. Member that if this policy

  783
  were carried out to its full and logical extent, it might raise hopes that he and his friends would restore to Ireland the blessing of an Established Church, and would place landlords and tenants on the same footing as that on which they stood in England. He regretted, however, that the part of our institutions which the hon. Member desired to copy was one of which the present condition was not thoroughly defensible even in England. The hon. Member proceeded on the assumption that, inasmuch as the Parliamentary and municipal franchises in England were on the same basis, that state of things must be satisfactory, and that its transfer to Ireland would be also satisfactory. He believed, however, that the adoption of the same basis for both franchises in England had led to this result—that municipal and Parliamentary elections were decided on the same party issues, and hence candidates in municipalities were too frequently selected on account of their political opinions, and not on account of their fitness for the administration of local affairs. He feared, too, the effect of the change upon the expenditure of the Irish towns, and he wished to point out that from Returns presented to Parliament in 1872, it was clear that if the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman were adopted, a rateable value of 83 per cent. arising from ratings above £8 annual value, would be controlled, in the proportion of 64 to 36, by a rateable value of 16 per cent. arising from ratings below £8 value, which would be a most unsatisfactory state of things. Moreover, from the same Returns, it appeared that while 72 per cent of the total income of Town Councils in Ireland arose from rates, 63 par cent of that income arose from ratings above £8; and in some cases, as in Belfast, holdings under £8 only paid—at least, for certain rates—a quarter of the poundage levied on property above that value. This was a most important consideration, for municipal affairs were little else than the management of local expenditure and taxation. He would like to see the municipal franchise lowered in Ireland, but not to such an extent as to swamp the owners and occupiers of nearly the whole of the property in the boroughs. There were other matters affecting the municipal corporations in Ireland which needed reform, and the
  784
  subject, when treated, should be dealt with as a whole.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should vote for the Bill which had been supported on two occasions by the late Government. He had expected to hoar more argument in reply to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. All the statements made by the right hon. Baronet were applicable to the municipal franchise in England, and he feared the Government meant to raise it. The real argument was, that the Irish corporations might be influenced by political feelings; but it would be far better to state that we could not admit municipal government in Ireland than to attempt to restrict it to a particular class. He thought a strong case had been made out for a large reduction of the Irish municipal franchise, though the exact rate could be fixed in Committee.
  MR. CORRYsaid, the people of Belfast did not want the Bill, as they were perfectly satisfied with the municipal franchise as it now stood.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that on the part of his co-religionists in Ireland he would be satisfied with religious equality. They wanted no Established Church in Ireland even for the majority, and if they obtained by the present measure both religious equality and municipal equality they would think there was a beginning of justice for their country.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 125: Majority 37.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (EMOLUMENTS OF TEACHERS).

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will he graciously pleased to give directions that there he laid before this House, a Return of the average income received in the year 1873 from all professional sources by the Male Certificated Teachers in the Schools aided by annual Grants in England and Wales; also the total number of Male Certificated Teachers, and the number of these provided with official residences rent-free in England and Wales:

  785
  "Similar Return of Female Teachers:
  "Similar Returns for Scotland:
  "Similar Return of the average total income at present derived from their Schools by the Head Male Teachers of National Schools, Ireland: also the total number of such Teachers, and the number of these provided with official residences rent-free in Ireland:
  "And, Similar Return for Female Teachers."—(Captain Nolan.)
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at the end of the Question, the words "the Returns to show how far the total income of the Schools is derived from National Funds, from Local Rates, from School Pence, and from Local Voluntary Contributions."—(Mr. Laren.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MRLDON, Bill for the amendment of the Law relating to the Registration of Parliamentary Voters in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MELDON, Sir JOHN OKAY, Mr. SCLLIVAN, and Mr. SYNAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 72.]

  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' DWELLINGS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "On Motion of Mr. BRUEN, Bill to encourage the erection and improvement of Dwellings for Agricultural Labourers in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUEN, Viscount CRUCHTON, and Mr. KAVANACH.
  Bill presented and read the first time. [Bill 73.]

  BARRISTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CALLAN, Bill to amend the Law relating to the admission of Banisters to practise in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CALLAN, Mr. MCCARTHY DOWNING, Mr. OSHALOHNESSY, and Sir JOHN GRAY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 74.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.