HC Deb 03 August 1875 vol 226 cc446-66
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

rose to call attention to the Departmental Report on the Training of Cadets for the Navy and to the proposed abandonment of the principle of competitive examinations on the entry of Cadets; and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, the abandonment of the principle of limited compe- tition in the appointment of Cadets to the Naval Service is inexpedient. The hon. Gentleman said, important as the subject of the entry of cadets for the Naval Service had always been, it was more so now than ever, because with the advance of science and the ever increasing complications of our ships, guns, and torpedoes, more and more demands were constantly made on the mental resources of our officers, and scientific requirements of no mean order were now demanded of them. Another reason why they should pay more attention to the subject was that they now entered no more cadets than were really required for the reduced number of officers. When they had more officers than they could employ it was easy to resort to a system of weeding—the incompetent and inefficient were either not employed, or not promoted; but now that the number of officers was greatly reduced, and they had no more than they required, the old process of selection was no longer possible to the same extent. For 10 years before 1869 the average entry of cadets was 170 per annum; but since that year the average had been 80, and it was now admitted that that number would be sufficient. Therefore, it was of more importance now than formerly to secure a certain amount of knowledge and intelligence on the part of the cadets. When the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) reduced the number of entries in 1869, he made another important change; he introduced the principle of competition in a limited and guarded manner. Up to that time entry had been obtained by nomination limited by a test examination; but his right hon. Friend allowed nominations to be made for twice the number of vacancies; the candidates were allowed to compete with one another, and half of them were finally nominated to cadetships He made this change for two reasons. The test examination had broken down, and it was found that a considerable number of very ignorant boys succeeded in getting into the Service. He had the authority of his right hon. Friend for saying that the late Mr. Corry frequently complained to him of the number of dunces who were to be found in the lower branches of the Service. Dr. Woolley, the late Director of Naval Education, gave testi- mony to the same effect before the Committee. He said— I am aware, from what I heard at the Admiralty, that there were continual complaints made that the boys did not come from the Britannia in a satisfactory state of knowledge. Under the old system it was felt that a great many boys were admitted with an insufficient knowledge, and were, many of them, ultimately discharged. On making these changes his right hon. Friend appointed a Committee to advise as to the best course of study to be pursued by the cadets while on board the Britannia. The Committee consisted of Dr. Barry, Principal of King's College, and formerly Head Master of Cheltenham School; Dr. Butler, Head Master of Harrow; Professor Main, the then head of the Naval College at Portsmouth; Admiral Powell, Dr. Woolley, and Mr. Inskip. He ventured to think that a stronger Committee could not have been appointed. The Committee, after careful consideration, reported in favour of a technical and professorial education, as opposed to a classical education. In their Report, which was now in the hands of hon. Members, was the following passage:— We are of opinion that the course of the Britannia should include Mathematics and Navigation, French and English, Geography, History, Drawing, and Physical Science.' The claims of Latin for recognition we have rejected, on the ground that considering the youth of the cadets, and the shortness of time which would be available for its study after other paramount demands had been satisfied, it would be hopeless to look for such progress as would be marked by appreciable results, and interest the cadets in its pursuit. The condemnation of Latin by such authorities as Dr. Butler and Dr. Barry was very significant and remarkable. He would here mention that the cadets were entered at the age of 13. They spent two years on board the Britannia. They then went to sea for five years. At the age of 20 they returned for six months' study at Greenwich before passing an examination for the rank of sub lieutenant. "Although there were Naval Instructors on board the larger ships, yet the time which could be given for instruction was very limited, seldom exceeding two hours a-day, and it was admitted that midshipmen scarcely kept up the knowledge which they had acquired on board the Britannia. Sir Astley Cooper Key said on this point— At present the officers at Greenwich do not show signs of having kept up their knowledge in the four or five years between leaving the Britannia and coming to Greenwich; they naturally lose a great deal, especially in Algebra, Trigonometry, and Geometry. The education, therefore, of these officers practically ceased at the age of 15, and after that they were engaged in the purely professional training on board ship. It was all the more important, therefore, that we should secure the most intelligent boys for the Service, and that we should make the best use of the very short time at their disposal for education. Such was the system which was in force up till a year ago. In the course of the past year, however, fear appeared to have been engendered in the minds of the present First Lord of the Admiralty and the members of his Board that the education of the cadets in the Britannia was being overstrained, and that their health was deteriorated. He believed it was no secret now that this was due to the error of a surgeon on board the Britannia, who filled up a Return in such a way that it appeared that the boys had not gained in weight during a year. However that might be, the Admiralty appointed a Committee to inquire into the matter. The inquiry appeared to have been limited in the first instance to the question whether the condition of the Britannia and the course of study were favourable to the physique of the cadets, and it was only as an afterthought that they were directed to report upon the more important question of the entry of the cadets. He could not but think that if this had been originally contemplated, the Committee would have been differently constituted; for, with all respect to the gentlemen who formed it, he thought it did not at all compare in weight or authority with the previous Committee which he had already named. The Committee consisted of three naval officers—Admiral Rice and two captains—two medical gentlemen, Mr. Osborne Gordon, formerly tutor at Christ Church, and Mr. Morgan, a Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge; but there was no one on the Committee with any experience whatever in the education of boys, or with any knowledge of our great public schools, or with any experience of competition. On the main point, the health and physique of the boys, the Report of the Committee was very satisfactory. They found the boys were fully up to the average of the best public schools in point of weight and height; their health was good; they excelled in cricket and boating, and the only defect was that a certain portion of the cadets had a somewhat pale and jaded appearance. This might have been due either to the relaxingel imate of Dartmouth, or to the conditions of life on board the Britannia, where, as the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated, a somewhat severe course of study was combined with the strict discipline, which was essential to a ship of war, and which might be too strict for boys at a young age. The Committee made, as principal recommendations:—1, the substitution of a College on shore for the Britannia training ship; 2, the extension of the course of education for three years, interspersed by two short cruises in a training ship; 3, the discontinuance of instruction in grammar, literature, history, physical geography, and physics, and the introduction of Latin in their place; 4, the substitution of pure nomination, with a test examination, for the competitive system. With respect to the first two recommendations, he had nothing to say. He thought the Government had been wise in substituting a College on shore for the Britannia. He also thought it was wise to extend the training of cadets to the age of 16 before they were sent on board the training ships. With respect, however, to the physical science and history, he could not but consider that it was very unwise, and he regretted to learn that the Admiralty had already carried it out. Without, for a moment, undervaluing Latin for the education of boys who could be kept at school till the age of 17 or 18, or who were to go to the Universities, he thought that for boys who were practically to finish their education at the age of 15 or 16, it was very useless and a great waste of time; useless, because the boys could not learn enough of it consistently with other work which was absolutely necessary for naval officers; and a waste of time, because it replaced other studies of paramount importance. It seemed to him that the reasons given by Dr. Barry and Dr. Butler against the introduction of Latin were conclusive. Among the reasons given by the more recent Committee in favour of Latin was one so infinitely absurd, that it seemed more like a joke than a serious argument. The Committee said that the boys, by learning Latin, would be able to obtain some insight into ancient history and mythology, which all boys took an interest in, and with which most gentlemen were supposed to be acquainted. The boys were therefore to give up modern history and learn ancient history. They were to give up physics and physical geography in order to study the loves of the mythical gods and goddesses. Could anything be more absurd? It brought to his mind a saying of the late Archbishop Whateley, that he had only been saved by the deficiency of his memory from being ruined by his education. The recommendation was utterly unsupported by any evidence before the Committee; and no witness had even been asked a question on this subject The last and most important recommendation was that against competititive examination on entry. The ground given for this was that the examination and the previous cramming had proved to be hurtful to the health of the boys, that it deteriorated their physique, and that the principle of competition, when applied to young boys, was a mischievous and fallacious test. Well, then, what they had really to consider was, was it true that the health of the boys was deteriorated by that system? If that point could be established it would certainly be a great argument against competition. But he found, on turning to the evidence adduced before the Committee, that there was nothing whatever to support that conclusion. On the contrary, the evidence was totally opposed to such a deduction. Pour doctors connected with the Britannia gave evidence as to the state of health of the boys on entry; three of them said that they could discover no damage whatever resulting from the previous studies of the boys. The most important of these witnesses was Dr. Dalby, who had been five years in charge of the sick quarters of the Britannia, two of which had been before the introduction of competition. On being asked whether the boys gave him the idea of having been mentally over-tasked when they first came on board, said—"I never observed that." Dr. Holman, who had been two years on board the Britannia, and on the new system, said— The toys are very healthy, indeed; no cases that come into hospital can he traced to overwork, either mental or physical. They are up to the full standard of health. On being asked whether they had the appearance of having been at some time or other overworked, he said—"Not at all." Mr. De Meric, one of the present surgeons of the Britannia, was asked— On the first entry of the hoys here, have you observed them at all narrowly?—Yes. Do they show signs of hard work—mental work, I mean?—I should say not. Have you observed, especially when they first came, a careworn look about them, as if they had been subjected to very hard mental work?—I have not noticed it. Captain Foley, who had been in command of the Britannia for three years, and to whose care it owed so much, gave this testimony— Are you satisfied with the physical condition of life on board the Britannia?—I do not think they could he better. Do you think the physical condition of the boys as good as that of the Eton hoys?—I think it is. Did you ever observe the boys, when they first came here, showing signs of: being overworked?—Not when they first came here: but, during the passing-out term, I have observed the boys who have been anxious to work up for the first class over do it. They strain their heads more than I could wish. Dr. Woolley, on being asked whether he was well satisfied with the appearance of the boys, said— I always was. I never had any reason to form an adverse opinion. I heard no complaint of the physique of the hoys while on board. Admiral Ryder, who had had great experience on this subject, said— I have not been able to trace any injury to the boys' constitutions, and therefore I cannot imagine they are overworked. They had also the well-ascertained fact, as shown in a diagram given in the Report, that the boys on entry were on the average both taller and heavier than the average boys of the same age at the four principal public schools—they were 1½ inches taller and about 10 lb heavier, and they maintained this superiority while on board. Against all this evidence they had the evidence of one of the two Naval Instructors, who thought that a certain proportion of the boys went on board overworked, and of the Staff Commander, who thought some of the boys were weak when they entered; and of Dr. Connolly, one of the four doctors who having been less than a year on board gave this opinion— Will you state to the Committee whether the boys, when they first come on hoard, show any sign of having been overworked before they come P—Some few of them look a little pale and delicate when they come. When you say 'some,' do you mean many?—Perhaps 10 or 15 per cent of them. Atmost, therefore, some 10 per cent looked a little pale and delicate; a proportion, he presumed, differing little from any ordinary school. The other evidence given was purely theoretical, that of two naval officers who objected to competition, and that of Dr. Schmitz, the head of the International School at Isleworth, who had no experience whatever of competition, but who said that in Germany the principle was objected to. One would suppose that before condemning the principle of competition the Committee would have made inquiries, not of the International School at Isleworth, but of some of our great foundations where competition had been the rule for some years past. Not one single witness, however, had been called from any one of our great public schools. He need hardly remind the House how greatly the principle of competition had been extended of late years for boys. With the single exception of Christ's Hospital, almost all our great schools had thrown open their foundations to competition within the last few years. Eton led the way in 1844; Winchester followed in 1854; and the same course was recommended by the Public Schools Commission of 1864 to the other great schools; and since then, under the Endowed Schools Act, open competition had been adopted by many other middle-class foundations, such as that of King Edward's School, at Birmingham. He had himself made many inquiries as-to the result of competition at these schools, and could confidently say that it was most satisfactory, and completely dispelled the conclusions of the Committee. He must first, however, quote from the evidence before the Public Schools Commission in 1864. Dr. Moberly used this striking language with reference to open competition at Winchester— Let me offer my testimony without reserve. The open elections have been excellently successful. In point of ability, good conduct, and general promise we have lost nothing and we have gained much; we do not know what it is to have a thoroughly stupid boy. And he spoke later of the "unmixedly beneficial change." Dr. Goodford, speaking of Eton, said— The first and most marked effect of opening our foundation to competition has been that it has raised intellectually the standard of the boys in College, and through that morally their position in the school. The leaven of steadiness and diligence which they impart to the rest of the school is most valuable to us. He would only add to this, one of many statements he had received from Mr. Browning, a master of Eton, who wrote specially with reference to the physique of boys who obtained scholarships at Eton— A considerable number of boys of 13 and under are subject to a very severe competition for entrance into College at Eton. Broadly speaking, no bad effects are observable from the pressure thus put upon them. Dr. Vardy, the Master of the great Free School at Birmingham, wrote that since 1872 there had been 1,203 candidates, and 450 had been successful, of an average ago of 10.26 years. He added— I know no single instance in which a successful boy has suffered at all in health or otherwise from exertions made in preparing for the competition; but it should be observed that, in all its subjects, the examination is general; no special portion of any subject is prescribed, and therefore special preparation is impossible. This opinion of Dr. Vardy led to the last point he would have to deal with, that of "cramming," as to which a good deal of nonsense was talked. "Cram" was of two kinds—one the attempt to stuff a boy's mind with just that amount of knowledge which might be thought sufficient for the purpose of the examination and which a careful investigation of previous examinations showed would be useful. The other was the brushing up of the intending candidates in those subjects which were often neglected at school—such as spelling and arithmetic. The first kind of "cram" was, no doubt, most objectionable; but it might easily be provided against by the Examiners. If the examination was well conducted, nothing was easier than to detect "cram," and he was informed by those most experienced, that this could be best done, not by setting difficult questions, but by setting easy ones. The simpler and easier the papers were, the more easy it was to select the industrious and intelligent boys from their competitors. As regarded the second kind of "cram," so long as boys were badly-grounded at home or at school in spelling and arithmetic, so long would parents be induced to send their boys for special preparation to professional crammers; but all the evidence showed that this was quite unnecessary in the case of any boy who had been well brought up at home, and who was industrious at school. But "cram" could not be got rid of by substituting a test examination for a competitive examination. The worst features of "cram" came out in a test examination. If a competitive examination was well conducted, the efforts of the crammer could not succeed in placing an ignorant or stupid boy over a clever boy; but he easily succeeded in stuffing an ignorant boy with sufficient knowledge to pass a test examination. The evils of "cram" were far worse before the adoption of competition and under the system of pure nomination with a test examination. On this point, he would quote Dr. Woolley, who said— The system of cramming sprang up long before the competitive examination came into force. I should say that the crammers flourished more then. The supposed necessity was felt quite as much before there "was any competition as it has been since. They would, therefore, not put an end to cramming by returning to pure nomination, but would succeed in obtaining a number of very stupid boys, and, looking to the extent to which competition barred the entry to so many other professions, he feared they might expect that in those families fortunate enough to obtain a nomination for the Navy, the stupid boy of the family would be reserved for the Navy, if, indeed, there were not a family living. In conclusion, he would remind the House that the change to competition was deliberately adopted only six years ago. It was adopted in a guarded manner. In his opinion, it might wisely have been thrown open still more widely. It was now abandoned before time had elapsed really to test its results, as none of the boys had yet passed their lieutenant's examination. It was condemned upon evidence which in no way supported the conclusion, and without any evidence from our great public schools. The change had been hailed in many quarters as indicative of an intention to abandon generally the competitive system, and to restore patronage with all its evils in all branches of the Service-He had felt it his duty, therefore, in the interest of the Naval Service, and in the interest of the public service, to challenge the action of the Government, and he hoped the House would support him in the Motion which he now made.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the abandonment of the principle of limited competition in the appointment of Cadets to the Naval Service is inexpedient,"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,) —instead thereof.

MR. HUNT

said, no one could complain of this subject being brought under the notice of the House, for it was one of considerable importance, and as the hon. Member said the evidence failed to support the recommendation of the Committee he must call attention to that evidence in some detail. It was perfectly certain that the system of limited competition was an exceedingly good thing for the individual who happened to be at the head of the Admiralty for the time being, because it enabled him to oblige twice as many persons as he could have done under the system of nomination, and it saved him the trouble of ascertaining which of the candidates were duly qualified for appointments. The question for decision, however, was, was the system good for the boys, because if it was not good for them it could not be good for the Service? The deduction that the hon. Member had drawn that because the Government were about to abolish competitive examination for boys that, therefore, they were about to abolish competitive examination from the Service altogether, was not well founded—because he drew a wide distinction between a competitive examination for boys between 12 and 13 and one for those who were considerably older. They had been told by the hon. Member that by adopting the course proposed, the Government would be introducing a number of ignorant boys into the Service; but he thought that the terms "ignorant" and "learned" were scarcely applicable with reference to boys of this early age. He supposed that boys of 12 were generally ignorant.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the hon. Member had intended to use the word "stupid," and not "ignorant,"

MR. HUNT

Did competition subject the boys to an improper strain at a very early period of life? It must be remembered that boys of 12 and 13 were, as a rule, incapable of getting up subjects for themselves, and had to be subjected to the constant supervision of their teachers. It was a wholly different thing to test the industry of boys at a later period, when they could be trusted to study without the personal attention of their tutors. There could be no doubt that the system of competition gave a great advantage to the sons of wealthy parents, who were able to obtain for them the most expensive instruction. That was a matter that had been wholly overlooked by the hon. Member opposite. The hon. Gentleman's comparatively disparaging remarks respecting the composition of the Committee were wholly unfounded, for it was a most excellent Committee. It was composed of three naval officers, of two medical men, and of two distinguished University men. That Committee had gone into the question with great care, and they had expressed their entire disapproval of the system of competitive examination for boys of this age, on the ground that it was most hurtful to them, as well as being injurious to the Service. The injury the system did to the boys was not only physical, but mental, and they were enabled to pass their examination merely by a system of cramming. Having acquired a superficial habit of study, they found it difficult afterwards to escape from it. The hon. Member had alluded to the system of competition which was practised in our public schools; but the appearance of the boys who had entered the most famous of our public schools by competition in no way supported the hon. Member's view. On the whole, the Committee had recommended that the Government should revert to the system that was in force before 1869, when all that was required of the boys was that they should be able to pass a reasonable examination in reading, writing, arithmetic, Latin, and certain other branches of study. The hon. Gentleman argued that there was no evidence to support that recommendation, and he laid stress upon the testimony of Dr. Holman, who himself told the Committee that as he did not see the boys when they joined, his evidence would be of no value whatever. Mr. Johnson, who had been 11 years in the Britannia, stated that the appearance of many of the cadets when they first entered indicated that they had been subjected to a mental overstrain. Some of them seemed to be quite worn out, and took nearly a year to recover, while others broke down altogether and had to be discharged. The Committee examined several of the cadets themselves. Their names were not given, but Cadet "A" said he passed eighth in the competition, and had been studying during the previous six months 10½ hours a-day. He detailed the subjects in which he was examined and did not recollect much about some of them; was very weak after the examination, but went to Cheltenham for a change, and was now "all right." Cadet "B," who passed second, after two years' preparation and working 10½ hours a-day, during the last six months was "seedy" while working up at school, and could not eat. Then Cadet "C" was none the worse for the examination; and Cadet "D," who had been ill for a fortnight afterwards said, he "was well now, but wished he had never crammed." The hon. Gentleman said they were not to attach great weight to the evidence of naval officers on this point; but he (Mr. Hunt) considered it to be very valuable.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

explained that he said the evidence of the officers was of a theoretical character.

MR. HUNT

remarked that, at all events, the evidence he had read was not theoretical, being the testimony of the victims of this system. Sir Cooper Key, the head of Greenwich College, disapproved of competition for boys so young, as did Captain Brandreth; whereas, Dr. Woolley, who was a party to the original Report, and Mr. Little-john, a naval instructor, were in favour of it. They were often told, however, that they should attend to the opinions of foreigners, and Dr. Schmitz, examiner in Classics and History at the London University, said a system which involved cramming during 12 months of 9 hours a-day would not be tolerated in any other country, adding—in England we were in a fair way to destroy the mental powers of our young people by the strain of these competitions too early in life. It was evident that there was a good foundation for the recommendation of the Committee. He believed a proper test examination would eliminate those stupid boys whom it was not desirable to have, and he should also expect to have them weeded out by a report upon their qualifications and abilities. It was impossible by competitive examinations to gauge the aptitude of any number of boys for the Service; but after they had been in the Britannia or the College, if one should be built, for a certain period, it was desirable that a report should be made as to whether they were likely to make good officers. If that course were adopted he had no doubt they would get rid of all those boys who might be physically or mentally unfit for the Service. At the time when the Committee nominated by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) made its Report there was no such examination at Greenwich as had been referred to. If, then, they weeded out the boys unfit for the Service at the end of the first year, and if, again, they weeded out those who showed a deficiency in ability or industry in the examinations at Greenwich College, he thought they would do everything needful to secure a competent body of officers for the Navy. He could assure the House that it would be of the greatest advantage to himself personally to return to the system of limited competition; but they had adopted the recommendation of the Committee, believing that it was, on the whole, the best for the Service, and he thought the evidence he had read to the House and the opinions he had quoted fully established the propriety of the recommendation of the Committee and of the course which had been pursued.

MR. LOWE

observed that the system which the First Lord of the Admiralty had established and recommended to be continued for the purpose of recruiting the cadets of the Navy was simply this—that the cadets should have some sort of examination before they were admitted, and that they should be appointed entirely by the First Lord.

MR. HUNT

said, that was not the system. The Members of the Board of Admiralty had a certain number of nominations. Admirals hoisting their flags had each two nominations; captains commanding ships had each a nomination, and the remaining number wanted for entry were nominated by the First Lord of the Admiralty.

MR. LOWE

understood, then, that the nominations were made principally by the Board of Admiralty, with some exceptions in favour of admirals, the rest being made up by the First Lord. There was to be a pass examination before the cadets were admitted, and if not approved of the end of the first year they were to be weeded out. That was the system of the right hon. Gentleman. If the object of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government was to provide really efficient and able officers for the Navy, that, he ventured to say, was not the way to get them. All experience had shown—and particularly the experience of Oxford and Cambridge—that these test examinations had hardly ever served as a check, having always been overborne and brought down to the standard and convenience of those who superintended them. The state of the test examination at Oxford and Cambridge was simply disgraceful. Considering what human nature was, and that naval officers were not generally very wealthy—being in most instances married and naturally anxious to provide for their children—this system was, no doubt, a great boon which the right hon. Gentleman had recovered for them out of the jaws of competition. And was it likely that the sons of distinguished and meritorious officers, or of those who combined with interest in the profession the political interest of Lords of the Admiralty, would ever be weeded out, whatever might be their intellectual deficiencies? It was simply ridiculous to expect it. Was it to be supposed that if one of the sons of the right hon. Gentleman was found to be incompetent—which he admitted was impossible—there was any power to turn out of the Navy the son of the First Lord of the Admiralty? And, if that was so in these cases, how would it be in others? He quite agreed that at an early age we did not want to find out what boys knew, but we wanted to find out whether they had the capacity for knowing—whether they could be taught; and, by adopting this test the Government were doing the foolish thing which a man would do who, choosing between two fields, should take the barren and leave the fertile one, thinking it would be equally productive. The competitive system, on the other hand, was singularly moderate and reasonable, requiring no more than was done at Winchester and Eton, where the great prizes were thrown open to the competition of boys of the same age or younger than the cadets. Public and private schools were worked upon this system of competition, and he had never gone through harder labour than he endured when competing for a prize at Winchester, which he was so fortunate as to win against the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Selborne. He was not aware, however, that either of them had been permanently injured. Why, then, was the Navy to be excepted from such rules as prevailed in all the other professions? The Report of the Committee mentioned two reasons—one relating to cramming, and the other to health. If there was any cramming, it was the fault of the Examiners. The capacity of the boys could easily be ascertained by easy questions on subjects they all knew something about. As to the objection on the ground of health, it was curious that the four medical men who were examined by the Committee gave evidence opposed to the conclusion which was come to, and a famous cricketer spoke very highly of the physique of the boys. There was, therefore, medical evidence that the boys had not suffered from the competitions, and there was also practical experience that they had not. That was no small matter, because fitness for the Naval Service was no longer a question of mere bull-dog courage, but depended very greatly on how much mathematical and scientific knowledge a man possessed. Let them think of what tremendous engines they now entrusted to their naval officers. To lose a man-of-war in former times was as nothing compared to losing one of our present floating fortresses from the want of scientific knowledge. Probably the human intellect was never before called upon for such an exertion of mingled intelligence and courage as the naval officers of the future would have to make, considering both the machinery they would have to wield, and the immense complexity of every matter that would be brought before them. Yet, when it had become an imperative necessity for our very national existence that we should secure the best intelligence for the management of our fleets, the Government were deliberately taking a step backwards. He could only protest against that course; but he hoped the question might even yet be re-considered, and that the Government would not neglect a matter, the importance of which the nations with whom we might have to compete would be certain not to overlook.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had alluded to the Oxford and Cambridge examinations; but those examinations had nothing whatever to do with the examination of boys of 10 or 12 years of age, who could not expect to be tested with regard to their mathematical acquirements. All that could be expected to be ascertained in the case of those boys was whether they were fitted, both physically and mentally, to learn the naval profession. The advantages of the system introduced on the recommendation of the Committee of 1870 were prospective, and the House should give equal weight to the Report of the Committee which had tested the results of that system and found it to have failed. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) said there was to be a process of elimination adopted at a later period, by which dull or stupid boys who had entered would be weeded out; whereupon the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) remarked that if the son of the First Lord of the Admiralty or of any other distinguished man were examined at that time, the Examiners of the Navy would not do their duty. But the same argument would hold good if his right hon. Friend's son were to be sent into the Navy now. If the Examiners would be unfaithful three years hence, they would be unfaithful at the present moment. But he was sure that English Examiners, whether now or throe years hence, would perform their functions honourably, and therefore the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite fell to the ground. The right hon. and gallant Member having then quoted the evidence of Sir Alexander Armstrong and other witnesses called before the Committee to show that the system of competitive examination for the entry of naval cadets adopted in 1870 was objectionable, went on to observe that the Committee expressed their entire disapproval of that system after it had been tried for five years, and declared that even when the nominations were restricted to two for each vacancy, it was hurtful to the boys and injurious to the Service. He did not, he might add, see how the Government could well have refused to act upon the Report of the Committee; and he felt sure that the system to which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) had reverted would secure for the Navy that combination of courage and ability in its officers which the right hon. Member for the University of London rightly held to be so necessary.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he was rather surprised to hear the right hon. and gallant Baronet refer to the evidence of Sir Alexander Armstrong with regard to the health of the boys; for it appeared he had only visited the school during the holidays. He complained that if boys were called upon to address themselves to the study of science, it was called cramming; but the same thing was not said when they were set to the study of Latin and Greet. He very much regretted the Report, and that Her Majesty's Government should have acted upon it.

MR. E. J. REED

believed that this Committee was appointed in the first instance from the purest misapprehension that ever existed. It was thought that the boys had not made progress in growth during one year, and in consequence of this supposed "stuntification" a number of gentlemen were called to lay their heads together to discover the cause. It was ultimately discovered that this idea was owing to the same Report being presented twice by mistake. The whole thing was a delusion, and that mistake was the origin of this Committee and the foundation on which the charge had been made. He thought that in a matter of this sort they ought not to be perpetually at the mercy of Committees and of the conflicting Reports made by them, but should be governed rather by common sense and general principles. It appeared to him that the broad views laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London were those that ought to guide them in the management of affairs of this kind. The First Lord of the Admiralty seemed to think it was enough that a Select Committee had reported in favour of a particular course, without the exercise of any judgment or discretion of his own; but he contended that these matters should be decided in accordance with enlightened and statesmanlike views. It was not enough to say that an opportunity occurred for the elimination of young cadets when it was discovered that they should never have been allowed to enter. That was a most cruel and false principle to establish for the naval profession. It was no discredit to fail in a competitive examination; but for a youth to be sent home as unfit for the Service, after he had been for some time a cadet, and for no other reason than that the Admiralty had not the sense to discover that he should never have been allowed to enter, was a misfortune from which a young man could not so easily recover. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to claim it as a meritorious part of his plan that it would get rid of the stupid boys.

MR. HUNT

explained that the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him, and that his words would not fairly bear that interpretation.

MR. E. J. REED

disclaimed any desire to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman; but he must protest against any such course of conduct as would blast the future prospects of these cadets. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be influenced by the weighty considerations which had fallen from Members on that—the Liberal—side of the House, and not hastily affirm this very questionable proceeding.

MR. GOSCHEN

would not, on that occasion, go into the question of the merits or demerits of competition, but would say a few words with reference to that system which was to be adopted in room of the competitive system. Even with the system of limited competition that had been in existence during the last five or six years, he felt that the door of admission to the Naval Service was scarcely wide enough, and that the general view of the country was that without interest it was not possible to get one's son into the Navy. He objected to the scheme of the First Lord of the Admiralty, because it aggravated an evil that already existed. The point of the case was, that in the future everyone would know that even limited completion had been abolished, and that the only way to become an officer in the Navy was through knowing a naval officer, or bringing a little personal interest to bear upon the First Lord. He asked, was it desirable that they should take the whole of their officers for the Navy from this limited circle of choice? The Naval Service should be open to all classes of the community through competition. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn his mind to the question whether, if the system of competition were to be given up, he could not devise some more satisfactory mode of admission to the Service than that he and his Colleagues should be the only persons who should make nominations. He had, of course, no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would exercise his discretion in making those nominations as fairly as possible; but then that portion of the nominations which would fall to the lot of naval officers would be one purely of interest, and Sir Cooper Key, one of the most able and intelligent officers in the Service, had stated that a system of pure nomination was impracticable and hopeless. The right hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) quoted evidence to show that we were educating young boys too much; but that was not the opinion of those by whom our public schools were conducted. The Report of the Royal Commission had not proved that the system of competition had done any harm; and he thought the common sense of the country would oppose the system which was about to be introduced of pure narrow patronage by which naval officers would be drawn from a narrower circle than the members of any other branch of the public service.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

explained that when he spoke of dunces in the Navy, he certainly did not intend to designate by that term the present officers of the Navy; he had pointed out that under the process of weeding and with an excessive number of entries, the dunces were soon weeded out of the Service.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

declined to enter into any professional discussion upon this subject; but having paid considerable attention to questions of education, he wished to say a few words. He must say that he did not hold any extreme view in favour of competition; but he much regretted that the influence of the Government should be brought to bear against liberalizing the course to be taken in reference to this matter. He was very sorry that they had not found some course which would be short of setting up the old system of patronage. If there was anything which could act as a stimulus to those who were engaged in the instruction of our youth, it was the knowledge that in doing their duty towards their pupils they were furnishing them with the means of obtaining access into the public service. He was, at the same time, quite willing to admit that the competition of little boys required to be carefully watched; and there was, in his opinion, much pregnant truth in the saying that the best way to test their proficiency was not by hard, but by easy questions. That, however, was a very different thing from abolishing competition altogether. He should vote in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend.

MR. A. F EGERTON

said, the question was not one of patronage, and that under the old system double the number of boys for whom there was room was patronized by their predecessors. Whatever patronage was in the hands of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was, he might add, the House would at once believe, fairly and discreetly bestowed, and he thought he might say the same for the other Members of the Board. As to Latin, it was of the greatest possible use in the acquisition of other languages, and he might also observe that the study of it was begun by the boys before they entered the Britannia. He thought that there was the greatest possible difference between competition for prizes at school and competition for the purpose of entering a profession in which one was to pass his lifetime.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 76: Majority 57.