Commons Sitting of 10 April 1876

MINUTES.
New Writ Issued—For East Cumberland, v. William Nicholas Hodgson, esquire, deceased.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Toll Bridges (River Thames), nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASSES I. to VII.—Resolutions [April 7] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Treasury Solicitor* [128]; Highways [129]; Poor Law (Scotland) [130].
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [122]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [125].

JAPAN—NEWSPAPER REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have now considered the recent notification of Sir Harry Parkes, making the publication of newspapers in Japanese by Englishmen an offence punishable by three months hard labour; whether, under the Order in Council of 1865, British Ministers in China and Japan are not in fact prohibited from creating offences in China and Japan, which are not offences in England, or violations of British Treaties with those Countries; and, whether the Government approve Sir Harry Parkes' notification as necessary?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have now received the despatches containing the full information with regard to the regulations referred to, and have submitted the Papers to the Law Officers. Her Majesty's Government will come to no decision until furnished with their Report; and, in the meantime, it would not be right for me to express any opinion on the provisions of the Order in Council.

COUNTY COURT HOLIDAYS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, considering that by the County Court Orders, 1875, eight days are named on which the County Court office is directed to be closed, the Government approve of the course taken by a County Court Judge in fixing his courts to be holden on those days, and so depriving the County Court clerks of their holidays?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, that the question with reference to a County Court Judge holding his sittings at the time when the County Court office was directed to be closed would have been more fitly put to the Lord Chancellor, as the County Court Judge was a judicial officer, and was in no sense under the control of the Attorney General. Speaking, however, as an individual, he might say that the practice of holding Courts on days appointed for holidays for the clerks was one very much to be deprecated. He did not think a County Court Judge should do so without good and special reasons.

PUBLIC HEALTH—TYPHOID FEVER AT EAGLEY.—QUESTION.
MR. J. K. CROSSasked the President of the Local Government Board, If it is true, as reported in the "Bolton Journal" of the 11th of March, that the Local Government Board have decided not to make any inquiry into the outbreak of typhoid fever at Eagley, said to be caused by the consumption of impure milk; and, whether, considering that in the small district of Eagley, which is reported to be in a good sanitary state, no less than one hundred and fifty cases of typhoid have occurred, of which twelve have proved fatal, and considering the difference of opinion existing between medical men as to the cause of the outbreak, and the alarm prevailing in the neighbouring town of Bolton, the Local Government Board will make an exhaustive inquiry into the cause of this outbreak of fever?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, it is not true that the Local Government Board have decided not to make any inquiry into the circumstances of the lamentable outbreak of typhoid fever at Eagley. On the contrary, I informed the hon. Member for Bolton, a fortnight or three weeks ago, that I was ready and willing to give directions for such an inquiry. The only cause of delay has been that the sanitary authorities seemed to be discharging their duty remarkably well, and that they were engaged in prosecuting inquiries of their own through the agency of their medical officer and other skilled persons. I have, however, quite recently received a communication from the sanitary authority expressing their wish that a Local Government Inspector should conduct an exhaustive inquiry, and that will be done immediately after Easter.

SWEDEN—THE BRITISH CHURCH AT STOCKHOLM.—QUESTION.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in regard to the British Church at Stockholm, and in particular to its forcible entry by the Swedish authorities; and, whether he can state the steps which Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the affair?
MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, the attention of the Government had been called to the matter. It appeared that some disputes had arisen among the congregation respecting the management of the church, and that the Swedish authorities had interfered. Her Majesty's Government had no wish to mix themselves up with the disputes, but had referred the whole subject to the Law Officers of the Crown. As they had not yet received the opinion of the Law Officers, it was undesirable that at present he should say anything further on the subject.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEintimated that he would repeat the Question after the Easter Recess.

RATING ACT, 1874—ST. THOMAS'S HOSPITAL.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SCOURFIELDasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the recent case of the rating of St. Thomas's Hospital, based on the amount altogether expended thereon; and, whether he will introduce a Clause in the new Valuation Bill to provide against the arbitrary assumption of such a principle of valuation by any Assessment Committee? The hon. Baronet, in explanation of the Question, said, it appeared that at the general assessment sessions evidence was offered on one side as to what was believed would be the annual rent which a tenant might be expected to pay. On the other side the only evidence offered was as to the cost of land and expense of foundation and structure, amounting to £432,000. A percentage of 3½ per cent was made on this, certain deductions were made, and the rateable value of the Hospital fixed accordingly.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, my attention has not been called in any formal or official manner to the case in question, but I am generally cognizant of the circumstances. I need hardly inform my hon. Friend that the cost of a building is not a proper basis or criterion of value for rating purposes, however interesting it may be for a value to be possessed of such knowledge. The Valuation Bill contains the existing law, and it fixes the rating upon the gross rental or annual value, and not on the capital expended in construction. I
1476
cannot undertake to insert clauses in the new Valuation Bill to prevent things being done which are at variance with the statutory principles of assessment.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM—THE READING ROOMS.—QUESTION.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If, notwithstanding assurances given last year that more successful means would be taken to enable readers in the British Museum to obtain books in a reasonable time after application, it is the fact that the average delay at mid-day is still an hour; and, whether, as a matter of fact, a reader on the 5th instant, having been kept an hour and three quarters waiting for a book, had to leave without obtaining it?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, it must be admitted that there had been considerable delay in supplying readers with the books requested. He had been in communication with the Trustees of the British Museum on the subject; they were doing their best to remedy the inconvenience, and a considerable increase in the number of attendants had been sanctioned. But there was some difficulty in organizing the service, and the Trustees had recently appointed a subcommittee of their own body with instructions to go fully into the subject.

NAVY—THE "MISTLETOE" COLLISION.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to pay by way of compensation or otherwise any and what sums of money to any and what persons in relation to the running down of the yacht "Mistletoe" by Her Majesty's ship "Alberta," and the various proceedings consequent thereon; and, whether such sums are included in the Navy Estimates already laid upon the Table, and under what heads and sub-heads?
  MR. HUNT: The whole of the information asked for in the first part of the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman is contained in the Papers already laid before Parliament. The total sum payable in relation to the accident to the Mistletoe was nearly £4,000. That has already been paid. No future payment will be made but the annuity to the

  1477
  steward of the Mistletoe, whose arm was broken, which is contingent on his arm not being sufficiently recovered to enable him to earn his pension in the Naval Reserve. The payments have been made out of the surplus of last year; the Votes will, therefore, not appear in the Estimates for the current year. The payments fall under Vote 14, which is a sum taken for payments on account of damage done by Her Majesty's ships.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSgave Notice that he would on an early day after Easter call attention to the practice of making such payments out of the surplus of last year.
  Sir ROBERT PEEL: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, without Notice, a Question with reference to a subject which is to be discussed to-night, on which I am desirous, on personal grounds, to have some explanation, inasmuch as one of the victims of the collision between the Alberta and the Mistletoe was a relative of mine, and was the daughter of my late lamented Colleague. In the Papers laid upon the Table it appears that the Admiralty have reprimanded one of the officers who "contributed to this stupid blunder," and I wish to know, Whether it is correct, as has been asserted in the newspapers of yesterday and to-day, that Captain Welch, one of the two officers in command at the time of the collision, has declined to accept the reprimand of the Admiralty, and if that is so, whether really law and justice should not be done in this case, and whether the two officers should not be tried by Court martial?
  MR. HUNT: The right hon. Gentleman has given me no Notice of the Question. I have seen in a quasi-comic paper that statement.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: In The Times newspaper?
  MR. HUNT: There is a statement of the character which he has described in the paper I have alluded to, and I believe it was copied into others. I have seen it in no other periodical. But it is perfectly impossible for an officer to decline to receive a reprimand. It would be an act of insubordination. He may ask for a Court martial, if he is so disposed, and in that way, but in no other way, can he repudiate a reprimand.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Then he has not asked for a Court martial? May I
  1478
  ask the right hon. Gentleman if Captain Welch has requested to be tried by court martial?
  MR. HUNT: No.

MERCHANT SHIPPING—STOWAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORSTasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will, after Easter, lay upon the Table a Return of those Foreign Countries in which British ships at present enjoy the privilege of exemption from any municipal law relating to stowage, giving the particulars of such exemptions?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, as I am not aware of any municipal laws of foreign countries relating to stowage to which British ships are subject, I am unable to lay on the Table any Return of foreign countries in which British ships at present enjoy the privilege of exemption from such laws. If the hon. and learned Member for Chatham has any such information as his Question implies, I wish he would name any one of such foreign countries, or lay his information before the House, when it will receive due consideration.

CUSTOMS—OUTDOOR OFFICERS AT OUTPORTS.—QUESTION.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the case of the Outdoor Officers of Her Majesty's Customs stationed at the outports is under the consideration of the Treasury; if any decision has been come to on it; and, what course, if any, the Government propose to take with regard to their claims?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the case of the outdoor officers in the Customs at the outports is now under the consideration of the Treasury. No decision has as yet been arrived at.

HOLLAND—SUGAR DUTIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, if Holland were to offer abolition of the Sugar Duty in lieu of her engagement under the Sugar Convention entered into at Brussels last Au-

  1479
  gust, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to accept the Treaty on such terms; and, whether the adoption of this course by Holland would lead Her Majesty's Government to advise the ratification of the Treaty?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government would hear with much satisfaction that the Dutch Government had determined to abolish the sugar duties. The abolition of the duty would evidently be the most effectual mode of abolishing bounties in that country. If, therefore, Holland were to make such a proposal, it could not be otherwise than acceptable as a fulfilment of her part in the arrangement come to at Brussels last year.

NAVY—ANCHORS.—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to give speedy effect to the submission of the executive and professional officers of Her Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth (dated 7th March 1874, see Return, No. 346, Session 1875)—namely,—
"In order to form a correct judgment as to the merits of the anchor made by Mr. Martin and those on the Admiralty plan, that equivalent anchors on both patterns should be tried on the same ship and exactly under the same circumstances,"
so as to determine by test their relative biting-properties and holding-powers, at long and short scope of cable; and, whether the Government will accept the proposal of Mr. Trotman and subject the best of the before-named anchors to exactly the same competitive ordeal with a light "Trotman Anchor?"
MR. HUNT: Sir, it is not intended at present to have any such trial as that referred to by my hon. Friend. The Devastation being supplied with Martin's anchors, the Admiralty are trusting to the experience to be derived by their use in that ship to form a judgment on their merits. If any trial of anchors should take place, Trotman's will be included.

CHINA—THE YUNNAN MISSION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  1480
  Affairs, Whether any information has been received of the progress of the mission to Momein under the charge of the Honourable T. G. Grosvenor?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, we have received a telegram from Her Majesty's Consul at Shanghai, stating that Mr. Grosvenor's Mission had arrived safely at Yunnan Fu on the 6th of March. The Chief Commissioner of British Burmah also telegraphs under date of the 4th of this month, that he had received intelligence from the Resident at Mandalay announcing that a letter had reached him, viâ Bhamo, from Mr. Grosvenor, dated Yunnan Fu, the 10th.Mr. Grosvenor had everywhere been received with civility by the Chinese officials since leaving Hankow. Mr. Grosvenor proposes to go on to Burmah after the inquiry is over, and expects to be at Bhamo by the end of May.

PARLIAMENT—EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS.—QUESTION.
MR. DODSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will state when he proposes, in accordance with the intention expressed by him on the 6th of March last, to consult the House upon the subject of the Resolution of May 31st 1875, relating to the Exclusion of Strangers?
MR. DISRAELI: I shall move a Resolution after the holidays—not the first day, that would not be convenient to both sides, but very early after Easter.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868.—BOSTON ELECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he has had an opportunity of considering the Report of the Boston Election Commission; and whether, having regard to the time that has elapsed since the persons scheduled to that Report as guilty of bribery committed the offences alleged against them, he is of opinion that those persons are liable to be prosecuted under any or either of the statutes for the prevention of Corrupt Practices at Elections?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALSir, I will reply to the second part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman first. I

  1481
  am aware that there is a provision in the statute referred, to to the effect that proceedings cannot be taken for certain offences mentioned after the lapse of 12 months from their commission; but if a man were indicted for a common misdemeanour it would, at all events, be very doubtful whether the provision in question would be any bar to the proceedings. With regard to the earlier part of the Question, I would say that, having had a further opportunity of considering the Report of the Commissioners and the evidence on which it is founded, I have not thought it necessary to institute any prosecution in this case.

ORDNANCE SURVEY—SUPERANNUATIONS. —QUESTION.
SIR FREDERICK PERKINSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any decision has been come to respecting granting superannuation allowances to persons employed in the Ordnance Survey; and, if so, when it is likely to be carried into effect?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the cases of 69 persons were recently submitted to the Treasury for pensions in consequence of reductions in the Ordnance Survey department. Of these, 66 have been awarded pensions, and three cases are still under consideration.

UNITED STATES—THE "ALABAMA" CLAIMS.—QUESTION.
MR. ELLIOTTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the report in the "Times" of April 4th is correct, that there remains 9,000,000 dollars of unexpended balance from the Geneva Award; and, if Her Majesty's Government have had any communication with the American Government on the subject, and what action they intend to take in the matter?
MR. BOURKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government possess no information on the matter beyond that contained in the published reports of the proceedings of Congress. A Commission was appointed some time ago at Washington to investigate the claims. The sittings of that Commission have been extended by Congress until the 22nd of July next, and consequently it cannot be said for certain what will be the amount, if any, of the
1482
surplus of the award. Her Majesty's Government have not had any communication with the United States Government on the subject, and have no intention of taking any action in regard to the appropriation of the award among the American claimants.

METROPOLIS—STREET ACCIDENTS FROM VANS, &c.—QUESTION.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether "the careful observation and investigation" of the subject of the employment of covered vans, the construction of which does not admit of the driver seeing on either side of him, promised by the Right honourable Gentleman in March 1875 has as yet been made; and, whether he will direct the Metropolitan and City Police authorities, during the Recess, to report to him their opinion as to the most effective course to be taken to avoid the numerous accidents daily occurring in London from heavy waggons proceeding at a too rapid pace, and from the disregard by drivers of the right of foot passengers to make use of crossings?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that he gave instructions to the police authorities to make full investigation into the relation existing between the employment of covered vans and street accidents. As the Returns for 1875 had not been finally made up, he could give no information respecting that particular year; but the Returns for 1874 showed that out of 124 persons who were killed in the streets, 28 were killed by vans, 24 by light carts, 18 by waggons and drays, 15 by omnibuses, 14 by cabs and heavy carts, and none by covered vans. Again, out of 2,568 persons maimed, 1,716 were maimed by light carts, 624 by cabs, 375 by vans, 320 by broughams and carriages, 100 by waggons, and only 22 by covered vans. He had given instructions to the police to issue placards warning the drivers of light carts especially—for the risk came in an especial degree from them—to be more cautious in the way they drove about the streets. At the same time he was bound to say that a great amount of carelessness existed, not simply amongst the drivers, but amongst the foot passengers crossing the streets.

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF HYGIENIE, BRUSSELS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the great advantages likely to result to the public from the International Exhibition and Congress of Hygienie, and other means and appliances for the protection and saving of life, to be held at Brussels during the current year under the patronage of the King of the Belgians, Her Majesty's Government is prepared to adopt a course similar to that taken by the Governments of Germany, Russia, and other states, in recommending to Parliament to vote a sum of money to enable the various departments to be properly represented at the Brussels Exhibition?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, Her Majesty's Government are not at all insensible to the advantages of such exhibitions; but having regard to circumstances, we do not find ourselves in a condition to propose any Vote on the subject.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—MEDICAL RELIEF.—QUESTION.
MR. M'LARENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is prepared during the present Session to place the Medical Relief Grants for Poor Law purposes in Scotland on the same footing as in England?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, it was impossible to treat the question of the medical relief grants for Poor Law purposes in Scotland by itself. It must be treated in connection with other questions; and it would be dealt with under a Bill, of the introduction of which Notice had been given by the Lord Advocate, for the amendment of the law relating to the relief of the poor in Scotland.

INDIA—THE INDIAN TARIFF ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will have any objection to lay upon the Table the Replies of Lord Northbrook to the Despatch of the Secretary of State for India, dated November 11th,
  1484
  1875, which was published in the Correspondence on the Indian Tariff Act lately laid before Parliament?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON:Sir, we have not yet received the whole of the replies of the Indian Government to the despatch of the Secretary of State for India of November 11th, 1875. When the Correspondence is complete I will lay it upon the Table of the House.

THAMES VALLEY DRAINAGE—REPORT OF COLONEL COX.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN PIM (for Mr. Grantham)asked the President of the Local Government Board, If Colonel Ponsonby Cox, who was last autumn appointed to hold an inquiry on the drainage of towns and villages in the Thames Valley, has made his Report; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay a Copy upon the Table of the House?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH:Sir, the Report of Colonel Cox is upon a subject of unusual importance, and will be of general interest. I shall therefore be happy to lay it on the Table, though, as a general rule, I do not think it desirable to publish the Reports of Local Government Inspectors in that way.

ARMY—THE LONDONDERRY MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS:asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state to the House the reason for the arrangement that, contrary to the universal practice hitherto, the annual training of the Londonderry Regiment of Light Infantry Militia is not to be held this year at or near the city of Derry, but at Moneymore, a small town of about 300 inhabitants, at the extreme verge of the county?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, the annual training of the Londonderry Regiment of Light Infantry Militia was to be held that year at Money more, because Londonderry had been reported against on the score of insufficient accommodation, and the officer in command of the district had advocated a camp at Moneymore, and his suggestion had been approved by the Irish Government.

PARLIAMENT—PETITION FROM A FOREIGN TOWN—BOULOGNE SURMER.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he desired to raise a question of Order with reference to the second Notice of Motion on the Paper, which was for the appointment of a Committee to consider and advise the House whether a particular Petition from foreign subjects should be received by the House. The Petition was one which the House had already declined to receive. The Question he desired to ask was, Whether there was any precedent, first, for appointing a Committee to consider the case of a particular Petition; and, second, for the appointment of a Committee to consider whether the House should receive a Petition which it had already declined to receive. He wished to guard himself against misunderstanding; he did not for a moment doubt the power of the House to appoint a Committee to consider the abstract question whether a Petition from foreign subjects should be received; the question applied only to the Motion before the House; and therefore it was, whether the Motion was in Order with regard to this Petition which the House had declined to receive.
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the noble Lord, I am not prepared to say whether there is any precedent or not for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider a Petition of this kind; but there can be no doubt, if the House thinks fit to appoint a Select Committee to assist the House to determine whether a Petition of this character should or should not be laid on the Table of the House, such a proceeding would be in accordance with the usages of the House, and, as a matter of Order, would be quite regular.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUgave Notice that when the Motion came before the House, he should oppose it by moving that the Committee should be appointed to consider whether, and in what cases, a Petition from foreign subjects should be received by the House.

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

NAVY—THE COLLISION OF THE "ALBERTA" AND THE "MISTLETOE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. ANDERSON, in rising to call attention to the circumstances under which the yacht "Mistletoe" was run down, and to the subsequent proceedings; and to move—
  "That as the Officers appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into the circumstances attending the collision between the 'Alberta' and the 'Mistletoe' appear to have reported, and the Board of Admiralty by compensations have practically acknowledged, that those in charge of the 'Alberta' were in the wrong, Her Majesty's. Government ought, when life had been lost through that wrong, to have taken further steps to vindicate public justice,"
  said, before he entered into the main question he had rather a grave charge to make against the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in respect of an incident which transpired on Friday. It would be recollected that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the Report of the Inquiry had not been laid on the Table along with the other Papers, and that the First Lord of the Admiralty replied that it had been designedly left out. He (Mr. Anderson) then asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Report of the Inquiry had not been one of the Papers which had been asked for by himself and promised by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the right hon. Gentleman curtly replied, "No." What had previously occurred was this:—The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) put the following Question to the right hon. Gentleman—Whether he had instituted an inquiry into the circumstances of the collision between the Alberta and the Mistletoe, and, if so, whether he would state the result of such inquiry to the House? This Question was followed on the Notice Paper by his (Mr. Anderson's) own Notice of a Question to ask, whether any inquiry had been instituted by the Admiralty into the circumstances; and, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty would lay on the Table of the House any Report or Correspondence on the subject, and whether any payments had been made, &c. The right hon. Gentleman asked, leave to reply to both these Questions at once, and said he intended to lay on the Table of the House

  1487
  Papers which would give both hon. Members the information they asked for. The information which he (Mr. Anderson) asked for was the Report of that inquiry; therefore, that was part of the information the right hon. Gentleman promised. He now said it was designedly kept back. Did the right hon. Gentleman design to keep it back when he gave the answer to the two Questions? If so, his reply was decidedly disingenuous, for it left the impression on his mind that it was to be furnished. If the right hon. Gentleman did not then mean to keep it back, but afterwards changed his mind, thinking it necessary in the interests of the public service to keep it back, he ought to have informed him (Mr. Anderson) of his intention, for they had been in communication, both verbally and by letter, and never until the last moment did the right hon. Gentleman give him the slightest idea that this important Report was not to be laid upon the Table. It was only when the Papers were actually produced, and when it was too late, that he (Mr. Anderson) found out what had actually been done. This was an instance of a mode of answering Questions by right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side against which he felt bound to protest. There had been another instance of it that night. Some right hon. Gentlemen appeared to think that flippancy was wit, and tried to evade every question that was put to them; but, however much the House liked a smart answer, at the same time it liked truthfulness and honesty a great deal better. He felt bound to say that in this matter the Prime Minister frequently set a very bad example; and it was not in keeping with the dignity of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should put himself in such a position that a respectable newspaper—not a Party paper—should be able to say of him that in answering a Question "he fenced and dodged." He would not himself use such words of any hon. Member; but he hoped for the future right hon. Gentlemen would take a more dignified tone in replying to Questions. The question had been asked—why was the whole matter brought up now? Newspaper articles had been written, asking—"Why rake it up now, seeing that the whole thing is settled, and every-
  1488
  body satisfied?" It had been said that the Notice of Motion had been put down in consequence of the Papers having been produced; but it was all the other way. The Notice of Motion had not been put down in consequence of the Papers having been produced, but the Papers had been produced in consequence of the Motion having been set down. No doubt the question had been settled to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, which had adopted its own course, settled everything its own way, and used the nation's money to buy off everybody who could possibly raise obstacles, by instituting a prosecution, making things pleasant in that way to a certain extent. Something more than that, however, was wanted by the public. They were not altogether content to see public justice perverted, and the nation's money used as hush money, merely to screen persons in high places. When the nation learned what had been done, he thought it would approve of the course he had taken in exposing it. He did not believe it was too late for redress even now; but, even if it should be so in this case, calling attention to the matter might prevent similar occurrences in future. The House was aware of the circumstances of the case. On the 19th of August last, on a fine day, in a clear roadway, and in broad daylight, Her Majesty's yacht the Alberta, going at 15 knots an hour, ran into the Mistletoe, which was almost stationary, going at the rate of only two or three knots an hour, and steering her course to Ryde. The occurrence could not be better described than in the first telegram to the Admiralty, which said—
  "The 'Alberta,' in crossing over last evening with the Queen on board, came into collision with and sank the yacht 'Mistletoe' of 120 tons, belonging to Mr. Heywood. One lady and the mate went down with the vessel. The master picked up in a drowned state, died on board the 'Alberta.' One man with arm broken was sent to Haslar. Mr. Heywood is at Admiralty House, under the care of Dr. McEwen, where he was joined by Mrs. Heywood last evening. The crew on board Flag Ship. The Queen, after seeing that arrangements had been made for the care of the survivors, left for Balmoral. Divers are endeavouring to recover the bodies of Miss Peek and the mate, and vessels are going out to raise the vessel. The 'Alberta's' cutwater is all knocked away."
  Now, this accident occurred in Stokes Bay, where the Royal yacht had abun-

  1489
  dant room to go wherever she pleased; and there was not the slightest ground for doubt as to what ought to have been done. The Rule of the Road at Sea was perfectly clear. Article 15 said that if two ships—one a sailing ship and the other a steamer—were proceeding in such directions as to involve the risk of collision the steam-ship should keep out of the way of the sailing ship. Article 16 said that every steam-ship when approaching another ship so as to involve risk of collision should slacken speed, or, if necessary, stop and reverse. By Article 17 it was laid down that every vessel overtaking any other vessel should keep out of her way; whilst Article 18 set forth that where, by the above rules, one of two ships was keeping out of the way of another, that other should keep her course, subject to the qualifications contained in the article following—Article 19—which said that in obeying and considering these rules due regard must be had to all the dangers of the navigation, and to any special circumstances which might exist in any particular case to render a departure from the above rules necessary in order to avert immediate danger. Article 20 said that nothing in these rules should exonerate any ship, or the owner, master, or crew, from the consequences of any neglect to keep a proper look-out, of the neglect of any precautions which might be required by the ordinary practice of seamen or special circumstances of the case. Now, he thought that those rules made the case so clear that it was impossible to get over it at all. Captain Welch undoubtedly said that the Mistletoe changed her course, and ran in a course somewhat parallel to that of the Alberta. If so, one of these rules would apply, because the Alberta would have been in the position, mentioned in Article 17, of overtaking another ship, and was bound, therefore, to have kept out of the way of that vessel. Thus, even if it was true that the Mistletoe changed her course and ran in a parallel course, the Alberta was in every case bound to keep out of the way of the other vessel. In his statement as to the course of the other vessel, however, Captain Welch was almost, if not altogether, uncorroborated. The only independent witness was Captain Parker, of the Moonbeam, who said there was no change on the part of the Mistletoe from taking
  1490
  the starboard tack until the moment of collision, and that under no circumstances ought the Royal yacht to have got near. Then the question naturally arose, What were the probable causes that led to the disaster? He found that on the bridge of the Alberta there were six persons—Prince Leiningen, Captain Welch, General Ponsonby, Captain Fullerton, and two quartermasters. There were no sails or anything to disturb their view forward excepting the funnel, which could not possibly obstruct the view of all these men. It was impossible, if they were looking forward, that they could not have seen the Mistletoe. Prince Leiningen said he was watching the Victoria and Albert, which was coming up in the rear, and there was too much reason to believe that the others were engaged in doing the same thing, until, suddenly, one of the quartermasters touched Captain Welch on the shoulder and called his attention to the Mistletoe; but it was too late, for a collision was then unavoidable. Then there was the usual bustle, and Prince Leiningen and Captain Welch did all that was possible—which was nothing—to prevent the collision. The order was first given to stop, and then to reverse the engines, and the boats were lowered. It was, however, impossible, as already said, to avoid a collision, and the only question was whether the Alberta should run into the Mistletoe's broadside, or strike her in a slanting direction. Captain Welch said he had noticed the Mistletoe a mile away, and if he had continued to watch her afterwards there would have been no difficulty in keeping out of the way. But a remark made by Captain Welch to one of the persons beside him on the bridge (Captain Fullerton) would show pretty much what led to this disaster. "What bad manners," he said, "these people have, driving across the bow of the yacht with Her Majesty on board." And that was said of a vessel a mile off, and which could have not got out of the way had she attempted to do so. Prince Leiningen, from his evidence, was evidently ignorant of the Rules of the Road at Sea, or thought they did not apply to Her Majesty's yachts or the Royal Navy, for he said that the duty of the Alberta was to "give way" to a sailing vessel, and that if a sailing vessel ran into her on the starboard tack—on which tack the Mistletoe was

  1491
  —the sailing vessel would have to bear the blame. Now, there were two fallacies in that statement. The first was the assertion that it was his duty to give way to a sailing vessel. To give way merely meant to pass by the stern, and might be done with very close shaving. That was not his duty at all, the rule stating that his duty was to keep out of the way, which was a totally different thing, and not saying a single word about sailing ships on the starboard tack giving way. That was a new invention of Prince Leiningen himself, so that he really did not know what was his duty on that occasion. Commander Sullivan said—"It was difficult, from the uncertain movements of yachts, to navigate the Solent at the speed at which the Royal yacht was necessarily obliged to proceed; "but when asked what was the necessity for such a speed, he gave no satisfactory reply. In fact, it was only too evident that there was a sort of idea among all naval men that all mere yachts and vessels of the Mercantile Marine should get out of the way, whether they were able to do so or not. Well, two of the bodies—those of Miss Peel and Captain Stokes—were found, and it became necessary to have an inquest. Upon that, he (Mr. Anderson) should have some very strong observations to make. He meant to say that there was a deliberate plan for the frustration of public justice in that inquest, and that that deliberate plan rested partly on officials of the Admiralty. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the First Lord of the Admiralty) knew anything about it even now; and still less that he had known anything about it at the time; but he believed that the officials of the Admiralty did, and that the right hon. Gentleman ought to know it now because he had better means of finding it out than he (Mr. Anderson) had. Besides, it was the First Lord's business to find out all the circumstances before he took the exceptional course which he did. Now, he should like to explain that the Royal Yacht consisted really of three vessels. There was the Victoria and Albert, of which Prince Leiningen was the commander; there was the Alberta, which was a tender to the Victoria and Albert, and was commanded by Captain Welch; and there was the Elfin, which again was a
  1492
  tender to the Alberta, and was under the command of Captain Balliston. It was quite evident, therefore, that, one ship being a tender to the other, the captain of the main ship became captain of a tender the moment he went on board that tender. So that Prince Leiningen became commander of the Alberta over Captain Welch the moment he went on board that vessel. That was a most important point, which appeared to have been lost sight of by the Admiralty. There were several irregular matters which required to be noticed in connection with the inquest. First, the coroner was a solicitor to the Admiralty. In other words, it was a man in the Admiralty's pay who acted as coroner. There was no occasion for that irregularity, as there were two men, one the deputy coroner at Gosport and the other the coroner at South sea, not in the pay of the Admiralty, either of whom could have acted as coroner; and it would have been far more decent if the coroner, who was a paid servant of the Admiralty, had declined to serve in a case in which the Admiralty and Naval officers were concerned. That was the first step of which he had to complain in connection with the inquest. The next was in getting the jury summoned, and respecting that, he could prove a fact which the House would hardly credit—that Captain Balliston, of the Elfin, the Alberta's tender, and thus one of the captains of the Royal Yacht, and who was an intimate friend of Captain Welch's, actually went to the summoning officer to suggest that certain names should be put on the jury. He (Mr. Anderson) had a letter from the summoning officer acknowledging that Captain Balliston came to him and suggested one name. He (Mr. Anderson) had been told by several of the jury, for he had been down to Gosport himself and had seen nine of the jurymen. ["Oh, oh," and laughter.] Well, this was a very important case and as he was about to make strong statements he had thought it desirable to make sure of the facts. He had seen nine of the jurymen, highly respectable men, and they were very indignant at the way in which they had been treated, and the way in which they were made the instruments of a perversion of justice by placing two men on the jury who ought not to have been there. He did not blame the summoning officer

  1493
  for acting on the suggestion of Captain Balliston, because he had not entertained any suspicion about the matter. Mr. Saxy, one of the two jurymen in question, and the person Captain Balliston suggested to the summoning officer, was an intimate acquaintance of Captain Welch, was actually visiting at his house between the times the coroner's jury was sitting—visiting one of the men who were implicated, and whom the jury were about to exonerate or condemn. Another man who ought not to have been on the jury was a Mr. Mumby, who described himself in his trade circulars as soda-water manufacturer to Her Majesty the Queen, and claimed public patronage on the ground that he supplied Her Majesty at Osborne Her Majesty's yacht, the Alberta itself, and 50 or 60 Queen's ships, of which he gave a list in his circular. He was, in fact, a mere creature of the Admiralty, claiming the patronage of the public as he did as purveyor to the Admiralty. Could these two men be supposed, in such an inquiry as this, to have been independent men? But that was not all, for Mr. Mumby had previously claimed exemption from serving on juries, on the ground that he was a chemist and a stamp distributor. Only last year he was put on a jury and fined £10 for not attending, and he claimed a remission of the fine for the reason referred to, and got it. What, then, induced him to change his mind and serve on this jury? Could anybody doubt that some private influence had been used to induce him to serve on this particular jury—the very last in the world on which he ought to have served? So much for the composition of the jury. Well, the jury having been summoned, the coroner took the wholly irregular course of appointing the foreman, instead of leaving it to his fellow-jurors to elect him, or as was sometimes done suggesting the first name on the list; and the person appointed was Mr. Mumby, whose name did not stand first on the list, and, indeed, for some time had not been on the list at all. He was informed, too, that during the inquest the coroner acted with the most unmistakeable bias, and was constantly speaking in private to the foreman of the jury. When the jury wanted to put a question it had to be put through him, and he twisted every ques-
  1494
  tion, until at last they were obliged to put them themselves. More than that, the Deputy Judge Advocate of the Fleet attended the inquiry regularly, and sent up written questions to be put to the men of the Mistletoe. The men of the Alberta were obliged to give evidence in the presence of their officers, and Captain Balliston sat immediately beside the witness as he was giving evidence, and actually whispered to him. That occurred during the first two days, until the jury were obliged to complain and insist on his being removed. The result was, that the Alberta men were afraid to give honest evidence—they always looked to their officers to try whether they could not get a cue what to say. There was one other matter he had to refer to, which was perhaps even worse than the gross irregularities of which he had spoken. It was this, that Prince Leiningen took upon himself—he hoped without authority—to read to the jury, evidently for the purpose of influencing them, this letter from the Queen—
  "I wish to say how admirably I think every one behaved, and with what rapidity the boats were lowered, and officers and men jumped overboard to save lives, and I believe no one would have been saved otherwise. It was most sad that, notwithstanding the noble efforts of Captain Fullerton and others, one lady lost her life; that the poor old man should have died on board, and that another man was lost."
  Now he (Mr. Anderson) had no objection to that letter in itself; it was a most feeling and considerate letter, but not a letter which ought to have been read to the jury to influence them, and which could not but have had an unfavourable and improper effect. When the jury came to consider their verdict, notwithstanding all this, they agreed upon a verdict that the collision was caused by the negligence of the officers in charge of the Alberta; but, just before that verdict was given in to the coroner, the two jurymen who had been named desired to know what the result of giving such a verdict would be; and when they were informed that the result would be to put some of the officers of the Alberta on their trial, they immediately withdrew from the verdict and stood out against it. The consequence was that the jury were unable to agree—11 being for and 2 against the verdict. The matter was accordingly remitted to Winchester Assizes for further consideration, where a Charge was made by Baron Bramwell.

  1495
  But long before this matter came up at Winchester, a very remarkable letter was published, which he regretted to be obliged to allude to at all, but he found it necessary to do so, as it had an important bearing on the subject. It was a letter written by General Ponsonby at the request of the Queen, to the Marquess of Exeter, and was as follows:—
  "It has appeared in the course of the recent inquiry at Gosport that it is a common practice of private yachts to approach the Royal yacht when Her Majesty is on board, from motives of loyalty or curiosity. It is evident that such a proceeding must at all times he attended with considerable risk, and in summer, when the Solent is crowded with vessels, such manœuvres are exceedingly dangerous. The Queen has therefore commanded me to request that you will kindly assist Her Majesty in making known to all owners of yachts that she earnestly hopes this practice, which may lead to lamentable results, should be discontinued."
  He had spoken favourably of the former letter, but he must condemn that letter entirely. He did not believe it came from the Queen, for there was nothing of the Queen's spirit in it. He did not believe the Queen would send out such a letter without the consent of her responsible Advisers, or some of them, and he should like to know which of Her Majesty's Ministers was responsible for the production which he had just read. In the first place, it was not true that the "common practice" existed of private yachts approaching near the Royal yacht. No doubt an insinuation had been thrown out by the officers of the Alberta at the inquest that Mr. Heywood was endeavouring to get near the Queen's yacht in order to see Her Majesty; but that insinuation completely broke down. There was no such attempt, and it was very well known in the Solent that sailing yachts were too much afraid of Captain Welch and the rate at which the Queen's yachts were sailed ever to attempt to go near his vessel. This letter was not only very unfortunate in its language, but it came out at an unfortunate time—namely, between the time the first jury were unable to come to a decision and the time they were taken in hand by Baron Bramwell at Winchester Assizes. In the meantime a second jury was sitting, and it appeared necessary that an explanation of that letter should appear. That explanation was as follows:—
  "As some misconception has arisen in respect to the letter addressed by Colonel Ponsonby to
  1496
  Lord Exeter, we have been requested to state that it was written three weeks ago, before there was any reason to expect a second inquest, and was intended solely to convey the simple request contained therein; that any expression of opinion on the cause of the accident was studiously avoided, and no blame whatever was imputed to the men of the Mistletoe or any other party."
  Even if written before there was any idea of a second inquest, it was quite well known that the first jury had not given their decision and had been remitted to Winchester to give it, and that its purport could not fail to influence any decision at which that jury might arrive. He said that letter did insinuate that the accident was caused through the common practice of private yachts approaching Her Majesty's yacht. The explanation said, it contained nothing but a simple request therein. That was just what he complained it did not do. It was not like any letter which the Queen had ever written before. Her Majesty had always shown that she deeply sympathized with her subjects in their sufferings and their griefs. Three was not a word of sympathy, however, in the letter of which he spoke, not a word even of caution to her own officers, nothing but an insinuation that it was the common practice of private yachts to approach too near the Royal yacht, and a request that they should not do so in future, which was tantamount to saying to all the yachtsmen of England that in future they had better keep out of the way, or they might expect to be run down. He repeated he should like to know which of Her Majesty's Ministers was responsible for that letter? He had grave doubts whether it would ever have been issued without their advice. He expected an answer to his question, and hoped to be told not only whether it was done with the advice of the whole of the Ministers, but whether any one of them knew anything about it. Whoever did it, whether one of Her Majesty's Ministers or not, he had no hesitation in saying he should be severely reprimanded for it, for in all his experience during the whole of Her Majesty's reign he knew nothing that had so jarred on the feelings of her people as that letter. The next matter he had to refer to was the jury being put under Baron Bramwell at Winchester. There had been considerable discussion about what the learned Baron had said to the jury in his Charge, and it would be remem-

  1497
  bered he had written a letter saying that what was imputed to him was not correct. That explanation, however, did not remove the doubt which existed, and it was not, to his mind, satisfactory, because it contained a statement of what he intended to say, rather than a point-blank denial of what he was reported to have said. It seemed clear that the learned Baron had spoken in an unguarded manner, and it must be remembered that it was not what Baron Bramwell intended to say, but what he did actually say, that had had its effect in influencing the jury; and a letter signed by 11 of the jury had been sent to him (Mr. Anderson) at the time, expressing distinctly the impressions conveyed to them by what Baron Bramwell did say. However, he should not dwell further on that point. Then came the second inquest. The body of the mate of the Mistletoe was found, and at the inquest consequently held, a jury was taken from Port sea, he believed it was taken from the neighbourhood of the dockyard, and was largely composed of men connected with the supply of the Navy. He did not, however, complain of the constitution of that jury, but he should have to make a few remarks on their verdict, which was founded mainly upon certain words of Mr. Justice Patteson, which were quoted to them by the coroner. The learned Judge laid it down that—
  "It was perfectly clear that no man could be indicted for manslaughter for an accident if he acted to the best of his judgment and ability. He was not criminally responsible for a mistake or an error of judgment; but if, on the contrary, a person placed in a situation of great responsibility and trust conducted himself with gross negligence and inattention, then in case of death he was unquestionably guilty of the crime of manslaughter."
  That appeared to be principally what the Portsea jury founded their verdict upon, but Judge Patteson went on to say—
  "If the man did not display due care and caution, he was liable to the charge of manslaughter."
  The jury found that the deceased had met his death by drowning, and that it was brought about by the accidental collision of the Alberta with the Mistletoe, but they added a rider to their verdict which entirely contradicted it, and altogether contravened the last part of the
  1498
  ruling of Mr. Justice Patteson. It was as follows:—
  "The Jury wish to express their opinion that there was an error of judgment on the part of the navigating officer of the 'Alberta,' and that they think that a slower rate of speed, during the summer months especially, would be more conducive to public safety, and that also there should be a more efficient look-out."
  He contended that this rider was a declaration that there was too great speed and too little outlook, and that these amounted to a want of "due care and caution" on the part of those responsible for the management of the Alberta, and yet, instead of finding a verdict to that effect, which by Judge Patteson's ruling involved a charge of manslaughter, the jury returned one which had the effect of an acquittal. Thus they had one jury twice dismissed unable to agree, and the Admiralty officials at Portsmonth knew perfectly well why they did not agree, and how that disagreement had been brought about. Then they had a second jury giving a verdict with a rider attached to it, which verdict was in opposition to the charge of Judge Patteson, which was quoted for their guidance. The Admiralty under these circumstances were bound by every consideration to make further inquiry. They were bound to have a court martial, or, if they objected to that, they were bound to have had a public trial which would have satisfied the public. They might have had a trial commenced on a magistrate's warrant, but, failing that, they might have had a court martial. He understood it was the rule of the Service whenever there was an accident to one of Her Majesty's ships that there should be a court martial. The Alberta lost her cutwater, sustained other damage, and had to go into dock to be repaired. Was not that an accident that demanded a court martial? But instead of taking that course, what did the Admiralty do? They held a secret inquiry. He thought a secret inquiry was a thing utterly unworthy of, and, indeed, a disgrace to this free country. It was expressly got up, one would say, for the very purpose of defeating justice, and he for one should like to see that atrocious system altogether abandoned. The inquiry was conducted by three officers, the public being left in ignorance as to the result, for their Report was carefully suppressed, and the only way one could judge at the

  1499
  conclusion arrived at was that a letter was addressed by the Secretary to the Admiralty to Admiral Elliot, in command at Portsmouth, in which he was asked to inform Captain his Highness Prince Leiningen and Staff Captain Welch that—
  "Having given careful consideration to the Report of the officers who formed the Court, and concurring generally in the finding at which they arrived, my Lords have come to the conclusion that, as the attention of Prince Leiningen is frequently and unavoidably taken up by attendance on the Queen during the time Her Majesty is on board the 'Alberta'in crossing the Solent, the conduct of the navigation is properly left to the Staff Captain, and that the latter officer must be held responsible for it."
  He should like to know whether the Court of Inquiry came to that finding, or whether it was only the conclusion drawn from their Report by the Lords of the Admiralty? In either case he condemned it as being an untrue finding, and an unworthy attempt to make a scapegoat of Captain Welch for the purpose of screening Prince Leiningen. He had already shown that Prince Leiningen, being commander of the ship of which the Alberta was the tender, became the commander of the latter the moment he went on board. It was not his business to attend on Her Majesty; that was the business of her suite. If he were not to attend to his ship, why was he made captain? Prince Leiningen himself made no such claim of exemption from responsibility. To his credit he had in a manly and straight forward manner come forward and claimed the responsibility, and after that he was surprised that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have assented to such a finding. It was untrue also as a matter of fact, for Prince Leiningen at the time was not attending on the Queen. He was standing on the bridge with Captain Welch, and gave all the orders for stopping the engines and lowering the boats, as he himself stated at the inquest, showing that he was acting as captain at the time, and was in every way responsible for what had occurred. He wished to know, if Prince Leiningen had been on board his own ship, the Victoria and Albert, where there was no Captain Welch upon whom to cast the blame, where the responsibility for such an accident would have fallen? The letter of the Lords of the Admiralty went on to say—
  1500
  "My Lords further consider, in accordance with the finding of the Court, that the course steered by the 'Alberta' should have been such that she could not have been brought into collision with the 'Mistletoe' through any alteration of course made by that vessel."
  That view was a correct one, according to the Rules of the Road, at Sea, which he had already laid before the House. The Alberta had no right whatever to be in the neighbourhood of the Mistletoe, because, going at a speed of 15 knots an hour, the slightest touch of her helm would have taken her far away from the latter; whereas the poor Mistletoe, going at two or three knots an hour, could not possibly have got out of the way. Then the letter proceeded—
  "My Lords cannot therefore acquit Staff Captain Welch from blame in not having exhibited sufficient care and attention so as to have avoided all risk of accident, and he is to be reprimanded accordingly."
  The only objection he had to that passage was that, in his opinion, the reprimand should have been given elsewhere. The letter then went on to say that—
  "My Lords are satisfied that after the collision every effort was made with the utmost rapidity for the preservation of life;"
  but then it proceeded—
  "I am to add that in dealing with this matter my Lords have taken into consideration that Staff Captain Welch has now for a great many years been in charge of the 'Alberta' on the occasion of Her Majesty crossing the Solent, and that up to the time of the unfortunate occurrence above referred to, no accident of any kind has taken place, and that his proceedings have given entire satisfaction."
  Any one reading that last paragraph would suppose that the Lords of the Admiralty intended that it should be inferred that Captain Welch had not previously been concerned in a collision, and that they wished to give him what the Americans termed "a clean record." It appeared, however, that previously to his obtaining the command of the Alberta, Captain Welch was for many years in command of the Fairy, and he (Mr. Anderson) understood that accidents were not unfrequent in the case of the Fairy. He was informed that on one occasion the Fairy ran into a yacht called the Zouave, and had to be beached in consequence. On another occasion she went into a packet-boat called the Solent, and on frequent occasions there were damages done by the Fairy by the

  1501
  system of close-shaving. The rest of the Papers laid before the House in connection with the subject consisted of the Correspondence that occurred during the process of buying off the surviving sufferers so as to preclude the possibility of a public trial, because a public trial would no doubt have brought forward awkward facts, and the Admiralty desired to suppress these facts. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would make a point out of these offers having been made as displaying a gracious consideration for the poor sufferers. He thought, however, that he should be able to show that these offers were intended to become the basis of a mere business transaction, and that what was meant was simply to buy off the sufferers and to prevent them from prosecuting their claims publicly, because the letters contained a clause which entirely took all grace out of the transaction. The clause to which he referred was this—
  "Of course, in accepting this sum you will undertake not to bring forward hereafter any claim upon Her Majesty's Government on behalf of yourself or your son in respect of your loss."
  In his view that clause took away all grace from the offer. He did not wonder at the poor widows accepting those terms, or at the steward of the Mistletoe making a good bargain for himself, but he confessed he was surprised at a gentleman of Mr. Heywood's wealth and position accepting the sum of £3,000 not to proceed further in a case where life had been lost. Had only his vessel been destroyed, he could have understood Mr. Heywood's accepting pecuniary compensation for the damage he had sustained; but where life had been lost, he was surprised that he had not insisted upon a public trial being had, which would have brought the whole of the facts clearly before the public, and have enabled them to judge where the blame really lay. The public would not be satisfied until some further inquiry had been held, and under the circumstances he was compelled to condemn Mr. Heywood severely for his part in the transaction. He was anxious to press upon Her Majesty's Government that even now it was not too late to institute a court martial to inquire into this matter. He had heard to-night from the First Lord of the Admiralty that Captain Welch had never asked
  1502
  for a court martial; but he (Mr. Anderson) held in his hand a letter from Captain Welch himself in which he distinctly stated that he had asked for a court martial. The letter was a long one, therefore he would only read the one sentence in it which was in point, and was to the following effect:—
  "Had my request made at the time for a court martial been complied with, the public would at once have known the truth."
  The letter was dated "Ischia, March 17," and was signed by Captain Welch. It therefore rested with the First Lord of the Admiralty to show that the statement in the letter was untrue. They were told that Captain Welch had refused to receive the reprimand of the Admiralty. If so, then let him have a court martial, but let Prince Leiningen be included in it also. The First Lord in this matter had acted exactly as he had done in the case of the Vanguard. He seemed to think that when he was satisfied, there was nothing else to be said. He said at the time of the accident to the Vanguard, that he had made up his mind as to the cause of the collision, and that nothing more was needed. He now virtually said that the Lords of the Admiralty had now made up their minds on this matter of the Mistletoe, and that the public had nothing to do but to pay the compensation and hold their tongues—the public had no right to complain of the perversion of justice, but had only to pay the bill. One would imagine that the right hon. Gentleman thought already that he was living under an Empress. ["Oh, oh!"] No doubt if they came to a division the subservient majority which backed up the Government would back them up again, and he had no hope in a division to carry the court martial he asked for. But he would warn the Government that the course they were following, however much it might bring success to them now, would redound to their discredit and bring ultimate disaster. He would be told he was doing wrong in bringing up the question at all, and that in doing so he could not help bringing discredit on Her Majesty. He entirely disclaimed bringing any discredit on Her Majesty. He did not suppose any discredit could come to Her Majesty through that inquiry, but discredit would come to the Government, and that was their due. But if discredit did come to Her Ma-

  1503
  jesty, it was not through, him it came, but through hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had been doing their best for some time past to set Her Majesty in antagonism to the wishes and feelings of her people. ["Oh, oh!" "Divide!" and "Question!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like to hear that. Why, if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had been a Red Republican, he could not have done more in that direction than he had done. He knew that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House considered him (Mr. Anderson) a Radical of very extreme views; but he was not anything of the kind. He disclaimed extreme views. He had received many letters from persons who were far more extreme than himself, and they had written condemning the course he had lately been taking. They wrote to him—"Why are you always attacking the Government?—the Government are doing splendidly. Let them alone; they are bringing discredit on the Monarchy; and if they continue to do that you will have the Monarchy swept away." ["Oh, oh!"] Those were not his views. He desired to preserve the Monarchy, and in order to do that he opposed the policy of the Government. He opposed their tarnishing the lustre of the Crown by the gewgaw and new-fangled title of Empress. He did not wish to tarnish the lustre of the Crown, and it was for that reason that he had called the attention of the House to the sending Her Majesty out of the country in an unconstitutional and altogether unprecedented manner, simply in order that she might not learn what the real feeling of the people was. For the same reason he brought forward this case, in which there had been a deliberate attempt made to pervert public justice, and it had been done in such a way as to make it appear as if it was done in order to screen a relative of Her Majesty. He believed that those persons who took that course in the servile idea of pleasing Her Majesty were altogether wrong, for it was his opinion that they had put a mean interpretation on Her Majesty's feelings and principles, and that Her Majesty would scorn to interfere with the course of public justice in order to screen either herself or any of her relatives. He begged, in conclusion, to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as the Officers appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into the circumstances attending the collision between the 'Alberta' and the 'Mistletoe' appear to have reported, and the Board of Admiralty by compensations have practically acknowledged that those in charge of the 'Alberta' were in the wrong, Her Majesty's Government ought, when life had been lost through that wrong, to have taken further steps to vindicate public justice,"—(Mr. Anderson,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. HUNT: The hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Amendment (Mr. Anderson) commenced his speech by saying that he had a serious charge to make against me, and I quite admit that if the facts of the case were as he has stated them, a very serious charge was made against me. But I beg to say that I think the hon. Gentleman has no foundation whatever for making that charge. The other day, without any Notice to me, the hon. Gentleman put a Question, as to whether I had not promised to produce a Paper which I was then refusing to lay upon the Table of the House. I think I might fairly have complained of such a charge being brought against me at the time. It was imputed to me that I had been guilty of a breach of faith in answering, as I had done, a Question put to me by another hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House; and if I did give the hon. Gentleman a curt answer, I must say I felt somewhat indignant at the form in which the Question of the hon. Member for Glasgow was put. I was asked, without Notice, whether I was not refusing to give a Paper which I had promised to give. Well, I thought I could trust to my memory as to what I had promised, and on referring to the Questions put on the Notice Paper, I am entirely confirmed as to my recollection. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith) asked me whether there had been any inquiry into the circumstances of the collision between the Alberta and the Mistletoe; and, if so, whether I would state the result of such inquiry; and the hon. Member who has brought forward this Amendment asked me whether any inquiry had been made by the Admiralty as to the circumstances under which the yacht Mistletoe was run down in August last, and whether I

  1505
  would lay upon the Table any Report or Correspondence on the subject. My answer, I think, was this—I am speaking from memory—I said I would lay on the Table Papers which would give both the hon. Gentlemen the information they asked for. The Papers which I laid upon the Table answered the Question of the hon. Member for Tynemouth, for they showed that there was an inquiry, and also the result of the inquiry—namely, a reprimand of Captain Welch by the Admiralty. With regard to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, whether I would lay on the Table any Report or Correspondence on the subject, I have to say I laid the Correspondence on the Table. I never intended at that time, nor have I ever intended since, to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Court of Inquiry, and for this reason—Courts of Inquiry, both Naval and Military, are assembled very often to inquire into very delicate matters, and into personal relations between officers; matters which it is not desirable to bring before the public. They are held in order to advise the authorities, naval or military, on the matters which are referred to them, and it has always been considered inadvisable that the officers who compose these Courts should be fettered as to the advice they might give by the knowledge that their Reports and proceedings might be made public. Therefore, as a matter of general public policy, it has always been held that these Reports ought not to be produced. I should, however, have been extremely glad in this particular case to have laid the Report on the Table of the House. Indeed, I believe that, if I had produced the Report of the proceedings before the Court of Inquiry, even the hon. Member himself would have been satisfied with the course I adopted; but, on general grounds, I thought the production of the document would be mischievous as a precedent for the future, and accordingly I did not lay it upon the Table. The same course was adopted only the other day by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. He was asked to produce the Report of an inquiry into a military scandal, and he said that there was no objection to its production, except that, on general grounds, it was not desirable to produce Reports of that nature. The hon. Mem-
  1506
  ber says that we have held a secret Court of Inquiry, and that he has shown that some of the results of that inquiry were the instructions issued by the Admiralty; but if he had gone further, he would have found that the Admiralty instructions as to these inquiries are that, as a general rule, they should be held with closed doors, unless there were instructions to the contrary, and, therefore, that we only, in this particular case, followed what was the rule of the Service. If I had issued instructions, and the inquiry had, in consequence, been made public, I will answer for it that the hon. Gentleman himself would have been the first to say that I had endeavoured to influence the coroner's jury by showing what was the professional opinion upon the subject. That is the reason why instructions were specially sent down that the proceedings of the Court should not be made public. It was to prevent any interference with or influence on the coroner's jury. The hon. Gentleman has gone into the question of the proceedings of the first coroner's jury that was empanelled. He said that no doubt a good deal of what he would say to me would be new to me; and I confess that it was. I have not been down to Portsmouth to see any of the jurors who were summoned upon this inquest, or to make any other inquiries; but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the coroner of Hampshire, who sat on the first case, is not a Crown officer, but is elected by the freeholders of Hampshire, and is the proper person to hold inquiries upon bodies that come within his jurisdiction. I presume, though I know nothing of the circumstances under which the men were summoned, that the usual course was followed, but, if not, it has nothing to do with me or with any other Member of the Government. As I have said, the coroner is an independent officer, elected by the freeholders of the county, and has duties to discharge towards those who elected him. Then what was my duty as head of the Admiralty in the matter? A coroner's jury not having been able to agree in the case of the inquest upon the first two bodies rescued from the water, I ordered a Court of Inquiry, and in doing that I did the usual thing and the Court was held in the usual manner. Nothing was done on the Report of the Court of Inquiry

  1507
  for many months, for this reason—that the jury not having been able to agree, the coroner adjourned the inquest until the next Winchester Assizes, so that it appeared to me to be right that the judgment of the Admiralty should not be known until the jury had been discharged at the Assizes. It so happened, however, that a third body was brought on shore and—I cannot but express my deep regret that such a loss of life should have taken place upon an occasion like this—it was taken into a different jurisdiction, that of the borough of Portsmouth, and a different coroner, and of course a different jury were assembled to inquire into the cause of the death of the person whose body was brought there. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman laid any blame upon the Portsmouth coroner; but, like the other one, he was not a Government officer or a Crown official, but was elected by those whose duty it was to choose him. This tribunal came to the conclusion that the death was accidental, though no doubt they appended a rider, in which they made suggestions as to the speed being too fast, and said that in navigating the vessel Captain Welch had exhibited an error in judgment, but they did not fix any criminal responsibility upon him. Then came the adjourned inquest held at the Winchester Assizes, and there the first coroner's jury had the advantage of the summing-up of a learned Judge (Baron Bramwell) upon the depositions; but after hearing his Charge they were unable to agree upon a verdict—that is, they failed to fix any criminal responsibility upon any one concerned. Thus two juries had been discharged, one with a verdict of Accidental Death, and the other with no verdict: and then it became the duty of the Admiralty to consider what course they should take in reference to the Report of the Court of Inquiry. They founded their judgment upon the Report of the Court of Inquiry, and they found in accordance with what has been read by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that Prince Leiningen's time being considerably taken up with personal attendance upon the Queen, the conduct of the navigation was properly left to the charge of Captain Welch. The hon. Gentleman has said that the Admiralty has endeavoured to screen Prince Leiningen; but that I indignantly deny. The hon. Gentleman has told us
  1508
  quite truly that Prince Leiningen is the captain, not of the Alberta, but of the Victoria and Albert. The hon. Gentleman is also perfectly correct in saying that when a captain of a principal ship goes on board a vessel which is a tender to that principal ship, his authority extends to that tender. It is true that he can take the command of the tender if he chooses. But it is not the practice under these circumstances for the captain of the principal ship to take the command of the tender. The practice is, that the navigation shall be in the hands of the captain of the tender, and that practice has prevailed with respect to the Alberta whenever Her Majesty is on board; and if the hon. Gentleman will look at The Navy List he will find that Captain Welch is there put down as the captain of the Alberta. The case; however, does not rest simply on the practice of the Service. As a matter of fact, Prince Leiningen, when in attendance on Her Majesty in crossing the Solent, is constantly in personal communication with Her Majesty, and cannot attend to the navigation of the ship. But the hon. Gentleman says that Prince Leiningen does not repudiate his own responsibility. Well, it is true he does not, any more than my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government repudiated his responsibility with regard to the issue of the Slave Circular which he had never seen; and, no doubt, Prince Leiningen did the same thing in the same chivalrous spirit. But, as a matter of fact, these orders with regard to steering were given by Captain Welch, and it was not until the collision was impending that Prince Leiningen rushed forward to give orders. Now it is all very well to say that Prince Leiningen is screened because he happens to be in a high position. If it were so, the hon. Gentleman's censure on the Admiralty, and especially on myself, would be well deserved. It is not, however, according to my notions of justice, that a man should be blamed who ought not to be blamed, simply because he holds a high position; and I maintain hat if, under the circumstances of the case, the censure of the Admiralty had alien on Prince Leiningen, it would have fallen on a man who was entirely innocent in the matter. But I will refer to the charge of Baron Bramwell, and ask the House to consider for a moment what it was he told the jury at the Assizes. He

  1509
  told them that if they found a verdict against anybody it could only be against Captain Welch, and that they must exonerate Prince Leiningen. The hon. Gentleman says, however, that Captain Welch demanded a court martial. All I can say in reply is, that such a demand never reached the Admiralty. I heard nothing from Captain Welch to that effect, and if he had demanded a court martial I would certainly have granted him one. I am perfectly surprised, therefore, to learn from the hon. Gentleman that he has a note in his possession, in Captain Welch's handwriting, in which he says that he demanded a court martial, for no such demand has reached the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman went on to contend that the Admiralty ought to have ordered a court martial; and I do not undertake to say that there are not arguments in favour of the adoption of that course; bat the position of things is very peculiar in the case in which an inquiry has been held by a civil tribunal. This was not the ordinary case of a Court of Inquiry, and then the question whether a court martial should be ordered on that inquiry. But we had before us the fact that two coroner's inquests had been held in this matter under two different coroners, with an interval between them of a great many months, and that the juries failed to find any criminal responsibility against any officer of the yacht. One of these juries had the advantage of hearing the Charge of the learned Judge, and the other had come to the conclusion that the deaths were accidental, and it became a question under the circumstances—those two inquests having failed to fix criminal responsibility on any of the officers—whether any further inquiry should be ordered by the Admiralty. We could not resist the conclusion, not wishing to shrink from our duty, that a certain amount of blame attached to Captain Welch. We considered, in accordance with what appears in the Papers, that the course steered by the Alberta should have been such that she should not have been brought into collision by the alteration of course on the part of the Mistletoe. But while we were of opinion that Captain Welch was to a certain extent to be blamed, we gave weight to the fact that he had been engaged during a period of 27 years in
  1510
  the most arduous and responsible task of practically conducting the navigation of a ship with Her Majesty on board—a responsibility which was enough to try the nerves of almost any man in waters where the navigation is somewhat intricate and difficult, owing to the natural and loyal wish of Her Majesty's subjects to see Her Majesty, and to the number of yachts collected there for purposes of amusement. We were aware of all this, and while we felt that the discharge of Captain Welch's duties required the greatest nerve and coolness, we also knew that he had never yet given cause for blame on the part of the Admiralty. Under these circumstances we thought that justice would be done if a reprimand was administered to Captain Welch, who was the only person in fault. That was the course we adopted, and it is a course which I hope the House will approve.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman, however much he might regret that the subject had been brought under the notice of the House, must feel that it was impossible to avoid that being done, seeing that the case was one which had excited so much public interest. But now that it was under the consideration of the House, hon. Members were placed with regard to it in a very difficult position; for they had no facts in connection with it officially before them, the Report or the finding of the Courts of Inquiry not having been produced. He knew the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and with truth, that it was unusual—[Mr. HUNT: Unprecedented]—well, he would say unprecedented, to produce the proceedings of a Court of Inquiry; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not also without precedent that one of Her Majesty's ships should have run down another vessel, however unfortunately, and that no inquiry should have been instituted into that calamity by the Admiralty, but a secret Inquiry, the result of which could not be known? He did not charge the right hon. Gentleman with not producing the proceedings or the finding of the Court of Inquiry; but it was, he contended, most unfortunate that the House was in the position that no single Member of it had any authentic access to the depositions in the case or to the evidence of the witnesses, except the right hon. Gentleman himself, and

  1511
  that they were obliged to depend for their information on which to arrive at a just conclusion on the reports in the newspapers. Now, he wished, on the present occasion, to confine himself to the administrative part of the question alone. The right hon. Gentleman, towards the end of his remarks, introduced to the notice of the House that which seemed to him (Mr. Goschen) to be the main point at issue—why he rested content with the Court of Inquiry without proceeding to deal with the matter by court martial? The House would observe that if the custom of dealing with questions of the kind by Courts of Inquiry was to be sanctioned and adopted, nearly every calamity might be withdrawn from the cognizance of Parliament and of public opinion. Let him suppose that in the case of the Vanguard the Court of Inquiry had not been followed by a court martial, the House would have been utterly unable to have dealt with the subject. It was a remarkable fact that there had been two or three other instances during the last six months which had also been dealt with by Courts of Inquiry, and that not only was the House ignorant of the proceedings of those Courts, but even of the finding of the Admiralty itself. An accident had happened to the Iron Duke, there was a Court of Inquiry, but the decision of the Board of Admiralty was not known. It might have been a small and unimportant thing; but the House was unable to judge of its importance, because they were unacquainted with the proceedings. In the same way, there was the case of the Monarch, in which there was a Court of Inquiry, with, as far as the House was aware, no further result. It was not only the practice to keep secret the proceedings of Courts of Inquiry, but he believed it was unusual for the Admiralty to state its finding on a Court of Inquiry; nor had their opinion in the cases he had mentioned been communicated to the country at large. In fact, they had not done so in the present case until the Papers were moved for. Now, he wished to point out why those precedents against the publication of the proceedings had grown up. They were generally considered in the light of preliminary inquiries only, which afterwards might lead to subsequent action, and which decided the Admiralty as to whether they should take any further
  1512
  proceedings or not. If they were to assume that Courts of Inquiry were intended to supersede or take the place of courts martial, they would make a great error indeed. "The object of Courts of Inquiry," it was laid down, "was to investigate in the first instance charges affecting officers." They were not in the nature of a judicial tribunal; they were simply so many officers gathered together to form a preliminary investigation to guide the Admiralty. Those hon. Members who had read the Papers would have observed that the officers holding the Court were informed that the proceedings would not be made public, but that that was not intended to prevent Prince Leiningen or Captain Welch from being present at the Inquiry. These were the instructions given by the Admiralty. These were two of the incriminated officers, and it might have been according to precedent that they were allowed to be present; but when Mr. Heywood applied that he also might be present at the Court of Inquiry, he was informed that he could not be permitted to attend—that it would be against the custom of these Courts of Inquiry. These circumstances existing, it stood to reason that the finding of a Court of Inquiry was an ex parte statement. In what position did the House of Commons find itself? They had before them the explanation given by Prince Leiningen and Captain Welch; they had the decision of the Admiralty upon the finding of the Court of Inquiry, while they were unaware of the evidence upon which it was founded. The Board of Admiralty said they concurred generally in the finding of the Court of Inquiry; but whether their finding was precisely the same as that of the Court of Inquiry there were no means of knowing, and the House never would know. Consequently, they must treat the matter as if no Court of Inquiry whatever had sat, and they had to deal simply with the decision of the Board of Admiralty. If the right hon. Gentleman censured, or if he had acquitted the officers, he had censured and acquitted them on his own responsibility, under the sanction of his Naval advisers; the House must hold him alone responsible. This was not a case like that of the Vanguard, where the right hon. Gentleman concurred in, or dissented from, or had over-ridden, the decision of a court martial; and in the

  1513
  position of affairs in which the House was placed, it seemed to him (Mr. Goschen) that the House could not come to a conclusion one way or another as to whether the decision of the Admiralty was right or wrong, because they had no evidence before them, except the reports in the newspapers. He almost regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had imparted into the discussions the Charge of Baron Bramwell in order to strengthen the verdict which he and his Naval advisers had arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to give a reason why he did not try the matter by court martial, which was very unsatisfactory—namely, that as two juries had been unable to agree to a verdict that Captain Welch or Prince Leiningen were criminally liable, he did not like to try them by court martial. The difference, however, was this. Captain Welch and Prince Leiningen might be professionally liable, although not criminally liable. In that he meant that they were responsible for their conduct in quite a different manner from the points of responsibility which would be raised against them in a charge of manslaughter, or even in a civil action. The great point was that justice should be done; but whether justice had been done, he professed himself, from want of means of information utterly unable to decide. If the Court of Inquiry had decided there was no case, then it would have been wise to drop the matter; but that Court decided there was a case. He thought the Admiralty might have proceeded to a court martial, and, indeed, for all they knew, the Court of Inquiry might have recommended a court martial. If there had been a court martial, many misunderstandings, he thought, might have been avoided. The ordering of a court martial, however, was a matter which so distinctly rested with the Executive Government, that he for one could not vote for a Motion which would direct the Government to hold a court martial. It was simply the duty of the House of Commons to watch the action of the Executive Government in the matter, and not to interfere or direct what should be done. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman thought, and he hoped the Naval Service thought, that the action which the Admiralty had taken was sufficient; but he ventured to say, with regard to the last letter which had been included in
  1514
  the Papers—namely, the letter from the Marquess of Exeter to the Admiralty, in which he informed them that Mr. Heywood had requested that he should express his hope that feelings which might anywhere have arisen in consequence of the lamentable accident might rest now and for ever—that letter was not entirely conclusive as to the manner in which the public might view this sad affair. He almost regretted that the Marquess of Exeter should have thought it necessary to send this letter officially to the Admiralty, or that it should be considered as an official document to be included in the Papers to be submitted to the House. Nothing could be more agreeable to their feelings than to think that Mr. Heywood was satisfied with the expressions of sympathy tendered to him by the right hon. Gentleman, and the pecuniary compensation for the loss of his yacht that he received from the Admiralty; but he should be sorry if the satisfaction given by the Government to Mr. Heywood were marred by any general feeling that the act was done with the view of having the matter hushed up. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow in calling the money which had been paid to Mr. Heywood hush money, and he was sure the House would vote the money—if not cheerfully, at any rate willingly—knowing that Mr. Heywood had lost his yacht, and that the money offered was simply a pecuniary equivalent. He also thought they would be glad, as no civil proceedings had been taken, and as Captain Welch had been censured by the Admiralty, that such civil proceedings had been avoided by voluntarily tendering the value of the yacht to Mr. Heywood; but no one in that House would think that it was purely a question affecting the Board of Admiralty, the officers of the Alberta, and Mr. Heywood. It was a question in which the officers of the Naval Service generally were deeply interested. They wished to feel—and he trusted that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman they would be able to feel—that justice had been done, and that, the officers of the Royal yacht had been dealt with precisely as a lieutenant or captain in any other ship would have been. The officers of the Royal yacht had special privileges in some respects; but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite would concur with him in thinking that it was most important in

  1515
  the interests of the Service, and in the interests of the Queen's ships, that in all cases of mishap equal severity should be shown, and that the navigating officer of the Queen's yacht should not be treated with greater leniency than would be extended, for instance, to the lieutenant of the Iron Duke. He thought the House would do well to support the right hon. Gentleman in any expressions he might use for the purpose of showing that all branches of the Service might expect impartial treatment. Holding the views he did, he could not vote for the Amendment, which appeared to prescribe further inquiry by a court martial. If the House saw that sufficient justice had not been done they had, in his opinion, the necessary information before them for forming a judgment. The main point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was that, in consequence of the course which had been pursued, they were unfortunately without any authentic record of the proceedings which had been taken in this unfortunate case.
  MR. SEELYsaid, that believing that impartial justice had not been done in the case, he would have no hesitation in voting with the hon. Member for Glasgow. Considering the high position of the parties, there ought not to have been the slightest delay in investigating the case—not the slightest suspicion that justice had not been done. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord had said that but for two inquests having been held a court martial would have sat in the case; but, from the manner in which those inquests were conducted, it was evident that everything had not been elicited which it was desirable to know, and there had been nothing on the part of the Admiralty excepting a Secret Inquiry. As regarded the first inquest, there had been no solicitor, no legal advice whatever, and he apprehended no cross-examination of the witnesses for the first three days—not even a nautical assessor until the last day of the inquest. Was it likely, then, that the facts of the case could have been thoroughly elicited? The conclusion arrived at by the jury at the second inquest seemed to him ridiculous, and one which would not commend itself to the country. Then, with regard to the secret Court of Inquiry, it was to be observed that the whole of the witnesses they examined were officers and men of
  1516
  the Alberta, with the exception of Mr. Heywood, not a single seaman of the Mistletoe being called. He did not think, therefore, any great reliance could be placed on anything which that Court of Inquiry had done. If the Alberta had been a merchant steamer, Captain Welch would unquestionably have been put on his trial for manslaughter; and, if she had been an ordinary vessel of the Admiralty, could it be doubted that a court martial would have been held? It was admitted by the Admiralty that Captain Welch ought to have kept out of the way, and yet he received a mere reprimand, the slightest punishment which the Admiralty could inflict. Such a punishment, in his opinion, was totally inadequate to the offence, and contrasted very unfavourably with what had been done in the case of the Vanguard. He thought he would be justified under all the circumstances in saying that an impression existed that impartial justice had not been done in this case; and that, if decisions of this sort were to be given by the Admiralty, a belief would in all probability arise in the naval service and in the public mind generally that favouritism had something to do with advancement and with getting men out of difficulties, and that interest in high quarters was more powerful than knowledge of a man's profession and the earnest discharge of his duty.
  ADMIRAL EGERTONsaid, he really could not sit still and allow the extraordinary theory as regarded responsibility which had been placed on record in the Papers presented to the House, and enunciated in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, to pass unchallenged. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to him to have taken the responsibility off the captain's shoulders in the most extraordinary manner, for he allowed him to be divested of the responsibility after the collision had taken place; and if this theory was to hold good, they ought to have an entire change in the instructions to naval officers. As far as his (Admiral Egerton's) acquaintance with the Service was concerned, he considered the theory that the captain of a ship on stepping on board a tender was not responsible for her was utterly unwarrantable. He might, indeed he very often did, delegate the navigation to the master, or the officer of the watch, as he did on board his ship, but he did not thereby divest himself of the responsi-

  1517
  bility for the safe conduct of his vessel. It was plain, moreover, that Prince Leiningen considered himself to be responsible, because in one part of his evidence he stated that he was responsible for the safety of Her Majesty while she was on board, and how could he be responsible for Her Majesty's safety unless he was responsible for the vessel itself? As regarded the Court of Inquiry, the Admiralty were perfectly justified in holding an inquiry before the proceedings at the coroner's inquest were completed, and in keeping the result of that inquiry secret, because any finding on the part of a body of naval officers would have had a very prejudicial effect on the position of one party or the other if published before the legal proceedings were instituted; but after the coroner's inquest had been concluded, it would have been much better, and certainly more satisfactory to Prince Leiningen and Captain Welch, if a court martial had been held. According to what they had heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Captain Welch appeared to be of that opinion himself, though he could not tell whether Captain Welch entertained that opinion before as well as after he knew that he was to be reprimanded and Prince Leiningen was not. But Captain Welch seemed to feel that he was an aggrieved party. For himself, he did not believe that in this instance the prejudice had been in favour of the captain and against what used to be called the unfortunate master. There was not sufficient evidence before the House by which to form a decided opinion upon whom the fault lay; but he thought it had been clearly shown that the fault of the collision belonged to the Alberta. Whether it was to be attributed to Prince Leiningen or Captain Welch was one of those points which he thought ought to be cleared up. He did not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) as to the Motion before the House. If he thought that it was in any way a direction to the Board of Admiralty to hold a court martial he should vote against it, because it was not the business of that House to direct the Executive Government in the course it ought to pursue. But he looked on the Motion rather as an expression of regret that some further steps had not been taken to vindicate public justice in that
  1518
  case. Prom that point of view he did not think that they need be precluded from voting for the Motion; but after the discussion which had taken place, he trusted the hon. Member for Glasgow would not think it necessary to proceed to a division.
  Question put," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 157; Noes 65: Majority 92.

NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYD, in rising to call attention to the position of the Royal Marine Corps, especially as regarded the stagnation of Promotion and the comparative inadequacy of the Pay of the Officers, in respect of which he had given Notice of a Motion for inquiry by Royal Commission or otherwise, but which by the Rules of the House he was precluded from moving, said, he need not remind the House that the Royal Marines, though in point of organization they were a military body, were an essential part of Her Majesty's Naval Force, constituting from one-third to one-fourth of its natural strength. It was the misfortune of this corps to occupy a peculiar position between the Army and the Navy. They had the arduous duties of both, but the collateral advantages of neither. They had never got the Governorship of a fortress or a province; they had never had any Staff appointment in India, and never an Adjutancy of Militia. Having no employment out of the pale of their own corps, the block of promotion was so great as to become almost hopeless. There were in the Royal Marines seven senior lieutenant-colonels of 35 years', and the youngest lieutenant-colonel had 30 years' service; the senior captains had 30 and the junior captains 17 years' service; and the first 61 subalterns had an average of 15 years' meritorious service, yet they were receiving only £1 a-day. It must, therefore, be admitted that there was something very exceptional in the arrangements as to promotion in this corps, and that those arrangements operated very unjustly on those gallant officers. One cause of the block was, as he had said, that there were no outlets

  1519
  for promotion at the top of the tree in the Governorships and other appointments which officers of the sister Service got. Another cause was that the generals did not retire until they were 70 years of age, while officers of corresponding rank in the Navy were retired at 65, and rear-admirals—corresponding in rank to major-generals—at 60. By the adoption of the same limits of age for retirement as in the Navy one cause of the block in promotion would be removed. An exceptional injustice was done to the colonels second commandants. They were full colonels on the Staff of the Army, yet their pay was only £1 a-day, which was less by a third than their pay was in 1812, although their work now was greater, and the cost of living was infinitely greater. There were several captains who had been 29 or 30 years in the Service, and in addition to there being no rank of major to which they could be promoted, there was the further hardship that 46 Marine captains had, by the abolition of the Woolwich division and other changes, been placed on the Reserve list to step in when a vacancy occurred over the heads of officers who had earned promotion by long service. By that means the promotion of lieutenants was retarded by five years. There were 16 senior lieutenants, averaging 17 years service. Their maximum pay was only £136 17 s. 6d. per annum, only equal to the pay of a clerk in a first-rate shop or bank, and they could not expect any promotion for three years longer service. He was informed on the best authority that so great was the discontent among the officers in the Royal Marines, induced by these disabilities and disadvantages and long neglect of their claims by successive Governments, that the prospect of supplying vacancies in that corps had become very serious indeed. As regarded physique, discipline, and tout ensemble, the Marines were second to no other corps in the Service; and it was highly disadvantageous to the Service that the existing feeling of discontent and hopeless disgust should be allowed to continue among them. It was stated on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman that he was waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission on Army Promotion and Retirement. But this was not a satisfactory reason for delay, be-
  1520
  cause there was no representative of the Marines upon the Royal Commission, and no question was allowed to be asked respecting them there. Moreover, the position of the Marines differed so entirely from that of the Army, that to deal with the Marines upon the rules applicable to the Army would be unjust. His suggestion was for an inquiry into the stagnation of promotion existing in the corps, and the inadequate pay of the officers. Such an inquiry would not take long, and would not cost much, for the witnesses were all on the spot. Further delay was cruel, and one or two things might be done which would give sensible and immediate relief—for example, he would suggest that the Government might extend to the Marines the temporary scheme of August, 1873, and give to about 20 captains £75 per annum over what they were entitled to, as an inducement to them to retire. That would partly remove the block of promotion, and be received by the junior officers with great satisfaction. If they gave 6s. per day to the four colonels second commandants it would only cost £1 4s. per day, or about £460 a-year, which could be easily given by a Treasury that could find £500 extra for a Commissioner's salary without inquiry. If the Admiralty were in earnest on this question, he did not believe that the Treasury would refuse to do justice to brave and meritorious men who had done nothing to deserve injustice.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Member could not, unfortunately, be put to a vote in consequence of the late division, and therefore the House could only discuss and consider it. Having had something to do not only with the official arrangements, but with the Parliamentary inquiry, he might perhaps be allowed to make a few observations. In 1867 the subject was referred to a Select Committee. At that time the Artillery and Engineers were the only non-Purchase corps, and the general opinion at that time was that the Marines should be dealt with, not perhaps exactly on the same lines, but as a non-Purchase corps; but since that time the whole of the Army had become non-Purchase. In considering the claims of the Marines it was necessary to take into account the system of promotion and retirement both in the Army and the Navy. He

  1521
  had entirely concurred, therefore, with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord when, some time ago, he said it was expedient to see what arrangements were made upon the Report of the Royal Commission upon Pay, Promotion, and Retirement in the Army before dealing finally with the Marines. He was bound, however, to say that he had no idea, when expressing this opinion, that there would be so enormous a delay in preparing the Report of this Commission. Some Members of the Commission were, no doubt, fully employed, but their inquiries had already occupied more than two years, and when he supported the Government in the view they then expressed, he had no idea that that meant a postponement for two years of the claims of the Marines. These claims were carefully considered in 1867 by a Committee of which he was Chairman, and again in 1870, when the scheme of naval retirements was settled; but, in his judgment, some modification was now required in the arrangements then made. He did not speak as to particular details. These would be for the consideration of the Government, after official inquiry. But he thought there were changes which it would be most unjust not to make as soon as possible, and he deeply regretted the great delay which had been caused through waiting for the Report of the Commission. Perhaps one way out of the difficulty would be to make some small changes at once in the position of the officers in the Marines, leaving the general question over until after the Report of the Commission was forthcoming.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that it was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was fully alive to the present state of affairs, because more than once during the last Session he alluded to the extreme urgency of the case, and pledged himself, as far as it was possible for him to do, that measures should be taken to remove the grievance which existed. He regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the expression of opinion of the House might have produced some moral effect upon him, and have induced him to lend a favourable ear to any proposition which the Admiralty might suggest, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would report to the right hon.
  1522
  Gentleman the unanimous feeling that existed that some steps should at once be taken with respect to the Royal Marines. It was not desirable to wait for the long-delayed Report of the Army Purchase Commission; but that steps should be immediately taken to put an end to a state of things which was not only unfair and unjust to the Royal Marines, but disadvantageous to the country. It was a grievance to the whole Army that a system should be carried on which had been stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty to be indefensible—waiting for the Report of a Commission which was delayed from Session to Session, and which the House had the authority of the Secretary of State for War for believing would not be presented in sufficient time for any steps to be taken during the present Session. The final settlement of the case of the Royal Marines must, no doubt, wait until the settlement of the whole case of the officers of the Army. But there were grievances peculiar to the Marines. They asked to be placed on the same footing as their brethren, either in the Army or the Navy. They complained that, at the present time, they were in a position inferior to both these Services, and said that whilst waiting for more comprehensive measures they ought to receive more pay, and that greater facilities should be given for promotion, and that they ought not to be kept in their disadvantageous position.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcordially joined in the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) that the Government should no longer delay in removing that stagnation of promotion from which the Marines so severely suffered. On mere grounds of economy, this relief should be at once given, for if the Admiralty waited for the Report of the Army Commission, it would be a Parliamentary proof of the intentions of the authorities to apply the Army system to the Marine Corps, and not only likely to lead the country into enormous expense, but certain to do so, for past experience showed that all these inquiries on a large scale invariably led to such results. It should be clearly understood that a proper system of promotion could not be established in the Marine Corps until the grades and numbers in the several ranks of the Marine Corps were

  1523
  assimilated to those of the Army, and until all the other Army advantages were given to the Marines in due proportion. These changes could not be made without adding largely to the numbers of officers in the senior ranks of the Marines, and unavoidably there by increasing the cost of this Corps. That evil should be avoided, and other measures taken to attain the object of relieving the Corps from stagnation in rise, without departing from the present exceedingly good organization in the Marine Corps. The Government should not, therefore, put off the application of remedies which would be sufficient for the existing defects, and make the mistake of waiting for plans likely to endanger its efficiency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had only to supply the Admiralty with a few thousands of pounds to allow of special retirements being made amongst the seniors of the Corps. A small outlay now would prevent a much greater one in the future, and with the certainty of such consequences he was sanguine that the Treasury would endeavour to remedy the defect which at present existed in the promotion of the Marine officers. Of this he was assured, that if the Government had the least desire to remove this grievance they could very easily do so.
  SIR JOHN HAYsupported the claims of the Marines, who, he said, had been too long neglected. As a Member of the Committee which sat in 1867, he would remind the House that its inquiries related chiefly to promotion and retirement in the non-seniority corps—the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers, and the Royal Marines. The Committee recommended a variety of changes; and in the two former, the rank of major had been restored, but nothing whatever had been done for the Royal Marines. If that rank of which they were deprived many years ago were restored, it would greatly aid the flow of promotion, and go far to remedy an injustice which was deeply felt by the Royal Marines. He thought it was injurious to the public service to continue to treat this meritorious body of officers with neglect.
  ADMIRAL EGERTONsaid, the Marines had been too much neglected by the Governments of both sides of the House. It was absolutely necessary to do something in the matter in order to relieve the corps from the lamentable condition
  1524
  into which it had fallen. He contended that the advantages that had been obtained by the Corps of Engineers and the Artillery might, as a matter of justice, be granted to the Marines.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had spoken in favour of doing something for the Royal Marines, but not a word to explain why, when in office, his Party had done nothing. There were at the present moment a large number of Marine officers who might retire on certain fixed allowances. Thus there were two colonels-commandant who were eligible to retire on £600 a-year, eight lieutenant-colonels on £450, and 21 captains on £300. For reasons of their own they did not choose to retire, and the money for those pensions must at the present moment be provided for and in the Treasury. He begged to suggest that, as they did not choose to retire, the privilege should be extended to officers junior to them. A temporary relief every year would thus be provided for some anomalies; and the privilege ought to be extended to quartermasters, which would affect the ranks of the non-commissioned officers. There had been no vacancy at all in the quartermasters for the last seven years, and the promotion of non-commissioned officers was thereby stopped. He suggested, too, that by garrison duty increased employment might be found for the Marines. For instance, Gibraltar was won by the swords of the Marines, and now that the Suez Canal diminished the importance of the fortress as a depôt for troops on the highway to India, it would be a great act of grace to allow them to garrison it.
  MR. BATESconcurred in the views generally taken by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House on the subject, and he trusted that the Government would relieve the Royal Marines from the grievance of which they so justly complained. Great dissatisfaction prevailed among the corps, and the time had now arrived when something ought to be done without further delay, and without waiting for the Report of the Commission.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, the Marines were suffering under great disadvantages, and he hoped the Government would give the case immediate attention.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that he should not like the debate to close

  1525
  without being allowed to say a few words in support of the Motion, as he had held a brief during the two previous Sessions on behalf of the gallant corps now under discussion, and he had in his hands at the present time numerous letters from distinguished members of the corps, who justly complained of the grievances under which they continued to suffer. He urged that the time was come when Her Majesty's Government should address themselves in right earnest to the removal of those grievances which had been so fully detailed in the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd). It should be recollected that the sea service of the officers of Marines ceased when they had passed the rank of captain, and the majors, colonels, and generals were obliged to remain and languish at home, without any hope or prospect of promotion, at an age when active service was most desired by them in order to obtain professional distinction. In the meantime, all the higher honours and coveted appointments of the Army were altogether withheld from them. This was manifestly unjust, and required a remedy. They had been advised to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission on Army Retirement; but the fact was they had no representative of their corps on the Commission, no evidence had been or would be adduced on their behalf, and the Report would have no reference to the Marines whatever. They appeared to be nobody's child. There it lay between two stools, on one of which sat the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, while on the other sat his right hon. Friend now before him, the First Lord of the Admiralty. Neither of them would stretch out a hand to pick the child up. The stool on which the First Lord sat was quite strong enough to support him, and he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) hoped that he would no longer hesitate to take the child up and place it in his ample bosom, where he had no doubt it would be well fostered and cherished. To speak seriously, full justice had already been done by many who had spoken to the noble and distinguished services of the Royal Marines, and not least by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North). There was no quarter of the globe which did not bear record to the feats and exploits of this gallant
  1526
  corps, and especially because, from the peculiar nature of their services on board our ships, they were frequently called upon to act at times and in places where the Regular Army had not the same opportunities of action. He was glad to hear that his right hon. Relative the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), though he had not the good fortune to be in the House when he spoke, strongly deprecated further delay in remedying the grievances complained of by the Marines, and the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman was the more important because he had previously advocated delay. The right hon. Member for Pontefract could not but feel sympathy with the Royal Marines, as he quitted office in 1871, having proposed a scheme for the Navy, but having left the Marines out; and, in consequence, that force had been left out in the cold ever since. At the same time, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) felt convinced that no one had the interests of that corps more at heart than the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the real difficulty in the way of redress appeared to be the question of pounds, shillings, and pence. Surely, in order to do justice to a noble corps, which had deserved so well of their country, a wealthy nation like England would not grudge the expenditure and outlay of a few thousand pounds in order to stop the complaints—the just complaints—of a distinguished arm of the Service, and to set forward the flow of promotion, now completely dammed up and stagnant. He had very great pleasure in giving his cordial support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Plymouth.
  MR. A. EGERTONsaid, that the officers of the Royal Marines and their claims to promotion had not escaped the attention of the Admiralty, and they had every possible desire to remedy the grievances complained of. Shortly after his right hon. Friend became First Lord he examined the subject, in the hope that he might be able to redress their grievances, especially in regard to the stagnation of promotion. It was, however, necessary to wait for the Report of the Commission on Army Promotion and Retirement. It was thought by the Treasury—and he quite agreed with them—that it would be desirable to proceed pari passu with the Army and the Marines; but no long time would elapse after the Report of the Commission was

  1527
  published before a well-considered scheme for redressing the grievances of the officers of the Marines would be laid before the House. The Admiralty had been urged to take provisional measures; but even if they were desirable there might be found a lion in the path in the shape of the Treasury. He, for one, was opposed to provisional measures, because they were apt to prevent greater improvements. He trusted that his hon. Friend would accept his assurance of the desire of the First Lord to redress the proved grievances of which the Marines complained.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, it was no part of the duty of the Commission on Army Promotion and Retirement to inquire into the case of the Royal Marines, and he did not believe that their Report would have any bearing on the subject. He hoped that the Government would really do something for them, and would take means to satisfy the legitimate demands of this gallant body of men. The expenditure of a few thousands would meet all that the officers of this much-neglected corps required.
  MR. GOSCHENdeprecated the course taken by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, in saying that there was a lion in their path in the shape of the Treasury. They must deal with these matters as a Government as a whole, and they could not separate the responsibility of the Treasury and the Admiralty. There might have been difficulties raised by the Treasury to a proposed outlay on the part of the late Board of Admiralty; but he never pleaded that he was in favour of a certain course, and that he had been prevented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from carrying it into effect. If the matter on hand were reasonable, the hon. Gentleman would find that the Treasury would lose its leonine character and become a lamb.
  MR. A. EGERTONsaid, he had stated that if the Admiralty were to propose a provisional measure, they might find a lion in their path in the Treasury; but he had expressly guarded himself against being supposed to be in favour of provisional measures.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would not have risen had it not been for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), who asked what bearing the
  1528
  Report of the Royal Commission could possibly have on the case of the Marines. The view taken by the Treasury was that, the Army being now on the non-Purchase system, it was in all respects the same as the Marines, and no scheme for placing the Marines in a proper position as to promotion could be carried into effect without making arrangements for the retirement of officers of the Army at a certain age. The Admiralty must know at what age officers of the Army were going to retire before they could, deal satisfactorily with the case of the Marines. It was true that the question as to the Marines was not referred to the Commission; but, still, the general considerations which referred to the whole Army would apply also to the Marines. When the Royal Commission was formed with reference to the Army, he considered whether it would not be possible to refer to the same Commission the question of the stagnation of promotion in the Marines, but the Commission had already been constituted, and he saw that the Marines were not likely to have regarded it with confidence, unless they had their representatives upon it. It would not be difficult, however, to lay down a scheme for the Marines on the line of the scheme for the Army, and he hoped before long to be able to put forward a plan for getting rid of the very great grievances under which the Marines at present laboured.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £2,634,904, Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, on rising to call attention to the increasing number of desertions of seamen of the Fleet, said, the House would recollect that the first night of the Navy Estimates was wholly occupied by discussions on the matériel of the Fleet and the policy of shipbuilding. He should venture to ask its attention for a short time to a matter of at least equal, if not greater, importance—namely, the personnel of the Navy, and he trusted the House would not grant the Vote without due conside-

1529
ration. No human being could foretell with certainty what would be the experience of a future Naval war as regarded the value of iron-clads or other ships of war; but of this they might be certain—that without an adequate body of well-disciplined and intelligent and contented seamen no ships would be of much value, and that with such a body they might be confident that they would fight to the best advantage on whatever platform the science of the day provided. It was now generally admitted that a standing force of between 18,000 and 19,000 pure blue jackets was sufficient for our Navy in time of peace, to be supplemented in time of war by our Reserves. The numbers voted had stood at this rate for seven or eight years, and he saw no disposition on the part of the present Government or either side of the House to increase the number. Indeed, no part of the serious increase in the Naval Vote was due to the personnel. Of the 18,000 men, not more than 12,000 were employed in sea-going war vessels in commission. The others were engaged either in non-fighting vessels, or were lying in our Reserve ships or depôt ships; and should they be called upon suddenly they had more men in our ports than were sufficient to man all the coastguard reserve ships, all the coast-defence vessels, all the ships in reserve, and, in fact, every vessel that we could send out to sea in a reasonable time. Beyond that they had 4,000 Coastguard men in reserve, and the Naval Pensioners, of whom 3,000 to 4,000 were still of an age to be of real use, and 18,000 Naval Reserve men. The fact was that in proportion to non-combatants, the number of pure blue jackets in our vessels was much less than it used to be. Twelve years ago the flag-ship of the Mediterranean, the Victoria, with a crew of 1,100, required 600 blue jackets. The Sultan of the present day, however, required only 230 out of a crew of 600, and the Devastation only 100 blue jackets. The six iron-clads of the Channel Meet only required 2,000 blue jackets, and the Mediterranean. Fleet only 1,700. But with this greatly reduced requirement, and looking also to the complications of modern ships, and the great size of the guns they would have to work, it was more than ever necessary that our seamen should be of the highest average physique, and should be well-
1530
trained and highly-educated. Two very serious symptoms had recently appeared, which would have to be taken into consideration by the authorities—one was that the number of desertions from this comparatively small Force had in the last four or five years greatly increased; and the other was that the entrance of boys into the training ships had fallen off so much that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had announced his intention to lower the standard of physique and of education, a step which he believed to be one in the wrong direction, for nothing could be more unwise than to reduce the standard. With respect to the increase of desertions, it appeared from a Return he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had obtained at the end of last Session, that the number had almost doubled in the last five years. Out of a force of about 18,000 pure blue jackets they were in 1870–1, 493; in 1871–2, 516; in 1872–3, 810; in 1873–4, 829; and in 1874–5, 895. About 200 of those who deserted last year were recovered; but, after making allowances for that, he found that the desertions of pure seamen were considerably in excess of the desertions from the Army, being, in fact, at 3 per cent as compared with 1 per cent in the Army. It appeared that from one-third to one-fourth of the boys who entered the Service deserted at some time or other during their career as seamen. He would remind the Committee that their seamen were now recruited entirely by means of boys, trained at a very great expense, and in most respects with a very satisfactory result, for as regarded physique, education, and general intelligence, the seamen were unquestionably superior to what they had been in previous times; but even apart from desertions, the waste was very great, and to supply so small a body as 18,000 men an entry of nearly 3,000 boys was required, or one to six of the men. The other serious feature he had alluded to was the increasing difficulty in recruiting, notwithstanding that an increase of pay was given to the boys two years ago by conceding to them a free kit, for which they were previously charged £5, making their pay £9 a-year. The number of recruits had fallen off, and he believed they were recently 700 boys short of the required number. The Return which he had alluded to also showed that the number of re-entries

1531
after 10 years' service was also falling off, for the number of men in their 11th year of service was 555, in their 12th year 699, and in their 13th year 831. All these facts pointed to this—that the Service was not so attractive as it used to be, and that they should re-consider the position of our seamen. He thought he should be able to show that much might be done to improve the position of the men and to make the Service more attractive without increasing the burden of the Estimates, which were already very high, and without following the plan which had been adopted in the Army of increasing the pay but throwing the whole burden upon the future. It was a mistake to suppose that the vacancies were recruited from the very lowest class of society. Up to the present time the boys taken as recruits had been of a very high standard. They were invariably the sons of respectable parents, often in positions much higher than would be supposed. They were entered between the ages of 15 and 16, and they were bound to service for about 13 years. They were kept one year on board the training ships; they then passed into the rating of first-class boys for sea service, and were rated as ordinary seamen at the age of about 18. The expense of training the boys was very considerable. A recent Return showed that, by the time the boys were rated as seamen, every man so rated at the age of 18 had cost the country from £150 to £200. The wages of the men when rated as ordinary seamen were about £22 16 s., and as able seamen £28 18 s. per annum. There were extras for good conduct, and the almost certain prospect of being rated as leading seamen and petty officers, with increased pay; but the pay alone was unquestionably lower than that of seamen in the Merchant Service. On the other hand, the service in the Navy was continuous, while that in the Merchant Service was broken; the food in the Navy was much better than that of the Merchant Service; and, above all, there was a certainty in the Navy of higher pensions than could be obtained at so young an age in any Service in the world. His impression was, that in any re-consideration of the pay of the Service it would be well, while respecting any existing interests, to put some limit in the future on the amount of pension.
1532
He was convinced that immediate pay was far more effective in retaining men in the Service in the earlier years than the prospect of high pensions. Another point to which he must allude was one which had been brought out in a pamphlet very strongly and forcibly by a most competent authority—namely, by Captain Wilson, one of the most promising of our officers, who was recently in charge of all the training ships. He showed that we were already training by the artificial process in our training ships more boys than could be drafted conveniently into sea-going ships. All the ships in commission only provided room for three-fifths of the boys annually turned out of the training ships, and 1,200 boys were always waiting in depôt ships doing nothing but evil. This evil did not only rest with the boys, but was equally conspicuous in the seamen. Of the 18,000 seamen, two-thirds only were employed on sea-going ships in commission, the remaining third being in depôt ships, harbour ships, and other non-seagoing vessels. Captain Wilson's words were—
"All our ships together do not take more than three-fifths of the boys who leave the training ships; the remainder are cooped up in harbour ships, learning little but evil. It is thus clear that we have not nearly the requisite tonnage at sea to salt our youths properly—a state of things most detrimental to them and to the Service at large. In short, we have to keep more men than the ships of the Navy can possibly make into sailors, and the sooner the fact is boldly faced the better, for no half-measures will remedy this most serious evil. Some 1,500 boys per annum can be conveniently and advantageously disposed of in the ships usually kept at sea, but any excess of that number only injures the sea training of them all."
The remedy which Captain Wilson suggested was not the costly one of commissioning more ships, but of more systematically training boys in naval barracks on shore, and of endeavouring to dispense with the necessity for entering and training so many boys by entering a certain number of men at an older age, direct from the Merchant Service, and passing them, after a short service, into a Reserve—in other words, that the system of short service in a modified form should be adopted for the Navy. He did not understand Captain Wilson to desire that the training ships should be given up as the main and principal source of supplying the Navy with its recruits, but that they should limit some-

1533
what the number of boys to be entered and trained in this way, and that they should enter a certain number direct from the Merchant Service, and pass them, after a short service of four years, into a Reserve. He need hardly point out that for some years past there had been an almost entire disconnection between the Merchant Service and the Navy. In former times there was always a large body of seamen who fluctuated between the two Services, and he believed the Merchant Service gained from having always a certain number of men in it who had been trained and disciplined in the Navy. Since the continuous-service system and the training system, however, had been in force, the number of men entered direct had been gradually decreasing, and for some few years past had entirely ceased. He was not surprised that this should be so, for men could only be entered for the non-continuous service, the pay for which was about £5 a-year below the pay of continuous-service men, and was, therefore, very far below the pay of the Merchant Service. To some extent, also, the inducements of the Naval Reserve acted as a counter attraction in the Navy, and prevented men entering the Navy. By entering the Naval Reserve a man could obtain £12 per annum for a month's work, and this, in addition to his pay in the Merchant Service for the other 11 months, was a far better thing than anything which either the Navy or the Merchant Service offered alone. Numerous suggestions had been made from time to time on this point with a view to making the Naval Reserve a force of men who should have passed through the Service. Some had suggested that we should train double the number of boys and pass them into the Reserve after a short service. It would be easy to show, however, that that scheme was impossible. If we found difficulty in disposing of our boys in sea-going ships already, the difficulty would be vastly increased by adding to the number of boys. If, on the other hand, we could enter a certain number of men—say 600 to 700 at the age of 20, and pass them into the Reserve after four years' service, we should not only increase the number and quality of our Reserves, but should also reduce the difficulty of training boys and reduce the cost of such training. Looking, then, to the diffi-
1534
culties pointed out by Captain Wilson of training our boys on sea-going ships, looking also to the difficulty of obtaining entries of boys and to the inexpediency of reducing the standard, he would suggest that we should aim at reducing the number of boys required for training by about 1,000; and he would do so in two ways, first by endeavouring to reduce desertion by 400 to 500—secondly by endeavouring to enter a certain number of men, say 500 to 600 every year, direct from the Merchant Service. If we could thus reduce the number of boys to be trained, we should save £200,000 per annum, which would enable the Admiralty to meet any requirements for the purpose of improving the general pay and condition of the seamen of the Fleet. He had no wish to embarrass the Government on the point, and he had no desire to raise prematurely, still less in any Party spirit, a question of so much delicacy. But he felt persuaded that, having regard to what had been done in the Army, it would be wise to reconsider the pay of the seamen of the Fleet in a liberal sense. The whole question should be considered. If the pay were increased, it might also be well to limit somewhat the promotions to petty officers, which were already over numerous, and were really made to counteract the effects of low pay. It might also be a question whether some limit should not be put on the amount of pensions, which were at the present excessive. The pension list was increasing at a prodigious rate, and threatened to become a great burden to the Estimates. It now amounted to £400,000, and he calculated that it would rise by slow or fast degrees to the the maximum between £800,000, and £1,000,000. The great pressure of this item arose from the fact that pensions were granted at the early age of from 38 to 42. Another matter, second only in importance to that of pay, was the treatment of the men. He believed this to be worthy of the consideration of the Admiralty. The question was a delicate one, and he should be sorry to say anything which would hurt the feelings of the profession; but he knew that there were many officers who thought that the mode of dealing with the seamen had in some quarters not advanced in the proportion to the better education and better training of the men themselves, and that the old-fashioned rough and hectoring

1535
style of addressing the men and commanding them was not sufficiently discouraged. By giving attention to these two points—namely, the question of pay and of treatment—he believed the desertions might be greatly reduced. The next point was the entry of men direct from the Merchant Service. He believed it would be to the interest of both the Navy and the Merchant Service to revive to some extent the connection between them, and many persons thought it would, be well to make it a condition of incorporation with the Naval Reserve that a man should have served three or four years in the Navy. He would suggest that that should be done by entering a certain number of men direct from the Merchant Service every year, say 600 to 700. These men should be enlisted for four years at the age of 20, trained on shore to guns for one year in naval barracks, and then sent on board seagoing vessels in commission, after which they might be passed into the Reserve on the same terms as the Army Reserve men. It would be quite necessary in order to obtain these men to raise their wages to an equality with those of the continuous-service men. His suggestions, therefore, were these—1, To reconsider the whole question of pay and treatment of seamen, in the hope of reducing the desertions of the men by about 500; 2, to enter direct from the Merchant Service from 600 to 700 men annually, to train them for four years, and then pass them into the Reserve; 3, by the these means to reduce the entries of boys into training ships by about 1,200; 4, the effect of this would be not only to save the cost of training boys to that number till they were rated as seamen, but also to relieve them of the difficulty of training the first-class boys; and, 5, to restore the standard of physique and education on the entry of boys to the training ships. It was his strong belief that by adopting these measures we might be able to make a very liberal increase of pay to the seamen without entailing any increased burden upon the Estimates, without imposing a great burden upon the future, as had been done in the case of the Army, and that we might also increase the Reserve of seamen, while we were also benefiting the Merchant Service by returning to it every year 600 or 700 well-disciplined men. He had only to conclude by
1536
thanking the House for their attention, and by assuring the right hon. Gentleman that he had had but one object in bringing forward this subject—namely, that of promoting the interest of the Service which he believed he had at heart, and suggesting the means by which he might give contentment to the Service, and add to its efficiency without entailing any greatly increased burden upon the tax-payers.
MR. HANBURY-TRACYsaid, that the Committee were much indebted to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) for having brought forward the present position of the personnel of the Navy. The question of how best to check the large number of desertions which had taken place during the last year, opened up the whole subject of pay and the condition of our seamen together with the much-vexed point of how far a closer alliance could be created with the Merchant Navy, so as to facilitate a constant interchange of men between the two Services. It was very satisfactory to find from the statement just made that it was quite possible by judicious changes considerably to increase the pay of the seamen, if found advisable, without in any way augmenting the annual charge. Taking first, the question of obtaining a certain number of Merchant seamen annually, he thought there could be no doubt that, as the rates of wages were now fixed, it was an absolute bar against them. He found that whereas a Merchant able seaman received on an average from 2s. to 2s. 4d. per day, he could not as a non-continuous service man in the Royal Navy receive more than 1s. 4d. per day. The first thing would necessarily be to equalize the continuous and non-continuous pay, which would bring the pay up to 1s. 7d. per day. If, when this had been effected, the pay was also raised 2d. or 3d., the disproportion between the Merchant and Naval Services would not be so great. It must be remembered that, in comparing the two rates of pay together, the man-of-wars man received comforts and rewards which were unknown in the other Service, and which, together with the certainty of a good pension, made the pay of an A. B. in the Navy a very fair figure. He, at the same time, agreed in thinking that, so far as pay was concerned, "Present pay" was the point generally considered, and not

1537
the attendant inducements. He found that in the year 1815 the pay was 1s. 2d. per day, and considering the common rise in wages since that date he did not think it surprising that so long as we held out only 1s. 4d. as the pay for a man entering from the Merchant Service, none could be obtained. Whilst he thought that that restriction should be removed, he felt at the same time bound to say that he had grave doubts if there were any Merchant seamen available. The real fact was that, until we adopted the plan suggested by the Manning Commission, and started large training ships in our principal seaports to rear up boys for the Merchant Navy, the Government supporting one-half on certain conditions, of one year's service in the Navy with further claims in the Reserve, he feared the pure Merchant A. B. willing to join the Navy could not be found. However much, it might be advisable, from a national point of view, to facilitate a flow of seamen from the Merchant Navy, he deprecated most strongly anything which would tend in the slightest degree to upset the present system of rearing up our seamen from boys. Under the existing plan they obtained the most magnificent set of seamen it was possible to get hold of, and he believed that they possessed a far better-trained and well-conducted body of men than could be reared under any other scheme. It was perfectly true that it was not an expanding system, and this was the reason why it was necessary to look to the Merchant Navy for our Reserves. The problem how to check desertion was no doubt a difficult one, but he doubted whether it was a mere matter of pay alone. Increase of pay would, of course, diminish it, but he believed desertion arose from two other causes besides. First, love of variety; second, discontent. A life of variety and excitement was inherent in every sailor, and his training made him look forward continuously to an active and enterprizing life. It was not, therefore, surprising that in the Colonies and on the Pacific Station their men were constantly tempted to desert. He was much inclined to think that, under certain circumstances, arrangements might be made for a proportion of men to leave the Service for a time when they specially desired. It was a difficult matter, but he thought a Committee
1538
of some experienced captains and admirals would soon find a practical solution of it. He remembered Admiral Erskine, a few years ago, when a Member of the House, stating that he had tried the experiment on the Australian Station with considerable success, and that he had not lost any of the men. He had been much struck by a similar opinion expressed by Captain Wilson in his able lecture at the United Service Institute early this year. He said—
"I would introduce a more elastic system, combined with time pay, by which a man might with reasonable facility obtain his discharge from the Commander in Chief, and, under circumstances, from his captain. At first a considerable number would apply for their discharges, but, after a time, many would return and settle down to their work. If a man really wishes to go, he can always manage to do so, the punishment of deserting prevents his 'returning,' not 'leaving.'"
The second cause he put down to discontent. He did not in any way mean to imply that the Service was unpopular; but he thought that in all great Services special cause for discontent occasionally arose which ought at once to be checked. He believed that a considerable amount of discontent arose from the great length of time the men were now in harbour. The hon. Member for Reading had shown that whilst 10,000 seamen were afloat, we generally had about 8,000 in harbour and in harbour ships. Of that number about 1,200 were young ordinary seamen, and it was to them he desired specially to direct attention. The great fault of our system was the lack of training which our young seamen received. If a young man commenced his life when he was rated an ordinary seaman by spending a considerable time in harbour, he frequently got into mischief. One thing led to another. He went from bad to worse, and at last got into serious trouble. So that when he was drafted into a sea-going ship he was discontented, he had lost his passport for advancing rapidly, and he took an early opportunity of running away. He attributed a great amount of the desertions to this cause, and he looked upon it as a most serious evil. It was impossible to pass by this subject without deferring to the subject of naval barracks. They had now no place where they could give the men systematic training and instruction, and the result was, that harbour time

1539
was employed "playing horses" in the dockyards, dragging carts and spars about the yard, and time was wasted in going too and fro from the hulks. The establishment of naval barracks at each port with training ships attached would be the greatest incentive to discipline that could be created, and it would be at the same time a great economy. There was nothing so expensive as a floating house. Barracks once built they would have little or no expense with them. They would then be able to drill the men in sails, spars, and boats, and send them into sea-going ships, well-traiued, and in a thorough state of discipline. Sooner or later they must adopt barracks. The old ships were gradually getting scarce, and he believed that a very few years would see them forced to face the necessity. The cost could not exceed £300,000 at Portsmouth or Plymouth, and that spread over 10 years ought not to be sufficient to frighten them. An accurate account taken of the expense of hulks would show a considerable saving on the annual charge. There was also an opinion which he knew existed amongst a great many officers, that the time had arrived when that splendid body of men, the Royal Marine Artillery might be amalgamated with the Royal Marines. Nothing could exceed their high state of discipline and efficiency; but he knew it was very much doubted whether it was necessary to maintain this special class of artillerists, now that they had so many seamen passing through the gunnery ships, and a large number of first-rate captains of guns. If this ever was carried out, their capital barracks would at once be available for the Navy. In suggesting an increase of pay the hon. Member for Reading had spoken of the possibility of diminishing the number of petty officers' ratings. He thought this should not be attempted without great consideration, as there was no greater incentive for work and for good conduct as the prospect held out of these ratings. At the same time he was inclined to think that if the A B's pay was raised, the rating of leading seamen might be abolished. It was a rating established when there existed a large number of old men who could not well be sorted as petty officers, but the necessity for it had long ceased to exist. The enormous amount which the hon. Member for Reading said the
1540
pension fund would rise to—namely, £1,000,000, induced him to think that the question of pay and pension ought to be considered together. He was much inclined to the opinion that a larger pension at a later date would prove more efficacious and less expensive; especially, if combined with an increasing rate of pay according to number of years served. He could not sit down without alluding to two subjects which he knew caused some discontent. The first was the question of paying the men in depreciated silver. Some few weeks before he had questioned the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman had admitted—"That the petty officers and seamen on the India and China stations were paid a portion of their pay in Indian currency, but that the exchange value of the rupee was under consideration." He (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) was afraid that that was a sample of many other cases which when pointed out did not receive immediate attention, and caused considerable discontent. The facts of this case were very simple. It was well known that silver in India had depreciated about 10 per cent, and yet although the men had a right to receive the full amount of their wages, as voted by Parliament, they were nevertheless mulcted of the difference in exchange. It was not a case of the Government losing by the transaction, for they actually credited themselves with 10 per cent. The paymaster drew a bill and credited the Government with the balance, after paying the men at the rate of 10 rupees for a sovereign when the real value was 11 rupees to the sovereign. That might seem to them only a small matter, but he knew it was considered a serious cause of complaint by the men. To show how strong a grievance it was, he would quote a passage from The Times of India—
"The seamen of the Flying Squadron are entitled to wages in English currency—£ s. d.—and there is no mention of rupees in their contracts. Such being the case, it is obvious that if it suits the convenience of Government to pay the men, when serving in foreign waters, in other currency than that of England, they should as a matter of course receive the exchange value of the sterling coinage. But this has not been the experience of the Flying Squadron in Indian waters. Although both the Home and Indian Governments practically recognize the fact that a rupee is worth 10 per cent less than two shillings, the seamen are paid

1541
their English wages in rupees, at the rate of one rupee for each florin due to them. The consequence is, that on every payment made in an Indian port, the ships' paymasters, who obtain Indian money in Bombay or elsewhere in exchange for hills on London for the full amount of the wages due to the men in £ s. d., have to 'credit' Government with sums remaining on hand 'after payment to the crews' at the rate of a rupee for every two shillings due, 'the direct profit accruing to Government by the process amounting to about 10 per cent of the total wages.' The Naval and Military Services are by no means over-paid, and there is considerable difficulty in recruiting either in a highly-paid labour market. It is short-sighted policy to add to the unpopularity of the Services by literally filching from the men what is legally and morally due to them. We trust that publicity may have the effect of putting an end to a scandal which, though directly beneficial to the Exchequer, is certainly injurious to the reputation of the Admiralty and the Home Government."
It was quite evident that the feeling expressed on the lower deck would be somewhat stronger than this, and no one could wonder at there being some discontent in consequence. A blue jacket simple and obedient as he was, was peculiarly sensitive to his rights or to any attempt to a breach of faith, and these sort of questions ought never to be allowed to exist. The question of victualling was also a matter in which many people considered injustice existed, but he would only allude to it for a moment. It was well known that under the existing system a most beneficial plan was adopted, satisfactory to the men, and economical to the State. The arrangement made was, that the men received the value of any provisions they did not wish to take up, and these sums were expended by the men through their chosen caterers in purchasing and laying in stock of appetizing food, potatoes, pickles, &c. It formed the domestic life of the men. Unfortunately, the rate at which the provisions were paid for was fixed a long time ago, and the prices did not always correspond with the cost price. The difference was very large. Salt beef was paid for 3d. per 1b. less than it cost; pork 2½d., and biscuit 2d. If the principle was good to enable the men to vary their diet in a manner most to their taste, surely the full price of the provision ought to be given. Instead of this £65,000 was saved by the transaction, and thus taken from the men. He would not go further into that question then; but he thought it
1542
was one of several requiring very attentive consideration. He hoped that all the facts brought out by the hon. Member for Reading would be carefully examined, and he had no doubt the number of desertions would soon be considerably reduced.
MR. HUNTsaid, that he felt the Committee was much indebted to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who had brought this subject under their consideration he was sure in no hostile spirit, but with an anxious desire to increase the efficiency of the Navy. He need not assure the Committee that the subject was one of constant and anxious attention, and that any plan by which desertions could be lessened would have due consideration. But he must say that the statistics before him did not bear out the fears or apprehensions expressed in some quarters. While looking at the number of desertions we ought also to look at the stations from which they occurred, and the statistics showed that there was no increase of desertion upon the home stations. In 1872–3 the desertions of the home stations were rather more than 3 per cent; in 1873–4 they amounted to nearly 4 per cent; in 1874–5, they were reduced to 3½ per cent. That was not an unreasonably large percentage, especially considering that nearly the whole of our seamen were taken as boys, when they had hardly realized what the kind of life would be and their views of their future career were not matured. On the foreign stations the statistics of desertion varied from next to nil up to a high rate, showing that it was not so much dislike of the Service as the nature of the inducements presented which led our seamen and Marines to desert abroad. Indeed, the temptations put before our men at some foreign stations were such as to almost make us wonder that more did not yield to these temptations. During the last year the desertions on the Mediterranean station were only 1 per cent of the Force. On the North American and West Indian stations they were 2 per cent; on the South-east Coast of America, 8 per cent; in the Pacific, 6 per cent; the Cape of Good Hope and West Coast of Africa, 1 per cent; the East India station, 1 per cent; China, 1 per cent; Australia, 17 per cent; in the Channel Squadron, 7 per cent; and the Detached Squadron, 2 per cent. On

1543
the whole, the proportion of desertions was not such as to show that the Service was unpopular. Captain Wilson, in his able paper, suggested that a certain number of men should be allowed their discharge after a few years' service, and thought they would come back. He (Mr. Hunt) did not quite see how that plan was to be carried out. If discharges were allowed on foreign stations, they must be allowed on home stations; but you would thus entirely break down the present system of early training and continuous service. This system had given us a finer and a better trained body of men than we had ever had before, and it would be imprudent to risk the success of this system by such a change as was proposed. It was said that Merchant seamen ought to be induced to enter the Navy, and the Committee had been told that wages in the Merchant Service were so high, that the seamen would not leave that Service for the Navy. He (Mr. Hunt), however, did not think it was a question of pay, for the Committee must remember there was no such thing as pensions, the value of which had been estimated at 3s. a-week. Moreover, in the Merchant Service there was no continuous pay; the seaman was only paid for the voyage, at the end of which he had to shift for himself. It was not, therefore, fair to compare the pay in the Navy all the year round, with pension in reserve, with pay which might be higher while it lasted, but was only for the voyage. But it was not a question of pay alone, for unless you took sailors when young, they found the discipline irksome on board a man-of-war, and adults would not, therefore, often join from the Merchant Service. If anything could be done to induce men to come from the Merchant Service into the Navy, as a matter of economy, much might be said for the idea; but, at present, he could not see his way to induce them to do it. He thought the present system was going on very satisfactorily. They had a large body of men who were becoming trained in the use of arms and inured to discipline. On the subject of pay the hon. Member had admitted it was a difficult one; for him (Mr. Hunt) it was a delicate one; and he hoped he should be excused if, upon that occasion, he would rather not enter upon it. It was said—"The better the pay the less the number
1544
of desertions;" but there might be circumstances under which it was better to risk some desertions than incur greatly increased expenditure. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) as to the depreciation of silver and the effect upon our seamen on East Indian stations, he was scarcely able to give any opinion at that moment, seeing that the Committee had not concluded their inquiries; but he hoped that ere long the matter would be settled in a way which did no injustice to the sailor. As regarded the savings on provisions, that was a difficult question, and it was a great question whether the men ought to be tempted to save more on their provisions than they did. They must be careful not to give the men too much inducement to refrain from a diet which was necessary for them. It was a question which required consideration; but, anxious as he was to proceed with the Votes in Committee, he hoped hon. Members opposite would excuse him if he declined to discuss these and other topics which had been referred to. In conclusion, he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading, who had rendered good service in bringing this matter forward, that he should consider the suggestions he had made.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty singularly fair; but there were one or two points upon which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch. His hon. Friend the Member for Reading suggested that a fewer number of boys should be trained, and that a certain number of men should be entered from the Merchant Service, together with an increase in the pay, in order to meet the evil of having too large a number of boys and young sailors and too few of greater age. There was one point on which they would all agree with the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that was to do nothing to weaken in any degree, the admirable continuous system which had been built up during the last few years. He (Mr. Childers) was rather sceptical about the introduction of any considerable number of men from the Merchant Service. That Service was not more popular than the Navy, the physique and morale of the men was inferior, and on that ground he should not be disposed

1545
to look for very much increase from the Merchant Service. With respect to increased pay, an addition of 2d. per day would at one stroke add £250,000 a-year to the Estimates, while probably 10, 15, or 20 years would elapse before vested rights in the present rate of pensions would have been satisfied and any diminution could be expected. He was not quite sure that the Returns to which his hon. Friend had called so much attention proved his case with regard to desertions. He hesitated before he assumed that there was this very great increase of desertion during the last few years, and that it was to be attributed to the permanent causes which the figures would seem to indicate to the House. He admitted that if increased pay was necessary it ought to be given thoroughly, and in no niggardly spirit, but before adopting an alteration of that kind there should be a very careful preliminary inquiry, and they must do it on an intelligible principle. He should be the last to advocate anything which would tend to impair efficiency merely in order to effect a cutting down of expenditure. In some respects his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had made very valuable suggestions, and he hoped that next year, probably when the Estimates were produced, the House would learn that the First Lord of the Admiralty had given the subject due consideration.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he quite agreed that it would not be safe to rely on the Merchant Service for manning the Navy. Years ago there was a great affinity between the two Services; but they were now a distinct race of men, especially in their ideas of discipline. One of the chief causes of the deterioration of the Merchant Service was attributable to bad legislation, in doing everything that could be done to destroy discipline, and the Merchant Service was now reaping the fruits of that work. It would be impossible now to reconcile the differences that existed, and bring the two Services advantageously together. He was convinced that the so-called "delicate question"—namely, increase of pay, was one which they would soon be forced to deal with, the main cause of desertion, in his opinion, being insufficiency of pay. If Parliament wished for a good article in the market it must pay for it.
MR. RYLANDSconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) in thinking that while the scheme of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would involve an immediate increase in the Estimates, the saving to be effected by it was very remote. He thought it would be better not to train so many boys every year; but only a sufficient number to meet the actual wants of the Navy. He objected to the scheme of naval barracks on account of the expense without the probability of a corresponding benefit. It would be better to reduce the number of men and boys, and trust to the Reserves in case of an emergency.
MR. GOSCHENagreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that to a great extent the absence of desertions on the home stations proved that it was not the unpopularity of the Service, but that there were peculiarities in certain foreign stations which caused desertions. It was recommended that they should have naval barracks to prevent desertions; but it was remarkable that at Sheerness, where there were such barracks, there were more desertions than at Portsmouth and Chatham, where they did not exist. With regard to the Marine Artillery, he thought that unless there was a real intention of dealing with it, the fewer disturbing suggestions that were thrown out respecting it the better. That corps, of which he had a high opinion, seemed always to be the subject of schemes of one kind or another, and never to know whether it was to be permanent or not. Desertion on foreign stations was a very serious evil, and in order to diminish it, he thought it would be well to diminish the number of ships sent to those stations, unless they were most urgently needed. He suggested that a corvette might be sent to the Pacific station, instead of the frigate Shah. He begged the First Lord of the Admiralty not to send out more ships than were absolutely required for the service to the South American and the Australian stations, on which there were so many desertions. Again, it was surprising that the desertions from the Channel Squadron should be so excessive, while the proportion at home was only 3 per cent, and he thought the desertions from the Channel Squadron must practically be added to those in this country, because the stations to which that Squad-

1547
ron generally proceeded made it highly improbable that many of the desertions from it occurred abroad. He also hoped that the admirals and captains would be requested to ascertain the cause of them; and that a remedy would be found to prevent them in future. While he entirely approved the present system of training our sailors from boys, and while he thought the continuous-service system must be maintained, if possible, yet the present system was attended with this drawback, that it had no expansion whatever in it. If, therefore, they could establish a relation between the Mercantile Marine and the Navy in the way of enlisting men from the former to a limited extent, a great advantage would be gained.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that there were certain revolutionary States on the Pacific which were continually in a condition of ferment; and not 10 years ago, at Valparaiso, a very distinguished officer in command of a wooden frigate found himself in a position in which it was necessary for him to protect British interests in that port, but he was deprived of the power of doing so because his ship was incapable of meeting the iron-clads of a revolutionary State. The Government then in power therefore thought it requisite to send an iron-clad to those waters, and he (Sir John Hay) thought one was equally necessary now. [Mr. GOSCHEN: The Shah is not an iron-clad.] If she was not an iron-clad, she was a very powerful vessel. With regard to the Marine Artillery, the reduction of that Force by the late Sir James Graham was, in his opinion, a most unfortunate, proceeding; and he regarded as undesirable the suggestion of such changes as had been recommended that evening in regard to that corps. When they had got men so highly trained and valuable they ought to keep them. With respect to obtaining men from the Merchant Service, it would be desirable to obtain them, but he did not know how it was to be done; and, therefore, he hoped that the First Lord of the Admiralty would think twice before he made any alteration in the number of boys entered for the Navy, or in the way in which he was training them.
MR. E. J. REEDthought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir John Hay) failed to see the force of what had been said by
1548
the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London in respect to placing a smaller class of vessels on the Pacific station. He (Mr. Reed) understood that the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London was, that the Government were not to weaken the naval force on the South American station, but to have a strong ship there with a comparatively small number of men. He wished to point out that the expenditure upon ships in proportion to the amount expended upon men was largely and continually increasing. In that view he had this year felt bound to suggest that the number of men should be reduced, and the proper answer to that would be for the Government to show that the number now asked for was requisite. The fact, however, now stared them in the face that, in order to keep up the number of men, they were going to send a large proportion of those men upon a ship, which was far from being efficient as a flag-ship, and which was to be placed on a station where desertions were very numerous. The Shah had in her armament miserably small guns, considering the nature of the service for which she was intended.
SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he could not see the wisdom, as it was common, to do, of parading the number of desertions in our Army and Navy before the world. The desertions of seamen when they arrived at places where wages were high did not appear to him at all remarkable. He denied that merchant sailors were inferior to sailors in the Royal Navy; and there never was a time when merchant ships were so good and efficient or made such rapid passages as at the present time. It was not fair to disparage the Merchant Marine. The Royal Navy might be proud if it had made equal progress.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had every reason to be satisfied with the discussion and the friendly tone in which it had been carried. He dissented from the opinion that there would be no saving until a distant day from the adoption of his plan. He should like to know whether the Admiralty had considered the expediency of extending to the Marines the proposal as to deferred pay, and also what was the number of disposable seamen in our home ports?
MR. HUNTsaid, that no decision had been come to on the subject of the pay of

1549
the Marines. He was unable to give the exact number of men disposable, but he thought it was about 4,000.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £1,153,367, Victual sand Clothing.
MR. HUNTexplained, in reply to Mr. GOSCHEN, that an increase of £10,000 in the Vote was due to the increased number of men receiving the allowances; but there was a decrease under provisions of £8,000.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £189,820, Admiralty Office.
MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, he should like to see a larger number of naval officers, such as captains of the Navy, receiving remuneration under the Vote, as that would enable the Sea Lords of the Admiralty to devote greater attention to questions of construction and other matters of importance. Such a change would, he thought, fee attended with great public advantage. The Staff of naval officers at the Admiralty was very small, as compared with that of the Secretary of State for War, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might be able in the next Estimates to give some effect to the suggestion.
MR. E. J. REEDinquired whether the Staff of the Director of Naval Ordnance was completely represented in the Estimates, or whether he had the assistance of other officers who did not appear in the Estimates; and also, whether the Director of Naval Ordnance was under the Controller of the Navy in all respects? He asked also if the timber Inspectorship, which had a great salary attached, was an office intended to be kept up in these times? Another office to which he wished to direct attention was that of Director of Works. It was a most anomalous post. It was held by a military officer, and the duty of constructing docks was imposed upon him, although he and his department had no relationship and no consultations whatever with the Constructor's department as to the sort of ships likely to be constructed. There were estimates to be taken for new docks at Devonport; were they to be constructed by this officer without the control of the Naval department at all? Ships had been commenced of extraordinary proportions, and he would ask whether the docks at Devonport were to be constructed with
1550
any relationship to the vessels to be built?
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the office of Director of Naval Ordnance held by a naval captain appointed by the Admiralty and sitting in their own office was a most anomalous office. Formerly the Director, though a naval officer, sat in the War Office, and acted under the Secretary of State, who in some degree was able to exercise some check over the demands of the Admiralty for guns for our ships of war. But on the discontinuance of this office from the War Office, the Admiralty at once created in their own branch a new office of Director, but carefully abstained from relieving the Army Estimates of the expenses for the naval guns. He had complained of it for years, and for this reason—that that naval officer was allowed, almost without any control, to swell the Army Estimates by his demands for stores for the Navy. In this way the military expenditure had been swelled up by millions during the last 17 years of perpetual changes in the armament of the Navy, and which would not have taken place if the Admiralty had borne these expenses on the Naval Estimates. The evil was once about to be remedied; but the right hon. Gentlemen below him (the Liberal Party) came into power, and then all his hopes were at an end. The remedy was to transfer to the Navy the charge and custody of their own guns and stores, and to give over to the Army the charge and management of their own Transports. An examination of these two accounts would show the wasteful way in which the respective Departments swelled up these several accounts, necessarily left without check or control.
MR. HUNTsaid, the Director of Naval Ordnance was in all respects under the control of the Admiralty. As to the Director of Works, he could bear testimony to the meritorious way in which the officer who now held that appointment discharged his duty. Such an officer ought, of course, to be under the control of the Admiralty; and as to the construction of docks he, of course, could not say what took place when the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) was in office; he (Mr. Hunt) should never think of sanctioning any works of that sort without consulting the Constructor's department. The proposed docks at

1551
Devonport would be constructed by the Director of Works, but the plans had been submitted to the Constructor and Controller of the Navy.
SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he would like to know what was the cause of this increase of £6,000 a-year for one office?
MR. HUNTsaid, that £4,000 was for the progressive increase in the salaries of the officers, clerks and writers. Then there was an increase in the salary of the Director of Works; £1,200 for the re-organization of the Naval department, a matter which had been a long time under consideration, and there was also an increase for travelling expenses, which depended on the shipbuilding programme, which this year was larger than usual.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could bear out the right hon. Gentleman in saying that there had been various applications for an increase of pay and an assimilation of salaries to those of the War Department; but those applications did not only come from the Naval department, but from other departments of the Admiralty. It was undesirable to deal piecemeal with this question, and when he was in office he was anxious to do away with the idea that there was any special preference given to the Naval department. He should like to know what was the nature of the re-organization of the department, and what increase was made to the salaries?
SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, that in the Naval Department of the Admiralty the first class clerks were to get an increase in their salaries from £900 to £1,000, and were for the future to be styled principal clerks, being, in fact, the Heads of Departments. The second class clerks were to get an increase from £550 to £650, and were to be styled first class clerks. The third class clerks were to get an increase from £350 to £420, and were to be styled second class clerks. This classification was adopted from that of the Treasury and other principal Government Offices. There was a distinct promise made to the secretariat of the Naval Department when a large reduction was made in the Staff, that the salaries of those who remained should be increased, and the Government was now only doing justice in fulfilling that promise. In the Departments of the Admiralty outside the Naval Departments, the difference existing be-
1552
tween their salaries and those of the War Department was regarded as a grievance; but it was hoped that some alteration would be made which would prove satisfactory.
MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he did not question the ability of the Director of Works, who was a very able man and a most zealous officer, but he objected to the system which enabled him to initiate his scheme for docks.
MR. GORSTobserved that the second-class clerks, whose salaries were raised to £650 a-year, would be actually in a better position than the first-class clerks, in whose salaries no change had been made. That would naturally cause dissatisfaction, and it illustrated, the inconvenience of dealing piecemeal with the department.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that when he was at the Admiralty, it had always been the custom to go through all the Estimates of the Director of Naval Ordnance, who had no power to expend a single shilling until they had been examined and approved of. He believed his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) followed the same rule. As to the Director of Works, he had when in office paid considerable attention to the proposal that he should be an officer in the Controller's department, but the difficulty was that he had a great deal of duty to do which was in no way connected with the Controller's department. It was quite true, as had been stated by the hon. Baronet the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Massey Lopes), that when a reduction was made in the staff of the Naval department a promise was given to the clerks who remained that their salaries should be increased.
Vote agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £210,230, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Coast Guard Service, Royal Naval Reserve, and Seamen and Marine Pensioners Reserve, and Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Rylands.)
MR. HUNThoped the Motion would not be pressed, as he believed there was

1553
no Amendment proposed to the Vote. He wished to point out that there was an important Vote before them which it was desirable to take without delay—namely, Vote 10, Section 2, for "Steam Machinery and Ships built by Contract."
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the Shipbuilding Vote was the most important Vote in the Estimates, in which there was an increase of £500,000; and, there fore, he did not think an appeal could be made to hon. Members to abstain from discussing it.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the second section, Vote 10, might be taken on the full understanding that full opportunity should be given for full discussion on the other Votes.
MR. GOSCHENwas of opinion that that could not be done without involving assent to the entire shipbuilding programme of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that a month must be lost if they did not that night take Vote 10, and it was as much the duty of the House as that of the Government to advance the public service.
MR. T. BRASSEYhoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would undertake to bring on the Estimates at a reasonably early opportunity, so that they might not have to discuss those important questions, as was sometimes the case, at the end of the Session.
MR. GOSCHENthought the Committee had good reason for protesting against the position in which they were placed through the action of the Government in being called upon either to vote, without debate, an increase of, as he had said, £500,000 to the Estimates once for all, or to be exposed to the reproach of interfering with the public service. They were asked to vote the money first and afterwards to discuss the style of ships to be built, which were to be ordered at once, in order to save a month. Many hon. Members on his side of the House felt that this money would be better spent upon ironclads than upon gunboats and corvettes.
MR. HUNTsaid, he had understood that his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract wished to say something about the Naval Reserve department, and perhaps the Committee would not object to sit a little longer as they were going to have a holiday. However, he felt the force of what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and he should
1554
agree not to go on with Vote 10 if the Committee would not complain if he took upon himself the responsibility of ordering six more river gunboats in the meantime.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he must decline to enter upon such a discussion at that hour. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed would not be objected to.
Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at One of the clock;
Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 24th April.

HIGHWAYS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the management of Highways, said, its main object was to leave the management as much as possible to the various local bodies, so that they might adapt its powers to the wants of the various localities, while at the same time means would be provided for introducing, as far as possible, a uniform system of supervision and accounts. Power was also given in the Bill to make bye-laws to provide for a great deal that was now done under the Turnpike Acts.
  MR. DILLWYNinquired if the Bill would apply to South Wales?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, some of the provisions would apply to South Wales. In general there was no wish to break up the South Wales system, which had worked very well.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the management of Highways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sclater-Booth and Mr. Salt.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 129.]

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the further amendment and better administration of the Laws relating to the Relief of the Poor in Scotland, said: In the year 1871 a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to

  1555
  inquire into the operation of the Poor Law in Scotland, and whether any, and what, amendments should be made therein. There were referred to the Committee the Minutes of Evidence which had been taken by Select Committees on the same subject in the Sessions of 1869 and 1870. The Committee presented a very full Report, containing a number of recommendations for the amendment of the Scottish Poor Law. I have very carefully considered these recommendations, and the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce gives effect to the larger number of them. The evidence which was taken by the Committee and its Report were very favourable to the administration of the Board of Supervision in Scotland, and proposed to confer upon them more extensive powers than they now possess, particularly in the way of initiating proceedings under the Poor Law Acts. The Bill accordingly provides for greater powers being conferred on the Board of Supervision in several particulars. In regard to the constitution of parochial boards, after very careful consideration I have not seen my way to make quite such extensive changes as were recommended by the Select Committee. In regard to the elected members of every board, I propose that they should continue in office for three years, one-third going out of office annually by rotation. That is the only change that I propose to make in regard to parochial boards in burghal parishes. In regard to the parochial boards of rural parishes, where the number of owners is small, I think the present system has worked so well that I do not propose any further change except the introduction into them of a certain number of the larger tenants without the necessity of election. In rural parishes, where the number of owners, entitled, as such, to be members of the board, exceeds 30, the Bill proposes considerable alterations in the constitution of the board in the way of limiting the number of members, very much in the way recommended by the Select Committee. It is proposed that in all assessed parishes there shall be a compulsory classification. In regard to the 37th Section of the Poor Law Amendment Act, the Committee recommended that it should be repealed, and the rates imposed upon the gross valuation as appearing on the Valuation Roll. I believe that change will be very convenient for
  1556
  the parochial authorities, and the Bill gives effect to it. The Board of Supervision will have the power in sanctioning classifications to secure that the assessments are imposed equitably upon different classes of property. In regard to settlement the Bill proposes twochanges—in the first place, correcting what is believed to have been an unintentional enactment in the Act of 1845, a settlement by five years' residence will not hereafter be lost except by five years' absence. In the second place, where a settlement has been acquired by 10 years' residence, it will not be lost except by the acquisition of another settlement by a residence in another parish for a similar period. Cases relating to disputed settlement will be made competent only in the Sheriff Court, it being competent to state a special case on a question of law for the decision of the Court of Session. Provision is made for the superannuation out of the poor rates of Poor Law officers with the consent of the Board of Supervision. This system has worked well in England and Ireland, and tended to the efficiency of the officers. Each parish must appoint a medical officer, removable only with the approval of the Board of Supervision. The Bill further provides for an efficient audit of the accounts of parochial boards by auditors appointed by the Board of Supervision, the salaries of the auditors being paid by the Treasury. The Treasury will also pay one half of the total amount expended in salaries to medical officers, and in providing medicines, &c, for the poor in the same manner as is now done in England and Ireland. These are the leading provisions of the Bill, but there are others of minor importance which I need not refer to at present, and I will conclude by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the further amendment and better administration of the Laws relating to the Relief of the Poor in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 130.]

TREASURY SOLICITOR BILL.
On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to incorporate the Solicitor for the affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, and make further provision respecting the grant of the administration of the estates of deceased persons for the

1557
use of Her Majesty, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. Attorney General.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 128.]
House adjourned at One o'clock.