Commons Sitting of 31 July 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—Committee R. P.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£3,000,000, Exchequer Bonds, Exchequer Bills, or Treasury Bills.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—East India Loan (Consolidated Fund) [Annuities]*.
First Reading—Bills of Sale (Ireland)* [273].
Committee—Report—Land Tax Commissioners' Names* [109].
Third Reading—East India Loan (Consolidated Fund)* [201], and passed.

QUESTIONS.
  PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION —REPRESENTATION OF SCOTLAND.

    QUESTION.
    MR. M'LARENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the Return, No. 223, of this Session, from which it appears that, as regards the present population of Scotland, it ought to have ten additional Members, as compared with the present population of England and Ireland respectively; and that, if the revenue derived from taxation were made the basis of representation, Scotland ought to have eighteen additional Members as compared with the revenue derived from taxation in England and Ireland respectively; and, whether, in distributing the vacant seats, he will take into consideration the just claims of Scotland to obtain additional Members?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, my attention has been continually drawn to the circumstances of Scotland by the Returns which were moved for by the hon. Gentleman. Undoubtedly, I have seen the Return to which he refers. I can only say, in regard to the second part of the Question, that whenever the time comes for distributing the vacant seats the just claims of Scotland, as of all other parts of the Kingdom, will be duly considered. I hardly think, however, that the changes proposed will be of the revolutionary character glanced at by the hon. Gentleman.

  MINISTER OF COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. HOLMSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What steps the Government intend to take in order to give effect to the Resolution of the House upon the Motion of the honourable Member for Plymouth—
  "That it is desirable that those functions of the Executive Government which especially relate to Commerce and Agriculture should be administered by a distinct Department, under the direction of a Principal Secretary of State, who shall be a Member of the Cabinet?"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am afraid the only answer I can give is that the matter will receive the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (METROPOLIS).—QUESTIONS.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked the Vice President of the Council, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table a Copy of the last Report of the London School Board upon Educational Endowments?
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, before the noble Lord answered that Question he should like to know, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Report to which the Question of the hon. Member for Dundee refers is a folio volume of 486 pages?
  MR. E. JENKINSrose to Order. He had asked a Question of the noble Lord, and he wished to know if it was regular or proper for any other hon. Member to interpose between the Question and the noble Lord's answer? It was quite open to the hon. Member to put his Question after the noble Lord replied.
  MR. SPEAKER: As the Question of the hon. Member relates to the same matter it seems to me that he is in Order.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, when the hon. Member put his Question before he had no information on this subject; but he was now informed by a member of the Board that no regular Committee had been appointed by them on the subject of Educational Endowments of London. Since then, however, a large volume had been sent to the Education Office, from which it appeared that it had been the habit of a Committee appointed to inquire into various schemes of Educational Endowment to make various reports. These had been collected, and the result was a Blue Book of 480 pages. He did not think any object would be served by making it a Parliamentary Return, since any ratepayer could obtain it on application.

  THE SCIENCE OF AGRICULTURE— MR. BUCKMASTER.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. HUBBARDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been drawn to the interest with which the members of several Chambers of Agriculture have listened to the lectures of Mr. J. C. Buckmaster on the scheme of the Science and Art Department "for promoting instruction in the science of agriculture;" and, whether Mr. Buckmaster's services can be equally spared for the benefit of Farmers' Clubs and Associations in country parishes, not being Chambers of Agriculture, but desirous of information on the subject?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, he could quite understand that a lecture by Mr. Buckmaster on this subject would be of great interest, and if his hon. Friend wished Mr. Buck-master's services to be more extensively availed of, he would undertake that any application to that effect should be considered by the Office.

  NAVY—PUNISHMENT OF A SEAMAN AT SHEERNESS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he has had the facts of the late court martial on board the Admiral's ship at Sheerness before him; whether he will state what was really done by the seaman; and, if

  1705
  he sees no reason, when it has been considered, to remit in some degree the apparent severity of the sentence?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, I have had all the facts of the late court martial at Sheerness before me; and it will be in the recollection of the House that I stated on a previous occasion that the offences committed were deliberate and repeated disobedience of the lawful and reasonable commands of a superior officer, followed up by a violent attack upon him. The offences were of a very grave character indeed, fully meriting severe punishment. It would be premature now to consider whether any portion of the punishment should be remitted, almost before, indeed, any part of it had been inflicted; but reports as to the prisoner will be made from time to time, and they will receive careful consideration.
  MR. MACDONALDgave Notice that, on a future day, he would ask for the name of the seaman, whether he was an ordinary seaman or an A. B., whether such a sentence as that passed on this man had been passed on any seaman since the right hon. Gentleman had been in Office, and whether it had not come to his knowledge that recent discussions in the House had influenced the severe penalty which was then inflicted?

  INDIA—BANDA AND KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. M. BROOKSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any, and, if so, what, legal proceedings have been taken in order to obtain a satisfactory account of the residue of the movable property of the ex-Chiefs of Kirwee, in accordance with the Parliamentary Orders of 1873 and 1874; and, whether it is true that, after so many years' delay in furnishing these accounts, the Secretary of State for India in Council has applied to the Court of Chancery for a further postponement of the inquiry?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, on the 15th May last the Rev. Alfred Kinloch commenced an action against the Secretary of State for India in Council relating to the Banda and Kirwee prize money, which action was set down for hearing before the Vice Chancellor Sir Charles Hall. The application to postpone the hearing of the cause until
  1706
  November was made with the consent of the plaintiff, as there was hardly any chance of the case being reached before the Vacation.

  METROPOLIS—PAROCHIAL CHARITIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON—REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Commissioners on the Parochial Charities of the City of London will be presented?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that great progress had been made with the Report; but, owing to unforeseen circumstances, and the engagement of many Members, it had been delayed, and it could not be presented to the House this Session.
    MR. ARTHUR PEEL, as a Member of the Commission, said that, in his judgment, it would be impossible to hold out any hope that the Report would be presented before November.

  ARMY—ARMY COMMISSIONS—THE ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, KINGSTON, CANADA.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the report in the "Times" of the 21st instant is accurate, which represents him as having said that—
  "Her Majesty has very recently agreed to a proposal which will enable successful students at the Military College in Canada to enter into competition annually for appointments in the English Army;"
  and, if so, whether, in consideration of the novelty of this proposal, he will lay upon the Table of the House the Rules and Regulations under which such students would be entitled to compete; and, whether equal facilities will be granted to Her Majesty's subjects in Her Majesty's other Colonial Possessions where similar military educational establishments may be formed in future to obtain Commissions in the Imperial Army?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the statement which I made the other day was merely a general reference to an arrangement which has been recently made, the precise terms of which are that four commissions annually—one in the Engineers, one in the Artillery, one in the Cavalry, and one in the

  1707
  Line—shall be given to successful candidates, being duly qualified, from the Royal Military College at Kingston. The rules for the competition will, I presume, be laid down by the War Office after communication with the authorities of the College; and I cannot say whether they could or could not be presented to the House. I do not think any reply could be given to the Question whether equal facilities will be granted to other Colonies, until it is ascertained whether a College exists in any other of our Colonies equal in position to the College at Kingston.

  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES— YEOMANRY AND VOLUNTEER ADJUTANTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Financial Secretary of the War Department, Whether, as compared with the pay received with their Regiments, Adjutants of Volunteers are not about £50 a-year richer, and Adjutants of Yeomanry about £200 a-year poorer by their appointments; whether, in Administrative Battalions, the Volunteer Adjutant has no financial duties as Yeomanry Adjutants have; whether a Volunteer Adjutant receives five shillings (in addition to his already higher pay) for every recruit enlisted through his agency, while a Yeomanry Adjutant receives nothing; whether the increase of pay given to Yeomanry Adjutants in 1876 was not counterbalanced by their being forbidden to receive anything from the Contingent Fund; what the reason for these differences is; and, whether it is not possible to place Yeomanry Adjutants on the same footing as Volunteers by giving them the pay, &c. of their rank as Captains of Cavalry?
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: Sir, the £50 alluded to by my hon. Friend undoubtedly refers to an allowance for a servant, which is given to adjutants of Volunteers, and also to an allowance for forage for one horse. My hon. Friend also asks whether, in administrative battalions, the Volunteer adjutant has no financial duties? Yes, Sir, he has very distinct financial duties to perform. As to the next part of the Question—if he is allowed by the officer commanding the brigade depôt to recruit?—he is entitled to 5s. head money; and if it were thought desirable that an adjutant of Yeomanry
  1708
  should be similarly employed he would receive a similar allowance. In 1876, upon the recommendation of a Committee, the pay of Yeomanry adjutants was increased; but, advisedly, they were not allowed to draw any part of the Contingent Fund belong to their regiments. Then, perhaps, my hon. Friend would like an analysis of the pay of adjutants of Yeomanry and Volunteers. The pay of an adjutant of Yeomanry is 10 s. a-day, making £182 a-year; for forage and stabling he is allowed 2s. 4d. a-day, making £42 a-year, or a total of £224 a-year. The pay of Cavalry captains is 14 s. a-day, or £266 a-year, with a forage allowance for three horses of £47 odd, making a total of £313 a-year. The pay of an adjutant of Volunteers is £211 a-year, with £42 for forage and stabling—total, £253 a-year. There is no doubt the pay of Yeomanry adjutants is less than that of Volunteer and Militia adjutants; but that was advisedly arranged in consequence of the duties which those officers have to perform being lighter than duties of adjutants of Volunteers and Militia; the pay was also regarded as sufficient to induce as many Cavalry captains as necessary to take the appointments for five years.

  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS ACT.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether he can undertake that none of the sites which had been cleared under "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1875," and which have not already been disposed of, shall be sold until Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the Bill which the Home Secretary intends to introduce to amend the Act?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, I must point out to the hon. Member that no sites have yet been cleared under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, except a portion of the White-chapel and Limehouse area, which has already been sold with five others to the trustees of the Peabody Fund. Some time must necessarily elapse before the removal of buildings from any of the sites not yet disposed of; and, assuming that the Bill of the Home Secretary is brought in this Session, I can readily undertake that no

  1709
  further sale of sites shall take place before the House has had an opportunity of considering the measure.

  AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which I have given, him private Notice, on a matter of much general interest—namely, Whether he is as yet prepared to give the House the names of the Gentlemen whom the Government propose to put on the Commission on the State of Agriculture; and if he cannot do it to-day, whether he can give any idea as to when he will be able to do it, for I suppose the Government would not wish that the information should be withheld until the closing days of the Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am quite aware of the interest that is taken in this subject, and I can assure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are most anxious to complete the Commission; but, though they have been in active correspondence with various Gentlemen, they have not yet been able to bring the arrangements to a final conclusion. As soon as we are in a position to do so, which I hope will be shortly, we shall be ready to mention the names to the House.

  NAVY—FLOGGING IN THE NAVY.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it be the fact that the Admiralty rules only prohibited combinations—"for the purpose of bringing about alterations in the existing rules and regulations of the Navy" and "by appointing Committees, or in any other manner obtaining signatures to memorials, petitions, or applications;" if it be not the fact that the meeting of petty officers at Portsmouth was held for none of these purposes, but solely to protect themselves against public misrepresentations of their opinions by certain Naval Officers, and, therefore, strictly in exercise of citizen rights not abrogated by employment in Her Majesty's service; and, whether, in these circumstances, Admiral Fanshawe's Memorandum was not an indiscreet straining of authority?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, I will not enter into an argument with the hon. Member as to whether a meeting composed of petty officers and seamen called to discuss punishments in the Navy does or does not come within the Article in the Queen's Regulations to which he refers; but I repeat that it was the duty of the Admiral Commanding-in-Chief at Porstmouth to warn men against being led into the commission of acts which, in his judgment, are subversive of discipline and are breaches of the Queen's Regulations. I do not, therefore, consider the publication of the Memorandum referred to was an indiscreet straining of authority.
    MR. ANDERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce the Memorandum, and lay it on the Table?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of that Question.

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPH CLERKS (DUBLIN).—QUESTION.
  MR. M. BROOKS (for Mr. GRAY)asked the Postmaster General, What were the dates of the receipt, in Dublin and London respectively, of the latest Petition of the Dublin Telegraph Clerks, praying for an assimilation of their salaries and duties to those of the Telegraph Clerks in English provincial towns; what was the date and nature of the reply; and, whether a circular has been issued changing the designation of these Telegraph Clerks to "Telegraphists;" whether, if so, this change of name is general in the service; whether it affects the official status of the clerks, and, if not, what was the reason of the change?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, the Petition referred to by the hon. Gentleman was received in Dublin on or about the 23rd November last, and was received in London the 28th November. The matter to which the question refers is of considerable importance, and requires very careful consideration, and I have not as yet come to any decision on it. With respect to the last part of the Question, a Circular was issued changing the name from telegraph clerks to telegraphists; but that change was general to all the clerks of the Service. It does not in any way affect their status, and was adopted simply with a view to general convenience.

  BRITISH COLUMBIA—THE ESQUIMALT DOCK.—QUESTION'S.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What was the date of the promise by the Imperial Government to grant £50,000 on completion of the Esquimalt Dock, a promise referred to in a Paper printed and laid before the Legislature of British Columbia on 7th February 1878, under the title "Graving Dock Correspondence;" what sum has already been expended on the dock at Esquimalt by the province of British Columbia; whether, as a doubt exists as to Esquimalt being the best site for a dock in the Pacific Station, he will state what other site or sites are now available; and, whether, by the Act of Incorporation of British Columbia with the Dominion of Canada in 1871, the Dominion Government is bound to "use its influence to secure the continued maintenance of the Naval Station at Esquimalt?"
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the sanction of the Treasury to a grant of £50,000 to British Columbia on the completion of the Esquimalt Dock was communicated by letter to the Colonial Office from the Admiralty, under date December 19, 1874. The sum expended and the liability incurred on this work by the Province up to December 31 last was $208,998, or, roughly speaking, £41,799. What other sites may be available for a dock on the Pacific Station is a question which I do not think it would be for the advantage of the Public Service that I should discuss. I have only to add that I believe there was an undertaking on the part of the Dominion Government to use its influence to secure the maintenance of the Naval Station at Esquimalt.
  MR. CHILDERSasked, Whether the promise in 1874 was to make a grant or a loan?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there had been a previous promise of £30,000 as a grant on the completion of the docks, and it had since been extended to £50,000.

  BANKING AND JOINT STOCK COMPANIES BILL.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. MUNTZasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill will,
  1712
  when reprinted, give to Limited Banks the power to register with reduced liability, and take advantage of its provisions?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir; it is proposed to meet that point.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked on what day the Committee would be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the re-printed Bill would be circulated by Saturday, and he would put the Committee down for Monday; but he was not quite sure that he would be able to bring it on on that day.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course he intended to take as to the discussion of the Treaty with Afghanistan? As he (Sir George Campbell) had a Notice of Motion on the subject, he would be glad to consult the right hon. Gentleman's convenience.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot name any special day for it; but there will be opportunities for discussing the matter both on the Order for going into Committee of Supply, and on the various stages of the Appropriation Bill.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: But will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on the subject himself, and give us an opportunity of discussing it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No; I am afraid I cannot undertake to do that.
  In reply to Mr. W. E. FORSTER and Mr. NEWDEGATE,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government proposed to take the Public Works Loans Bill at 2 o'clock to-morrow. He was afraid they would have to ask the House to sit on Saturday for the Committee on the Bankruptcy Bill. It would probably be convenient to the House to take the Vote of Credit for the Zulu War on Monday. On Tuesday they proposed to proceed with the Committee on the Irish University Bill.
  MR. FAWCETTbegged to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had promised to give him an opportunity for bringing on his Motion in regard to the water supply of London.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he still intended to do so; but it would be impossible properly to discuss it next Tuesday, or on any other day after 9 o'clock; and, therefore, he proposed to fix a later day, when, it could be taken at an earlier period in the evening. It would not, however, be possible to make sure of obtaining such a day next week.
  SIR HENRY JAMESappealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with the Bankruptcy Bill on Saturday, as most of the lawyers who had seats in the House could not be in attendance on that day.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would consider what arrangement could be made on the subject, and would communicate it to the House.
  MR. M. BROOKSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was a matter of convenience for Irish Members, "Whether the Local Courts of Bankruptcy Bill would be taken on Saturday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Irish Bankruptcy Bill would not be taken on Saturday.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked if it was necessary to have a Morning Sitting on Tuesday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it would be the most convenient course.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
WAYS AND MEANS—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SOUTH AFRICA—ESTIMATE OF EXPENDITURE.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of moving that you do now leave the Chair. It had been in my mind that I might make the few observations I have to make in Committee; but I find that we may, perhaps, be some time before getting into Committee, and I believe it will be more convenient to the House that I should say the few words I have to say now, instead of waiting until we get into Committee. At the same time, I do not understand that it is likely the House will desire now to enter into any discussion of the subject I have to
    1714
    bring before them; but, of course, I am in the hands of the House. I promised some time ago that we would, lay the Estimate for the Vote of Credit that would be required for the War in South Africa on the Table of the House before the close of the month of July, and I am just within my promise, having delayed as long as possible, for the obvious reason that I was anxious to get the latest intelligence, in order to form, as far as possible, an idea of what was likely to be the course and, therefore, the expense of the war. We have not yet received absolutely final intelligence; but we have received intelligence of a character which renders me less indisposed to offer an estimate of what the probable cost of the war will be. I have mentioned more than once in the House that, according to the best calculations we were able to make, we believed that the additional expenditure from the Army Services for the war were at the rate of about £500,000 per month. Recently I have gone with more care into this question, and I have discussed with the Accountant General of the Army, and also the Accountant General of the Navy, all the information that they had at their command, and the result is this—that the War Office calculate that the net cost of the war beyond the sums already provided in the Army Estimates will be covered by £500,000 a-month; and they carry this expenditure at the full rate up to the end of July. From that time it is considered that the expenditure ought to diminish rapidly, although it is probable that it will not come to an end immediately. Therefore, I propose to take a further sum of £450,000 for the possible expenditure on Army account for what might be the remaining period of the war. Then the Navy has given an estimate of £500,000 as the probable cost of transport, and we have allowed a sum of £50,000 for contingencies. Under these circumstances, the Vote of Credit which I shall lay on the Table is for a sum of £3,000,000—that is to say, £2,450,000 for the Army, £500,000 for the Navy, and £50,000 for contingencies. That is the best estimate we can form of what is likely to be required. At the same time, the House is of course aware that in these matters there is room for uncertainty, and that it is impossible to give a complete, full, and accurate account. Reckoning, how-

    1715
    ever, according to the accounts we have received, and also according to the rate of drawing upon the Treasury Chest, I feel perfectly satisfied that a Vote of that character will be, if not sufficient for the whole of the expenses of the war, at all events sufficient for anything that will be required to be provided between this and the next Session of Parliament. I hope it will fully cover the expenditure that will have to be incurred. That being the case, I must remind the House that that expenditure will raise the total amount of expenditure advanced by this country on account of the South African War to something like £4,500,000, including what was voted at the end of last year—I must also remind the House that that expenditure is expenditure which ought not, certainly, to fall in whole upon the Imperial Exchequer. From the earlier period of these transactions, and, indeed, from the period of the previous war which had been going at the Cape—what is called the Transkei War—we have kept before the notice of the Colonial authorities the fact that the advances that were made by this country were not to be considered as admitting that we undertook to bear the whole of these expenses ourselves. I do not know that at the present moment I can very conveniently go into the details of the claims that we think we shall have against the Colonies. The Papers which have been presented to the House, and especially those which have been presented within the last day or two, will show what the views of Her Majesty's Government have been; and I will only at the present moment refer to one or two despatches rather as indicating what they will do well to pay attention to than attempting myself to exhaust this subject. They will see, in Paper No. 2,000, presented last year, that as early as in January, 1878, Lord Carnarvon called the attention of the Cape authorities to the mode in which it would be right and necessary that provision should be made for the expenditure which was then being incurred at the Cape in connection with the Transkei War. Previous to that time, the arrangements with the Cape had been that they made a normal payment of £10,000 a-year to the Imperial Exchequer in respect of the Forces that had been kept there. But in the end of 1877 two additional regiments were sent out
    1716
    to the Cape in connection with the war that was then going on, and it was understood that the Cape should bear their cost, and provision was made in this despatch and others that they should make monthly payments to the Treasury Chest on account of the drafts that might be made upon the Treasury Chest for commissariat and other services. Well, that went on until the Transkei War was over; and it will be seen in the next volume, Command Paper No. 2,374, that on the 8th of August, and again on the 19th of December, my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary wrote despatches calling for an account of the expenditure which had been incurred. The House will also see in the same Papers a Minute—a reply, in fact—from the Cape Government to those statements. They will see that the Cape Ministers informed my right hon. Friend that they had already obtained in one way or another the sum of £1,254,000 towards the expenses of that war. They had taken power to raise a war loan of £750,000, and according to this account they had spent £1,254,000. Then I would direct attention to the last and most important despatch of my right hon. Friend, which is to be found at page 3 of the same Book, in the Correspondence which has been delivered within the last few days—the despatch, dated 12th of June, in which my right hon. Friend points out what the principles are upon which the claims to be made against the Cape Colony are founded. I think it would be inconvenient, at the present moment, to provoke a discussion which I doubt whether the House has any desire to enter into, by going into the details; no doubt, that will be a matter for future discussion; but I would draw attention to these particular despatches, as showing the principle upon which we have proceeded with regard so the Transkei War. Now, with regard to the Zulu War, it will be found that there is not the same amount of information in these Papers; in point of fact, this is a matter which is still too incomplete to enable us to deal with it quite in the same categorical manner. Of course, the Colony which is mainly interested in the Zulu War is the Colony of Natal, and various communications have passed between my right hon. Friend and the authorities at Natal urging upon the Governor there to do

    1717
    all that was in his power to keep down the local expenditure in every way; and also to make provision for the claim that will have to be made upon the Colony of Natal for expenditure incurred on account of Natal out of Imperial funds. With regard to that matter, and, indeed, with regard to the whole question, I may say that general instructions of the strictest character have been given both to Sir Henry Bulwer and to Sir Bartle Frere and, last, to Sir Garnet Wolseley; and, moreover, that it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send one or two officers—the Accountant General of the Army, and probably some gentleman from the Treasury—to go out at once to Natal or the Cape, whichever may be found most convenient, but probably to Natal, in order to examine the accounts, and to see in what way the expenditure can be properly apportioned between the Colonial and Imperial resources. I hope before Parliament re-assembles we shall be in possession of information which will enable us to deal much more satisfactorily with the question than we are able to do at the present moment. Therefore, the net results of what I have at present to say is that we have to provide temporarily for this sum of £3,000,000, which will be required in order to carry us on, as we believe, to the end of the Zulu War. Well, then, I have only to say how that sum affects the finances of the year. The House will bear in mind that at the time of the Budget I estimated the income of the year at £83,055,000. I estimated the ordinary expenditure, excluding anything that might occur from the Zulu War, at £81,155,000, showing at that time a surplus of £1,900,000 of ordinary income over the ordinary Expenditure. Since that time some Supplementary Estimates have been presented to the House, which appear upon the face of them to amount to £89,000, but which, in reality, only amount to £64,000, because the Vote for Cyprus pioneers is merely a transfer from another head of the Estimates. They involve, therefore, an addition of £64,000 to the Estimates of the year. Add to that the Vote of Credit which I shall have to ask on account of the Zulu War, and we get an Expenditure of £84,218,000, showing a deficiency of income of £1,163,000. Well, Sir, the Revenue prospects for the year I cannot say are brilliant; at the
    1718
    same time, they are not so unsatisfactory as to lead to the belief that they will fall short of the Estimate in the long run. The Estimates were very carefully taken; and I have gone through the present financial Returns with the heads of the Revenue Departments, and, upon the whole, I am of opinion that we may fairly reckon at the present time upon the amount of Revenue which we took for our basis in the month of April. I therefore take the deficiency at £1,163,000, and I have to remind the House that there is a sum which we hope and expect to recover from the South African Colonies. We have claims still against them in respect of what was advanced in former years. I therefore think that we may consider that we have only to make a temporary provision for the present loan. Of course, some little time must be taken in ascertaining what the exact outcome of these arrangements will be; but, for the present, I think it will be sufficient that the House should be asked to make temporary provision for this sum by granting to us the privilege and the right of issuing Exchequer Bonds for the amount of £1,200,000. That will cover the amount, and will, I think, bring the Ways and Means of the year up to the amount which is required by the expenditure. I do not, of course, intend to make that proposal in Committee of Ways and Means to-day; but I shall bring it forward probably on Monday—that will depend upon the other Business. What we have to do in Committee to-day will be merely to effect a renewal of those Bonds which are at the present time falling due. I beg to move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.),
    MR. CHILDERSdesired, before the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) introduced his Motion, to make one or two comments upon the Statement just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He assumed that the House would not, on the present occasion, discuss the circumstances which had led to the expenditure for the Transkei and Zulu Wars, or, indeed, discuss in detail the financial position of the Government. But, at

    1719
    the same time, it might be convenient to put one or two figures in a simple form, in order that when they did come to the discussion of the question they might be prepared to do so, not only from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but of those who might not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It was worthy of remark that in the last two years they had had six Financial Statements, instead of two. He assumed that the present Statement would wind up the affairs of the present year; but it almost looked as if they were to have a seventh, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer nearly promised to them at the commencement of the next Session. He wanted to remind the House what the exact state of the case about these six Budgets was. They commenced with an Estimate, in February last year, of £6,000,000 in connection with the War in the East. No Ways and Means were asked for this, which the House was even told might not be spent. Then, in April, came the Budget, which added £3,750,000 to the taxation of last year, and £4,500,000 to that of this year, and they were promised that by the end of this year the new taxes would have wiped out all the additional expenditure. In August came a third Budget, with no new Ways and Means, but additional expenditure of more than £2,000,000. The fourth Statement was in last February, with further expenditure to the extent of £1,100,000. Then came the Budget in April, making the accumulated deficit of the last two years £4,930,000, but hoping that the Zulu War would only cost £1,300,000 more, to be met out of this year's surplus. And now they heard that the Zulu War would cost, up to the meeting of Parliament next February, at least £3,000,000; and that instead of paying off their debts at the end of this year, as the Budget of 1878 promised, they would then be in a deficit of £6,094,000. What, then, should they have done towards paying off the debt for the War in Europe? No one would deny that such an expenditure as that of the Transkei and Zulu Wars, spread over three years, ought to be met out of the Revenue of those years. No one had ever yet proposed to deal with wars of the kind by way of deferred payment; and, therefore, the logical result was that if those two wars were dealt with
    1720
    out of the Revenue of the year they would close the present year without having devoted one sixpence towards the expenses in connection with the War in the East, which just amounted to £6,000,000, the deficit at the end of this year. They would have to begin again on the 1st of April next, spreading that payment over a series of years. Now, even if the basis of the present Budget could be trusted, the future surplus would be less than £2,000,000, and probably not much more than £1,000,000, so that on the 1st of April of next year they would start with a system of deferred payment for three, four, or five years. Whether that was sound finance or not he declined now to discuss; but he thought the House would clearly see what the effect of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was. The right hon. Gentleman told them that they might expect to get some of the money back from the Colonies. He had read with great interest the Papers which came before the House on the previous day, and he thought they set forth very fairly the claim of the English Government upon the Colonies; and he should not say anything which would tend to deter the Colonies from complying with the request of the English Government. But it must be remembered that the Cape Colonists had said that they had spent £1,200,000, and that they did not intend to contribute any more. He hoped, however, that they would find it necessary to do so. He was not inclined to say much upon the Estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the outcome of the present year; but he felt bound to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, at the present time, the state of Customs and Excise Revenues was very nearly as bad as at the time when, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), he said that, though they looked unsatisfactory, the returns would soon show much amendment. He considered, however, that the point to which he had drawn attention—namely, that not a farthing of the expense incurred in connection with the War in Europe had been met out of the Revenue of the last three years—required to be seriously weighed.
    SIR ROBERT PEELthought it would have been far better if the speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman

    1721
    (Mr. Childers) had been deferred to another and more suitable opportunity, inasmuch as it consisted mainly in a discussion of the financial proposals of the Government during the last few years. What he (Sir Robert Peel) rose to call attention to was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had most distinctly promised the House that, in the course of the present month, they should have an opportunity of discussing the whole of the affairs which had taken place in connection with South Africa. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given Notice that he would, in Committee of Ways and Means, proceed to move certain Resolutions; but it appeared now that, without giving Notice, he had adopted a different plan, and he did not know that precluded hon. Members from entering into a discussion on Zulu affairs. The other day, when he attempted to draw attention to certain matters in connection with South Africa, he was told that he would have every opportunity to do so when the Estimate was proposed; but it appeared him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rather slurred over the promise he had made, to give the House a full opportunity of discussing the question, and he trusted the House would at once go into Committee and discuss the points raised by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the Zulu War was only to cost £4,500,000; but those who were in the House at the commencement of the Abyssinian War would remember that they were told that the war was only to cost £3,000,000, when it really cost £9,000,000. No one in the House or in the country would believe that this miserable, mismanaged war in South Africa would only cost the taxpayers of this country £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his remarks, had made use of the word "additional" expenditure. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to add that additional expenditure to what had been already incurred?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: What I meant by additional expenditure was the expenditure over and above the ordinary Army and Navy Votes.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that that showed what an appalling state of things
    1722
    they had come to; it showed how dangerous it was to trust to these flimsy remarks without bringing them to book. In addition to what had been already voted, which was large enough, they were now told the present Votes were additional ones; and, in spite of the pledge given to the House, it was proposed to drive off the debate until next week. The state of affairs was most serious, and yet they were not to be allowed to discuss them. He really thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound in honour to bring on the discussion at once. He would appeal to the Government whether the present was not the most fitting opportunity to discuss the subject? He had come down to the House prepared to go most fully into the matter, and he had no doubt hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House had done the same. He thought the country ought to know, without further delay, what was the state of affairs; and he, therefore, trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to discuss the matter at once.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I may say, by way of personal explanation, that I stated some time ago that we would present this Estimate, and, having given Notice that it would be presented to-day, I was asked by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and others, whether we would bring the matter forward and allow it to be discussed; but I gathered from the tone in which the inquiry was made that it was not desired that the discussion should take place to-day. I, therefore, did not bring the Vote forward, because I really thought it would be for the convenience of the House not to vote it to-day.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid he, personally, should have preferred that the debate should have gone on that night; but they all clearly understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not to be proceeded with.

  THE INDIAN MUSEUM.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, I rise to call attention to the threatened dispersion of the Indian Museum, and to put forward some considerations which may, I would fain hope, incline the Secretary of State in Council to re-consider the

    1723
    determination lately come to, even if the hon. Gentleman opposite sees it his duty to oppose the Motion with, which I shall conclude. I have the more hope that this will be so, because the recent decision is in flagrant opposition to other decisions not long since come to by the Secretary of State in Council; so that, in holding its hand, and not dispersing the collections, the India Office will only be reverting to its own earlier, and, as I venture to think, wiser ideas. The Indian Museum was established by the Great Company in 1798, and was the outcome of the same movement of mind which gave to our earlier Indian statesmen so prominent a place amongst Orientalists. That being so, it was natural that the first character impressed upon it should be a learned and antiquarian one. After some time, however, it passed into the care of Dr. Horsfield, who, being himself a naturalist of repute, gave more prominence to Natural History and Science. Later still, it came under the charge of Dr. Royle, who thought less of the promotion of learning or of science in the abstract, and more of direct commercial utility. He it was who developed the economical side of the Indian Museum. When, in 1860, with these three characters impressed upon it—at once learned, scientific, and helpful to trade—it passed from its original home in Leadenhall Street, the authorities at first intended to provide a really fitting home for it in or near the new India Office buildings which were begun shortly after. In 1865 a piece of land was acquired to be available for extending the India Office, and in 1868 the architect received orders from the then Secretary of State, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to prepare plans for an Indian Museum and Library, to be built on that piece of ground. The same idea found favour with my noble Friend the Duke of Argyll, who went to the India Office in the December of that year, and in the June of 1869 everything seemed about to be settled, when a telegram came from Lord Mayo, giving very bad financial intelligence, which stopped for a while any further progress. From this time forward, for several years, the plan of building an Indian Museum and Library, with rooms for the Asiatic Society close to the India Office, remained in abeyance—while we endea-
    1724
    voured, not without success, to retrieve the finances—but was very far indeed from being laid aside. Meantime, a portion of the Museum was exhibited from the beginning of 1870 onwards in very wretched and unsuitable rooms at the top of the India Office. After right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power, the question was again considered, and on the 25th of June, 1874, the Council of India passed the following Resolution:—
    "Resolved, that it be determined to build on the vacant ground in Charles Street a museum and library, at an expenditure not exceeding £75,000, including internal fittings, with such assistance as can be obtained from the Imperial Government; and that during the construction of the building the offer of the Exhibition Commissioners be accepted to accommodate the museum at South Kensington on a short lease, renewable if desired."
    Then followed a long negotiation with the Treasury as to how much the Indian Government ought to pay, and how much the Treasury ought to pay, which led to no definite result, and, in the meantime, the unlucky Museum, banished from its uncomfortable but central rooms in the India Office, was set out in galleries at South Kensington, far away from the full tide of human existence in this great town. So it has remained to this day, while various plans have been agitated with reference to its future, the last and worst of which is the plan of breaking it up and handing over its disjecta membra to the British Museum, to South Kensington, and to Kew. Now, I have not a word to say against the desirability of these great collections possessing a variety of Indian articles. Doubtless, such articles would fit most excellently into many of their departments. Nor am I concerned to say that there may not be many articles now in the Indian Museum which would not be more in their place at the British Museum, at Kew, or at South Kensington. I should be quite willing to see the Indian Museum part with a good many of its contents to these institutions for a fair price; but I do most strongly object to collections bought with Indian money, or presented by Indians, or Anglo-Indians, for the express purpose of increasing the knowledge of India in this country, being given away to institutions which have as much and as little to do with India as they have with Patagonia or Kamschatka, Why, the Indian Mu-

    1725
    seum is now valued at £200,000. If the India Government is really so bad off that it cannot afford to pay for the looking after its collections, would not it be better to sell the whole thing and put the money into the Indian Treasury? The hon. Gentleman opposite will tell us that if he and those whom he represents succeed in dispersing the Museum they will have an eventual saving of £9,000 a-year. That saving, Sir, will be, I dare venture to say, most uncommonly eventual, for it will only be arrived at after the death of a number of persons who are, I am happy to say, likely to have a prolonged existence; but if they sell the whole thing it will be not much more inglorious, and in every way more profitable; for the British Museum, and South Kensington, and Kew will, no doubt, secure what they most want; and the other articles will many of them also find their way into good keeping; while the Secretary of State will put money into his purse, and be able to comfort himself with the old saying of Vespasian. There is, however, another plan which ought to be considered before anything irrevocable is done. Just about the time that certain difficulties arose with regard to building an Indian Museum on the piece of land which was acquired by the India Office in 1865—difficulties to which I need not further allude, for they have no bearing on the present state of the question—a communication came to the India Office from a Committee which was then sitting at the Colonial Office, with reference to the possibility of uniting their efforts and erecting a Museum for India and the Colonies. Out of this suggestion grew the project associated with the name of Dr. Forbes Watson, the project of a joint Museum for India and the Colonies, in a central situation, close to this House, in the midst of the full tide of human existence. The first site suggested was that of Fife House, and I put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that site several years ago. Now, there seems available a somewhat better site rather nearer the place where we are now assembled. The idea which finds favour with a great many persons is to place the India Museum on the site of the building which used to be occupied by the Board of Control. Alongside the Museum, which would extend back to the roadway of the Em-
    1726
    bankment, would run a short street, on the other side of which would rise the Colonial Museum, which would be connected with the India Museum by a subway, but be under the control of the Colonial Office, as the other would be under that of the India Office or its Representative. In the Indian Museum building would be located the Indian Museum, the India Office Library—always excepting the departmental portion of it—and the rooms of the Asiatic Society, which now receives £205 a-year from Indian Revenues, a payment which would, of course, determine when the heavy burden of rent was taken off the shoulders of that deserving and famous, but by no means wealthy, corporation. In the Colonial Museum buildings there would be—first, the Museum proper; secondly, an adequate Colonial Library; and, thirdly, rooms for the Agents General, who have now to pay a very large sum annually for accommodation in the neighbourhood of this House. It always seems a most surprising thing to foreigners, and it would seem a most surprising thing to ourselves, if we were not so broken into anomalies of all sorts, that there is no place in this City where can be obtained anything like an adequate idea of what sort of places the English Colonies and Dependencies really are. Why, it is extremely difficult even for ourselves, for Members of Parliament with every sort of social advantage, to get anything like a good idea of the actualities of a Colony. Supposing any of us wanted, for example, to get an accurate notion of the present state of Tasmania, he would find it anything but an easy task, even after putting himself in communication with our Librarian here, and with the Geographical Society. There are, it must be remembered, a variety of questions which have nothing to do with politics, which persons not directly supporting whatever Government happens to be for the moment in power would be unwilling to trouble the Colonial Office with, and even if they did the Colonial Office has not the appliances or organization necessary for supplying such information at all generally. We want a place to which not only Members of Parliament and other privileged persons, but all persons, can go and learn, without cost and without trouble, what our Colonies and Dependencies are, where they are,

    1727
    what sort of things they produce, what chances the inquirers or persons in whom they may be interested have of bettering their condition or pushing their fortunes in those countries, what attractive advertisements with regard to our Colonies and Dependencies are mere wills-o'-the-wisp, what little-known and unregarded resources of wealth there may be in those regions which have not yet received bold advertisement. What we want is a place, to the creation of which the Mother Country on the one hand, her Colonies and Dependencies on the other, shall contribute, the object of which shall be to bring them nearer each to each for the common advantage of all. It appears to me that there is hardly any knowledge which is more likely to be useful to a British citizen, whether born in the Colonies, India, or at Home, than a wide knowledge of the gigantic Empire to which he belongs. That knowledge, and the feelings that naturally come of if, are true Imperialism, the best antidote to false Imperialism, the "bloody meddlesomeness," which is the offspring of ignorance, at the centre of affairs, acted on by self-seeking on the far-off Frontiers of the Empire. How many of us, however—even of us, I say, in this great and powerful Assemblage—have adequate knowledge of these things? Is there one of us that has? I very much doubt it. There are hon. and right hon. Members who know individual Colonies and Dependencies well. There are Anglo-Indians, there are Australians amongst us. There are some hon. Members who have made a rapid journey through many of the Colonies and Dependencies. One hon. Member, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), has written very brilliantly about not a few of them; but that was more than a decade ago, and a decade in the self-governing Colonies is an eternity. The late Sir Arthur Helps used to tell a story which is worth repeating. At one moment, when Lord Palmerston was making some arrangements for filling up vacant Offices, a difficulty arose as to who was to be Colonial Secretary. Lord Palmerston said—"I think I'll take the Office myself;" and the other people who were present, immediately after taking their leave, he said to Sir Arthur—"Just stay a little with me, and we'll look at the
    1728
    maps and see where these places are." Well, of course, that was rather a caricature of the state of his Lordship's mind; but is it not, nevertheless, perfectly and painfully true—I put it to every man who hears me on both sides if it is not true—that, considering our enormous power and our enormous responsibilities, we all know a great deal too little about our Colonies and Dependencies? Nor do I see how it can ever be otherwise unless, in some perfectly accessible place where he who runs may read, we have brought before us without any investigation, nay, actually forced upon our notice, the actualities of these countries. Persons, Sir, who walk in the dark will inevitably stumble, and we deal in our Colonies and Dependencies with interests so gigantic that we can hardly make the smallest stumble without its costing us more in hard money than it would cost to keep up such an institution as I contemplate for 10 years, considerable though the cost would no doubt be. I may be told, however, that these views are the views merely of a small section of persons who have a belief in knowledge—a most unpopular belief in some quarters—or take a special interest in India and the Colonies. I deny that in toto. They are, I maintain, views, views very largely prevailing amongst the commercial classes of this country. Indeed, it was the mercantile community which first put into practice the principle which I am defending, of co-operation between England and her Dependencies in matters important to the material prosperity of both. For the mercantile community subscribed no less a sum than £2,700 towards the publication of the textile work which the India Office put forth for the purpose—first, of showing to England what lovely textile fabrics could be procured in India; and, secondly, of enabling England to emulate the perfection that had been attained by Indian artists. To show that the principles of the mercantile community are as good as their practice, I will, with the permission of the House, read one or two extracts from the very numerous memorials which have been sent to Her Majesty's Government from Chambers of Commerce, cities, towns, and important Associations in the United Kingdom, all urging that England should aid the Colonies and India

    1729
    in securing the establishment of the proposed Museums on the Embankment. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce says—
    "That your memorialists warmly approve a proposal, recently brought under their notice, for combining -within the same building a Colonial and an Indian Museum, thereby establishing an Imperial Museum for the Colonies and India for the supply of complete illustrations of the products and manufactures of our British Dependencies. That an institution of this character would supply important advantages and confer benefits not alone on India and the Colonies, but also upon this country; and, in the opinion of your memorialists, such an institution would be entitled to a liberal grant from Imperial funds in aid of its establishment."
    The Bradford Chamber of Commerce says—
    "That your memorialists have noticed with great satisfaction the scheme of a really Imperial establishment, embracing India as well as the Colonies, and combining museums, libraries, lectures, offices, and all requirements for study, art, commerce, industry, and government, in one central building, erected at the joint expense of the Mother Country and her Dependencies. That your memorialists believe that such an undertaking, to be of real use to the merchant, the manufacturer, and the student, should have a central position at no great distance from the Government Offices and the city, owith easy access to visitors from the country."
    The Bristol Chamber of Commerce says—
    "That in the present depression of commerce, and the scarcity of sound investments for absorbing the savings of the country, it is the highest policy to make as widely known as possible the resources of India and the Colonies, which experience has proved to be more reliable in their business relations with us than those of the majority of foreign countries can be said to be, and which, although, they already take about one-third of all our exports, and have afforded safe investments to probably more than £300,000,000 sterling of English capital, still possess boundless capabilities for further development."
    The United Association of Chambers of Commerce says—
    "That the proposal now before the public for the establishment of an Indian and a Colonial Museum on the old Fife House site on the Victoria Embankment has the approval of this Association. That as, in the opinion of the Association, the proposed Museums are likely to be of great benefit to England, as well as to India and the Colonies, one-half of the expenditure required for establishing them, as also for their future maintenance, should be paid by this country; that as, in the opinion of this Association, the selection of the site for the proposed Museums will have a decisive influence on their future usefulness, no plan will be at all satisfactory which does not secure their establishment in a central position, where they will be easily
    1730
    accessible to all classes, commercially or politically interested in India and the Colonies. And further, that, in the opinion of this Association, the proposed site on the Victoria Embankment satisfies all the required conditions."
    The following resolutions were unanimously adopted at a meeting held in the Egyptian Hall in the Mansion House:—1st. Proposed by the Eight Hon. E. Pleydell Bouverie, seconded by Philip Twells, Esq., M.P.—
    "That, in the opinion of this meeting, it is expedient to establish in London an Imperial Museum for the Colonies and India, and that such a Museum should be placed in a central position, easily accessible to all classes, whether political, commercial, or industrial."
    2nd resolution. Proposed by Alexander M'Arthur, Esq., M. P., seconded by Hugh Matheson, Esq.—
    "That the proposal to establish such a Museum on the Victoria Embankment has the warm approval of this meeting; and that, as the proposed Museum is calculated to be of great use to this country as well as to India and the Colonies, it is the opinion of this meeting that Her Majesty's Government should take the necessary steps to aid in securing its establishment on that site."
    I could go on quoting for the next hour or two the opinions of influential bodies of mercantile men upon this subject; but I think, Sir, I have done enough to show that the commercial classes take a great interest in the scheme of a united Indian and Colonial Museum. But I should like it to be distinctly understood that although I think it would be greatly to the advantage of this country, of its Colonies and Dependencies, that we should have such a Museum, and although I have no doubt that if the Government would take the initiative the Colonies would do their part, I am not attempting to get the House to come to any Resolution on this subject at present. What I am pleading for is delay. I am most unwilling that while this scheme is being discussed in the country, while men's minds are becoming more and more accustomed to the idea of its being necessary to have what may be called an object-index to the British Empire in the Metropolis of the British Empire, India should, by a hurried and ill-considered step, be put at a disadvantage. If she disperse her Museum now she will most assuredly be obliged to repent at leisure, and to re-collect it when she happens to have Rulers more persuaded of the importance of visual teaching

    1731
    than are those who now direct her destinies. Visual teaching is becoming every day more popular. In all directions we hear the complaint that education has long dealt too much with words, too little with things. If I were asked what I thought the greatest fault of our Indian Civil Service, for which I have a very high admiration—an admiration greatly increased by having seen it at work in India—I should say that its greatest fault was a want of power to learn by the eye, a want of curiosity about the objects in the midst of which it passed its life. That cannot continue under the influence of the new educational ideas which are abroad; and before a generation is over, if the Museum is really broken up and dispersed, the names of the men who broke up and dispersed the Indian Museum will be remembered with execrations from one end of the Peninsula to the other. I doubt whether it would be possible to make a better investment of Indian money than by conveying a real feeling for India to a really large portion of the British public. Why, what is the only accusation that can truly be brought against us as a nation in our dealings with India? The English are just, say our foreign critics, but they are not sympathetic. How, then, can their sympathy be aroused? We cannot take millions of our people to India, even in this day of travelling facilities; but we can bring India to millions of our people—that is to say, we can bring the picturesque, interesting side of India into the midst of them. We can do a great deal to make them proud of ruling the races which raised the temples of Southern India, and the Jumma-Masjid, and the Pearl Mosque at Agra, and that wonderful Taj Mahal, which leaves all the other marvels of human architecture, except the Parthenon, at so great a distance. There was a time when much could be done by the cry of justice to India. In the days of Burke, God knows! there was reason enough for it. Very little can, I think, be effected by that cry now; for, having had occasion to look at the relations of the two countries from the Indian and English side, and more from the English than the Indian side, I have come, as I said the other day, to the conclusion that if we are to be guided by bare justice, and not by kindly feeling towards India, the
    1732
    demands made upon her by England for establishments kept up for the joint advantage of the two Empires will not be less, but greater. The time will come when the constituencies will begin to realize this, and when they do—if we have not succeeded in creating in the mass of the people something very like a romantic interest in India, and further, in stimulating the power of India to produce things of all kinds, useful to the world, which are not easily to be provided elsewhere, which things she may exchange against our products to our mutual advantage—shall we not one day be asked in very angry tones—What is the real case for our continuing to hold India? Now, I want to know by what possible process we can create the kind of interest in India, which I would fain see, except by making quite familiar to England all that is most beautiful, and useful, and interesting in India? And how can we do that without some such institution as I am sketching—an institution to which may be given the name of Indian Museum, or anything else, but for which the present Indian Museum and Library, after proper sifting, would form an excellent nucleus? But, it is said, India is wretchedly, abjectly poor. She cannot do anything but exist. She cannot afford to have any of the higher adjuncts and instruments of government. That I utterly deny. That is just as foolish an exaggeration as was the exaggeration of those who generalized the stories they heard of the splendour of the Great Mogul, and believed that India was a country where gold and diamonds were as common as iron and flint among us. The simple truth is that India can afford everything which it is primarily important should be possessed by a State in her circumstances. And I maintain that such a Museum as I wish to see established is of primary importance to a State in her circumstances. She must be economical; she cannot afford anything like luxurious expenditure; but as little can she afford that short-sighted parsimony which robs to-morrow of a pound to save a penny to-day. What case can be made in favour of breaking up the Museum which cannot also be made against getting rid of the library, in so far as it is not a mere departmental library? If Vandalism is to be the order of the day, why not carry it

    1733
    through, all proceedings? Is it, perhaps, that this proposed selling of the Museum is not a well-considered piece of policy, but a mere impatient cutting of an official knot, which it is the business of the Secretary of State in Council not to cut, but to unwind? The Under Secretary of State, in reply to me, will not be able to make anything of the expense of the present Museum. It may be that that expense is too great; if so, diminish it; but a large diminution of the expense is entirely compatible with keeping together everything in the Museum which ought to be kept together, and I believe we shall learn, in the course of this debate, that overtures have been made to the Indian Government with a view to the keeping together of the Museum at a diminished cost. Nor is anything to be made against my contention by saying that India ought not to be at the sole expense of keeping up a Museum in London. I think I could prove that if the Museum had been put on the footing and located in the place which would have best suited it, it might have been well worth India's while to have kept it up at her own expense. But that is not the proposition for which I am now contending. I am contending merely that nothing rash should now be done which may prevent India's coming to an arrangement with the Imperial Government for a joint keeping up of a Museum which may be for the joint benefit of the whole Empire. Anyone who likes it may ring the changes upon the poverty of India as much as seems to him good; but he will in no sort of way touch my argument unless he can succeed in showing the uselessness of an Indian Museum, arranged according to the best modern principles, and explained as all Museums intended primarily for the instruction of the people—and not, like the British Museum, primarily to advance the science and knowledge possessed by the leading minds of humanity—should be explained, by trained instructors, as they are in Copenhagen, the only city in which, so far as I am aware, museums are thoroughly worked for popular instruction. If anyone can succeed in demonstrating that I have no more to say, except that if he succeeds he will upset a great many other things beside the Indian Museum. He will, in fact, turn back one of the most powerful currents of the age—that which is
    1734
    running in favour of teaching the people not exclusively by words, but also by things. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "having regard alike to the traditions of our rule in India and to the expediency of establishing, at an early period, by the joint action of the Mother Country, its Colonies, and Dependencies, an institution in which the productions of all those Colonies and Dependencies should be adequately represented, it is undesirable that the Indian Museum, collected at great cost by the East India Company, and taken over by the Crown, should now be broken up and distributed,"—(Mr. Grant Duff,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON, as one of the general public interested in the Indian Museum, and also as one interested in the history and archaeology of that country, where he had travelled, desired to say a few words in support of the Motion. It would be most short-sighted policy on the part of the Government to abolish or disperse the collection, because it was impossible to make the people of this country properly acquainted with the size, wealth, and resources of the Indian Empire, unless they had an opportunity of seeing a Museum which illustrated those facts; and no scheme would be satisfactory which separated it from the library. The reason why so few persons visited the Indian collections at South Kensington was that they were placed in galleries, the approaches to which contained nothing to attract people or direct them further. Nothing could be so fatal to the objects of the Museum as to relegate it to Kew, which was too remote for popular as distinct from scientific interest. The Indian Museum ought to be in an easily accessible part of the Metropolis, and within a short distance of the library, so that both products and books could be referred to without difficulty. The Commissioners could not promote science and art more legitimately than by allowing the collections to remain at South Kensington rent-free until an arrangement could be come to between the Treasury and the India Office. A sum

    1735
    of £10,000 a-year, divided between the two countries, would be well laid out in the establishment of a Museum in a central part of the Metropolis, and it would be amply repaid by our increased knowledge of the manufactures and products of India, and by the greater interest the people of this country would take in that country. It would be very short-sighted to break up a valuable Museum for the sake of saving that sum. When Indian objects had been exhibited at Manchester and Derby they excited great popular interest; and some of our textile fabrics, such as hangings and carpets, had been greatly improved by the study of Indian manufactures. If it were worth while for India to be represented at International Exhibitions, it was surely worth while that it should have a permanent exhibition in this country.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he did not desire to dispute the abstract advantages of Museums in general, nor of an Indian and Colonial Museum in particular; but he thought the question of cost and its incidence were somewhat lost sight of. He attended the City meeting, at which, after two hours of speaking, being asked to say a few words, he expressed a desire to move an addition to the Resolution to the effect that the cost of the Museum should be borne by England, and not by India. But this was not entertained, because it was said the question of cost did not concern the meeting. It did, however, concern this House, and the way to bring it home was to consider what would be said if England were asked to bear the cost of maintaining corresponding Museums of English products in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. This debate furnished an illustration of the difficulties to be encountered by any Government that desired to reduce Indian expenditure. It was easy to preach economy in the abstract; but every application of the doctrine would provoke objections from some advocates of expenditure who would say—"Look somewhere else for economy." In the event of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs being adopted, he would move at the end of the Question the following words—
    "And this House is further of opinion that if it should he decided, in opposition to the recommendation of the Indian Government, to main-
    1736
    tain the Indian Museum in London, the expense of such a Museum ought to he borne by England, and not by India."
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he had much sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Hackney(Mr. Fawcett), but did not agree with him to the full extent of the recommendation he had made to the House. The Council of India were not a good body to maintain and conduct the Museum, and had shown much vacillation of purpose in regard to it. Nevertheless, such a Museum was extremely valuable, and the question was whether some method could not be devised whereby the large charge of £9,450 a-year on the finances of India might be largely diminished? He believed that £7,500 was the amount of the legitimate Museum expenses. Such a Museum was of great importance to our Indian Empire in two senses—in a political sense, and in an industrial sense. It was of great importance in a political sense that the masters of India—this country—should take an interest in her history, in her manners, her social habits, and in her industrial relations and manufactures; and, surely, there could be nothing more likely to interest this country than a well-organized and properly illustrated Museum, by which we could understand how much civilization had advanced in that country, and see that the Natives were by no means the barbarians we considered them. In an industrial sense, the Museum had a double use. It was useful to India, because England was a great customer of India, and it was well that there should be a complete picture of the products of India in a country which bought most of India's goods and manufactures. It was useful to England, because of the advantage it gave in the display of Oriental art and designs, from which our manufacturers benefited. Therefore, this was not an English or an Indian question alone, but a question of joint interest, and it was acknowledged that it was so in 1875, when the Treasury intimated to the India Office that they would be prepared to consider the necessity of furnishing, at the joint expense of England and India, such a Museum. He had gone into the question of expense with those who had considerable knowledge of museums; and he believed that, instead of the absurd sum of £7,500 a-year, the cost of conducting this Indian Museum should only be

    1737
    £2,000. If the Government asked the Department of Science and Art, they would find that the Museum could be managed and much improved for that sum. Then came the question of rental. Much had been said about the bad position of South Kensington, and the desirability of having the Museum in a central position; but such a position could not be had without incurring an expense which neither Government cared to incur at present. The question was, whether they could not by simple and moderate means avoid scattering the Museum, at least, for a few years, until the finances of both countries were in a better position? Being a Member of the Executive Committee of the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851, he could state—and he was revealing no secret in saying so—that the Royal President (the Prince of Wales) had written to the Prime Minister offering, on the part of the Commissioners, to make facilities for keeping the collection as long as it was considered desirable in their buildings, at a very great reduction of the rent, should the Government desire it. If the Museum was not, at present, as popular as it might be, there was no wonder, because there were no catalogues, and nothing to make things intelligible. He was sure that by the payment of £2,000 a-year on the part of the Indian Government the Museum could be put on a sound basis for a number of years; and he hoped the Government would convince the Indian Government that this was not the time to scatter a Museum of this kind.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEadded his earnest request to the Under Secretary of State for India not to adhere to so pitiful a policy as the dissolution of our national Indian collection. Let it not go out to the art-collecting nations of Europe—to Paris, Vienna, and St. Petersburg—that for £2,000 a year we had dispersed an unique Museum of the history, arts, and productions of that Dependency which was our special boast and the envy of the world. What would be the inference? That England must be very hard up, on the very verge of bankruptcy, if she should allow such a thing to be done. One stroke of the pen might disperse the Museum; but what would ever bring it together again? As his hon. Friend the Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) had
    1738
    pointed out, there was a sentiment in the thing. This Museum was 80 years old. It went back to the great days of the Wellesleys, to the traditionary history of India. What effect must the dispersion have upon the Native mind, which was so much more accessible to sentiment than logic? As a student of art, as one who loved science, he must implore the Government not to have set against its name the black mark of having dispersed a Museum which had been ripening and growing for more than 80 years—that was, since we could call India especially our own.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that there was not the slightest objection on the part of the gentlemen connected with India that this collection should be kept together. The great difficulty the Indian Government had felt in this matter had been due to the grand and costly character of the proposed plan for placing the Museum on the Thames Embankment, and the doubt as to who was to bear the cost. The real question was on whose shoulders was the burden to fall, and the two Governments might determine to meet each other on this subject. He regretted that the question should be mixed up with the larger question of a Colonial Museum, from which, it stood quite apart. If the various Colonies came forward to join in such a scheme, well and good; but now the question they had really to consider was this India Museum. He deprecated in the strongest way any shirking of the expense of maintaining this collection from economical motives. If that were once encouraged, he feared that the next proposal would be to get rid of the library. If the Government were willing to take the collection into the British Museum and into South Kensington, he trusted that by-and-bye the difficulty with respect to the cost of a building would not be insuperable, and that the ratepayers of this country would not refuse to bear a part of the expense. He sincerely hoped the collection would not be hastily dispersed; but that time would be taken for the consideration of some plan.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERagreed with those hon. Gentlemen who had urged the Government not to allow the Museum to be dispersed, for, if that was the case, "All the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men" would never put the

    1739
    Indian Museum together again. In the India Office there were a number of interesting pictures representing Shah Jehan, Aurungzebe, and other former Rulers of India. He suggested that in the re-arrangement of the India Museum those pictures should be placed in a proper position where the public could see them.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped this short discussion would have a practical result. At present, the sum of £9,000 a-year was paid at the expense of India to keep up a Museum which he believed was as good as it appeared to be badly managed. This was not a state of things to be regarded with any pleasure. In his opinion, it was rather mean to make the Indian Government pay for the maintenance of the Museum if it felt unable to do so. On the other hand, the Indian Government proposed to break up the Museum, and he should be very sorry to see that happen. Such a result would, in his judgment, be disadvantageous both to England and to India. Perhaps his hon. Friend (Mr. Grant Duff) might have exaggerated the advantages of the Museum; but, still, we ought not altogether to disregard them. By object-lessons of this kind we kept up popular and public interests; and when we were considering the interests of India we must bear in mind that it was the English people who ruled India, and that it was desirable that they should have everything which would give them an intelligent interest in the welfare of India. The exhibition of those ancient monuments of India, and other works of Indian art, would keep up that interest, and make us feel what our duties were towards the enormous population of India. That alone appeared to him to furnish very good grounds for not breaking up the India Museum. The proposal of the Under Secretary involved an enormous reduction as compared with the total amount expended on the Museum; because, instead of expending £9,000, it was proposed to expend only £2,000. It would be decidedly to the interest of India if this Museum were kept up for a few years, rather than that it should be broken up and scattered. The question was, how that plan could be carried out? If the Museum were placed under the direction of the Department of Science and Art, it would be in the hands
    1740
    of a body who really understood how it might be improved. They knew very well that the South Kensington Museum was almost the most popular place in the world. He had no doubt if the Trustees of the Museum had the management of the India Museum they would make it far more attractive, and therefore far more useful, than it was at the present moment. He therefore hoped the Government would not pledge themselves to prevent this offer from being taken fully into consideration. On the other hand, he did not think it a right thing that India should, pay this £9,000 for the Museum, seeing the very little benefit she had received from it. He quite sympathized with the hon. Member for Hackney that the House of Commons ought not to check the Indian Government in effecting economies; and he hoped, if this offer was found to answer, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be unwilling to allow the £2,000 to be paid out of the English Exchequer towards the maintenance of this important Museum.
    MR. E. STANHOPEremarked, that the operative part of the hon. Gentleman's Resolution referred specially to the Indian Museum; but the remainder of his Resolution, and the greater part of his speech, referred to a scheme of a far wider character. It was a great Imperial scheme, and was part of the scheme put forward originally by Dr. Forbes Watson, whose imagination had soared so high as to lead him to propose the establishment, on the most expensive site in London, of a great Museum to be mainly paid for by India, where lectures were to be delivered, and he did not know what else done at the expense of the unfortunate taxpayers of India. That scheme had met with a great deal of approval in some quarters in that House; but whether it were realized or not it would not be fair to charge, and he did not believe the people of England would ever charge, the cost upon the Revenues of India. The hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs said that if such a plan were to be carried into effect the co-operation of the Asiatic Society might be relied upon. The belief at the India Office was that the reason why the Asiatic Society had not been able to make greater advances was because this visionary scheme of a central Museum was being constantly dangled before

    1741
    the eyes of the public. He believed that if such an idea were knocked on the head private enterprize would come forward, and endeavours would be made at once to enlarge the scope of the Asiatic Society and put some of its functions on a more satisfactory basis. The hon. Member said that if we did not adopt his scheme we ought to sell the Museum and thus get rid of it. That was not, however, the view taken by the Secretary of State for India, who attached great value to this collection, and who believed that the great objects which he, and he believed most Members of that House, had at heart could be secured, without any cost to the Revenues of India, by the scheme which he was now considering. What was the condition of the Indian Museum at the present time? Practically, in spite of its great interest, it was very little visited. The proposal under the consideration of the Secretary of State for India was altogether misunderstood by several hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in this debate. The objects of that proposal were—first, to make the Museum more generally useful to the public; and, secondly, to make portions of the collection available to different localities of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, where they could be seen to advantage. Lastly, they wished to effect those objects without any charge on the Revenues of India. When they came to consider the scheme there were one or two points on which there would be no difference of opinion. Hardly anybody would dispute that it would be much to the advantage of the economic section of the collection that it should be transferred to Kew. At Kew, under the charge and the skilled direction of Sir Joseph Hooker, who had already an admirable collection of similar objects relating to India, the public would have before them a complete exhibition of that class of the products of India. Kew was a place which was visited every year by many thousands of persons, and it was not less accessible than South Kensington. Then they came to the zoological part of the collection. When the Natural History Museum was finished at South Kensington it would be to everybody's advantage to transfer to the authorities at South Kensington, and make as complete as possible, the zoological collection; and it would be hardly desirable that they should keep up their
    1742
    small collection of stuffed birds and animals where they had no persons properly qualified to explain them. They then came to the remainder of the collection. The plan adopted by the Secretary of State in Council was to appoint a Special Committee of the India Office to consider the best means of carrying out the objects he had just indicated. That Committee would be very glad to receive suggestions from those who wished to offer any. They would read with great interest what had been said in the House to-night, and he hoped that Gentlemen taking a special interest in portions of the collection, like the hon. Member for Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton), would kindly communicate with them on the matter and give them the benefit of their experience and advice. But the instructions which the Secretary of State had given to that Committee were that they should do everything in their power, in the recommendations which they might make to him, to retain the special Indian character of that collection. It might have been desirable to transfer the whole of the collection bodily to the British Museum, the authorities of which would be glad to take it upon the condition of giving it a distinctively Indian character; but that idea was not entertained by the Secretary of State for India as the best course to be adopted, because he had in view another plan, which was that certain portions of the collection—certain duplicates—ought to be made available for the local Museums in the Provinces. There was no possible means at the British Museum for carrying out such an object as that; but at South Kensington they had a machinery ready to their hand for the purpose. It had been suggested—and the suggestion was now before the Special Committee to which he had referred—that the ancient sculptures which were of a similar description to those already exhibited at the British Museum should be transferred to the British Museum, and that the illustrations of contemporary art should be transferred to the South Kensington authorities. But they were now told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 were about to make an offer as to what they were prepared to do towards meeting the objects of the Secretary of State in Council, and he understood that the Com-

    1743
    missioners were prepared to reduce very considerably the rent charged for the building in which the Museum, was at present placed. That was a proposal which should properly be submitted to the Committee which was now sitting; but he was not prepared to say that the Secretary of State would entertain any proposal that £2,000 a-year should be taken from the Indian Revenues for the maintenance of that Museum. When the right hon. Gentleman talked of its being perfectly easy to keep up that Museum at the rate of £2,000 a-year he appeared to overlook the miscellaneous character of the Museum they had now. Take the coins, for example. What was the use of having a collection of coins when they had nobody who was at all competent to give them advice as to arranging and improving the collection?
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRexplained, that what he had said was that the administration at South Kensington could do it for £2,000.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: That was a point which would be considered by the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State. But if those things were to be taken over by the South Kensington Museum, and to be used for exhibition to the people of this country, and also to be sent through the Provinces, why should not the people of this country do it for themselves? Therefore, the suggestion to be considered was whether they could not endeavour to make some arrangement with the South Kensington authorities, or with the British Museum, for the transfer of the collection to them, so that the Indian Revenues would ultimately be entirely free from that charge. He confessed that he was sorry to hear the sneers which had been indulged in at the Government's attempts to economize. But economy was not the main ground of their action in that matter. They believed that it would end in the exhibition being much better shown to the public; but if they could save £5,000 a-year it would be of great advantage. He might add that their maintenance of that Museum had led them into another extravagance; because whenever an International Exhibition was held anywhere the Indian Government had been asked to make a considerable contribution towards it. In conclusion, the Government believed that that collection might be made one that would really instruct and amuse the
    1744
    English public, and that, instead of being, as at present, passive, it might be brought into active life; and with that view he hoped the House would not pass a Resolution which was calculated in any way to hamper the action of the Secretary of State for India in Council.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKobserved, that he had not understood Dr. Forbes Watson to have proposed that the whole expense of a great Indian and Colonial Museum should fall upon India, but that the different parts of the Empire should contribute to the scheme in fair proportions. His hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff) had urged, very justly, as he thought, that when a project of that sort was before the public and was supported by large numbers of their countrymen in all parts of the Kingdom, it was a very unhappy moment to take for breaking up their Indian collection. No one, he supposed, would deny that it would be a great advantage for India if we knew more about her position and wants—if we had all, for instance, been able to spend some time there. Now, a Museum such as was contemplated by his hon. Friend (Mr. Grant Duff) was a sort of epitome of the country, and though, of course, only imperfectly, would to a certain extent remedy the defect, and be for the advantage of both countries. No one had a higher appreciation than he had of the valuable services of Sir Joseph Hooker; but, as the Under Secretary had told them, at Kew they already had a most admirable collection; and the same remark applied to a great extent with regard to the British Museum. No doubt, if that collection were really to be broken up, the Trustees of the British Museum would gladly receive it, still this would involve some expense. There was the great collection of ancient marbles. The buildings for the British Museum had not been constructed with reference to them, and they would occupy a considerable amount of space. The views he advocated were by no means confined to scientific men. The Association of Chambers of Commerce in the United Kingdom, in their Memorial to the Government, directed particular attention to the case of jute, the importation of which, though now amounting to several millions, was altogether a creation of the last 30 years. It might be said that if India produced

    1745
    something that we wanted, or vice versâ, we were sure to find it out sooner or later; it was only a question of time. That was true, but time was everything. We owed our commercial position very greatly to the rapid utilization of new materials and new processes; and, moreover, the existence of such a Museum might actually create markets for the productions of India. It might, and probably would, tend in that direction, both by raising and developing the skill of the workmen in India, and by creating in this country a market for high-class Indian productions. Moreover, the evidence of the high appreciation in which first-rate Native work would be held in England would re-act on India itself, and perhaps stem the debasement of Indian art, resulting from a mistaken introduction of European fashions, and create a better appreciation of the indigenous art. The Memorial adopted by the Working Men's Club and Institutes of London gave evidence as to the opinions entertained by working men. They said—
    "As artizans desirous of improving our artistic taste and industrial knowledge, we consider it highly desirable that we should have free and ready access to the admirable specimens of Indian workmanship to he found in the India Museum. The natural products and manufactures of that collection throw great light upon handicrafts in which we are engaged, and are calculated to promote our technical knowledge."
    For his own part, he should not object to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). It could not be denied that the Museum would be an advantage to England as well as to India. But whether this were so or not, clearly the saving—the mere pecuniary saving—to India must be quite infinitesimal, and over and over again outweighed by the advantages the Museum afforded.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he also, as a Member of the Indian Council when the Museum was established, had listened with great regret to the "no surrender" speech of the Under Secretary. As for the Asiatic Society, notwithstanding what it owed to the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), it was quite incapable of undertaking the great task of maintaining and managing the Museum. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh. University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) was very hard on the Indian Council
    1746
    when this Museum at South Kensington was established. The views of the Council were, in fact, those expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and others in this debate. They thought it most desirable that there should be a great Indian Museum, and that it should be established in England; but they, unfortunately, fell into the hands of the body to whom his right hon. Friend belonged, and who were, no doubt, a wise and useful body, but who considered it their duty to drive an exceedingly hard bargain with the India Office, and to claim an exorbitant rent for the Museum premises, in addition to excessively high charges for gas, heating, &c. There was no denying that the Museum at South Kensington had been a failure, and these charges, he was afraid, were among the causes. He suggested, that a deal of trash which the Museum contained should be destroyed, that duplicate exhibits should be given to country institutions, and that some of the scientific objects should also be given away, leaving a valuable nucleus, partly economical and partly industrial, for retention by the Government, and for development when less was spent on spirited foreign policies and more on things useful to the people at home. He hoped that, some day or other, they would have an Indian Museum worthy of the name.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, it seemed, from the statement of the Under Secretary, that South Kensington was destined to gobble up the Indian Museum. If this took place, it would result in the expenditure of far more money, because they would be asked to erect a special building for it at South Kensington, at a cost of some £60,000, which would afterwards mount up to £250,000. If this took place, and he were alive and in the House, he would protest against it.
    MR. GRANT DUFFasked leave to withdraw his Resolution.
    LORD ELCHOhoped the Report of the Committee, which had been referred to by the Under Secretary, would be laid upon the Table of the House before any final steps were taken in the matter.
    MR. E. STANHOPEcould not accede to this request, which would have the effect of deferring all action in the matter for a year.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to raise any sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, by an issue of Exchequer Bonds, Exchequer Bills, or Treasury Bills.
    (2.) Resolved, That the principal of all Exchequer Bonds which may be so issued shall be paid off at par, at the expiration of any period not exceeding three years from the date of such Bonds.
    (3.) Resolved, That the interest of all such Exchequer Bonds shall be paid half-yearly, and shall be charged upon and issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

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

  NAVY—PROFESSIONAL OFFICERS IN THE DOCKYARDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. T. BRASSEY, in rising to call attention to the responsibilities, rank, and emoluments of the professional officers in Her Majesty's Naval Yards, said, the position of the Constructive Departments in our Dockyards was by no means an unimportant question, for if the constructors of the Navy were inefficient our dockyard management would be a failure. Our ships would be too costly, or they would be badly built. On these two cardinal points of cost and workmanship the Constructors were solely responsible. It was laid down in the well-known Memorandum of Sir Spencer Robinson, which was prepared for the Duke of Somerset's Committee on the Board of Admiralty, that the Superintendent was in no sense responsible for the quality or the cost of the work done in the Dockyards. He was the vehicle through which orders passed from the Admiralty to the heads of Departments; but if a work which ought to have been done for £10,000 cost £16,000, he was
  1748
  not called upon to account for this excess. When a question was asked he directed the master shipwright to reply. All the Naval Superintendents who were examined by the Dockyard Commissioners in 1860 took a similar view of their position. The inquiry into the loss of the Megœra brought out distinctly the sole responsibility of the professional officers for advising the Captain Superintendent and, through him, the Board of Admiralty, as to the seaworthiness of a ship for any voyage or service that she was to undertake. He wished distinctly to disclaim any desire to see the Naval Superintendents of Dockyards superseded by civilians. But it was obviously most important that the Constructors should be qualified to bear the weight of responsibility thrown upon them. They should be men of education, technical knowledge, and experience, and with ability to direct the labours of large bodies of men; and he asked the House seriously to consider whether the rank and emoluments of these officers were sufficient to command in all cases men of the necessary qualifications for the Public Service. The unsatisfactory position of the Constructors was described by Mr. Oliver Lang, the able Master Shipwright at Chatham, in his evidence before the Dockyard Commission in 1860, who said—
  "I do not object to a considerable infusion of the working class, and their being allowed to rise to the highest offices in the branch. I complain that the sons of gentlemen are shut out entirely."
  No substantial change had been made in the system of recruiting officers for the Constructor's Department since Mr. Lang's evidence was given. It was stated by Mr. Barnes, the Surveyor of Dockyards, in his evidence before the Stores Committee, that the present master shipwrights, in almost all cases, had been originally entered as apprentices in the Dockyards. The position of the professional officers of the Dockyards was the subject of very serious consideration on the part of the Committee on Dockyard Economy, of which Admiral Smart was the Chairman. That Committee had recommended that the status of the civil officers in Dockyards should be raised. The line between the employers and the employed had been very indistinctly drawn, and there had been a tendency to class the chief professional officers among the employed.

  1749
  The master shipwrights and chief engineers should thenceforward be looked upon as commissioned officers, and be considered as identified with the Admiralty as the directors or employers of the labour, and not with those who executed the actual manual labour. A superior position in society and a superior education would always have their weight when placed in a proper position. The Commissioners who conducted the inquiry into the loss of the Megœra made some strong observations on this point. They said—
  "We feel compelled to remark that we have formed, however unwillingly, an unfavourable opinion as to the mode in which the administration of Her Majesty's Dockyards is generally conducted. The officers appear to us too often to have done no more than each of them thought it was absolutely necessary to do, following a blind routine in the discharge of their duties, and acting almost as if it was their main object to avoid responsibility."
  What had been done since these Reports were presented to stimulate the zeal of the professional officers in the Dockyards? The Master Shipwright was now called Chief Constructor, but was still subordinate to the Master Attendant. The head of the Shipbuilding Department, who, at Portsmouth, for example, had from 4,000 to 5,000 men under him, ranked below the head of the Rigging Department, who had only 440 men under his orders. Sir Houston Stewart had very justly called attention to this anomaly. While their relative rank remained unchanged, only a trifling addition had been made to the salary of the professional officers. He would take Portsmouth as an example. In 1868–9 the salary of the Chief Constructor was £700 a-year, and that of the Chief Engineer £650; together, £1,350. At that time 3,460 men were employed in the Dockyards, their wages amounting to £210,258. In 1879–80 the salary of the Chief Constructor was increased to £850, but that of the Chief Engineer was reduced to £534 a-year, the joint salaries of the responsible heads of the two great departments of the Dockyard being £1,384, or an increase of £34 only on the total amount paid 10 years before. In the meanwhile, the number of men had been raised to 4,961—an increase of 1,500 in number, their wages amounting to £326,000, or an increase of £116,000 a-year. He had referred to the case of the Megœra as an example of the disasters
  1750
  that might occur from neglect of duty; but neglect of duty, in the form of omission to do a thing which ought to have been done, was, happily, a rare occurrence in Her Majesty's Dockyards. Extravagance and waste in going beyond the necessity of the case in the matter of alterations and repairs were far more common, and we had done nothing to encourage thrift and economy. The results that necessarily followed had been pointed out, not only by Committees and Commissions, but by independent critics of great authority. Admiral Smart's Committee had referred to this question in their Report. They thought that too little regard had been paid to cost, as distinguished from workmanship, and they recommended that some tangible mode should be provided by which any officer could be able to claim the credit of public approbation for any economy to the Public Service which had been obtained by his good management. Persons accustomed to administrative business would readily concur in the observation of Lord Clarence Paget, that—
  "Where one Dockyard is found to conduct its business more economically than another it should be an understood thing that the officers of that Yard, who had, by their attention to these important matters, caused a saving of public money, should be advanced—that encouragement should be given to economy."
  Nothing, however, had been done to carry out that suggestion. No instance had occurred of an officer having been dismissed or suffering a loss of salary for extravagance, nor had any officer been promoted or pecuniarily rewarded for economical administration. There was no equitable principle in the amounts of the salaries awarded to the Chief Constructors at the several Yards. The Chief Constructor at Portsmouth received £850 for supervision over an annual expenditure of £326,191 on wages, and probably an equal amount on stores. The Chief Constructor at Pembroke had £700 a-year for supervision over a body of men whose aggregate wages amounted to £97,000. In connection with this subject, he would call attention to the strong representations which had been made by Admirals Hall, Chamberlain, Fellowes, and Sir Cooper Key, to the Committee on Stores as to the great importance of constant personal supervision of the work in progress on the parts of the Chief Constructors in the

  1751
  several Dockyards. The success attained in Pembroke Dockyard in building ships within the estimates had been exemplified in several remarkable cases which were quoted by Admiral Hall. These results he attributed to the great care which the professional officers at Pembroke were able to bestow on their work, from having time enough at their disposal to give the requisite attention to the details of construction. Admiral Fellowes made a strong representation on the same subject. He said it was imperative that the constructive duties of the Yard should receive more attention. There were at Chatham 3,800 men at work—men who were working night and day—and there was only one Chief Constructor and one constructor; whereas, under the old system, the work would have received the supervision of a Chief Constructor, two Constructors, and other officers; and this, at a time when a smaller number of men were employed and the Dockyard covered only 90 acres, instead of, as at present, 500 acres. According to the present practice, the officers of the Yards had but a small share in the preparation of the estimates. He would propose that whenever it was contemplated to build a ship in a particular Dockyard the Chief Constructor should be called upon to prepare an estimate of the cost. That estimate should be revised, and when an agreement had been finally established between the Admiralty and their local officer as to the amount, the figures should be bracketed in the Navy Estimates with the name of the responsible Dockyard officer. A spirit of emulation would thus be encouraged between the different Yards, while bad workmanship might be prevented by the frequent supervision of an Admiralty Surveyor. The organization of the French Constructive Department had been referred to by the hon. Member for Nottingham in his speech of last Session on our shipbuilding policy. It was equally worthy of examination in connection with the points to which he now called attention. The French professional officers held a higher relative rank than we had accorded to our Constructors. The Ingénieurs de la Marine were selected from the Ecole Polytechnique, and their promotion was secured by an appropriate gradation of ranks, corresponding with those established in the executive branch
  1752
  of the Navy. The staff included an Inspector General, who ranked with, but after, a Vice Admiral. He resided in Paris and made periodical visits to the ports. Under him were 11 directors of naval construction, all ranking immediately after a Rear Admiral in the French Navy, but before a captain. At the ports the Constructive Department was represented by an Inspector-in-Chief of the Naval Administrative Services, who was charged, in the name of the Minister of Marine, with the supervision of all the professional work in the Dockyards. The Inspector was subordinate in rank to the Préfet Maritime, who was a Vice Admiral; but in the discharge of his duties he acted under the orders received from the Minister of Marine and corresponded directly with him. The constructive staff for the English Navy should be selected from the Academy at Woolwich. They would receive their special training at Greenwich and at the Dockyards. They should have an honorary relative rank, like that which was given to the Corps of Naval Architects in the French Navy, and be entitled to the privilege of wearing a civil uniform. The criticisms of foreigners were often most suggestive. M. Xavier Raymond, formerly a frequent contributor on naval subjects to the pages of the Revue des deux Mondes, made the following remarks in his volume entitled Les Marines de la France et de l' Angleterre:—
  "By an anomaly most remarkable, the administration of the Navy is conducted by a Board, and that Board is selected almost exclusively from one only of the numerous specialities which must be combined in order to constitute a naval establishment. Of the six individuals who form the Board two are Members of Parliament and do not belong to the Navy. The four others are naval officers. The administrative branches, works, and buildings, naval construction, gunnery, health, are all rigorously excluded."
  As for the Constructors in the ports, if their salaries were not inadequate, they occupied a position of inferiority in relation to the executive branches, unworthy of the talent and services of several of their number. The result was that certain individuals, and those, perhaps, the most distinguished, had left the Service. The name of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) was quoted as a prominent example. He would venture to urge that the Constructors of the Navy should be con-

  1753
  stituted as a distinct corps, like the Ingè.nieurs de la Marine in France, and that we ought to have one or more Naval Architects in every Dockyard capable of preparing competitive designs for new ships. In the French Service, the work of the central office was limited to the specification of the qualities and the general features of the new ships which it was proposed to build. The programme having been prepared at headquarters, the Dockyards were invited to furnish competitive designs, and the most successful was selected. That plan insured a wide development of ideas, and prevented the shipbuilding of the Navy falling into a groove under the direction of a single mind. Turning from the Dockyards to the Council of Construction, he found that the highest shipbuilding officer in the Navy had a salary of £1,200 a-year. The responsibility for the design and construction of new ships, and for supplying those ships with proper machinery, rested exclusively with the civil members of the staff of the Controller of the Navy. The Controllers themselves had on all occasions most fully acknowledged their dependence on the aid of professional men. He put it to the House to consider whether the present salary of £1,200 should or should not be regarded as a maximum, and whether it might not be expedient to hold out to the Chief Constructor of the Navy some further prospect of honorary or pecuniary advancement. Was the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) altogether wrong when he said, in his evidence before the Duke of Devonshire's Committee on Scientific Instruction, that it seemed to him to be quite out of the question that the Chief Constructor of the Navy—a man who had been admitted in Parliament by the First Lord of the Admiralty to have been capable of saving or losing £1,000,000 in a short period—should be receiving a salary of £900 a-year, as he was when he first entered the Admiralty, or £1,500 a-year, as he was when he left. It was well known that managers of private establishments were receiving very much greater incomes. The Engineer-in-Chief of the Navy held an office second only in importance to that of the Director of Naval Construction. He was the adviser of the Controller and of the Admiralty generally on all that related to
  1754
  the steam branch of the Service. He held a highly responsible position in relation to contracts for the supply of machinery. The Estimates for the present year provided for the purchase of machinery at a cost of £396,000. It was not enough that the Chief Engineer of the Navy should possess a competent technical knowledge. He must be capable of defending his opinions before the Board of Admiralty and the Council of Construction. Was it quite consistent to give £1,000 a-year to the Chief Engineer of the Navy, while the Directors of Transport and of Works, who were executive officers, and were rewarded with the Order of the Bath and the other distinctions awarded to the executive line, were respectively receiving £1,550 and £1,300 a-year? By a Return of all civilians employed by the Crown, which was moved for by his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. Childers), and which had recently been presented to Parliament, it appeared that 1,040 persons were employed in the Civil, Judicial, and Revenue Departments, at a total annual charge of £1,437,000 a-year, giving an average salary of £1,400 a-year. In that long list of 1,040 favoured officials no civil officer employed under the Admiralty had been fortunate enough to be included. That exclusion was hardly consistent when they came to consider that the greatest Navy in the world was built, equipped, and repaired under their supervision. He had no desire to see changes suddenly introduced, without regard to the individual merits of the officers employed. He fully appreciated the difficulties of the political heads of the Admiralty in the matter. They might be excused if they hesitated to give a very rapid advancement to officers of whose capacity they could have but scanty personal knowledge. They would all agree, however, that talent could only be attracted to the Public Service, and retained in it, by offering positions worthy of acceptance. The Admiralty might begin, as opportunity offered, by improving the position of heads of Departments at Whitehall. He did not intend to bring this question forward time after time; but, having stated the case, he would leave it with confidence to the experienced judgment and mature consideration of the First Lord of the Admiralty and his Colleagues, knowing that the right hon.

  1755
  Gentleman was anxious to do all in his power to promote the efficiency of the Naval Service.

  PENSIONS TO WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF SEAMEN AND MARINES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    CAPTAIN PRICE, in rising to call attention to the importance of making sufficient provision for the widows and orphans of Seamen of Her Majesty's Navy and Royal Marines, said, the subject had been before the House for a considerable time; and he, therefore, would not trouble them with many remarks. His object that evening was to get from Her Majesty's Government some statement as to what they were now prepared to do in the matter. He did not ask for any definite promise; but he hoped to receive an assurance that they were prepared to give assistance to the men in making provision for their wives and children. According to careful calculations which had been made by an actuary, it would require a stoppage from a man's pay of 10 s. a-month in order to provide a pension of £20 a-year for his widow. It was out of the question that a seaman could give such a sum; and it was, therefore, proposed that each man should give 5s. a-month, and that the other 5s. should be provided by the Government. If the seamen could only give 3s. a-month, the Government should only give a similar amount. The scheme had been reduced to very simple limits. It was proposed that the insurance should be effected in the same way that all assurances were effected—namely, by a man giving a certain sum to secure a certain pension. Having settled what the total cost would be of providing a Pension Fund according to the Returns which had been presented, the question naturally arose now it could be kept within proper limits. One of the modes in which that could be done was for the Government to impose a limit of age. They should not be called on to pay a pension to the widow of any man who chose to marry under 25. That would reduce the amount required, and keep it within certain limits. The total number of married men in the Service was about 15,000; but of these about 1,500 were under 25 years of age. The adoption, therefore, of that rule would limit the number of pensions to widows
    1756
    to a corresponding amount. The number might also be limited by requiring a certain amount of extra service. He had taken the opinion of many petty officers and others who were interested in this question, and he understood that some would be quite prepared to give as much as five years' extra service, which would be a sufficient quid pro quo for such a grant. There would be a great advantage to the Service in this, that such a scheme would operate as a check upon desertion. He did not think the cost of desertion could be less than £300,000 a-year, and a large sum would, therefore, be saved to the country by the proposed scheme. In the Navies of France and Germany the principle he advocated was carried out. In the German Service the widow of a petty officer received £12 12 s., and he was not sure whether any pension was given to the children. The widows of able and ordinary seamen got pensions of £9 a-year, with £6 6s. for every child up to the age of 16. This made a very considerable pension. No doubt, it might be said our men received higher pay; but the difference of pay did not enable our seamen and marines to provide for their widows and orphans. If France and Germany could give pensions to the widows of their seamen and marines, surely a great country like this could do something in the same direction. The principle which he advocated had been already adopted in the case of the Coastguards. It might, he knew, be said that whenever a great disaster occurred in the Navy the public came forward and subscribed liberally for the widows and orphans of the sufferers. That was true; but they should not forget that every year men suffered violent deaths in the Service, of which the public knew nothing. The year 1874 was a year of peace, and one in which no great disaster occurred, yet the deaths from drowning in the Service were 79; from falling from aloft, 35; from accidental wounds, 9; and from various causes other than natural, 8. In fact, every two years and a-half it might be said that an Eurydice was lost—that was to say, about the same number of deaths by violence occurred in the Navy as occurred through the loss of the Eurydice; and he might add that the feeling in the Service was opposed to appeals being made to the

    1757
    charitable feelings of the public. It was thought that a great deal of blame rested on Parliament for not adopting some such suggestion as he now made for the relief of these constantly recurring cases of great distress. One of the sources from which the pensions to widows and orphans might be derived was the savings on rations to the men in the Service which were not taken up. Some years since a Committee sat to consider the subject, and they reported that the saving to the Government under the head of provisions amounted to something like £70,000 a-year. He trusted that they would hear something definite and satisfactory from Her Majesty's Government with respect to the question, pressing and important as it was, which he had ventured to bring under the notice of the House. He did not expect them to commit themselves to any plan; but he trusted they would promise to appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject.
    MR. D. JENKINSsaid, if there was any blot in the Naval Service it was want of practical experience, and it was nonsense to suppose that experience could be gained by mere theoretical or scientific training. With regard to the accidents to the Megœra and the Thunderer, they were due to the imperfection of the system adopted, and not to want of skill on the part of officers holding positions of trust in the Dockyards. He, for one, did not object to high situations of trust being held by men who had been promoted gradually from the position of apprentices, and that view was supported by the fact that men who had reflected the greatest lustre on the Royal Navy included those who had risen from the ranks. With respect to salaries, if the Admiralty had not already got the best men in the country, he would say by all means let them engage their services, and not shrink from doing so for the mere sake of saving a few hundreds a-year.
    MR. E. J. REEDsaid, great credit was due to the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) for the remarks he had addressed to the House, notwithstanding the invidiousness of having to suggest an increase of expenditure on the Government of the day. The people on whose behalf his hon. Friend had spoken had very few advocates or friends. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers)
    1758
    had once, rightly or wrongly, stated in. a public document that he (Mr. E. J. Reed) had saved the country £100,000 on every ship which was built under his direction, and yet he had never received a single sixpence of reward in the shape of pension or otherwise; and yet, when one took up a list of pensions relating to the Navy, he found pensions of various kinds, and distributed to such a large extent, that he thought the Admiralty must be at a loss sometimes to know where to bestow these large sums. It did not lie in the mouth of the Government to say they had no funds—that they must set their face against any considerable increase in the salaries of those who had rendered good services—while they had such large pensions at their disposal to distribute unnecessarily to other classes of officers. His hon. Friend said it was true that the civil officers of the Admiralty received decorations and orders, and other things of the kind, in exchange for their services. He received a decoration to remain in the Service when on the point of leaving, and he believed a decoration was conferred on another gentleman; but he was at a loss to recollect any other instance, and he could not understand what had happened to the country; why it should go on under a system which showered decorations and orders upon one branch—namely, the militant branch—not for war services or great distinctions—while nothing of the kind was bestowed on men who laboured perpetually and successfully in other branches. He thought the day would come when this question of the distribution of decorations and orders would have to be considered by the country. He was satisfied that from the Naval Service would be drawn examples of the unfair distribution of these honours. We lived in an age in which mechanism played a more important part than in days gone by, and we were approaching a time when the merits of mechanical men would be more recognized than at present. In the same way, a great effort was made by the former Administration to combine the shipbuilding and engineering branches under one authority. He had never advocated putting the engineers under the shipbuilders, any more than the shipbuilders under the engineers; but his experience at the Admiralty showed that the Public Service

    1759
    sustained great disadvantages from having two authorities in connection with shipbuilding and engineering. He hoped the present Government had not taken any steps to weaken what had been done by the former Government in that respect. Although he represented Pembroke, a small Yard, he had no hesitation in joining his hon. Friend in trying to improve the position of the Chief Constructors in the large Yards. The Government had elevated the position of Chatham, and of the officers with it, and had shown a desire to improve both their status and pay. The Government ought to remember that the course of events had forced mechanism and mechanics into more and more importance in the Naval Service; and, therefore, they ought to deal with those who were concerned with that branch of the business in a larger and broader spirit than they had done hitherto. The officers of the Admiralty and the Dockyards generally received pensions. He was one of those who did not. He was very proud of the fact that he had been privileged for seven years to serve the public without a pension of any kind. He quite agreed with those who held that it was a great distinction for a man to be able to serve his country in a position of responsibility, like that of the principal officers of the Admiralty and the Dockyards. It was hardly possible to exaggerate the weight of the responsibility that rested on them, and no one would more readily bear witness to the manner in which it was sustained than, on the one hand, the political chiefs, and, on the other, the Naval officers who came into contact with them. He believed all his hon. Friend desired could be done without in any way injuring the status of any naval officer. It might be said that one of the consequences of putting technical officers of Her Majesty's Dockyards into positions of greater responsibility would be to throw those positions open to competition. He was satisfied that to throw them open to competition could not be done with advantage to the Public Service. When he retired from Office he believed his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) did cast about for some outside person to be put in his place. He had heard that his right hon. Friend had fixed his mind on a gentleman in a private dockyard. But there was a diffi-
    1760
    culty in carrying out that idea, and the area of choice was very limited indeed. The officers of the Dockyards were not open to the suspicion of being theoretical rather than practical men. He did not believe there was a more practical body of men in the country than the technical officers of the Admiralty and the Royal Dockyards. Nearly every man among them had begun his profession with apprenticeship, and had acquainted himself with the use of tools, and nearly every one had risen from a humble position to the position he now occupied. What happened when a private yard wanted a manager? They came to the Royal Dockyards, and the men they got were those who had not been successful in the competition of the Public Service. The inference he drew was that the men in the Royal Dockyards were of the highest skill, both theoretically and practically, that could be found at present in the whole world. A word as to one or two practical suggestions of his hon. Friend. At present, the Admiralty systematically sent the Office estimates of the cost of new ships to the Dockyards, and there they were overhauled, revised, and reported on by the local officers. But there would be great disadvantage in attaching the name of the local Chief Constructor to the estimate of the cost of a ship. If the Admiralty were, in this matter of the estimates, to screen themselves behind the local officers, Members of that House would be in a worse position in criticizing them than they now were. Those who thought otherwise ought to be excused, on account of the variations which the Navy Estimates presented as to the cost of ships. He did not see that the slightest fault could be found with the Admiralty for modifying, from time to time, the estimated cost of their ships, for this reason, that a large ship took a considerable time in constructing, and in these days, as the art of naval construction underwent much modification, it was one of the most important duties of the Admiralty to improve their ships as the building of them went on. The only thing they were not justified in doing was in delaying ships. The best thing to do was to complete a ship that might be in progress according to the best information they had at the time. The present Board of Admiralty had

    1761
    given many indications of a desire to meet the actual circumstances of the case, and to improve the position of technical officers. They ought to continue to bear in mind that the demand was for large changes in every Department of the Service, and if, out of the total Navy Estimates, they attempted to do full justice to those officers, he believed they might give them what was right without doing any injustice to anyone.
    MR. BENTINCKdesired to make a few remarks of a general character. He had always regretted the apparent indifference of the House of Commons to everything connected with the welfare of the British Navy. He could not congratulate the Government either on their Navy Estimates or on the manner in which they had been introduced. He believed this was the first time on record when the Navy Estimates had come on for the first time for discussion as the Second Order of the Day.
    MR. W. H. SMITHremarked, that on the first night they were brought forward they were the First Order of the Day.
    MR. BENTINCKsaid, that might be so; but they were not discussed. This was the first time they had come up for discussion. It might appear odd that in discussing the Navy Estimates he should refer to the condition of the Army. This country had two arms for the purposes of defence and aggression, and if one of those arms was in bad condition, the fact made it all the more incumbent upon us to look to the state of the other. He contended, without fear of disproof, that the Army of this country was a myth. It had ceased to exist, and the proof was that when we had to contend with a few savages in South Africa the whole British force was not equal to the undertaking, and we were compelled to supplement our Army by a corps of Marines. Our Army had been destroyed by the late Government, and the present Government had not had the courage to restore it. And what was the condition of the Navy? It was not equal, at the present moment, to the requirements of the country. We had not iron-clads enough for the duty of the country in time of peace. An incontestable proof of this was that the Admiralty had been obliged to send the Shah as flag ship to the Pacific, confessedly be-
    1762
    cause they had no iron-clad available for service. Moreover, he maintained that we did not possess a sufficient number of ships to protect our own commerce in time of war, or to prey upon the commerce of our enemy. As a matter of sound policy, we ought to have such a number of ships that; in the event of war with a great maritime Power, we could at once sweep the sea of her property, and defend our own. Under what were called the blessings of Free Trade, this country had not more than two or three months' supply of food in hand. This was a question of life and death to this country, as our supply of food was wholly dependent upon our having command of the sea. We had not a sufficient number of frigates and corvettes, and very few of those we possessed could be handled under canvas. This result was caused by our having too much of the scientific element, and too little of the seaman element in the construction of our ships. We were building nothing but floating batteries, which would not do anything except under steam. Quite understanding the difficulty which the First Lord of the Admiralty must feel when going to his Colleagues in Council, and asking them to supply more money for the wants of his Department—understanding that the right hon. Gentleman must feel the same difficulty in coming to the House of Commons, and asking for larger supplies for the Navy—his belief was that the present or any other Government would stand much higher in the opinion of the country if they came frankly forward at once and said—what they knew to be true—that the present condition of the Navy was not what it ought to be, and that more money was required to make it efficient.
    MR. E. HUBBARD, in supporting the Motion, urged the importance of suitable provision being made in the form of pensions for the widows and orphans of the seamen of Her Majesty's Navy and the Royal Marines. He found that out of 53,500 men upon the books of the Navy, rather more than one-third were married., and it was calculated about £100,000 a-year would be required to provide a fund for the insurance of the widows of those men. He did not urge the First Lord of the Admiralty to give any definite promise, but merely to assent to the Motion which had been brought forward, or to grant a Commit-

    1763
    tee, which might, without any unnecessary delay, obtain all requisite information connected with that subject.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he could not complain of the manner in which the discussion or conversation that had now gone on for two or three hours had been introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey), who had called attention to the claims of that most valuable body of men, of whom it was impossible for anyone occupying his position to speak too highly. The Admiralty desired now to express their confidence in, and their obligations to, the officers who were called the constructors, and whose abilities had been of the greatest possible value to this country in developing a powerful Navy, which was certainly equal, and, he believed, superior, to any Navy which existed on the face of the earth. That, he ventured to assert, notwithstanding what had just fallen from the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck). His hon. Friend the Member for Hastings had stated the case of those officers with his usual moderation and discretion, and he had wound up by saying that he did not desire to ask from the Government or from the House any particular remedy to be applied at the present moment; but that his object was to bring before the House the claims of a body of scientific gentlemen, whose services were of great value to the country, to fair consideration whenever it was possible that that consideration could be given. He was perfectly ready to accept the suggestions of his hon. Friend in the sense and with the feeling with which they had been put forward. He could not undertake to make specific improvements in regard either to position or salary, or in any of the various modes which had been hinted at by his hon. Friend. But he wished to repeat, what he had often said in the Board-room of the Admiralty, that they owed great acknowledgments, not only to the gentlemen at Whitehall who assisted them in designing their ships of war, and who assisted them with their advice on the questions from time to time submitted to them, but also owed a great debt of gratitude to the scientific staff of the Dockyards, who certainly had performed their work with very great zeal and very great success; and, notwithstanding the absence of some of those inducements
    1764
    to which the hon. Member referred—inducements which could be offered by private establishments, but which could not, in the nature of things, be offered, at any rate so completely, by Public Departments. They had certainly discharged their very difficult duties with very great advantage to the Public Service. The hon. Member had spoken of the constructors and the constructing staff of the Navy as not being always rewarded for the economy they might effect, or the improvements they might make, in the management of the Dockyards, or in the conduct of the business particularly under their charge. Well, it would be an exceedingly difficult thing to lay down any system by which a distinct appreciation of good service might be always accorded in the manner in which he admitted it was possible for the independent head of a great mercantile establishment to reward an efficient manager or head of a department. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had alluded to the results of his exertions in the construction of ships, and to the fact that no money reward, or other reward, was given to him in acknowledgment of those services. The hon. Gentleman had, at least, the satisfaction of knowing that they were very highly appreciated; and it might be said that the position he occupied in the House and the country was due, in some degree, to the position he had previously held in the Admiralty, and to the fame his abilities had acquired for him in the Public Service. But ho was bound to say that if he could see a way that was entirely free from bias, and from all those difficulties which surrounded the giving of rewards for good work in the administration of Public Departments, he would be extremely glad to adopt it. His hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had referred to the fact that, at the pro-sent moment, certain positions in the Constructor's Department in the Dockyards and at the Admiralty were unattainable by the sons of gentlemen. Perhaps, in one sense it might be called an exclusive Service; but, whatever might be said from that point of view, the mechanical and scientific abilities of the gentlemen who were now occupied in constructing ships and in superintending the construction of ships for Her Majesty's Service were, at least, equal to

    1765
    those of any body of men filling the same positions in any other part of the world. He did not compare them invidiously with the officers of other countries; but if their position was not the same, and if they did not spring from the same class as the constructive Service of other countries did, the results, at least, were as satisfactory as they could desire them to be. It was, as the hon. Member for Pembroke stated, essentially a practical Service. The constructors were selected, first of all, from the apprentices in the Dockyards. These apprentices were admitted on open competition, and the best, after a further competition, were sent to Greenwich, where they received a careful and complete training, after which they came back to the Dockyards. The result of this system was highly satisfactory in producing highly-trained men with a practical knowledge of their profession. At that time in the evening he was sure the House would forgive him if he spoke briefly; but he was anxious to record their high sense of the value of these gentlemen. The hon. Member for Pembroke had referred to the fact that, in the Dockyard establishments, the work of concentration set on foot by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had, to some extent, been undone. The fact was, experience had shown that this concentration had been carried rather too far. The Chief Constructor was found to have more work and responsibility thrown upon him than he could efficiently perform, and he himself welcomed the change. The Chief Constructor retained his superior position, and the storekeeper was, in all essential points, subordinate to him. At Devonport, the change had not been made, it was left to compare with the working of the new system after sufficient experience at the other yards, the system was found to work better there than at Portsmouth. Reference had also been made to the mode in which the estimates for ships were dealt with. He agreed that it would be unfair to the Chief Constructor, who might not be responsible for any changes made in a ship during her construction, that his name should be bracketed with the estimate during its whole course from first to last. The system adopted was this. The estimates for the new ship were, first of
    1766
    all, made at Whitehall, and then sent to the dockyard at which the ship was to be constructed. There they were most carefully overhauled and reported upon, after which they were sent back to Whitehall, where they were again considered. In this way, two sets of minds were brought to bear upon them. In the case of estimates for repairs, the process was reversed. This system was found to work most advantageously. As to the care that was exercised in the Dockyards, he doubted whether, in any private yard, the work was done so efficiently as in Her Majesty's Dockyards. The officers all felt the great responsibility of their position, and knew that they would be seriously called to account were they to overlook any circumstance or condition necessary to efficiency or to safety. The consequence was that the work was most thoroughly done. In fact, it was done, if anything, he might say, a little too thoroughly. Our ships were so built that they would last a very long time, and he believed they had a very satisfactory result for their expenditure. The hon. Member for Hastings had referred to a number of Reports made during the last 50 years. He must confess that he had not himself been able to go through these Reports; but he was obliged to the hon. Member for his industry, and he would give them most careful attention. His hon. Friend had compared the French Service with our own. He admitted that the position of the officers in the French Service was, in some respects, superior. Their rank, and the distinction with which they were treated were greater; but he believed their salaries were not so good. Rank was, in the French Service, often taken in lieu of salary; but he was not sure that our officers would welcome a change upon this principle. He might refer the hon. Member to a Report drawn up by M. Gambetta, and presented to the French Chambers this year upon the Naval Service, in which it would be found that, in the opinion of the French Budget Committee, our Naval administration compared favourably with their own. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had asked for some assurance from the Government as to provision, in the shape of pensions, being made for the widows and orphans

    1767
    of seamen. He must, in the first place, point out that the Estimates to which he had drawn attention had only come to his hands a very few days ago. He must also draw attention to the fact that, in the Notice which appeared upon the Paper, his hon. and gallant Friend spoke of a provision for orphans as well as widows, whereas in his speech he had omitted all reference to orphans. The introduction of the orphans would make a great difference in the calculations. He would, therefore, have to speak with great caution. When the subject was first introduced, some years ago, it was proposed that seamen should contribute 6d. a-month, the remainder being supplied by Parliament. Subsequently, it was proposed that this 6d. should be raised to 1s. 8d. a-month. The present proposal that the seamen should contribute as much as 5s. a-month was one on which he should hesitate to express an opinion before he knew how far the men would be content to submit to such a large deduction from their wages. His hon. and gallant Friend proposed that these allowances should not be granted to any men who married below a certain age. But this itself would give rise to difficulty; for it had been pointed out to him that the greatest danger to such a fund would arise from men marrying above a certain age. If the system of pensions to widows of seamen were carried too far, it would serve as an incentive to young women to marry very old men, in order that they might get their pensions the sooner, while they themselves would live a long time. All he could promise was that he would take the matter into further consideration, and would endeavour to ascertain what was the real feeling of the men on the subject of forming a provision for their wives in case of their own deaths; and he should be glad to accept any suggestion in reference to the matter which did not throw too heavy a burden upon the country. The hon. and gallant Member had said that, by making some adequate provision for the widows of sailors, desertion from the Navy would be checked. He was afraid that men who were content to abandon their own long service pensions would not be much influenced by the fear of forfeiting the pensions of their wives. He fully admitted the painful position in which a sailor's widow was placed by her husband being
    1768
    cut off in early life by some accident, and he could assure the hon. and gallant Member that the subject of pensions to the widows should have the careful consideration of the Government. It must not be forgotten, however, that these men were themselves entitled to pensions at the early age of 38, which formed a very heavy item in the Estimates of the year. The hon. Member for West Norfolk had asked for information as to the present condition of the Royal Navy. If he understood the hon. Member rightly, he was of opinion that this country should possess a Navy sufficiently powerful to cope with any emergencies to which we might be exposed. He himself was quite prepared to assent to that proposition, and, in his view, our Navy was quite sufficient for that purpose. We had a Mediterranean Fleet in good order; we had a Channel Squadron which was not in bad order; we had eight iron-clad ships in commission attached to the Coastguard equal to any others of a similar type which were to be found in foreign Navies; we had in the first-class Steam Reserve four sea-going iron-clads equal to those of any foreign Navy, ready to go to sea; we had nine more which would be complete in the course of the year, and most of which might, if necessary, be ready in the course of two or three months. At the present moment we had 26 ironclads in commission; we had four seagoing iron-clads ready for sea in reserve, including the Dreadnought, and, in addition, three coast defence ships; and we had nine others which would be ready in the course of the year, including the powerful ships Sultan, Superb, Neptune, and Devastation. These figures ought, he thought, to be satisfactory to the House. We had 42 iron-clads, either in commission or ready to put to sea in a short time, and these constituted a force adequate to any emergency which was likely to arise. If he felt it necessary to come down to the House for further Supplies, in order to increase the offensive or defensive force of the country, he should not hesitate to do so; but he did not think it desirable to ask for increased Votes for building ships which might become obsolete in a few years, and especially at a time when, he believed, our Navy was thoroughly adequate to any service which it might be called upon to perform, and thoroughly

    1769
    able to cope with any Power which might be brought against it. With these few remarks, he hoped the House would now go into Committee on the Estimates.

  THE COASTGUARDS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    CAPTAIN PIMsaid, he did not see any credit given for the deduction of 1s. a day made from the wages of the Coastguard during the time they were ordered to serve afloat.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, the amount was deducted in the total charged, and he did not see that any advantage would be gained by dividing the item in that part of the Votes.
    CAPTAIN PIMconsidered it a hard case that these men who were the best afloat, should be deprived of Is. a-day. The item would be a considerable one, seeing that the number of men mentioned in the Vote was 4,150.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONhad never known of any complaint being made on account of this deduction from the wages of the Coastguard men, by whom it was thoroughly understood.
    CAPTAIN PIMwas not impugning the justice of the Admiralty in making the deduction in question. He merely wished to draw attention to the fact that the amount of the stoppage was not mentioned in the Votes.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Coastguard men had always been liable for this stoppage from their pay, and the Estimates, as the hon. Member for Gravesend must know, were upon precisely the same footing as formerly.
    CAPTAIN PIMthought that the Estimates were framed in such a manner as rendered them very difficult to be understood, and that the sooner they were altered the better.
    Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £1,003,375, Victuals and Clothing for Seaman and Marines.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked for information with regard to the item of £1,396
  1770
  charged as dresses for Marines doing duty as officers' servants. Was this amount in addition to the ordinary clothing of the Marines?
  MR. A. F. EGERTONreplied, that it was a provision for the Service, and was, of course, so far, for the Marine branch.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £185,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he should have to move the reduction of this Vote, with the object of calling attention to the claims of Mr. John Clare for compensation to which he believed himself to be entitled for improvements in the construction of ships of war. Without going at any length into the case, he would merely state that Mr. John Clare had devoted a great deal of time, and taken a great deal of trouble in this matter some years ago. The Admiralty of the day had made use of his plans and specifications, and when he had asked for payment he had been put off from time to time. Ultimately, he was advised to appeal to a Court of Law, and, having done so, the proceedings resulted in a verdict against him. This was due to the evidence given at the trial by Mr. Scott Russell and Sir Charles Fox. A new trial was applied for and refused on the ground that these gentlemen were persons of great eminence in their profession, and that their evidence could he relied upon. The Law Officers of the Crown had been referred to, and they had said that upon the legal view of the case Mr. Clare could not recover. But, upon the grounds of justice and fair play, he (Mr. Biggar) certainly thought that the case of Mr. Clare might fairly be made the subject of further inquiry at the hands of a Committee. The fact of Mr. Clare having appealed to a Court of Law and been beaten, was not, in his opinion, sufficient reason for refusing an independent inquiry into the merits of this case, and he, therefore, trusted that the Government would appoint a Committee to consider it. Various Members of the House had, from time to time, been canvassed by Mr. Clare, with the result that his case, which had given a

  1771
  good deal of trouble, had been brought forward in the House. He had not, of course, been able to verify all the statements made by Mr. John Clare; but it was the opinion of a good many hon. Members that he had, upon its merits, an honest case. For that reason, he thought the Government should agree to the appointment of a Committee. If that Committee should decide in favour of Mr. Clare, the Government would, no doubt, do what was reasonable and fair; on the other hand, if the decision went against him, the House would have obtained the expression of independent opinion upon the merits of the case, which would then be ended once for all. He moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100 under sub-head A.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £184,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that one reason against the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was that Mr. John Clare had appealed to the public at large, by means of an advertisement in the second column of The Times, headed, "John Clare National Testimonial," for subscriptions in recognition of his services to the State. No doubt, by this means he had realized a large fortune, and he (Captain Price) thought that the House would not now re-open the question.
  MR. E. J. REEDbelieved that Mr. John Clare had an honest conviction that he had done something for the benefit of the Public Service, and was quite sure that this belief was, in some degree, shared by every hon. Member who had the slightest interest in the case. But he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that, in his opinion, the House, before taking up this cause, which had been heard both in official Departments and in a Court of Law, should have presented to it some evidence that there had been a miscarriage of justice. For a long time previous to his going to the Admiralty he had given Mr. Clare a considerable number of interviews upon the subject of his claim, and he was bound to state that, at that time, when he was entirely free from any prejudice
  1772
  against it, he was never able to discover that it rested upon any solid ground. If he believed that Mr. John Clare had, in the smallest degree, contributed to the improvement of Naval architecture, he would be ready to back up the hon. Member for Cavan in his proposal for a Committee, because, in his opinion, the facts that a verdict had been given against him, and that time had elapsed, were not sufficient reasons for the refusal of justice if it could be made clear that there were any solid grounds to go upon. He would be willing, in that case, that a Committee should be appointed, were it only for the satisfaction of a man so assiduous as Mr. Clare. But it was too serious a matter that the House should appoint a Committee of its Members to inquire into a plea merely because that plea had been systematically asserted and re-asserted. As a suggestion to the hon. Member for Cavan, he would willingly meet the hon. Member and Mr. Clare, who had an honest belief in the justice of his claim, to hear what he had to say; and, in the event of anything being produced that would justify a change of opinion on his part, Mr. Clare and his hon. Friend should have the benefit of it; though, as he had said, from the intimate knowledge of the case which he possessed, he felt that Mr. Clare was without claim.
  MR. BIGGARdid not think that the observations of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had affected anything he had said in regard to the case. The verdict against Mr. Clare in a Court of Law was given upon the evidence of Mr. Scott Russell and Sir Charles Fox. Both those gentlemen specifically averred that Mr. Clare's plan was not a novelty. Since that period Mr. Clare had been able to show that both those gentlemen were mistaken. If the argument, therefore, of the hon. Member for Pembroke were based upon that ground he thought that it failed, and that Mr. Clare was not entitled to an inquiry. The Committee had only heard an ex parte statement of the case, and had not had an opportunity of judging of its merits. He was thoroughly convinced in his own mind that Mr. Clare was entitled to the inquiry.
  CAPTAIN PIMsaid, that he felt very strongly for Mr. Clare, and considered that he had a very good case; he therefore hoped that his right hon. Friend the

  1773
  First Lord of the Admiralty would be able to give some encouragement to the hon. Member for Cavan to believe that what he had asked for would be granted. He would point out to the hon. Member for Pembroke that Mr. Clare claimed to be the original inventor of the wing passage bulkhead. If he were the originator of that bulkhead he thought that some consideration should be shown him. It would do no harm whatever if the question were re-opened by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty by appointing one or two gentlemen to decide upon its merits. If the hon. Member for Cavan went to a division upon the question he should certainly vote with him.
  MR. SAMUDAhoped that the hon. Member for Cavan would not go to a division. He was sure that he had not been fully informed as to what took place at the trial when Mr. Clare Drought forward his claim against the Admiralty. Whatever Mr. Scott Russell, and the other gentleman who gave evidence, might have said, he could state most distinctly that at that trial there was no claim on the part of Mr. Clare to have been the originator of what was alleged by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan to be his invention. The claim put forward by Mr. Clare was for having been the first to build a vessel in a particular form with regard to cellular compartments. The description which he gave of his invention was, in all respects, absolutely and entirely the same as that which had been used in the Great Western many years before, and with which vessel Mr. Clare had had nothing to do. It was not solely upon the evidence of Mr. Scott Russell that the verdict was given, for he (Mr. Samuda) was one of the witnesses whom the Admiralty called to give evidence with respect to the matter. He called attention to the fact that Mr. Clare had called upon him and endeavoured to explain his invention, and that he then showed him that two or three years before the date of his invention the design in question had been used upon the Thunderer. He showed Mr. Clare his drawings in order to convince him that the plan had been invented long before he brought it out. He had no wish to prevent Mr. Clare obtaining the fullest advantage he could; but he felt called upon to say as much as he had in order
  1774
  that it might not go forth to the world that the Admiralty had done anything in a high handed manner against Mr. Clare; but when he was asked to give evidence with regard to the matter in question he felt it his duty to do so.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, the hon. Member for Cavan must anticipate the only reply which the Government could give to his Motion. He would again repeat what he had said on a previous occasion when the matter was brought forward, that the Admiralty could not grant the inquiry asked for. The case of Mr. Clare had been tried in two Courts of Law—it had been tried by the officers of the Admiralty, and it had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. On every occasion it had been decided against Mr. Clare, and he could see no ground for re-opening the matter then. He thought he was speaking the sentiment of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty when he stated that they must decline to grant a Committee upon the case.
  MR. PARNELLhad always thought that it would be much more satisfactory if the Admiralty would grant a reference to a gentleman in the matter of the claims of Mr. Clare. He did not think that the testimony of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) could be considered very satisfactory, for the hon. Member had informed them that he was more or less an ex parte witness on the trial in question. He must remind the Committee that one of the claims of Mr. Clare at the trial was that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was using his invention in his office of contractor for the Navy.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, that if he might be allowed to interrupt the hon. Member for a moment he could explain the matter. When Mr. Clare came to his office he explained to him that, in former years, he had built vessels for the Admiralty in the form which he described as being one of his inventions. That was a vessel with armour plates on the outside and teak behind, then armoured plates and wood behind, and that vessel was built long before Mr. Clare had any patent at all. At the time he (Mr. Samuda) gave evidence in Court, he had no wish to give evidence against anyone; but he only stated what he knew of the matter. Mr. Clare did not then set up the claim which was now brought for-

  1775
  ward, but he only claimed to build vessels in compartments in a manner in which they had been built previously for the Admiralty. From the evidence of one witness it was perfectly clear that a vessel called the Great Western had been built in precisely the same way that Mr. Clare had claimed as his invention, and which he said the Government had adopted. So far as he was concerned he had nothing more to do with Mr. Clare than the hon. Member.
  MR. PARNELLhad not misunderstood what the hon. Member had previously said. He was only giving his version of the matter in rather different words. He did not say that the hon. Gentleman himself admitted that one of Mr. Clare's claims was against him in his office as contractor of the Navy, but he maintained that the hon. Gentleman had made use of one of Mr. Clare's patents. At all events, that was the statement of Mr. Clare; but he did not say that that was the statement of the hon. Member himself. All that showed how necessary it was that the matter should be set at rest by a fair and independent inquiry. It had always struck him, with reference to Mr. Clare's claims, that the Admiralty at the trial had to go back 30 or 35 years to meet them. Then, so far as the statement of Mr. Clare went, he had never heard any counter-statement from the Admiralty. The misfortune of the case was that the Government had never attempted to answer the case made out. They had that night heard a great many more details with regard to the case than they had ever listened to before. One of the chief arguments of Mr. Clare was that the Government were obliged to go back 20 or 30 years in order to show that, 25 years ago, a vessel was built of a similar pattern to that which he claimed. By that means, they sought to show that his patent was not well-founded. It looked very much as if the Admiralty of that day was obliged to resort to a strange defence, when they went back so many years in order to find an instance to bring forward in opposition to Mr. Clare. Why did they not bring forward some recent example, such as the hon. Member had told them of? If Mr. Clare had no case, let it be answered properly. But, although the matter had been brought forward several times, yet, on no occasion, had any attempt been made to disprove his
  1776
  case. He certainly could not see that they would have no other resource than to have the matter fairly disposed of by the House of Commons, if the Government would not appoint two or three gentlemen to investigate it.
  MR. BIGGARwas very unwilling to press the case farther, and he could only say that he had not, by any means, stated all that Mr. Clare had wished him to say with regard to the matter. He would, however, read to the House an affidavit which had been made by Mr. John Morrison, foreman shipbuilder of the late Mr. Laird, the Member for Birkenhead, which entirely contradicted the evidence of Sir Charles Fox, upon which the matter was decided against Mr. Clare. Mr. Morrison said that the greater part of Sir Charles Fox's evidence was untrue. The truth was, that Sir Charles Fox had nothing to do with the building of the vessel Alburka, and that it came under his (Morrison's) own superintendence, and he was perfectly certain that it had no longitudinal framework. The vessel was built with temporary ribbons, which were taken away as the fittings were progressing. Sir Charles Fox did not superintend the building the vessel, which was under his (Morrison's) charge from the beginning to the end. From his great experience in shipbuilding, the witness stated he could vouch for the novelty of the invention. He only wished to point out that, upon the merits, he thought Mr. Clare had won his case, and that he was entitled to an inquiry. As, however, he should be in a small minority, he should not take a division.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. A. MOOREwished to say a few words with respect to Naval chaplains, and he should like to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty with respect to the Minute published last year. At the present time, the Roman Catholic sailors in the Navy seldom had the advantages of the administration of members of their own religion. When in foreign ports the men were sent to Roman Catholic churches; but the priests at those places did not understand English. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would take any

  1777
  means to provide more religious advantages for the Roman Catholics in the Navy? He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended appointing Roman Catholic chaplains? He did not wish to ask the Committee to consider the propriety of placing Roman Catholic chaplains upon each ship of war, for upon many of those ships there was but a small number of Roman Catholics. But he did think that the Admiralty might place Roman Catholic Naval chaplains at the principal Naval centres, where they did not exist at present. He knew many officers of Her Majesty's Navy who thought very highly of that proposal, for they found that the influence of the chaplains civilized their men and made them less liable to fall into crime. There was another matter. Invalid ships were sent back from India with sick on board, without the presence of Roman. Catholic chaplains. It was hard on a man, who probably knew that he would not see the shores of England, but would die on the passage home, to prepare to go to the other world without the consolations of religion. He would press upon the Government the necessity of providing more Roman Catholic chaplains at the principal Naval centres at home and abroad, and also on board invalid ships. Upon those points, he thought they had a right to expect some satisfactory statement. No doubt, it was a rather knotty point with regard to the invalid ships; and, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would say that it was a matter for the War Department to deal with, and if they went to the War Department, they would probably be told that the question should be brought before the Government of India, who paid for recruiting the strength of regiments in this country, and for their transports out and home. He would not enter into those questions; but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not refer the matter to another Department, but would arrive at a satisfactory settlement of it himself. Then, with regard to foreign ports—sometimes a large number of our vessels were lying in foreign ports. During the Eastern complications there was a large Squadron stationed in Besika Bay, in the Mediterranean. He thought the authorities should make some local arrangements to provide for the religious instruction to men under such exceptional circumstances as those. But
  1778
  it was not only in foreign ports, but in home ports, that the Roman Catholic chaplains had no locus standi. In Portsmouth, Plymouth; and other places, they saw the men for three-quarters of an hour on a Sunday morning, whereas the Protestant chaplains had opportunities for going amongst the men every day in the week.
  THE CHAIRMANdrew the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the discussion in which he was engaged would more properly have been raised upon Vote 1, which contained the item for the salaries of chaplains.
  MR. A. MOORErose to a point of Order. He wished to move a reduction of the Vote in respect of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. He thought he was entitled to do that, and he brought forward a grievance which he considered existed in certain Departments of the Naval Service.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member that, although he was entitled to move the reduction of the salary of an Admiralty official, yet he was not entitled on such a Motion to enter into matters which formed the subject of another Vote. The question which the hon. Member now raised ought to have been discussed on Vote 1.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it was rather a long time ago since Vote 2 was before the Committee; but now he was reminded of the matter, perhaps he might be allowed to say that when Vote 1 passed through the Committee at a late period of the night, when he moved to report Progress in order that there might be an opportunity of discussing the Vote, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was very anxious to get money for the Navy, and it was promised either by him, or by someone else, that if the Vote was allowed to pass without disussion, Members should be afforded opportunity upon subsequent Votes for the discussion of any Motion that could be discussed on Vote 1. He did not know whether that would bear upon the present point or not; but, as he recollected what took place at that time, he thought it desirable to remind the Committee.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that there was another question with regard to the point raised by his hon. Friend. Probably, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would re-

  1779
  member that when his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) raised a question as to the chaplains at Delagoa Bay, a promise was made to him that chaplains should be supplied to that place. If the right hon. Gentleman would not give a more specific promise with regard to that question, he thought it open to the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) to complain of the want of attention to the undertaking made by the the Government. For that reason, he thought they were right in moving the reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that it was not quite accurate to say that Vote 1 dealt with that matter, for Vote 1 only dealt with chaplains of the Church of England. It would be found that Vote 14 provided for chaplains of the Roman Catholic and all other denominations. He thought it would be more regular, therefore, to raise the question which was now sought to be brought forward upon Vote 14.
  MR. A. MOOREexpressed his willingness to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract and to bring the matter forward upon Vote 14.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member would not be out of Order in raising that question upon. Vote 14, which was for all chaplains not being members of the Church of England.
  MR. MACDONALDwished to move that Progress be reported. His reason was that they had had an Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, which had occupied the House something like four weeks, or 24 days, by which the regluations and government of the Army had, to a large degree, been altered. They were promised, that immediately the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill was concluded, a Bill dealing with Naval Discipline should be produced; but that Bill had passed away, and up to the present time the House had not heard one word from the Government or from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to it. All they had to depend upon was the vague promise of the Government that it was their intention to bring in such a Bill. He ventured to say that the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act were as severe—nay, they were more severe—than the provisions of the late Army Regulations.
  1780
  They were called upon to vote large sums of money for the purposes of the Navy; but, before they did so, he thought they were entitled to know what was to be done with regard to the discipline of the Navy? It was now the law that, in the Army, a soldier should not receive more than 25 lashes.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member, that the question which he intended to raise would be more germane to Vote 13 on account of naval courts martial.
  MR. A. MOOREunderstood that the Question before the Committee was that Progress be reported.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that in moving to report Progress, the hon. Member for Stafford was entirely out of Order in entering upon the discussion of matters that arose upon a subsequent Vote.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, that his Motion was to report Progress, and if he had incidentally referred to any subsequent Vote, it was not his intention to do so. His intention was to impress upon the mind of the House that they had legislated for the benefit of the soldier, and that they were not entitled to vote money for the Navy until they had legislated for the benefit of the sailor. He had said before, and he repeated it, that the Navy Discipline Act, in its whole form, was outrageous and cruel in regard to the treatment of the sailor as the Army Act formerly was in regard to the soldier. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to sentences passed, that they satisfied him; but he thought that if there was any cruel and outrageous sentence passed upon any individual in Her Majesty's Service, Parliament ought to stop it. He considered that Parliament and the country, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, should know what the conduct of the man had been, and why he was to be called upon to suffer severe punishment. In the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill the functions of courts martial were submitted to the House, and great innovations had been made with respect to them; the functions of the Provost Marshal had also been submitted to the House, and great modifications made in his powers. Courts martial in the Navy were very similar to courts martial in the Army, and he did not think that they ought to vote any money at all for the Navy until they had a Bill before them with

  1781
  regard to Naval Discipline. He begged to move to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Macdonald.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHtrusted that the hon. Member for Stafford was not serious in proposing to report Progress at that hour of the evening, especially as it would be perfectly open to him to raise a question to which, he referred tomorrow. He might, however, state that immediately the determination of the House in reference to flogging in the Army was arrived at, an Admiralty Circular had been issued directing that the maximum number of lashes to be given in the Navy should be reduced to 25; and, therefore, the spirit of the undertaking given to the House had been fulfilled. He was anxious, at the right time, to bring in a Bill relating to the whole subject of discipline in the Navy; but he trusted that the hon. Member would now -withdraw his Motion, and permit the discussion to proceed.
  MR. PARNELLcertainly thought it would be most convenient to discuss that question upon Vote 13 (Administration of Martial Law). He would suggest to the hon. Member for Stafford that he should withdraw his Motion to report Progress, and should allow them to go on with the Votes until they arrived at Vote 13. He hoped, then, that they would have some more distinct declaration from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty than they had yet had. He had told them that, after the decision of the House with respect to the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, the number of lashes should be reduced to 25, he had issued orders that the same practice should be carried out in the Navy. But he did not give orders in regard to the other reductions of punishment sanctioned by the Army Discipline Act. The old Mutiny Act contained provisions for solitary confinement and solitary imprisonment; all those clauses were struck out of the Army Discipline Act they had just passed. Last year, and the year before, some hon. Members on that side of the House drew attention to the question of solitary confinement, and the result of their exertions was that, when the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill was
  1782
  brought before the House the punishment of solitary confinement was given up, and there was now no power to punish a soldier by solitary confinement as a part of his original sentence. A soldier could only now be punished with solitary confinement, for breach of prison discipline, under the Prisons Acts. When they reached Vote 13, he hoped that they would have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that he would not allow any more sentences of solitary confinement to be inflicted by courts martial as part of original sentences. The old Navy Discipline Act ran on all fours with the old Army Mutiny Act. It had been admitted that there should not be more extreme punishment in the Navy than in the Army; and the right hon. Gentleman could not with any consistency refuse to grant the request they now made that, as solitary confinement had been given up in the Army, it should also be given up in the Navy. It would be easy for the right hon. Gentleman to give such directions as would place the discipline of the Navy upon the same footing as that of the Army. He hoped, therefore, that by the time they came to Vote 13, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to make the announcement to the Committee that he would direct that the punishment of solitary confinement should not be inflicted as part of an original sentence.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) ought to be satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as it had gone, and he would venture to support the appeal of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that he should withdraw his Motion. The abolition of solitary confinement, and other punishments in which alterations had been made by the Army Discipline Act, could be extended to the Navy without legislation and by regulation only. He expected the right hon. Gentleman would probably tell them that, owing to the time the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill took, he had been unable to introduce a Bill of the same character with regard to the Navy during that Session—that would be the most satisfactory explanation. And if he were able to make an order reducing the number of lashes to 25, he would also be able to make an

  1783
  order reducing the other punishments in the Navy to a level with those in the Army. In that manner the objections of the hon. Member for Stafford might be anticipated. He was sure that the hon. Member for Stafford did not wish to delay Business, but only to get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that all the reductions in the punishments effected by the Army Discipline Act would also be extended to the Navy.
  MR. CALLANwished to have further explanations with reference to the cats which had been left in the Cloak Room for the inspection of hon. Members. When he saw the cats at the Admiralty, one of them bore the inscription—"Navy cat; specimen lodged in Storekeeper's Department many years since; Her Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth." When that cat was placed in the Cloak Room, the following inscription was substituted:—"Cat provided for use on board Her Majesty's ships for seamen and marines." The hon. Member for Meath asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty as to whether the endorsement upon the cat in the Cloak Room was the same as that which appeared upon it a week before, when he (Mr. Callan) saw it at the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, probably not speaking from his own personal knowledge, but from that supplied by one of his subordinates, answered that it was the same. He (Mr. Callan) could aver that no such endorsement as he had last mentioned ever appeared on any cat which he saw at the Admiralty. The statement that the endorsement was the same was without a shadow of foundation. It was an utter falsehood supplied to the right hon. Gentleman by some clerk at the Admiralty. Before Progress was reported, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to have an inquiry to discover the person who had supplied him with so wholly false a statement? Would he institute an inquiry to ascertain who was the party responsible for that intentional mis-statement—he would maintain it was an intentional mis-statement—it was a statement in direct contravention of the facts? Would the right hon. Gentleman defend it, or would he cause an inquiry to be made to ascertain who was responsible for that false and unfounded statement?
  MR. W. H. SMITHhad hoped that the subject to which the hon. Gentleman had referred had been dropped. The statement which he made in that House was, to the best of his belief, perfectly accurate. If the hon. Gentleman would compare the statement he had made with the statements that he had admitted were accurate, he would see that the difference between the two was not so great as to make it the interest of any person to misrepresent the facts. It did not appear to him that there was any such important difference in the labels attached to the cat as to show that there was any intention to deceive the House. The hon. Gentleman would remember that he (Mr. W. H. Smith) was responsible for the substitution of the labels. The previous label was one which gave no information to the House, and it was only to make the matter clearer; but he had no expectation of obtaining any other result than he had already given to the House some time ago—namely, that the label was one which was attached to the cat in the first instance. Of course, he accepted the statement which the hon. Member made.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that when he saw the cat, it had a certain inscription upon it; but when it was placed in the Cloak Room, it bore another inscription; and now that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty took upon himself the responsibility of the statement, it became more serious. That was not the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman had found that he had been inaccurately informed. He was prepared to prove that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, to his own certain knowledge, upon the evidence of his subordinates, was utterly without foundation, and was false and misleading. He asked that an inquiry should be instituted to discover and visit with punishment the person responsible for that false and unfounded statement; or, in the alternative, whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared himself to accept the responsibility of making the statement.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 161: Majority 151.—(Div. List, No. 200.)
  MR. A. MOOREwould like to ask, before this Vote was passed, what the system of Audit was in the Admiralty? Was it the same as it was in the War Office, and did the accounts go before Sir William Dunbar? If they did not, to whom were they submitted?
  MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that the system of Audit was the same in both Departments.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked for some explanation as to the re-organization which was promised at the Admiralty. By a Return dated the 14th June, 1878, there was to be an immediate saving of £2,478, whilst, according to the Vote, there had been an actual increase in the cost of the Office of £500. He should like to have some explanation of the failure to carry out the saving announced in the Return of last year?
  Mr. W. H. SMITHreplied, that in the reorganization of the Accountant General's Department the cost had been reduced so that there was actually a saving of £2,800.
  CAPTAIN PIMpointed out that, under the head of "Naval Department, Clerical Staff," there could be no question there was £500 increase while they were promised a reduction of £2,478. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at page 14, he would see the matter was as he had stated.
  MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that there had been no re-organization in that Department at all. The re-organization promised was in the Accountant General's Department, and that had taken place. The re-organization of the Staff in the Naval Department was under consideration.
  CAPTAIN PIMsaid, with regard to another portion of the Vote, he should like to have some explanation of the purchase of the Independencia, now called the Neptune, for £614,000. The ship was a broken-down craft altogether, and the amount given for her was largely in excess of the cost of ships of larger displacement. A new ship of 10,000 tons did not cost that sum, while the Independencia was only 9,000tons. He should like to know whether this ship had been tried for stability, and whether she was really a safe ship? She had her back broken in launching, and he should not have thought her worth half the sum mentioned.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the question he raises does not come under this Vote.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £193,870, 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 1880."
  CAPTAIN PIMsaid, he must call attention to the Royal Naval Reserve, and he should beg to move to reduce the Vote by £139,000, the amount set down for that force in the Votes. His reason for doing this was that he was the officer sent down to organize this Royal Naval Reserve some years ago, and he had taken the greatest interest in it ever since; and he now said, without fear of contradiction, that the force was a sham and a delusion. If England were at war this moment she could not count on 1,000 out of the 20,000 men put down in the Vote. Even if that number were available, we could not get a single man away from the merchant ships into the Navy, because the majority of crews in the Merchant Service consisted of foreigners, who, of course, in the event of war, would go to their own countries. From a Petition presented by seamen to the House, he had no hesitation in saying that the Government would find it utterly impossible to find in the Mercantile Marine so many as 30,000 British seamen. As to there being anything like 20,000 in the Reserve, that could not be the case, and even if they were enlisted it would be impossible for them to leave their ships to serve in the Navy in case of a war. There clearly would not be one man to each ship in the Mercantile Marine, for we had 26,000 ships. The Reserve, he maintained, was a sham and a delusion, and it was a very great mistake to pay this sum every year for what was no use, when with the greatest possible ease volunteer seamen could be raised all along the coast. He had done his very best, on several occasions, to point out the true state of the case, and he should now feel it his duty to divide the Committee on this point.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £54,870, 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 1880."—(Captain Pim.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, Ms hon. and gallant Friend would not expect him to follow him in his objection to the Royal Naval Reserve. For his part, he believed them to be a most useful and trustworthy body of men. He was not responsible for their establishment; but he thought that his right hon. Friends opposite who did establish that force believed that they could place great reliance on it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that all these men would be wanted for the merchant ships in time of war. As a matter of fact, a good many of them were constantly under drill at home, and these, at all events, would be available. Besides, as they all knew, one of the results and conditions of warfare was a certain interference with the Mercantile sea service of the country. And, no doubt, if England were engaged in war, there would be a less number of ships sailing under the British Flag than at present. He had no doubt that the Naval Reserve would be a very valuable assistance to our Navy in time of war, and he quite believed that the number of men put down would be available.
  MR. A. MOOREsaid, in reference to the question he had raised a moment ago as to the Audit of the Navy, he found that Sir William Dunbar reported on the Navy Accounts—
  "I certify that this account has been examined by officers under my directions in accordance with and to the extent prescribed by the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 29, and that it is a correct statement of the Appropriation Act of 1877.
  (Signed) "WILLIAM DUNBAR."
  He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman the meaning of the reservation contained in the words "to the extent prescribed?"
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not in Order in raising that point on the question of the Vote for "the Coast Guard and Royal Naval Reserve." His question had reference to the system of Audit for the Admiralty
  1788
  Office, and he is not in Order in raising it now.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked, if the First Lord of the Admiralty would be good enough to give him an undertaking that he would look into this matter? If his contention were right, all the Royal Naval Reserve men would be required on board the merchant ships in the event of war. Then, surely, it was not worth while going on paying these men; and be hoped his right hon. Friend would consider the matter, which was certainly of very great importance.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, this subject had been constantly inquired into, and had been before various administrators at the Admiralty, and their contention was that the assertion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not correct, and that the force of the Royal Naval Reserve was of use. The question was fully inquired into under previous Administrations, and both his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) and himself, when they were at the Admiralty, were of opinion that the Royal Naval Reserve was a very strong force, which, in time of difficulty, would be of the greatest service to the country. He might add that, in 1867, his right hon. Friend actually invited a certain number of men to come forward and assist in manning some of the ships by way of experiment, and the men were not only forthcoming, but they conducted themselves exceedingly well.
  CAPTAIN PIMremarked, that that was in time of peace.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) £105,576 (Scientific Branch).
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he wished to take this opportunity of asking the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he had made any inquiry into the result of the recent system of admitting cadets into the Naval Service. The Committee would recollect that, some years ago, a change was made in the regulations by which cadets were admitted into the Naval Service, and that, in place of the principle of examination established by his right hon. Friend near him, the old principle of nomination was re-adopted. He had twice taken the sense

  1789
  of the House on this important question with the view of the restoration of competitive examination in the appointment of cadets; and he would have raised the question again during this Session, but that that he was anxious to give the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) a full opportunity of making inquiries on the subject himself, and of coming to some decision on it personally before he did so. Therefore, during the Session he had not brought this matter before the House as he had intended to do. He should be glad to know, however, whether the right hon. Gentleman had made those inquiries, and whether he now proposed to make any change in the present system, and to revert to anything like competitive examination? He had reason to believe that the recent change in the admission of cadets had not been beneficial to the Service. The class of boys appointed under the system of pure nomination had not been so satisfactory as the class of boys appointed under the system introduced by his right hon. Friend. The Committee would be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had gone into this question, and especially whether he had taken the opinion of those gentlemen who had had the opportunity of comparing the results of these examinations with the examinations adopted under the system of competition.
  MR. E. J. REEDwished to suggest to the First Lord of the Admiralty the desirability of giving the House in future further information about these scientific branches. He often himself found considerable difficulty in tracing their operations; and he had no doubt other Members of the House had experienced the same extreme inconvenience which arose from the fact that, although each of the Departments sent out an annual Report, those Reports never came into the possession of Parliament. This was the case, not only with the Observatory, but also of that very important College, the Naval College, with regard to which the House had voted large sums annually, and in which the House felt deep interest, and ought, therefore, to have some information. It was eminently true, also, of the Hydrographic Department. He very frequently came across official statements of the operations of that Department; but he did not think they ought to have to hunt them up from the publications
  1790
  of various scientific bodies. He would therefore suggest, for the consideration of the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the annual Reports of these several branches could not be laid upon the Table of the House, to enable Members, at any rate, to discuss these Votes with more information at hand than they had at present? He might take that opportunity of saying that he had recently had the means of looking very closely into that branch of the Service. He knew that that Service was conducted with exceptional rules, and with considerable exemptions from the ordinary routine, and he therefore made it his duty, when he was recently in Hong Kong and Japan, to make inquiries into the operations of the Service there. He thought it was a proper thing to do, as a Member of the House, by chance in those distant parts; and he was very glad to say that he was not only satisfied, but he was extremely pleased with the condition in which he found both the Chinese and Japanese Services. They were doing most excellent work in a most excellent manner; and in the case of both branches he was extremely satisfied. He, consequently, regretted more than ever that they were so entirely without information as to the operations of these branches.
  CAPTAIN PIMwished to endorse every word that had fallen from the hon. Member. There was no doubt whatever that the information given on this matter, and, indeed, on all the Votes, was meagreness itself. He held in his hand the Report of the Secretary of the Navy of the United States, and nothing could be more clear or more full. It gave, in a readable form, all the information they wanted, and, surely, it would be no trouble on the part of the First Lord of the Admiralty to prepare a similar statement, and lay it on the Table with the Votes, so that hon. Members would be able to look into those matters, and take up those points, in which they felt an interest. They certainly ought not to have to wade through a mass of figures which were as vague and as ill put together as anything he had ever seen.
  MR. CHILDERSobserved that there were one or two questions in connection with this Vote on which the First Lord of the Admiralty might give them a little information. In the first place, they had not been put in pos-

  1791
  session of the Reports and results of the observations of the transit of Venus. These observations were now a good many years old, and the primary object of the Vote, which he had the honour to move himself, was to correct the measurement of the distance between the sun and the earth. A very large expenditure was granted primarily, though not solely, for that purpose; and he had not yet seen the result of that very careful inquiry. They had had a Report of the observations of the transit; but the question which it was to settle, and which was of very great value indeed, had never yet, so far as he was aware, been indicated to Parliament or the public at all. Then, with reference to the sale of charts and nautical almanacs by the Admiralty, he found that the sale of charts was advancing very satisfactorily, and he was glad of that, because they were of great value to the Service. On the other hand, there was a very decided falling off in the sale of nautical almanacs, although, so far as he was aware, the demand for such works had not fallen off within the last few years. Then, he wished to ask a question with regard to the Service of our Colonies. At page 28 it was stated that the moiety of the charges of the Survey of certain Colonies enumerated were discharged out of the Naval Vote. If he was not mistaken, although one of the Colonies offered to continue the previous charges, for some reason or other not generally understood, the Survey had been abandoned. He was alluding to the Survey of Tasmania. As to the point which his hon. Friend had raised in reference to cadets, he hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would give careful consideration to that subject, because he had reason to know that though, in some respects, the cadets of last year were more satisfactory than the cadets of the two previous years, yet that a very considerable number of boys of inferior calibre had come in compared with those who used to be introduced.
  MR. ONSLOWwould like, to know exactly how these cadets were appointed? There was great ignorance on the part of the public as to who had the nomination. He had been told that the Admiralty had a certain number; that captains, when their ships were commissioned, also had a certain number. But although he had tried to get to the bot-
  1792
  tom of the matter, he still remained in perfect ignorance about it. He should like to ask whether it ought not to be incumbent upon the First Lord, and those who had the power of making these appointments, to consider first the claims of those officers who had served Her Majesty in the Army or in the Navy? He thought all these appointments should be made quite independently of Party considerations, and that officers of the two Services who gallantly fought for their country should certainly be first considered. He was afraid that was not the primary consideration, and he would, therefore, impress upon his right hon. Friend how incumbent it was upon him to give up every other claim to such as those he had mentioned.
  MAJOR NOLANwould be very glad to know whether there really was a marked superiority in those cadets who came in by nomination over those who came in by competition? It must be remembered that great injustice was done by boys being shut out on the nomination system. In the other Services the appointments were perfectly open, and young men had a chance of getting into the Army, or into the Civil Service, or into the Services in India. He thought there ought to be no nominations, except in special cases like the Guards. But the Navy was a marked exception, and he could not understand why it should be so. The appointments were very valuable, and much sought after. The pay was very small at first; but if they looked through the list, they would find there were a good many prizes and a good many substantial rewards open to lads, and yet there was no means of getting into the Navy except through private friendship with the Government. It was impossible for an ordinary man to get his son in. If there were competitive examinations, the cleverest boy would win. If there were mixed examinations properly conducted, though that was very difficult, the best boy would also win. But, at the present moment, a certain number of vacancies were given to sons of officers in the Army and Navy, and the remainder were left entirely and exclusively in the hands of the Government. The system was an anomaly, and ought not to exist. He did not mean to say for a moment that the present First Lord had not administered it quite as fairly as any other

  1793
  First Lord, or as well as it could be administered; but the whole system appeared to him totally wrong and totally opposed to the spirit of the day. To justify that, the First Lord ought, at least, to be able to show that he got better boys by that system than by the competitive examinations.
  CAPTAIN PIMobserved that the Government certainly ought to get the best cadets it was possible to have, for he found, by reference to the Returns, that each one cost the country upwards of £300 a-year.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he could hardly suppose a First Lord to exist who would not be exceedingly glad to adopt the system of competition, and to be relieved from the responsibility of selecting candidates to be nominated for the test examination for cadetships. Since he had been in Office he had very carefully considered the question put to him by his hon. Friend. It was certain that the system of cram adopted in order to get the boys up to the degree of knowledge to pass the competitive examinations formerly required at the age of 13 seriously affected their physical health. That was the reason for the change that had been made. He was prepared to say that the reason was a good one; but he desired to treat the question as an open one, and to give it his best attention and consideration. The matter, however, could only be decided by watching the boys as they passed out of the Britannia. He had done so, and he had thought it right to raise the standard considerably, and to require a larger number of marks to pass the test examination than formerly. The fact was that a considerable number of rejections at the test or entrance examinations took place every half-year, and although they had not got back to the system of their predecessors in requiring competition, there was yet a severe examination for boys before they could pass into the Service. His hon. Friend (Mr. Onslow) had referred to the system of nomination. He could assure him that, so far as the First Lord was concerned, he had always considered the claims for nomination in this order—first of all, he placed the claims of a naval officer, next he had considered the claims of an Army officer, thinking that both those should stand first, because they were men who
  1794
  had served their country. In any nomination which he had to give away, the two Services had the first preference, and then came the persons who had served the country in other ways, or who had a claim to be considered, for some reason or other, before the outside public. That was the principle on which he had acted; and his naval Colleagues, he believed, acted on very much the same principle. A certain number of officers also had power to give nominations; but it was always understood that every nomination was subject to the boy passing a test examination of a very severe character, and if he did not pass that he failed to enter the Service. He thought the system was now very much more satisfactory than it was, and the attainments of the cadets were of such a character as to give promise for the future. As to the transit of Venus, the reduction of the observations had been a very long and serious matter. His right hon. Friend was aware that the officer who was now in charge and at the head of the Observatory was a gentleman who was entitled to a great deal of consideration, for he had rendered very great services to the State, and it was not possible to press him in the same way as they would have pressed a younger man. He had requested the Board of Visitors of the Observatory to take the subject into consideration, and they had now made certain recommendations which he had himself urged upon his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, and which he had no doubt would be acceded to. As the result, he hoped they would very soon have the full scientific results of that observation. With reference to the sale of nautical almanacs, he was not aware of any reason for the falling off. With regard to the survey of the coasts of Tasmania, he had some recollection that in regard to one Service, at any rate, the Colonial Secretary caused a suspension for a time of the arrangement; but he was not able to say for the moment whether that was the Tasmanian survey or not. If his right hon. Friend would ask him the question later on, he would take care that it should be answered. It was their object to maintain these Services as completely and efficiently as possible, and, as his right hon. Friend was aware, a very considerable number of the staff was employed on the

  1795
  survey. In Tasmanian and Australian waters they had done very good work, and no one could possibly doubt that the results had been very valuable. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had asked for further information as to the scientific branches. He thought the request that the annual Reports of these branches should be published a very reasonable request, and he would endeavour to comply with it in the course of this year, or, at any rate, before the Estimates for the next year were presented. The Reports of the Observatory, for instance, and some other statements, were likely to be very interesting. He might add that he had thought it necessary to take authority to place the lieutenants who were students at the Royal Naval College on full pay. It appeared to him very desirable that the young men who were ordered to stay in the College for a term commencing in October and ending in June should submit themselves to discipline. They would, therefore, be placed on full pay, and wear uniform in future.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, his information was that the boys appointed by pure nomination were decidedly less intelligent than those appointed on competitive examination. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had met with good results in his endeavour to raise the educational standard of the boys nominated; but the fact remained that under a system of competitive examination, even when limited, every inducement was offered to parents and guardians to make clever boys into sailors, while under the system of pure nomination parents and others generally selected the stupid boys for the Navy; and a very stupid class of boys was now being nominated under a system of cramming that just enabled them to pass the test examination. The general result of the present system was that a class of boys was now appointed to the Navy decidedly inferior to that appointed under the old system. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had endeavoured to ascertain if this was a fact from the Director of Naval Education, who had examined boys under both systems?
  MAJOR NOLANsuggested that the First Lord of the Admiralty should ascertain the physical capacity of a certain number of boys who had entered
  1796
  through competitive examination, by medical test, at the end of two or three years after admission.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, his impression was that there was no distinction between the boys admitted under the two systems. If the boys who now entered the Navy by nomination were stupid, they must be of a wonderful description, because they passed a severe examination with satisfactory results. He admitted that two years ago there had been some falling back; but that was not the case at the present time. He would, however, obtain further information upon the subject.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord whether the officers appointed to the command of surveying vessels were appointed without any regard to their practical knowledge of the Service in which they were to be engaged, as in the recent case of the Alert?
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that two years ago he had brought under the notice of the House the question of the Naval College at Greenwich. At that time there were a great many complaints as to the way in which this institution was conducted, and there were those who believed that there was in connection with it a considerable amount of expenditure for which the country obtained no adequate return. In consequence of the discussion which took place on that occasion the First Lord of the Admiralty promised that in future, before the Estimates of each year were taken, there should be a Report presented in connection with the College; that the House should be furnished with a full account of the duties performed there; the number of students; and, in short, with a Report upon the whole subject. He believed that Return had not been laid upon the Table. It was true a Committee of Inquiry had reported upon the subject; but that was an entirely different matter from the annual Report which had been promised to Parliament, for the purpose of enabling the Committee to judge of the results of the expenditure they were asked to vote for. He felt that the fact of the Committee not having been furnished with this annual Report was the result entirely of an oversight, and that it was only necessary to allude to the circumstance in order to secure its being presented in

  1797
  future. He thought he had gathered from the First Lord of the Admiralty that the promised Report should contain information with regard to the proceedings of the College; and in connection with that he hoped it would be shown by the Report that the large staff of Professors and other officers of the College were all usefully employed and all required; but upon that he would not venture to express an opinion. With regard to the various items of expenditure, it seemed to him very difficult to show that they were not excessive; and, perhaps, the Admiralty would look into these matters. The number of police officers and artificers, the charges for fuel, furniture, and stores, were all upon a scale which he could not imagine to be within reasonable limits; on the contrary, they seemed to be very excessive. The police wages, he observed, were put down at the extraordinary sum of £1,497. The allowances to servants, wages, and general mess and staff expenses were also very high, and there were other items which would appear to admit of reduction. He thought it very necessary that the House in future should have a full annual Report of the results of the College.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESdid not think the expenditure on account of the Naval College was excessive. The Estimates had been very severely criticized.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,355,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, it would be interesting to the Committee, and to the Public Service generally, to have some statement as to the result of the scheme for the re-organization of the Dockyard Clerical Staff. He had some reason to think that the senior members of the staff were tolerably satisfied with what had been done; but amongst the lower grades, however, this satisfaction did not exist. There was one class of clerks, called Admiralty writers, a numerous and important body, who felt they had been hardly treated. They had been promised promotion to the Lower Division of Clerks—a rank
  1798
  which, under the new scheme, was abolished with reference to the Dockyards. Surely some compensation ought to be given to these gentlemen, who had been expecting the promotion which had been held out to them for the last three years by Order in Council, and which had been since ignored, even though their names had been given in to the Admiralty for promotion, in obedience to a letter sent to the Yard. As far as he could judge, no compensation was to be given to these persons. He believed also another class, the mechanic writers, whose duties and knowledge were rather more technical than those of the ordinary writers, were dissatisfied with a clause in the instructions which said that they were to give any extra time that might be demanded from them without their having any claim for extra pay. The answer, he understood, on the part of the Admiralty, was that they did not intend to ask these writers to give any extra time. That was all very well; but why, then, was such a provision inserted in the regulations? He trusted that the Admiralty would not call upon these writers to do extra work without extra pay. There was another matter of great importance in connection with this subject. The Committee would be aware that the persons employed in the factories throughout the Yard were of two classes—namely, those upon the list of the establishment, and those who were hired temporarily. For obvious reasons, the latter received a somewhat higher rate of pay than those upon the establishment. But it was not from choice that they were only "hired men;" they wanted to be placed upon the establishment, and serve Her Majesty continuously in the Dockyards, and some of them contended that having served in their present capacity for long periods, say 20 or 30 years, they were entitled to receive a pension, or, at all events, a good gratuity. In 1846 the Admiralty had taken this question into consideration, and had awarded to the hired men a small gratuity on retirement, on account of their age, after a certain period of service, of £1 for every year's service. But it was subsequently seen that this system would not work satisfactorily, because a man receiving 10 s. a-week pay would get the same gratuity as a man who received 40 s. a-week, and a change was made by

  1799
  which a week's pay was to be given as a gratuity for every year's service. He had in his mind the effect of this system upon two men. The hired man having served for 30 years, would receive on discharge the sum of £63, or just about enough to keep his wife and family for a year; while the establishment man, who had been earning nearly the same wages as the other—namely, 42 s. a-week—would, after a shorter period of service, receive a pension of £55 per annum. The discrepancy between these two cases was something enormous. He was aware that the Government were taking this question into consideration; and their object was now to establish, if not all factory men, at all events, a considerable number of them by degrees. But this was poor consolation to those who had been serving continuously in the factory since its establishment, and were now too old to benefit by such a change. His view was that the Government might give the hired men, who had served for a long period, half the amount of pension given to the establishment men, or else a very considerable increase in their gratuity; say, a month's pay for every year's service. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) with great pleasure; and whilst he agreed with everything that had fallen from him, especially as to the necessity of improving the position of certain officers in the Dockyards, he was bound to say that, as regarded their salaries pure and simple, they should be asked to wait for a time, and give their subordinates a chance. It must be remembered that a number of these gentlemen had lately had an increase of salary. He did not say their salaries had been increased sufficiently; on the contrary, he hoped that before long they would be increased still further; but the subordinate officers had received little or no increase at all lately. He thought he was correct in saying that the greater number of foremen in the Yards were receiving the same salaries as were received 50 years ago. Something had been said by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) on the subject of the police employed about the Dockyards, and in connection with the Naval College at Greenwich. He believed that the amount paid for the police service at the Dockyards throughout the country was something like £60,000 or
  1800
  £70,000 a-year. Now, he had often thought that this large sum might be reduced to a certain appreciable extent by introducing pensioners to discharge police duties in connection with the Dockyards. This system had already been tried with success in some of the small Yards abroad. He could not see why pensioners, having undergone a suitable course of training, say for a year, should not undertake this work in England, and work under the direction of the police authorities. Their duties would soon be learned, and their services could, no doubt, be obtained for a small additional amount of pay over their pensions. This plan, he thought, would effect a large saving in the Estimates.
  MR. D. JENKINSsaid, that some of the items of the Vote appeared to him very extraordinary. For instance, they had a commodore receiving £600 a-year, and a second officer receiving £396 a-year, and another £200 a-year, and they also had an item of £782 for Admiralty assistants; but the total Service was to be only £1,100. He thought that those large items ought to be explained by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord. It seemed to him that the expenditure at the Dockyard of Hong Kong was very large, considering that there were only small gunboats employed on that station, and that only a small number of artificers were in the Dockyard. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman what he thought would be a great improvement upon the present system with regard to the gunboats—namely, that they should be brought home rather more frequently than at the present time—the passage could be easily made by means of the Suez Canal. By so doing, the expense would be saved of sending men to join the gunboats at foreign stations, and the Service would be improved if the gunboats were sent home for repairs. He would suggest, also, that no expensive repairs to ships should be executed abroad, but that they should be sent to Dockyards nearer home, like that at Malta, where the Dockyard was in a very efficient state, and would be available for the repair of ships upon distant stations. He thought they required additional information as regarded the expenditure under that Vote. They voted about £200,000 for the expense of foreign Dockyards, and he thought that some more information should be

  1801
  given as to how that money was expended on foreign stations. More particularly with regard to the expenditure at Hong Kong he should like to have some information.
  MR. SAMUDAobserved, that when his right hon. Friend made a statement at the beginning of the Session he asked for some Returns, in order that he might ascertain the amount of work performed and compare it with the work promised. It would be within the recollection of the Committee that it had been shown that a great disparity existed between the figures stated by the Government and by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Lefevre). But his object was particularly to draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to what he conceived to be a great failure in the way in which the Estimates were put before the House and of the way in which the Admiralty accounts were kept. It must be perfectly clear that the first thing for them all to possess, in order that they might know what they were doing, was to have a clear knowledge of the engagements they were entering into and what part of them they were carrying forward to the next year. It appeared to him that that was not satisfactorily done by the present system. He wished to draw especial attention to the necessity of making some change. He did not wish to lay any stress upon the shortcomings of the Government, and the difference between what was promised and what was performed; but he did desire that everyone in the House should have the means of ascertaining what had been performed and to compare it with what had been promised. Last year lie found that they were promised 8,600 tons of armour-plated vessels; but only 4,800 had been completed. Formerly it was the custom to calculate the amount of shipping by builders' tonnage; but in 1874 a change was made, by which the builders' tonnage was entirely set aside, and, in lieu thereof, the Admiralty adopted a system of calculating, not by the displacement tonnage, but by a system representing the ton weight in the hull. It was, however, stated in the Estimates how much the vessel was to cost and how much was to be provided in the particular year to meet that Estimate. That would appear to give them some idea of what they did in particular years and what they
  1802
  left undone; but the Committee would observe that the way in which the Estimates were now drawn up did not even give them that information, because, when the cost of a vessel increased, as it constantly did, alterations were made in succeeding years, which disturbed all previous reference to progress and cost, and it was utterly impossible to arrive at the ultimate cost. That mode of calculation must lead to complications which no one could follow. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could not simplify the Estimates, and enable them to understand what they were doing. First, when in cases where the Estimates were to be put before them for the construction of vessels, the Committee ought to know what would be the gross liability that they were assuming. They should not have put before them, as was the new practice, merely an Estimate for building so many hundred tons in the course of the year. They were only asked to vote money for that number of tons; but by so doing they might, and in many cases were, incurring the liability to spend a very large additional sum of money in completing those vessels. They ought to have before them the total sum of money which they would have to vote, not in the present year only, but in all succeeding years, for the completion of the vessels; if in any succeeding year a reference was made to the money spent on these vessels, then they would know how much they had expended, and what it was intended to expend, and how much they would be liable to expend in the future, and in that way they would be able to know what they were doing. At the present moment they could not tell anything beyond the fact that it was intended to build so many tons in the course of the year. Then the cost of the vessels was often found to be greater than was originally estimated for, and additional expense was thereby incurred. It was important that those who followed the Estimates should be able to lay their fingers upon such things to show that they had, for instance, voted £5,000,000 liabilities, of which they had paid £1,000,000 and had carried over £4,000,000. They ought to have the knowledge before them of what their liabilities were, and they should not be left in the dark as to this important matter when asked to vote money for the construction of new ships.

  1803
  A Supplemental Vote ought to be made in the Estimates of the liabilities that they were incurring, and of the increased cost that had been found necessary in respect of certain vessels. He trusted that when that matter came next before the House they would be able to understand by looking at the figures put before them what was being done. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would see that when so much smaller an amount of tonnage was completed than was contemplated it was a most serious thing. He did not intend to go into that matter; but still there was a very great difference between what was completed and what was promised. He thought that the Navy Estimates ought to be placed before them in such a way as an ordinary business man would place before him his own obligations and keep them from time to time before his notice. They would then know what their liabilities were, and be able to understand the questions before them.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREwished to say a few words upon the Vote, though he did not desire to enter into the wider question to which he drew attention at the beginning of the Session. As the Admiralty had not been able to make any answer to the criticisms which he then brought forward, he must assume that the truth of them was accepted. He should confine himself on the present occasion to making some remarks on the work performed during the past year in the Dockyards, and compare it with the programme laid before the Committee when the Estimates were last before it. A Return had been laid upon the Table of the House, showing the programme last year as compared with the work performed during the year. That account seemed to him to be very unsatisfactory. He found that it was promised that 13,408 tons of vessels would be completed in the Dockyards during the year. According to the Return, only 10,062 tons had been completed, instead of the much larger number promised; and that notwithstanding the fact that a very much larger number of men had been employed in the Dockyards. It was also noticeable that a very small proportion of the vessels completed were iron-clads. A deduction should be made from that on account of the vessels paid
  1804
  for out of the Vote of Credit. Those vessels had been repaired, their armament had been taken out, and their fittings replaced; while, in the case of the Superb, the rigging had been remodelled. When a deduction was made in respect of those vessels it left but a small amount of tonnage for the new iron-clads constructed in the Dockyards. In fact, so little had been spent on building that it might almost be left out of account. It was promised that about 600 tons should be completed in respect of each of the four new iron-clads in course of construction; of one vessel 15 tons had been built, of another 30 tons, and of a third 50 tons, while the fourth was not commenced. As regarded the Agamemnon, it was promised that 2,335 tons should be built, but only 997 tons had been completed; 1,625 tons were promised in the case of the Ajax, but only 890 tons had been constructed. The Inflexible had now been eight years on the stocks, and had not yet been completed. When the present Government came into Office it was one of their principal charges against their Predecessors that they had not made sufficiently rapid progress with the Inflexible; and they, accordingly, asked for an additional vote of money to hasten the completion of that vessel. It was promised that during the past year 1,383 tons of the Inflexible should be completed, and that the vessel should be off the stocks during the financial year. That had not been done, and the vessel was still in arrear. That was a serious matter, because the Inflexible was a vessel of a peculiar kind, and it was most desirable that its completion should be hastened so far as possible, in order that they might have experience of her qualities, and that that experience should be made use of to guide them as to what alterations were necessary in other vessels of the same kind then being laid down. The money which was required to be expended upon the Inflexible appeared to have been diverted to making alterations in a vessel called the Independencia, and now styled the Neptune. When he last addressed the House he referred to the case of the Independencia, and the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to give some explanation, which, however, did not appear to him to be satisfactory. The Independencia was a vessel bought from the Brazilian Government for £614,000,

  1805
  including £44,000 for her armament. The purchase was justified by the Government on the ground that the vessel was a powerful one, and in a position to go to sea at once. If so, there might have been some good reason for her purchase; but no sooner was she purchased than a board of officers in the Admiralty proceeded to condemn her armament. The Director of Naval Ordnance said that he would not be responsible for sending such a vessel to sea. Another board of officers condemned her fittings, and the third board condemned her masts, yards, and other equipments. The result was that that vessel, which was bought at the extravagant price he had mentioned, was sent into the Dockyard, and £34,000 was spent upon her during the past year. He observed that provision had been made for a further expenditure of £14,000 or £15,000 upon her. Thus, £45,000 would be spent in altering and converting that vessel, and in replacing her armament, masts, yards, and fittings. The result was that the £44,000 given for her armament would be entirely wasted. That appeared to him to be a most foolish transaction. If the vessel were ready to go to sea, why was she sent to the Dockyard, and that enormous sum expended upon her? On the other hand, if not fit to go to sea, why was such an extravagant price paid for her, or why was she bought at all? He believed that it would have been far better to have expended the money in hastening on the completion of the Inflexible. For a very much less sum of money the Inflexible might have been finished; that powerful vessel might have been already at sea, and they would have gained that experience of her qualities which would have guided them in the construction of the other vessels now being built. That appeared to him to have been a most unfortunate transaction, and one of a most serious character. As he had said, during the past year only 10,062 tons of vessels had been built, against 13,000 tons promised, and the falling off had been almost entirely in iron-clads. He would like to go back three or four years, in order to show the gradual falling off there had been in the ship-building in the Dockyards. He would confine himself to making the comparison during the past four or five years that the present Ad-
  1806
  ministration had been in Office. In 1875–6, 13,114 tons of vessels were built in the Dockyards, and 16,000 men were employed in the work. In 1876–7, 13,437 tons were built in the Dockyards; and in 1877–8, 12,052 tons were completed. Last year only 10,062 were built, and a larger number of men was employed. They had thus a continued diminution in the tonnage of vessels built, while in each year the same number of men was employed, except last year, when the number of men was increased. The falling off had been principally in iron-clads; but, from the Return before them, he was unable to say how the money which ought to have been expended in building iron-clads had been spent, unless it were expended upon the Independencia, the Superb, and another vessel. In the Estimates now before them, he found that there was a smaller Estimate for the tonnage of vessels to be built in Dockyards than he could recollect in any previous year. It was proposed to build 12,151 tons of vessels, of which 7,193 tons were proposed to be iron-clads. He should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had promised them that the Inflexible should be finished; but it appeared that her completion was again to be postponed for another year. With regard to the other vessels proposed to be built, he observed that it was intended to go on with the Ajax and the Agamemnon, and also to add some work to the Polyphemus. With respect to the other vessels it was no use discussing what they would be, considering what little progress would be made with the iron-clads. He believed that it would be better to complete vessels like the Inflexible, the Ajax, and the Agamemnon, instead of doing work upon vessels of less importance. He would not detain the Committee any longer at that period of the night, except to add his protest against the Navy Estimates being brought forward at that time of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had told them that it was owing to exceptional circumstances; but it was the fact that last year the same thing was done. It was then said that exceptional circumstances were the cause of the delay; but if they went 10 years back, they would find no other instance of the Navy Estimates having been postponed to so late a period.

  1807
  In 1870, the Navy Estimates occupied six nights in discussion, and were completed before the 29th of July. In 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, and 1876, four to six nights were expended in the discussion of the Navy Estimates. In 1877, the Navy Estimates took six nights, and were finished before the 18th of June. He thought that it was evident that the ordinary work of the Navy could not be properly discussed in less than five nights. It was now proposed that the Navy Estimates should only occupy one night, and that would not give the House proper opportunity for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Navy should recollect that the audience in the House upon these matters was a select one. But there was another audience outside the House—a much larger number who were deeply interested in all questions concerning the Navy, and in order that the public might be informed upon naval matters they ought to be able to read the debates and to form an opinion, and to see that justice was being done to the many important questions that so much interested the public. If the discussions were brought on at that late period of the night full justice could not be done to the outside public, for full reports could not be given. No one would, therefore, know outside the House what was being done there, and a very great injury was done, not only the Public Service generally, but to the whole of the public interested in naval matters.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that on the last occasion when the Navy Estimates were under discussion, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) made an attack upon the whole policy of naval administration since the time he was in Office. The hon. Member alleged that no answer had been given to him; but he would like to tell the hon. Gentleman that in a few days he would see what he thought would be a most conclusive answer. The policy that he complained of during Mr. Ward Hunt's and his right hon. Friend's administration was that they had been in the habit of repairing instead of building ships. He might say that the great object of the Admiralty had been to place upon the water an efficient Fleet. They had not always been able to carry out that programme; but they had done so to the best of their ability. Their complaint
  1808
  against the Liberal Administration was that they did not pay sufficient attention to the repairs of ships; when they came into Office they found a vast number of ships in a very bad state of repair, and they considered it incumbent upon them to put those vessels in good order. He would not go into details at that hour of the night; but he would give one or two figures to show that the results of the present administration had not been such as had been alleged. On the 1st of January, 1874, there were but 16 armoured ships in good order, and on the 1st of January, 1879, there were 26. That was owing to the care which his right hon. Friend had displayed in causing those ships to be kept in proper repair. The House and the country should remember that repairs to ships were of far more importance at this time than they were 20 years ago. An iron ship was practically indestructible, and when they had got her they must make the best of her. It was much better to keep her in proper repair than to allow her to rust away in a corner. On the 1st of January, 1874, there were 27 armoured vessels, and on the 1st of January, 1879, 66 armoured vessels. In unarmoured ships they had, in 1874, 108 in good condition, and in 1879, 150. The wooden ships, in January, 1874, amounted to 81; but in January, 1879, they had diminished to 38, as that class of vessels had practically passed from the Navy. Those figures showed conclusively the results of their administration. The result of their administration had been to put upon the sea Fleets such as had never existed before, and that, surely, ought to be the proper result of good administration. It was said that they had spent more money; but they had got their money's worth, and when the country had measured and considered the results he had given he thought it would be satisfied that they had not spent the money with which they had been intrusted improperly; but that, speaking generally, their Fleets were in much better order than they had ever been before.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that after the speech which had just been made he thought they ought to report Progress. He did not, however, intend to propose that Motion. He so far concurred with the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Le-

  1809
  fevre) that he intended, before the end of the Session, to give Notice of his intention next Session to bring before the House a Motion to the effect that Her Majesty's Government, having deprived the House of all just control over the Expenditure, the Votes in Committee should be postponed until that control had been re-established. He did not know that he should have said anything at all at that time but for some remarks which fell from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, in replying to the observations made. He had recently been at Hong Kong, and had examined the works there, and had been very much pleased with them. No doubt, the Estimate for them seemed somewhat large, and he should not have been pleased unless there had been something behind the Estimate. The work was done by the carpenters of the ships that required to be repaired at Hong Kong. By that means, it was possible for the Government to keep a small and efficient staff in the Dockyard in Hong Kong to superintend the work, or otherwise they would have to incur great expense by sending out artificers. The China Station was to be supplied, he believed, with a number of small craft. Those vessels were quite unsuitable to steam against sea, or to brave the monsoons that prevailed there. It was, therefore, desirable to repair and refit those vessels at Hong Kong. In December last, he noticed that a great deal of valuable work was done there, and he was of opinion that the expenditure at Hong Kong was fully justified. He did not say that the money expended on their own Dockyards was not required; but he considered that the Dockyard at Hong Kong did important service, even if it cost somewhat more than the other naval establishments. He thought his hon. Friend would agree with him that that was a very important consideration. He was not surprised that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) objected to the change that had been made in the method of measuring the progress of vessels. His hon. Friend had, in passing, referred to the desirability of hastening the completion of the Inflexible; and he agreed that, until she was completed and they had obtained experience of her qualities, many important questions would be undecided. The discussion with respect to her turned
  1810
  upon what would happen when the ship went into action. He hoped the House would not be satisfied with the ship merely going to sea, and would not come to a conclusion until the vessel had been tried in action. He did not intend to go into the question which had been raised in a manner he had not expected. When the House entered into the inquiry he hoped that it would not be narrowed, and that it would be pursued with determination. He might observe, also, that not the slighest particle of information had been given concerning the Ajax and the Agamemnon. He would not prolong the discussion, but would only make one remark about the purchase of the Independencia. The fact had been noticed that it had been considered desirable to keep her a considerable time in the Dockyard and to spend a large sum of money upon her. As regarded the armament of the vessel, he confessed that he felt some surprise at what had been done, when he remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty stated in his most positive manner that the purchase of the Independencia would afford an opportunity for a practical trial at sea of the Whitworth gun, which had been for some time desirable. Many persons at the time prognosticated that the right hon. Gentleman would never carry out that trial, but that the people behind him, in connection with the Navy, would be too strong for him. He had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would be stronger than the persons who moved him from behind; but he was sorry to find that the trial had been abandoned. With regard to the other part of the expenditure, he thought that a great part of it was justified, and that the Independencia required considerable alteration. But if it were intended, the moment she was purchased, to make her available for the defence of the country in case of war, then the object had not been fulfilled. However, he, for one, did not blame the Government for making considerable alterations in the Independencia, and rendering her fit for the service of this country. He wished to join in the protest which had been made against the Estimates being taken at that period of the Session.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that it was impossible for the House to deal with the

  1811
  Navy Estimates at any length at that time. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, in replying to his hon. Friend, the Member for Reading, had answered his criticisms by reading figures which were to appear in a future Report. It would be necessary to have that Report before them prior to answering the inferences which had been drawn from it. But he might observe that the Report was one which had not been moved for by any Member of the Government, but by the hon. Member for Stafford. They were at a great disadvantage in arguing upon matters with which they had been unconnected for five years; and, at last, they were met by a Report with which they were totally unacquainted. That was not a fair way of dealing with the charges made by his hon. Friend; and he thought there was very good reason to complain of the manner in which his hon. Friend the Member for Reading had been dealt with.
  MR. W. H. SMITHwas surprised that his right hon. Friend should raise any objection to the facts which had been mentioned. He did not think that more reliance was placed upon those facts than upon any others bearing upon the subject. The Returns had been compiled by responsible officers, and it was not fair to cast a doubt upon them.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that he had great confidence in the gentlemen employed in the Admiralty; but the gentlemen who were responsible during the period with which the Returns dealt were no longer there.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the Admiralty officers who compiled those Returns were not able to state accurately the facts of the previous administration of the Navy. He thought it unfortunate that they should have got into a discussion of what was done by the present or the late Government, or that the Navy should be made the subject of a Party fight. He could say that the funds which the present Government had had placed at its disposal had been made the best possible use of in the interest of the country. He was prepared to go in detail into the work which they had done. Of course, they were as liable as other persons to commit errors of judgment, and he should be the last to set up any claim for infalli-
  1812
  bility on the part of the Government. He believed that the work which the Government had carried out had been, on the whole, well done. With respect to the Independencia, she was purchased because she was a very powerful vessel, and could have been used if necessity had arisen. It would have been a serious breach of duty on his part to have allowed that vessel to pass into other hands. With respect to the armament, he was most anxious for the ship to go to sea with her original armament. The Whitworth gun had been landed and tried for endurance at Shoeburyness, and it had been pronounced to be unfit for service. He was told that it would not be right to allow the vessel to go to sea with less powerful guns than 38-ton service guns. He was, however, sorry that an opportunity had not arisen for testing the Whitworth gun at sea. The work that had been done on the vessel was necessary and was desirable to increase the strength and efficiency of the Navy. And that remark applied not only to the work that had been done on the Independencia, but on the other vessels which had been put in good order and made fit for sea. Then, with regard to the Inflexible, the Ajax, and the Agamemnon, he might say that he was entirely responsible for the delay which had taken place in the completion of the Inflexible. He did not wish to press on the work in that and the other two vessels before the questions which had been raised in that House with regard to them had been decided. Some part of the delay was attributable to the fact that it was thought desirable to arm those vessels with more powerful guns than was first intended. Then, the consideration of the armour to be given to the turrets of the Inflexible had, to a certain extent, delayed it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading had assumed that, because no answer had been given to his statement, it was impossible to answer it. He was not going into a discussion at that time; but whenever a proper opportunity arose to discuss the question the Government had a good answer to make. Some remarks had been made with reference to Hong Kong. The work done at that Dockyard was of a very valuable character, and of much benefit to the Navy. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had re-

  1813
  ferred to the accounts of the Navy, and had asked that better Returns should be laid before the House. He fully admitted that the accounts were exceedingly difficult to understand, and he would consider whether any better information could be given in another form. If he could see his way to adopt any plan of estimating for the cost of ships other than the present complicated system he should prefer it. With regard to the cost of the work at Hong Kong, he might observe that it was very much cheaper than the work done in this country. It would put the country to a large additional expense if they were obliged to send all small gunboats home to be repaired; and great saving was effected by having about half of the gunboats repaired at Hong Kong.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that he disapproved of Party attacks upon the administration of the Navy. He was very glad to hear that, because it was an entirely new view of the course that ought to be adopted. They had heard a great many attacks made by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House upon the policy of their Predecessors. The moment that Parliament adjourned, the Financial Secretary went down to Lancashire and made strong criticisms upon the naval policy of the late Administration. Then, when his hon. Friend the Member for Reading answered the attack in that House, it was said—"I can't answer it now, but I will enter into it another day." What the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, in effect, said, was—"I will go down to Lancashire and make another speech, but I will not make it in the House of Commons, where I can be answered." Although they were in Supply on the Navy Estimates, yet the Government did not consider that that was the proper time to answer criticisms upon their policy. It was 20 minutes past 2 in the morning, and it was said there was no time to enter into these matters. The Government went on extolling its own doings; but when anything was said the answer was—"Oh, let us have no Party recrimination." Why, they had been for five years living upon attacks made upon the naval policy of their Predecessors. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would enter into the
  1814
  matter when he returned to Lancashire, after the Session was over. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman might cry "Hear, hear!" from the Treasury Bench; but why did he not answer in that House the observations of the hon. Member for Reading? That was the way in which the Government conducted its Party defence against Party attacks. He was convinced that when the matter came to be examined it would be found that the Gentlemen who complained of a phantom Fleet before now had a Fleet of an even more shadowy description, but at much greater cost. They had been challenged fairly enough by the hon. Member for Reading to show the results of their administration. They had said we will not go into the matter now, but, probably, when Parliament was up, the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary would go down to Lancashire, where he could not be answered, and say all he had to say upon the matter. He had no doubt they would have a most admirable speech in Lancashire. It was most unfortunate, also, that questions like the functions and administration of the Navy should be disposed of at an hour of the morning when neither the House nor the country could know anything about it.
  MR. W. H. SMITHwished to say that they were perfectly prepared to discuss the questions which had been raised by the hon. Member for Reading. He had understood that the hon. Gentleman did not desire that the question should be discussed at that time in the House; but he was perfectly ready to meet the challenge if it were wished. He had not intended to read some Papers which had been prepared with reference to the comparative results of the administrations of the present and the late Governments. As, however, he had been so distinctly challenged, he would read the figures contained in those documents. He might say that the result of those figures was to show, by using the same kind of tonnage for the two periods, that in five years the Conservative Government had built 23 per cent more than was constructed in the same period by the Liberal Government. The amounts given in the Parliamentary Paper just presented were expressed in tons, builders' measurement, for the five years from 1869 to 1874, and in tons, weight of hull, for the

  1815
  subsequent five years. Using builders' measurement, it was found that from the 1st of April 1869 to the 1st of April 1874, there were built of armoured vessels 29,423 tons in the Dockyards, and 21,439 tons by contract, the total of armoured vessels being 50,862 tons. Then, of unarmoured ships, there was built between 1st April 1869 and 1st April 1874, 37,579 tons in the Dockyards and 10,343 tons by contract, making a total of 47,992 tons. Thus the total amount of tonnage completed in the five years was 98,784 tons, of which 67,002 tons were built in the Dockyards, and 31,782 tons by contract. From the 1st of April, 1874, to 1st of April, 1879, there were built in the Dockyards 36,354 tons, and by contract 11,036 tons, making a total of 47,390 tons of armoured vessels. Of unarmoured vessels built in the Dockyards, there were 38,945 tons, and by contract, 35,301 tons, making a total of armoured vessels built in the five years of 74,246 tons. Thus, the total amount of tonnage, both armoured and unarmoured, completed between 1874–9 was 121,636 tons, of which 75,299 tons were built in the Dockyards, and 46,337 by contract. Therefore, during the last five years, the present Government had built 23 per cent more tonnage of vessels than the Liberal Administration in the preceding five years. He might state that, in 1877–8, a total of 19,647 tons was added to the Navy by purchase out of the Vote of Credit; of that amount 14,808 tons were of armoured shipping, and 4,839 of unarmoured shipping.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that they were under very great disadvantage in testing the Return which had been brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman. The Return before the House estimated the amount of shipping in tons, builders' measurement, for the late Government; but in ton weight of hull for the present Government. There was no means of comparing the ton weight with the builders' measurement. Could the right hon. Gentleman give them any data by which they could compare the different Estimates?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he could not give the information that the right hon. Gentleman wished. He placed implicit reliance upon the accuracy of the figures which had been compiled by officials who had been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that upon the evidence of the Comptroller, who was a personal friend of his, he placed implicit reliance. But it was upon the results of the figures that the question arose. A conversion had been made from builders' measurement into ton weight, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty did not know any relation between the two. They had one Return presented to the House by one of the Members of the Admiralty in ton weight and another in builders' weight; and the Admiralty were unable to inform the House of Commons what was the relationship between those two sets of calculations. Five years ago he would have answered any questions put to him by hon. Members upon that subject. He would again assert that if a Return had been presented by him in the manner in which the present had been framed, and explanations were not forthcoming, he should have considered it necessary to have given them to the House; but the right hon. Gentleman would not adopt that course. He was entirely in his right in asking, and he thought the House would be wrong if it did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to inform them how those terms had been converted? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it made a very considerable difference. The hon. Member for Reading had made a comparison between the results of the past and present administration of the Navy according to the figures that were in use when they were at the Admiralty; but the official Return now quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, of the Admiralty was prepared on a different system of calculation. They were unable to follow each individual ship, and they were therefore unable to follow that Return. They could not really make any progress in understanding the figures put before them until they knew how they had been converted. He was, of course, aware of the difficulty of discussing those questions at that time of the night; they had sat there very patiently while matters of much inferior importance were being discussed, and he must apologize to the Committee if he had allowed himself to be carried away by feeling too strongly the importance of the subject.
  MR. PARNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the

  1817
  City of London (Mr. Goschen) could tell the Committee the difference between builders' measurement and ton weight? Perhaps that would be a good opportunity to discuss the question of Reserve men, with which the right hon. Gentleman had alleged himself to be acquainted.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that before they entered into a discussion upon the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) he must express his surprise that the Returns from which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had quoted had not been laid upon the Table of the House in time for a fair discussion to take place upon them. They ought to have known that those Returns were to be presented to the House. He could not but think that those Returns had only been drawn up in order that they might be used by the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty in Lancashire during the coming Recess. He agreed with the observations that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the undesirability of making the Navy the subject of a Party fight. He only trusted that those observations were addressed by the right hon. Gentleman to his own Secretary, and that he would mark and digest them. During the last Recess the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty had taken the opportunity of making grave charges against the Naval Administration of the late Government. With reference to the Returns, from which quotations had been made, there were great differences between the figures there given and the calculations which he had made. He did hope that the Government would give them such information as would enable them to compare the builders' measurement with the weight in tonnage, and in that manner to be in a position to verify the calculations.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that with regard to the Whitworth guns there was a very important question as to their penetration of a vessel under water. They had hoped and expected that an opportunity would have arisen in the case of the Independencia for that question to be tried, and the ground of their complaint was that it had not been tried.
  MR. D. JENKINSmaintained that gunboats could be brought home for repair instead of being repaired abroad with greater efficiency to the Public Service; instead of that they were left to lay for nine-tenths of their time in the Chinese rivers. In his opinion, a great number of those gunboats could be brought home, to the great advantage of the crews and to economy in the Public Service. The charge for the number of men employed at the Dockyard at Hong Kong was very much greater than the expense incurred for a like number of men in the Home Dockyards.
  MR. A. MOOREmoved to report Progress, as he thought that the subject had not been thoroughly discussed, and that it could not be adequately discussed at that hour.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur Moore.)
  CAPTAIN PIMobserved, that hon. Members interested in Dockyards, and in nautical matters, had come down that evening to discuss questions upon the Naval Estimates, and it would be inconvenient to have the discussion over again. He thought that it would be highly desirable to take the Vote then.
  MR. A. MOOREsaid, that the hon. Member seemed to think that the subjects under discussion were only interesting to a section of hon. Members. He, in common with several of his hon. Friends near him, took a very great interest in the questions that would arise in connection with Vote 13.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that they did not intend to go as far as that Vote. He thought that, after the discussion they had upon the present Vote, they might reasonably come to some decision upon it.
  MR. A. MOOREwould be satisfied if Progress were reported when they reached Vote 13.
  MR. GOSCHENsuggested that those Votes upon which questions were not raised should be taken, and that they should report Progress when they arrived at those Votes upon which discussions arose.
  MR. W. H. SMITHexpressed his willingness to adopt that course.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that the questions raised in connection with the Dock-

  1819
  yard at Hong Kong deserved the attention of the Admiralty. £11,500 was voted in respect of the officers to look after 53 men; and there was one policeman for every 10 men. The Commodore in charge of the Yard got £1,488 a-year. In all probability, the duty of the Commodore consisted in walking about with a telescope under his arm and swearing at the men. He thought that it was clear that there were a number of officers in that Dockyard that were not required. He did not think that in an establishment of 312 men only so much as £1,100 should be paid to the officers. He thought the expenses of that Yard were a subject to which the Government might look with advantage.
  MR. E. J. REEDthought that his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee was unacquainted with the circumstances connected with the Hong Kong Dockyard. The Commodore was not a resident in the Dockyard, but had other duties to perform as Senior Resident in the Port of Hong Kong. His hon. Friend was wrong in supposing that the establishment consisted only of 312 men. When work was required to be done at Hong Kong the whole of the carpenters of the Fleet landed and performed the work under the superintendence of the Dockyard authorities. From his personal observation, he could affirm that the Commodore did not walk about with a telescope under his arm, as the hon. Gentleman had imagined.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MAJOR NOLANcomplained that they had no Dockyards in Ireland. Out of £11,000,000 spent in Dockyards, only £1,300 was expended in Ireland. The sum spent upon Dockyards in Ireland was really contemptible. It was a great injustice to Ireland that that should be the case, for he had always considered that there was no strategical reason for it. Some of the ports on the West Coast of Ireland would be much better adapted for Dockyards than any in England. There was so great a difference between what was spent in Ireland on those matters and the amount spent in the other two countries that he only wondered that Irish Members had not made a greater stand upon the question than they had done.
  Original Question put, and agreed to..
  1820

  (6.) £76,570, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad, agreed to.

  (7.) £67,030, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, agreed to.

  (8.) £21,408, Marine Divisions, agreed to.

  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,030,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Stores for Building, Repairing, and Outfitting the Fleet and Coast Guard, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to postpone the consideration of that Vote, as some questions arose in connection with it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £566,749, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of New Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, and Repairs, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. William Henry Smith,)—put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  EAST INDIA LOAN (CONSOLIDATED FUND) [ANNUITIES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to raise a sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole £2,000,000 sterling, by the creation of Three Pounds per Centum per Annum Permanent Annuities, chargeable on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, for the purpose of making a Loan to the Secretary of State in Council of India.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock,

  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT (recommitted) BILL [Lords].
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT (recommitted) BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 254.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Saturday, resolve itself into the said Committee."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at Three o'clock.