SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 31 July 1879 vol 248 cc1769-820

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £1,003,375, Victuals and Clothing for Seaman and Marines.

CAPTAIN PIM

asked for information with regard to the item of £1,396 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. EGERTON

replied, 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. BIGGAR

said, 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 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 PRICE

said, 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. REED

believed 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 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. BIGGAR

did 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 PIM

said, 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 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. SAMUDA

hoped 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 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. EGERTON

said, 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. PARNELL

had 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. SAMUDA

said, 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- 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. PARNELL

had 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 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. BIGGAR

was 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. MOORE

wished 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 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 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 CHAIRMAN

drew 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. MOORE

rose 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 CHAIRMAN

said, 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. PARNELL

said, 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. BIGGAR

said, 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- 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. CHILDERS

said, 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. MOORE

expressed 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 CHAIRMAN

said, 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. MACDONALD

wished 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. 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 CHAIRMAN

pointed 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. MOORE

understood that the Question before the Committee was that Progress be reported.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, 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. MACDONALD

said, 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 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. SMITH

trusted 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. PARNELL

certainly 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 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 POWER

thought 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 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. CALLAN

wished 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. SMITH

had 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. CALLAN

said, 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. MOORE

would 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. SMITH

replied, that the system of Audit was the same in both Departments.

CAPTAIN PIM

asked 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. SMITH

replied, 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 PIM

pointed 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. SMITH

replied, 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 PIM

said, 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 PIM

said, 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. SMITH

said, 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. MOORE

said, 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 Office, and he is not in Order in raising it now.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

CAPTAIN PIM

asked, 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. GOSCHEN

said, 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 PIM

remarked, that that was in time of peace.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) £105,576 (Scientific Branch).

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, 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 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. REED

wished 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 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 PIM

wished 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. CHILDERS

observed 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- 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. ONSLOW

would 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- 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 NOLAN

would 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 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 PIM

observed 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. SMITH

said, 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 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 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 LEFEVRE

said, 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 NOLAN

suggested that the First Lord of the Admiralty should ascertain the physical capacity of a certain number of boys who had entered through competitive examination, by medical test, at the end of two or three years after admission.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, 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 PIM

asked 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. RYLANDS

said, 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 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 LOPES

did 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 PRICE

said, 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 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 10s. a-week pay would get the same gratuity as a man who received 40s. a-week, and a change was made by 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, 42s. 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 £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. JENKINS

said, 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 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. SAMUDA

observed, 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 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. 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 LEFEVRE

wished 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 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, 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- 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. 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. EGERTON

said, 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 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. REED

said, 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- 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 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. GOSCHEN

said, that it was impossible for the House to deal with the 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. SMITH

was 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. GOSCHEN

said, 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. SMITH

said, 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- 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- 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 HARCOURT

was 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 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. SMITH

wished 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 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. GOSCHEN

said, 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. SMITH

said, 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. GOSCHEN

said, 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. PARNELL

asked if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the 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 LEFEVRE

said, 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. REED

said, 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. JENKINS

maintained 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. MOORE

moved 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 PIM

observed, 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. MOORE

said, 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. SMITH

said, 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. MOORE

would be satisfied if Progress were reported when they reached Vote 13.

MR. GOSCHEN

suggested 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. SMITH

expressed his willingness to adopt that course.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, that the questions raised in connection with the Dock- 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. REED

thought 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 NOLAN

complained 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..

1. (6.) £76,570, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad, agreed to.
2. (7.) £67,030, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, agreed to.
3. (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 PIM

asked 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.