HC Deb 08 July 1880 vol 253 c1901

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of Admiral Phillimore on the Naval Reserves, in which he states as follows:— The force (Coast Guard) on shore was meant in 1869 to be maintained at 4,300. On my relieving Sir W. Tarleton, in November 1876, the numbers short were 202. The numbers now short of this are 377, as, owing to the lack of candidates, the Vote taken this year was temporarily reduced by 150; To what does he attribute this "lack of candidates;" and, if it is the fact that the seamen of the Navy, from whose ranks these candidates are drawn, are in receipt of an increase of pay, in which the Coast Guard do not participate?


The Question put to me by the hon. and gallant Member is almost identical with that which he put to me on Monday last. I am unable now to give a fuller reply to it without entering into a lengthened and detailed statement of the pay and position of the Coast Guard, which would scarcely be possible in reply to a Question. I would also put it to the hon. and gallant Member whether it is in the interest of the Public Service that a question should be raised as to the pay of a large body of men so soon after their numbers and pay have been voted by this House with the full concurrence of both Parties.


said, that of the three courses that were open to an hon. Member when he regarded a reply to his Question evasive or unsatisfactory he had adopted that of repeating his Question on a future occasion. He wished to ask the Speaker whether, in the circumstances, he was not entitled to a categorical answer to his Question?


observed, that after the hon. and gallant Gentleman had put his Question more than once, and had received replies to it, he himself had no power to interfere in the matter.