Lords Sitting of 10 March 1876

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Council of India (Professional Appointments) * (28).
Second Reading—Epping Forest* (24).
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Provisional Orders* (21).
Report—Appellate Jurisdiction* (23).

THE MERCANTILE MARINE—TRAINING SHIPS.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYrose to call the attention of the House to the subject of Training Ships for the Mercantile Marine. The House might ask why he had undertaken to bring this question before them? His reply could only be the interest he felt in common with all subjects of Her Majesty in this matter, and that, having been connected for many years with training ships in the Thames for the Mercantile Marine, he had learned the value and the necessity of these ships, and the capacity of the lads who were trained on board of them. He had waited, too, in the hope that the noble Duke who had presided so ably over the Unseaworthy Ships Commission (the Duke of Somerset) would introduce the question to their Lordships; but, as the noble Duke had not done so, he had ventured to do it himself. But by whomsoever introduced, their Lordships, he was sure, would recognize

1781
the importance of the subject. He should avoid as far as possible all details relating to the Royal Navy, not only because he might be charged with getting into water much out of his depth, but also because he should thus keep before the House the question in all its simplicity. He had another inducement to do so, caused by the language of a distinguished Gentleman, Mr. Goschen, who, while he filled the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, used these ominous words. In the debate of July, 1872, on Mr. Graves' Motion, he said—
"The House did not think it was the duty of the State to produce sailors for the Mercantile Marine."
Again—
"As to its being the duty of the State to educate sailors for the Mercantile Marine, he felt confident that opinion would not commend itself to the country at large."
Again—
"Existing training ships had been established not for the purpose of increasing the numbers of the Mercantile Marine, but with charitable and philanthropic motives, for the benefit of the boys rather than of the service."…
He added—
"He did not know that the boys, considering that they were discharged at an early age and were of an inferior physique, would be very suitable for the Navy or the Mercantile Marine."—[3 Hansard, ccxiii. 132–4–5.]
Now surely this assertion, true if looked at from one point of view, was quite untrue if looked at from another. It was true that the Government was not under a duty to provide sailors for merchant ships, pure and simple; but if it were shown—and shown it had been a thousand times over—that the Mercantile Marine was at all times, and especially in cases of emergency, one of the very best sources for a supply of seamen to the Royal Navy, it was the wisdom, if not the actual office, of the Admiralty to provide that the means of supply should be in the best possible condition. The Commission, moreover, had affirmed that principle of national duty and interest; for while it protested and provided against unseaworthy ships, it equally protested and provided against unseaworthy men. Now, the necessity was very urgent, and daily increasing. Among other proofs of the approaching want of fit and able men for the service was the large and rapid decline in the
1782
numbers of men employed in the collier trade—the most abundant and effective nursery of seamen that England ever possessed. To this decline the testimony was universal; and not less so was it to the hardihood, skill, and courage of these men, who were capable, after very short training, of becoming equal to the best in ships of war. There were fears, too, of a falling-off in the spurious and uncertain supply of foreigners to man the vessels—a source of supply bad enough in time of peace, but hopeless in time of war—and, indeed, perhaps a means of furnishing to the enemy a body of seamen hostile to the country that had trained them. The Commission observed upon this, and said—
"The general tendency of the evidence, however, leads to the conclusion that there is a deficiency of British able seamen; captains of merchant ships could not, it is said, man their vessels, without Swedes, Norwegians, and Lascars."
The number, too, of those foreigners had been variously put; he had seen it stated at more than 100,000, and in a Petition he presented a few days ago from the Seamen's Mutual Protection Society he had read these words—
"That your petitioners—British seamen employed in the British Mercantile Marine—are subject to great disadvantages by reason of the extensive employment of unqualified foreigners and other serious drawbacks, which can only be remedied by practical legislation.
"That great injury and danger to the best interests of the kingdom result from the large and increasing employment of foreigners and Lascars in British ships.
"That within the last few years the proportion of foreigners to British seamen has reached more than three-fourths of the whole."
Now, there were required, so it was estimated, about 300,000 men for the Mercantile Marine; but the wear and tear from all causes demanded, so he found in the Report of the Liverpool Committee of Inquiry, composed of shipowners, in October, 1874, about 16,000 men. We get, said the Report, about 3,500 per annum from the
"apprenticeship system, and probably as many more from training ships, so that there remain about 9,000 to be got from all other sources; and what these sources are the present condition of our forecastles abundantly testifies, and it is this void the Committee desires to see filled with good men."
But it should be observed that if our Mercantile Marine were to be furnished,

1783
not by foreigners, but by British subjects, the numbers to be supplied must be much larger; and those, too, of efficient and able seamen. Now, for all this great purpose there were but eight, or at most 10, training ships in London and the various ports. Three of these were reformatory ships, the rest industrial. He need not detain the House by a specification of them—they were, all of them, doing a good work, though in different proportions. The testimony of Mr. Burns, the chief proprietor in the Cunard Company, was very strong on this point. In answer to Question 15,199, he said—
"The manner in which I would propose to deal with the question is to avail ourselves of training ships. Upon that subject I can speak with some amount of experience. I happen to be President of the training ship in which there are the greatest number of boys that there are in any training ship in this country; that is, the Cumberland, which is stationed in Gare Loch. A number of boys like to go to sea in preference to following any other occupation, and they go to a training ship. They do not learn on board the training ship all the hard vicissitudes of a sailor's life, but they learn a great deal; they' are taught mathematics, astronomy, geography, manning boats, reefing sails, and that sort of thing. We find in the Cumberland that the in-put of boys is inexhaustible, and that the out-put is inexhaustible; we have no difficulty in getting the material to go into the ship, and we have no difficulty in getting the boys provided for in the Mercantile Marino of this country. You find that shipowners are willing to take them?—Yes. He added—I have seen 20 of them in a boat in a heavy sea, and I have seen their ability with the oars, and their ability in steering, and their pluck. All that is training them in what is wanted when they are put into ships. It seems to me that we should not only encourage, but insist upon the establishment of training ships around the coasts of Great Britain. Old men-of-war could not possibly be put to a better purpose than making them nurseries for our sailors.
"18,294.—Mr. Macdonald, chairman of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association, replies—We have taken boys from a training ship, and they have proved really valuable from their first going off. The other day we took some youths from the Indefatigable, and shipped them as ordinary seamen. They were out in exceedingly rough weather, and proved themselves exceedingly valuable."
Again (18,291), the same witness stated—
"Our committee made inquiries from parties whom they thought likely to give them information, shipowners, shipmasters, and others, and the majority of the evidence was to the effect that the men had greatly deteriorated."
Hence the inevitable result—a matter of universal complaint—that so many vessels
1784
were undermanned or unfitly manned—a state of things passably well in easily navigated and tranquil seas, but not so at other times. Now, in respect of modes of training, there were some opinions, he knew, in favour of land schools instead of training ships. He would not enter into the question, because it really required more evidence and investigation. To training ships he had heard three objections—the cost, that few of the lads went to sea, and that many deserted—objections likely to prevail under any system; but these varied very much in the different ships—and, indeed, they were capable of considerable remedy. As for cost, he must call the attention of their Lordships to a document laid before the Commission on unseaworthy ships. It enumerated all the training ships, with the several details, but omitted all mention of the name of the Chichester, in the Thames, stating that it was not in readiness for the reception of boys; yet the ship had been in operation for eight years, and had sent many sailors both to the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Service. Well, the cost of the several ships for each by the year varied from £40 to £32. In the Chichester it was £16, and he would assert that the lads were quite a match for the best of the others. On the objection that few went to sea, the Chichester could be free, for the large proportion of the trained lads took to the service; and as for desertions, they suffered but little from that cause, for, except in a few instances in the Australian ports, where the ships were long detained and the wages were high, they never deserted; and why so? Because the invariable rule of the directors of these ships was to train none but those who had a strong predilection for the sea; and, when trained, to send none afloat but those who evidently continued in the same mind. And they had good reports of nearly 90 per cent of the whole number who went afloat. He need not detain their Lordships by showing the difficulty of finding this description of men on a sudden emergency. The evidence given by Sir Byam Martin in 1852 was sufficiently alarming. The same was stated by Admiral Sir Frederick Grey; and he recollected well that at the outbreak of the Crimean War, Sir James Graham, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, told him he was glad they

1785
had succeeded so well with the Fleet, for that many of the crews were supplemented by cabmen, labourers, and the refuse of London. Things might be better now and more provision made; but what proof was there that foreign nations had not advanced in the same proportion, and that we were not in a state of false security? It was said that for the Navy we required respectable lads, well born, well fed, and well educated, and that we could not receive the sweepings of the streets. Such was the language generally used; but he was satisfied that we had enormous resources, if we would but go deep enough. London and the ports were thronged with lads with a passion for a sea life, and these were the boys we ought to get on board the training ships. But then they were termed the scum of the earth, the refuse of the streets, the lowest of the population, and he knew not what—they were declared physically incapable—and all this assertion without trial or inquiry. Ought not the country to consult its own interest in giving these lads a fair chance? First, physically incapable. Let the House listen to the statement he would make. Now, first, the Chichester. Average time of each boy (200 in number) on board, 12 months; average height on joining ship, 4ft. 11¼in.; on leaving, 5ft. ¾in.; average weight on joining, 86¼ lb.; on leaving 101¼lb.; average increase of chest measurement was l½in. Then for the Arethusa—Average time on board, 11 months and 28 days; average height on joining, 4ft. 11½in.; on leaving 5ft. 1in.; average weight on joining, 83½lb.; on leaving, 96¼lb; increase of chest measurement, 1¾in. Average age on leaving the ships would be about 15 years and 11¼ months. Now this was quite in keeping with the evidence of Commander Beavis in 1859.
"There is no doubt," said he, "that the people who are horn and brought up in London are not so robust as those from country places; but the sailors go to sea early, get the benefit of the sea air, live pretty regularly while on their voyages, and most of them eventually become strong men."
The truth was that the conditions for the Royal Navy were too strict. The lads were selected simply for their physical fitness. Many who had the full development had no lasting taste for the Service, while many who had taste were rejected because,
1786
for the time, they were physically unfit. And so with the Chichester and Arethusa, those rejected for the Navy at Greenwich made excellent sailors on board merchant ships. Now, it was to secure that supply of fit sailors that he would have training ships in all the ports, because in that way would be obtained all the lads who had a real passion for sea life. He would just put before their Lordships the statistics of the Chichester. It had in nine years sent to sea 1,524, drawn from the poorest classes—1,366 to the Mercantile Marine, and 158 to the Royal Navy—of whom the accounts were very good; that desertions were almost unknown; that of only 5 per cent they could not render an account; that of lads sent to prison they knew but two cases. But here was the crowning encomium. From the beginning of its career to the end of February, 1876, the Board of Trade certificates run in this way in respect of the lads:—"Ability—good, 164; very good, 1,769. Conduct—good, 139; very good, 1,800;" some of these, of course, having been upon double voyages. These were boys taken from the lowest depths of society, and it was to this peculiar class that they must go to get boys for sea service. He did not believe it was possible to have a better return than the one he had just read. He sincerely hoped that he should hear no more of employing none but respectable lads, of good birth, and all that sort of thing. Might he tell the House a story? They had heard, doubtless, the loss of the Cospatrick. One of the three saved from the frightful wreck was a Chichester lad, named Cotter. He bore up manfully, and encouraged the others; he had been the only lad about who knew how to tie a particular knot for the fastening of the boats. When he arrived in England he refused all offers to be made a lion of and paraded about the country. He came to see him (the Earl of Shaftesbury), but such was his passion for the sea that he rejected all suggestions for occupation at home, and without waiting for a berth to be provided for him by his friends took a berth for himself and sailed for Calcutta. But here was even a better one. A short time ago the master of a vessel came to report to the office. The Committee he said, ought to know the character of the lads sent out from the Chichester. "He was," he

1787
said, "off the Cape in a terrible gale of wind." The crew were at their wits' end, and were thoroughly demoralized. He feared much to leave the helm; but it was necessary, so helpless were the men. He called to a Chichester lad—a boy of 16—and gave him the rudder; "and, by God's blessing," said he, "that boy brought us through." What more could be wanted? Respectable parentage, indeed! That lad was born in the gutter. What could he have done more had he been born in the Mansion House? He would conclude with reminding their Lordships of the words of the Royal Commission in 1859:—"Tour Majesty possesses in the Merchant Service elements of naval power such as no other Government in the world enjoys."
LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, the subject was a very important one, but he would not attempt to follow the whole of the interesting speech of the noble Earl, but would confine his remarks to the difficulty of making any radical change with regard to this matter. In 1869 the Royal Commission sat upon Manning the Navy, and recommended that at the twelve principal seaports training ships should be established by the Government, and maintained at a cost of 40,000 a-year. In 1873 the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships advised, in regard to manning the Mercantile Marine, that every ship should be bound to carry a certain number of apprentices. But that recommendation, though it found many supporters, was not generally approved of. The apprenticeship system had long been in operation, but it was very doubtful whether it produced such beneficial results as were supposed by some to arise from it. What was an apprentice on board ship? Why, he was a boy trained on board, out of whom the captain tried to get several years of man's labour at a reduced scale of payment. After a time apprentices being as old and proficient as many ordinary seamen, earning 40 s. or 50 s. a month, naturally became discontented at receiving only 20 s., and frequently availed themselves of the first opportunity to desert. No steps were taken by the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Commission of 1859; but since that time a number of training ships had been brought into use owing to the exertions of charitably disposed people; and there were now 17 such ships round
1788
the coast, while there was every prospect of four more being added in a short time. Two of them were appropriated to the education of young gentlemen to become officers in the Mercantile Marine—these were self-supporting—three were reformatories, four were free ships to which boys went voluntarily, and the others were industrial training ships. There could be no doubt that they did a great deal of good; but the great difficulty in the way of Government undertaking to maintain these ships was a financial one. Where was the money to come from? If the Government undertook to train merchant seamen they must be prepared not only to find the ships but to bear all the expenses; and when they began to prepare men for the merchant service they must be prepared to have other trades claiming from the State similar advantages to those thus given to the Mercantile Marine. The only strong argument in favour of State aid for the support of these ships would be that they were nurseries for the Navy. But at present if a boy entered the Navy from one of these ships the Admiralty paid the manager £25; and if a boy entered the Royal Naval Reserve the Admiralty paid a certain amount in money, and gave him clothes and a pension. But very few boys had ever joined the Navy from these ships; and the number had decreased from 161 in 1874 to 60 last year. This was scarcely to be wondered at, because boys likely to be taken into the Navy could at 15 get 50 s. a month in the merchant service, while they could not enter the Navy until they were 16, and they would then join the second class and be paid only 15 s. a month. In order to meet the difficulty of getting boys for the Navy the standard of height and education had been decreased. Some idea of the educational difficulty would be gathered from the fact that last year a recruiting officer in the agricultural districts had been obliged to refuse in one week 30 boys in every respect qualified for the Navy with the exception of bearing a very slight educational test. It had now, however, been reduced, and the result was manifest, for boys came flocking into the Navy in much larger numbers than had been received before. As to the number of foreigners in the merchant service, he must remind the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that since the repeal of the Navigation Laws there was

1789
no power to limit the number of foreigners shipped on board our ships; and in fact it was competent for the captain of an English ship to have a crew composed entirely of foreigners. He had pointed out that training ships were not the nursery for the Navy. He should be glad if it could be arranged that boys could pass from reformatory schools to training ships, and so be allowed to prove whether they had reformed. They could then enter on their future life like other boys, with the chance of becoming respectable members of society. He could assure the noble Earl that this subject was under the most serious consideration of the Government, not only in connection with the Merchant Shipping Bill now before the other House of Parliament, but with regard to the whole question of manning the Navy.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEun-stood that two-thirds of our sailors were foreigners.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: Not 10 per cent.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEthought the proportion was more than that; at any rate, the number of British seamen was very small. A great many men called seamen in the merchant service were not seamen at all, and seldom did a day's work—they were, in fact, almost worthless. The Royal Navy took 3,000 of the boys from the training ships every year, and if it were not for these boys they would have no seamen at all. The noble Lord (Lord Elphinstone) said that the Government had been obliged to reduce the standard and qualification; but they were not a bit too good before, as the men were an inferior lot. A good deal of assistance had been given to the training system, and the Government were fully aware of its value, but it was of no use training boys in these ships and merely teaching them gymnastics. They could not make sailors ashore. They could train soldiers on board ships, as they could teach them to march; but to make these boys good sailors they must send them to sea. These boys were admirably trained, and in smooth water could do their work as well as any men; but the proof what a seaman could do was what he could do at sea. Some of these boys were worth two ordinary seamen, and as soon as they got their sea legs and got over their sea-sickness they were very valuable in
1790
the merchant service. The Navy required 3,000 boys every year, but for the last two or three years they had not been able to get that number. No doubt the training system would cost the country a great deal of money; but if we had a war he did not know how we should get on without training a large number of boys. Fifteen thousand boys were required annually to keep a supply of men for the merchant service. This question of training boys for seamen appeared to him to be at the present time as important a matter as that of building ships. A ship was no sooner launched now than she became antiquated; and if what was said about the torpedo was correct, it would be a very serious affair for ships. He hoped that the next question which the Government would take into their serious consideration would be how to increase the training of a larger number of these boys, whether they afterwards entered the Royal Navy or the Marine service, but the great thing in the training would be to send them out to sea.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETclaimed a few words as having been Chairman of the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships. He wished to state that the Commission was not responsible for the Re-turn referred to by the noble Earl with respect to the boys on board training ships. It was one supplied by the Board of Trade. As the Return stated that the Chichester was not ready for the reception of boys at a period when, according to the noble Earl, she had been already receiving them for five or six years, his confidence in the document was now somewhat shaken. He thought the average of cost, ranging as it appeared by that Return from £44 17 s. to £15 per boy, required to be carefully examined. It would have been impossible for the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships to have gone so fully into the training ship question as would have been desirable, because that was only one of very many questions that came before it—with questions of marine insurance, load-lines, overloading grain ships, timber ships, and guano ships their time was fully occupied, and they could spare but a small portion to go into the question of training ships, important as it was. When he was at the Admiralty there was no difficulty whatever in getting boys for the Navy. It was rather a favour to take them. They had

1791
turned out well and improved wonderfully when they got on board ship. When the Commission was taking evidence they asked many shipowners whether they were willing to contribute to the expense of training boys, and a good disposition was manifested, several representatives of the shipowners agreeing to levy a small tax upon themselves in order to establish merchant training ships. The Commission could not carry the question further. Only the Government could deal with it, because before anything definite was done there must be communications on the subject of the supply of boys and men with the whole of the Mercantile Marine. The increase of the Mercantile Marine and the general prosperity of the country had led to the difficulty of obtaining boys and men for the Navy. As to desertions of these boys after training, owners of merchant ships complained that when seamen reached California or Australia they were attracted to the diggings. He did not see how that could be prevented. He wished to know whether the Government would take, or had taken, any steps for ascertaining whether or not shipowners were willing to make good the promise which some of them seemed inclined to give that they would contribute money with the view of providing training ships for the purposes of the Mercantile Navy. If they would do that, he thought the Government could not do better than to assist in promoting that object. The most valuable training which boys got on board such ships was discipline—a habit which most of those who called themselves able seamen never acquired.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was not able to give the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) an answer to the question which he put, for he was not aware that the noble Duke was going to put it—otherwise, he should certainly have made inquiry and been able to give the information which the noble Duke wished to have, and which no doubt had an important bearing on this subject. He begged to express his gratification to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) for the extremely interesting details he had given of the great good that was being effected by these training ships. He did not altogether agree with his
1792
noble and gallant Friend (the Earl of Lauderdale)—though he would perhaps think it was presumptuous for him to say so—in the remark which he understood him to make to the effect that it was of no use to have training ships on shore.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: All I meant to say was that you cannot make sailors on shore. If you want to make sailors they must be sent out to sea.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he quite understood his noble and gallant Friend. He thought there was one point which had been alluded to by the noble Duke of the greatest importance in connection with these training ships—they taught the boys habits of discipline. He was sure no one could have read the heart-rending account of the burning of a training ship in the river and have failed to pay a tribute of praise to the admirable discipline displayed by the boys—their discipline could not have been surpassed by that of the oldest seamen in Her Majesty's Service. It was superfluous in these days for the Government to say that they regarded this subject as one of importance—anything relating to the Navy or the Mercantile Marine in a country like this was of the greatest importance; and though the Government were not able to give any satisfactory reply to his noble Friend as to what had been done with regard to this subject in the limited period of time referred to, he could assure his noble Friend that they had not lost sight of it, and they were grateful to him for having called the attention of the House to it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he thought the country had some claim on the services of boys who had been trained for several years in reformatories; and it was impossible to over-estimate the benefits conferred on boys in these training ships by removing them for a period of years from all bad companions with whom they had associated, and by enabling them during that period to acquire habits of honest industry. There could not be a better profession for such boys than the sea, where they would have their honest and industrial habits confirmed instead of lapsing back into crime. He did not wish to pronounce any opinion as to what boys were fit and who were unfit for marine training; but there appeared to him to be a large

1793
class of boys who seemed to be appointed by Nature for a seafaring life. If we could turn raw material of that kind, which, in many instances was running to waste, to a useful purpose, we should be conferring an advantage, not only on the boys themselves, but on the country at large. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would keep that object in view, and he thanked the noble Earl who had introduced this subject for the efforts he had made for turning a source of danger and difficulty to the most useful purpose to which it could be applied.

ARMY—CHURCH ATTENDANCE OF SOLDIERS—PAYMENT FOR SITTINGS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the question of making some payment for the use of sittings occupied in churches in garrison towns in Ireland, where no salary for a chaplain is provided, by soldiers belonging to the Church of England or the late Established Church of Ireland? The noble Earl said, this question formed part of a larger subject which had lately engaged the attention of a Committee of the General Synod of the Irish Church, of which he had the honour of being Chairman—namely, the pay and status of chaplains who were clergymen of the Church of Ireland. As regarded what might be called the civil chaplaincies, he had been in communication with the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but this appeared to him to belong more exclusively to the War Department. It was thought to be a hardship upon clergymen whose duty it was to attend to the spiritual wants of Her Majesty's Army in garrison towns where no salary for a chaplain was provided, that there should be no remuneration, although they often had to perform very unpleasant duties. That, however, was the case when the number in garrison did not exceed 25. He was told by noble Friends near him that in the case of Roman Catholics some allowance was made, although a salary was not paid, and that such was the case also with regard to the Militia, and formerly obtained with regard to the Army. He had received a memorandum from a
  1794
  clergyman, who was also a member of his Committee, who urged that if some payment were made the money could be expended in the repairs of the churches. It would be unwise to enforce payment by refusing soldiers proper facilities for attendance at church; but it would not be unreasonable, in cases where there was no salary, that some small contribution per head should be made based upon the average attendance by soldiers belonging to the Church of England, or the late Established Church of Ireland, during the year. He had no doubt that some clergymen would rather the payments should be made to themselves; but, at the same time, it was necessary that the line should be drawn somewhere, and 25 seemed as good a number to draw it at as another, and to meet any difficulty that might arise he suggested that the small sum of 5s. per head should be granted by Her Majesty's Government towards the funds of particular parishes, to be applied as might be thought fit. In no case would this exceed £6 10 s. a-year, and in some cases less, and he thought that the cost for all the garrison towns where no chaplains were provided, taken together, would not exceed £100 a-year. He did not ask the Under Secretary for War for a definite answer to-night, still less did he want one in the negative, for he thought those whom he represented would not be inclined to take "No" as an answer; but his object in bringing the question forward was, that it might be considered by the War Office, with the view of seeing whether some relief of the nature indicated might not be afforded.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, that the noble Earl had quite correctly stated the matter as it stood at the present time—that no capitation was allowed in garrison towns where the average attendance of soldiers each Sunday was under 25. He was aware that it had previously been suggested that all sittings might be paid for at the rate of 5s. each, and he might state that four or five years ago a proposal was made to remove this limit of 25, and that capitation should be paid for every soldier attending church in garrison towns. But he might remind the noble Earl that there was another Department of the State besides the War Office which was interested in this matter, and that was the Treasury; and

  1795
  when it was considered in 1871 it was found impossible to carry out the proposal, because, although a small question in itself, it would involve a large additional grant. Since 1871 no circumstance had occurred to render it probable that the Treasury would alter their decision and meet the views of the noble Earl; the Secretary of State was therefore indisposed to move further in the matter.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.