Sitting of 21 March 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Parish Constables Abolition * [97]; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, Amendment* [98].
Committee—Royal Parts and Gardens [17]—R P.
Committee—Report—Justices' Clerks (Salaries) (re-comm.) * [39–96]; Bank of Ireland Charter Amendment * [88].
Third Reading—(£5,411,099 3s. 3d.) Consolidated Fund *, and passed.

RECORD OFFICE—MUTILATION OF DOCUMENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there is any truth in the report that documents have lately been mutilated in the Record Office; and, whether, if the report is true, he will have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, the Reports of the Deputy Keeper and Assistant Keeper of the Public Records relative to the same, as well as the award of punishment to the offender?
MR. BAXTER: Sir, the Question asked by the hon. Gentleman, will, I think, be better answered if I read to the House a letter from the Master of the Rolls, which he has permitted to be made public—
"Public Record Office, Feb. 7, 1872.
"Sir,—I am sorry to have to inform you, for the information of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, that, on the 10th of last month, one of the assistant keepers confided a parcel of Treasury documents of the date 1711–12 to one of the officers of the Record Department under his direction, for the purpose of making a chronological abstract of them, and that when they were returned to him, it appeared that a large piece was torn out of nine of them. This was forthwith reported to me, and as soon as the conclusion of Term afforded me a little leisure, I caused a searching investigation as to the cause and occasion of the damage, when it appeared that the officer to whom the papers were entrusted by some great negligence caused a large quantity of ink to be spilled over the documents, and endeavoured to conceal that circumstance by removing the soiled portion of the papers. On the great penitence expressed by the officer who has occasioned this injury, and his reiterated promise to amend his conduct, and as the dismissal of him would have occasioned utter ruin to him and his family, I have thought that I might take a less step than the removal of the officer; and I have therefore cautioned him, and placed him under strict control, and stopped all his increments of salary until I shall have received a certificate that for two entire years preceding the date of the certificate his conduct has been in all respects unexceptional. It occurred to me that by so doing I should not only be dealing more mercifully with him, but that it would give him a stronger motive to reform his conduct than if I had stopped his increments unconditionally for ever. This is the first time, as far as I know, that any documents under my care, since I was appointed Master of the Rolls in March, 1851, have been injured or mutilated, and as the documents entrusted to me by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, are strictly Treasury Papers, I thought it my duty to communicate the circumstances to their Lordships, but I do not require any acknowledgment of this letter, unless their Lordships think fit to do so.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, ROMILLY.
"R. R. W. Lingen, Esq., C.B., &c."

MASTER AND SERVANT (WAGES) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PARKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Master and Servant (Wages) Bill is intended to be in any way applicable to the industries of the Shetland Islands; and, if not, when he hopes to introduce a Bill that will be so applicable?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the Bill would be applicable to the Shetland Islands, as well as to other portions of the United Kingdom. There were, however, certain peculiar circumstances connected with those Islands which had made it expedient to have a separate and fuller inquiry into the condition of labour there, and until the Report on the subject had been received, it was not possible to say what steps would be taken.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there is any reason why the Civil Service Estimates should not be presented to the House of Commons at the same time as the Army and Navy Estimates; and, whether an Estimate balance sheet might not be presented contemporaneously with the Estimates, showing on one side the probable charges for the ensuing year, and on the other side the probable yield of the Revenue, founded on the basis of the existing taxes, so that the House of Commons, in voting the Estimates, might be able to judge whether the proposed expenditure would result in a surplus or a deficit, the taxation remaining the same?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, the reason why the Civil Service Estimates are presented to the House of Commons later than the Army and Navy Estimates is, that the earlier they are laid on the Table the less accurate they will be; and as the Treasury has not the power, with regard to the former, of applying, under restrictions, surpluses on certain Votes to meet deficiencies on others, as in the case with the latter, it had been considered better to wait till as near as possible the close of the financial year. The Government do not think it desirable to place on the Table with the Estimates a balance-sheet of income and expenditure, because the statement of the balance-sheet forms essentially part of the Financial Statement; because an Estimate of Revenue prepared in February would be misleading; and because expenditure ought to be estimated with reference to the wants of the public service, not to the amount of income which may be supposed to be available.
  MR. HUNTasked, Whether the Civil Service Estimates would be in the hands
  394
  of Members before the Financial Statement?
  MR. BAXTER: I expect they will be circulated to-morrow, or, at all events, not later than Saturday.

ARMY—GUN-COTTON AT WALTHAM ABBEY.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, looking to the deterioration of property in the neighbourhood, from the general belief (in consequence of the Stowmarket explosion) in the dangerous nature of the manufactory, and to the natural alarm that exists among the inhabitants of the town in the centre of which it has been established, the Government will reconsider their determination to carry on a manufactory of Gun Cotton in the town of Waltham Abbey?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Sir Henry Storks) gave a pledge at the end of the last Session that a Committee should be appointed to consider the question of the storage and manufacture of gun-cotton. That Committee consisted of experienced military officers and eminent civil scientific men. Colonel Young husband was the President of it. No one interested in the manufacture was a member of it. They have reported that it is manufactured wet, and is in every stage perfectly uninflammable, and that no danger can possibly arise. It is not intended to dry it at Waltham Abbey, or to permit it to be there in a dry state. I have seen Colonel Young husband this morning. He authorizes me to state that the vicar and another leading inhabitant and owner of property, who resides within 300 yards of the works, have informed him that no alarm is felt, and that property in the town never had so high a value. In fact, the extension of the works is welcomed as bringing business to the place.

POST OFFICE—THE LATE POSTMASTER AT SWINDON.—QUESTION.
MR. CADOGANasked the Postmaster General, If he can state why no legal proceedings, civil or criminal, have been taken against the late Postmaster at Swindon, who was dismissed in March 1871 for default in his public accounts,

395
and whose sureties have been called upon to make good his defalcations?
MR. MONSELL: Sir, in the opinion of the solicitor of the Department, an officer who, like the postmaster of Swin-don, has a debtor and creditor account, and only enters therein all moneys received by him on behalf of the Post Office, does not, by becoming a defaulter, commit a criminal offence within the meaning of the law, but is simply a debtor to the Department for the balance, and is not, therefore, liable to prosecution. Nothing would have been gained by proceeding at civil law against the postmaster, as he had made an assignment of all his effects to his creditors. The estate, however, was almost worthless, and the institution of civil proceedings would have probably involved a much larger expense than the amount of the debt to be recovered.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—REGULAR AND AUXILIARY FORCES.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War, When and in what manner he proposes to ask the sanction of the House to be given for the three and a half millions required to carry out the scheme of the Government for uniting the Militia and Volunteer Forces with the Standing Army?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I may say that I propose to introduce a Bill, which is now in course of preparation, for the objects referred to in the Question.

ARMY—EASTER VOLUNTEER REVIEW.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITE: I wish also, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question, of which I have given private Notice, on a subject of great interest to my constituents. It is, Whether, so far as the War Office is concerned, it is intended that the usual Volunteer Review shall take place on Easter Monday next at Brighton?
  MR. CARDWELL: I am glad, Sir, to inform my hon. Friend that the difficulties which were in the way have been removed. The area at first offered was quite sufficient for an ordinary Volunteer Review, but insufficient for those manoeuvres which were proposed by the Chairman of the Committee of the Metropolitan Commanding Officers, and ap-
  396
  proved by the War Department. But subsequent negotiations took place, and the following resolution, I am told, has been to-day unanimously adopted by the committee of Commanding Officers:—
  "That inasmuch as the Brighton Committee have succeeded in obtaining the whole of the site required by the War Office, the resolution, of the 19th instant, be rescinded and the Easter Monday Field Day be held at Brighton in accordance with the plan proposed by His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief, and set forth in Lord Northbrook's Letter of February 14."

MEDICAL ACT, 1858.—QUESTION.
DR. LUSHasked the Vice President of the Council, If it is his intention, during the present Session, to introduce a Bill for the Amendment of the Medical Act, 1858?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the Marquess of Ripon and I have conferred on the Question of my hon. Friend. We are informed that most of the examining medical bodies in England have already combined by voluntary action. We are, therefore, of opinion that it is inadvisable to bring in this Session a Bill to amend the Medical Act of 1858. Next year we shall know how this combination in England is working, and to what extent similar action has been taken in Ireland and Scotland.

NAVY—H.M.S. "ARIADNE."—QUESTIONS.
MR. GRAVESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can state to the House whether the two officers and nine seamen belonging to Her Majesty's ship "Ariadne," who were recently drowned in endeavouring to save the life of a shipmate, had their cork jackets on; if there would be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House any official Communications which have passed between the Admiralty and Rear Admiral Ryder in 1871–2 on the subject of supplying Her Majesty's ships with cork mattresses; and, if the Admiralty propose to take a new action thereon?
MR. BARNETTasked, Whether the "Ariadne" was supplied with life boats?
MR. BOUVERIEasked, If any means were adopted on board the vessel for preventing accidents while lowering the boats—such as patent davits would furnish?
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he must ask the hon. Gentleman opposite and his right hon. Friend behind (Mr. Bouverie), to

397
repeat their Questions on another day, in order that he might be better prepared to answer them. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), he might state that while the despatches were most eloquently explicit as to the splendid courage and devotion exhibited on the melancholy occasion referred to, they were perfectly silent as regarded the matter the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his Question, and he (Mr. Goschen) was therefore, unable to say whether the 11 unfortunate men had their jackets on or not. Cork mattresses were now being tried in the Detached Squadron and the Channel Squadron, with a view to ascertain whether they were of use for the purpose for which Admiral Ryder thought they might be tried. The experiment was still in progress. Later on he should be ready to furnish the House with all the information they might desire on the subject.

FOREIGN OFFICE—FOREIGN SERVICE MESSENGERS.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Foreign Office Clerks were lately sent with Despatches to Rome and Madrid, while at least six or seven Queen's Foreign Service Messengers were available for such duty; and, if so, if he would state to the House why the usual practice of employing Queen's Messengers has been departed from in the instances referred to?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: It is quite true, Sir, that two clerks in the Foreign Office—Messrs. Stephens and Bergne—have lately taken despatches to Rome and Madrid, in place of the usual Foreign Office messengers. Owing to the heavy pressure of official work last year these two gentlemen did not enjoy the full amount of official leave to which they were entitled, and the indulgence occasionally extended to Foreign Office clerks to proceed abroad with despatches was this year accorded to the above-mentioned gentlemen.

COINAGE ACT, 1870—COINAGE OF SILVER FOR CANADA.—QUESTION.
COLONEL TOMLINEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is still of the opinion recently given by him to the effect that the Government had
398
nothing to do with the contract for the coinage of silver for Canada entered into with a firm at Birmingham; whether he is aware that under such circumstances the said coinage at Birmingham was an infringement of the prerogative of the Crown, and a violation of the Coinage Act of 1870; and, if so, whether he has taken any steps to enforce payment of the penalties imposed by the fifth section of that Act; and, whether it is not the case that all the Colonial coinages, as well as the coinage of Canada, have hitherto been executed at the Royal Mint, which derived an income in aid of its expenses from such coinages?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he must still adhere to his opinion that the Government had nothing to do with the contract which was entered into between Canada and a firm at Birmingham. The Government had sent down, as it always did in the case of colonial coinage, an officer of the Mint to overlook the coinage, and see that it was properly conducted on the part of the Crown. He was not aware that any infraction of the Prerogative of the Crown or any violation of the Act of Parliament had occurred. The hon. Gentleman probably alluded to the 5th section of the Mint Act, where it was provided that no person should be permitted to coin money except at the Mint itself; but he had omitted to read the 19th section of the same Act, by which colonies were entirely exempted from the operation of the Act. As to the third Question of the hon. Gentleman, it was a very common circumstance for Colonial coinage to be executed otherwise than at the Mint.

THE INDIAN ARMY—FIELD OFFICERS' RETIREMENT.—QUESTION.
COLONEL BARTTELOTasked the Under secretary of State for India, Whe-there is any scheme under consideration to induce Field Officers of the Indian Army to retire; and, if such a scheme is under consideration, whether it contemplates compensating those officers for the loss of Colonels' allowance, to which they have always looked forward.
MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply, Sir, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's first Question, I have to say that such a scheme is under consideration; but I regret that it is not in my power to answer the second Question.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHS) COMPENSATIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. DIMSDALEasked the Postmaster General, Whether, under Clause 8 of the Telegraph Act, 31 and 32 Vic. c. 110, the claims of persons in the service of Railway Companies, who were in receipt of commission for services rendered to Telegraph Companies, were intended to be admitted as entitled to compensation for the loss of that commission; and, if not, whether the Government would now agree to the recognition of their claims?
MR. MONSELL: Sir, the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken on this subject, and it has been decided that, with the exception of two cases, which are of a special character, the claims referred to cannot be admitted.

FOREIGN OFFICE—PENSIONS TO WIDOWS OF CONSULS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL C. LINDSAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Pensions to the Widows of Consuls which have hitherto been granted to them in consideration of the long and meritorious services of their husbands are no longer to be allowed, and whether the reason given by the Foreign Office is correct that there is no fund at the disposal of the Secretary of State from which a pension could be granted to the widow of a consul; and, if so, from what source are such pensions in future to be granted?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, there is no special fund, nor has there been, in the hands of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs out of which to grant pensions to the widows of Consular officers; but a limited number of the widows of Consuls have received pensions charged upon the Civil List. I have no reason to think that such pensions are likely to be discontinued; but over this fund the Secretary of State has no control.

ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—MILITARY MAP OF ENGLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. RAIKESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether among the objects contemplated in the issue of the Military Map of England recently distributed was the exhibition of the means
400
of communication in the various military districts; whether some information on this subject is not necessary in order to form a just view of the reasons which have led to the selection of the various depôt centres; whether he is aware that in one district (North Wales) the following lines of Railway are omitted: viz. the Railway from Mold to Denbigh (18 miles), connecting the Vale of Mold with the Vale of Clwyd; that from Llanrwst to Betts-y-Coed (5 miles); that from Llandrillo to Penmon Pool (25 miles), connecting the Great Western Railway with the Welsh Coast; that from Barmouth to Pwllheli (32 miles), constituting nearly the whole of the Welsh Coast Railway, connecting North and South Wales; that from Cemmes Road to Dinas Mowddy (8 miles); and that from Glan Dovey Junction to Aberdovey (6 miles), connecting the Cambrian Railway from England with the Welsh Coast; and, whether, having regard to these omissions, he will not issue a new and correct Map of the district in question?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the Railway Map of the Topographical department is on too large a scale for presentation to Parliament, and a smaller map was used for the purpose, on which the railways most recently opened have not been entered. The question of railway communication is an important consideration, and I have directed a reduced copy of the corrected map to be prepared for circulation.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—CANADA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governor General of Canada, since the conclusion of the Treaty of Washington, with reference to the sense entertained by the responsible Members of the Colonial Government as to the effect of the same on the interests of the Dominion, will be laid upon the Table on the re-assembling of the House after Easter?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, since the conclusion of the Treaty of Washington there has been a correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Governor General of Canada. That correspondence, however, is still going forward,

  401
  and we are not able to produce it at present; but I hope we shall be in a condition to lay it on the Table very shortly after Easter.

  THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY—THE FRENCH CIRCULAR.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table the Circular sent by the French Secretary for Foreign Affairs in 1871, respecting the International?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have, Sir, made inquiry on this subject, and I find that no such despatch has been received at the Foreign Office; there has been no such communication. There was at one time an intimation from the French Government that possibly information might be collected by them on the subject of the International, but no such information was received.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Am I to understand that no Circular was sent to the different Courts, and to this among others, by the French Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No Circular corresponding with the terms of the Question of my hon. Friend was received here. Whether any other formal document was sent here I do not know, but nothing was sent corresponding to the document he mentions. [Subsequently, the right hon. Gentleman added.] I understood my hon. Friend to refer to a communication made to the British Government. I do not suppose he means a Circular from the French Government to French agents abroad?
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: That is what I asked for.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think I can be expected to know what Circulars the French Government have sent to French agents.

RUSSIA—RUMOURED REBUILDING OF SEBASTOPOL.—QUESTION.
LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as reported in a telegram yesterday, that the Russian Government were about to rebuild the forts, barracks, and dockyards of Sebastopol; and, whether the building of some of the forts and docks has not already been commenced?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the only information possessed on this subject by the Foreign Office is contained in an extract from a Russian newspaper, under date February 20, a translation of which has been sent home from Odesa by the Consul General there, Mr. Abbott; it is as follows—
"Some time since we gave a statement of the journal, Rousski Mir, that a Special Commission, consisting of several statesmen, was appointed to resolve the question—what is to be done with Sebastopol? Was it to be made a military or commercial post, or was it to be made a fortress or to be kept without fortifications? By information of the same paper the Commission came to the opinion that Sebastopol should be both a military and commercial port, and form a separate town with a Governor, intrusted to a Naval Officer of the rank of Admiral. The whole naval constructions of the Black Sea fleet to remain as before at Nicolaieff. Sebastopol will not be made a fortress. For the defence of the town from an unexpected assault and attack it is proposed to build several temporary fortifications at the entrance of the bay, and also at Eupatoria and Balaclava. It is said that there are proposals to make Sebastopol a free port."

UNJUST WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRIEVEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is his intention this Session to introduce a Bill to amend the Laws relating to unjust Weights and Measures, which he had to abandon last Session for want of time to carry it through?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension in supposing that any Bill on the subject of weights and measures was introduced last Session. No such Bill was introduced. A Bill was to a considerable extent prepared; but it was a Bill of a detailed character, which might occupy a considerable time; and, therefore, he was not yet in a position to say whether it was possible to introduce it during the present Session. He hoped it might be possible.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. PRICEasked the Chairman of Committees, Whether, as his scheme for the reform of Private Bill legislation was only sent to Members that morning, he would consent to postpone further proceedings on his Resolutions till after Easter?
MR. DODSONsaid, the heads of a scheme which were circulated that morning contained, with one, and that a very minor, exception, no point which was not mentioned in his statement a week ago. With regard to the request for postponement, the adjourned debate was now an Order of the House, and was, therefore, entirely in the hands of the House. So far as he was personally concerned, he considered himself as being pledged to many hon. Members who took an interest in the question to do his best to bring it on to-morrow. No progress could, he thought, be made in reference to the subject until after further discussion. He at the same time fully appreciated the importance of the interests involved in private legislation, and he was desirous that no precipitate conclusion should be arrived at. What he hoped the House would do was to discuss the Resolutions to-morrow, and consent to come to a decision on the first of them. Should that be done, and the feeling of the House be then expressed in favour of allowing further time for the consideration of the other Resolutions, he should offer no opposition to their being postponed until after Easter.

NAVAL ADMINISTRATION—THE ADMIRALTY.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he must appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) not to proceed with the Motion of which he had given Notice on this subject, as there would be ample opportunity for discussion on Vote 3 on the Navy Estimates, which would be taken at the beginning of an evening.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he could not consent to postpone his Motion, believing that that was the proper time to bring it forward.

ADMIRALTY ORGANIZATION—CASE OF MR. REED.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to some remarks which had been made on Monday night by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), when speaking on the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry). The right hon. Gentleman alluded to a transaction connected with the application of the Admiralty to the
  404
  Treasury in the case of Mr. Reed, and was reported to have spoken as follows:—
  "When Mr. Reed resigned towards the end of July, the Board was very frightened, and passed a Minute at once, to the effect that a letter should be written to the Treasury requesting that a considerable sum of money should be given to him. Upon this, to use his own words, Mr. Reed said—'I foresaw, and said that the Treasury might object, and that for this and other reasons I would prefer to leave and go forward with my candidature. The Controller then told me that the First Lord of the Admiralty had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that no objection would be made. Upon that assurance I acted, and but for that I should most certainly not have remained at the Admiralty and relinquished my Parliamentary prospects.' There is also on record a Minute by the Controller, saying that he told Mr. Reed nothing but what he was authorized by the Board to tell, and that Mr. Reed was fully justified in believing that the matter was settled and the arrangement finally made. Accordingly, on the 5th of August, 1868, a letter was written to the Treasury, to say that the Board of Admiralty thought Mr. Reed had established his claim, and to request that the sum of £5,000 should be paid to him. I do not know what part my right hon. Friend had in all this; but Mr. Reed, at any rate, was satisfied with the assurances given to him. Well, the thing went on; all August passed, all September passed, all October passed, but at the end of October, however, just before the General Election, he received a letter from the Treasury saying that their Lordships had considered the question, and must decline to allow the money."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "About three months after the money had been clearly promised to Mr. Reed, that gentleman was told that the money could not be allowed, and it is not to be wondered at that he considered himself "jockeyed."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 173.]
  Now, he thought the impression which would be left on the mind of anyone who had heard or read the right hon. Gentlemen's speech would be that he (Mr. Hunt) had promised his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone that he would consent that a gratuity should be paid to Mr. Reed, and that afterwards, on an official communication being made to the Treasury, he declined. He did not mean to say the right hon. Gentleman did suggest that; but the quotation which he had read would naturally leave that impression. He had the clearest possible recollection of the application which had been made to him by his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone on behalf of Mr. Reed. That application was that Mr. Reed should receive a sum of £5,000 in respect of certain inventions which he had placed

  405
  at the disposal of the Admiralty. There was no ambiguity in the way in which he received the application. He told his right hon. Friend in the most positive terms that he objected to a gratuity being paid to Mr. Reed, giving as a reason that he thought Mr. Reed had been compensated for those inventions, which he had placed absolutely at the disposal of the Admiralty, by being appointed to a lucrative position in that Department. He added that, taking into account Mr. Reed's services to the country, he should be willing to receive afterwards an application for an increase of his salary; but he positively refused to grant the gratuity. His right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone asked him on a subsequent occasion to re-consider the matter, and he did so, adhering, however, to his original resolution. He could not conceive, therefore, how the Controller could have told Mr. Reed that he had assented to the granting of the application.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he desired to add a few words to what had been said by his right hon. Friend. He did not rise on Monday night to make any remark on what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), because, not having the circumstances fresh on his memory, he wished to ascertain with accuracy the real facts of the case. He afterwards asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to allow him to call to see the Papers necessary to refresh his memory, with which request he kindly complied. He accordingly called at the Admiralty the following day, and saw a précis of the Papers. He found that on December 13, 1866, Sir Spencer Robinson forwarded an application from Mr. Reed asking for remuneration for designs and inventions, increase of salary, and whether he would be entitled to superannuation under the existing Act of Parliament, he not having been called on to pass a Civil Service examination. On December 27 there was a Board Minute in the First Lord's, his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich's (Sir John Pakington's) handwriting, declining to entertain his claim to compensation, but recognizing his claim to increase of salary, and entirely concurring in the justice of putting an end to any doubt whether or not he was to be entitled to superannuation, and under-
  406
  taking to recommend an increase of his salary from £1,000 to £1,200 a-year, and that his superannuation should be on the highest scale allowable under the Act. Orders were given by the same Minute to apply to the Treasury accordingly. On the 7th of January, 1867, there was a letter from the Treasury sanctioning the increase of salary, and stating their readiness, when Mr. Reed should retire from the public service, to give full consideration to any representation which might be made recommending him for special pension. On the 9th of January, 1867, there was a Board Minute directing the solicitor to prepare a case for the Law Officers, as to Mr. Reed's claim in law for compensation for designs and inventions. On the 21st of January, 1867, the Law Officers advised that the Admiralty could not recognize any such claim.
  MR. GILPINrose to Order. He wished to ask whether, when there was no Business before the House, the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in making a statement which might cause other hon. Members to make a counter statement?
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand this to be a personal explanation, affecting the conduct not only of Members of this House but of others who have been in the public service. Great indulgence ought, under such circumstances, to be shown by the House.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he had gone over the preliminary part of his explanation, and he would now briefly refer to the charge of his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. Mr. Reed renewed his application on the 1st of February, 1867, and on the 7th there was a Minute of the Board to the effect that it should receive careful consideration. Soon after his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) was appointed to the War Office and was succeeded by himself. His attention had not been called to the subject till August, 1868. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract had said that this case was an illustration of the way of doing business at the Admiralty under the old system; but the matter had nothing to do with the current business of the office. On the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Hunt) positively refusing to entertain the question, the matter dropped.

  407
  Mr. Reed subsequently pressed his claim very strongly, and he (Mr. Corry) was averse to losing his services, and again urged Mr. Reed's claims on the Treasury; but that was in no way connected, as had been insinuated, with the candidature of Mr. Reed for the borough of Pembroke. On renewing the application he received a decided refusal, and he (Mr. Corry) was at a loss to understand how Sir Spencer Robinson could have imagined that he had ever obtained the consent of the Treasury. All he could say for himself was that nothing could be more loyal than his own conduct in the whole matter. He had a personal interview with his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Disraeli), as well as with his right hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), and they discussed the question together, and he could do no more.
  MR. CHILDERSresponded willingly to the appeal made to him by the two right hon. Gentlemen. He had never had the faintest intention of imputing to either of them the smallest breach of honour, or of saying that they had done anything discreditable in the slightest degree. If he had dreamt of doing so he would of course have given them full Notice. All he did, after the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) had made some remarks as to the changes made at the Admiralty, and the consequent confusion and misunderstandings which had resulted, was simply to give a recent instance which had under the old system occasioned great perplexity, and which had entirely arisen from want of union and harmony. Mr. Reed applied for a certain sum of money in January or February, 1867, and for 15 months no notice was taken of his application. Another application was made, and no notice was taken of that for three months. Mr. Reed then resigned office, and became a candidate for the borough of Pembroke. The Board then were alarmed and voted Mr. Reed a sum of money, and his reply was—"How can I know that the Treasury will give me the money?" He was assured by the Controller that the First Lord of the Admiralty had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the latter had given his consent. On the strength of that assurance he withdrew his candidature, and returned to his office. Three months after, when it was too
  408
  late for him to stand for Pembroke, he was told that he could not have the money. Who made the mistake, he (Mr. Childers) did not know; but it exasperated Mr. Reed, and was most injurious to the public service, and did little credit to the idea of harmony claimed for Board action. But of course his two right hon. Friends had never dreamt of cajoling Mr. Reed, and he hoped that his assurance that he never intended to convey such an impression would be satisfactory to them.

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

NAVY ESTIMATES—NAVAL ADMINISTRATION.—THE ADMIRALTY.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONErose to call attention to the naval administration of Her Majesty's Government and the proposed changes in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty rendered necessary by the policy pursued, and to move—
"That while a clear and comprehensive scheme of Naval Administration will meet with the support of this House, any plan which does not finally settle the future conduct of Naval affairs on a firm and intelligent footing, will fail to meet the circumstances which have arisen from the faulty legislation which now calls for such extensive alterations."
The hon. and gallant Member said, the House had been precluded from discussing this question hitherto by the unfortunate absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) and now that he had returned, this seemed a fitting occasion for taking a review of his policy. He, therefore, begged to review, as briefly as possible, the parts of his policy in which he thought he had signally failed. He must go back to the period when he (Sir James Elphinstone) first entered Parliament—namely, in 1857. Previous to that time Sir James Graham had made great changes in the constitution of the Admiralty. He had done away with the Navy Board, with the Victualling Board, and the School of Naval Architecture, which latter he afterwards admitted he would not have abolished had he possessed the information which he had since acquired

409
on the subject. In 1857 in was the opinion of all seafaring men that events of the greatest importance to the naval service were looming in the distance. They were only beginning to lengthen ships of war by seven or ten feet; the principle of the screw, as applied to men-of-war, was in its infancy, and the idea of plating ships with iron had but partially been entertained. Men of scientific attainments were of opinion that the size and weight of ordnance should keep pace with the size of ships, and it was generally felt that it would require an amended organization of the Admiralty for the purpose of meeting the extensive changes that were likely to be made. In 1861 he brought forward a series of Resolutions drawn up by a committee of naval officers of the highest rank, and it was with reference to these Resolutions that the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty had stated that he had given his support at various times in the changes he had inaugurated at the Admiralty. The Resolutions were as follows:—
"1. That the mismanagement of naval affairs is due to the inefficiency of the present means of naval administration.
"2. That no efficient administration can be hoped for without direct personal responsibility.
"3. That to obtain direct personal responsibility, it is essential to abolish the Board of Admiralty, and to substitute for it a Minister of Marine, with a Secretary in the House.
"4. That the Minister of Marine shall be directly responsible to this House for the conduct and management of naval administration.
"5. That he shall be assisted by a council of not less than four naval officers, whose opinion he may consult, but to whom he is not bound to defer.
"6. That the members of the council be appointed for five years.
"7. That each department of the navy shall have a known and acknowledged head, appointed also for five years.
"8. That the heads of departments shall be directly responsible to the Minister of Marine, and that he shall be responsible to the country that efficient men fill them.
"9. That all promotions and appointments be the act of the Minister of Marine in council, submitted to him through the proper heads of departments, but for which he is personally responsible.
"10. That all naval commanders-in-chief be empowered to manage, and be responsible for, all questions of detail relating to their command.
"11. That the following departments are, in the opinion of this House, of sufficient importance to require the special superintendence of separate heads:—The discipline and training of the Navy, and general superintendence of the fleet in commission, and the submission of the appointment
410
and promotion of officers; the manning of the fleet; the construction of the Navy; the victualling of the Navy; the paying of the Navy; the controller of the coastguard; the Royal Marines; the medical department; pensions and rewards; the store department; the department of works; the hydrographer; the transport service."
These Resolutions were laid before the House at the end of 1861, and most favourable articles were written with regard to them by the leading journals of the day. In 1869 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract brought forward his scheme, and, so far from agreeing with him as to its propriety, he told him it was sure to break down. On the 8th of March, 1869, when the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) introduced his Estimates, and explained the changes he proposed to effect at the Admiralty, he had warned him of the difficulties he would encounter, and pointed out the quarter from which the danger was likely to arise. He said—
"The objection he took to his right hon. Friend's arrangement was that it must break down; the whole construction of the Navy was to lie between the Controller of the Navy and the First Lord. With all deference to his right hon. Friend, he was not a shipbuilder; and with all deference to the Controller, he had built some very bad ships. If the whole construction of the Navy was to rest between these two authorities, the country would be in a dangerous position. At that moment he believed the pressure on the Admiralty was greater than it was during the Crimean War. Changes and reductions had been made in the storekeeper's department, which had been presided over by a man of the highest position and greatest ability, but was now left without a head; and how it was to be carried on he did not know. The whole superintendence of the machinery department, on which the locomotion of the Fleet depended, had been thrown on the shoulders of Mr. Andrew Murray, a man of great ability, but who also had the superintendence of the dockyards, on a miserable pittance that would not be offered to or accepted by the foreman of a private yard. He looked forward to a breakdown, and was convinced the alterations at the Admiralty could not stand."—[3 Hansard, cxciv. 914.]
This was in March, 1869, and whether he was right or wrong in that prediction the House would judge. Shortly after that, the First Lord of the Admiralty hoisted the Lord High Admiral's flag in the Channel Fleet, and from that unfortunate period dated the difficulties and dissensions which arose in his office. That was a most dangerous and extraordinary act, not justified by any previous practice in the Navy, resembling more the acts of the French

411
Directory than the Constitutional Government of this country. The Fleet went to sea, and the result had been one of the greatest disasters, which had not been sufficiently animadverted upon. Then came the changes in the administration of the Admiralty, the reduction of the working power of the Department, the retirement of many of the best officers of the service, the breaking up of the dockyard men—a body of artificers who were a credit to the country, and formed a most valuable auxiliary force for the defence of the outports, and whose place had never been adequately supplied. Then the stokers in the Navy—a most valuable class of skilled workmen—were discharged, and the result had been a great waste of coal in the Navy, through the inefficiency of the men put in their place. When it was known that by good stoking a saving of 2,000 tons of coal might be effected on the voyage of three ships to India, he need not point out that the action of the right hon. Gentleman in this respect had been most improvident. The right hon. Gentleman had proceeded to abolish the heads of the Victualling department, and it had been asked by a noble Lord—"What is the use of a Master Attendant?" a question about as reasonable as it would be to inquire, what is the use of a spoon? And in regard to naval hospitals, the universal opinion of naval officers was that the discipline of an hospital was much better maintained by having at its head a naval man, than when it was entirely under the charge of the surgeon. Well, the right hon. Gentleman had also sold numbers of our ships; but as that subject had been already discussed, he would not occupy the attention of the House over it. About this time a transaction was effected which was certainly a most improvident one; indeed, had a Committee been appointed to inquire into the subject it would have been proved to be of a very questionable nature. He did not conceive that his right hon. Friend had the slightest knowledge of the transaction; and he was confirmed in that by the answer given to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn) who, it appeared, was retained by the Government to ask Questions to enable them to get out of scrapes. He should like to know whether the same opinion was now entertained that was given on the 10th of August, 1870. The next matter he
412
would mention was the sale of Deptford Dockyard, which was sold to an agent connected with persons employed by the Government, at a time when property was much depreciated; and the result was, he made £25,000 by his bargain. Had the Committee moved for by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) been granted, he believed the connection of the purchaser with persons in the service of the Government would have been shown clearly. Further, there was an abuse in the system of contracts which was derogatory to the character of this House. Contracts wore given to partners of hon. Members, and the practice was defended on the ground that a partner in his individual capacity might enter into arrangements the profits of which the firm did not share. This was a splitting of hairs inconsistent with the character of the Government of this country, and of the high character of Parliament; and if the practice were continued he would bring the subject before the House by a direct Motion. Well, then there was the notorious blunder in regard to the coal supplied to the Navy. There was substituted for the Wesh coal formerly supplied to the Navy a mixture of anthracite and bituminous coal, which produced an enormous amount of smoke. In order to burn it the old furnaces of the Navy had to be altered, and experiments of all descriptions were tried. A noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) who had presided over the Admiralty with much success, made a speech in "another place" last week on the subject of this change, in which he spoke even more strongly than would be implied from the following report:—
"The Duke of Somerset said that when he was at the Admiralty frequent applications were made on behalf of the coal-owners of the North to get the Admiralty to use more and more of the North-country coal; but the language he had always held on the subject was, that as long as the interests of the Navy were best served by the use of the Welsh coal he should continue to use it. Since then, however, a sort of compromise appeared to have been arrived at to satisfy the Northern constituencies by employing a mixture of Welsh and North-country coal. The result was that if they went out in one of Her Majesty's ships they would be almost smothered with smoke; and if they complained, the officer in charge would say—'Never mind; we shall soon get down to the good coal; the worst is all at the top.' Experience showed that the Welsh coal was the best for the Navy. It was stated to be apt to deteriorate in the tropics. Well, Lord Dudley once observed that morality would not keep very sweet in those

413
warm climates, and he was not sure that they could entirely rely on all the reports received from those latitudes. But he believed that naval officers all over the world, if fairly appealed to, would say—'Give us Welsh coal, and no mixture whatever.' On every ground he thought the Admiralty ought to return to the use of the Welsh coal for the Kavy."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 13.]
He could speak from his own observation in regard to Welsh coal in the tropics. Wherever it was properly housed in sheds it retained its good qualities for a considerable time, in fact for a longer period than coal generally remained unused; but if it were piled in immense stacks, as it was in various parts of India, and at the bottom of the volcanic cliffs at Aden, with a prevailing temperature of 120 to 140 degrees in the sun, he could easily understand that the volatile gases would escape and the quality of the coal be deteriorated. Instead of involving the country in the cost of these experiments, and prolonging a state of things distasteful to the officers and men of the Navy, because it ruined the paint and interfered with the cleanliness of their ships, besides spoiling their clothes, the First Lord of the Admiralty need only have gone to the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street, or consulted Dr. Percy, an officer of this House, to have ascertained the component parts and quality of every description of coal, and he might thus have obviated the necessity of sending out expensive expeditions in charge of the man who had recommended this change, and whose conduct was also open to grave reflection. As to the so-called mixture, he could understand the mixing of many things—brandy and water, for instance; but he could not understand the mixing of coal. The very process must involve breaking up the greater part of the mixture into small—unless it consisted, as it generally did, of putting a certain quantity of North-country coal on the top of a quantity of Welsh coal; so that one half of the day a ship would be burning smokeless coal and the other half coal which was offensive and injurious. The smoke, too, involved serious risk, for the other day, at Devonport, he saw a trial of the Swiftsure which gave out so much black smoke that her funnel and masthead were obscured, and it occurred to him that if the Admiral had wished to recall her he could only have done so by telegraphing to the Lizard, where she
414
might not have seen the signal, so that she might have reached Lisbon before she could have been recalled. There was an instance in which one of our ships was all but run over in the performance of naval evolutions, because her position was obscured by the smoke from the bituminous coal she was burning. Next he would allude to the fine imposed upon Messrs. Baxter and Co. for not being able to fulfil a contract—a matter of which he had not heard until a Question on the subject was put on the Paper. He was much struck with the answer of the First Lord, which showed that there had been laxity in Admiralty contracts; and, as the Liberal party had governed the country for nearly 40 years, this irregularity must be mainly due to their policy. The First Lord stated that on the completion of the contract Messrs. Baxter applied for the remission of the whole penalty, on the score of the difficulty in which they were placed by the inferior quality of the previous year's crop of flax. It occurred to him on hearing this that a highly respectable firm had deliberately entered into a contract to supply certain goods without having in their possession the means of performing the contract. That showed that it must have been the practice of firms to tender in this way; and the manner in which the fine was paid also showed an extraordinary degree of laxity in the conduct of affairs. Instead of the fine being paid when it was levied by a check, so that the sum could appear in the Accountant General's books, as money received, the fine was deducted from the amount of another contract, so that the names of the parties were concealed. The sale of Deptford Dockyard, the abuse of contract by partners of Members of Parliament, the coal contract, and the payment of the penalty imposed upon Messrs. Baxter and Co., were transactions which the House was justified in probing to the bottom. Private Members ought to be extremely cautious in dealing with these reports, and they ought not to be surprised if they sometimes discovered a mare's nest. Indeed, when it was considered that the whole force of the Government was opposed to private Members, it was a wonder they were so often successful. There was an enormous sale of valuable stores, which was rendered necessary in order to enable the Government to carry

415
out the fictitious plan of economy they had announced in their programme. He intended to move for a Return of the catalogues of these sales during the last three years, and of the sums of money received therefrom, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would offer no opposition to the Motion. It had been stated that capstans which had cost about £70 to make were sold for £10. Now, there was many a fishing town and village extremely anxious to possess a capstan, and when the Government were selling capstans, they might have made an offer to such towns and villages of an engine which would be of the greatest value to them for saving both life and property. Blocks and dead eyes were sold by the ton, and timber and other public property sold at ruinous loss, only to be replaced at greater cost. The confusion at the Admiralty became more and more intensified and the unfortunate personal differences so feelingly alluded to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) increased. With regard to the Captain, there could be no doubt that she had been received into Her Majesty's service drawing above two feet more than her specification; and he never could understand how she was permitted to go out of harbour until she was brought to her proper draught of water. Before the loss occurred there was conclusive proof that she was unsafe; but, owing to the confusion which prevailed, there was no power of conveying information on such a point from one department to another. He trusted we should see no more Captains. This was a question of administration, and not a personal matter in any way; and he hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) would not apply to himself personally any of the observations and criticisms of his Administration he had thought it his duty to make. In the spring of last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) succeeded to the post of First Lord of the Admiralty, and shortly afterwards the loss of the Megœra occurred. Considering the reports the right hon. Gentleman had before him it was astonishing that he should have insisted on sending that vessel to sea without first recalling her to harbour, dis-
416
charging her cargo, and having her thoroughly examined. Hon. Friends of his who asked Questions on this subject were snubbed and received answers which, in his opinion, the inexperience of the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have allowed him to have made. Shortly after the loss of the Megœra Her Majesty's ship Agincourt, owing to an error in pilotage, was run upon a rock. Such a mistake might occur through an error in the eyesight of any man, and it ought to be remembered that the officer who committed this particular blunder had borne an irreproachable character throughout a long and honourable career. When the Agincourt went aground seamanship was called into play, and it became evident that the officers and men of the Navy were still what they used to be and what he trusted they would ever continue to be. The rescue of that ship from her perilous position he held to be one of the great triumphs of British seamanship, and the right hon. Gentleman, instead of degrading the officers, would have been justified in saying to Admiral Wel-lesley—"The mistake made in the grounding of that ship was fully and entirely condoned by the seamanship displayed in her rescue." It had been said that Admiral Wellesley deserved the punishment he received—for it was a punishment—in consequence of his technical responsibility. In point of fact, Admiral Wellesley had no more to do with the stranding of the ship than he himself had; but, nevertheless, he was, by all the laws of naval administration, technically responsible. The right hon. Gentleman accordingly degraded him from his command, ordered him to haul his flag down, and also punished and degraded five or six other officers of as high character as any in the service. Technical responsibility was strained to the utmost in the case of Admiral Wellesley; but what became of the Parliamentary responsibility attaching to the First Lords of the Admiralty with respect to the loss of the Captain and of the Megœra? It would not do to assemble a Royal Commission to whitewash the First Lord and Her Majesty's Government, while it criticized and censured the conduct of every minor officer down to the unfortunate carpenter of the ship. A great deal had been said about Parliamentary responsibility; but

417
when a disaster occurred a lawyer was sent for to write a Report blaming everybody except those on whom the Parliamentary responsibility rested. He was alluding now to the Minute of his right hon. Friend opposite. [Mr. CHILDERS said he wrote every word of that Report himself.] He would, after that explanation, withdraw the remark; but he was extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should admit the authorship of such a document. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's changes had been to overwork the officials at the Admiralty, and on this point he would cite the evidence given by Sir Sidney Dacres before the Megœra Commission. Sir Sidney, as far as he himself was concerned, did not complain of being overworked; but he did complain very much of over-responsibility, saying it was too great responsibility for any naval man to have the charge of the whole of our fleets and everything belonging to them. He thought Sir Sidney Dacres had been most wrongfully dealt with in respect to the Megœra. The fault as to that matter lay with Her Majesty's Ministers, because they did not provide the Navy with sufficient ships to discharge the duties imposed on it. He saw 15 years ago that difficulties would arise with reference to iron shipbuilding; and he therefore, on two occasions, recommended that a Standing Committee, consisting of two or three men of the greatest ability, should be appointed for the purpose of guiding the Admiralty and the Controller on those mathematical problems which it was necessary to work out with reference to the adaptation of iron to shipbuilding, and he regretted that his suggestion had not been carried out. Instead of that they had assembled a large Committee, containing some philosophers and a number of naval men belonging to the Staff of the Admiralty, and controlled by the Admiralty. Instead of calculating the stability of our ships by mathematical and hydrostatical deduction, they were sent to sea at the hazard of the lives of their crews, merely to prove whether they could sink or swim. That he called a very lubberly proceeding. Five or six years ago the House authorized the iron plating of five line-of-battle ships. One of them, the Prince Consort, had been brought into dock in a very bad condition. The First Lord of the Admiralty was extremely aston-
418
ished to hear his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) say that the repairs of that ship would cost £60,000. He (Sir James Elphinstone) thought the repairs would cost more than £60,000, and the place of these ships must now be supplied. The right hon. Gentleman on Monday last virtually gave up those alterations at the Admiralty which had produced such serious consequences. He (Sir James Elphinstone) hoped there would be no more tinkering at the Admiralty. If they were to make alterations, let them do so after due consideration. Before alterations were made, let men of the highest scientific and professional attainments be consulted. Above all things, let not the Admiralty overwork their officers. An overworked department was always on the verge of disaster. The Admiralty were now exacting from their officers more work than the human frame could endure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
MR. G. BENTINCK, in seconding the Amendment, said, he endorsed every word that had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend; but he was sure that his hon. and gallant Friend would forgive him when he said that in his criticism of the late Board and the present Board of Admiralty, it appeared to him that he had omitted what was perhaps the most important criticism that ought to be made on that subject. The point was this—that all the alterations, modifications, or improvements which might be tried at the Board of Admiralty would be so much labour wasted until one indispensable change was made and a sailor was put at the head of the Department. In the remarks which he was about to make he did not wish to disparage in any way the right hon. Gentleman who now held the office of First Lord, or those who had gone before him. They were all men of great ability and high powers of mind; but be their ability what it might, he maintained that no civilian was competent to conduct with efficiency or to the advantage of the country the affairs of the Board of Admiralty. Was there any precedent for putting at the head of a great undertaking a man who knew nothing on earth of the matters with which he had to deal? That was the case of a civilian Lord at the head of the Admi-

419
ralty. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) pointed out the other night with great clearness the manner in which large private establishments conducted their business by placing at the head of the different departments men who knew their duty, and were conversant with the matters with which they had to deal; but he had no recollection that the hon. Gentleman had said a single word in favour of putting at the head of the Admiralty a man who knew nothing of the business. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) compared the Board of Admiralty to a Judge and jury, the First Lord being the Judge, and the Board the jury. But he wished to remind the hon. Member that a Judge was a lawyer who understood his business, and knew what he was talking about when dealing with the evidence and pointing out to the jury the course they ought to take. But what was the position of a civilian at the head of the Admiralty? Was he able to point out to naval officers the course which they ought to pursue?
MR. SAMUDAexplained that what he intended to convey was exactly the reverse; it was that the First Lord of the Admiralty could act properly only when he received instructions from the heads of the departments.
MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) had quoted the case of the Army. But, so far as our present experience went, all the good of putting a civilian at the head of the Army was that we had spent millions of money for the purpose of changing the status and position of officers, who up to the present time had been the envy and admiration of the world. There was one word that was always heard ringing in the House, and that was "responsibility." Now, he contended that it was perfectly impossible for men who were placed in positions, with the duties of which they were not conversant, to be properly responsible. There was no responsibility in the House of Commons for the management of the Navy. He had lately read the Report of the Megœra Commission, and it was his belief that the Commissioners were completely mistaken in censuring subordinates instead of the head of the Department; for it was clear that the loss of the Megœra was entirely attri-
420
butable to the present system upon which the Board of Admiralty was constructed. If there had been a sailor at the head of that Board, his firm belief was that the system which now existed, under which a certain amount of blame might be attributed to subordinates, would never have existed, because it would be mere child's play to a seaman to inaugurate a system by which a proper survey would be made of every ship before sending her to sea. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had been cautioned from all quarters about the ship; questions were asked as to her condition again and again; but all the right hon. Gentleman could do was to read the reports of officials, and to conclude that as they were responsible persons, the ship might go to sea with safety. Any sailor would at once have said that the vessel was not in a condition to go to sea with safety. He held the Admiralty to be responsible for the loss of that vessel. The right hon. Member for Tyrone had spoken the other night of a "heaven-born" genius. We had some of them about us, and he did not think they had done much good. He preferred a man who had been bred to his trade to a "heaven-born" genius. It had been said that for many years the Admiralty had flourished under a Board with a civilian at its head. That was perfectly true; but then the system was practically this—the naval men governed the Admiralty, and the civilian First Lord was merely their spokesman in this House. So far as the service of the country was concerned, the best thing any civilian First Lord could do was to go away where he liked on pleasure directly he was appointed and never go near the Board of Admiralty. The greater the activity of mind and ability of a civilian First Lord, the worse it was for the public service, and the best thing he could do was to pocket his £5,000 and go clear away. There were other men in office with £5,000 a-year, and the amount of mischief some of them did for the money was marvellous. But they had not the power of doing mischief which the First Lord possessed. Want of experience must always bring him to grief. The Admiralty was the one office of all others over which a professional man should preside. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had remarked, as a defence

421
of the system, that there were eight sailors in the Admiralty; but what was the use of them when they had no control over the business of the Board, and no responsibility in that House? They might or might not advise the civilian First Lord, who might or might not take their advice. The House of Commons knew nothing of these eight sailors. It made no difference whatever in this respect whether there were eight or 80 sailors within the walls of the Admiralty. He did not wish to cast the slightest reflection upon the abilities of the present First Lord or his predecessor; but he had always been surprised how any man of great talent and high standing in this House could consent to be placed in such a false position. What would have been said of the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) it he had announced that he had been appointed Astronomer Royal or Archbishop of Canterbury? He was quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would have been placed in a more appropriate position if he had accepted one of those two posts than the one which he did accept. He entirely agreed that each dockyard should have a professional head; but if that rule applied to subordinate departments, surely it applied with tenfold force to the Admiralty itself. The Admiralty was the most important Department in this country, for upon it the safety of the country depended; but the want of professional knowledge and skill in the First Lord made confusion worse confounded. What could he do except consult his professional colleagues? But to whom was the House to look if anything went wrong? Was the right hon. Gentleman, or were his professional advisers, responsible? The House ought to be able to say to the head of the Department—"You are responsible;" and unless that system were established the details of management were of minor importance. Another defect in the existing system was the want of permanence on the part of the head of the Board. So long as he remained the mere puppet of the House, going in or out of office with the Ministry, so long it would be impossible for a continuous good system to be established. Then, as to naval designs, the responsibility for any one man was too great, especially when we were now building an entirely new class of ships.
422
He was old enough to remember when the French built the finest ships in the world; but they had a Board of Design, composed of the ablest designers in the country. It might be asked, if he was right in asserting that there was no precedent for having a civilian at the head of the Admiralty, how it was that that system had lasted so long? That was a question that it was not difficult to answer. The reason was, that the post of First Lord of the Admiralty was too great a prize in the political wheel to be readily given up. That was, he believed, the sole cause why the Ins and Outs had united to preserve that great prize for their own use and emolument. A noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had made a speech the other day at Liverpool, which contained one remark which he thought of great force. He said that the practice of modern politicians was something like the proceedings of an acrobat, and that their great object was to "swarm up" a greased pole, at the top of which were to be found £5,000 a-year and lots of patronage. He should not state whether he endorsed that opinion or not; but as long as civilians insisted on retaining a lucrative post for which they were not qualified, so long would it be in the minds of men that there was a great deal of truth in the remark which he had just quoted. He had simply, in conclusion, to ask the House whether it was right, considering the magnitude of the interests at stake, to continue a system for which, as he had shown, there was no precedent. He begged to second the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "while a clear and comprehensive scheme of Naval Administration will meet with the support of this House, any plan which does not finally settle the future conduct of Naval affairs on a firm and intelligible footing, will fail to meet the circumstances which have arisen from the faulty legislation which now calls for such extensive alterations,"—(Sir James Elphinstone,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. CHILDERS: The hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken have so pointedly referred to me, that perhaps the House will allow me to interpose

423
for a few minutes before my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty introduces the Navy Estimates. While thanking the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down for the undeserved manner in which he has spoken about myself, I think I ought to say that he answered his own question in the latter part of his speech, when, while objecting that the First Lord of the Admiralty was not a sailor, he admitted that the present arrangement was practically necessary so long as the Admiralty was a Department at the head of which was placed a political person. That is the whole solution of the matter. If Parliament was of opinion that the management of so great a Department could be intrusted to a permanent servant, and that it was not necessary for him to be in the Cabinet—that he should, in fact, be treated like the head of the Excise or Customs—then there would be a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman has stated. I go entirely with him in the view that there is not sufficient permanence in our professional offices, and I state that as the result of my experience. I rejoiced to hear from the proposals which my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty shadowed forth the other day that that permanence will be strengthened; but I must say that I doubt very much whether the country and Parliament would ever adopt a system under which the First Lord of the Admiralty would no longer be a Member of either House of Parliament, and all the most important affairs that would have to be transacted, many of them of a high political character, would be handed over to a permanent servant not a Member of either House. The hon. Member has said that the old system was practically a system of handing over the government of the Navy to a committee of naval officers, of which only the First Lord was the spokesman; but claiming this for it now, he forgot his own criticism on it when it was in force. He blamed me for having made considerable changes in the system; but I must remind him that before those changes were made he spoke against the former system as strongly as he has spoken to-night against the system inaugurated three years ago. The hon. Gentleman will now be satisfied with nothing short of handing over the entire management of naval affairs to a body
424
of permanent professional officers, which is the only thing he thinks will save us from certain evils; but I venture to think that such a system is simply impossible. I wish, in the next place, to say a few words in reply to what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), who has addressed the House with his usual good nature, but who has made an attack upon me with a sharpness which, considering the matters to which he referred were not novel, I should hardly have expected. For instance, he again raised the old question of the sale of Deptford Dockyard, which has been raised before I do not know how many times. But I had imagined that all these charges—some of which were of the "Chaffers" kind—had been quite satisfactorily disposed of [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: They never were explained.] They were most distinctly and completely met. Some one who was said to be some one else's relative turned out to be no relation at all, and some one who was said to have had business relations with some one else turned out never to have seen him. Charges of that kind were easily disposed of. But one charge connected with Deptford Dockyard I do wish to call attention to, for the fact is simply this. Part of Deptford Dockyard was valued and was offered to the City of London at a certain price. They did not think fit to accept the offer, and it was then purchased for that price by another person, from whom the City of London afterwards purchased it at a very large premium. The citizens of London are, therefore, those to have a right to complain of their governing body in the matter, and I have no doubt the latter will be able to give a very satisfactory answer. The hon. Gentleman fell into a complete delusion on another subject, which I had hoped would not be alluded to again. He said that "in the case of a fine upon a contractor it is a very bad arrangement, as a matter of business, to deduct that sum from the payments due to the contractor. Instead of that you should pay him what was due to him and receive back from him afterwards the fine you had imposed on him, and the proceeds of the fine should go into the Exchequer." But the proceeds of all fines do go, as a matter of ac-

425
count, into the Exchequer, and the whole amount of the payment does appear as a payment from the Government; but it is a very good arrangement, as a matter of business, to stop the fine on the way and only pay the difference to the contractor. As to the partners of Members of Parliament taking contracts on their own account, I never heard of this charge before; it must have been made last year when I was not in the House. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the arrangements in force for some years past as overworking a great many officers. He quoted the case of the Controller of the Navy in particular, as being a greatly-overworked officer. But the Controller himself, when he was examined before the Duke of Somerset's Committee, distinctly denied that he was overworked, and said that since those arrangements had been in force the work generally had been better done, with less straining, and at a considerably diminished cost; and added, that he had an hour and a-half to spare daily for other work, which he wanted to be consulted about. The hon. Gentleman had also mentioned another matter, and I hear with surprise that the rumour to which he alluded has had considerable currency, and that it has been believed that the Minute I wrote last year, on a subject very painful to me, was not my composition, but that I had foisted on the country and on Parliament the very long, carefully-stated, and, I maintain, accurate Minute—to the whole of which I adhere, but which he says was really written by some lawyer. Now, I wish to give emphatically and conclusively the most absolute contradiction to that statement. I wrote every syllable of that Minute myself; I spent more than a month in writing it; I gave to it the greatest amount of pains and care; and I should have been ashamed to be guilty of such conduct as he has insinuated.
MR. GOSCHENtrusted that the hon. Gentlemen the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment would excuse him for not replying on the present occasion to the statements they had made, as he would have the opportunity of doing so in Committee.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) 61,000 Men and Boys, Sea and Coast Guard Services, including 14,000 Royal Marines.
MR. GOSCHEN: I rise to move that 61,000 men and boys be employed in the Sea and Coast Guard Service for the year ending March 31, 1873; and in making that Motion and in laying the Estimates before the Committee, I trust that I shall be pardoned if I do not go into many of the controversial questions which have so much occupied the attention of the public with regard to the Navy. It is my duty to-night to explain as well as I can to the Committee and to the public what the taxpayers of the country can expect for those £9,500,000 which are annually voted by this House for the purposes of the Navy. For that expenditure ample reasons ought to be given; and it is also my duty to touch, not on those controversial questions to which I have alluded, but on the policy of the Government with regard to shipbuilding, and many other important questions connected with the administration of the Navy.
Allusions have been made to the responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and allusions have also been made to the view that it would be far preferable if these Estimates were submitted to Parliament by a sailor instead of a civilian, and it has been argued that much greater confidence would be inspired if such were the case. No one could be more aware than I am myself of the immense difficulties which a civilian must have in the conduct of the business of the Department, and few men who have not occupied the office can be aware of the intense anxiety and the intense care which a post of this kind entails. Hon. Members who have alluded to this subject need not think that because the First Lord of the Admiralty is not a sailor, therefore he can relieve himself from the immense amount of that responsibility which hon. Members sometimes say does not fall upon the Admiralty, but which I think they

427
generally and justly bring home to him. I deny in the strongest manner that I have ever attempted to evade any responsibility that attaches to the Office, though there have been several cases cited where it is alleged that that has been done. I repeat that anyone who says that the course taken by the Government in any question of naval administration has been to evade and shrink from responsibility, says that which has no foundation in fact whatever. It is not my duty to-night to allude to several of those disasters which have darkened the last year of naval administration. When the time comes it will be my duty to express the immense regret of everyone at the Admiralty for those events, and how far and in what measure we consider the responsibility is to be divided. It was said that last year we had attempted to evade responsibility by appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes which lost the Megœra. But it was asserted in this House and in public that any investigation by the Admiralty itself into the causes of the disaster would not be satisfactory to the public; and it was on the ground of that expression of opinion in this House and among the public, and not because we wanted to shrink from responsibility, that we yielded to what we thought the general desire, and appointed a Commission of Inquiry. Without discussing the results of that question to-night, I think I am justified in saying that the gentlemen who were appointed to the Commission, on their appointment enjoyed the confidence of the country; that the country believed it was a bonâ fide Commission; and that the Commissioners have received the thanks of the public generally for the able and searching manner in which they have conducted a most arduous investigation.
I now proceed to state to the Committee the proposals which we have to make. I have to lay before the Committee Estimates amounting, in round numbers, to £9,500,000. Those Estimates are less than the Estimates of last year by the sum of £282,000. They show an increase over the Vote of 1870–1 of £138,000. With regard to the increase of the Estimate over that of 1870–1, and its decrease compared with that of 1871–2, I wish to make this remark. In 1870–1 the lowest point was
428
reached in the Estimates for a certain course of years. In August, 1870, a Vote of Credit was obtained for £600,000 in consequence of the disturbances on the Continent, and certain measures were taken under that Vote of Credit. The Estimates in the year that succeeded were £400,000 larger than those for 1870–1, so that by that time £1,000,000 extra had been voted to the Navy since my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) prepared the Estimates for 1870–1. It may be asked—"What has been done with that £1,000,000, and why have your Estimates this year not gone back to the figure at which they stood in 1870–1?" The Committee and the country are entitled to know the effect that the addition of the £1,000,000 has had on the Navy. The fact is, that almost the whole of that £1,000,000 has been spent on a branch of the Navy which, till a very few years ago, did not exist at all, and that is on home defence. Therefore it has not added to the normal strength of the fleet compared with what it used to be, although that strength has been increased by other Votes. I can show the Committee that more than £1,000,000 has been spent on what I may strictly call home defence. There are four ships, the Cyclops, Hydra, Hecate, and Gorgon—four of the most formidable ships—which have cost nearly £600,000, and 18 gunboats—not sea-going gunboats, but what may be called floating gun carriages—which, including their engines, fittings, and all appliances, have cost about £180,000, making a total of nearly £800,000. Then there are three ships—the Rupert, the Glatton, and the Hotspur—which must also be considered as for home defence, on which a considerable sum has been spent during the last year and a-half. But we have now arrived at the point of having to ask ourselves what should be the policy of the Government in respect to building further ships for home defence. I wish to say in distinct terms that looking to the condition of the Navies of other countries, and at the amount of the offensive forces of those countries we might be likely to be engaged with, I do not think it would be right to ask Parliament to devote any further large sums at present for the strengthening of our home defences. We believe this is one of the points on which we are

429
strongest, and on which we need not fear, at present at least, there is any country that can equal us. I state this to show how the extra £1,000,000 which the liberality of Parliament placed at the disposal of the Government has been spent. Leaving that out of the account, the Estimates for this year very nearly approach those of 1870–1. They exceed them by £138,000. As I pointed out to the Committee last year, it is important to remember how much of the £9,500,000 which forms the aggregate of the Estimates is devoted to those great divisions into which the expenditure of the Navy is divided—first, the personnel of the Fleet; secondly, the materiel of the Fleet, including the increase in our dockyards; and, thirdly, administrative charges, including what may be called the miscellaneous services. We spend upon the personnel in wages to seamen, Marines, on Reserve Forces, on victualling and victualling yards, on half-pay and pensions, hospitals, residences, and on several minor Votes, the sum of £5,600,000. On the matériel we spend £3,400,000, including a Vote of £979,000 for wages in dockyards, £700,000 for extension of dockyards and new works, £930,000 for naval stores, £459,000 for machinery and ships building by contract, £309,000 for civil pensions—making in all £3,400,000 for the matériel of the Navy. The administrative and miscellaneous services cost £500,000, of which the Admiralty administration costs £140,000, the scientific department £73,000, miscellaneousservices£111,000, and the conveyance of troops £156,000. Contrasting these figures with those of last year, I can state precisely to the Committee the amount of increase or decrease in each item. On the personnel there is a net decrease of £8,400, which, looking to the largeness of the figures, can be scarcely regarded as a difference in amount. On the matériel there is a net decrease of £258,000, including a decrease of £65,000 for extension works of dockyards, and there is a net decrease of £15,000 upon the miscellaneous Votes.
Before I approach the question of the personnel and matériel of the service, I will proceed to clear off some of the minor Votes. There is a decrease on the Vote for the conveyance of troops, arising mainly from the fact of there being less changes of troops and fewer troops in
430
the colonies. It is a decrease the credit of which belongs to the War Office, and not to the Admiralty. On Vote 14 there is a decrease of £14,000, owing to one Vote from its nature not re-appearing in the Estimates—namely, the cost of £16,000 for the purchase of a torpedo invention. On the other hand, there are several items of increase. There is a charge of £5,000 for a graving dock at Table Bay, Cape of Good Hope; £1,500 for water supply at Gibraltar—two matters over which we had very little control, by reason of the fact that they resulted from arrangements previously made—and a gratuity of £2,000 to Mr. Archibald Smith, Q.C., for the great services he has rendered to the Admiralty, not in his professional capacity, but from his love of science. I am glad to take this opportunity of saying that his researches into matters connected with magnetism have been of great service to the Navy and the country, and I am sure that the Committee will not grudge this £2,000, not as compensation for his laborious services, but as a mark of their appreciation of eminent scientific research. There is another increase in the same Vote, which I think will meet with the approval of the Committee. It is in connection with the very interesting expedition that is to be undertaken, under the auspices of the Royal Society, for deep sea explorations. I will not describe at this moment the very interesting investigations that are to be made in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans, with reference to researches into the depth, temperature, composition, circulation, and distribution of animal life in those oceans, from which the greatest results to science are expected. A sum of £10,000 per annum for two years and a-half will be granted—an expenditure which the Government think, in the cause of science, will not be refused by the Committee. There is another small addition in Vote 5, amounting to £2,500, for the better education of Navy surgeons. It is intended that in future these officers shall, at Netley, receive an education such as is afforded to Army surgeons, and it is anticipated that one of the results will be to attract more men into the service and raise the general skill and knowledge of Navy surgeons.
I now come to the really important Votes in the Estimates—namely, those

431
connected with the personnel of the Meet. On the Victualling Vote there is an increase of £24,000, the main increase being for clothing. There is a decrease of £11,000 for provisions. I am happy to say that during last year provisions did not cost so much as was anticipated, because we were able to purchase for the same money a larger quantity, and by that means we were able to add largely to the stocks, and consequently we require less money this year. The stocks of all those items in which it is necessary and desirable to keep up large stocks have been rendered perfectly satisfactory and ample, and I venture to suggest the course which we think it desirable should be adopted in future with regard to stores in general. We do not think it right to lay in large quantities of perishable articles, stores that we can buy immediately, as they are wanted, in the market—that we can find any day and in any quantities in the London Docks, such as wheat, tea, and sugar; but with regard to such stocks as timber, rope, and hemp, articles of which the supply is somewhat limited, or which require time to season them, we consider it would be false economy to reduce them, and we have made satisfactory provision in that respect. The increase in the amount of clothing arises from the same cause as that of last year. The stores having been gradually intrenched upon, it was necessary to take a large sum of money to replace them. To show how large increases take place from slight causes, I will instance an increase of £6,000 for staves for making barrels and packages. On so large a scale are our operations, that our stock of staves being low has caused the increase I have named. I may state, in passing, that more satisfactory arrangements have been made with regard to the sick mess fund.
As regards the important question of manning the Navy and the Vote for wages of seamen, there is a decrease of £19,000. I have noticed that those who read the Estimates without explanation consider that this decrease is due to the probability that fewer officers are to be put on full pay during the year; the diminution arising not in the wages of the men, but in the payment of the officers on full pay. Now, the facts of the case are these. This Vote has always been made up, as regards officers,
432
on a miscalculation. There is an error running through the account for many years past. The mode in which the sum has been calculated is this. So many officers are on full pay on a particular day, and the problem to be solved is of this kind. Then an arithmetical problem is made of the following kind: there are 4,000 supernumeraries in the ports; supposing all these supernumeraries to be employed—which they never have been in any one year—how many officers would they require in proportion to the sailors forming the complements of the various ships? Supposing there are 30,000 men actually in the ships in commission, and 4,000 in the ports, the full pay for the officers was taken in proportion to the 4,000 as well as for the 30,000. In point of fact, the Estimates included the full pay for an imaginary number of officers, forgetting that the additional number of officers employed on full pay are taken from those on half-pay. There has actually been a sum taken for a certain number of officers on half-pay and full pay over again. Of course, there has been an excess on the Vote pro tanto; there will now be a saving on it. What has been done by us is this—we have taken the actual number of officers on half-pay and provided for them, and the actual number of officers on full pay and provided for them; and in order to cover the amount calculated on the probability of putting into commission more ships during the year we take £15,000 to cover that contingency. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) will find on calculation that £15,000 will in that way provide for a vast number of additional ships being commissioned. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: A vast number! How many?] I will supply that information afterwards. But the sum will supply more ships with officers on full pay, unless some tremendous catastrophe should occur, than will probably be employed in any one year; and the Vote is not likely in any case to be exceeded. I, therefore, wish to remove the misapprehension that, looking to the diminution of the Vote, there is a diminution in the pay or employment of officers.
I have next to deal with the question of the number of men; and we propose, speaking generally, to take the same number of men this year as we did last

433
year. There will be 500 more boys, and between 200 and 300 men less; but practically we take a Vote for 61,000 men and boys, as we did last year. The allegations that are continually made that the number of our sailors is rapidly declining, and that there is a waste going on that we cannot deal with, are incorrect; on the contrary, the progress has been satisfactory as regards the manning of the Navy. On the 1st of July, 1870, before the loss of the Captain, we had 18,758 blue-jackets; on the 1st of January, 1871, we had 18,541; and on the 1st of January, 1872, we had 18,726—that is to say, within 30 of the number we had a year and a-half ago. Therefore, that decline in the number of sailors to which attention is sometimes called is no longer going on. I am not sure that in the Estimates the Indian troop ships are included; but the figures I have given are correct; and they show no further decrease in the number of our sailors. In connection with this point I have also looked carefully into the subject of desertion. Some hon. Members, who wish to say that everything is wrong in the Navy, say that desertion is increasing. That is not the case. The number of desertions in 1867–8 was 1,353; in 1868–9 it was 1,219; in 1869–70 it was 1,406. That was, no doubt, the year of alarm; but in 1870–1 the number had declined to 1,116—less by 250 than in the previous year. Full credit cannot be taken for the full amount, because there has been a diminution in the number of sailors since 1867–8; but I do find that desertions are declining. And I am bound to point out to the Committee that the crime of desertion, serious as it is, does not necessarily, under the present system, prove what is called the unpopularity of the service, owing to the circumstance that our sailors are now engaged as boys, coming in at 16 and binding themselves to remain till they are 28. There may be a number of circumstances to cause them to desert—such as a quarrel in the ship, the immense temptations on shore, and the disinclination to follow a sea life. It does not necessarily prove that there is anything wrong in the Navy to cause them to prefer the merchant service. On the contrary, we believe that the service is growing in popularity. Notwithstanding the rigid conditions—for rigid they are—under which they are engaged,
434
in having to serve from 16 to 28, there is no indication to show that the reverse is the case. I may point with satisfaction to the fact that the supply of boys now got is improving in quality. There are excellent boys to be got in unlimited numbers of the age required, and, as I stated last year, though we are now paying a somewhat expensive price for the training of our sailors, the training is a most efficient one. We have 3,500 boys in training-ships, and it is important that the Committee should know what we pay for what I may call the procuring of our seamen. Before they are of use to us they cost us not much less a sum than £400,000 a-year. That is the sum we pay for getting the best materials that we can, and for the system which is maintained at present. It is constantly urged, and with some truth, that there is a difficulty in getting men from the shore. Various reasons have been assigned for that difficulty. One, no doubt, is, that men coming from the shore enter ships where everybody else has been entered on a different principle; and therefore they find themselves, not amongst men of their own class, and who have followed the same pursuits, but in a separate society, springing up from time to time from the training-ships, in which the sailors have all been brought up in the same way. That, no doubt, is a disadvantage as regards the expansive powers of our Meet; and it is very difficult to see how the advantage of training our own boys can be combined with the procuring of a sufficient number of men from the shore. It was said that another difficulty in getting these men is that our terms are not sufficiently liberal; that if we supplied a free kit when the men first entered, instead of afterwards, it would make a great difference. We have tried it, and I am bound to say that the result of doing so, and the giving as an inducement to those who bring men from the shore of 10 s. a head, has been to enter almost as many men from the shore in one month as during the whole previous year. In this way, the number of re-entries obtained in a month has been 63, compared with 83 during last year; and there have also been obtained 173 older, first-class boys, who will not have to go through such a course of training as the others. These results show that by making changes we are

435
able to get men and boys; and I wish that to be understood, and not that there is any wish to supersede in any way the system of training men and boys. That would be the last thing we should wish to do—indeed, we should regard such a change as calamitous; but we have wished to test whether we can get the men and boys if they are wanted, and we have now obtained indications that, to a certain extent, we can. Most of the officers of the training-ships, and those engaged in that part of naval administration, have been cold about encouraging entries from the shore, and alarmed lest success in that direction should induce the Admiralty to suspend its efforts in educating boys; such an apprehension is groundless, but still we shall be glad if men can be got from the shore.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONasked, whether the boys would be entered at once for service without going into a training-ship; and, if so, at what age?
MR. GOSCHEN: Boys will enter the training-ship at 16½ years. Those from shore will enter at the age of 18. They will go through a short course of training. We have 3,500 boys turned out every year. One great difficulty, however, in training them is in getting ships for them. The same difficulty is experienced in the merchant service, where ships take a certain number of boys in comparison with the number of the crews. If we were to train 1,000 more boys than we have at present, we should not know how to distribute them in ships; and it is admitted that seagoing training-ships, though valuable, are not so valuable for training seamen as men-of-war are. Such is the statement that I have to make with regard to boys. I may, however, add that strict orders have been issued that a preference should be given to seafaring lads, rather than to those who know nothing about the sea.
Before proceeding to the question of Reserves, which is intimately connected with manning, I may say that we have made some other reforms in the direction of making the non-combatants more useful than they are at present, by attempting to induce men to have two trades instead of one. In that way we shall relieve the ships of non-combatant men, and make more room for fighting men. Many of our modern vessels have so little room that it is a great advantage to have as few non-combatants as
436
possible. "Stoker mechanics" have been engaged, and an increase of 3d. a-day has been offered to men of useful trades who pass the necessary examination for stokers. In this way it will be possible to reduce the number of artizans—such as blacksmiths and plumbers; and in small vessels this will be a very great advantage. Another change we propose has reference to the divers. With few exceptions seamen gunners were the only men who had been taught diving; and it will be apparent to every one who considers the matter that a seaman gunner was not the most qualified person to go down to examine a ship's bottom. In their stead we propose to induce shipwrights, engineers mechanics, and that class of men to learn diving, by offering to them certain extra payments, so that, in such unfortunate cases as the Megœra, the damaged bottom of a ship may be surveyed by a man technically acquainted with the thing he has to examine. Better arrangements have also been made with reference to the payment of seamen. I took a supplemental Estimate some little time ago, and this step was taken in consequence of the recommendation of the Ships' Books Committee, who looked carefully into the matter, and the result of their labours will be, not only a more satisfactory mode of paying the men, but also great economy in the pay for clerks on board ships.
The question of Reserves I will not dwell upon this evening, as I shall have an opportunity of speaking upon it when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) brings his Motion forward. The Vote for Reserves is less this year by £13,000, in consequence of the amount voted last year not having been spent; and I may observe, in connection with the question, that there has undoubtedly been a diminution in the number of the Royal Naval Reserve. The Committee should, however, draw a distinction between such Reserves as arise from our own trained men and such men as are secured by offering inducements to the merchant service. With regard to seamen pensioner reserves, so far they have not been a success; and we have taken steps to introduce certain improvements, by which we hope to secure a larger number of that class of men. Then there are the continuous-service men who, having entered at the age of 16½ years,

437
and being rated as seamen at 18, remain under a 10 years' engagement—namely, from 18 to 28 years, at the end of which time they have the option of either going without a pension or re-enlisting for another 10 years, after which they leave the service at the age of 38, and in many cases receive a pension of £36, and even £38 a-year. It may be said that is a large pension for a man at 38; but the Committee must bear in mind that in all such cases the recipient has done a considerable amount of hard work during his service to the country. The question arises, how can we induce these men, who leave the service at 38, to join the Reserves. The pensions have been given to them without any obligation to serve, except the general obligation to serve in time of war. The present plan of inducing them to continue their services for a time, though it makes a certain addition to their payment, has proved insufficient for the purpose we had in view. One of the chief causes of the failure of that plan is, that men who have occupied the position of petty officers are naturally loth to accept pay in the rank of able-bodied seamen. As a remedy, we propose to give these petty officers the same ratings when serving in the Reserves as they had before, instead of putting them down in the lower rank, which acts as a deterrent rather than an inducement. The Committee will see that it is of the greatest importance that we should retain these men who have been petty officers, because in times of emergency they are the very men who will readily and efficiently man our ships. By carrying our plans into execution, we hope to secure a large number of the men who are now leaving our service for our seamen pensioners' reserves. But those plans are still under consideration, and I think the Committee will agree to this proposition—that, taking into account the very early age at which our sailors receive pensions, the arrangement should be distinctly made that, if they would have a pension at all, they must join the Reserve when they leave the service. The question also arises, ought the men who leave the service at 28 to receive pensions or not? At present they receive none, and a great controversy is going on among naval officers whether it is right or wrong that they should receive a pension. Many are of opinion that it would be wise to give a pension
438
of 6d. a-day at the end of 10 years, to induce men to join the Reserve. The great difficulty of that would be that the men would leave the service, and in that way the standing force of seamen would be diminished by more men than we could afford to lose. If the matter were left optional with the Admiralty to offer or withhold the pension, according as it was desirable to retain the men in the service or draw them into the Reserve, the exercise of the discretion would be a constant source of dissatisfaction. Men would grumble that their hope of being entitled to a pension was disappointed, and I really cannot recommend that the Admiralty should have the option of giving or withholding a certain number of pensions. It may be asked, what proportion of men do we lose of those who have passed through their first 10 years? An impression has got abroad that a large number leave the service at the end of 10 years, and do not re-enter. I think that is not so; for I find that, after being 10 years in the Navy, 80 per cent re-enter the service and engage themselves for another 10 years. To my mind this is a conclusive proof that the service is not so unpopular as those who criticize the Admiralty so sharply appear to believe. It is quite impossible for the service to be unpopular when sailors, after having served for two years as boys, and for 10 years as men, voluntarily engage for a further period of 10 years. They re-enter the service, not because they could not get employment elsewhere—for such men are held in esteem for civil employments—but because the service is attractive to them. The difficulty of following the plan so often recommended of passing men rapidly through the Navy, and then putting them into the Reserve, is greatly enhanced by two peculiarities in the naval service. One peculiarity is this—we train our own boys. We train them now, say for two or three years, in order to get 10 years' service from them, with the chance of 10 years more; but if we were to train them for two or three years in order to get only seven years' service from them, we should have twice the number of boys, with the enormous difficulty of getting employment for such an increased number of boys. Another difficulty is, that we should have exceedingly young crews, and it is questionable how far we ought to rely

439
on young crews on distant stations and in unhealthy climates. Indeed, I have already received complaints from admirals that the crews are too young. The Admiralty cannot, therefore, see their way to saying that men should pass into the Reserve at an earlier age than 28; because, if we are to continue to train our boys—and everybody seems to cling to that system—10 years' service afterwards is the minimum the country has a right to expect from them. Of the 20 per cent who leave the service now after the first period of 10 years' service, a considerable number join the Royal Naval Reserve, and thereby get an annual pension of £10—£6 as a retainer, and £4 for their allowances. What I think we ought to do is this—Give them pensions at the end of the 38 years—the age at which they leave us, as we do now; but we must have better hold of them, by inducing them to join the Reserves. The number of men in the Royal Naval Reserve, which consists mainly of men belonging to the merchant service, is no doubt decreasing. One reason for this was urged by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) last year—namely, that we are too stringent as to the requisite height of the men. We have been unwilling to make any changes in the Royal Naval Reserve until we were able to deal with the subject as a whole. We now, however, propose to reduce the height from 5 feet 5 inches to 5 feet 3 inches, because it has been found that many men who have actually been in the Navy, where the standard is rather shorter than in the Royal Naval Reserves, have been rejected on that ground. Accordingly, this change has been made, and it is also hoped that in the Navy greater facilities will be given for re-enrolment than has been afforded hitherto. It is doubtful, however, whether these changes will lead to any large increase in the numbers of the Royal Naval Reserve, and, therefore, it is intended to make changes in the Second Royal Naval Reserve, which has hitherto not been successful. I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) has himself pointed out that fact. The truth is, that the men in the Second Reserve are now required to stay on board a ship for 28 days in each year. This Reserve is for ordinary seamen; whereas the First Royal Naval Reserve is for able-bodied seamen. According
440
to the existing arrangements, an ordinary seaman will have to remain on board a ship for 28 days in each year, and it is believed that this has deterred them from joining. It is therefore proposed that henceforth they should only be required on board of ship for one period of 28 days, after which they would be placed in the First Naval Reserve, and become entitled to the higher pension and allowances. These are the minor changes proposed to be made in regard to the Reserves. The Admiralty has, indeed, a larger plan under consideration; but I am not yet prepared to lay it before the House. It is hoped that in connection with the new class of gunboats it might be possible to organize a system by which the country might have a new class of naval volunteers in all our large ports. We have been steadily increasing the number of the gunboats which would be available for the defence of those ports. As the Government make some contribution to Volunteers who act as Reserve forces on land, we think we shall be able to make such an arrangement as will enable us to place the gunboats at their service, and so organize a large force for the defence of our coasts. It may, perhaps, be said that this experiment has been already tried, and that the Royal Coast Volunteers has been a failure. I do not think, however, that the plan has ever been tried of localizing ships at the various stations. When the men are merely enrolled for the purposes of drill it is exceedingly difficult to maintain a force for coast defence; but if an opportunity were afforded to them of exercising in gunboats attached to particular localities, it might be found that the same spirit which has induced so many individuals to volunteer on shore might assist us largely in the defence of our coasts. It is for this reason that I shall ask for a further sum of money this year to be applied to the building of gunboats. Otherwise, as I have stated, as regards building vessels for home defence, considerable progress has been already made.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not see any statement of the number of the Royal Naval Reserve men.
MR. GOSCHEN: I believe there has been no change in the Estimates in this respect. The number of men is between 13,000 and 14,000.

441
I now come to another point. It has been alleged, on the authority of Admirals Elliot and Ryder, that our Fleet is undermanned from motives of economy. Nothing can be more incorrect than such a statement; economy, at all events, has nothing to do with it. At this moment we have 3,000 blue-jackets who could at once be put on board ship, if there were room for them. We have a larger number of supernumeraries at home than we consider desirable, and we have been obliged to commission the frigate Aurora in order to give them employment in sea training. The truth is, that the ships of the present day are so constructed as not to require such large crews as were necessary for vessels in old time, and this circumstance explains why some officers came to the conclusion that our vessels were undermanned. Turret-ships, for example, do not require such complements as ships in the old days; but there is no truth whatever in the allegation that there is a desire on the part of the Admiralty to underman ships. On this point I have questioned several officers on their arrival from abroad, and they all deny that their vessels are undermanned. Then Admiral Elliot and Admiral Ryder said that, at all events, there was not a sufficient number of stokers on board our ships, and that they did not believe our ships, if tried at full speed, could be managed with their present complement of stokers. Now, I am ready to admit that there has been scarcely sufficient testing of our big ships under steam at high rates of speed, and that it is highly desirable for us to ascertain the truth in this respect. We have, therefore, given orders that an experiment shall be made. The Bellerophon and Sultan, two ships of our Channel Squadron, are to proceed for 24 hours at full steam at the highest speed of which they are capable, in order to show whether those ships can be worked with the present complement of stokers. I think the Committee will agree that the trial is a severe one. If that is so, then there is all the more reason for the experiment, and to make sure that our ships can go at the top of their speed for several consecutive days. It is an experiment that is much looked forward to by naval officers, because it will also test the relative rates of speed of the ships, and train the
442
stokers and the officers to the performance of their duties. I have had the opportunity of questioning many officers on this point—whether they can see any deterioration in the character of our seamen; whether they are generally satisfied with the training-ships and the calibre of the seamen; and I am glad to say that those officers who have lately gone afloat again after a long interval have expressed their astonishment at the splendid crews which they now see on board our ships. On a recent occasion—the Thanksgiving at St. Paul's—a number of seamen passed through London, where they were seen by hundreds of thousands who had scarcely seen a body of sailors before, and the House will remember the immense impression they made. I am glad to add that their conduct was most exemplary, there not being a single case of misbehaviour, notwithstanding the temptations to which they were exposed.
I now proceed to discuss the question as to the officers. The present system of educating officers is this. Boys of 13 are sent to the Britannia training-ship, where they remain till they are 15; then they pass into a sea-going training-ship till they are 16; then they serve for three years as midshipmen, till they are 19, and then they pass their examination for lieutenants. This system appears to have some drawbacks. The Britannia is not the best place for the education of boys from 13 to 15. In the first instance, you have an establishment where you have nothing but boys of the same age; and an assemblage of boys of the same age, from 13 to 15, in the same confined area, is in many respects undesirable. Then when they go into the sea-going training-ship they are crowded together more than is desirable. It is asked, what is the advantage of the boys being on board a stationary ship instead of on shore? The boys do not learn seamanship in the Britannia, for the Britannia does not go to sea; they have the advantage of boats, and that is all. Then, having been taken away from school at the age of 13 and trained in the Britannia, they go into a sea-going training-ship, which is neither a man-of-war nor a perfect school ship. They go on with their education, and the time devoted to this education, including steam and French, is 14 hours a-week, the intellectual studies

443
during the time being about 8 to 10 hours a-week. That is not very satisfactory. But are they learning seamanship? I am told that they do not learn as much as they would on board an ordinary man-of-war. There are so many hands, that many can only look on instead of doing the work themselves. At the age of 16 they go as midshipmen in a sea-going man-of-war, and then they are placed under naval instructors; but the 14 hours of general education which they receive weekly on board a training-ship is reduced to seven or eight on board a man-of-war. Then at 19 they pass an examination in seamanship, and on the first occasion of reaching England after the age of 19 they pass an examination in gunnery and navigation, being allowed six weeks' preparation for such examination. I was not surprised to learn that six weeks were insufficient even to rub up the knowledge they possessed. I have conferred with many officers, and with the authorities of the Royal Naval College at Portsmouth, and am told that the number who pass after six weeks' preparation is almost nil. A further period must nearly always be allowed them. It is acknowledged that the naval officers ought now to be educated more than ever they were before; the ships are so different, and their qualities so complex, that superior education on the part of the officers is absolutely indispensable. Reviewing the general system, the first question we have had to solve is accordingly this—At what age should we take boys? Should we continue to take them from school at about 13? We are of opinion—and I have the concurrence of many naval officers in this opinion—that it would be better to leave the boys at school till the age of 15, rather than to take them at 13. The question as to the best age for sending them to sea does not enter at this point, because even under the present system they do not go to sea till they leave the Britannia at 15. I wish also to improve the system of nomination, with the view of "tapping" the public schools to a certain extent, and of avoiding the sending of boys for two years to cramming establishments, which would be worse than the present system. Parting with a certain amount of patronage, I hope to secure boys from the public schools, under a limited competition, the details of which I cannot at present describe.
444
Then comes the second question—Assuming that 19 is the proper age for their becoming lieutenants, what should be done with them for the previous four years? Some hold that they should go to a Naval College, with training-ships attached, like the great naval establishment which the Americans have for this purpose at Annapolis; and that they should work at the college for two years, going to sea for four months in each year. It is, however, the opinion of some naval men that if the boys were to remain two years at the college under this system, the two years which would remain before they came up for examination would not be a sufficient preparation in sailoring. What we would propose is this—The Committee will remember that we have had very trying times during the last 12 months; and on this, as well as on the question of Reserves, I must claim the forbearance of the Committee, if I am not able to fully explain the system we propose to adopt. But the general outline is this—We propose that the cadets at 15, having received two years more education than they do now, should go to a Naval College for a year, or a year and a-quarter, to be specially advanced in some of the rudiments of their profession, cruisers being attached, so that they may be able to go to sea, and that at the close of the year they should be sent out in a sea-going vessel of war, with naval instructors, and that then they should have three years in a sea-going man-of-war, as now. In that case we should have nearly the same amount of experience at sea before 19 as we now have. It would then be desirable that they should have six months' teaching preliminary to their examination, instead of six weeks as at present. Many young officers would at this point ascertain which way their bent lay, and whether they should apply themselves to higher courses of study, for which arrangements would be made, but which would not be entered upon till they had passed the lieutenant's examination. The next question which arises is this—Where are the officers to be trained? This brings in the question of the Royal Naval College at Portsmouth, which at present is conducted on the following basis:—They receive there young officers who are to pass their examination for lieutenants, they also teach Marine offi-

445
cers, and provide a course of study for captains, commanders, and lieutenants on half-pay. The name, however, of the Royal Naval College is scarcely applicable to the institution, although it has undoubtedly done very good work. It is not worthy the name of a Naval College, either as regards its architecture, or its internal constitution, or the education which it gives. The system under which the commissioned officers study there is rather one of private tuition than such as might be expected from its name. The question that we have before us in reference to this subject is how to unite in one establishment all the various branches of naval study which are at present taught in the Royal Naval College at Portsmouth and in the Naval School of Architecture at South Kensington. At present the Instructors of the Royal Naval College conduct the examination themselves—that is to say, they first teach and then examine, which is not at all a desirable state of things. It is now proposed to combine the scheme which I have described as regards the education of the young officers with one for the education of the commissioned officer, and also to make better arrangements for the education of the engineer officers. In order to carry out these and other objects it is proposed to found a Royal Naval College at Greenwich, where all branches of a general naval education will be taught, and to do so upon a scale which will be calculated greatly to raise the educational tone of all grades of the naval service. There will be received in the college both acting sub-lieutenants, who will be kept there for six months before passing their examination for lieutenants, and also captains, commanders, and lieutenants on half-pay. It is proposed that after the sub-lieutenants have passed their examination and have been again to sea, those who choose to avail themselves of it shall have an opportunity afforded to them of pursuing a higher course of study, of which half-pay officers may also avail themselves; and the establishment being so near London, we shall be able to offer a better course of study, under more able professors, than it would be possible to give at Portsmouth. But, in addition to thus offering an education of this description to the young officers and to the commissioned officers who now go to Ports-
446
mouth, we trust to be able to make arrangements with regard to the education of engineers. At present these officers are all brought up in our own yards, which they enter at about 15 or 16 years of age, and in which they remain for four or six years as engineer apprentices, and at the end of the fourth year three are selected to go to the School of Naval Architecture at South Kensington. In the same way, from a certain number of shipwrights' apprentices three or four are also selected every year to go up and study at the same school. As regards the engineers, it is proposed that not merely three or four out of the 23 who are entered half-yearly should be selected to be sent to South Kensington, but that all of them, after having been four years in the yards, shall have the advantage of going through a course of one year's education at Greenwich, which shall include all the higher branches of engineering education, such as metallurgy and chemistry. Although we are justified in priding ourselves upon an excellent class of engineer officers, still, looking at our immensely complicated arrangements, and at the constant progress of engineering science, it must be admitted on all hands that they must be greatly improved by going through a year's course of study at Greenwich. It is further proposed to take a similar course with reference to the shipwrights' apprentices, but only as regards a limited number, who will have an opportunity of studying naval architecture at Greenwich. The South Kensington School will be removed to Greenwich. While I fear that I have done but scant justice to the scheme, I trust that the general effect of the proposed arrangements will recommend itself to the judgment of the Committee and to the public; and I feel sure that in endeavouring to carry out the proposal we shall meet with the support of the most enlightened naval officers, the more so because I have found a great disposition on the part of naval men to concur in the plan which I have sketched. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) must not think that the scheme has been hatched by a civil Lord of the Admiralty. The scheme has been prepared in concert with naval officers of the greatest experience, and they concur generally in the scheme which I have sketched. Of course, arrangements will

447
be made at Greenwich for the reception of the officers and others who will go there; but the Committee will perceive that by concentrating all the education in one place there will be more economy of professors to undertake the education of the various classes systematically than would be possible if the places of education were to be scattered. With regard to the cadets, it is not proposed that they should go to Greenwich, which is not regarded as a very desirable place for them, neither is it thought right that they should be associated with the other classes of officers who will be established there. No definite arrangements have as yet been proposed with reference to them; but the Committee will see that there is no great hurry in the matter, because in future they will not be taken under 15 years of age, and it will be as well to wait until those who have entered at 13 have attained the latter age before new arrangements are entered into with regard to them. In the meantime, those who have already entered will continue to study where they are at present. I regret that owing to the immense number of subjects which are embraced by a naval system, I am scarcely able to do justice to the many subjects which I have brought forward. I will only add, with regard to the scheme of education, that I think that Greenwich is far better adapted for the central educational establishment than the Royal Naval College at Portsmouth. I have now only one more point to touch upon with reference to the officers—namely, that which relates to their retirements. The number of officers has been considerably diminished, owing to the operation of the retirement scheme of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), and that scheme has doubtless occasioned hardship in individual cases; but it has led to as much employment as possible being given to officers on the active list, which is a most desirable result. Early in February last the Admiralty re-considered some details of this retirement scheme, and it was found that, while the principles upon which it was founded were nearly correct, the operation of the Order in Council had been to retard promotion as regarded commanders and lieutenants, although it had worked well in reference to captains. The Admiralty had, therefore, retarded the operation of the scheme by ordering one promotion for every two
448
instead of every four vacancies, and also by including in their calculation the vacancies which occurred among the lower ranks. [Mr. CORRY: The number of cadets was reduced considerably.] I do not wish to contradict the right hon. Gentleman; but I will quote the figures. The number of cadets entered in 1863 was 171; in 1864, 169; in 1865, 176; in 1866, 160; in 1867, 136; in 1868, 118; and in 1869, 92. In 1867 there were also 39 second-class cadets, making the total number of cadets entered in that year 175. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, therefore, is right as regards the first-class naval cadets, but wrong as to the total number of cadets, because they were 160 in 1866, 175 in 1867, 142 in 1868, and then in 1869 they were 106, thus showing a diminution of nearly 40. In 1864 they were 209; and in 1865, 186; or 10 more than the numbers of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But, from whatever cause, a large number of cadets were entered in those years, and the consequence has been a stagnation of promotion as regards sub-lieutenants—a stagnation, however, that would have occurred if no retirement scheme had passed. The position of sub-lieutenants has not been in the least degree due to the retirement scheme of my right hon. Friend. But to prevent their remaining sub-lieutenants any longer than four years, which was undesirable, we have taken power to promote them, notwithstanding that the list of lieutenants is in excess, and accordingly we passed an Order in Council to that effect some months ago.
I will now pass on to a subject—namely, the programme of our works—of perhaps even greater interest to the Committee, although I cannot but think that the education of our officers and men and the number of our seamen are matters of as vital importance as any other relating to the service. This leads me to make one general observation—namely, that we must pay increased attention to the principle of affording every possible opportunity for the studying of seamanship. We propose, on this head, that training brigs should be attached to the Mediterranean Squadron. The opportunities afforded by our iron-clads for the practice of seamanship are so small that it is necessary to give our men further opportunities of learning seamanship. It

449
has been suggested that iron-clads ought not to be used so much as they now are as schools for our seamen; but that there should be tenders attached to the ironclads for the purpose of giving them opportunities for learning sailing. The ships necessary for the purpose are somewhat peculiar, and of training brigs there are but a small number in possession of the Admiralty. In the programme of the year's work, it is proposed to build a training brig at Pembroke to be sent to the Mediterranean for exercising the crews there; and, further, I can assure the Committee that every opportunity will be taken which may help the seamen to make progress in that direction.
I now come to the question of shipbuilding and to Votes 6 and 10. I wish to treat that question in this way—What have we actually got? What do we want? What do we propose to do? And, where do we propose to do it? As regards what we have got, there has been an immense amount of criticism on our existing ships. There never was a naval debate in this House without some hostile criticisms being made upon some of the ships in Her Majesty's service. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) takes such an interest in the welfare of the Navy as to wish that every ship built by every Administration of this country shall be able to perform its duty. In many of the pamphlets which have been issued, and in many of the opinions put forward on this subject by hon. Members, admirals, and others, this matter has been considered not so much from the point of view of what force this country might require as of what should be the ideal Fleet which England should possess. For example, as regards our wooden ironclads, we have been told that they will not last. It may be perfectly true that they will not last; but we were not told at the same time that, while the majority of our iron-clads are real iron ships, the majority of the French iron-clads are wooden ships. Therefore, if our ships are likely to go, the French ships are much more likely to go, as the French have many more that are perishable than we have. We ought to ask ourselves what are the relative forces at the disposal of other Governments, and what have we got to meet them? The case of the Prince Consort, for instance, has been brought before this House, and it is a matter for most serious consideration whether she
450
ought or ought not to be repaired. But the French—and I say this not at all to make any odious comparisons, but because it is right that the Committee should know not only what we have, but also what other countries have—the French have had the Rochambeau condemned. This was a ship bought from the Americans for £400,000, which has been condemned as rotten from dry-rot. Then they have the Normandie—another of their old iron-clads of 1860—which has been condemned; with L'Invincible and the Gloiré much in the same position. No doubt we shall have to replace, as we have began to do, our older iron-clads by other ships, and other countries will be under the same necessity. All this is relative. It cannot be said that we ought to have a certain absolute number of iron-clads, but that if our neighbours have much fewer, we also require much fewer. It is a question of proportion. We have been asked what steps we propose to take to replace our wooden ships? During the last few years we have added six sea-going cruisers of the Audacious class to our iron-clads, and we are therefore relatively stronger than ever we were before. The Audacious was the child of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We have also added quite lately to our force, the Hotspur, the Rupert, the Glatton, the Cyclops, the Hecate, and the Gorgon. These are all ships of a new class, and the French have none to compare with them. Since 1865, there is an enormous difference in favour of the Fleet of this country as compared with that of France. In the beginning of 1866, we added to the Fleet the Monarch, and six ships of the Audacious class—the Sultan, the Hotspur, the Glatton, the Rupert, the Devastation, and the Thunderer. The French during the same time only completed two or three iron-clad ships. Although 10 floating batteries have often added to the figures of the French Fleet, in order to swell the number for the purposes of comparison, three of those were condemned, and the remaining seven have been found to be in such a bad condition that it was very doubtful whether they could ever be brought into action. None of, them were employed during the late war. Not only are our ships said to be rotten, and our Navy generally inferior to the Navies of foreign Powers, but a favourite matter for com-

451
ment among naval critics is the alleged ill-success of many of the latest ships; they speak of the loss of the Captain, and other similar mishaps. No doubt the loss of the Captain was most disastrous; but we have now no ships which have not proved satisfactory as regarded the purposes for which they were designed. You cannot expect incompatible qualities in the same ships. You cannot build strong fighting machines and compare them with the old three-deckers. I will allude to the Hotspur by way of illustration. Within the last week I have seen a story repeated in an influential paper that this ship was pronounced by competent critics to be a failure. The Committee will remember the story about Lord John Hay and his crew appearing on deck with cork jackets, and about the vessel only escaping through good luck. I need not say that these stories are utterly unfounded. I could read extracts from the report of the captain of the Hotspur expressing his full satisfaction at the behaviour of the ship at sea, even in severe weather. No doubt the vessel returned to port; but that was because the instructions to the captain were that, being of a new class, she should be very carefully handled. Caution must be used in the trial of all those ships; but there was nothing to prove that she was not equal to any weather she might encounter. Lord John Hay repeatedly assured us that no officer of that ship could have had any part in spreading such a report. In the same way the Cyclops made a very good journey from Sheerness to Portsmouth in rather a heavy sea. But I do not hesitate to say that our policy is to have these ships handled with most extreme caution, though I hope the effect on the public mind will not be that they are therefore mistakes. They are built for home defence and for Channel service, and it ought not to be expected that being so built they should be condemned because they were not perfectly fit for another. Now, a great deal has been said as to the appointment of the Committee of Designs. Why was it appointed? Not to shift responsibility, as was suggested the other evening by the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox), but simply to satisfy the public mind, which had become exceedingly agitated as to the construction of these ships, and I doubt whether anything short of taking the
452
most competent ab extra opinion on the subject would have satisfied it. The Committee was composed not of "philo-phers," as the noble Lord had styled them, but of eminent naval officers, as well as of distinguished men of science. They have examined the various classes of our ships; and the Devastation, for instance, has been pronounced by them to be the type of the fighting ship of the future. Some doubt has been expressed as to the capabilities of the Devastation if steamed head to wind; but if her freeboard was found too low on trial she could be raised at the forecastle. Well, we have had that Report, as well as the Report of Admiral Elliot and Admiral Ryder, and a letter from Admiral Robinson, and they were studied with the most extreme care when we had to settle the programme for the year. The substance of the Report of the Committee is this—that the Devastation presents the best type of the fighting ship of the future; that the Monarch and the Hercules class, though they may do good active service, belong to a type that ought not to be repeated; and that the Cyclops class is one well adapted for home service or coast defences. Now, the question between the types represented by the Devastation and the Hercules is one of extreme importance.
MR. SAMUDA: May I ask whether there was on the Committee of Designs any person accustomed to the building of iron ships?
MR. GOSCHEN: Does my hon. Friend ask the Question for the sake of information, or in order to make a point? It would be difficult at this moment to go into the constitution of the Committee; but the names of its members have been before the country for 18 months. Now, looking at the requirements of the Navy, I am bound to say that we do not concur in that part of the Report of the Committee which refers to ships of the Hercules type—that is, sea-going cruising ships of the first class. It is a matter of great anxiety to differ from the Committee; but they have proceeded, as they frankly admit, on the rule of not looking mainly at the existing Fleets of foreign countries, but rather at the future requirements of naval warfare. They have given weight to the possibility of producing a gun capable of penetrating any armour which can be put upon a ship; but they have not ascertained with any degree of certainty whether such guns can be mounted on ships. We, on our part,

453
have looked at the matter as a practical one, and we have asked what would be our position in the event of a war, not in the remote future, but with the Navies of other countries such as we are now familiar with. Now, France has got two first-class sea-going cruising ships built and five building. We have three built—the Hercules, the Monarch, and the Sultan—and we have two building. Again, the Prussian Government is building fast sea-going iron-clads. Now, the Devastation is a vessel chiefly suitable for a pitched battle. It is in such a case that her great qualities would come out, and therefore we quite concur that she belongs to a type that ought to be repeated, but not to the exclusion of seagoing iron-clads. The Devastation will steam at 12½ knots, the Hercules at 14½ knots; on the other hand, the Devastation carries 1,600 tons of coal, while the Hercules carries only 600, and at a speed of 5 knots an hour the Devastation could go for 9,000 miles. Therefore, the Devastation would be invaluable for expeditions; and, in consequence of her double screw and double set of engines, she is protected, to a great extent, from the danger of being disabled. But there are a large number of first-class iron-clad cruisers belonging to other countries which can cruise under sail, and we should be in a dangerous position in regard to our distant possessions in the event of hostilities if we were not able to match those ships, which would be able to elude vessels carrying a limited quantity of coal, and therefore capable only of short expeditions. The Report of the Committee, indeed, recommends that we should have central depôts, from which a number of Devastations ought to issue in time of war; but those centres would have to be supplied with coal, because vessels like the Devastation can only steam. The supply of coal would involve convoys, and immense arrangements necessary to such a system; and, after all, any hostile iron-clad able to cruise under sail might be able to elude us, or, being faster, to escape. Therefore we have decided that it shall be part of our programme to lay down a new cruising iron-clad of the first class. We have arranged that her armour shall be much thicker than the Hercules or the Sultan. [Mr. CORRY: Upon what principle will it be armed?] It is to be armed on the broadside principle, for this reason—that as she would be em-
454
ployed to go to distant stations, we think the broadside principle preferable; because, without for a moment disparaging the turret principle, when a vessel has to go far away from the dockyards it is better that she should not, to use a common saying, carry all her eggs in one basket. With regard to the turret-ships I may here mention that we intend to make another experiment on a large scale. There has been so much legitimate discussion as to the probability of a turret vessel being able to withstand the heaviest ordnance of the present day, that we propose to try an experiment on the Glutton with a 25-ton gun. We think that the experiment should be tried with the strongest turret-ship we have, and with the 25-ton gun—in fact, the gun of the Hotspur; and the experiment will be made in a few months—as soon, that is, as we can ensure smooth water. We propose to fire at two or three points, to see whether there is any likelihood of the turret being jammed from one of two causes—namely, from the exfoliation, so to say, of the metal at the base of the turret on its being struck by the shot, or from its being injured by an immense weight striking it at the very top of the turret. An experiment of this kind will be somewhat costly; but I am sure the Committee will feel that it is absolutely necessary to be done before we build any more turret-ships. [An hon. MEMBER asked whether the experiment was not likely to be attended with serious injury to the turret?] The precision with which aim can be taken is so great that the shot may be expected to strike only that part of the turret which it is necessary it should do for the purposes of the experiment. A certain amount of injury will certainly be done; but it is far better that we should discover for ourselves in time of peace the value of the system than have it taught to us in the time of war, because if it should prove that the turret jammed, the ship would be practically disabled. We also propose to await the completion of the Devastation, and to try her at sea, and according to the result of that trial to proceed or not with a second iron-clad; and we also think that, until the result is known, it will be wise to defer any further work on the Fury, which is the third ship of the Devastation class. No doubt at all is entertained as to her being a formidable vessel; but we may

455
learn some matters as to her construction for a trial at sea. When she is completed, and if she is satisfactory, we shall proceed with the Fury, and make as much progress with her as we can; but we have arranged in the Estimates that, if it is found undesirable to proceed with her, we shall then build some iron gunboats, for 18-ton guns, at Pembroke instead. I should add that it seems to me that, as soon as we are clear as to the iron-clads that we are to build, it will be desirable to press them forward with all speed, rather than to occupy ourselves over gunboats, which can be built at very short notice. Accordingly, we propose to commence two iron-clads in the course of the present financial year. The description of one iron-clad we have settled upon, and as to the other, and the progress of the Fury, I hope that the Committee will think that we are right not to hurry them until we can see by actual results what the Devastation will be able to do. But we do not wish to lose time in consequence of this uncertainty, and we shall increase the number of the most useful class of ships that we have at present, those of the Encounter, Blanche, and Modiste class—ships of 1,400 tons burden. Besides that, we propose to commence to make good progress with two large covered corvettes, of the class of the Active and Volage, large unarmoured cruisers, going 15 knots—for this is a class that we think we could increase with great advantage. We propose, also, to complete within the year the frigates Blonde and Raleigh; but we do not propose to lay down any new frigates. Neither Prance, Russia, nor Prussia is building any frigates, and it appears that the time of the large frigates—once a most useful ship—has passed. The two large corvettes will be of iron, sheathed with wood and copper, and they will be rather larger than the Active and Volage. Again, we have been obliged to dissent from the Committee of Designs, who pronounced against these covered corvettes; but we have taken the best opinion of sailors upon the question, and we have decided to act upon that opinion. These covered corvettes, however, will be an experiment.
I will now enumerate clearly what we propose to do this year. In the first instance, we have got to finish about 10,000 tons of ships in hand, and we propose to finish this year every ship now on hand
456
except the Fury, and with her it is intended to make as much progress as is possible. It is proposed, also, to build two large covered corvettes, one corvette of the Blanche class, and five sloops of about 720 tons each, faster than the Rinaldo, but rather in the same style. This is a class of ship in which the Navy is at present singularly deficient, notwithstanding that they are ships of a most economical class, for the reason that, as in the case of the Australian stations, for instance, they can be employed in the performance of duty for which, in their absence, much larger vessels have to be employed. These five gun-vessels will be superior to the Bittern class, and will be as heavily armed as vessels of that class usually are, and will prove useful as cruisers. Of these five gun-vessels proposed, it is intended to build four in the Government yards and one by contract. We propose to commence four gunboats of the Snake class at Pembroke, and to build four more of the same class by contract. In the course of the year it is also intended to commence the building of a troopship, and I hope that in the course of the financial year a greater portion of the work will be concluded. There are several other small vessels that will be built by contract; and I ought to state that the total tonnage we propose to build is 20,400 tons, about the same as we built last year. Of these, 17,500 tons will be built in our yards, and about 3,000 tons by private contract. I ought to explain to the Committee why we build so large a proportion in our own yards, and so little by contract. We are anxious to pursue a policy of not disturbing the number of men employed in our yards. We propose to employ the same number this year that we employed last year, for we do not think it a wise policy to discharge workmen from our dockyards in order to increase the amount of shipping built by contract. Contract work is now exceedingly dear, and it would be now about the worst time to contract for new ships that we could possibly have chosen; we should not only have to pay a high price, but our workmen would probably go to build these very ships for us in the private yards. I am anxious to keep as much continuity in the number of men employed in our dockyards as is possible. Another reason is that the men work at somewhat lower wages in our dockyards than they do in private yards.

457
It should, however, be remembered that the men receive pensions, and they have the great advantage of being employed the whole year round, and have no change of employment from one place to another. They never lose a single day unless at their own desire, and though the wages are nominally lower I believe the men practically feel themselves as well off as in the private yards. This advantage, however, would be greatly lessened by frequent discharges, or by the idea in the minds of the men that they might be discharged; and therefore we desire to calculate how many men we should be likely to continue to do the regular shipbuilding in the yard, and that we should do the extra work by contract. If we were to diminish the number in the dockyards this year by 2,000 or 3,000 men we should have also to diminish our establishments, and we should not be able to expand them again suddenly; whereas the private dockyards remain to us a resource in any emergency, and we can always increase shipbuilding in private yards if we will only pay the price. Consequently, I believe we are in a stronger position by maintaining a number of dockyards and keeping the private trade in reserve. I think that we ought to act in this way as regards ships, as I have already said that we should act in reference to stores—that we should keep in reserve the private establishments and rely upon them in emergencies to build ships to patterns which are well known. In new designs there are often changes which cause great trouble in the course of the work. The increase in Vote 6 of £11,000, although the same number of men are to be employed, is due to the fact that in certain departments wages are to be increased in a way which will, I hope, receive the sanction of Parliament when it comes to be explained. I have omitted to state that we propose to build at Portsmouth a torpedo vessel of 540 tons. We think that it is necessary to have a small ship of very great speed, for speed is one of the chief points to be attended to in reference to torpedoes. The engines are to be exceedingly powerful in comparison with the size of the ship, and the conditions must be such that she must be a fair sea-going vessel. This ship is to be built with the view of making an experiment as to the class of ships best fitted to carry torpedoes. The
458
ship must be specially arranged for it: there are holes to be cut in her bows, and there are other arrangements that it would be impossible to adapt to our present ships even if they had the speed. It will not be a very costly ship, and if it should not be necessary to use it as a torpedo ship it could be turned into a gunboat. The torpedo vessel is to have a speed of 11 knots, with twin screws, silent working engines, and is to be without masts, and she is further to have as many water-tight compartments as possible and as low a freeboard as is consistent with meeting any weather, however rough. She will have two Gatling guns, and her cost will be £30,000 for hull and engines. Experiments will be made with various kinds of torpedoes to ascertain how far sea-going torpedoes, if I may use the phrase, may be used. Let me now recapitulate our shipbuilding programme. Our arrangements for the present year include two new ironclads, two large covered corvettes, one corvette of the Blanche class, five sloops, eight gunboats, a torpedo vessel, a training ship, and a troopship. We shall do nothing more with iron-clads till we know something more about them. I should also mention that we contemplate more perfect instruction in torpedo practice, and that we are making new arrangements, which will be placed under the charge of an experienced officer who has a speciality in the higher and more scientific departments of that branch of the naval service. With regard to Vote 10, Section I., for Naval Stores, we have been able to increase them considerably. There have been considerable savings during the financial year on Vote 10, Section II. All these savings have been expended in increasing our stock of stores, and that has been all the more necessary because the prices of most articles have gone up enormously. The Vote for the year 1872–3 nominally shows an excess of £92,000, a very large portion of which, amounting to a sum of nearly £56,000, is due to additional purchases of timber. [Mr. CORRY: What is the amount of the savings applied to the purchase of stores?] I cannot exactly tell; but I should think about £50,000 or £60,000. I must admit that a portion of these nominal savings has arisen from the want of the ability of the contractors to fulfil their bargains in time, so that all the money taken could not be spent

459
within the year. As to the stock of coals, there has been a rise in the price of coals, which has affected the stock. Great exertions are being made by the Admiralty for the manufacture of ropes, because we find we cannot get them of such good quality in the open market as we can make them ourselves. There is an increase in Vote 11 in respect of certain machinery which is required for increasing the Admiralty's power of manufacturing rope. It has been found that the rope manufactory at present does not turn out a sufficient amount of rope. The diminution in Vote 10, Section II., arises from our having got rid of a great portion of the liabilities for engines. In that respect we are freer from liability than we have been for some time. On Vote 11 there is a decrease of £65,000, a part of which arises from two satisfactory circumstances—namely, the completion of the works at Bermuda and Malta, which gives a saving of £27,000. The completion of a portion of the works at Chatham gives a decrease of £70,000. On the other hand, we take £33,000 for the completion of the machinery at Chatham—regarding which, allow me, in passing, to say that had the machinery been erected there, as was suggested, five years ago, it would now have been found to be obsolete. The great thing, however, which we have achieved at Chatham is what cannot be got at a moment's notice—deep water docks. We propose to go forward steadily, but not with too great rapidity, in erecting new factories and getting new plant. On Vote 3 for the Admiralty there is an increase of £10,000. [Mr. MAGUIRE: What do you intend to lay out on Queenstown Harbour?] The same sum as we expended last year. £3,000 of that £10,000 is due to the progressive increase in the salaries of the staff, and £3,000 is due to the other arrangements which I endeavoured to sketch out last week. I cannot this evening go into this Vote; but I am prepared to answer any Question which may be put to me by any hon. Member on the subject. I labour under the difficulty of having detained the Committee too long already; but the ground covered by our work is so large that I could not refrain from detailed comment and explanation.
Only permit me to say one word more as to the general duties discharged by the Fleet. Hon. Gentlemen must
460
not think that the £9,500,000 which they are called upon to vote are devoted simply to offensive and defensive warfare. The fact is that the duties of the Fleet, even in time of peace, are enormous, and our ships are doing an immense amount of work which is not immediately connected with a war establishment. If we were no longer to compete with foreign countries as to which shall have the most iron-clads or the mightiest Navies, we should still find ubiquitous duties to be performed by the Navy of England, and I do not see any disposition on the part of the House of Commons to lessen those duties. If, therefore, we do not build ships for fighting, we shall still have to build them for other purposes; our policy will still be an expensive one, so long as the House resolves to keep up, not for ourselves alone, but for the benefit of the world at large, the police of the seas, and endeavours to stop such practices as the traffic in labourers in the Polynesian Islands, and to check the slave trade on the coast of Africa—or is always disposed, if we hear of an Englishman or woman stranded or kept on any barbarous island, to send a man-of-war to their relief. This disposition on the part of the public ought to be taken into consideration by hon. Gentlemen when they come to vote these Estimates. They must not think that all this money is spent on war; but that a great portion is spent on duties which, notwithstanding the reputation this country has most unjustly got of pursuing a selfish policy, redounds to the benefit of the world at large as much as of our own country. I venture to say this because it is not right that hon. Gentlemen should complain of the Estimates being high, as if all the money were required for war purposes alone. Much is spent on the performance of those expensive duties in every part of the world, which consist in keeping the peace, in preserving our commerce secure, and in carrying civilization to the most distant shores.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That 61,000 men and boys be employed in the Sea and Coast Guard Service for the year ending March 31, 1873."
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, the Committee would be both surprised and disappointed that it had devolved not on his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), whose long experience of dockyards and shipbuilding en-

461
titled him to be heard with the greatest deference, but on himself, to explain the views of the Opposition with respect to the statement which had just been made. As must have been apparent to everyone who heard his right hon. Friend on Monday last, he was struggling against physical difficulties then which to-night rendered him totally incapable of a lengthened effort. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was most amply and clearly given, and with that fulness of information which his position as Minister placed at his command. Not having had access to the same sources of information as the right hon. Gentleman, he should have to appeal to the indulgence of the House in touching casually upon the different topics. On Vote 1 the right hon. Gentleman said that the naval service was losing none of its popularity. He was delighted to hear it. He was never one of those who dreaded that the service should permanently lose any of its popularity; for there was in it something dear to the heart of every Englishman, and it would be a bad day for this country if want of popularity were to take any definite form with regard to the naval service. He was glad also to hear that there was no difficulty in recruiting for the Navy. From information which had reached him, and judging by the Estimates themselves, he was surprised to hear that statement; but he was delighted to accept it on the official authority of the right hon. Gentleman. The next point to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded was the course he intended to take in regard to the later stage of the training of young officers of the Navy, and the use he intended to put these officers to. The right hon. Gentleman did not specifically state whether he intended to close the Britannia at once, or whether the operation was to be little more gradual. The new scheme to which Greenwich Hospital might be applied, and the closing of the Naval Hospital at Portsmouth, were matters of such grave importance that the Committee would think it wrong if he were to dwell at any length upon them now, especially as they had only now for the first time heard the scheme propounded by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to training-brigs for the Mediterranean, and also said that he was going to impress on the officers in charge of these ships caution in deal-
462
ing with them. He greatly approved of impressing on the officers the necessity of caution in dealing with these experimental ships. He would go further, and say that the system popular at the Admiralty of late years of sending ships to sea to look out for bad weather was a mistaken policy. Of course, any English ship getting into bad weather would try to get out of it as best she could; but it was very doubtful policy to send out heavy experimental ships to stormy seas to look out for bad weather with a view to test their sailing qualities. The right hon. Gentleman had treated in his usual genial manner some observations which he (Lord Henry Lennox) made the other evening on the Committee of Design. The right hon. Gentleman said he (Lord Henry Lennox) had been pleased to call them philosophers. In using that word, he had no intention of saying anything derogatory either to the dignity or intelligence of those gentlemen. What he did mean was, that as our iron-clad Navy was on its trial with regard to stability, the Report of a Committee, upon which there was not a single gentleman who had ever designed an iron-clad or superintended the building of one, would have little weight on his mind or on that of professional men. In that opinion he was more than justified when he found that the right hon. Gentleman, who was going to make two additions to our Navy in the shape of iron-clads, had spent 20 minutes explaining why he did not adopt the advice of those gentlemen with regard to whom he (Lord Henry Lennox) was twitted for calling them "philosophers." The right hon. Gentleman said he would not trouble the Committee with any remarks upon Vote 3, and in that course he was perfectly justified, because the Prime Minister had promised that they should have an entire and separate evening for its discussion. But he could promise the right hon. Gentleman when the new scheme came before the House he would give his opinion very freely and strongly upon its extreme demerits. There was one point which seemed to require further explanation, and that was in Vote 10, Section II., with regard to engines for the Navy. In the Estimates of 1871–2, the right hon. Gentleman asked for £751,716, of which £368,476 was for shipbuilding, and £334,490 for engines, stating that £195,690 was to complete the payments

463
for engines already ordered, leaving £14,400 to appear on the Estimates of the next year. The total to be spent on engines already ordered in 1871–2 was £181,290. A further sum of £156,200 was asked for engines to be ordered, the whole of which it was proposed to spend in 1871–2, with the exception of £3,000. The residue, therefore, of the Vote of last year, which would appear in the Estimates of 1872–3, would be £14,400 and £3,000, or a total of £17,400. But, on looking to the Estimates for 1872–3, he found that, instead of £14,000 for engines already ordered, £106,782 was asked for, being, as far as he could make out, an excess of expenditure of about £90,000 over what was sanctioned by Parliament for this one item last year. Next came the Dockyard Vote. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not decrease the strength of the dockyard men, and he was to be congratulated upon having come to that decision. Our dockyards were one of our national insurances, and the country would certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the propriety of maintaining them. The number of dockyard men taken in the present year, 12,858, was 1,586 in excess of the number taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) in 1870. Deptford and Woolwich were then closed. An economical fever had seized the House of Commons, the result of economical views throughout the country on the eve of a General Election, and the result was a reduction in the dockyards; but before the men who were then sent as emigrants to Canada touched the soil of their new homes they were much wanted in our own dockyards. He was glad that the First Lord had been statesmanlike enough to take warning by the mistake of his predecessor, and play none of those sudden economical pranks with our dockyards, but maintain the men there at the same strength as in the previous year. While the number of men stood at 12,858, against 12,850 last year, the increase (in wages was £9,000. This was a policy which he approved. When he was Secretary to the Admiralty there was a demand for increased wages, and he felt it was a demand which must be conceded. At that time the men were receiving wages inferior to those paid in the private trade, but agreed to accept smaller wages because they felt they were secure of employment in good and
464
in bad times, with the chances of a pension at the end of their service. The sudden reductions, however, which afterwards were made, very much shook the confidence of the dockyard men, and he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had acceded to the demand for raising the wages of men who were so essential to our naval strength. He now came to Appendix 11—"Statement of the number of steamships afloat and building, and of the number of effective sailing ships." If that meant anything it was a statement to the House of Commons and the country of what was the strength of the British Fleet on which the nation might rely in case of sudden invasion. Having agreed with much that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, he could not agree with him as to what he said about the French Navy. In the first place, he deprecated comparisons with the French or any other Navy. We had in this country only to consider what was the proper strength of our Navy for the performance of the various duties so graphically described by the right hon. Gentleman at the close of his speech, and we ought not to enter into a race of building with other Powers. Secondly, considering the condition in which France was now placed, any comparison between her Navy and ours would be more than ordinarily fallacious. In dealing with this question he regretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to our wooden ships; and he regretted this the more because his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry) last year warned the right hon. Gentleman in general terms of the unsatisfactory state of that portion of our Navy. He hoped also that another year there would be some change in both the form and substance of Appendix 11, because it really gave no proper idea of the effective strength of our Navy. Having gone carefully through the Appendix, and referred to other sources of information, he had made up a classification of the Navy, which he believed to be correct. In Appendix 11, the iron-clads were put down at 55. Now 55 seemed a fine total; but on looking closely into it the number dwindled down to small proportions. Three were being built. Then there were seven wooden iron-clads, of which the right hon. Gentleman himself did not the other day speak in very complimentary terms, stating, for example, with regard to the Prince Consort,

465
that it was a question, whether it would be better to repair her or build another; while he spoke of the other six as avowedly stopgaps, not knowing whether they wanted repair at that moment or not. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked into his Appendix of last year he would have seen that all those wooden iron-clads were down for repairs in 1871–2 and 1872–3. Of the 55 iron-clads, then, three were in course of building, seven were "stopgaps," and then we came to a class of unclassified sloops and gunboats, five in number. Among these figured the names of the Viper, the Vixen, and the Waterwitch, which were unable to face the sea. They were happily housed in harbour; it was a great mercy they ever got there, and no human being in his senses would dream of sending them into the open sea. Then there were in the list of iron-clads some fit only for harbour defence, and which must be handled with the greatest caution—such as the Royal Sovereign, Prince Albert, Wivern, Scorpion, Clyclops, Hecate, and Gorgon. The last item in this imposing list consisted of four floating batteries, of which one, a wooden one, was safely moored in Bermuda, and would never leave that port, while the other three had their engines partly out. These four vessels, therefore, could hardly be included in our available iron-clad Navy. The next class of vessels to which he came were the wooden ships, and those the right hon. Gentleman did not touch upon. The total number of wooden ships was put down at 348. This imposing list was headed by 38 line-of-battle ships, of which two were said to be building. They were the Robust, and the Bulwark, which had been on the stocks 14 years, were no nearer being fit for sea than 14 years ago, and he believed would never be completed as line-of-battle ships. Three others had their engines out, and should not appear among the available force of the Navy. As far as he could make out there were nine or ten which could be deemed fit for service with moderate repairs. Many of them were very old indeed. Some were never built for screws at all, and could not be expected to be fit for active service every long. Eighteen others remained, which were condemned long ago to harbour service, many having their engines out, or partly out. Thus 38 line-of-battle ships dwindled down to 10, which were of great age. As to the 28
466
steam frigates, two were now being built, one had her engines out, and one had been on sale for 12 years, being only fit for firewood, 18 were either in commission or ready to be put into commission, seven had been condemned to harbour service, and others to be sold as soon as a decent price could be got. Only 20 were therefore available, and of those one was 17 years old, only two were less than 10, and 16 varied from 10 to 17 years. Only one, the Inconstant, went 15 knots an hour, the two being built were to go 14 knots, four went 12, and 11 went from 9 to 11 knots, so that they were no great element of strength. As to the battle frigates and sloops, he was authorized by Sir Alexander Milne to say that, under the present conditions of warfare, they were only fit for towage or the transport of stores. Of our 26 corvettes, the speed of 15 averaged only 9 to 11 knots, and their age was considerable, so that they were no great addition to our strength. The 38 sloops were also aged, and of the screws three were available only for harbour service, and only 12 were of the modern type and speed, so as to be deemed fighting ships. He hoped next year the right hon. Gentleman would classify the ships, so as to show what were really fighting ships, and what only fit for harbour service, or to be sold. Of the gunboats, 28 were China gunboats, which, when he was himself in office, the Admiral in command had to repair without communicating to the Admiralty, thereby putting the Estimates out of gear, and they were all either rotten or rotting. Eighteen others were only fit for harbour defence. As to the three mortar ships, one could not be traced in the Estimates, and he presumed had been broken up, while the others he remembered as being transformed into coal hulks, and were now safely moored in the dockyard. They certainly should not have been included as part of our naval force. The right hon. Gentleman had advised caution in condemning a new type of ship such as the six frigates of the Landguard type. He was justified in giving those frigates a high character, for they were admirable vessels, and he himself was glad he defended and carried the Vote for them when in office. Caution should be displayed in laying before the House the ipsissima verba of the reports of captains on experimental trips, for if officers knew they were reporting to the House and

467
the public they would not be so frank as if reporting confidentially to the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman, misled probably by the ostensible strength of our Navy, had taken too rose-coloured a view of the powers of our dockyards in carrying out his programme. In common with most First Lords of late years, he deceived himself and the country as to the amount of tonnage which could be given to the country in the course of a year. He contemplated building 16,741 tons of shipping, and employing 5,639 men. This would present no difficulty could those men be kept to building work; but experience showed this to be impossible. A great variety of duties came within "repairs and refits." He remembered himself coming down to the House with a splendid clap-trap speech, in which he announced that the Admiralty were going to inaugurate a new policy by taking every man off repairs and putting them on the building of new vessels. Repairs and refits, however, governed the distribution and strength of the Fleet, and if the Channel Squadron came in requiring repairs the men had to be diverted thereto from less urgent work. The men were taken off the building of ships and put on repairs and refits, and therefore it was impossible to calculate the amount of tonnage which would be given to the country in any one year through the dockyards, unless a more than usual liberal allowance of men were made for repairs and refits. But the right hon. Gentleman had adopted a contrary policy, and while he put 400 more men on to the building of ships, he took 400 less for repairs. With regard to the duties of the men taken off for the repairs, he (Lord Henry Lennox) might say that we had five wooden iron-clads this year for repair which ought to have been repaired last year. The defects in those vessels had been allowed to accumulate, the vessels themselves had deteriorated, and the cost of repairing would be greater now than it would have been last year. The duties of the men told off for repairing at the Deptford Dockyard were to make good defects in the Channel Squadron, in all troopships, in all Coastguard ships and tenders, to do a variety of other work, and to break up 3,000 tons of old shipping. That was the programme laid down for one yard, which showed that the distribution of men for repairs and refits must be greatly
468
in excess of that for building, if that programme was to be carried out. But he might be told that the Committee were not bound to believe what he asserted, and would be more inclined to believe the statement of the First Lord, that 16,741 tons of shipping were going to be built by 5,639 men. Now, in February, 1870, the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) said that from the normal condition of their dockyards they ought to have annually built between 19,000 and 20,000 tons of shipping, of which 4,500 ought to be built in their dockyards, and the rest by contract. That was a policy which he (Lord Henry Lennox) entirely approved of; but let them see what had been their experience in past years, in order that they might ascertain whether the House of Commons could place any faith in the Estimate submitted to them that evening. In 1866–7 it was proposed to build 16,446 tons of shipping, with 6,632 artificers; but there were actually built only 15,142 tons. In the following year, when his right hon. Friends the Members for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) and Tyrone (Mr. Corry) were in office, it was proposed to build with 10,025 artificers, 23,544 tons of shipping; but it was only by increasing from November to April the number of men by about 1,500 that that policy was carried out. In 1868–9 it was proposed to build 14,469 tons of shipping, and 4,421 artificers were told off to do the work; but the result was that the programme was not fulfilled, the tonnage built being 14,163 tons. That the deficiency was so small was owing to the fact that in the previous year there had been laid down an enormous fleet of small vessels, and therefore the Admiralty was not called on to repair so many old wooden ships as it was before obliged to do. The next year was the year when the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was in office, and he proposed, with 5,899 men, to build 13,483 tons of shipping; but he only built 12,895, though the right hon. Gentleman was still reaping the benefit of the fleet of small vessels which the previous Board of Admiralty had laid down, and established the Flying Squadron, so that he was consequently not called on for so many repairs. In 1870–1 the same right hon. Gentleman proposed to build 15,232 tons of shipping with 6,349 men; but, war breaking out in Europe, the men were in-

469
creased to 8,573, who were kept on from August to April. But with those increased men for eight months, instead of building the estimated tonnage, the right hon. Gentleman only managed to build 14,400 or 14,500 tons. He did not mean this as any reflection on the right hon. Member for Pontefract; but he gave it as an instance of the extreme difficulty of fixing the amount of men to do a certain amount of shipbuilding, when the men might be occasionally required for doing repairs, and he asked, could the Committee place any greater amount of reliance on the amount of tonnage which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) now proposed to build? He might be wrong in the elaborate calculations he had made; but he should be very much mistaken indeed if the right hon. Gentleman could make out that he was right in the shipbuilding programme he had announced. In 1871–2, the right hon. Gentleman opposite professed to build 15,512 tons, with 5,203 men, with 7,500 men told off for repairs, but only some 13,000 tons were really built.
MR. GOSCHEN: In 1871–2 we have got 20,000 tons, or we shall have that amount up to the 1st of April, as against 21,000 in our programme.
LORD HENRY LENNOX: The right hon. Gentleman must be including contract ships; but he (Lord Henry Lennox) was speaking solely of the work done in their dockyards; and if he was not greatly mistaken the right hon. Gentleman would find that he was correct when he went back to Whitehall. But he never went near Whitehall, nor had he any communication with anybody employed there; for if he wanted any information he went to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, with 400 men to build, and 400 less for repairs, in the year in which their fine large iron-clads were coming home for repairs, to give to the country 16,741 tons, or nearly 17,000 tons. He should be very glad next year to find that the right hon. Gentleman had carried out such a programme; but if he did he certainly would be something of a conjuror. What he had stated were reliable facts, and the Committee might draw from them what deductions they pleased. He did not place them before the Committee in any party light. Indeed, he had spoken more severely of
470
his own administration than of any other. They were facts which the Committee must take into consideration if they would know the really available strength of the Navy at present. He must express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not think fit to build another ironclad by contract in their private yards. He thought with the knowledge they now possessed, and considering their weakness in the number of iron-clad cruisers, such a proposal would have commended itself to the House. Under Vote 10, Section II, there was another cause for regret. He supposed it was in the amended Estimate; but he did not perceive it. The right hon. Gentleman said last year that he was going to spend £47,000 in the course of the year for unarmoured ships, leaving the remainder to be voted this year. He (Lord Henry Lennox) hoped to see in that £47,000 the nucleus of many ships, and, amongst others, of ships of the sloop or corvette class, of which they were so much in want. He regretted to see in this year's Estimate £106,345, which he supposed was the amount remaining from last year for unarmoured ships. He had nothing but praise to say of the vessels the right hon. Gentleman proposed to build in their dockyards. The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to build two iron-clads; and here again he (Lord Henry Lennox) must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having had the courage to set aside the opinion of those 16 gentlemen who, individually, he (Lord Henry Lennox) admired so much, but on whose judgment collectively he did not rely. Besides the two iron-clads, which he supposed would be something like the Sultan or Hercules type, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to build two corvettes; but he did not gather whether they were to be of the Active or Volage class.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, they would be a little larger than the Volage, in consequence of their being covered.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsupposed the right hon. Gentleman had not got the designs approved, or he could tell them the exact tonnage.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, the tonnage would be about 2,600.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, the launch vessels he also approved of. As to the torpedo vessel, that was such a new kind of vessel that he could hardly say much about it, except that in this

471
matter he fancied they ought to be more advanced. But that, like too many other naval matters, had been delayed owing to the protracted inquiries which had taken up the time of the gentlemen who might otherwise have been employed in designing improvements in their ships. The right hon. Gentleman said he was going in the dockyards to clear off their building by 10,000 tons of ships, and so leave 6,700 tons to be spread among the other yards; but he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman would not advance those ships much during the year. There was another point on which he wished for information—the building of another troopship. Of what class and what tonnage would she be? Would she be like the Crocodile, fitted with every comfort and convenience for the troops? There were other topics on which he wished to have touched; but there would be plenty of opportunities of taking up any point on the different Votes. In naval matters they could not expect to be all of one mind; but, so far as he was concerned, he must say no greater privilege could be allotted to any man than to have a hand in administering the affairs of that most splendid service. And when once a man who had had that privilege, having been brought into close contact with naval officers, came into Opposition, no matter what his politics, he must lose all party feeling, and cordially co-operate in every endeavour to add to the strength and contribute to the welfare of the service.
CAPTAIN F. EGERTONsaid, bethought the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty did wisely in increasing the Monarch and Sultan class of vessels, which were of an extremely useful character. He also very much approved the measures his right hon. Friend proposed to take for the education and training of naval officers. Perhaps the Royal Naval College might have been allowed to remain at Portsmouth; but when they had such a large building at command, which had for so many years been devoted to naval purposes, considering also the great economy of the measure, he had no doubt it would be satisfactory to the Navy to find the education of the officers transferred to Greenwich Hospital. There was one class of officers who, he thought, had claims for more rapid promotion than they received—he meant sub-lieutenants. After passing their examination, they
472
were detained four or five years in a very inferior rank, with very little chance of promotion. He was glad to hear that something was to be done for the education of young officers, and that they were not to be compelled, as hitherto, to go to the "crammers" for the education they required.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, it was gratifying to observe that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had not entered on his new duties in any niggardly spirit, and that his programme with regard to stores was satisfactory. He doubted, however, if he could reconcile the country to his statement with regard to our unserviceable iron-clads because France was similarly situated in that respect to ourselves. The country had a right to demand that her unserviceable iron-clads should be replaced by serviceable ships without reference to the state and condition of the Navy of any other country. The discussion of the Navy Estimates ought to be conducted annually without reference to any other country; for he believed it was such comparisons that led to jealousy between different countries, which resulted in a rivalry that led to enormous unnecessary expenditure. He was surprised to hear the statement of the First Lord with reference to the Devastation, because she was the least suitable for home service. She drew 28 feet, and she was built at an enormous cost to enable her to carry 1,600 tons of coals, and be able to perform distant voyages.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had been misunderstood. He had always said that the probability was that the Devastation would be employed, if war should ever arise, in fighting pitched battles in the Channel.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, if she was to be employed in fighting battles in the Channel he could not understand why she was built to carry so much coal. They were told that the surplus of £70,000 of unexpended Votes had been spent in renewing the stores; but it must be remembered that their reduction had been offered to the House as a great proof of the economical policy of the Government. As these stores were renewed out of the surplus arising from the unfinished work of contractors, the unexpended Votes must be re-voted; therefore, there was no saving at all, and the country had been deluded. Much had been said during the last year or two

473
about the Naval Reserves. If it was important that there should be an efficient Army Reserve, it was far more important that there should be an efficient Naval Reserve. The First Reserve—namely, the Coastguard, had been weeded, and doubtless was now composed of efficient seamen; but in point of numbers the force was ridiculously small. The Naval Reserve was in a failing condition. They were told it was this year 13,000 men, but last year it was 14,800, which showed of itself the unpopularity of the service, and he should like to test the accuracy of the First Lord's statement, that 20 per cent of the 10 years' service men who left the service joined the Naval Reserve. When the Vote came on for consideration he should certainly question the Vote more closely. It was not a comforting sign to find that the Naval Reserve was diminishing in numbers. Naval Reserve men complained that they did not know who were their masters—whether they were under the control of the Board of Trade or the Admiralty. He did not think that the Naval Reserve included in large numbers the best men of the Mercantile Marine, and he doubted in case of emergency if more than one-third of the force could be made available. He would recommend that the Reserve should be put under the Admiralty; that there should be in each port an Admiralty officer of a certain rank with his own office; and that every Naval Reserve man should enter himself there, and be connected with a particular ship. The men ought to be annually trained on board a particular ship, to which they should consider themselves to be specially attached. By this means a great deal of the unpopularity and the inconveniences which at present prevented men from joining the Reserve would be removed. He regreted to hear that greater efforts were not about to be made to provide additional gunboats for harbour defence. They now had 18 gunboats built or near completion, and it was proposed to increase that number by eight during the present year. In his opinion, however, the country would not be satisfied with so slight an extension of our home defences. Considering that the Coastguard was at the lowest point; that they had a declining Naval Reserve; and that the Reserve of Pensioners was an admitted failure, he could not regard the right hon. Gentle-
474
man's statement as satisfactory. In bygone times they trusted to the British tars, but now the question of Reserves was of immense and increasing importance because the use of steam was unfavourable to the formation of real sailors. The engine-room was no nursery for British seamen, to whom in times to come they would have to look, as they had done in former days, for the maintenance of the honour and the dignity of the country.
MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, there had been great stagnation in the promotion of officers since the introduction of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and he asked what steps it was proposed to take with a view of remedying this defect. He had little doubt that a considerable number of captains would be willing to retire if adequate inducements were offered to them. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty proposed to re-establish the Royal Naval Volunteers, and he trusted they would be of more use than their predecessors. Some years ago he had to convey some of these Volunteers along the coast of Ireland, and nearly all of them were so sea-sick that he did not know what to do with them.
MR. MACFIEpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to the defence of the outlying parts of the Empire, and expressed a hope that he would take an early opportunity to inform the Committee what naval forces at the disposal of the Empire had been provided by the colonies. He also wished to know whether the projected collegiate establishment at Greenwich would be extended for the benefit of the Mercantile Marine?
MR. CHILDERSsincerely thanked his right hon. Friend for the clear statement, and, speaking generally, the sound proposals he had made to-night. His right hon. Friend appeared to have gone most thoroughly into those great questions which, during the last few years, had so much agitated the country. There were one or two points in regard to which he should like on a future occasion to ask a question or two; but he was glad to say that, so far as the main features of the statement were concerned, he should give a cordial support to his right hon. Friend. On the question of the improved education for the naval

475
service, he thanked him sincerely for having taken up in so thorough a spirit the Report of the Committee he (Mr. Childers) had appointed, and which reported in 1870, although there would probably be considerable difficulty in increasing the age at which cadets were to enter the Navy. On this point, the testimony of naval officers was most conflicting. On the other hand, he felt convinced that his right hon. Friend's proposal to establish a great naval college to which all ranks of the service would be able to go was a most admirable one. Allusion had been made to what was popularly called a "scheme" of retirement proposed by him in 1870. He did not much like the word "scheme," because, as a matter of fact, the orders of 1870 provided for an entirely new set of regulations with respect to promotion, retirement, and half-pay; and he was gratified to find that, although those orders had stood the test of two most difficult years, his right hon. Friend had found it necessary to alter them only to a very slight extent. Even in this respect, the proposals with regard to sub-lieutenants had been in an advanced state before he left the Admiralty. As to the programme which his right hon. Friend had explained that evening, he concurred with him generally, and he was glad to hear of the intended improvement in the Volage. With regard to dockyards, also, he did not question that he was about to take the right amount of provision under Vote 6, although he was of opinion his right hon. Friend hardly laid sufficient stress on the advantage of contracting for a certain amount of annual tonnage, and he did not quite concur with his doctrine as to the status of mere great Government establishments.
MR. GOSCHENbriefly replied to some of the Questions which had been put to him in the course of the discussion. In answer to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macfie), he stated that the officers of the merchant service might be present at the lectures which would be given at Greenwich Hospital; while, with respect to the Devastation, to which the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had alluded, he said that, although in the case of an European war it was desirable large ships of her class should be kept close at hand for the purpose of fighting a pitched battle, she would be capable of going across the
476
Atlantic and fighting a pitched battle there also. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), he might add, seemed to think that the Admiralty were not likely to be able to carry out the programme which had been sketched for the present year; but that programme, he must remind him, differed from that of other years, inasmuch as there would be more building of wooden than iron ships, the former being less costly. As to the list in the Appendix to the Estimate being delusive, as the noble Lord seemed to suppose, he could only say that that list was given in the usual form, and that it did not appear, on the face of it, to be a list of available ships. The noble Lord also asked a Question with regard to the Vote for machinery, and the discrepancy to which he had referred was due to three sets of engines having been ordered and to the amount on boilers not having been expended. As to naval retirements, an Order in Council had been issued, and he hoped the stagnation in promotion in the ranks of commander and lieutenant would be removed. A large number of sub-lieutenants had, he might add, been promoted.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £2,674,145, Wages, &c.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee to sit again To-morrow.

ROYAL PARKS AND GARDENS BILL. [BILL 17.]
(Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Baxter.)
ROYAL PARKS AND GARDENS BILL. [BILL 17.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th March.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. VERNON HARCOURT, in moving a clause permitting hired and public vehicles to be driven in any of the Parks on the same terms as private carriages were, said, that the question it involved was the equality of the rights of enjoyment of the fruits of public taxation. He thought that to support his views he could not do better than read some portions of a speech which was delivered in that House some few years ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the greater portion of a speech made by Mr. Ayrton in a debate on the 24th July, 1866, originating in a Question of Mr. Osborne as to the Instructions given by the Home Office

  477
  to Sir Richard Mayne with reference to The Reform Meeting in Hyde Park [3 Hansard, clxxxiv. 1386]. Mr. Ayrton commented with great severity on the disposition that had been of late evinced on the part of certain sections of society to appropriate the Parks in a specific manner to their own gratification and enjoyment—and said that this must necessarily give rise to an impression in the minds of the people that they in their turn would have the right, whenever the occasion arose, to appropriate some portion of the Parks in a manner which might be convenient to themselves; and he commented on the exclusive possession of some parts of the Parks to those who had carriages wherein to while away the time—adding that, to say there was no exclusion because everyone who had a carriage was at liberty to use the Park was like saying that anyone may go into the London Tavern and eat turtle soup if he desires it; but the qualification was limited and the appropriation exclusive. That speech was not, as hon. Members might hastily have assumed from its style, delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, but by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets—by the chrysalis that preceded the butterfly, by the Metropolitan Tribune before he became the darling of the Conservative party.
  Moved to insert the following clause:—
  (Hired or public vehicles not be a cause of exclusion from the Parks.)
  "No person shall be excluded from the use of any of the Parks for purposes of enjoyment and recreation by reason of his employing for such purposes any hired or public vehicle, but every person shall be entitled to the use of the Parks for such purposes upon equal terms, and under the same conditions, whether in public or in private vehicles."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he regretted that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) should have profited so little by his study of the arguments he (Mr. Ayrton) had addressed to the House some years ago, and which he had so kindly repeated to the Committee, as to have proposed the clause he had just moved. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, read a little further he would have found that this Bill was framed with a view of carrying out the opinions he had expressed in that speech. His argument in that speech was that if they had a specific appropriation of the
  478
  Parks, they must have it all round, so as to suit every class of society; and the present Bill was perfectly consistent with that argument, because it provided for every reasonable use of the Parks which anybody could desire for all classes of the people. His hon. and learned Friend desired that hired vehicles should be admitted into Hyde Park. But he (Mr. Ayrton) contended that they were to look at the metropolitan Royal Parks as a whole; and the principle of the Bill was that, while they allowed hired vehicles in certain places where it might be generally convenient that they should go, in other places—where their presence would destroy the use of the Parks by other classes—they should not be permitted to go. The proposal of his hon. and learned Friend was not limited to cabs—he would allow even the humbler vehicles to go round Hyde Park. Perhaps carriages containing gentlemen who had just been addressing "the people" at the base of the Nelson Column—or perhaps vehicles which had been engaged clearing away refuse in the morning, might be seen in the Park in the afternoon. Vehicles which collected the refuse of their kitchens in the morning, and would "smell as the carrion, not as the flower," might be agreeable to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but they would not be so grateful to other frequenters of the Parks, and the hon. and learned Member's clause, instead of establishing equality, would really establish inequality between different classes in respect to the enjoyment of the Parks. Moreover, it must be remembered that the equipages in Hyde Park were one of the sights of London. A great many people from the country, besides residents in London, made a point of seeing the display of equipages in the Park; and he did not think they ought to be deprived of the enjoyment of a spectacle which afforded them legitimate pleasure. He must, therefore, oppose the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. M'LARENmoved a new clause reserving the right of public meetings in Holyrood Park. From time immemorial—certainly for a period exceeding 200 years—the people of Edinburgh had been in the habit of using the Park, not only for the general purposes of recreation, but for public meetings. There could be no question that this Park be-

  479
  longed to the people, and was in no sense a Royal Park. It was formerly rented by the Earl of Haddington; but disputes having arisen as to the acquirement of the Park by the people of Edinburgh, the dispute was referred to arbitration, and the arbitrators awarded £30,000. He thought, therefore, that there should be no power given by this Bill to diminish their rights to the enjoyment of the Park; but at the same time he was quite willing that a portion of the Park should be set aside, in which alone public meetings should be allowed to be held.
  New Clause (Public meetings in Holy-rood Park to be free as hitherto,)—(Mr. M'Laren,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that his hon. Friend based his clause on a specific right, and wished that right to be admitted in this Bill. But it was not the purpose of the Bill to define any claims of right one way or the other. There was already a clause which provided that any rights existing in regard to any Royal Park should be unaffected by the Bill, and if the words used in regard to English Parks did not seem technically applicable to Scotch Parks, he was quite willing they should be amended. His hon. Friend might be quite sure that there was not the least intention of prohibiting meetings in Holyrood Park; but he certainly had in his mind the necessity of regulations for the government of all Parks. So far as the claim of right was concerned, his hon. Friend seemed to take the right of the people of Edinburgh for granted; but be assured him he was mistaken in his view of the law. It was perfectly true that Holyrood Park was purchased out of the public moneys; but that showed that the Park had not belonged, as he said, to the people from time immemorial, and, further, that it formed no portion of the hereditary domains of the Crown. The Park belonged to the nation, and Parliament had a right to prescribe the manner in which it should be used. That this was the case was shown by the fact that his hon. Friend himself, in 1866, wrote to the then First Commissioner of Works, inclosing him a Petition from the working men of Edinburgh that they might be permitted to hold a public meeting in Holyrood Park, in the same way that they had held a Reform meeting in
  480
  1832. The application showed, at any rate, that at that time his hon. Friend did not consider the inhabitants of Edinburgh to be possessed of the right he now claimed for them. He (Mr. Ayrton) did not at all claim that the Government should be the arbiter of the description of meetings that should be held; but he did claim that they should be entitled to see that they were held under proper regulations.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he did not at all agree with the inference his right hon. Friend had put upon that letter. The Resident Officer of Works in Scotland raised an objection to the meeting in question, and his object in writing to the First Commissioner was, not as acknowledging a right, but to get an obstacle removed. The answer of the First Commissioner was that they would not interfere in the matter—and, in fact, they never had interfered; but this Bill would not only give them a power to interfere, but would to some extent throw upon them the duty of doing so.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that when the letter was written he had the honour to hold the office of First Commissioner of Works. He believed the application was made because the Resident Offices of the Office of Works in Scotland had expressed himself hostile to the holding of that particular meeting. The statement of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was not exactly correct. He did, in fact, make an application to hold the meeting, and therefore at that time, as it appeared to him (Lord John Manners), the hon. Member considered the people had no right to hold the meeting. At all events, there was no such right as he now understood the hon. Member to claim in the speech which he had just delivered.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that it appeared to him very ungracious on the part of the Government to refuse to accept the clause. The hon. Member for Edinburgh merely asked to have words inserted to secure that public meetings might be held in Holyrood Park as they had been from time immemorial, and it would be very disagreeable to the people of Edinburgh to have such a request refused.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was no intention of extinguishing any existing right whatever. What words could be best inserted might be considered on Report; but his right hon. Friend (Mr.

  481
  Ayrton) objected to a special clause affecting Holyrood, and contended that all reservations should be of a genera] character.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsuggested that the word "any" should be substituted for "Holyrood" in the clause, so that it should be general in its application, in accordance with the views expressed by the Prime Minister.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would consult the Lord Advocate as to the words that would best express the reservation of right according to the law of Scotland.
  SIR HENRY HOAREsaid, that was the last occasion in which hon. Members would have the opportunity of vindicating the right of the people to meet in the Parks; he accordingly supported the Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 85: Majority 28.
  MR. MONKmoved to report Progress.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the clause could be amended only upon Report, and therefore they could not effect in that Committee the object which his hon. Friend desired to accomplish. He trusted, therefore, that the Motion would not be pressed.
  MR. VERNON HARCOURTsupported the Motion for reporting Progress.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, the First Commissioner of Works had set the House very much at defiance, and it was a painful spectacle to hear him argue in the way in which he had done that evening. He, for one, must protest against the Bill being proceeded with at so late an hour.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, that a quarter past 1 was not, after all, so very late an hour to proceed with the discussion of the Bill. Hon. Members might make up for it by taking an hour or two extra in bed to-morrow morning.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th March.]

    PARISH CONSTABLES ABOLITION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to abolish the office of Parish Constables, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. STANSFELD.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 97.]

    LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870, AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to amend "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," so far as the same relates to Advances by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to Tenants for the purchase by them of Holdings sold in the Landed Estates Court, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 98.]
    House adjourned half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Lonsdale, after the death of his uncle.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Church Seats* (59); Consolidated Fund (£5,411,099 3s. 3d.)*.
Committee—Acts of Uniformity Amendment, now Prayer Book (Shortened Services) * (43–60); Deans and Canons Resignation * (48).
Committee—Report—Life Assurance Companies Acts Amendment * (40).
Report—Reformatory and Industrial Schools * (25).
Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (15), and passed.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.—SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that on a previous night he had stated in answer to a Question of a noble and learned Lord (Lord Westbury) that he would to-night make a statement as to the course he intended to pursue with regard to the Appellate Jurisdiction. He now gave Notice that he would on Thursday, the 11th April, move the following Resolution—
"That it is expedient that one Imperial Supreme Court of Appeal be established which shall sit continuously for the hearing of all matters now heard by way of Appeal before this House or before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and that the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House be transferred to such Supreme Court of Appeal."
He did not mean to enter into discussion of the subject on the present occasion. He thought it desirable that their Lordships should have a further opportunity of discussing the subject or Resolution before they came to consider the legislation he should propose. He could not

379
see his way to the establishment of an effective Court of Appeal without first obtaining the concurrence of their Lordships in the Resolution. He did not propose it as a mere abstract Resolution—he had his Bill ready, and would on the evening he had named enter fully into the subject. He had now to refer to a former statement of his to which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), who was not now present, called attention on Tuesday evening. When on a former occasion he stated that on coming into office he found the appeals to that House two Sessions and a half in arrear, he certainly was not for a moment thinking of throwing blame on his noble and learned Friend, who had preceded him in the office of Lord Chancellor; nor was he claiming any merit for himself, but only explaining that notwithstanding the desirability of establishing a more complete Court of Appeal than now existed there was not in that House such an arrear of appeals as might have been supposed. He wished to show that those arrears had been very much cut down. In 1868–9 the case of Miss Sheddon, which lasted 28 days, interfered very much with the hearing of other appeals; there was also the Wicklow Peerage case, which occupied 10 days in that Session, and stood over as a remanet to the Session of 1869–70; so that instead of there being 38 appeals, which had been the number waiting to be heard in 1868–9, there were 63 waiting to be heard in 1869–70. In addition, there was the Wicklow Peerage case, which, as a remanet, occupied eight days. The usual number of appeals, so far as he could make out, was about 31 or 32 a-year. It would not be easy to ascertain exactly what cases were remanets of the previous Session and what were not. From a note appended to a Return he had had prepared, it appeared that some of those to which he referred were remanets from 1864 or 1865. In consequence of the extraordinary arrear of 63 cases having come under his notice in 1869–70, he made a statement that the appeals were two Sessions and a half in arrear—he ought rather to have said two Sessions and a quarter; at all events, the unusual number of 49 appeals were got through in the Session of 1870. This was not due to any exertion on his part, but to the assistance given by the noble and learned Lords who sat with him
380
when those appeals were being heard. At the beginning of this Session there were four old appeals standing over, and only 18 arrears from last Session, which he might call somewhat about half a-year's arrears. Since the beginning of the Session they had been so reduced that, including the old ones, only nine or ten now stood over. This would give himself and the Law Lords an opportunity—and it was not so common a one—of proceeding with new appeals in the Session for which they had been presented.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND REGISTRIES BILL—(Nos. 16, 28, 50.)
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND REGISTRIES BILL—(Nos. 16, 28, 50.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON, whose introductory observations were inaudible, proposed to insert the following clause after Clause 32:—
  "Suits against clerks for offences against the laws ecclesiastical shall be commenced either by the bishop of his own motion or by three members of the Church being inhabitant householders of the parish or ecclesiastical district in which the accused clerk is beneficed, licensed, or resident; Provided that in the case of a charge of teaching or maintaining unsound doctrine a written statement of the particulars on which such charge is founded shall in the first place be laid before the bishop, who may, if he shall think that such statement does not contain sufficient primâ facie ground for proceeding, refuse his assent to the institution of the suit, subject however to an appeal against such refusal to the archbishop; and the appellant may appear before the archbishop, either in person or by counsel on his behalf in support of the appeal."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that by straining the Rules of the House the right rev. Prelate had succeeded in bringing up, on the Motion that the Bill do pass, a clause to resuscitate, as it were, a clause that their Lordships had already rejected. It was only a few weeks ago that their Lordships by a considerable majority had thrown out a Bill containing the clause now proposed, with this difference only, that "parish or ecclesiastical district" had been substituted for "diocese." The distinction between members of a diocese and members of a parish might be a distinction in principle, but it would not be a distinction in practice. We had an ancient code of ecclesiastical law, much of which was obsolete, and the part which remained in force was extremely compli-

  381
  cated and ambiguous, being the result of bitter conflicts in past times, and therefore stamped with that ambiguity and vagueness of meaning which resulted from all compromises. The ecclesiastical law being in this doubtful state, there was a large and powerful association, which boasted of having funds to the amount of £30,000, and which seemed to hope to establish its own opinions by dint of persecution. What opportunities would not this clause give to such an association? Men of various shades of religious opinions, from those held by Baptists and Independents to those held by persons who went almost to Roman Catholicism, were able to quote the canons and rubrics in support of the views for which they contended; but under this clause power would be given to any three persons in the parish to bring their clergyman before an ecclesiastical tribunal, if they could find against him even plausible ground for accusing him of offending against these ambiguous and complicated rubrics. In fact, changing the power from three inhabitants of a diocese to three inhabitants of a parish afforded no security at all. The association to which he had alluded, anxious for litigation and with almost unlimited means, could purchase three members of a parish as well as three members of a diocese, and thus it would be free to light the flame of religious discord throughout the country. Moreover, this was not a matter which would be confined to one side only; the present was a time of intense religious agitation, and if the work of persecution were commenced reprisals would be sure to follow. He was surprised this had not occurred to the right rev. Prelate before he brought forward such a clause. Again, he must remark that the clause was very partial and one-sided as respected the relations between the Bishops and the clergy. The clause simply provided for facilitating proceedings by the Bishops against the clergy, but did not contain a word facilitating proceedings by the clergy against the Bishops. If the right rev. Prelate would include Bishops within the clause, he would venture to say his right rev. Friend would pass the remainder of his life in defending himself against ecclesiastical suits. No doubt, upon constitutional principle, the Courts should be open to all; but there were such things as vexatious suits,
  382
  and they ought not to pass any law which would give rise to such suits, especially at a time when there was such a bitter spirit of controversy abroad. He should doubt the prudence of giving these facilities in this particular way, and if the clause had been originally included in the Bill he would have urged the danger of it; but having regard to the way in which it was proposed to get it in, he submitted that it was quite impossible for their Lordships to give it their sanction. The Notice given by the right rev. Prelate had only been two days in the hands of such of their Lordships as were in London; but even the Bishop of Peterborough, who had moved the rejection of the other Bill, did not appear to have received sufficient notice to enable him to appear in his place and oppose this clause. The clause did not affect the ecclesiastical dignitaries sitting in that House—it was a clause of a penal character against the clergy only. Considering how ambiguous the rubrics were, it might, without exaggeration, be said that if the clause were incorporated in the Bill, the honour, fortune, peace, and comfort of every clergyman in this country would be placed at the mercy of all who were disposed to undertake religious persecution. These gentlemen, moreover, had had no chance of considering the matter—they knew that the other Bill had been rejected, and no doubt they believed that their interests were safe in the hands of their Lord-ships. Would it be right, then, for their Lordships' House to adopt a clause pointing at the clergy, but exempting the Bishops? Any Bishop, who felt so disposed, could institute a prosecution against any clergyman in his diocese if he thought there was ground for it; but he need not ask for a clause like this to urge on Bishops who might not be equally pugnacious. He was glad to learn that the clause would not receive the support of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) who had introduced the Bill, and who was always a candid and fair opponent.
  LORD EBURYpointed out that in 1860 he moved for a Royal Commission to, among other things, revise the canons and rubrics, many of which were ambiguous, and some absurd and incomprehensible. The prosecution of clergymen generally arose out of some ambiguity of the Church rules; and the

  383
  way to remedy the evil was to revise the rules and remove the ambiguity. Whether the clause found its proper place in the Bill or not, some such provision would only be in accordance with a recommendation of the Ritual Commission.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that it was very curious that a clause like the one now under consideration should be proposed by a right rev. Prelate who had been instrumental in the rejection of the Bill a few weeks ago, which was precisely the same as the clause at that moment before their Lordships. The Bishop of Peterborough, in moving the rejection of that Bill, told their Lordships that it would enable the three greatest fools in the diocese to institute prosecutions against any clergyman in the diocese; and, after some unsavoury expressions, he added that persons of bad character might do the same thing. By the aid of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) and the majority of the House, that most humorous speaker (the Bishop of Peterborough) succeeded in throwing out the Bill; but now a proposition came from the right rev. Bench to introduce into the Bill before the House exactly the same proposition as had caused the rejection of the other Bill. Now, he must express his opinion that procedure should be kept separate from the question of the constitution of the Court, and for this reason he had introduced a distinct Procedure Bill and a Registry Bill; and for the same reason he hoped the clause proposed by the right rev. Prelate would not be engrafted on this Bill. He thought that if the proposition were admitted not only would a debate be raised in their Lordships' House, but the clause, if carried, would endanger the Bill in the House of Commons. He must therefore oppose the clause.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLhoped that the House would pause before they rejected the clause, because if they admitted it into the Bill it would be perfectly possible so to amend it as to make it consistent with the recommendations of the clergy themselves, according to the Report made of what passed in Convocation. At present he could move no such Amendment, because the words of the clause were not yet accepted by their Lordships; but he should presently propose an Amendment
  384
  giving the Bishop a restraining power in reference to litigation. He trusted that the House would accept the clause with a view to such an Amendment of it.
  EARL STANHOPE, as a member of the last Ritual Commission, wished to enter his protest against the statement of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ebury) that the clause now moved was in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission. What the Commission recommended was, that there should be power to go to the Bishop in camerâ, not in curiâ. That made all the difference.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought the essence of the whole matter was, that the charge was to be brought forward by three parishioners, and not whether the Commissioners had recommended that in the first instance it should be brought before the Bishop in camerâ. He had not voted for the rejection of the other Bill, because throughout he had adhered to the recommendations of the Select Committee. He hoped the question now under consideration would be settled with the consent of the whole House. If not, questions would be raised as to whether proceedings ought to be taken under the old Church Discipline Act or under the new, and it was highly probable that there would be two or three lawsuits before that question was decided. If his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of London) adopted the suggestion of his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol), and made the consent of the Bishop necessary in every case, he would not oppose the clause.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXreminded their Lordships that the Select Committee had carefully considered this matter before adopting the Bill which had been rejected.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPfeared that the clause would leave every clergyman at the mercy of three parishioners, whether there was any restraining power in the Bishop or not. Any clergyman who happened to have a quarrel with three of his parishioners would be liable to have all sorts of charges of the most serious and the most vague kind—not merely of offences against ritual, but against morals—brought against him. For his part, he could not sanction a clause like this.
  THE BISHOP OF ELYsaid, he had so great an objection to the clause as it

  385
  stood that nothing would induce him to vote for it. The simple bringing of a charge against a clergyman in a public Court was in itself a very serious thing; even if he were acquitted, something always adhered to him. If the clause could be so amended as to require the sanction of the Bishop in every case, he would be perfectly willing to vote for it. To submit a charge against a clergyman to the Bishop in camerâ was a very different thing from stating it in Court, even in the case of an acquittal. If the clause were adopted as it stood, there would be a flood of ecclesiastical litigation let loose over the whole country. Some persons were anxious for that. A layman in his own diocese had written to him anticipating that there would be lawsuits throughout the kingdom, till nothing was left but fragments of what had once been the Church of England. He was sure it was not the intention of their Lordships to give rise to such a state of things as that.
  EARL GREYsaid, that if the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) had thought this clause necessary, he ought to have moved that the Bill be re-committed, and then the clause could have been fully considered. He remembered that when he was in the House of Commons, clauses brought up on the third reading of a Bill had to be put through all the stages; but even with that stringent rule the practice of introducing clauses on third reading had been found so dangerous that the House of Commons had abandonded it. He thought everyone who had listened to the discussion on this clause must have arrived at the conclusion that the House had acted very hastily in rejecting the other Bill; but he could not vote for such a clause as that proposed by the right rev. Prelate when brought forward at the final stage of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would not go into the question of the merits or demerits of the clause, but would confine himself to the dangerous precedent which their Lordships would be laying down, if on the Question that the Bill do pass they re-introduced—for practically they would be doing so—a Bill rejected only a few weeks ago. He protested against such a proceeding. There must be many Members of the House in ignorance that there was any intention to propose such a clause. He
  386
  hoped, therefore, their Lordships would not accept it.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthought the whole confusion in this matter had arisen from what took place at the very late hour when the Report was brought up. On the Report, Clause 117, which proposed to repeal the Church Discipline Act, except part of Clause 16, was struck out, without any Notice at all, and a few minutes after he had left the House. He never was more astonished in his life when he learnt the fact from his newspaper next morning. It seemed to him that the House was in a state of confusion with regard to this matter. They had adopted a new Clergy Discipline Act, and had not repealed the old Clergy Discipline Act. He did not think the proceedings had been so orderly in bringing up the Report as to make them hesitate about adopting this clause.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he would modify the clause in accordance with what seemed to be the opinion of their Lordships, by inserting words providing that the particulars of any charge should be first laid before the Bishop, who, if he deemed the statement insufficient, might refuse his assent to the institution of the suit; an appeal against his refusal lying to the Archbishop.
  Clause amended accordingly.
  On Question, Whether the clause, as amended, be added to the Bill?
  Resolved in the Negative.
  LORD ROMILLYproposed a new clause (Bishops' registers older than 50 years to be transferred to the custody of the Master of the Rolls). The clause provided that all deeds, wills, processes, acts, proceedings, and other documents of a similiar nature hitherto kept in the various dioceses, which shall be more than 50 years old, shall, after the 1st of January, 1873, be transferred into the custody of the Master of the Rolls, and placed in the Public Record Office for public use. The clause excepted all documents belonging to the See of Canterbury; and all such documents belonging to any diocese the Bishop whereof shall from time to time certify that such documents are deposited in a fit, proper, and safe repository, and have been duly sorted, classified, and indexed.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had no objection to the proposal of the clause, but he thought its phraseology might in some respects be amended. He thought it unnecessary to require the Bishops to prepare an index of such documents, which would involve much expense in the employment of antiquaries. The principal object was that the documents should be kept in a safe place under proper custody. Many of the documents were of no interest, and it was sufficient to secure their good preservation, with easy access to them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if he might judge from an unsuccessful attempt of his own to decipher some documents of a similar character, he feared that the preparation of an index would require the services of experts, and would be very expensive. The condition would be an admirable one, if there were any funds to bear the expense; but as things stood, the noble and learned Lord should be satisfied with the documents being properly kept.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, his object was that the records should be preserved and made accessible to the public, and that an index was essential to their preservation and accessibility. Bishops would be at liberty to send them to the Record Office, where no expense would be incurred, and easy access would be ensured.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPcontended that the House had no right to confiscate documents which were the property of the respective Sees. He trusted that the House would not extend the principle of confiscation, and that they would not take these documents away from those who had the lawful custody of them, and who were willing to take means to render them safe and accessible.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, that the clause in question proposed to transfer these documents to the guardianship of the Master of the Bolls, in the event of their not being indexed by the Bishops. The Bishops were, at their own election, therefore, either to have the documents indexed, or to send them to the Master of the Rolls.
  LORD REDESDALEasked the noble and learned Lord (Lord Romilly), whether he could undertake to provide a sufficient number of persons to index these documents when he received them; and whether, when they had been indexed,
  388
  he would allow the papers to be returned to the diocese to which they belonged?
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, that ample means existed for classifying and indexing all the documents that might be received from the ecclesiastical registries, within a limited, though perhaps not a very short time. He might point out that a new building had recently been added to the Record Office, which might be appropriated for their reception. No expense would be incurred by the Bishops in the event of their sending the records of their diocese to the Record Office.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, he should be glad to know the exact class of documents which the noble and learned Lord desired should be sent up to the Record Office; because, out of the vast mass of documents, many of which dated from 1297, which belonged to his diocese, a large proportion was utterly valueless. Having personally inspected these records himself, he could answer for them being free from damp, and in excellent preservation. Other documents, which were of practical value, had been already classified and indexed; others were of small value; but he should hesitate before putting his hand to a paper which certified that they were all indexed, and they certainly ought not to be destroyed. Surely it would be most inconvenient were an enormous mass of these records to be sent up to the noble and learned Lord by special train; and the expense of examining and indexing them in London would be far greater, than to send down an inspector every year, or so to see that they were properly preserved in the different dioceses. He would venture to assert that none of our State offices could bear the scrutiny to which it was proposed to subject the dioceses in this matter. He was, however, willing to accept the clause, provided it were amended in the manner which had been suggested by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond).
  LORD ROMILLYstated that he had consented to being appointed to the Registry of Chichester, on the understanding that he was never to receive a farthing or to be called upon to interfere, and since his appointment he had never heard anything further about the matter. The only time he had paid a visit to the registry, he had seen the docu-

  389
  ments lying about in confusion. He might remind the House that Mr. Salt, the uncle of the Member for Stafford, who had taken a great interest in the preservation of the documents belonging to the diocese of Lichfield, having employed a gentleman to copy a number of them, on that gentleman being compelled, for reasons to which he need not allude, to leave the country, a large number of documents belonging to the diocese were found in his house in London, and through the instrumentality of Mr. Salt those documents were restored. All he now called upon the House to do was to interfere in order to secure the preservation of such of these documents as were of value.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, thought the collection of these documents would be all but useless without an index. It often happened that valuable and interesting documents were mixed up with a heap of worthless papers, just as it sometimes happened that in a nobleman's house a most valuable picture might be found among a mass of rubbish. The very class of papers referred to by the right rev. Prelate were just those which wanted indexing. He himself remembered seeing Sir Francis Palgrave discover at the Chapter House, Westminster, among a bundle of old parchments which were not supposed to contain anything of any value, a record of a communication between Menteith and the Lords of the Council as to the betrayal of Wallace—an obscure but interesting point in Scottish history. He believed that if the Bishops of the several dioceses would retain such documents as were of special interest to the locality and transmit to the Record Office such as they did not desire to retain, a very valuable addition to the archives of the country might be made.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDunderstood the intention of the noble and learned Lord who proposed the clause to be, that all those documents, unless they were properly preserved and indexed, were to go to the Rolls Building in London. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, however, said that the Bishops were to send up those papers only which they did not wish to retain in their diocese, or to be at the expense of indexing. That was totally at variance with what he took to be the meaning of the noble and learned Lord who pro-
  390
  posed the clause. For himself, he should not object to the proposal, if the indexing and classifying were to be done at the public expense.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought if, as appeared to be the case, there were rooms full of those documents in the dioceses, a large quantity of paper would be sent up to London and a considerable expense would be incurred. Therefore they ought to have some assurance from the noble and learned Lord (Lord Romilly) that he had at his command a sufficient machinery for indexing those papers properly, with discretionary power to apply an adequate sum of money to that purpose.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsuggested the insertion of words providing that the papers in question should be placed in the Record Office in London and be properly indexed for public use.
  LORD DENMANthought this a matter in which discrimination was required. If useless documents were preserved, the greater would be the difficulty in searching for those which were of interest and importance. Moreover, in many cases these records could be more conveniently consulted if they were kept in the respective dioceses, than if they were all accumulated in one central office.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out the inconvenience of discussing that proposal at the present stage of the measure, and doubted whether the clause would add much to the credit they had earned by the construction of that Bill. For instance, though the clause required that these records should be indexed, it said nothing about the manner in which it was to be done; the indexing might be of a very superficial character. They ought to have some authentic interpretation from the noble and learned Lords of the meaning of clauses before passing them.
  LORD ROMILLYstated that in his view the Bishops should be compelled to send up to London only those records which they did not choose to go to the expense of indexing.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that, as he understood, the intention of the noble and learned Lord was that Bishops should only send to London those documents for which they did not care to incur the expense of an index, he would withdraw his opposition.
  Clause amended, and agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  CHURCH SEATS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the free use of seats in certain churches—Was presented by The Earl NELSON; read 1a (No. 59.)

  IRISH RAILWAYS.
  Moved that there be laid before this House, Copies of any recent communications to the Board of Trade or any other department of Government from grand juries in Ireland, relating to proposed sales of Railways or amalgamations of Railway Companies; and to ask whether the Government object to lay before Parliament the information respecting the value of Irish Railways obtained by Captain Tyler under the authority of Government.—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, hall past Ten o'clock.