Sitting of 3 April 1873

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Kitchen and Refreshments Rooms (House of Commons,) Mr. Onslow discharged, Mr. Stacpoole added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—University Tests (Dublin) (No. 3) [124].
Ordered—First Reading—Gas and Water Provisional Orders* [126].
First Reading—Shop Hours Regulation* [123]; Fairs Act (1868) Amendment* [125].
Second Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3)* [115]; Australasian Colonies (Customs Duties)* [106].
Committee—East India (Loan)* [103], debate adjourned; Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment* [101], deferred; Portpatrick Harbour (re-comm.)* [61], deferred; Gretton Chapel Marriages Legalization* [111], deferred.
Committee—Report—Railway and Canal Traffic [34–121]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1)* [95]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* [96]; East India Stock Dividend Redemption* [102]; Local Taxation (Accounts)* [16–122].
Third Reading—Marine Mutiny*, and passed.

NAVY—CONTRACT PRICES.—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will grant a Return showing what is the contract or cost price of the following articles for the current year, viz., Beef, Pork, Bread, Rum, Tea, Sugar, Flour, and Suet?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, that he could not give the information for the financial year which had just commenced, but he had no objection to do so for the year which had passed.

NAVY—GREENWICH PENSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that those Greenwich Pensioners who wore inmates of the Hospital prior to 1865 received, on leaving the Hospital, pensions much larger than, and in some cases as much as double, those which they enjoyed before they entered, while the Pensioners who never entered the hospital received no corresponding advantage; whether the former class of Pensioners had any superior claims, either on the ground of merit or length of service; and, whether, in order to diminish the present inequality between the two classes, he can grant to those who have never been in the hospital either an increase of pension, or a reduction of the standard of age at which an increased pension is now enjoyed?
  MR. GOSCHEN,in reply, said, that those Greenwich pensioners who were in the Hospital prior to 1865 received, on leaving, some compensation in addition to the pension which they were previously in the receipt of. The Act of 1865 gave them the money allowance
  520
  they received in the hospital and made other arrangements in their favour, and also in favour of the out-pensioners. In 1869 further advantages were given both to the out-pensioners and to those who had been in the Hospital. It was, therefore, not correct to say that no advantages were given to the out-pensioners. The pensioners who had been in the Hospital had certainly been selected on grounds of merit or length of service, and there was no intention of making any alteration in favour of the out-pensioners.

  COMPULSORY EDUCATION—PRISONS ACT, 1865.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is anything to prevent education being made compulsory in prisons; and, should there be no obstacle, whether he will take measures as soon as possible to make education compulsory in all prisons throughout the United Kingdom?
  MR. BRUCEin reply, said, that under the Prisons Act of 1865 the Visiting Justices were required to make provision in every prison for the instruction of illiterate prisoners in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and that part of the Act had been fairly well complied with. All prisoners who could not read and write were instructed in reading and writing, and those who could, in most cases, received other instruction. He had communicated with the Inspectors of Prisons, and although there were cases in which which larger provision for instruction might with advantage be made by the Visiting Justices, still he was satisfied it was unnecessary to make any change in the existing law.

  BURIALS.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at an inquest held on the 24th ultimo at Bethnal Green, to the effect that the dead bodies of five persons (a woman and four children) were placed for burial in a single coffin by William Burridge, an undertaker carrying on business in Bethnal Green, Walworth, and other places, contractor for burials from Millbank Prison, and Hackney and Bethnal Green Work-

  521
  houses, and to the admission of the said William Burridge that, though paid for burying dead bodies separately, he sometimes "buried three or four together;" and, whether the Right honourable Gentleman is prepared, considering the facilities afforded by this system for concealing child murder, to take any steps to suppress it?
  MR. BRUCE,in reply, said, that some time ago he directed the Inspector of Burials to attend the inquest now proceeding, and that gentleman had done so, the inquiry having been adjourned from time to time. He had also ordered that a full Report should be presented, not only on this particular case, but on the general subject. The Inspector had not yet made his Report, and he wished to postpone giving a full answer until he should have received it. In the meantime he was informed that the Bill of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) would to a considerable extent provide for such cases.

  FRANCE—THE COMMERCIAL TREATY, 1860.—QUESTION.
  MR. RAIKES (for Mr. R. N. FOWLER)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, when the Government agreed to continue the Cobden Treaty, any efforts were made to induce the French Government to suspend the "surtaxe" on the British flag, and the "droits d'entrepôt" levied on goods and produce transhipped from England to France; and, why the conventional tariffs were allowed to remain in force while a prohibitory tax on British ships was to be enforced, and the "droits d'entrepôt" were to be levied on goods not landed in England, but sent "in transitu" to France, as was permitted under the Cobden Treaty?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: As soon, Sir, as Her Majesty's Government found that the state of business in the French Assembly would not allow of the Treaty of Commerce being discussed as speedily as was anticipated, they instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris to represent to the French Government the injury to British shipping and commerce sustained by the continuance of the surtaxe de pavillon, from which the Treaty signed on the 5th of November last would have exempted British vessels had it come into operation as soon as had
  522
  been contemplated. Her Majesty's Government have again recently called the attention of the French Government to this subject. The surtaxe d'entrepôt is not a differential duty, being levied on French and foreign vessels alike, the only articles exempted from it under the Treaty of 1860 are jute, cotton, and wool. The regulations under which this surtax was imposed, and still continues to be levied, are contained in the Commercial Papers laid before Parliament last year (No. 1, page 153). I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the continuance of the Conventional Tariff was not a concession on the part of this country, for the tariff under the Treaty of 1860 expired on the 15th of March; and had that tariff not been continued, the commercial relations between the two countries, pending the ratification of the new Treaty, would have been thrown into much confusion.

ARMY—YEOMANRY ADJUTANTS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN HOODasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the increased duties and restrictions regarding leave of Adjutants of Yeomanry, entirely changing the conditions under which they accepted their appointments, he will consider of granting them such fair and moderate pension as may induce them to retire and make way for officers who may be disposed to accept the appointment under its present altered conditions of service, which impose on Adjutants of Yeomanry the same regulations that affect Adjutants of the other Auxiliary Forces, without according to them the same rate of pay and allowances?
  MR. CARDWELLin reply, said, that the officers appointed to the command of Cavalry districts would Report upon the pay and duties of Adjutants of Yeomanry, and when the reports were received it would be considered whether any changes were expedient.

  THE TREASURY AND THE POSTOFFICE—ALLEGED MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.—QUESTION.
  MR. NORWOODasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Treasury have appointed a Committee to inquire into the proceedings of the Treasury and the Post Office, as suggested

  523
  by the Committee of Public Accounts; and, if so, whether he will give the names and the position of the gentlemen who are to serve on the Committee?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Treasury, Sir, have not appointed a Committee in the meaning of a body of independent judicial authority. What they have done is this. In compliance with the wishes of the Committee of Public Accounts they have commenced an inquiry into the circumstances in question. That inquiry is conducted by the agency of gentlemen in the Treasury Department, and when the facts are all collected it will be for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury and myself, who are responsible to Parliament, to take such steps as our sense of duty may dictate. To mention the names of the persons employed in the inquiry would be quite contrary to official rule, and would be to expose them to responsibilties to which they ought not to be subjected. We, the heads of the Department, are responsible for what shall be done.

SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the unanimous opinion of the Law Courts (Scotland) Commission, in their Report of the 12th July 1870, that the remuneration of the Sheriffs Substitute of Scotland is inadequate to their position; and, whether the Government are prepared, without further delay, to give effect to the Recommendation of the Commission that these salaries should be increased?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that the Government had had their attention directed to the Law Courts Commissioners Report, to which the hon. Baronet alluded. The Commissioners recommended that in some instances the salaries should be increased, and in others should be diminished. The Government had increased some of the salaries, although not exactly in the proportion recommended by the Commission, and they had made no reductions in any instances. They were unable to under-
  524
  take that they should treat the matter in any other manner than they had already done, and that was not as a whole, but by inquiry into each particular case.

NAVY—GOOD-SERVICE PENSIONS.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is to be understood that Officers of all ranks who have been or who shall be awarded good service pensions subsequently to the Regulations of 1872 are to be entitled to receive such pensions while on full pay, as was the case previous to 1870; and, if so, whether he will take into consideration the cases of those to whom good service pensions were awarded between 1870 and 1872, so as to place them on an equal footing with their more fortunate brother-officers?
  MR. GOSCHEN,in reply, said, his hon. and gallant Friend did not understand him correctly if he understood that the Regulations applied to officers of all ranks. The Order in Council of 1872 applied to captains only. He would ask his hon. and gallant Friend to distinguish between the case of flag officers and captains. As regarded flag officers they were precisely in the position they were loft in by the Order in Council of 1871. The number of their good service pensions had not been reduced, nor had the tenure of them been altered. He should add that the Treasury were not at all interested in the suspension of the good service Pensions in the case of flag officers when on full pay. In the case of captains the tenure was changed, and they were allowed by the Order in Council of 1872 to hold their pensions on full pay; but that rule was not intended to come into force until there had been a certain reduction in numbers. However, he was prepared to make a considerable change, and to allow the benefit to come into operation from the let April this year.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, 1872—POOR LAW INSPECTORS.—QUESTION.
  DR. LUSHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether identical instructions were given to the Poor Law Inspectors appointed by him to interpret the provisions of "The Public Health Act, 1872," to the various urban

  525
  and sanitary authorities, and if he can state to the House whether the advice given by the Poor Law Inspectors was alike in all cases when the scheme of conjoint appointment of Medical Officers of Health was under discussion; and, whether in eases where Medical Officers of Health have been appointed over large areas, it is the intention of the Local Government Board to utilise the local knowledge of Poor Law Medical Officers for sanitary purposes, by reports (or otherwise) to the Medical Officer of Health; and, if so, in what way they are to be remunerated for the extra services thus rendered?
  MR. STANSFELD,in reply, said, that in every case identical instructions were given to the Poor Law Inspectors who conferred with and advised the Local Authorities with reference to provisions of the Public Health Act, 1872, when the scheme of conjoint appointment of Medical Officers of Health was under discussion. The advice given, of course, was not in all cases identical, because it had to be given, on the one hand, with reference to the general question, and on the other, to the special circumstances of each locality. With reference to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, in the case of the appointment of Medical Officers of Health over large areas, sooner or later it would be necessary that localities and authorities, should also avail themselves of the special knowledge of the Poor Law Medical Officers. In what way they would be remunerated for that special knowledge he was not prepared to say, but undoubtedly they would be entitled to some special remuneration.

  THE DOG LICENCE.—QUESTION.
  MR. RIDLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to a Petition presented from a large number of Owners and Occupiers of Land in Northumberland, praying for alterations in the existing Law respecting the keeping of Dogs, and, in particular, pointing to the desirability of substituting discriminating Duties or Licences for the present uniform one; and, whether he will consider the propriety of carrying into effect any of the suggestions there made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not, Sir, think it desirable
  526
  that I should answer any Questions relative to alterations in the Revenue Laws before the time which has been fixed for bringing forward the Financial statement of the year.

BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a Committee, composed of the Marquess of Lansdowne, Mr. Herbert Murray, and Captain Crossman, did not, early in the year 1871, inquire into the organisation and working of the Board of Works in Ireland, with a view to its improvement; whether the Committee did not report to the Treasury; whether that Report was not sent to the Board of Works for their observations and suggestions; whether that Board returned the said Report to the Treasury; and, if so, why has it not been laid upon the Table of the House; if not, why; and, under all the circumstances, is it the intention of the Treasury to present the Report; and, if so, when?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, the Marquess of Lansdowne and the other two gentlemen named by the hon. Member inquired into the Board of Works in 1871, and reported to the Treasury in February, 1872. The Report covered a very wide field. It was referred to the Board of Works on its receipt for the observations of the Commissioners, and these were received in May last. There were differences of opinion between the Committee of Inquiry and the Chairman of the Board upon many points, which required subsequent conferences and communications to explain. The Treasury has now come to a decision upon the subject, which is on the eve of being communicated to the Board of Works; but there never was any intention, nor would it be usual to present to Parliament the Report of a Departmental Committee of Inquiry upon a matter strictly within the province of the Treasury's ordinary administration. There will, however, be no objection to present a Copy of their Minute before the Vote for this establishment is taken.

CIVIL SERVICE (IRELAND)—REPORTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether

  527
  he will lay upon the Table of the House, at an early day after the Easter Recess, Copies of the three Reports made to the Government by the Commissioners appointed last year to inquire into the cases of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, the Royal Irish Constabulary, and certain other branches of the Civil Service in Ireland?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Reports, Sir, of the Commission to which the hon. Gentleman refers were made to the Treasury and not to the Irish Government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already answered several Questions repecting them, and I do not know that I have anything to add to what my right hon. Friend has stated; but I would point out to my hon. Friend that these Reports deal with questions of great importance and very considerable difficulty, which not only affect the interests reported on, but also raise questions as to the sources from which additional expenditure may be drawn. It will, I think, be desirable that time should be allowed for their consideration by the Government before these Reports are laid upon the Table.

  SUGAR DUTIES—INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, 1864.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRIEVEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to his reply—
  "That Her Majesty's Government had received no communication from the French Government on the subject of the application of chemical analysis to the assessment of the Sugar Duty,"
  Whether, the respresentatives of the Conference having
  "undertaken to invite their respective Governments to study the question under this aspect, through competent men, and to communicate between then and the 1st January 1873 the results of these studies,"
  and the Governments of Holland, Belgium, and Great Britain having complied with this invitation, Her Majesty's Government will inquire of the French Government whether it has accepted or declined the invitation; and, whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that, while this question is still pending between the four Powers who are parties to the Convention of 1864, the French Government is proposing to pass a Law containing a provision for the application
  528
  of chemical analysis to the assessment of the Sugar Duty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the French Government have undertaken the inquiry alluded to in the first Question, and it is very near completion. As to the second Question, a Bill has been introduced into the French Assembly for the purpose mentioned; it is a Bill to which we see no sort of objection.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF ANN MURRAY.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. LOWTHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the statement, as given in "the Times" of 2nd April is correct, that the Police Magistrate at Marlborough Street, "on hearing the answer of Ann Murray (accused of stealing the Earl of Granville's towels) decided him to discharge the prisoner, although he was satisfied she was a thief?"
  MR. BRUCE: I am glad to find that the hon. Gentleman opposite takes an interest in the property of my noble Colleague. I believe, Sir, the facts of the case are these:—The woman was charged with stealing a napkin, which was the property of my noble Friend, Earl Granville. By the kindness of the noble Lord, she had been allowed to take broken meat from his house, and in doing so she tied it in a napkin, which she afterwards attempted to pawn. The magistrate thought the larcenous intention was not legally made out. At the same time he was of opinion that she was not free from blame, and might possibly have been considered on a different charge.

  FRANCE—THE COMMERCIAL TREATY, 1860.—QUESTION.
  MR. EATONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as the Commercial Treaty with France expired on the 15th March, and as the New Treaty has not yet received the sanction of the French Assembly, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to resort to the Commercial Relations existing between this Country and France prior to 1860; and, if not, what course they will adopt pending the acceptance of the New Treaty or in the event of its non-acceptance by the French Assembly?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Question of the hon. Member embraces two branches—the first having reference to the measures we propose to adopt in consequence of the New Treaty not having been accepted by the French Assembly, and the next as to the course to be taken by us in the event of the rejection of that Treaty. As to the first, it does not appear to us to call for any measures at all. There is no doubt that for the present the matter is suspended; but the effect of that suspension is beneficial to us, inasmuch as it insures to us the continuance of the rates of duty accorded to us by the Treaty of 1860; and, of course, as the hon. Member is aware, no change could be made on this side of the water except by legislation, which we certainly do not contemplate proposing for that purpose. With regard to the course to be taken in case of the final rejection of the Treaty, that must depend on the circumstances of the case. In the meantime, we are not very willing to anticipate that such will be the result of the deliberations of the Assembly.

  IRELAND—DUBLIN UNIVERSITY—THE 10 GEO. IV. CHAP. 7.—QUESTION.
  MR. P. J. SMYTHasked Mr. Attorney General, If section sixteen of tenth George the Fourth, chapter seven, has been repealed; and, if not, to what extent, if any, an Act abolishing Tests in Dublin University and Trinity College may be affected by it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, the section of the Act referred to by the hon. Member had not been repealed, and the Bill abolishing Tests in the University of Dublin would not in any manner affect it. That section merely limited the effect of the Emancipation Act, and no Act passed outside the Emancipation Act was affected by it.

RUSSIA—THE CRIMEAN CEMETERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of General Adye and Colonel Gordon with reference to the Crimean Cemeteries, and, in particular, whether they propose to erect on Cathcart's Hill "a large obelisk, or general memorial" to the
  530
  memory of the Officers and Men of the British Army who fell in the Crimean war?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, on this subject I have made inquiry at the Treasury, and the Correspondence between the Treasury and the War Office is still proceeding. When that Correspondence is concluded of course there will be no objection to its production. The Treasury have consented to pay for covering the less important of the cemeteries in the Crimea with mounds of earth, for moving the monuments of the Redan into the nearest large cemetery, and for repairing the inscriptions. The Treasury, however, felt they would not be justified in sanctioning any outlay for re-building the walls of the larger cemeteries, for erecting a general memorial, or for the maintenance of a garden,—not from any want of sympathy or unwillingness to provide the amount which might be required, but because it would fail to accomplish the objects in view in any satisfactory and lasting manner.

  JURY LIST ALLOWANCES—MAGISTRATES' CLERKS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BRISEasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the disallowances for fees to magistrates' clerks upon the allowance of Jury Lists, by the Poor Law Auditors; and whether, as these fees can be legally claimed by the Act 25 and 26 Vic. c. 27, he considers it desirable that there should be any further legislative enactment for a satisfactory solution of the difficulty?
  MR. STANSFELD,in reply, said, he was advised that the disallowances were correctly made, and he had requested the Attorney General, therefore, to deal with the case by a clause to be inserted in the Juries Bill now before the House.

  PARLIAMENT—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—"THE PALL MALL GAZETTE."
  MR. MUNSTER: I rise, Sir, to draw your attention and that of the House to an article which appeared in The Pall Mall Gazette of Monday, the 31st of March.
  Then the hon. Member having delivered in the said paper, and the paragraph referred to, read as follows:—
  "The scene of Friday night shows how lamentably Mr. Gladstone's sense of public propriety

  531
  has been perverted by his fretful irritation at a rebuke the more painful because it was felt to be merited. It was not surprising that the Irish Ultramontane Members should resort to every quibble discoverable in the technicalities of the law of Parliament to defeat or delay a measure like Mr. Fawcett's, which cuts the ground from under their venal agitations and their traffic in noisy disloyalty."
  MR. MUNSTER: I rise with considerable diffidence to speak upon any matter touching the liberty of the Press, because I wish to give writers, who have done so much for the cause of liberty in this country, the greatest possible freedom. I feel it my duty, as a Member for an Irish constituency, to illustrate the difference between the law as applied in Ireland and as applied in England, more especially at a time when a severe sentence has just been passed upon the editor of an Irish newspaper at Belfast. The paragraph in The Pall Mall Gazette contains very serious charges against Members of this House—in the first place, that of venality; and, in the second, that of disloyalty—a charge which, apart from its own heinous character, involves-in a Member of this House the additional guilt of breach of oath. I am, however, fortified in the course I am taking by a series of precedents which I have found in the records of the former proceedings of this House. I find that reflections upon the character of the Members of this House, or upon a single Member, have always been considered a Breach of Privilege, when these reflections were such as to be of a libellous character, as I conceive the expressions I complain of are. The course adopted on former occasions has been that a Motion should be made "that the article in question contains a Breach of Privileges of this House," and I am prepared to conclude with a Motion to that effect. If that Motion should be acceded to, I am prepared further to move that the printer and publisher of the paper should be ordered to attend at the Bar of this House to-morrow. On the 5th of August last year a similar case occurred. A letter was written to a Member of this House of which complaint was made, and the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave) brought the matter before the House. The debate was adjourned, and on the second day, on an apology being made for the letter complained of, the matter was allowed to drop. I refer to this case
  532
  because I wish to fortify my opinion by the dictum of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), whose authority stands very high in questions relating to the Privileges and proceedings of this House. In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the letter then complained of unquestionably contained expressions that were libellous, but the libel did not directly refer to Members of this House. The charge made was one of the two charges made in this case, that of venality and corrupt motives. The opinion expressed was that, had the charge referred to Members of this House, it would have been a Breach of Privilege; but, as it did not distinctly refer to Members of this House, there was no breach committed, and therefore the right hon. Member said he should vote against the Motion. In this case the charges distinctly referred to Members of the House, in their capacity as Members, in connection with their action in the House, and their "resort to every quibble discoverable in the technicalities of the law of Parliament to defeat or delay a measure like Mr. Fawcett's, which cuts the ground from under their venal agitations and their traffic in noisy disloyalty." The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the said article contains libellous reflections upon certain Members of this House in breach of the Privileges of this House."— (Mr. Munster.)
  MR. DISRAELI: I know nothing more of the words complained of than I could catch as they were read from the Table, and, not having them before me, I speak with diffidence about them; but, as far as I could collect the meaning of the language, a charge was made against certain persons who were described as "Ultramontane Members" of this House. There was no specific allusion to any particular individual, and I do not know who the "Ultramontane Members" are. In order to justify an attack upon the liberty of the Press, and to warrant the occupation of the valuable time of this House by going into a Question of Privilege, there is certain previous information we ought to be in possession of. Therefore, I hope, before the Question is put, some Gentleman who is authorized, will tell us

  533
  whether there are any Ultramontane Members in this House, and, if there be, who they may be. Having that information, we can proceed to discuss the language which is complained of, and I shall then give it my candid consideration.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I did not intend to take any part in this debate; but I think I should be wanting in duty to my constituents, and in loyalty to my hon. Friend who has felt it his duty to make this Motion, if I did not point out to the House that, whoever may be described as an Ultramontane Member—which is not uncommonly used as a term of opprobrium—at any rate, there can be no doubt as to whom this article is intended to designate. [Cries of Whom?] It designates those who took a particular course on a particular occasion in reference to the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett). It describes those hon. Members of the House as Ultramontane Members, and it speaks of them as "trafficking in noisy disloyalty," besides alluding to their "venal agitation." There are other portions of this article which have not been read, but which are equally offensive, but probably are not equally open to a charge of Breach of the Privileges of this House. But whilst I am quite aware that the Irish Members present a fair target for the comments of public writers and public speakers—whether in the House of Commons or out of it—yet I think the House of Commons will itself so far interpose as to protect any portion of its Members, from whatever quarter of the United Kingdom they may come, from charges of venality and disloyalty. What can be the meaning of the term "venal," except that their conduct has been actuated by the base motive of desiring to obtain money, or some other material consideration? What can be meant by the term "disloyalty," except to charge their with conduct that would make them unworthy to be Members of this House. I think this House will do well—if it will permit me to say so, to show that it is as careful of the dignity a Members from Ireland as it is of its own dignity. If I were a disloyal Member of this House I should not desire anything better than that this matter should be passed over, and that Lit should go forth to the people of
  534
  Ireland that when the Members that Ireland returns to Parliament endeavour to do their duty, and maintain the religion of their country and its interests in the matter of higher education, their reputations are left open to attack, and they may with impunity be charged with venality and disloyalty, I assure the House that until this moment I did not intend to take any part in this debate—I only heard of the matter incidentally, and I bought the paper in order to read the article; and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite learns that the so-called Ultramontanes are clearly pointed out and described in this article, I think he will probably be inclined to modify his opinion, and to admit that a Breach of the Privilege of this House has been committed.
  MR. M' CARTHY DOWNINGbegged to say that he also had not the slightest idea of taking any part in this debate, but certainly after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), who seemed to think that there was no Irish Member in that House who would avow that he was an Ultramontane Member, yet, according to the true sense and meaning of the word, he (Mr. Downing) rose to say that he was one. There could be no question that it was clearly intended who the Members in that House were that the article pointed to, because it directed attention to those Irish Members who defeated the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), and it then went on to say that those Ultramontane Members were guilty of venality and disloyalty. He, as one of those Ultramontane Members, denied that he was a venal Member or a disloyal one. He had no hesitation in saying that if such language were used with reference to any body of Gentlemen in that House, English or Scotch, there would not be a Member who would not pronounce the opinion that it was a high Breach of Privilege in imputing to any number of Gentlemen in that House that they were capable of acting corruptly, because venality meant corruption, whether that venality was purchased by money, or from any other unworthy motive. Therefore he was utterly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire should endeavour, in the manner he had done, to prevent this matter from being considered

  535
  calmly and deliberately in that House; and that the Leader of a great party should have taken this opportunity of saying what the right hon. Gentleman did of observations which he, as an Irish Member, thoroughly despised. It was due, however, to the Members of the party which defeated the Bill of the hon. Member for Brighton, that they should be protected as much as other hon. Members were. To show that the House would be justified in assenting to the present Motion, he would refer to the precedent in the case of Mr. Joseph K. Aston. A Motion was made that that individual should attend at the Bar of the House for having committed a Breach of Privilege by issuing a circular which requested Members to attend in their places in order to prevent a count-out, which would probably "emanate from parties personally interested, as money-lenders and agents, in debarring the Clergy" and others from the benefit of the improvements contemplated by a Bill relating to pensions. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) stated that this letter did not apply to any individual Member or Members of that House, but that it had reference to other persons—namely, money-lenders and agents outside that House. The right hon. Gentleman added, however, that there would clearly have been a Breach of Privilege if particular Members had been referred to. The present case was entirely different. The Ultramontane party were distinctly referred to as being guilty of venality and disloyalty. For his own part, he had never been afraid of expressing his opinions, and he now asserted that he was as loyal to the Queen as any English or Scotch Member of that House.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am sure that everybody must sympathise very strongly with the feelings of any hon. Member of this House who deems his character to have been aspersed and his loyalty called into question; and no excuse or apology is needed on the part of the hon. Gentlemen who have brought this matter forward on account of the article to which they have called attention. "Everybody must sympathise with them if the article were really intended to asperse the motives and characters of hon. Members. Nobody reading the article can sympathise with it, and every
  536
  Member of the House of Commons must feel that the matter is well worthy of the attention of the House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that it is a serious matter if the honour and character of Members of this House are publicly aspersed. Certainly it is a matter which cannot be got rid of by a joke. While, however, the Privileges of Parliament ought to be maintained, and while it is most desirable for this House to assert its dignity when it is called in question, it is also most important that the Privileges of Parliament should not be extended, and that we should not commit ourselves to a course from which, if we happened to be in error, we should find it difficult to retreat with dignity. It is, therefore, most desirable that in any step this House may take it should found itself on Parliamentary precedent and be guided by Parliamentary law. Now, I find it laid down in the clearest terms in the book which is always referred to as the authority on questions of this kind—Sir Erskine May's Law and Practice of Parliament—that in order to constitute a Breach of Privilege, it is not sufficient attach the characters of Members of the House, but the characters of Members of the House must be attacked in their capacity as Members. If they are accused of doing any thing discreditable it does not amount to a Breach of Privilege unless they are accused of doing so as Members of the House of Commons. There might be in the House—although do not for a moment mean to suggest that there are at the present time—Members whose private character and conduct outside the House would become a subject of observations. That would be a fair matter for observations, and if libels were published such persons would have the ordinary means of redress. But such observations are not a Breach of the Privileges of Parliament. The book I just alluded to says—
  "Libels upon Members have also been constantly punished; but to constitute a Breach of Privilege they must concern the character and conduct of Members in that capacity."
  That is, in the capacity of Members of Parliament. Now, as I followed the language of the article, which, I heard for the first time, it is to this effect:—
  "It is not surprising that certain Members of the House should resort to every quibble discoverable

  537
  in the technicalities of the law of Parliament to delay or defeat a measure like Mr. Fawcett's."
  So far, I apprehend there is no Breach of Privilege. It is perfectly legitimate to say that Members resorted to any quibbles in Parliamentary law to which they may be disposed. We should commit ourselves to a very undesirable position if we were to suggest that such an observation as that was a Breach of the Privileges of Parliament. The article proceeds to say that Mr. Fawcett's measure "cuts the ground from under their venal agitation, and their traffic in noisy disloyalty." "As I understand, neither "venal agitation" nor "traffic in disloyalty" could take place in the capacity of Members of Parliament. Neither "venal agitation" nor "noisy disloyalty" can be applied to anyone in his capacity as a Member of this House. As I can lay down no law for myself, I can only appeal to that authority to which we all defer. I venture to submit that matter, Sir, to you, who are, after all, the authority of this House, and to ask you whether the construction which I have suggested, and on which I myself offer no opinion, is, or is not, a tenable construction. If it be, I think everyone will be glad that the Privileges of Parliament, while honestly maintained, should never be extended, and that we should not embark on a course from which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to retreat with dignity.
  MR. AGAR-ELLIS: I am not an Ultramontane, and, therefore, the matter does not affect me. The Attorney-General has told us what he considers to be the law of the matter; but I am afraid we do not all quite understand his law. I think he has come to a conclusion which many of us on the other side of the water do not agree with. We must all agree that the language which has been read from the Table is, to say nothing more, disgraceful. But whether legally it is a Breach of Privilege I do not know. There can be no doubt, however, what is meant by the article; and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) has added much to his laurels by treating the matter as a joke. There are Members in the House who feel the matter most deeply, and if my hon. Friend goes to a division I shall vote for the Motion. 'Under the circumstances, however, I
  538
  should not recommend him to go to a division.
  MR. OSBORNE: I apprehend that the House has been as much taken by surprise as myself at this debate, which has been brought on without Notice. I cannot think that the few words containing the legal opinion of the Attorney-General are very satisfactory. It sounded to me very much like Nisi Prius, and I do not think it was the proper way in which to allude to this matter. I hope the House will not be led away by the term "Ultramontane," for I confess I am one of those who do not know exactly what it means. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government himself called Ultramontane, and I have heard every Gentleman who advocates religious freedom to the Roman Catholics called Ultramontane. In fact, Ultramontanism is one of those big words which are forged for these occasions. The case is simply this:—A number of Roman Catholic Gentlemen, who sit on this side of the House, who vote as honourably and as conscientiously as their Protestant fellow-countrymen, have been grossly insulted on this print, and I do not think a proper construction has been put upon the few words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli). I am sure that he treats the matter in the same way that I do. He places no sort of reliance or authority on this print; but he gives the best and most friendly advice to the Roman Catholics to treat this attack with the contempt it deserves. I think the right hon. Gentleman has been misunderstood. Whether the law of the matter has been made clearer by the Attorney-General is a different thing. I think he has rather forced a division on the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion. That hon. Member is a young and adventurous man, who has to-day taken his seat in this House after a long tour in America, where, in his absence, he was "killed." As a much older Member of this House, I would advise him to be content with having brought the matter under the notice of the House. They well knew that the Roman Catholic Members for Ireland were as conscientious, as incapable of venal practices, and noisy disloyalty, as any other Members of the House. Let the hon. Member be content with having brought the matter before the House; but let him not bring

  539
  up the poor printer and publisher to the Bar of the House. That is only a matter of form, for he will not get at the man who wrote this article. It is an insulting article, and let it be treated with the contempt which such articles deserve when they are applied to an honourable body in this House.
  MR. RONAYNEsaid, he was opposed to the introduction of this Motion, because he was opposed to any limitation of free discussion by the Press. They had in Ireland suffered so much from the "gagging laws" passed by that House on their Press that they ought to be the last people to interfere with the freedom of the Press in this country. Being a Home Ruler, he approved of such articles. He thought that the articles which appeared in the leading journals of England reflecting the opinions and prejudice of the English people were the strongest instruments for promoting the agitation of Home Rule and self-government, and he should be sorry to see them interfered with by that House. These articles had done more to promote Home Rule in Ireland than even the injurious and unjust laws which had been recently passed against Ireland. They do for Ireland what they had done for America—there they helped to keep alive the Alabama Claims, till England was compelled to pay them. Here they would promote the demand for Home Rule until England would be compelled to grant it. These things affected Irishmen much, for they were a sensitive and a proud people, and the joke perpetrated by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) would have the same effect in Ireland that another speech of his had, when the right hon. Gentleman responded to the three cheers which were given for the famine in Ireland by his constituents in Buckinghamshire. Those cheers were rankling to this moment in the bosom of the Irish people, who would never forget them.
  Mr. MUNSTER: I think the House will pardon me for saying a few words in reply to the observations which have been made upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) raised the question whether there were any Ultramontane Members of the House, and hinted that they were an indistinct body. A good many years back, the great Daniel O'Connell
  540
  was called to his place in Parliament, and there reprimanded for having committed a Breach of Privilege in a speech delivered outside the House. The people he spoke of were the Tories. He said the Tories had perjured themselves. I might ask the right hon. Gentleman if there are any Tories in this House. But, passing to a more serious point, I would answer the objection of the Attorney General, who said that the Members alluded to are not spoken of in their capacity of Members. I would ask, who are spoken of? The words used are "Ultramontane Members." If it does not apply to the Ultramontane Members I should like to know to whom it does apply? I do not complain of the words "quibbling" and "technicality," but I complain of the expressions "venal agitation" and "noisy disloyalty." I am anxious that the Press should have the fullest liberty, and in bringing forward my Motion I only wished to draw attention to the Press on this side of the Channel in order that the like liberty might be granted to the Press on the other side. I feel obliged to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) for his jocose advise, but still I feel it my duty to go to a division on the subject.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is one portion of this article which, notwithstanding it has been alleged to be a Breach of Privilege, as part of the subject-matter of this charge against the editor of a certain newspaper, is clearly not so. I allude to the first two sentences, of which I am the hero. I think that no one will be disposed to assert that this sentence contains any Breach of the Privileges of this House, and I submit that if the hon. Member (Mr. Munster) really intends to persevere with his Motion, he should not include a passage which is entirely distinct, and which is not a Breach of the Privileges of this House. I will venture to go a little further, and join in the representations which have been addressed to the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion to a division. I have several times heard Motions of this kind made in this House, and have known cases in which the editors of newspapers have been brought to the Bar. The House naturally feels a very great disinclination to refuse a Motion of this kind, particularly when it feels—as I think it does feel—that a charge made

  541
  perhaps against the hon. Gentleman, and certainly against several hon. Members, is totally unjust and unfounded. There may be some difficulty in refusing his Motion, but if the House feels that difficulty, let me point out to him, with great respect, that it is a real reason why he should not press the House to adopt it. What good can arise from the Motion? If unjust charges of this kind are made—as from time to time they will be made, considering the heat and haste with which the articles of the journals are of necessity produced—they inflict no real injury upon those against whom they are directed. Now, I think it is far better for this House and for the Members of this House to take their stand upon the consciousness of their endeavours to do their duty, and of the knowledge that that endeavour is duly appreciated by the people of this country, who do not lose sight of this fact in reading the intemperate expressions which occasionally find their way into the newspapers. I cannot help thinking that it would be unwise if the House were to act upon this Motion. I have never seen any of these attempts do any good, and, with the fullest sympathy for the hon. Gentleman and those who feel themselves aggrieved, I think, not only that he has done sufficient, but that what he has done has been perfectly justifiable and right, not only on his own, but on the part of his friends in calling attention to this matter. I would, therefore, venture to hope—the more so, perhaps, as his experience as a Member of this House has not largely accumulated—that he will be content with the discussion he has evoked, and wisely forbear to press his Motion to a division.
  SIR JOHN ESMONDEtrusted that, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and the very satisfactory expression of feeling on the part of the House, that his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion. He should not have made that request but for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because what had fallen from the Attorney General would, without that speech, have rendered a division almost imperative.
  MR. MUNSTERsaid, that, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and in deference to the general feeling of the
  542
  House, he felt bound to withdraw his Motion. He could not help adding that his satisfaction at the expression of opinion on the part of the House was greater than could be afforded by any result which might attend its passing.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

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

THE NAVAL RESERVE.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. BRASSEY,in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition of the Naval Reserves, expressed his regret, in which they would all share, at the death of Mr. Graves, in whom the British seaman had lost a sincere friend and an able advocate. In discussing the question of Naval Reserve it should be remembered that the personnel was far more important and more difficult to create than the matériel of the Navy, and that the training required for the man-of-war's-man of modern times was more elaborate than was formerly necessary. History conclusively proved the essential importance of a merchant navy to any naval power, and if it was fair to take the mercantile navy as a basis to determine the relative strength of different maritime Powers, the situation of this country was pre-eminently satisfactory. The tonnage of the mercantile fleet of England was 7,142,000 tons, that of the United States 1,500,000 tons; Germany, 1,305,000 tons; France, 1,077,000 tons; and that of Russia 250,000 tons. With such advantages we ought to be absolutely secure against attack, and able to exercise a decisive influence in all questions of foreign policy, and especially the Eastern question, in which our interests were intimately involved. But, unfortunately, our maritime population no longer showed any tendency to increase, and our Naval Reserve, in consequence, exhibited a proportionate diminution of strength. The Royal Commission of 1859 recommended that the standard of strength for the Naval Reserve should be maintained at 20,000 men, and for the Naval Coast Volunteers

  543
  at 10,000 men. The actual strength of the Reserve in 1866 was 17,000, and in 1873 it had been reduced to 12,000 men. The Naval Coast Volunteers scarcely exceeded 600. Considering the great changes which had taken place in the Navy since 1859, he thought a renewal of the inquiry which then took place most desirable, and that was his reason for now moving for the appointment of a Committee. He thought the reduction in the number of the Naval Reserve was very much to be regretted. As to the efficiency of the Reserve, we had had repeated assurances of a very satisfactory character from Admirals Cooper Key, Warren, Elliot, and others, by whom the Reserve had been officially inspected. The Reserve, however, might be made much more effective than it was if greater liberality were displayed in providing the necessary facilities for naval gun drill. The greater number of the guns on board the training ships of the Reserve were 32-pounder smooth-bores. Of 6½-ton guns—by comparison the general armament of iron-dads—there were only two on board the training ship, at which the whole of the Reserve men residing in the London district, some 1,200 in number, were trained. He might add that the cost of the ammunition was not an element for consideration in this case, as the guns on board the President were never fired. He had of late attended frequently at drill on board the President. Pulling the same ropes and manning the same winch-handles with the men, he had opportunities of forming an opinion of their personal qualities, and he could testify that the men belonging to the Reserve, as a rule, took a deep interest in their work. The Reserve suffered, however, in point of efficiency; not only from the want of more perfect appliances for drill, but also from the want of any pecuniary encouragement to attain the highest possible degree of efficiency. Tinder the rules, which until very lately were in force, a uniform rate of pay was given to every seaman in the Reserve, irrespective of his conduct or proficiency in drill. In the Navy, the system of rewarding good discipline and efficiency by pecuniary advantages had been developed to the greatest possible extent. In the gunnery line, more especially, the various classes of pecuniary rewards had been conceived in the most liberal spirit.
  544
  If this system were found necessary in the Navy, where they had the means of preserving discipline and creating another and higher stimulus to exertion through the influence of an admirable esprit de corps, how much more necessary must it be in the Reserve, where the men were never assembled together long enough to afford their officers an opportunity of establishing a personal influence over the men? The revised rules contained a provision for giving a badge, with an allowance of 1d. a day, for every Royal Naval Reserve man passed out from the drill-ships as a trained man. The pay was the same as in the Navy; but in the Navy the seamen had an opportunity of earning 365 pence in the year; whereas, in the 28 days during which the Naval Reserve men were at drill they could not earn more than 2s. 4d. Again, the seaman in the Navy, on becoming a trained man in gunnery, was merely on the bottom round of the ladder. There were an infinite number of rewards for proficiency in gunnery to which he could attain; whereas the ultimate reward of the Naval Reserve man was limited to the paltry sum which he had named. He would recommend that a trained man in the Reserve should receive a gratuity of £1. The additional expense to the country would be slight, and they would at least have the satisfaction of knowing that the men who earned the gratuity possessed a respectable knowledge of the most essential part of a man-of-war's-man's duties. Within the last week a revised code of rules had been promulgated for the Reserve, containing amendments on the old rules, all of which he heartily approved. Almost every improvement which could be carried out without spending more money had been effected. The Government might object to the proposals which he had to make, because they involved some additional expense. He sympathised with the Admiralty in their anxiety to keep down expenditure, for there could be no doubt that in consequence of the increase that had taken place in the price of materials and in wages, and in consequence of the altered conditions of naval architecture, the old estimate of £1,000 per gun for a ship of war had been advanced to about £100,000 per gun; but, compared with the tremendous outlay on our iron-clad ships, the cost of carrying out his suggestions

  545
  would be an insignificant item. The present scale of naval expenditure, if set down at an average of £10,000,000 a-year, constituted but a very moderate premium of insurance against the dangers of invasion or the anxiety and disgrace of a sudden panic. In 1858 the total value of our imports and exports was £234,000,000 and the tonnage of our merchant vessels was 4,211,000 tons. The value of our trade in 1870 was £547,000,000, and the tonnage of our shipping was 5,633,000 tons; while the expenditure on the Navy had been reduced, in the interval, from £10,590,000 in 1858, to £9,900,000 in 1872. He would now point out those other improvements which he regarded as essentially necessary. Why, he asked, were the numbers of the Reserve so considerably reduced? To some extent that reduction was due to the greater care exercised in the admission of candidates for enrolment, and to the dismissal of ill-conducted and inefficient men. The rules, however, formerly in force excluded a considerable number of seamen in every way qualified for the Reserve. Seamen could not be re-entered unless they were actually serving at sea. Under this rule many experienced seamen were ineligible. Again, the qualifications excluded all but bonâ-fide seamen from the second-class Reserve. Fishermen and boatmen were ineligible. Under the revised code, however, an acquaintance with square-rigged vessels, and residence on board a training ship while at drill, were no longer necessary. Under the regulations originally drawn up, the seaman enrolled in the second-class Reserve in the Port of London was compelled to attend drill on board the Penelope at Harwich, while the seaman of the first-class Reserve was allowed to remain at home and drill on board the President in the West India Dock. All that it was desirable to alter in the regulations as to qualification had been altered in the revised rules; but he much regretted that the allowance for travelling expenses was not more liberal. For seamen residing in London, there was only one ship or battery at which they could be drilled—namely, the President in the West India Docks. Either there should be another drill ship, on the Surrey side of the river, or the seamen's expenses in travelling to and fro should be paid. The removal of the
  546
  restrictions on enrolment for the Reserve would, he hoped, have the effect of adding considerably to their numbers. But the severity of the restrictions was not the only reason why it had been found impracticable to keep up the number to the standard recommended by the Royal Commission. There were two other causes at work, the first of which was the tendency in our maritime population to decrease, owing to the immense increase in the number of steamers, which did not require so large a proportion of sailors as sailing vessels; and the second cause of diminution was found in the material reduction that had taken place in the proportion of sailors required in comparison to the tonnage of vessels. Since the opening of the Suez Canal, shipbuilders had been employed almost exclusively in the construction of steamers. In 1864 the total tonnage of the Mercantile Marine was 7,103,000 tons. In 1871 it was 7,142,000 tons. But while the tonnage of steam vessels in 1864 was 770,000 tons, it had increased to 1,412,000 tons in 1871. In 1868, 237,687 tons of sailing vessels were built, and 78,508 tons of steam vessels. In 1871 only 56,545 tons of sailing vessels were built, but the construction of steamers had increased to 297,810 tons. Again, owing to the substitution of iron for wood, the proportion of our ships was very different from what it was. Mechanical appliances had been multiplied. Patent blocks, steam winches, and other substitutes for manual labour had been introduced; and the result was that whereas, in 1854, the proportion of seamen to every 100 tons was 4·7, it had been reduced to 3·25 in 1870. It should not be forgotten that the value of the commerce which our Navy would be called on to protect in case of war had vastly increased, and that the withdrawal of our troops from the Colonies would make the task of defending them more exclusively than heretofore the work of the Navy. It had been stated that the number of British seamen had diminished by the introduction of foreigners; but this was not the case. In 1864 the number of foreigners in British ships constituted 12·6 per cent of the whole number of seamen employed. The percentage had been reduced in 1870 to 10·1. It was also affirmed that the seamen had not only diminished in number, but that they were inferior,

  547
  both in character and skill, to their predecessors; but it was difficult to reconcile this opinion with the fact that our ships were manned by a smaller number of hands, made quicker passages than ever before, and were never laid up in winter. But in such matters they could not venture to dispute too obstinately with those who had the best opportunities of forming an opinion. The reports from Liverpool were most decided on this subject. The inferiority of our seamen, so far as it existed, might partly be attributed to the increase in the number of steamers. But in the Mercantile Marine, where speedy transit was all-important, the substitution of steamers for sailing vessels was, in many branches of the shipping trade, inevitable; and, pro tanto, the Mercantile Marine would not be so good a school as it used to be for training seamen for the Navy. The inferiority of our seamen had also been attributed to the abolition of compulsory apprenticeship. The repeal of the Navigation Laws had led to a great reduction in the number of apprentices enrolled. The number was—in 1845, 15,704; in 1846, 10,370; and in 1871, 4,111. The annual waste of British seamen was computed at 10,000, of whom, unhappily, 3,000 were lost by drowning. We had only 4,000 apprentices, and therefore 6,000 seamen must he supplied from foreign countries, or at least without apprenticeship. In the interests of the Navy, it was necessary to do something to increase the supply and improve the quality of seamen in the merchant service. The shipowners, however, were perfectly able to take care of themselves. There was no difficulty in obtaining men for steamers, because men on steamers were paid higher wages. The wages of ordinary seamen had not been increased for the last 20 years, and as seamen could turn their hands to anything, it could scarcely be a matter of surprise if many of them sought employment on shore in better paid and less arduous occupations. The training in the Navy itself far surpassed any other; but it cost £55 per head for every boy under training, as against £25 per head for boys trained in the ships maintained by philanthropic societies. The difference was caused partly by additional instructors. The ships of the philanthropic societies rendered however, excellent service. The Marine
  548
  Society of London supplied 167 boys to the Navy in 1871, and since its foundation, in 1756, the Society had sent 26,754 lads into the service. But more instructors and better appliances were necessary in these ships, and, above all, brigs should be attached to the stationary vessels, in which the more efficient lads could be sent for a cruise at sea. The training-ship maintained by the City of Now York was kept constantly cruising in Long Island Sound. The expense of giving this more complete instruction was beyond the scope of private philanthropy, and it was questionable whether the Government should not assist these societies. The Royal Commission of 1859, at whose suggestion the Naval Reserve was established, strongly recommended that 12 school ships should be established at the principal ports, each capable of receiving 200 boarders, of whom 100 should be nominated by the State. After an apprenticeship of four years the young seamen entered in these vessels would be eligible for the Reserve. A somewhat similar plan had been proposed by Sir Frederick Grey; and Mr. Thomas Gray, of the Board of Trade, had suggested that the Government should take over one of the ships now maintained as a philanthropic institution on the Thames, and one of those on the Mersey, and that all boys entered in either of the ships taken over by the Government should, in consideration of the superior training which they would receive, and which would probably enable them to command superior wages in the merchant service, agree to serve for a year in the Navy on the completion of their apprenticeship, and afterwards to join the Reserve. Another proposition which he most earnestly commended to the consideration of the Rouse was that the Government should encourage owners of ships of an approved class to take apprentices, by giving a bonus for every apprentice on board their ships who had been duly indentured to the Registrar General as a Government apprentice, and had agreed, on the completion of his apprenticeship, to serve in the Navy for a year, and afterwards to join the Reserve. The number of apprentices should be limited—say one for every 100 tons—and the ships should be of an approved class. A bounty of £5 might be paid to the apprentice on joining the Navy for his year of service.

  549
  The advantage of this plan over that of training-ships was that it would be both more practicable and less expensive. The officers of the Reserve also demanded attention. The half-pay list of the Navy contained a multitude of names of officers without private means, and eager for employment. Could not this be remedied by first creating a Reserve of officers in the Mercantile Marine, and then reducing the number of officers in the Navy to something like the number actually required in time of peace? Young gentlemen, socially qualified for service in the Navy, were being educated on board the Conway, in the Mersey, and the Worcester, in the Thames. If the Admiralty were to afford to these officers a competent knowledge of gunnery, we should have in them an invaluable reserve of officers. For this purpose a short practical course of gunnery and naval tactics should be arranged, in connection with the Excellent, analogous to the course of military instruction for Volunteer officers at Aldershot. Eligible young officers of the Mercantile Marine should be encouraged to go through the course by the offer of a premium, to be paid to them on their passing a satisfactory examination. The premium should be sufficient in amount to cover the expense of their residence in Portsmouth, and also to compensate them for their loss of income while remaining on shore for the purpose of study. The Board of Trade would do much to promote the success of this scheme by raising the standard of examination for the extra master's certificate, so as to include both modern languages and the more important elements of commercial science. The privilege of going through the course on board the Excellent might be confined to officers who had passed this higher examination. The creation of the Naval Academy at Greenwich would doubtless do much to facilitate the fusion between the officers of the Reserve and the Navy, which, from every point of view, was much to be desired. From the Royal Naval Reserve he would turn to the Coast Volunteers. Recent naval administrators had unaccountably neglected this branch of the Reserves. The Committee of 1852 recommended a force of 6,000 Coast Volunteers, and the Royal Commission of 1859 advised that the number should be fixed at 10,000 men. According to the latest estimates, the
  550
  number had been reduced to 600. It could not be said that eligible men were wanting. The latest Return showed that 153,000 men and 14,000 boys were employed in the fisheries of the United Kingdom. In point of physical power the fishermen were superior to the seamen in foreign trades. Their local knowledge would be of immense value in coast defence, and the fact that they had fixed places of residence, and never sailed under a foreign flag, made it certain they would always be found when required. Of their moral character he could speak with the greatest confidence. The Coast Volunteer was not popular in the Navy, because the men originally enrolled, were admitted into the service for political purposes with discreditable laxity; but it would not be difficult to raise from among our fishermen a Reserve equal to the standard recommended by the Royal Commission. He trusted, from a perusal of the revised rules, that there was a disposition to induce the fishermen to join, not the Naval Coast Volunteers, but the second-class Naval Reserve. The means, however, which were proposed for carrying out this policy were inadequate. The fishermen were congregated in isolated communities on various points of the coast. They were men of domestic habits, and it would be difficult to induce them to join the Reserve if they had to be drilled far from home. The list of ships and batteries at which the Naval Reserve might take their drill, though imposing enough in point of numbers, did not include some of the most important fishing communities. There were batteries at Poole, where the number employed in fishing vessels was only 214; at Maryport, where there were only 69; and at Lynn, where there were only 266; but there were no establishments at Sligo, which had 4,800 men and boys in the fishing vessels of the port; none at Skibbereen, which had 5,500; none at Banff, which had 5,600; at Stornoway, which had 8,000; at Wick, which had 8,400; nor at Inverness, which had 9,000 fishermen. The Manning Committee of 1852 strongly recommended that the Scotch naval station should be re-established. Where the Navy was best known, there the flower of the population were ready to enter it. In 1852 there were more men in the Navy from the village of Cawsand, near Plymouth, than from the

  551
  Port of Liverpool. The Return of the counties in which the boys in training-ships in 1871 were born showed that, out of 2,888 boys, only 90 came from the whole of Scotland, only 112 from Lancashire, including the Isle of Man as well as Liverpool, only 23 from Suffolk, 11 from Norfolk, and 18 from Wales. Could it be supposed that the great seafaring populations on those coasts had ever been made thoroughly acquainted with the advantages of service in the Navy and the Reserve? The fluctuating nature of their occupation would enable the fishermen to attend drill with little inconvenience. The drill could be taught in the most effective manner, and with the least expense to the Government, by sending a gunboat to visit the fishing ports at the slack season. These periodical visits of a smart, well-organized gunboat would do much to create a favourable impression of the Navy among the fishermen. The expense of keeping a few gunboats in commission for this purpose would be nominal; for we had more seamen at present in the home ports than it was possible to employ in sea-going ships. Some of these men might be attached to gunboats instead of remaining in stationary flagships. In addition to the various descriptions of forces already enumerated, an attempt had been made to extend the Volunteer movement to the coast defence service. A corps composed at present of 100 gentlemen employed in banks and private offices in the City had been provisionally enrolled, and several hundred additional applications for admission had been received. The Volunteers actually entered had attended drill on board the President, and he was enabled to state that, in the opinion of the instructors, they were the most intelligent gunners who had ever been drilled on board the ship. The movement had extended itself to Liverpool, where the First Lord of the Admiralty did so much to initiate it by an encouraging speech. It remained to be proved whether the idea was a practical one. Not until the Volunteers had been afloat in a gunboat for a few days, and had shown their ability and readiness to perform all the duties which devolved on a seaman in a gunboat, should he venture to regard the experiment, with which he had the honour to be associated, as an accomplished fact. Much
  552
  of the success of the Naval Volunteer movement must depend on the readiness of the Admiralty to afford the necessary facilities. The most immediately pressing matter was the appointment of a commanding or inspecting officer. Until the Admiralty placed a naval man of rank and experience at the head of the Volunteers, an invaluable aid to efficiency would be wanting, and the formation of a contingent at many of the ports round the coast would be indefinitely delayed. The formation of an able staff of inspecting officers for the Reserve was essentially necessary to secure their efficiency. The Reserves, including the Coast Guard, now numbered not loss than 20,000 men. Surely, the supreme command of such a force was a task worthy of the most distinguished Admiral in the service. The Commander-in-Chief should be supported by a sufficient staff of naval officers, to whom should be assigned the supervision of the Reserves in the St. George's Channel and on the East coast of England. While hitherto there had been no inspecting staff for the Naval Reserve, a very different policy had prevailed at the War Office in providing a staff for the inspection of the land Volunteers. An Admiral sent on an occasional tour of inspection was not a sufficient substitute for an officer specially devoted to the duty. In urging the appointment of a staff officer, he did not undervalue for a moment the services of that admirable body of men, the seamen instructors in gunnery in the drill ships of the Reserve. It was impossible to speak too highly of their zeal, their intelligence, their discipline, and their consummate knowledge of the subject on which it was their duty to give instruction. But naval officers, judiciously selected, would exercise a higher influence over the morale of the Naval Reserve. The merchant seamen would feel themselves, in a larger sense than heretofore, an integral part of the Navy of England. They would be inspired by its great traditions, and the confidence which they would acquire in their officers would be an invaluable guarantee for their conduct and discipline should they ever be called upon to join Her Majesty's service. The hon. Gentleman concluded by Moving the appointment of the Committee,
  MR. LIDDELL,in seconding the Motion, wished to call attention to the alternative scheme which the Commission of 1859 eventually wished the country to adopt. They proposed a Naval Reserve enlisted from the adult seamen as a purely provisional scheme, but pointed out with great force the obvious objections to dependence for all time upon a Reserve raised from the ranks of the adult seamen, and their real scheme was that a Reserve should be formed from boys trained in the school ships, a certain number of whom should be paid for by the State upon condition of their joining the Naval Reserve. The Commissioners said—
  "Your Majesty will perceive that for the future maintenance of this force we propose to rely in a great measure on boys specially trained for this purpose, in conformity with the plan adopted in the Navy with so much advantage."
  He would not say a word in disparagement of the men now in the Reserve; but it was evident they could not compare with boys trained in discipline and obedience from their early years. They suggested that 12 training ships should be maintained at 12 of the principal ports of this country—and they made the statesmanlike proposal that boys of the merchant service and boys of the Navy should be trained together, so as to form associations which would last through their lives, and promote an esprit de corps that would raise the tone and character of the whole merchant service. But nothing had been done to give effect to this scheme. It had been entirely ignored. There were 13 training ships in this country, and £20,700 of public money was spent upon them, flowing in driblets through the channels of the penal departments of the Home Office. The Commission recommended that 2,400 boys should be trained, annually in these school ships, and the number of boys in training given by the last Return was 2,300; but many of them were in reformatory ships, and the rest in industrial school ships, to which boys were sent by magistrates' order. That was not the class of boys contemplated by the Royal Commission, who wished the retainer to be an incentive to good conduct offered to boys born of honest parents. But at present not a farthing of public money went towards the support or education for sea service of the children of honest parents; and
  554
  the moral effect of what we were doing was rather mischievous. It was, of course, perfectly right to assist philanthropic efforts; but we were losing sight of the great principle put forward by the Royal Commissioners. They recommended that £40,000 a-year should be spent on school ships, which would have secured for us the services by this time of many thousands of boys. At the present moment we were spending over £20,000 per annum without educating a single child of honest parents for the sea service of the country, or securing for the Navy a single seaman. He hoped that in saying this he should not be supposed to be passing any stricture upon the existing institutions of this character—they were doing very good work, they deserved all support and assistance but they fell far short of the scheme which had been proposed by the Royal Commissioners. He believed it was very requisite that something should be done to raise the tone of the merchant service. Ever since the merchant navy had been freed from restrictions as to manning and nationality, great difficulty had been experienced in obtaining apprentices, and the want of them was often complained of at this moment. In consequence of the Act 5 & 6 Will. IV. having failed to bring into the Royal Navy a sufficient number of apprentices, pauper boys were forced into the merchant service, but a supply of only 5,000 or 6,000 was obtained. The effect of the compulsory Act, passed in 1844, was to increase the number from 6,259 to 15,740 in the first year of its operation; and when it was repealed the number of apprentices on the Register was over 30,000. In 1854, which was the first year of the absence of regulations with regard to the manning of ships, the number of seamen in the merchant service was 162,000, and the number of apprentices was 8,000; whereas, in 1870, while the number of merchant seamen was 196,000, the number of apprentices was only 4,200. In order to secure for this country in time of emergency an efficient Reserve, we must rely upon the co-operation of the shipowners. [Mr. GOSCREN: Hear, hear!] He was glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty recognized the truth of that remark; but he believed no steps had been taken to obtain the co-operation of the shipowners,

  555
  either with regard to men or boys. It was very unjust for the Government to take from the shipowners their best men at the very time when it was most inconvenient and dangerous to part with them; and some advantages must be given, either in the form of money payment or in money's worth, in order to compensate the shipowner for being deprived of his best men in an emergency. At present there was a demand on the part of the shipowners for trained apprentices. The Report of the North of England Steam Ship Owners' Association, issued about a year ago, contained a letter addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, in which the following important passages occurred:—
  "For some time past considerable difficulties have been encountered by shipowners desirous of obtaining competent seamen to navigate steam vessels. The number of apprentices to the sea has been for several years diminishing, and is now so low and disproportionate to the demands of the service as to cause serious apprehensions respecting the future supply of good and experienced sailors."
  That was a very grave statement. The shipowners also said that, of the very fine lines of steamers carrying coal and iron to the London markets from the north-eastern ports not one vessel in ten had an apprentice on board; and if that was true of other ports most lads must be found in sailing vessels. But it was complained that the regulations of the Board of Trade, being confined to lads trained on board sailing vessels, prevented parents sending their boys to sea, because the training they needed for obtaining active employment was only to be obtained on board steam vessels. The Report to which he had referred made this suggestion—
  "Having carefully considered the whole question on various occasions, your Committee have arrived at the conclusion that the only way of checking the rapid decline of apprentices in the merchant marine is either to adopt an examination in seamanship and requirements of steam vessels, or to institute for such vessels quite a different mode of examination."
  Several suggestions had been made as to the privileges which might be extended to shipowners as a condition of their co-operating with the Government in raising an efficient Naval Reserve. He had heard it suggested on good authority that the Government should offer certain privileges to those shipowners
  556
  on board whose ships a certain number of apprentices were employed—such as the use of Government dockyards in foreign ports and the right to gratuitous assistance in salvage from Government vessels. It might also be made a condition on which all subsidies were paid that the subsidized ships should carry a certain number of apprentices. He merely threw out these suggestions for consideration; but he wished strongly to impress upon the Government, that however the Naval Reserve might be formed, for its success we must depend upon the assistance of the shipowners. He wished to know what proportion the Reserve of 12,600 men at this moment bore to the Reserve of our ships. Was it adequate, or anything like adequate, to man the ships we might require at sea in case of emergency? To say that we were at peace was to take a narrow view. Recent wars had shown us that success attended the immediate concentration of the largest number of men, and could we presume that nations which had adopted this policy on land would neglect it at sea? The French Government could command the services of every available seaman on the coast in case of emergency, and would the Germans, with their organization, overlook the importance of such an arrangement? It would be short-sighted in us to lose the advantage we possessed for the sake of a few thousands a-year, which would secure us an efficient Reserve. We spent £20,000 annually in driblets, and secured not a single Reserve seaman for the money, and for £40,000 we could carry out the scheme of the Commissioners. We had done what they recommended as provisional only; but we had not carried out their more important recommendations, and he did not see any attempt to do it. He should like to see service in the Reserves of this country held up, not as a refuge for the destitute, but as an incentive to good conduct to the youth of the country. He should like boys to be taught in their schools that it was a privilege to fight for their country. He wished to see the merchant navy and the Royal Navy brought into more immediate association, and if this were done it would tend to the benefit and security of the country.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition of the Naval Reserves,"— (Mr. Brassey,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, the last speaker had called attention to an important point which had previously escaped notice—the proportion of seamen in the Reserve to the number of ships in Reserve. A true Reserve must consist of ships, seamen, and officers; and there must be a due proportion of all three. To ensure a Navy efficient in the event of war we must either keep up a war establishment in time of peace, or else we must train men who would enter into a voluntary obligation to serve in the Navy, adopting the principle which we did in our Army, and which other Powers did in their Armies and Navies. But our naval authorities seemed to adopt the reverse principle, for they had allowed the Reserve of men to fall from 16,000 to 10,000, whilst they increased the number of seamen serving afloat. [Mr. GOSCHEN said, the number was 12,000, and it had never been as low as 11,000]. He did not contend that we had a larger number of men afloat than the affairs of the world required. For several years past he had endeavoured to impress upon the House that an annual drain of strength was going on from the Navy. In 1856 the 10 years' service system was adopted. Consequently in 1866 the services of a considerable number of men expired, and 1,500 men then took their discharge without entering into any engagement to serve again in the Navy if required. In 1871 he was told that 80 per cent. of the men re-entered the Navy; but he found that in 1871 there were 477 men discharged through their service having expired, and 440 men were paid off, making together 917; while the re-entries were only 402, making only 40 per cent. instead of 80. But even if the reentries were 80 per cent the system was not wise or satisfactory. In 1749 a scheme was proposed by Lord Barrington, then First Lord of the Admiralty, to make an annual allowance to men who had served in the Navy, with the view of
  558
  rendering their services available in case of necessity, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pelham) pronounced that no scheme was so good for the purpose as retaining supernumeraries at a small annual allowance. The House passed the Resolution, but forgot to vote the money for putting the plan into execution; so like many other abstract Resolutions it was never practically carried out. If that had been done perhaps the country would have been spared all the horrors of impressment, and the Navy would not have fallen into that bad odour which still clung to it among ignorant people. Now that impressment was doomed, it was more imperatively necessary than ever that we should form a Reserve of the trained seamen whom we were now allowing to slip from us without any reason whatever. Not one-third of the seamen were even proposed to be ready for the ships which were supposed to constitute our Reserve. Then, as to officers. Taking the present number of seamen at 39,000, the officers of all grades employed with them would amount to 1,224. They had then to consider the question of how many officers would be needed for the 11,000 or 12,000 who might be called out, and the number would be found totally inadequate. We had not even the sketch of a real Naval Reserve drawn out. What the Admiralty trusted to was to wring out of the House of Commons what money they could for building ships, and then to coax out of the merchant service as many men as they could. They ought to adopt a plan by which they could legitimately add to their maritime strength by discharging men annually into the mercantile marine, and at the same time commanding their services in adequate numbers in the event of war. The whole question urgently required investigation, and he therefore cordially supported the Motion.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid he was also in favour of the proposed inquiry. Of the 12,000 men who might be called out the services of a great many would not be available on the outbreak of a war. It might be useful if a Committee was to direct its attention to the class of men going to China, New Zealand, and California. It had been customary for hon. Members to lecture shipowners as to the number of apprentices they should have on board their ships; but he did not see why they should be bound to employ a certain number of apprentices any

  559
  more than employers of labour in other professions. He did not believe the number of apprentices was as small as had been represented. He believed sailors were as good as in times past, drunkenness, indeed, having decreased in the merchant navy. He hoped the proposed Committee would be appointed, for it might be useful in preventing unnecessary expenditure.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would have to speak on some other important questions which stood next on the Notice Paper, he would therefore ask permission of the House to reply to the hon. Member for Hastings. He concurred in the remarks of his hon. Friend on the loss of the late Mr. Graves, who had made this subject almost his own, and whose mercantile experience, sense of public duty, and freedom from party spirit rendered his advice most valuable. His hon. Friend, however, had shown that the task had not fallen into unworthy hands. He began his speech by remarking that though the question of the matériel was one of great importance in relation to the, Navy, that of the personnel was of still greater importance. In this he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend. The country had enormous resources in the way of shipbuilding, a Return before him showed that 391,000 tons were added to our merchant service in 1871, as compared with 212,000 tons in 1861, so that were it necessary to renew our fleet within a short time our private shipyards could do so; but if by any mischance a large proportion of the personnel were lost, it would be a difficult task to supply their places. The question of Reserves was, therefore, a very important one, but even here our resources as regarded merchant seamen were great, and he doubted whether, including our Colonial Empire, they did not exceed those of almost all the rest of the world put together. It was often said that the increase of steamers had greatly reduced the number of seamen in sailing vessels; but a Return showed that in 1854 there were 146,500 sailors in sailing vessels in the foreign and coasting trades, and in 1871 the number was 141,000, showing a reduction of only 5,000 men. In our steamers in 1854 there were 15,800 men employed, and in 1871 58,706, so that while there had been an enormous increase in the number of men employed in the steamers of the merchant service,
  560
  there had been only a slight decrease in the number employed in sailing vessels. This showed that the increase of steam vessels had not operated so prejudicially, as was believed by some, on the sailing vessels. He was sorry to hear his hon. Friend give the weight of his great authority to the statement that our seamen were deteriorating. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) hesitated to express au opinion counter to the authorities quoted by his hon. Friend, particularly Mr. Graves; but when at the Board of Trade he had given great attention to this subject, and had visited all the ports and collected all the facts he could from the Mercantile Marine officers, and could not find that our seamen had deteriorated. Considering that the proportion of seamen to tonnage had greatly diminished, a given number of men doing more work than formerly, and considering also the enormous number of yachts and of seamen employed in them, he could not think there had been any falling off in quality. Steamers did not train men themselves. On the contrary, they paid high wages and wanted the best men. The question of seamen was a question of wages. Those who gave good wages and good accommodation, and sent their men to sea in well-found ships would have no reason to complain of any lack of good men. There were two ways by which a Naval Reserve could be obtained; the one was by passing men more rapidly through the service; the other, by enlisting men from the Merchant Service into a special Reserve. The former was more analogous to what among military men was called the Army Reserve, the latter, to the Militia. If he understood rightly, his hon. and gallant Friend rather advocated the first of these two methods. [Admiral ERSKINE: That of passing them through after their 10 years' service]. He would point out that we had Reserves of both kinds—the Coastguard and the Naval Pensioners were of the first kind, and the Naval Reserve men of the second kind. If the House would allow him, he would now answer the question put by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) and others, as to whether the Reserves we had already got were sufficient to man all our vessels. That was, no doubt, an exceedingly important point. He was glad to state that there was every reason to believe from the

  561
  calculations which had been made that, taking the men in the Service, the supernumeraries in our ports, the Coastguard and the Naval Pensioners, we had considerably more than would be required to man the 23 ironclads which had been spoken of and every other vessel which we could possibly send to sea within any reasonable period, and a margin of something like 6,000 men would be left besides. How was that possible? The House did not, perhaps, fully understand the great change which had occurred in our requirements as regarded blue-jackets. Every year the number of blue-jackets required in proportion to other men was diminishing. By way of illustration he would take the old three-decker, the Victoria, which had been the flagship in the Mediterranean a very few years ago, and compare it with the Lord Warden, which was now the flagship there, and also with the Devastation, probably the fighting ship of the future. For the Victoria 1,100 men were required, of whom 600 were blue-jackets. For the Lord Warden 600 were sufficient, of whom 230 were blue-jackets. For the Devastation 300 men would suffice, of whom only 100 would be pure blue-jackets. Therefore, supposing we had a fleet of 10 three-deckers like the Victoria, we should require 6,000 blue-jackets, while for 10 Devastations only 1,000 would be required. That showed how much farther the force we now had would go than in former years, and it had a very important bearing on the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1859. If these recommendations were now applied, our resources were not such as we could wish; but with reference to the change which the fleet had been undergoing since that year, our resources were by no means deficient, and at the outbreak of a war we should be in a very good position, indeed. If a war were to arise we should have not only to man all the vessels we possessed, but to take up vessels from the private trade, fit them out as cruisers, and send them to distant parts of the world. During the war between the Northern and Southern States of America the United States Government fitted out no fewer than 750 steamers and manned them with 50,000 men for the purpose of cruising, blockading the ports of the South, and for other purposes. That would be the case with us should
  562
  war break out. We should have to fit out an enormous number of vessels for various purposes; and though, as he had said, we had sufficient men to supply all our vessels of war, yet we should find employment for all the Reserves we could get. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that all these Reserves would not be employed in the same important work as would be required of the men in the regular fleet; they would not all be employed at the guns. A good deal was to be said in favour of passing men through the Navy into the Reserve, and if we could see our way to do so rapidly, it, no doubt, would be the preferable course. We already educated no fewer than 3,000 boys for the Navy, and that number was sufficient, but not much more than sufficient, to keep up the supply of 18,000 men for our fleet. There was much to be said for increasing the number of boys and passing the men through the fleet. But there was this difficulty. It was alleged by naval men that we had not room in our sea-going cruisers for more boys and young seamen than we had at present. If we were to increase the number of our boys we should be reducing the average age of all the men in the Navy which naval men said could not be done with advantage. The average age was sufficiently low already. But as the proportion of seamen required for ships of war was greatly reduced, it was of infinite importance that they should be thoroughly trained in every respect. It was necessary therefore to maintain the training ships. Therefore, he could not hold out the prospect that we could pass any large number of men rapidly from our fleet into the Reserve. That being so, we must look to the Merchant Service for our Naval Reserve. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) and others had pointed out that of late years there had been a tendency in the Naval Reserve to diminish in number. That was due, in a great measure, to the stringency of the Regulations of 1869, which were intended to increase the efficiency of the force by weeding it of inferior men. But he could assure the House that subject during the last year had received the most earnest attention. His hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Erskine) appeared to think that no scheme had been sufficiently considered But if his hon. and gallant Friend had

  563
  been at the Admiralty and seen the mass of papers on the subject and the attention which had been given to it, he would have been of a different opinion. The hon. Member for Hastings had alluded to the changes which had taken place with respect to the First and Second Reserve, and seemed to have given his hearty approval to all that had been done in the matter. In the first place, as regarded the First Class Naval Reserve, the Admiralty had greatly increased the number of places where they could be enrolled. Formerly they could be enrolled only at a few places, but now they could at any Coastguard station. The restriction which before prevailed had kept men not only from enrolling, but from re-enrolling themselves after passing through the first five years of service. Twenty-eight days' consecutive drill were formerly required in the First Class Naval Reserve, and that was found to diminish the number who enrolled; but according to the new Regulations which have been framed, the men during the first year were only trained 14 days consecutively, and after the first year they might be drilled not less than seven days at a time. Again, they had provided that the trained men should receive the 1d. a day which was now given to the trained men in the fleet, though of course the former received the payment for a month only, while the latter had it throughout the year. His hon. Friend the Member for Hastings appeared to think that was hardly sufficient; but there was considerable difficulty in giving to these trained men a larger amount than the trained men in the fleet. At the same time, he recognized the fact that the Naval Reserve were not underpaid. Their pay was good and-amply sufficient. The difficulty did not lie in the direction of pay. They had done one other thing for the trained men—they had offered them a certain proportion—55 per cent of their entries—of appointments in the Coastguard. Hopes to that effect had been held out from the early days of the Naval Reserve, but it was not till now that these hopes had been realized. He now came to the Second Class Naval Reserve, where the changes had been so considerable as almost to amount to re-constituting the force. The Second Class Reserve up to the present time had been almost a total failure from the restrictions imposed by the regulations. Instead of confining
  564
  it to seamen who had served in square-rigged vessels, they had opened it to all ordinary seamen and fishermen, who constituted so very large a force in this country, which they hoped would prove a mine of wealth to the Naval Reserve. There had also been an alteration as to the age at which men were to be entered. Instead of the limit as stated by the Regulations of 1869, of 18 to 20 years, the ages at which the men might enter were now to be from 18 to 30; and they had also provided that the Second Class might be enrolled, drilled, and paid at the same time as the First Class Naval Reserve. His hon. Friend the Member for Hastings appeared to think that if, as they hoped, the Second Class Reserve increased very largely the batteries and drill ships would not be sufficient for training purposes. Of course, if they found that fishermen were entering the Second Class Naval Reserve, it would be matter for consideration whether they should not increase the number of batteries or facilitate their being drilled in gunboats or drill ships, as proposed by the hon. Member; but it would be time enough to consider that point when the Second Class Reserve had considerably increased. The new Regulations of which he had spoken had only been completed within the last month. They had been most carefully considered, and had now been issued. There had not been time to ascertain what would be their effect; but he had reason to believe that the number of both Reserves would be considerably increased. He had consulted the Registrar General of Seamen, who was confident in his opinion that when the new Regulations were well known along the coast there would be a large accession of numbers to both First and Second Class Reserve. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) had alluded to the want of 6½-ton guns in the Reserve ships; but every one of the Reserve ships had two of these guns, besides others of smaller calibre. His hon. Friend spoke of 1,200 men taking their drill on board the President, but he very much doubted whether there would be more than 2,50 as an average at one time drilling on board that ship, and there would be nothing like that number in some of the drill ships—not more, perhaps, than 100 being drilled at one time. Spreading their drill over the time allowed, he believed all the men could be trained with

  565
  the larger guns, and in the first instance they would be trained with guns of smaller calibre. With regard to batteries, they were nearly all formed before the 6½-ton gun was introduced into the service, and the general introduction of the 6½-ton gun would necessitate the complete change of the batteries. At the same time, it would be the duty of the Admiralty to supply proper and sufficient guns and batteries as occasion required. While he was on that point he should like to read to the House the Reports recently received from Admiral Elliot and Sir Henry Keppel on the subject of the Naval Reserve. They were most satisfactory and could not fail to give confidence to Members as to the present state of the force. Admiral Elliot said:—
  "The inspection was entirely satisfactory in regard to the men of the Naval Reserve. Those I saw were as a rule fine active seamen, well suited to the true working of the guns with much spirit and goodwill, and showing a creditable knowledge for the amount of teaching they had respectively undergone. In every ship without exception the behaviour of the Naval Reserve was reported to be entirely satisfactory."
  Sir Henry Keppel, an officer of great experience, and one who was certain to speak what he thought, said of the men of the Dœdalus,—
  "As individuals they were fine able-bodied men, in the prime of life, and certainly superior in physique to the average of our own able seamen. Their rifle, cutlass, and great gun exercises were very creditably executed, without any noise whatever, and the men appear to have been carefully and well trained. On consulting with Commander Parsons, the gunner, and boatswain, they reported the men to be well-behaved and tractable. The gunner views the badge men as equal to our own trained men; 23 of the 42 on board are so qualified. The boatswain considers them more full of resource than our men. They are not equal to our men as leadsmen, nor would they be so smart aloft. The gunner states that notwithstanding the intervals of absence from drill the men appear to forget little of it."
  Of the men in the Eagle he said—
  "They were scarcely so fine a body of men as those in the Dœdalus, but still contrast favourably with a similar number of able seamen from our service."
  With respect to the Naval Coast Volunteers, it was intended to allow those who now composed that corps gradually to die out, in order that men qualified for that corps might enter for the Second-class Naval Reserve; so that, in point of fact, there would then be only two
  566
  corps—namely, the First and Second-class Reserves. The Admiralty hoped the effect of this arrangement would be that the number of men passing from the second to the first would greatly increase. As to the new force—the Naval Volunteers—being an extension to the Navy of the movement which had proved so beneficial to the Army, already two of these corps had been established, one at London and the other at Liverpool, and the formation of one at Bristol was now talked of. The Admiralty had cheerfully allowed the drilling of these Volunteers on board the President; and it would be a matter for further consideration what arrangements should be made with regard to future enrolment which could not take place under the existing law. The law relating to the Naval Coast Volunteers was not suitable; and it would, therefore, be necessary to pass a measure to regulate enrolment in the new force. The Admiralty approached the subject with every desire to avail themselves of the proffered aid, and it was intended to nominate an officer who should put himself in communication with the gentlemen who were forming these Volunteer corps, to render them what assistance he could in the matter of organization, and advise the Admiralty on all points connected with them. It would be necessary to determine in what way the new force could be assisted with gunboats, and to consider various other questions; and his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would, no doubt, have to submit a measure to Parliament for the purpose of organizing the Naval Volunteers. The expediency of Government assisting the training ships of the Merchant Service was discussed last Session, on the Motion of Mr, Graves, and on that occasion the First Lord deprecated the Navy undertaking to train seamen for the Merchant Service, but expressed his readiness to contribute towards any scheme devised by the shipowners in proportion to the benefit which the Navy derived, while the President of the Board of Trade pointed out how a fund could be obtained from the contributions made by shipowners to the Mercantile Marine Fund, and invited the co-operation of the shipowners in the organization of a scheme; his right hon. Friend, however, the President of the Board of Trade had taken means to ascertain the views of the shipowners of the country, but he

  567
  had not found a disposition on their part to contribute to the establishment of training ships for the Merchant Service. Of course the House would not expect the Admiralty to put a Vote on the Estimates to meet the cost of training boys for the Merchant Service. When the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) spoke of the loud demand there was on the part of shipowners for trained apprentices, he could not help inquiring where were the shipowners—Members of the House—while the discussion was going on. One who had been present (Mr. Alderman Lusk) had objected to the scheme of the hon. Member for Northumberland, and he now noticed but one other shipowner in his seat (Mr. Bates). The Admiralty had done what they could towards improving the First and Second Classes of the Naval Reserve, and he hoped the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) would be satisfied with what they had done and were doing, and with what they indicated as their policy for the future, and would not therefore press his Amendment.
  MR. BATESsaid, as he had been pointedly mentioned by the hon. Member who had just sat down as a shipowner who had not spoken on the subject before the House, he would not remain altogether silent. It was said that there was not sufficient room in the ships for boys. He ventured, however, to suggest where it could be found. There were several old ships belonging to the Navy. Let one be adapted for the reception of boys at every port, under the direction of half-pay naval officers. Besides these old ships there was a large quantity of stores fit for nothing else. If we employed these old ships in the training of boys we should do away with the necessity of spending a large amount annually in repairing them at a cost above what they were worth when they were so repaired. In this way we should be able to maintain Reserves at little or no cost to the country.
  MR. BRASSEYsaid, after the explanations and promises which had been given, he would not press his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NAVY—H.M.S. "DEVASTATION."

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXrose to call attention to the case of Her Majesty's
  568
  Ship Devastation. The noble Lord said, that that morning he had the pleasure of attending a very interesting meeting at the opening of the session of the College of Naval Architects, and there his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) stated that to-night he (Lord Henry Lennox) was to do battle with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to this ship. His right hon. Friend, though right in nine cases out of ten, was wrong on this occasion. He had no intention of doing battle with the right hon. Gentleman. His object was merely to describe the history of the ship up to the present time, and to draw the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to unfavourable rumours which were afloat in regard to her; and no one would rejoice more than he should if the First Lord were able to tell the House and the country of the successful completion of what, when designed, was described as the most perfect type of a ship of war. He had no previous convictions to rescind and no recorded words to explain away about the Devastation, nor did he entertain any feeling amounting to panic as to the danger she would encounter at sea; but he brought the subject under the notice of the House, because in naval circles and among the public out of doors there was a feeling of disquietude respecting this vessel. On every possible opportunity distinguished officers had expressed their disapproval of a ship of this character being sent to sea, relying only on her steam power, and having no masts and sails. It was, however, from no feeling of hostility to the type of vessel, and still less from any fear as to its ultimate success, that he called the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the present condition of the Devastation. He should wish to remind hon. Members who had not deeply considered this subject that the question of mastless ships was by no means a new one. In the course of last autumn some striking letters on the subject had appeared in the leviathan organ of the day from the late Chief Constructor of the Navy (Mr. Reed), in which he stated that as long ago as 1866–7 he had proposed the construction of a gigantic mastless turret ship to the then Conservative Government, and he appeared to think rather hardly of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) for not having carried out his design. That right hon. Gentleman

  569
  was not now present, otherwise he would have been able to confirm him in stating that the design referred to by the late Chief Constructor had received the most careful attention at the Admiralty, and that the right hon. Gentleman and the majority of the Board had fully recognized in it the type of the fighting ship of the future. The cause of the right hon. Gentleman in refusing to build an experimental ship of that magnitude was justified by the course which had been followed by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). While acknowledging the merits of mastless ships he declined to make an experiment on such a gigantic scale, and asked the Constructor's Department to prepare a design of a ship of the kind of about 3,000 or 3,500 tons. Afterwards the right hon. Gentleman, convinced that something must be done in that direction, sanctioned the Devastation, which was about 4,400 tons burden. Another reason why the Conservative Administration had not thought fit to enter on such a gigantic experiment was that all new iron-clad ships of war were more or less compromises. Nothing like a perfect fighting machine had then been added to our Navy. Every care had to be taken to preserve the special cruising qualities of our ships, while their "all-round fire" had to a large extent been sacrificed, as was the case even in our two turret ships, the Monarch and the Captain. Meanwhile, while every endeavour was being made to preserve the cruising qualifications of our ironclads, the great artillery authorities had been making such great progress, and the weight of the guns had so largely increased that the constructive Department of the Navy became convinced that the time had come when they must devise some fighting machine with thicker armour and capable of carrying heavier guns. It was evident that the only system that would enable this view to be carried out was the turret system. The Devastation was, consequently, approved by the right hon. Member for Pontefract; but he did not approve of it entirely on his own judgment or on the judgment of its purely professional designer, the Chief Constructor. Sir Sydney Dacres, in contrasting the turret ships the Monarch and the Captain with the Devastation, had stated that the masts of the former vessels would never save their crews in a gale of wind, or enable
  570
  them to work off a lee shore in the event of their machinery breaking down. The design of the Devastation was submitted to a Committee consisting of the late Captain Coles, Sir Joseph Whitworth, Lord Lauderdale, and another competent gentleman, who came to the conclusion that a heavily plated armoured vessel with a low freeboard was capable of crossing the Atlantic. And this brought him to the point which he desired to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as it lay at the bottom of the controversy on the subject which was now going on. The Committee at the Admiralty reported that the low freeboard was the one way of saving weight so as to enable a very heavy armour to be carried with safety; but they did not praise a low freeboard of itself as against a high freeboard in a sea-going vessel. On the contrary, Mr. Reed had stated that if he were to design another Devastation, he should propose to build a vessel of a far larger size in order to enable her to have a higher freeboard than the vessel in question possessed. The right hon. Member for Pontefract had stated that this vessel was not intended to be used solely as a coast defence, but that she was built as a sea-going ship. It appeared to him, under these circumstances, that two points should be clearly kept in view. In the first place, there should be no increase of weight on the ship, so as to increase her immersion below the load line for which she was designed; and, secondly, that if she was to cross the Atlantic, and trust to her steaming powers, under no circumstances ought there to be any decrease of that coal-carrying power which was so vital to her safety, The right hon. Member for Pontefract had told the House on a previous occasion that the coal-carrying capacity of the Devastation would be 1,750 tons, sufficient for steaming for 10 days. That was given by the right hon. Gentleman as the cardinal reason why he recommended this type of ship to be built; and the questions he should conclude by asking the First Lord of the Admiralty were, whether these weights which had been placed on the Devastation since she was designed had necessitated an increased immersion, and a decrease in the amount of coal-carrying power. After this Commission sat at the

  571
  Admiralty the First Lord approved the ship, and orders were given to proceed with her, and in April, 1869, her weights were calculated. She was to have a mean draught of water of 26 feet 1½ inches; her displacement was 9,062 tons. Her weights were to be:—Armament, shot, shell, and equipment, including warrant stores, 600 tons; engines, stores, and coals, 2,685 tons; her hull and armour turrets, 5,750 tons—making a total of 9,035 tons, with a spare displacement of 27 tons. Gunnery had since made rapid strides, and the Admiralty of that day had decided to change the armament from four 25-ton guns to four 35-ton guns. An extra weight of 250 tons having been added after April, 1869, it was evident that to carry this, other parts of the ship must be lightened, and he was informed that if the designs did not work out as lightly as was -expected, the amount of coal-carrying power must be reduced from 1,600 tons to 1,400 tons. In December, 1870, when the ship was well-advanced, fresh calculations were made, and it was found that the ship worked lighter than was expected. She was again tested, and with the same draught of water, 26 feet 1½ inches, and it was found necessary to lighten her in one or two points, in order to counteract the weight of her armament. When the fresh calculation was resorted to, her displacement was now found to be, not 9,062 tons, but 9,090 tons. She was now to carry in coals 1,600 tons. Her weights were to be:—Armament, shot, equipment, including warrant officers' stores, 766 tons; engines, stores, and coals, 2,596 tons; hull, armour turrets, and a tower, 5,510 tons—making a total of 8,872 tons. This left 218 tons square displacement. In January, 1871, the Committee of Designs was appointed. He objected at the time to that Committee, and since he had seen it in operation that objection was confirmed. One of his reasons was that whereas the First Lord recommended that this new type of ship should be constructed without delay, she was most cruelly delayed, and the Fury was still more delayed. So that the Devastation, having been laid down in 1869, and it being now 1873, she had scarcely yet commenced her trials. The ship and the calulations upon which she was designed were laid before the Committee of Designs, and
  572
  approved by the chief members of the Council of Construction, and Sir Spencer Robinson then Controller of the Navy. On overhauling the drawings, however, of the Devastation, an increase of freeboard was recommended, which would also add to the accommodation of the officers. The Admiralty approved of the superstructure being carried out. It was said that it was desirable to give increased accommodation to the officers, but that it was not necessary for the safety of the ship. This increased superstructure was calculated to weigh 100 tons, but in effect it weighed 130 tons; and this naturally increased the weights to be carried, leaving only a displacement of 18 tons. Her supposed present state was:—Armament, equipment, &c., 328·7 tons; engine stores, &c., 1,600 tons; coals, 2,683·9 tons; weight of hull, armour, turret, and tower, 6,085·2 tons—making a total of 9,597 tons. This was an increase of 527 tons, with an immersion of over 14½ inches. What had happened to the Devastation since she left the Committee of Designs was the question he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman. That very day the Naval Architect or Chief Constructor of the Navy had admitted that he had agreed to submerge the bows of the Devastation deeper by 7½ inches than her original design. And if it were true that there was any possible danger of the kind alluded to in the opening speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty the other night, it seemed to him that apart from the great danger of having the vessel so submerged that her armour plate was under the water, the danger, whatever it might be, of being submerged was not relieved by bringing her down 7½ inches. He was far from saying that the information which had reached him with respect to the Devastation was correct; but he was told—he hoped it would not prove to be the fact—that there was a great increase in the weights to be carried by the ship. His argument was, of course, based upon the assumption that the Admiralty had not consented to alter that upon which alone the ship could rely for safety, or could be trusted to carry out the special duty or service for which she was designed, and by reason of which alone she was sanctioned by the House. Her coal-carrying capacity was 1,600 tons

  573
  when her weights were tested in 1869, in 1870, and when she was considered by the Committee of Design in 1871. He had heard a rumour that her weight was now to amount to 9,597 tons, which would be an increase of 527 tons on the weight before the Committee. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able confidently to contradict that rumour, and to state further that the Admiralty had not consented to do that which, in his opinion, they ought not to have contemplated—namely, to reduce the weight-carrying power of the ship. It had been stated—and it was stated at the meeting held that day, and therefore he was not dealing with anonymous rumours—that the Devastation would go to her trial with a mean draught of 26 feet 5 inches, and that her coal-carrying capacity would be reduced 300 tons below the amount for which she was sanctioned. If that were the case, while he did not wish to blame anyone who had been the means of bringing about such a state of things, he could not but think, with a painful example of what a dreadful disaster might occur through shortness of coal-carrying power, that a great blow had been struck at her design, and that her power and usefulness would be greatly lessened. In 1869 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) said that the steaming power of the Devastation would be as follows:—10 days' steaming at 12 knots, 18 days' steaming at 10 knots, and 25 to 35 days, at a low rate of speed. But with only 1,300 tons of coal this would become 7½ days' steaming at 12 knots, 14½ days, at 10 knots, and 18 to 24 days, at a low rate of speed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give him credit for bringing this question forward with no spirit of hostility to himself, the Constructive Department of the Admiralty, or the designer of the ship. His object was simply to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a statement as to whether the rumours to which he had referred were facts or fictions. Certain alterations had, as was stated at the meeting that day, been made in the original design of the ship, such as the bringing of her head down by 7½ inches. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to say that such was not the case, and that the ship was able to carry 1,600 tons of coal, he, for one, should heartily congratulate him and the naval service
  574
  of the country. He should do more. Although he did not consider himself very specially endowed with physical power, or an excess of bravery, he should ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his good offices with his gallant friend Captain Hewett, to allow him to join the Controller of the Navy on the trial trip of the Devastation. The right hon. Gentleman stated the other night that the ship would make a very valuable addition to our Navy. No doubt she would, because she was most powerfully armoured and carried the heaviest guns afloat. But she would also be an unnecessarily costly addition to the Navy. The remark of the right hon. Gentleman would have applied as well to the Hotspur, the Glatton, or any of the new gunboats. He hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Devastation was capable of performing the special service for which she was designed, and for which alone she was sanctioned by the House; what her present weight and coal-carrying power were; whether she could cross the Atlantic or proceed to the Cape of Good Hope—in short, whether she could carry our war flag over distant seas. If he were assured that she could, he should be extremely pleased, and feel that he had performed a public duty in allaying popular alarm and satisfying the country as to the merits of Her Majesty's ship Devastation.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEobserved that the First Lord of the Admiralty had, on the first night the Navy Estimates were discussed, promised the Committee that they should have ample opportunity of discussing the naval policy of the country. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman made a long statement, and one which showed an amount of memory and knowledge acquired during a very short time which was very creditable to him, but as a sailor that exposition carried no conviction to his (Sir James Elphinstone's) mind. It was a long and weary apology for the shortcomings of Her Majesty's Government—a statement made for the purpose of returning entirely to the status quo, but beyond that it developed no naval policy, and left no impression on his mind that the Government had any naval policy to propound. They had agreed to two Votes—one for the wages and the other for the victualling of the seamen of the Fleet,

  575
  and he regretted that the subjects discussed were passed over with such very slight notice as they had received. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) said that he was going to reduce the personnel of the Navy by 500 boys; but he made no allusion to the great questions affecting the position of our seamen. They had in the naval service a body of men who had never been excelled in point of character or efficiency during the whole period of the naval supremacy of this country; but there was one fact in reference to the men which deserved more than a passing allusion—he referred to the prevalence of crime in the Navy. He found that out of the number of men borne on the books of the Navy no fewer than 1,700 men had been subjected to penal punishment, principally arising from leave-breaking. The offence of leave-breaking arose from causes which might be easily remedied if our ships were made more the homes of the men than they were at present. Very frequently during the 16 years he had sat in that House he had urged on the Government the necessity of establishing naval barracks; but he nevertheless found that the crew of the Devastation were at this moment quartered in a hulk, while the Marines of the Fleet were lodged in most magnificent barracks. How could they expect properly to maintain discipline in the Navy if the men were subjected to the privations and degradation of living in a miserable manner on board a hulk? The question of naval barracks had for some time been under the serious consideration of the Commander in Chief of the Navy and some of the best officers of the service, as well as the establishment of canteens on board Her Majesty's ships on Home stations and in harbours. It had also been recommended that receiving ships for men under penal discipline should be established as a better means of reclaiming them from the bad habits they had contracted, and at the same time continuing them under naval discipline The system of canteens in Her Majesty's ships on the Home stations and in harbour might be easily adopted, and under it the men would be enabled to procure those small luxuries and comforts which would endear their ships to them, and make them consider them homes instead of prisons. He might mention how this subject of canteens
  576
  had been dealt with in particular instances, and with what result. In the Coastguard ship at Liverpool the amount of crime for leave-breaking had been very considerable. The captain, one of the most judicious officers in the service, established a system on board by which his men were permitted to have a canteen placed in charge of the petty officers, and under the control of the captain. The men were allowed to have a pint of beer a-piece in the course of every evening, and the consequence was, that when they found they could obtain the comfort which any common labourer could procure in the public-house, leave-breaking came entirely to an end. Moreover, the small profit that resulted from the sale of the articles consumed had been devoted to charitable purposes. The widow of a drowned shipmate had been relieved therefrom, and other acts of charity had been dispensed from a fund that was under the control and direction of the men. The saving of provisions realized a profit to the Government of £28,000, but it was nowhere to be found in the Navy Estimates. This involved a matter of great importance to the well-being of the Navy and the health of the men.
  MR. SAMUDArose to Order, and asked the Speaker whether this subject could be discussed on the Motion before the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is that I do now leave Chair in order that the House may go into Committee of Supply. The hon. and gallant Member is within his right in making the observations which he has just been submitting to the House.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, there was another point to which he wished to refer, and that was the irregularity of the meals. In 1859 he served on the Naval Commission, and brought before it, as strongly as he could, the fact that the diet of their seamen was such as they would not subject any man or beast in their possession to; and he carried the views of the Commissioners with him. A man to be in a proper condition for work ought to be fed every five hours. At present they had a breakfast at 8 o'clock, consisting of cocoa and biscuits; dinner, with meat, at 12; cocoa and biscuit again at 5 o'clock p.m.; and from that hour till 8 o'clock next morning no food entered the mouth of the

  577
  British seaman. When he was in the service the men always got a good supper. This was a matter which ought to enter into the arrangements of the Admiralty. They had established a University at Greenwich which was not likely to fare much better in the long run than the proposed University at Dublin. In appropriating the funds of Greenwich Hospital the rights and interests of those to whom the funds of the charity ought to have been devoted had been overlooked.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the remarks now made by the hon. and gallant Baronet would be more in Order if he reserved them until the occasion when the Vote connected with Greenwich Hospital was about to be considered in Committee.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEobserved that an engagement had been entered into by the First Lord of the Admiralty that on the second Vote general questions connected with the naval policy of the country might be discussed, and if hon. Members were not able to do so on the present occasion it would be impossible to discuss that policy.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the understanding was that in Committee on the second Vote a general discussion should be taken, and he thought it would be more convenient to enter into the matter to which his hon. and gallant Friend was referring when that Vote came before the Committee.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he should confine his remarks to the Devastation. He submitted that she was totally incapable of a sea voyage. He came to this conclusion after a personal inspection of her, and was confirmed in it by the opinion of competent men. She might be useful as an addition to the Navy for harbour defence, but she ought never to go beyond the limits of any harbour, and if she did so he should not like to be responsible for the result. This was one of the most audacious experiments in hydro-dynamics which had ever been attempted. The stern being open she would be quite helpless in the trough of the sea, and nothing short of a miracle would save her from overwhelming. He would defer any further observations which he had to make until the time when the understanding which had been referred to could be carried out.
  MR. SAMUDAobserved that the question before the House was not one involving the goodness of the Devastation herself. The complaint was as to the changes which had been made in the original design. It appeared to him that these had all gone in increasing the seaworthy qualities of the ship. When the vessel was originally proposed she appeared to him to be likely to possess the qualities which he had been seeking to obtain, and to induce the Admiralty to adopt. But it also appeared to him that there were certain deficiencies, which he took the liberty of pointing out. He supported the proposal to build the Devastation because he believed it was a step in the right direction so far as regarded the carrying of the armament. He knew the additional buoyancy she would need could be added, and it was added; so that the disquiet in the public mind resulting from the loss of the Captain was removed. Still he could not regard the Devastation as the ship of the future. Every step that had been taken by the Admiralty in this matter had been in the right direction, and he only regretted that they had not thought fit to go further, for he considered that a great error had been committed in not dealing with the stern of the vessel in the same way as they had treated the bows, and in not continuing the superstructure right fore and aft. Speaking from his own experience, and on a matter of every-day observation, he must say that he did not think that there was the slightest ground of apprehension as to her buoyancy even under the most adverse circumstances; and he regarded the apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir James Elphinstone), with reference to that vessel as being without foundation.
  MR. G, BENTINCKsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that the building of the Devastation was a step in the right direction, but he wanted to know what the right direction was, and for what purpose this vessel had been built. Everyone must admit that the Devastation could not be regarded as a sea-going ship. Without going into all the reasons which showed that she could not be regarded as a seagoing ship, and without alleging that she could not live in bad weather, he maintained that she could not be employed as an ordinary sea-going cruiser. On the

  579
  other hand, if she was to be employed for home defence, much more useful vessels, drawing far less water, might have been built for half her cost. He trusted that as the Devastation was unfit for a seagoing cruiser, and on account of her draught of water was equally unfit for home defence, the House would hear from the First Lord of the Admiralty that he did not intend to persevere in building experimental ships of this character. He was not in the habit of charging the Admiralty with extravagance—if was his fate, on the contrary, to blame them generally for mistaken parsimony—but he could not help characterizing the building of this vessel, which was useless for foreign service or home defence, as a wasteful expenditure of public money.
  ADMIRAL EGERTONsaid, that argument of the hon. Member opposite would condemn not only the Devastation but also all the iron-dads which they at present possessed.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he condemned all those of our iron-dads which could not be handled under canvas.
  ADMIRAL EGERTONsaid, that none of our iron-dads could be handled under canvas with the same freedom as our wooden vessels were, and, in fact, it could scarcely be said of any of them that they were navigable under canvas. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member that the Devastation could not be regarded as a sea-going cruiser, because she would require to burn coals all the time she was at sea, which would render it impossible for her to cruise for any length of time without going into port to re-coal. As he understood the design of the Devastation when it was proposed, she was intended to cross the Atlantic if necessary, and, having fought a battle, to return to this country or to some other port, where she could re-coal, but she was not intended to keep the sea as a cruiser. In his opinion she would prove an efficient ship, and capable of realizing the objects for which she was constructed. He hoped that the time would come when we could revert to our unarmoured ships, but until then he thought the Admiralty were wise in building ships of this character.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid he was much obliged to his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Admiral Egerton) for the few words he had just uttered in regard
  580
  to the Devastation. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) was rather in the habit of thinking that all naval opinion was on his side, and that the Admiralty was proceeding in the face of all naval authority. Now, speaking on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, he (Mr. Goschen) would inform him that he was surrounded by naval officers of the highest ability and experience, whose advice he felt bound to take on those matters. He was fortified by those opinions in saying he believed that the Devastation would answer all the expectations respecting her. No ship had ever been submitted to a more searching investigation than the Devastation. When, then, the hon. Gentleman said that she would never answer as a seagoing ship, he could tell him that his opinion was completely opposed to the opinions of the most eminent naval officers who had been consulted by the Admiralty. He was glad, therefore, that his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Egerton) had protested against the use of such language. The other day the hon Member for West Norfolk asked whether the Admiralty had ever considered the power of guns in piercing armour-plates. Why, from day to day they thought of hardly anything else. The hon. Member constantly taunted the Admiralty with a want of knowledge of such subjects as this; but he (Mr. Goschen) was bound to say in all courtesy that the hon. Gentleman was wholly ignorant of the way in which those questions were treated by the Naval Department of the Government. The hon. Member asked with what intention this ship had been designed. It was a fair question, and he knew no better mode of answering it than by reading a paper from the pen of Sir Spencer Robinson, which was in the hands of Members—
  "The first object to be aimed at in a ship of war is the power of destroying the enemy. Modern naval warfare shows that there are two distinct powers of destruction in fleets or ships, the power of artillery and the power of impact; the latter abundantly difficult to use, but fearfully efficacious; the former easier to handle, but not so instantaneous in its effects. For neither of these purposes is excessive speed continued for many days a first or necessary condition; on the contrary, high speed continued for several days necessitates the use of forms and the appropriation of weights which, in the first case, are unfavourable to manœuvring; and, in the second case, limit the power of artillery; the former rendering almost unavailable the tremendous

  581
  power lodged in the ship herself, and developed by impact, the latter giving at once in battle the superiority to the more heavily-armed ship. No great naval battle will be fought at very high speeds. Two fleets meeting each other, however anxious both sides may be to fight it out, will find it necessary to keep together and manœuvre with precision; this will not be done at extreme speeds. The great maritime Powers with whom alone we should enter on a contest for life and death would be Prance and Russia. A war with America would be of so different a nature that the Navy required for for that purpose is altogether a thing apart; but if we have to contend for great national purposes with either France or Russia the contest must be in European waters; the Channel, the Mediteranean, or the Baltic will be the scenes of strifes fearful to contemplate. It is for us of vital importance to come triumphant out of such a contest. We shall neither need extreme speed, nor the power of steaming for many days in succession at a high rate, to insure a victory. What we shall want, above all things, is the means of carrying and defending a formidable artillery, combined with the greatest facility in making use of the power of impact. To these two requirements all others must be subordinate; in their perfection they will hardly be found in the same ship, but whether these two destructive forces are in one and the same ship or not, a large amount of defence is necessary to enable any use at all to be made of either offensive power. English ships' sides must be difficult to penetrate; engines and boilers must be protected from the explosion of shells; magazines must have some security, if in an artillery combat with France or Russia we are to contend at least on equal terms. If their ships Barry heavy armour, so must ours, and that position is, I conceive, irrefutable, though we may admit that no perfect protection against even the guns carried at sea can, in all cases, be had. And if that position is true as to an artillery fight, it is even more true of the other great means by which naval actions will be decided, namely, the impact of one ship against another. The ship that intends to give that deadly blow must be so defended by shot-resisting sides and decks, as to bear with comparative impunity much pounding from heavy guns before she finds an opportunity of delivering her fatal and final thrust. Heavy guns (and the Devastation is armed with 35-ton guns), thick armour (her armour is 12-inches thick), great handiness (and the Devastation can turn with the greatest ease)—are the first qualities for ships that have to fight in fleets. When those are secured, add the greatest speed that can be obtained, coal enough to provide for the necessities of warfare in the Channel, Mediterranean, or Baltic, such sea-going qualities as will enable operations in these seas to be performed with safety, good arrangements for officers and men, and as little sail power as is consistent with the use to be made of a fleet in time of peace. This, in my opinion, is the kind of fleet without which England could not hope to fight a naval action with success, without which a maritime war with a Great Power would be our destruction; and it this fleet whose numbers, I think, it is our bounden duty to complete, before undertaking vessels of another type, valuable as they may be, or desirable as it may be to have
  582
  them as soon as our more imperious wants are satisfied."
  LORD HENRY LENNOXasked whether these remarks referred to the Devastation type of vessel?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would read on—
  "I therefore urge as strongly as I can that the type of ship necessary for fleet fighting be taken up as the one most required; that our new constructions may be of the nature of the Glatton or Hotspur."
  [Lord HENRY LENNOX: Hear, hear!] And this was the paper on which Sir Spencer Robinson recommended the building of the Devastation. Did the noble Lord dispute that proposition?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he could not dispute it, not having the paper before him; but his impression was that the paper referred to masted and rigged ships; otherwise, why the reference to "as little sail power as" possible?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that nevertheless the noble Lord cried "Hear, hear" when he mentioned the Glatton and the Hotspur, which had neither. He had read this extract to show that the Devastation was meant for fleet fighting—to fight the great naval battles of the future. Such a ship must have sufficient coal-carrying and sea-going qualities to fight in the Baltic, the Mediterranean, the North Sea, and the Channel; and, though this was not stated in the Minute, she must also be able to cross the Atlantic in safety, and fight an action on that side of the water if necessary. He said distinctly that if the sea-going qualities of the Devastation should turn out a failure, the Devastation herself would be a failure; and he acknowledged that if she were simply a ship for coast defence, we could build cheaper ships, and ships better adapted to that purpose. It was, however, as sea-going fighting ships that the Admiralty attached importance to vessels of the Devastation type; they were not to prey upon the enemy's commerce, because ships of another type would be used for that purpose; they were to cope at sea with the fighting ships of other Powers. He would now address himself to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Chichestor—a speech of great moderation, and which put the case very plainly. He was glad the noble Lord did not introduce the question of personal

  583
  responsibility, upon which so much had been said. The original designers were relieved from responsibility on account of the changes which had been made in the ship; but, as had been stated elsewhere, the responsibility rested with those who sent the ship to sea, and with the naval architects who advised that she was a ship which might be sent to sea. He was glad to think that these personal discussions might now be looked upon as ended. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) was subjected to much attack in his absence, having no opportunity of replying, but they might now assume that such charges would not be repeated. The noble Lord fairly said that the main point raised by the changes in the Devastation was her coal-carrying power; and he asked whether the ship would be further immersed, and would carry less coal than she was designed to carry. As the final calculations were not yet made, he could not tell to within 50 or 100 tons how the weights would turn out; but before the Committee of Designs sat certain increases had already been made in the weight of the ship. Her armaments had been raised from four 25-ton to four 35-ton guns, increasing her weight by 157 tons. There was also an increase of 155 tons through the thickening of the armour deck; the little iron mast that was added weighed 20 tons; the conning tower was added, weighing 97 tons; and the engine would weigh 35 tons more than was expected, though this was a matter over which the Admiralty had no control. The Committee of Designs recommended some further changes. The design for the superstructure was placed before them in January, 1871, and this added 133 tons to the weight. The Committee recommended an important addition—bulkheads of thick armour to protect the "vitals" of the ship from a raking fire fore and aft; and the naval and scientific men upon the Committee stated that the fighting efficiency of the ship would be enormously increased by such a protection. These bulkheads represented a further addition of 134 tons. It was resolved further to subdivide the compartments at the bow, in order to give additional buoyancy in case that part of the ship were struck, and the additional iron plating there increased the weight by 13 tons. The thickening of the deck-plates was to protect the
  584
  magazines and the ship generally from the explosion of shells. Her fighting powers had accordingly been greatly increased, and the noble Lord asked at what sacrifice had those fighting powers been increased? The noble Lord asked, in the first place, whether they had been increased at the expense of the sea-going qualities of the ship. Now, her sea-going qualities had not been sacrificed, but had been improved. He wished to lay particular stress on that point. If those additional weights had been put into the ship without any difference in her form, they would have raised the centre of gravity; but while the centre of gravity had been raised by those additional weights, the superstructure had had a counterbalancing and more than counter-balancing influence in increasing the range of stability of the ship; and the consequence had been that notwithstanding that increased weight, the angle of stability had been increased from 44, at which it stood in the original design, to 56. It had been stated that night that the Committee of Designs were satisfied with 43; but in their last Report they said they would prefer 50, and 56 had been given in the case of the Devastation. The noble Lord next alluded to what he called the surplus of displacement; but the noble Lord used that term in one sense, and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) used it in another. The noble Lord, in speaking of the surplus of displacement, meant simply whether she would float lower than her designed line of draught or not. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets spoke of it as displacement above water. [Mr. SAMUDA: I meant surplus buoyancy.] He wished rather for the sake of the public to correct the noble Lord, and to point out what the surplus of displacement really was. By the various changes that had been made additional weights had been put into the ship, which could not be calculated to a ton, but they ranged between 400 and 500 tons. That was the additional weight after increasing her stability, increasing the comfort of the men, and, above all, increasing her fighting qualities. How were they to deal with that extra 400 or 500 tons? Was the ship to be immersed so much more, or was her coal supply to be reduced, or was she to be partly immersed some few inches more, and partly to have her supply of coal reduced?

  585
  Now, one most gratifying circumstance had come to their aid in that respect, because at the same time that they had increased the fighting powers of the ship they had been able to reduce her coal-carrying capacity without diminishing materially the distance she could go; and for this reason. Fortunately, the machinery, the engines, and boilers of the ship had turned out to be so successful that with 1,400 tons of coal on board they could steam a longer distance than they could have done with the 1,600 tons which they originally estimated. Therefore 200 tons could be removed without in the least interfering with the distance which she could proceed. Mr. Reed made a calculation which was submitted to Lord Lauderdale's Committee. He showed that with 1,600 tons of coal on board, the Devastation could steam 5,600 miles at six knots speed, 4,320 miles at ten knots, and 2,880 miles at 12 knots. The results of the latest trials showed that they could steam with 1,400 tons of coal 6,650 miles at six knots, 4,580 miles at 10 knots, and 2,890 miles at 12 knots. So that the Devastation, with 200 tons less coal-carrying capacity—if they decided in that direction—could go a longer distance than she had been estimated to go, and those 200 tons could be removed from the ship. But, further, her coal might be reduced to 1,200 tons, and she could still steam 5,700 miles at six knots, or 100 knots more than she was estimated to go with 1,600 tons. They had secured greater stability, greater safety for the men, and infinitely better protection against fore and aft raking fire. They had carried out further improvements in the ship, thickened the armour decks, and they were also able to go a greater distance with a smaller quantity of coal than she was estimated to go with a larger quantity. He would point out that supposing the ship was immersed six inches more, 200 tons would represent about that amount of additional immersion. Moreover, those 200 tons of coal would be consumed in the very first days of the Devastation proceeding to sea; and it should never be forgotten that the deeper immersion would occur only during the first days of proceeding to sea. His case, therefore, in reply to the noble Lord was very simple. They had secured additional fighting power for the ship, they had in consequence increased the weights; but
  586
  they were able to relieve those weights by diminishing the supply of coal which she would carry, and that without reducing the distance she could go. But, more than that, the constructors believed that it would be no damage to the ship if she was immersed those few additional inches. They would make trials at various draught lines, they would see at what draught line she was safest, and regulate her accordingly. The constructors believed that, besides those improvements in the ship, they would have the advantage of greater engine power, and that she would be able to carry from 1,500 to 1,600 tons of coal without at all imperilling her. It ought to be understood, both in the House and out of doors, that it was not a question of safety, but of the amount of coal which the Devastation could carry. He could not conclude better than by again quoting the words of Sir Spencer Robinson, who said—
  "Extend, therefore, the turret and the ram system as much as possible on moderate dimensions, make such vessels truly formidable fighting ships, sacrificing to some extent the showy and attractive qualities of excessive speed and large coal power for superior fighting powers."
  The Admiralty did not think that they had sacrificed the fighting power, because the Devastation would have such powers of fighting as no ship had had before.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, there were two questions which fairly came within the purview of that debate, namely, whether the Devastation now produced was the Devastation that was designed; and whether the Devastation was a type of ship which it was desirable to reproduce. He had concurred with his lamented friend (Mr. Corry) in thinking the expenditure upon the Devastation was not justified; that for coast defence the ship was too large and drew too much water; while for sea-going purposes a ship of that character was not what the country required. Having, however, been built, it was very desirable to ascertain whether she was such a vessel as the designer had intended. As to her coal-carrying capacity, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) had not satisfied the House that the ship was what she was intended to be. The right hon. Gentleman had given them evidence that she would be considerably beyond her draught, that draught being excessive

  587
  as it was, if the whole of the coal was put in her. What the right hon. Gentleman had stated about the power of her engines might be very creditable to her engine-makers; but it would not convince those who had considered the question that the result of the changes made in her had not altered that which she was originally designed to be. No doubt in building an ironclad ship everything must be in the nature of a compromise; it was impossible to have an ironclad ship perfect in every particular; something must be sacrificed to obtain benefit in another direction. But a seagoing man-of-war ought to have two qualities; she should be seaworthy, and she should also be able to keep the sea. These two things were different. Seaworthiness depended upon an adequate proportion and just distribution of the weight, and also upon good workmanship and material, which last were always obtained, whether in the dockyards or private yards. To keep the sea required sufficient and healthy accommodation for the crew, inexhaustible means of conducting the ship, which pointed to sails, and sufficient space for armament and accessories. He thought that the Devastation and her sister ships were not complete in these particulars, and he objected to further expenditure upon this kind of ship until full experiment had been made. Another qualification necessary was great speed with handiness, enabling a ship to choose the time for attack, to chase and overtake the enemy, and to escape from a superior force. As the supreme effort would be made under steam, there must be some sacrifice of sail for the sake of the greatest velocity under steam. The draught should also be as light as possible consistent with other qualifications, and though the Devastation had been spoken of for service in the Baltic, a vessel of her draught could not approach any of the great Russian fortifications. The draught of the Suez Canal should be considered, for to a maritime country which might be engaged in hostilities in the East or in the West, it was important to avoid the circuit of Africa. Other places where men-of-war might have to act were nearly identical, such as the River St. Lawrence. As to armour, a sea-going and seaworthy ship could only be protected in certain places, for though 10 years ago it could be
  588
  entirely clothed above the water line with armour sufficient to resist the artillery then existing, the rough rule being an inch additional armour for every 1,000 tons, ironplate had now to be as thick as the diameter of the gun fired against it. There being guns 16 inches in diameter, 16 inch plates were necessary to resist them, but nobody would think of building a 16,000 ton vessel with 16 inch plates. Moreover, the ram and torpedo were more dangerous than shot and shell, and it was impossible to clothe a vessel below water with armour sufficient to resist these. It must, therefore, be considered what parts should be protected. He had had the honour of knowing Admiral Tegethoff, the distinguished commander who had fought the only great battle in which ramming and turret ships had taken part, and he justified the the unfortunate position of his antagonist Admiral Persano's low free-board turret ship by saying it was so unmanageable in the sea then on that its Admiral could not take the part he was anxious for. Admiral Tegethoff had a wooden ship slightly protected with armour, and it sank a vessel with 600 or 700 hands by striking it amidships with its ram. The greatest damage was sustained by vessels with armour just thick enough to detain the shells, causing explosions in places where they should not have happened. The result of that action ought to teach us that there was no advantage in having unmasted, unseaworthy turret ships, especially now that we could not coat the whole of the ship with armour. The magazine ought first to be protected, then the motive power, then, as far as possible, the steering apparatus, then the machinery of the gun, and lastly, the bottom of the ship must be protected from the ram and the torpedo by cellular construction, or by some other contrivance. He thought that they must give up attempting to protect the men at the guns, and that they had much better let the shot go through those parts of the ship that were not essential. It was because the Devastation had very few of the necessary qualities that he had opposed its construction, and he should object to any further expenditure on such vessels until the Thunderer and the Devastation had proved better than he expected. As to coal-carrying capacity, the latitude and longitude in which a vessel might be

  589
  required could not be fixed. When the Devastation had consumed half of her coal she would have to come back for a supply of coal. Therefore, only half of her power could be used for offensive purposes; the other half would be required to bring her back. Nothing could be more annoying to a naval officer who went to sea with such a ship, than to find that instead of proceeding to fight the enemy he must go back for more coal. For this reason, all men-of-war must be in the nature of a compromise, but the compromise by which sails were sacrificed entirely was a mistaken one. To make vessels drawing so large an amount of water dependent upon one motive power was bad policy, and, holding that opinion, he should oppose any increase in the number of these ships.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid the First Lord of the Admiralty was mistaken in supposing that he had asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the question of ships and guns. He had referred to armour plate versus guns.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman took him up rather sharply because he cheered when the Hotspur and the Glatton were mentioned. The explanation of his cheer was this—the Hotspur and the Glatton were intended for the Mediterranean; whereas the Devastation was intended for the Atlantic, the West Indies, and the Cape of Good Hope. He wished to know if the Devastation was to carry 1,400 and not 1,600 tons of coal, what the draught would be at 1,400 tons of coal?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had already informed the noble Lord that the Admiralty had not got the final calculations. He had stated that, with 1,400 tons of coals, she could go further than if she carried 1,600 tons of coals, and that she would be tried under various conditions, and her supply of coal would be limited accordingly.
  LORD HENRY SCOTT,who had given Notice that he would call attention to the Report of the Committee of Designs on Ships of War, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he should bring forward that subject now or defer it till the Dockyard Vote came before the Committee of Supply?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought it would be far better to postpone the subject until the Dockyard Vote came on.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £1,035,719, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874."
  MR. GOSCHENobserved that some hon. Members might wish to have a lengthy discussion on this Vote, and as other Business had to be disposed of that evening, he thought the best course would be at once to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gosehen.)
  In reply to MR. RYLANDS,
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would bring forward the Navy Estimates again whenever he had an opportunity of doing so.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL [BILL 34.]
(Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. Childers, Mr, Arthur Peel.)
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL [BILL 34.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 31st March.]
  Amendment [31 st March] again proposed, in page 9, line 17, to leave out from the words "They may, by themselves," to the words "inspection of which appears to them requisite," in line 20 (Mr. Muntz).
  Question proposed, "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Motion negatived.
  Clause 21 (Powers of Commisssioners. See 34 & 35 Vict. c. 78. s. 7),
  MR. MUNTZmoved, in page 9, line 26, after "document," to insert "belonging to any Railway or Canal Company, or other public Company."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, as there would be two parties to every

  591
  case brought before the Commissioners, and it ought to be in the power of the Commissioners to compel the production of documents on both sides. The proper course would be to define the documents to be called for as those which related to the matter before the Commissioners. He would therefore move in page 9, line 26, to leave out "which they consider important," and insert "relating to the matters before them."
  Amendment (Mr. Muntz) by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Orders of Commissioners).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEmoved in page 10, line 13, after "any of them," insert—
  "The Commissioners may also, if they think fit, at the instance of any party to the proceedings before them, and upon such security being given by the appellant as the Commissioners may direct, state a case in writing for the opinion of any superior court upon any question which in the opinion of the Commissioners is a question of law.
  "The court to which the case is transmitted shall hear and determine the question or questions of law arising thereon, and shall thereupon reverse, affirm, or amend the determination in respect of which the case has been stated, or remit the matter to the Commissioners with the opinion of the court thereon, or may make such other order in relation to the matter, and may make such order as to costs as to the court may seem fit, and all such orders shall be final and conclusive on all parties: Provided—That the Commissioners shall not be liable to any costs in respect or by reason of any such appeal.
  "The operation of any order made by the Commissioners shall not be stayed pending the decision of any such appeal."
  MR. LEEMANobjected to the proposal, and suggested the insertion of words which would have the effect of making it imperative on the Commissioners to grant an appeal.
  MR. DENISONsaid, it was perfectly impossible for the Railway Companies to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and they were united and determined upon that point. Nobody knew who were to be the Commissioners, and he would not trust any three men in the kingdom with despotic powers of interpretation without any appeal unless they chose to grant it. He could not make any compromise in this matter, and
  592
  Railway Companies would abnegate the duties which they owed to their shareholders if they permitted the Government to carry such clauses as this, and take their rights away from them.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the language of the hon. Gentleman was somewhat strong, and he was afraid that if Railway Companies were to come to the House with more assumption, they might not get that amount of justice to which they were entitled. On the general question it must be remembered that the individual trader had to deal with powerful Companies, holding very long purses, and that unnecessary liberty of appeal might thus place the trader practically at the mercy of the carrier. He thought, on the part of the Government, that there was a great deal in the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Mr. Cross), but they would ask the Committee to pass the clause in the shape in which it was now proposed, undertaking to consider that suggestion before the Report, and if possible to propose words in accordance with it.
  MR. LEEMANcontended that the clause, by taking away the right of appeal, deprived the Companies of the right which belonged to every subject of this realm. ["No, no."] It was said that there was to be only a right of appeal if the tribunal should think fit. But the Chief Commissioner and another of the Commissioners were not to be lawyers, and while this was so there was to be no right of appeal from their decision, even on points of law. An appeal as a question of fact was not asked at all. He would appeal to the House on a matter of justice not to deprive Companies of a right of appeal.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that the right of appeal which existed in the ordinary Courts should be permitted in the case of this new tribunal also.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he thought the Railway Companies were not asking anything but justice in asking a right of appeal, especially in questions of pure law which were not complicated with matters of fact.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALremarked that there were many cases where the right of appeal depended on the leave of the Court, and there was a very large number of cases in which no right of appeal existed at all. In very

  593
  many instances the amount involved would be very small, and it would be very oppressive to give a right of appeal merely because one of the parties was a great and wealthy corporation. Again, in many cases the law was perfectly well settled. There was no occasion for distrusting the proposed tribunal so far as to suppose that it would prevent the opinion Of a Court of Law being taken on any question, the decision of which might be requisite for the future guidance of the tribunal itself. The question of the necessity of appeal might fairly be left to the lawyer who would be one of the Commissioners.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEagreed that the Solicitor General had stated the case very fairly, but his statement went against the Bill altogether. For his own part, he strongly objected both to the Bill and the tribunal under it. He believed the tribunal proposed would either meddle too much, and become intolerable, or be useless, and do nothing at all. The Court of Common Pleas might have been continued to act as the tribunal, if it were strengthened by assessors appointed to assist in its decisions. If, however, the new tribunal was to decide these matters, it should be made as strong as possible, which it would not be if there should be given a power of appeal to a Superior Court in all cases.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the Government were of opinion that there was a great deal in the suggestion of the hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Mr. Cross), and without binding themselves to any particular words, they would introduce a provision which would make an appeal absolute in those cases in which the Commissioners were not unanimous.
  Amendment amended and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Sittings of Commissioners).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEmoved in page 10, after line 21, to insert—
  "Provided that if it appears to the President of the Board of Trade for the time being that it is expedient in the public interest that the Commissioners, or any of them, shall sit at any particular place for the discharge of any of their duties, it shall be lawful for him to give directions to that effect in writing, and the Commissioners shall act accordingly."
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked what was the object of this Proviso?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Proviso was proposed in the public interest. It might be of great advantage that causes should be heard out of London, and if the Commissioners were disinclined to take that course he proposed to give the Board of Trade power to direct them to do so.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have less confidence in the Commissioners than the Railway Companies.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Power of Commissioners to make general orders).
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, in page 10, line 22, after "may," insert "with the approval of the Lord Chancellor."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEmoved, in page 10, line 24, after "them," insert
  "Including applications for and the stating of cases for appeal; also for enabling the Commissioners in cases to be specified in such general orders to exercise their jurisdiction by any one or two of their number: Provided, That any person aggrieved by any decision or order made in any case so specified, may require a rehearing by all the Commissioners."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,referring to the provision, which required certain rules to be placed before Parliament for the space of two months, expressed a hope that words would be inserted with a view of preventing difficulties similar to those which had arisen in the case of schemes proposed by the Endowed School Commissioners.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsuggested that the words "one month" should be omitted from the clause, and "two months" inserted.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would consider the question.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Duration of office and powers of Commissioners).
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEasked how it would be possible to get men at a salary of £3,000 a-year to undertake these duties if their appointment was only for five years. It would be better not to

  595
  limit the duration of the Commission, leaving Parliament free to deal with the matter. This showed the impolicy of a doubtful experiment. He did not object to a high salary, because he thought public servants were generally underpaid, but he did not like pensions, and Commissioners had a tendency to become pensioners.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he had believed that he was acting in conformity with the feeling of the House. This was more or less an experiment, and he had thought it unadvisable to make the Act permanent and give the Commissioners a perpetual lease of office. He had no particular affection for the term of five years; but he still believed that the House would prefer to retain that term in the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should like to know what sort of men the right hon. Gentleman expected to get for five years, and what he meant to do with them at the end of that time. Was the lawyer-member to go back to his profession, and did the right hon. Gentleman expect to get the right sort of railway-member for £3,000 a-year, if at the end of that time he was to be turned adrift?
  MR. RATHBONEagreed that it would be more desirable to give salaries of £5,000 than £3,000. The success of this Bill would very much depend on the way it was worked. If the Commissioners made their offices useless or pernicious, they must take the consequences. If, on the contrary, they did their duty well, it was most likely their appointments would be permanent.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought that few good men would give up a position for another of only three years.
  MR. WOODSsaid, the Committee could not do better than accept the proposition of the Government. The statement made by the President of the Board of Trade led to the inference that able men were ready to accept the office, one being a barrister of 14 years' standing.
  MR. GREGORYobserved that it would be impossible if the duration of the Commission was only for five years that they could re-place any Member who happened to die at the end of three or four years.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was in favour of the clause, which, as it stood, would
  596
  relieve the country from all claim to compensation in case the Bill should not prove a success.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that the Committee were in this difficulty. If they made permanent appointments they might, of course, be called upon for compensation if they abolished the Commission; if they made the appointments for five years only, they ran the risk of not getting the best men. The Government would have to choose between two evils, and he wished them joy of the choice.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he was at a loss to know who would accept the duties. A barrister of 14 years' standing with anything like talent and energy would make more money by his profession than the salary proposed to be given.
  MR. MONKsaid, the tribunal should be such as would command the confidence of the public. The Committee ought to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Mr. Cross).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, there would be no difficulty in finding competent men. It was not salary alone that guided men in accepting offices of this kind, but positions of credit and importance.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsuggested that perhaps the appointments were already made.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 29: Majority 104.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEmoved a now clause giving the Board of Trade power from time to time to appoint net more than two Assistant Commissioners.
  New Clause (Duties of Assistant Commissioner,)—(Mr. Chichester Fortescue,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACHsaid, he thought it would be far better to empower the Commissioners, with the sanction of the Treasury, to appoint the Assistant Commissioners, and at the proper time he would move to leave out the words "Board of Trade," and insert the word "Commissioners."
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he would take the sense of the Committee upon the proposed clause.
  MR. PEASElooked upon the Assistant Commissioners as a very important part of the whole system, inasmuch as it would be impossible for the Commissioners to perform the whole of the duties.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he had not the slightest wish to retain the patronage of the appointments in question in the hands of the Board of Trade, and should be very willing that the Assistant Commissioners should be appointed by the Commissioners with the approval of the Treasury; but he would consider before the Report the best mode of appointing them. He would also propose the insertion in the clause of words permitting the Assistant Commissioners to undertake arbitrations under the Act with the assent of both parties.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 27: Majority 99.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. RATHBONEmoved, after Clause 10, to insert the following clause:—(Provision for complaint by public authority in certain cases).
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "or by not less than ten inhabitant traders."—(Mr. Childers.)
  Question put, "That the words or by not less than ten' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 43; Noes 98: Majority 55.
  MR. GREGORYmoved the following clause:—(Commissioners to report upon rates under Bills for amalgamation or traffic arrangements).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he thought it would be unwise to throw such functions — at all events, without further consideration — on the Commissioners.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. GREGORYmoved the following clause:—(Power to Commissioners to fix terminal charges).
  New Clause—(Mr. Gregory,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  MR. CHILDERSopposed the clause, on the ground that it was utterly alien to the general objects and scope of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 81; Noes 51: Majority 30.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]

  UNIVERSITY TESTS (DUBLIN) (NO. 3) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd April], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," for Committee to consider the abolition of Tests in Trinity College and the University of Dublin.
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Matter considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish Tests in Trinity College and the University of Dublin.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. FAWCETT, Dr. LYON PLAY-PAIR, Mr. PLUNKET, and Viscount CRICHTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 124.]

  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Abersychan Gas, Ilford Gas, Leominster Gas, Oaken-gates and St. George's Gas, Redditch Gas, Canterbury Water, Caterham Water, Denbigh Water, Maidstone Water, and Weston super Mare Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 126.]
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Improvement of Land, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Pollution of Rivers* (59); Marine Mutiny*; Sites for Places of Religious Worship* (61).
Second Reading—Mutiny*.
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Income Tax Assessment* (55), and passed.
Third Reading—Endowed Schools Address* (54); Salmon Fisheries Commissioners* (47), and passed.

IMPROVEMENT OF LAND.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYrose to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the facilities afforded by the existing law for the investment of capital in the improvement of land, and to report whether any alteration of the law is requisite in order further to encourage such investment. He did not think that in making this Motion it would be necessary for him to attempt to justify it at any length; but he wished to place before their Lordships a few figures in justification of the statement he made last year in moving the second reading of his Bill (the Limited Owners Improvement Bill) when he pointed out the serious difficulties under which in the present state of the law the limited owner was placed when he desired to lay out his money in the improvement of his own land, and he at the same time suggested that the fact of only a comparatively small use having been made of the provisions of the Act of 1864 was due possibly to the conditions which the Act required and to the constant tutelage in which the landowner availing himself of it was kept by the Inclosure Commissioners, to whom the working of the Act was entrusted. Since last year Returns had been issued of the monies lent under that Act, and also under what were called the Companies' Acts—Acts which empowered Companies to override the ordinary law of settlement and entail in order to obtain security for money they might advance to the owners of estates for improvements. These Acts gave such greater facilities to landowners desirous of borrowing,

  507
  that large amounts of money had been advanced under them; while the Act of 1864, which only enabled limited owners to invest their own money in the improvement of their estates, had operated to only a very limited extent. He found from the Returns to which he alluded that under the Companies' Acts the amount spent in farm buildings was £1,833,000; while for the same purpose the amount spent under the Act of 1864 was £71,000. Under the Companies' Acts the amount spent on labourers' cottages was £336,000, and the sum spent for the same object under the Act of 1864 was only £8,000. He could not believe that landowners spontaneously preferred paying interest to Companies—which must include profit on their capital and the cost of their staff—rather than employ their own money in the improvement of their own estates. He could not but think that there was something in the mode of working the Act of 1864 which accounted for the facts shown by the Returns, and that was the chief ground on which he introduced his Bill of last year. When it became evident that he could not hope to carry the Bill through Parliament that Session, he intimated his intention of re-introducing it this year, and to get it read the second time as early as possible, in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee, who would inquire into the whole subject. The terms of the reference he now proposed were large enough to enable the Committee—and he hoped they would undertake the task—to go into a somewhat wider inquiry. An idea was spread abroad that settlement and entail were arrangements adverse to the improvement of land. He believed the fact to be exactly the reverse. He believed that the greatest bane under which any agricultural system could exist was a state of heavy mortgages—especially when the money had been raised, not for the improvement of the land, but for extravagance. While the system of entail might, to some extent, and in an indirect manner—and only in an indirect manner—hinder the sale of land, it was an actual bar to extravagant mortgages. But as ideas to the contrary had been so industriously spread abroad, he thought that a Committee of their Lordships' House could do no better than inquire into the matter and elicit the opinions of those practically acquainted
  508
  with it. This, however, was only a subsidiary object of the Committee. The main object was that which he ventured to bring under the notice of their Lordships last year—namely, to give to limited owners proper facilities for investing their own money in the improvement of their own land.
  Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the facilities afforded by the existing law to limited owners of land for the investment of capital in the improvement of such land, and to report whether any alteration of the law is requisite in order further to encourage such investment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that no one was more anxious than he that facilities should be given to landed proprietors to improve their own land. He must remind their Lordships that when landowners borrowed money under the Companies' Acts they put themselves under the control of those Acts. There could be no objection to allowing a limited owner to spend his own money in the improvement of his estate, and to charge that money on the estate if he did so under proper safeguards—and if they placed themselves under the same rules as were laid down by the Companies' Acts, they would have no greater difficulties. But the Bill introduced by the noble Marquess last year would have relieved the landowners of all responsibility as to the way in which the money was laid out. Now, anyone who borrowed money under the Companies' Act was obliged to declare the object for which he desired to borrow, to lay it out under inspection, and to make such yearly payments as would extinguish the whole debt in 25 years. There could be no objection to the Inquiry into this subject which the noble Marquess now proposed; but as to the second head of inquiry he did not think much good would arise from it, because, as the prejudices of their Lordships' House were supposed to be in favour of the existing law of settlement and entail, he did not think the Report of their Committee would have much weight out-of-doors. He did hope that there would be no inquiry by the Select Committee into the relations between landlord and tenant. He trusted nothing of that kind would ever be thought of. There was at present an excellent feeling between landlord and tenant in this country; and

  509
  nothing should be done to bring the law in between them.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that though from the remarks of the noble Marquess it would appear that the scope of the Inquiry would be larger than was expressed by the Notice, he had no objection to offer to the Motion.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he was in favour of an Inquiry by a Committee. He would express no opinion on the subject of what his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) called the "subsidiary object" of the Inquiry; but as regarded the Inquiry respecting the state of the law in relation to the investment of capital in land, he thought it might prove useful. Certainly there could be no objection to allow limited owners to lay out their own monies in the improvement of their estates with greater facility if the risks to the estate from loss arising from such investments were not at the same time increased. He thought that the noble Marquess's observations in respect to the law of settlement and entail were very extraordinary and very wide of the main subject. No doubt opinions were freely entertained abroad on those subjects; but he did not see how they could be brought within the scope of the Inquiry of a Committee appointed to inquire into the investment of a man's own money in his own estate. If that proposition were omitted, there could be no reasonable objection to the Motion.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that from the terms of the Notice he had apprehended that the Inquiry contemplated by the noble Marquess would be of a restricted character, that it would have reference only to the investment of his own money by a limited proprietor in the improvement of land. From the noble Marquess's speech he was, however happy to learn that the Inquiry would have a wider scope. The solicitude of the noble Marquess was aroused for the limited proprietors who had money to invest. There was another and a larger class who deserved the interest of the noble Marquess in a greater degree—the class of limited proprietors who had no money, but who were anxious to improve their land and to obtain money on fair terms for that purpose. It was unnecessary to enforce the great importance of increasing the productive powers of the soil. That object
  510
  could be attained in two ways—by improving the cultivation of the land already under tillage, and by increasing the area of cultivation. In regard to the first, it had been affirmed by competent authority, ratified by the opinion of a noble Earl opposite, whose judgment was deserving of the greatest respect, that the produce of land now under cultivation might be doubled by the highest application of capital and skill. It was more difficult to say what result could be attained by the reclamation of lands now lying waste. We had no accurate knowledge of the amount of waste which could be brought under cultivation with profit, but no doubt the area was considerable. In the agricultural returns there were more than 24,000,000 of acres which were not brought under any head of crop or produce in England and Scotland. Of course that land was not all lying waste, nor was it all susceptible of profitable improvement. Much was mountain pasture of an excellent quality, very profitable in its present form. Much, on the other hand, was moor and bog, lying at a high elevation, which no amount of expenditure would render productive; but it was equally certain that a large extent existed which was not profitable in its present condition, and which might be rendered remunerative by a judicious outlay. A considerable area was indeed unprofitably appropriated to the purposes of sport. In Ireland 4,250,000 acres returned as absolutely waste—not used for the purposes of pasture in any shape. He contended that the proprietors of land under settlement were subjected to conditions which greatly limited their powers in prosecuting agricultural improvement so necessary to the welfare of the whole community. They could only borrow money from the Companies at rates, including interest and sinking fund, amounting to between 6 and 7 per cent. Proprietors of entailed estates ought, in his opinion, to have the power of borrowing at the market rate of 4 per cent for substantial improvements, and of making the outlay a permanent charge on the estate. It was true that the substantial improvement might not be an everlasting one. The improvement might in the course of years be absorbed or worn-out, but it would last two generations; it would last as long as the settlement under which it was effected, and that was all

  511
  that the law need require, for though the proprietor of an entailed estate was bound to transmit the estate unimpaired in value to his immediate successors, he was not bound to transmit it with an increased value for ever. If the poorer order of limited proprietors were enabled to obtain the means of effecting improvements on terms such as he had indicated, he believed that an immense development in the productive power of the land would shortly be attained. While the poorer order of limited proprietors lay under grievous disabilities with reference to the amelioration of the land, their situation was still worse in regard to the improvement of the habitations of the labourers. To reclaim the land was difficult, but to rebuild the cottages was impossible. For the latter purpose money could only be got at 7 per cent. That rate was almost prohibitive, for cottage building was in many cases absolutely unremunerative; indeed, the new cottage was sometimes rather an additional charge than a source of profit to the estate. Nor could money be obtained for every class of cottages. The Commissioners would only sanction loans for cottages directly necessary to the farm on which they were situated, but it was obvious that it might be desirable to reconstruct many cottages generally necessary for the welfare and convenience of the property and the neighbourhood which were not strictly requisite for the farm in which they were placed. It must also be remarked that the Commissioners, even in cases in which sanction was granted, impeded the course of improvement by insisting on plans and specifications far beyond the local standard of comfort and convenience. The cottages erected in Scotland, under the sanction of the Commissioners, cost on an average £140 a-piece, when £80 or £90 would provide a habitation commensurate to the wants and resources of the agricultural labourer. While such were the discouragements and impediments to the reconstruction of rural habitations, the necesssity for this work was most pressing. In Scotland one-third of the agricultural population, according to the last Census, were lodged in tenements comprising only one room, while another third inhabited houses composed of two rooms. In Ireland there were more than 80,000 habitations of one room. In England statistical information
  512
  was wanting, but the agricultural Reports disclosed a lamentable want of good accommodation for the rural classes. With a view to the performance of a sacred duty and the remedy of a deplorable evil, he claimed for the limited land owner the power of borrowing at the current market rate, for the reconstruction of agricultural labourers' dwellings and the power of making a permanent charge on the estate for that purpose. He could not allege that the improvement would always be a profitable one to the estate in a pecuniary sense, but it was essential to the honour of the proprietor and the welfare of the people. We had fallen on times when duties of a social and sanitary character could no longer be neglected with impunity. The country was strictly investigated by sanitary officers, by whom every neglect and abuse would be dragged to light, and by whom proprietors who did not conform to the requisitions of the age would be held up to public reprobation, though their failure might be far more owing to want of means than to want of good will. If the noble Marquess would include all these matters in his inquiry, if his object was to promote by every possible means, the investment of capital in the improvement of land and the reconstruction of dwellings, and to afford these facilities to the poor and burdened owner, as well as to the more favoured members of the same order, then, indeed, his Inquiry might issue in great and lasting benefits to the community, and it would have his (Lord Napier's) most unqualified and cordial support.
  EARL GREYsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord who had just sat down that there were grievous impediments in the way of the limited owner of an estate borrowing money for improvements. He must say he had never heard of money being borrowed for the purposes referred to at so high an interest as 7 per cent. He had known large sums borrowed on conditions involving annual payments of £6 12 s or £6 14 s. per cent for improvement of land; but those sums included not only the ordinary interest for the money but the sinking fund for the extinguishment of the debt in 25 years. The noble Lord, if he understood him correctly, wished to diminish the annual charge by relieving those who borrowed for improvements from the necessity of providing

  513
  a sinking fund to pay off the debt. He trusted this would not be allowed. He hoped Parliament would never permit a limited owner to borrow money and charge it on the estate without obliging him to contribute a sinking fund. No proprietor should be permitted to burden with a permanent debt an estate in which he had only a life interest. It seemed to him that nothing could be more injudicious than to do anything calculated to burden the land with permanent charges. There was no greater evil to a country than that a large portion of its land should be held subject to mortgages. Neither could he concur with the noble Lord that a limited owner should be permitted to borrow what sums he liked in open market, and subject to no conditions such as those imposed on those who borrowed under the Public Companies' Acts. To prevent gross abuses it was absolutely necessary to provide some means of ensuring that money professedly borrowed for improvements should really be so applied. And he denied that there was any evidence that the existing system failed in affording great facilities for improvement. He thought, on the contrary, that everyone who had carefully watched what was going on in the country would concur with him that since the repeal of the Corn Laws the march of agricultural improvement had been more rapid than could have been anticipated. The change in the character of the farm buildings and cottages and the improved skill in the cultivation of the soil were, to his mind, very remarkable considering how little the science of agriculture was understood until within a comparatively recent time, and how much ignorance was still to be found both among owners and occupiers of land. The noble Lord said that it was specially necessary to make some change with reference to the improvement of cottages. No man felt more strongly than he (Earl Grey) did the urgent necessity that there was for improving the dwellings of the poor, not only in the country, but still more in the towns—because if there was a grievance in this respect in the country, he was persuaded that that grievance was infinitely greater in the towns. In the country they did not find four or five families crammed into a single room, as they found in the great cities. The improvement that had
  514
  taken place within the last few years in the habits of the population in the country, and in their houses generally, was something that was very remarkable indeed. Such an improvement, however, could only proceed by degrees, and in the agricultural districts the progress was considerable—but a great and general change could not be effected in a day. But when the noble Lord said that the great want of better cottages would justify Parliament in enabling the owners of land to put a permanent charge upon it for improvements which he admitted would not be remunerative—so that the work would be done partly at the charge of their successors—it appeared to him (Earl Grey) that this would be simply to enable the present generation to be generous and charitable, not at their own expense, but at the expense of others. He thought this could not in justice be allowed, though he admitted there was a great difficulty about building cottages, because the rents working men could give would not in general pay a fair interest on their cost. But proprietors in some parts of the country at least found that it was absolutely necessary in their own interests to have good cottages, quite irrespective of their being directly remunerative. In Northumberland—and he believed it was pretty much the same in Scotland—the custom was to have a certain number of cottages attached to every farm, and it answered to spend money in improving these cottages, because from experience it was found that they could not get good farm servants without having good cottages for them. This accounted for the marvellous improvements that had taken place in agricultural dwellings in the county of Northumberland within his recollection. He remembered the time when almost universally each cottage in that part of the country had only a single room, and in some few cases he had even seen a part of this one room cut off with wickerwork for the cow. The old Northumbrian cottages were kept very clean, all things considered; but still they were very wretched habitations. They had, however, been fast disappearing, and very few were to be found now. Even the small minority of the owners of land who were not willing to make improvements in the cottages on their estates were driven into doing so by the fact

  515
  that good farm servants could not be got without good cottages being provided for them. But it was not because there ought to be better cottages that they should depart from all sound principles, and enable landlords to charge their estates in perpetuity for the purpose of effecting these improvements. Almost the only point upon which he concurred with the noble Lord who had just spoken was that he thought that there was reason to doubt whether the Commissioners had not been somewhat too strict in their requirements as to the accommodation to be provided in cottages built under their authority; because practically the question was this—whether you would be content with cottages falling somewhat short of what you would wish to have, or go on with the miserable ones you found standing—because if you insisted on too costly a cottage as a condition for charging the expense on the land, none at all would be built. It was a mistake also to attempt too violent a change in the habits of the people. He was therefore of opinion that till lately the Commissioners had been too severe in reference to the cottages which they had required to be built. But within the last two or three years this mistake had been to a great degree corrected. The inquiry into the condition of the agricultural population in Northumberland had been very ably conducted by Mr. Henley, the Assistant Commissioner, and in consequence of his Report there had of late been a very considerable relaxation in the requirements of the Commissioners with respect to cottages. As to the figures which the noble Lord (Lord Napier) quoted in reference to the large amount of land that was capable of cultivation, but which was left useless or only partially cultivated, he confessed that he always listened to these statistics with the very greatest possible suspicion. When you demanded details you had great difficulty in finding where this improveable land was. According to his experience, wherever it was practicable to improve land, there was now a very great desire to improve it. Then they must remember that a great outcry had been raised of late as to the enclosing and dividing of commons; but unless they did this, then in reference to common land in many cases the improvement of land was practically impossible. Further, he
  516
  did not see how they could interfere in reference to the land which was kept for the purposes of sport, unless they were prepared to interfere also with the merchants and other persons of wealth who took agricultural land, and turned it into pleasure grounds and gardens. All these things were consequent upon the increase of wealth, and could hardly be interfered with—especially as we now opened our ports to the introduction of food from all parts of the world. As to the Motion of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), it seemed that one of his main motives for bringing forward this Motion was that he believed that persons having money of their own had not the same facilities for investing it in the improvement of their estates as those enjoyed by owners who not having money of their own to invest, borrowed money for that object. If this were really the case such a state of things ought to be altered; but he could not help thinking that the small sum spent by the former class of owners in improving land under the Act of 1864, as compared with that spent by the latter in the same kind of improvement carried on under the Companies' Acts, arose from another cause than that to which the noble Marquess attributed it. He believed the real reason was that the number of owners who had money of their own to lay out was small as compared with the number of those who had not. But, be that as it might, the subject was one which might usefully engage the attention of a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, that as far as his experience went he had found no difficulty whatever in borrowing money for the improvement of an entailed estate, or in spending his own money for the same purpose, when he had any to spare. All you had to do was to go to the Improvement Commissioners if you had money of your own, and when they had made inquiry the thing was settled. On the other hand, if you wanted to borrow money, you got it through a Land Improvement Company, though the land could not be burdened for more than 25 years.
  LORD CAIRNSfeared that if the order of reference were made in its present form the Committee might think that the scope of its Inquiry was much wider than his noble Friend really intended

  517
  it to be. He would suggest that his noble Friend's object would be answered if the Committee were appointed "to inquire into the facilities afforded by the existing law to limited owners of land for the investment of capital in the improvement of such land."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would accept the alteration suggested. The debate had shown that, under the reference as it stood, some questions might possibly arise as to the relations between landlord and tenant, and there were various reasons why this House should undertake no such inquiry. He was not going to reply to the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Napier), which had, indeed, been admirably answered already by the noble Earl on the cross-benches. He would, however, just mention one instance as to the value of the statistics which had been published by the Government, which made him doubt if their figures were entirely trustworthy. If they looked to the Returns that came from Belgium they would find that the extent of cultivated land stated to be in Belgium was greater than the whole extent of land that there was in Belgium; and he did not think that this was likely to be the case.
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the facilities afforded by the existing law to limited owners of land for the investment of capital in the improvement of such land, and to report whether any alteration of the law is requisite in order further to encourage such investment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  And, on Friday, April 4, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  D. Richmond.

  L. Vernon.

  D. Bedford.

  L. Meldrum.

  D. Cleveland.

  L. Colchester.

  M. Salisbury.

  L. Stanley of Alderley.

  M. Bath.

  L. Egerton.

  E. Derby.

  L. Houghton.

  E. Airlie.

  L. Kesteven.

  E. Grey.

  L. Ettrick.

  E. Kimberley.

  L. Hanmer.

  L. Dinevor.

  RAILWAYS AND TELEGRAPHS IN PERSIA.—QUESTION.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether they have received any information that the Shah or Government of Persia has given a contract to Baron de Reuter for the construction of all railroads, lines of electric telegraph, and canals in Persia;
  518
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information that the Government of Russia intend or entertain the project of making a railroad from some part of Russia to Kurrachee, or in the direction of the frontier of India, or of any part of the Persian Gulf? As regarded the first Question, he had received information which made it perfectly clear that the contract in question had been given by the Shah of Persia to Baron de Reuter. Now, railways and telegraphs were important means both of commercial and military operations; and he trusted the Government would be able to assure their Lordships that the Persian railway system, and the line, if any, projected from Russia toward the Indian frontier or some part of the Persian Gulf, would be carried out really for the interests of Persia, and in the interests also of peace and in accordance with the policy of this country.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that early last autumn he was informed by Baron de Reuter, first privately and then officially, that a concession had been made to him of the railway in question. With regard to the second part of the Question, he had made inquiry on the subject, but had received no official communication, and no private information of any value, that there was such a scheme.

  POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to the Pollution of Rivers—Was presented by The Earl of SHAFTESBURY; read 1a (No. 59.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.