Sitting of 19 May 1873

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Noxious Businesses, appointed and nominated.
Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance [No. 215].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment* [167].
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [163]; Consolidated Fund (£42,000,000).*
Committee — Conveyancing (Scotland) [108] —R.P.
Committee—Report—Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [149].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Peace Preservation (Ireland)* [145], and passed.
Third Reading—County Authorities (Loans) * [131], and passed.

LICENSING (IRELAND) BAILSMEN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has received information of a case that is alleged to have occurred in Belfast, on the 20th of April last, when the resident magistrate refused to accept publicans as bail, and when, it is stated, they were threatened with the loss of their licences if they offered themselves as bailsmen; and, if such action has the sanction of Government?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he had made inquiry, and was informed that Mr. O'Donnell, the resident magistrate at Belfast, had not refused to accept publicans as bail on account of their being publicans, but on account of the bail tendered not being sufficient. It had been further stated that the publicans in question had been informed by the Sub-Inspector of Constabulary, that they would lose their licences if they became bail in certain cases; but the Sub-Inspector denied that he had made use of any such expression. What he did say was, that they should he careful how they became bail in connection with charges of resisting the police.

  ARMY—CLOTHING, &c. OF THE GERMAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the British Military Attacheé at the North
  98
  German Court has reported on the way in which the material of war, including provisions and clothing, is procured for the German Army; and, if such Reports have been received, whether he is prepared to lay them before Parliament?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: Sir, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, I may state that the British Military Attacheé at Berlin has reported from time to time on the way in which the material of war, including provisions and clothing, is procured for the German Army. As Reports of this nature are naturally confidential, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not think it desirable that they should be laid before Parliament.

  MAURITIUS—INSPECTORS-GENERAL OF POLICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he would state to the House why, since all previous Inspectors General of Police at the Mauritius have been allowed to reside in the country within easy access of the head office, Lieutenant Colonel O'Brien has been compelled by the Governor to reside in the town of Port Louis, to the detriment of his health?
  MR. KNATCHBULL HUGESSEN: In reply, Sir, to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to say that previous Inspectors General of Police at the Mauritius, and Colonel O'Brien himself, have resided in the country within easy access of the head office; but Colonel O'Brien having thought fit without leave to remove his residence to a considerable distance from the town, has been ordered to return to Port Louis or its neighbourhood.

  SCHOOL BOARDS EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1872—QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Circular issued by the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh on the 8th instant, forbidding Inspectors of the Poor, although duly elected, to sit upon School Boards, or to hold office under them; whether such a regulation does not limit the choice of the School Board constituencies in a manner not authorized by "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872;" and, whether such a regula-

  99
  tion is not in excess of the powers conferred upon the Board of Supervision by see. 56 of the Act 8 and 9 Vic. c. 83?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, I have been in communication with the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh on the subject of the Question of my hon. Friend, and they inform me that the Circular of the Board is in accordance with the practice pursued during the last 23 years with respect to various offices, and its legality has never been questioned. The Board have considered it to be in their power, and that it was their duty, to prohibit Inspectors from sitting on school boards or holding other offices, the duties of which were likely to be incompatible with the due discharge of their office. One such reason in the present case is, that the duty of collecting the school-rate is, by Section 44 of the Education Act, imposed upon the Parochial Board, and that the Inspector, being the servant of the Parochial Board and ratepayers, ought not to have a voice in fixing the amount to be assessed, more especially as the Inspector is generally also collector, and would derive emolument from the school-rate in proportion to its amount. There are also several other sections of the Education Act under which the duties of member of the Parochial Board or Manager of Schools would clash inconveniently with the duties of Inspector. There is no objection, however, to their holding the offices of clerk or treasurer to the school board, as the duties of such offices are merely formal and clerical.

  PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT—SHREWSBURY SCHOOL—QUESTION.
  MR. STRAIGHTasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether there is any foundation for the report that the Governing Body of Shrewsbury School have come to or contemplate coming to a determination to remove the School Building from its present site to a situation more than a mile outside the town; and, if so, whether before taking any further steps in the matter they will receive either a deputation or memorial from the inhabitants of the borough on the subject?
  MR. HIBBERT,in reply, said, it was true that the Governing Body of Shrewsbury School had determined to remove the school from its present site, and to
  100
  remove it to a site within three miles of the centre of the town, as they were empowered to do under the Public Schools Act. They had now three different sites under consideration, but had not yet come to any decision with respect to them. In conclusion, he might say that any memorial or deputation upon the subject from the inhabitants would receive attention.

  ARMY—ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state why in the case of a candidate for admission to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, or for direct commissions in the Army, who may have failed to qualify at the examination before the Civil Service Commissioners, it is objected to return to him the paper in which he has so failed to qualify, and which would afford him an opportunity of knowing the mistakes he had made?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: I have, Sir, made inquiry of the Civil Service Commissioners, and am informed that at the examinations for admission to the Royal Military Academy and for direct commissions, candidates are allowed to take away the printed Papers of questions; but that the Papers containing their performances are retained by the Commissioners in accordance with what they believe to be the universal practice of all examining bodies.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT—PENALTIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTasked Mr. Attorney General; Whether the Penalties Law Amendment Act (28 and 29 Vic. c. 127) does not provide for the recovery of any penalty not exceeding five pounds inflicted upon summary conviction; and if therefore there is any foundation for the statement that penalties inflicted under the Wild Birds Protection Act of 1872 cannot be recovered?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, that there was no foundation for the statement referred to in the Question of his hon. Friend. The law he believed to be this—That when power was given to a magistrate, either directly or impliedly, to convict summarily, the Act commonly known as Jarvis's Act, came into operation; and there could be no

  101
  doubt that the penalties referred to were recoverable. He wished, however, to remark, that the adage said, that whenever the opinion of a lawyer was obtained without a fee, it was worth what it cost; but in the present case he hoped that the opinion was at least worth the fee.

  POST OFFICE—PURCHASE OF TELEGRAPHS.—QUESTION.
  MR. PLUNKETasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will, before the beginning of the Whitsuntide recess, lay upon the Table of the House the Returns relating to the purchase of Telegraphs, ordered on the 1st of May to be printed?
  MR. MONSELL: I fear, Sir, that it will be impossible to have this Return completed before Whitsuntide. In the first place it is a heavy Return in point of matter. In the next, the questions which are open between the Department and some Railway Companies are of such a nature as to make it necessary that the Return should be very carefully prepared.

  ENGLISH RECORDS RELATING TO IRELAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. COGANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can state whether any and what steps have been taken by the Treasury with respect to the making a calendar of English Public Records relating to Ireland?
  MR. BAXTER,in reply, said, the following steps had been taken to carry out the matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. On the 30th of November last the Treasury sanctioned the employment of Mr. Sweetman to compile a calendar of all instruments and entries relating to Ireland from the earliest time to the end of the reign of Henry VII., and Mr. Sweetman had been employed upon the work since the 1st of April.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION (IRELAND)—REV. MR. O'KEEFFE.—QUESTIONS.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table, the Memorial of certain Members of the Irish Education Board, as also the names of the gentlemen who actually signed it, and the letter, docket, or other communication which was sent with it to the
  102
  Irish Office? He begged to explain that in putting the Question he did not impugn the honour of any member of the National Board, feeling great respect for all, and personal regard for some; but he thought there had been sharp practice in sending forward the memorial without the knowledge of the minority, as was shown by the Papers last laid upon the Table.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he had no objection to lay the memorial on the Table, but he could not promise to lay on the Table any letters on the subject, as they were in the nature of private correspondence.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, that seeing the Notice of Motion for tomorrow respecting the Callan Schools was still on the Paper, it would be convenient to the House to know whether the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock intended, after the appointment of a Committee, to proceed with it?
  MR. BOUVERIE: Sir, I do not propose to proceed with the Motion tomorrow, and I am glad my right hon. Friend has given me an opportunity of saying so. I consider—and, no doubt, the House will consider also—that the carrying of the Motion of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) on Thursday has for the present taken the wind out of the sails of my Motion. I propose to let it stand on the Paper without date, hoping that the Committee may report in time for its consideration at some later period of the Session. I should like to ask the noble Marquess when he proposes to nominate the Committee?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the names of the Gentlemen whom it was proposed to nominate would be laid upon the Table that night.

  CHURCH RATES LEGISLATION (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Lord Advocate, When he intends to introduce the Bill promised to be introduced on the part of the Government, two years ago, for the abolition of all assessments and rates for the erection and repairs of Churches and Manses in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I observe, Sir, that the Question of my hon. Friend contains a statement or assumption to the effect that I, on the part of the Go-

  103
  vernment, promised two years ago to introduce a measure for the abolition of all assessments and rates for the erection and repairs of churches and manses in Scotland. I presume my hon. Friend refers to the observations which I made on the 5th of July, 1871, upon the occasion of the second reading of the Bill which he then introduced. I have no doubt he has, in this assumption, set forth his own impression and belief as to the course I said I would take; but I by no means admit the accuracy of his belief, and if he will be good enough to refer to the report of what I did say, he will see that his Question is by no means accurate. What I said was, that I should endeavour to deal with the whole subject of the law relating to churches and manses in Scotland to the best of my ability as soon as a reasonable opportunity presented itself; but as to the time, I am not in a position to give any more definite reply.
  MR. M'LAREN: I beg leave to give Notice that I shall take an early opporportunity to call attention to the delay in this and other matters of legislation affecting Scotland.

  PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION—THE VACANT SEATS.—QUESTION.
  MR. RAIKESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, during the present Session or before the dissolution of the present Parliament, to introduce a measure assigning to other constituencies the seats which have been left vacant since the disfranchisement of Beverley and Bridgewater?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have no intention of bringing in a Bill for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Member.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  Supply considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £1, 035,719,Victuals and Clothing.
  (2.) £174,983, Admiralty Office.
  SIR JOHN HAYcomplained of the great increase of the Vote as compared with previous years. He would remark that were the £14,000 saved by the abolition of the Coastguard Office added, the Vote would be nearly the same as in 1867–8, an amount denounced as grossly extravagant when the present Govern-
  104
  ment came into office. After reducing the sum in 1870–71 to £159,368, the Government had restored it to its former dimensions. He thought some explanation of the increase ought to be given.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had ascertained the reasons for the increase which had occurred since 1870–71, to the present year. The Vote in 1868–9 was £182,000, but that did not include the Coastguard Office, which was £6,300, which would have made it upwards of £188,000. There had been a total increase of £21,000, of which amount the progressive increase of salaries accounted for £11,000, and the rents of houses, which were really additional buildings at the Admiralty, and ought therefore to be deducted, having been substituted for Somerset House, for £3,000. Then the increased price of coal represented about £500, the increased charge of the Controller's Department was £3,800, and the Vote included £1,400 for the temporary employment of paymasters. Against that there had been a reduction of from £6,000 to £7,000. Not less than 26 clerks, with salaries amounting to £6,000 or £7,000 a-year, had been reduced, and 25 writers introduced, at a total cost of £1,900 a-year. Making a net comparison between the year 1868–9 and the present year, there was a real reduction of about £14,000 in the Vote, which reduction would have been still greater had it not been for circumstances over which the Admiralty had no control.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had taken for his comparison the year 1868–9. The Estimates accepted by the incoming Administration from their predecessors were for 1869–70, and the charge for 1869–70, omitting the Coastguard, was £168,000; but in the present year it was nearly £6,000 more than that. The Estimates prepared by his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), in the year 1868–9, the time of the Abyssinian War, were not those on which he had based his comparison. Those Estimates did not bear a fair comparison with other years, and it was the Estimates of 1867–8 that he (Sir John Hay) had referred to.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, they had been informed the other night that the substitution of writers for clerks had been carried too far, and it was now found necessary to turn many writers back into

  105
  the position of clerks again. If such was the case, the money saved by the reduction of clerks at present would come back again into the Estimates.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREbelieved that if a comparison were fairly made, it would be found that the Pension Vote had not increased through the reorganization of the Department; for the fact was, hardly any officer during the last two or three years had been pensioned at the Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Member should recollect that the Dockyards were included in this increase, a fact which would account for, as he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) believed the greater part of it. The question of the employment of writers at the Admiralty had been now determined by the Treasury. It was true that they were to be placed upon the establishment; but it would be at the salaries they were now receiving —namely, commencing at.£80 and rising to £160 a-year.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, it would be convenient if the hon. Gentleman would lay upon the Table such a discriminating Return as would render those charges intelligible to all—showing what the amount was that was fairly chargeable to the Admiralty and what to the Dockyards.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaw no objection to the production of such a Return, showing the increase since 1870.
  MR. BOWRINGcomplained of the Estimates not being framed in a way to enable a comparison to be made between the present and preceding years. He wished to know the number of permanent clerks and. writers employed that year.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXthought that the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty would occasion much anxiety amongst the clerks, who were already suffering very much from the reductions that had taken place, as it appeared now that they would have to serve for a longer time and at a smaller pay than hitherto.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, the prospect had been held out to them of a reduction of the permanent expenditure of the Department; but there was a considerable increase of the pension Vote, while it required all the ingenuity of his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to show that there bad been any diminution of the permanent expenditure at all. They had been told that writers were to be
  106
  employed who were not to be on the establishment, who were to have no increase of salary and no pension; but it appeared, after all, they were to have a subordinate class of clerks, with increasing salaries, and. who would have a right to pension. Not only that, but by-and-by it would be said, that it was a great injustice to limit those writers to £160 a-year, inasmuch as they performed the same duties as the other clerks who were placed upon the higher scale of salaries.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he differed from the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), and. thought that the explanation of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty was clear and ingenuous. The fact was that several items showed an increase of expenditure, which was not real but only apparent; for instance, his hon. Friend had stated that there was £3,000 more paid for the rent of offices now than heretofore, because the Admiralty had given up Somerset House for other purposes. There had been no real increase with regard to the paymasters, and. the item of £11,000 increase by guaranteed increase of salary extended over three years. That item was more than accounted for, if they took into consideration the three years from 1869–70. There had been no new class of officials created apart from naval appointments, and higher pay was given only in the case of scientific men employed in the Controller's department.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that what he complained of was, that the pension list had been increased to the extent of £48,000 a-year, in consequence of the mistake made by the Government in discharging gentlemen who received the maximum amount of salary, and were able to perform their duties, in order that others might be promoted to perform their duties. The fact was, the pension list had been unnecessarily increased by men who were willing and. able to do their work.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked what was to be done with regard to navigating masters?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the Admiralty attached the greatest importance to keeping up a separate class of officers for navigating Her Majesty's ships, but were not prepared to adopt any plan by which officers should be taken at random

  107
  from the executive staff for that purpose. They proposed, however, to make the experiment of offering to a limited number of the executive officers of the Navy a certain increase of pay and position as inducements to undertake navigating duties.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had wisely determined not to abolish the class of navigating officers. He wished to ask, whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to restore the rank of major in the Royal Marines? In answer to a Question he (Sir John Hay) had put to him on the subject that Session, the right hon. Gentleman gave the House to understand that he bad some hopes of giving the Marine light infantry, as well as the Marine artillery, the benefit of the creation of that rank. The other two branches of the Service, the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers, which had always been looked upon as being in the same category with the Royal Marines, had the rank of major given to them, and it was unfair that the senior captains of the latter should not be placed on the same footing as their brethren in the former corps, whom they were constantly serving. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the rank of brevet-major, but that would not meet the case.
  MR. GOSCHENwas afraid he could not give an entirely satisfactory answer on the subject, inasmuch as there were great difficulties between the War Office and the Admiralty in dealing with it. As to the rank of brevet-major, however, he hoped to be able to make, in a short time, an announcement which would be favourably received by the Royal Marines.
  In reply to Lord HENRY LENNOX,
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was true that communications had passed between the Treasury and the Admiralty relative to the duties performed by the Permanent Secretary of the latter, and with regard to the appointment of a legal gentleman. The performance of their duties by the various secretaries at the Admiralty worked very well, and if Mr. Lushington retired, he would retire on the pension promised by the late Government on his accepting the office.
  MR. KINNAIRDwas gratified to hear that the rank of major was to be restored to the Royal Marines.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it would be brevet-majority, and that it would be shortly announced.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he could not understand why the Marines had been treated differently from any other branch of the service, unless it were on account of some one of those petty economies of which the Government were so fond. The Marines were one of the most distinguished corps of the service, and they had carried the reputation of England all over the world. The First Lord of the Admiralty promised, on a late occasion, that an opportunity should be given for discussing the naval policy of the Government; but he (Sir James Elphinstone) thought at the time that the right hon. Gentleman was making a promise which he would not be able to perform. It was his intention, therefore, to take the present opportunity of discussing the question of the administration of the Admiralty and naval affairs generally; and if that course should be deemed irregular, he should avail himself of the forms of the House and put himself in Order, by concluding with a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. In what position, he wanted to know, did the Board of Admiralty stand after the many changes that had taken place. There had been a dictator at the head of the Admiralty, whose rule had come prematurely to grief, and since his time alterations of various kinds had been made in the Admiralty system. He would therefore like to know what was the real position of the First Lord. The Sea Lords, instead of being employed in considering and discussing the policy of the Navy, were employed all day in signing documents of the contents of which they knew nothing. That was evident, from the fact that Sir Maurice Berkeley, in Ids evidence before a Committee of that House, had stated that he had been told to put his initials here, or three ticks there, to Papers of the contents of which he was perfectly ignorant. What was the position of the Navy at the present moment? They had only some eight or nine frigates fit to go to sea, and yet they had undertaken the suppression of the slave trade on the Coasts of Africa and in the South Pacific. Why, he believed they had not got cruizing ships enough to enable them, in case of emergency, to protect the commerce of the country.

  109
  Forty-five per cent of the corn consumed in this country was brought from abroad; and if, by any combination in Europe, their grain ships were stopped for one month, the country would be in a state of panic. That showed the urgent necessity of maintaining such a Navy as would enable them to cope with their enemies in any part of the world. They had not got that Navy. They had already built quite sufficient ships for coast defence, and what was required was, that a large addition should be made to the cruizing sloops and paddlewheel steam frigates and other seagoing ships of the Navy. The country was in no danger of invasion, and never would be if they were perfectly armed in that respect. They had discussed that monster, the Devastation, which had been a most costly experiment, and so far as was known, she had already ended in failure. She was not a seaworthy or sea-going ship, and any man who signed an order to send her across the Atlantic would be liable to a charge of manslaughter. If they forced her against a head-sea at seven knots an hour she would be swamped, an opinion in which Lord Lauderdale, who was as good a sailor as any man, concurred. And she was unfit for coast defence from drawing too much water. The present Government had come into office with flying colours on the promise of making great reductions in their expenditure; but the Estimates had increased year by year, since they had come into office, notwithstanding they had carried out some petty economies at the cost of some miserable clerks, who had been turned out wholesale. There had been a great many pettifogging reductions, but there had been a yearly increase in the Establishment charges. The pension list had been increased and the best men had been driven into the service of foreign countries. Their dockyards had been stripped and denuded of stores that ought to have been kept for the use of the country, and which in ease of war would have to be replaced at a most enormous cost. There had been an auctioneer in a pulpit going over their dockyards knocking clown articles at a ruinous sacrifice. Their stock of timber, which was greater than that of any country in the world, when the present Government came into office, had been sold, and they had again to compete for the article in
  110
  the open market. Blocks and dead-eyes had been sold for almost nothing—capstans worth £80 and £90 each had been sold for £7 and £7 10 s. each, and some blocks of the old Royal George, that had been dredged up because they had three brass sheaves in them, had been brought under the auctioneer's hammer, so determined were the present Government to get rid of everything. The rope was now made by machinery instead of by hand, and was of inferior quality in consequence. The coal allowed was insufficient for ships to make headway against wind and tide; and. Lord Clarence Paget had attributed the accident which happened to the Agincourt to the parsimonious allowance of coal to the Navy. Under the direction of the Duke of Somerset, experiments had been entered into with the view of ascertaining, in the first place, how smoke on board our ships might be consumed, and, secondly, whether shale and rock oils might not be utilized in place of coal for the production of steam. To save an expenditure of £8,000 a-year these experiments were abandoned. As the price of coal had now decreased so much he strongly advised the Government to consider the matter. If experiments should be made with a view to disarm these oils of their explosive character, it was for the Government to undertake them, and he believed they might be carried to a practical to-suit. The stores which the Admiralty now had at command were so limited, and that more especially with regard to masts and yards, that he feared they would not be sufficient to equip a fleet in case of emergency. With regard to anchors and chain-cables some time ago he obtained a Committee on the subject, and a Bill was introduced for testing chain-cables; but its provisions were so altered that the chain-makers were allowed to test their own cables, and make out their own certificates as to the result of the testing. On the 1st of January the Government put an end to that abuse, the only good thing they had done, and now there was a proper test applied. There was not a single iron-clad in their Navy that had a chain sufficiently strong to hold her; and he objected to the removal of the swivels out of the chains. By doing that, they had run the risk of losing several of those valuable vessels, and the danger of the course adopted was shown in a recent collision which

  111
  occurred between two vessels at Madeira from a cable parting. The size of the chain was 2½ inches only; but it ought to be at least 2¾ inches to hold one of these ships. In the collision referred to, the Northumberland's cable parted; another anchor was let down, but as it would not bite, the Northumberland came foul of the Bellerophon. As to anchors, he should like to know why the Admiralty provided their ships of war with anchors that would not bite, and why they had given the go-by to an anchor —Trotman's—now generally used in the merchant service, and pronounced better than any other. In a cyclone at Bengal, every ship not provided with Trotman's anchor broke adrift; two vessels that broke adrift were brought up with it, and no fewer than 18 ships held on with it. Yet, in the face of the fact, that it was used in all the vessels of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, the Admiralty had systematically set their face against that anchor. He suggested that the Admiralty should build no more Monitors. What they wanted was a large addition to the number of their sea-going iron-clads, as well as their crusing sloops. He also suggested that a class of vessels, which had been allowed to fall into desuetude should be brought into requisition—namely, paddle-wheel frigates. It was absolutely necessary, during an engagement, that a certain number of vessels should be in attendance to tow ships in or out of action, and paddlewheel frigates were the best adapted for that purpose, especially in such waters as the Persian Gulf. Whatever the Admiralty might do, by all means let them abandon the practice of building expensive toys, which set the whole scientific world lecturing and talking nonsense.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that without wishing to be disrespectful either to the Committee, or to the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, he declined to reply to many of the historical points raised by the hon. Baronet's speech, inasmuch as they only related to allegations which had been made over and over again, and which had been met with repeated denials from the Admiralty. What progress could be made if such topics were reverted to? The hon. Baronet, in the first instance, addressed himself to the question of the Marines, and said that some petty economy had prevented the rank of major being established for the
  112
  Marines. On behalf of the Admiralty, he emphatically denied that they were actuated by such a feeling in the matter, and he assured the Committee, that the question with the Admiralty was simply one of relative rank. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE observed that the rank carried the monetary advantage with it.] He had told the hon. Baronet that the Admiralty would have been willing to grant the majority, if it had not been in consequence of the difficulty arising in regard to relative rank. Money had nothing whatever to do with it. With regard to the questions which did not affect the past but the present in the hon. Baronet's speech, he must pass over those which related to the question of ships to be built, as that subject would come on at a more subsequent period; and therefore he would not say more now than that, with reference to the assertion that the Admiralty could not fit out a ship, their dockyards were full of stores. As regarded the question of anchors, that was a question that must rest with the naval advisers at the Admiralty, and if the hon. Baronet, instead of discussing the subject in a Committee of that House, would come and discuss it at the Admiralty, and produce evidence to convince them that Trotman's anchor was better than the Service anchor, then a change would be made. The only desire of the Admiralty was to have the best anchors and cables that could be procured. It was fully recognized at the Admiralty that the question of cables was of supreme importance, and upon that subject conferences were now going on between the controllers and the partners of the firms who supplied them. The charge with regard to taking the swivels out of the chains was one which referred to something that took place in 1864, and therefore could not affect the present Government.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, that allegations made upon good authority and personal knowledge frequently met with flat denials from the Treasury bench, denials which subsequent inquiry proved to be unwarrantable. On a previous occasion, when they had been discussing the question of chain cables, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty denied his statement in terms more curt than courteous, and said—"In any case, it was to be regretted that those who "primed" him (Mr. G. Bentinck)

  113
  had not first of all referred to the Admiralty, so that an inquiry might have been instituted. "Instead of himself having been wrong, it was the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) who was incorrect. What he had stated respecting anchors and cables, and which, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's denial, he now begged to repeat, was that our men-of war—our largest class of vessels —were not supplied with sufficiently large cables; and, in the next place, he adverted to the fact that, in consequence of the swivels being taken out of the chain-cables, one of our large iron-clads had been very nearly lost. It was to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity of making himself acquainted with these matters before meeting statements with denials, which, though inaccurate, carried weight, owing to the authority of his position.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was desin able that the matter should be cleared up before the hon. Gentleman went any further. His hon. Friend had understood the hon. Gentleman to charge the present Government with having removed swivels, whereas it was done by a Conservative Government.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he was charging no particular Government with the blunder, which, as he understood, was committed in order to adapt the cables to some kind of new-fangled capstans. The allegations which he (Mr. Bentinck) had made, and which the Secretary of the Admiralty had denied, had since been fully confirmed. His charge was against the Board of Admiralty; he cared not what Government was in power. He contended that the practice of relegating matters of this kind to non-naval men connected with the Admiralty resulted in great risks to Her Majesty's ships; whilst the custom of calling upon civilians to explain these things to the House of Commons must be followed by equally bad results. With regard to Trotman's anchor, experiments made at Woolwich had, he believed, demonstrated that the holding power of Trotman's anchor was very much in excess of every other anchor tried with it, and that of all the anchors tried on the occasion those of the Admiralty were the worst. Then, with regard to rope, that furnished by the dockyards was not always of the best description,
  114
  and many complaints of its quality were made by the officers commanding Her Majesty's ships. When the safety of Her Majesty's ships was compromised by this wretched, peddling economy, it was time to discuss the subject in Parliament. The Great Eastern had invariably ridden out every gale with Trotman's anchor, of a comparatively small weight, and her cables were also more efficient than those used in the Royal Navy, being manufactured of a superior description of iron. If these three-inch cables were used by our first-class iron-clads, the latter would not be so frequently parting from their cables, and would not run the risks they now ran. It could not be on account of any difficulty to be experienced in working them, that they were not supplied to the vessels requiring their use; it must be another instance of the unfortunate economy which was always cropping up. Another question was the state of our Reserves. He had asserted that the ships in reserve were not always fit to be commissioned, either with respect to their hulls, their rigging, their engines, or their armaments. The statement was denied from the Treasury bench, but he thought that, with the fuller means of information which the right hon. Gentleman had since enjoyed, he would not now deny the statement. As to the Devastation, he hoped there would be no fatal results from the experiment now being tried, but the impression of those whom he had seen and who had been on board that vessel was that she was not fit to go to sea. It seemed that she could not go under a certain rate of speed, and there was a risk that the ship might be drowned when forced against a head sea. He feared it would be found impossible to run the ship in a gale of wind, and he could only repeat what had been so forcibly said by his hon. Friend (Sir James Elphinstone)— a grave responsibility rested on those who sent this ship to sea; and he could only hope that their rashness would not lead to fatal results. On a former occasion, when he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had been considering the question of Ships v. Guns, the right hon. Gentleman said, with some asperity, that he had been thinking of nothing else. It would be satisfactory, therefore, to hear what were now the ideas of the right hon. Gentleman as to the result

  115
  of the struggle now going on between armour-plates and guns. On the solution of this question must depend the future construction of the British Navy, for if the guns were to beat the armour-plates, the Government had been working on an entirely false principle in the construction of vessels, and all our heavy armour-dads would be useless. His hon. Friend behind him said that we had no sea-going ships, and were not in a state to go to war, and he entirely endorsed that opinion. It was useless maintaining a Navy consisting only of one class of ships. He agreed that we ought to have a class of heavy iron-dads for home defence; but where was our sea-going Navy to be found? And without such a Navy, how was our commerce to be defended, and our colonies to be protected? He asserted without fear of contradiction that we had not a single vessel which could fairly be called seagoing, and was capable of being sent on a long voyage.
  MR. OTWAYthought it unfair to speak of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty as having pursued a peddling and beggarly policy. His right hon. Friend had given practical proof that such was not the principle which guided his naval administration. Through the liberality of the House his right hon. Friend had obtained an augmentation of the Vote for Naval Stores which enabled him to increase the pay of those who built the Navy of the country. With respect to the Devastation, he could not but regret the observations which had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) and by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Men of experience and authority ought to pause before they made such a statement as this—that the Administration who sent the Devastation to sea might be liable to an accusation of manslaughter; a statement of that kind was enough to deter a Gentleman in the position of his right hon. Friend from doing what he thought right. It was a safe prophecy, for if, as he believed would not be the case, an accident occurred to the ship, they would be able to point to the warning they had given; whereas, if she proved thoroughly seagoing, as he was informed, by no less high authority than Sir Spencer Robinson, would certainly be the case—for
  116
  that she was a ship fit to go anywhere—no one would reproach the hon. Members for their injudicious prophecies. With respect to the construction of ships he was disappointed that his right hon. Friend had not taken any notice of what his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had said on the subject of torpedo vessels. It was one to which foreign nations were directing a good deal of attention, and as to which the experiments now being made by the Austrian and German Governments showed that they were in that respect a good way ahead of us. It was also clear that if other nations could destroy our ships by torpedoes, the boasted strength of our Navy was of little use. His right hon. Friend hail alluded to the Navies of France, Russia, and the United States, but he did not refer to the Navy of Italy, to which the Government of that country were now adding ships of a very peculiar character, of enormous size, and likely to be the most powerful ships afloat. He hoped his right hon. Friend would take steps to procure full information on that subject. With respect to the Dockyards, his right hon. Friend had procured a great boon for the employés in those establishments. It would be a great pity, however, if, in the distribution of that boon, satisfaction was not given to all the classes intended to be benefited by it, and such would not be the case if the present system of classification were adopted. He trusted that his right hon. Friend would cause inquiry to be made as to the best manner of distributing the increased grant which he had been the means of obtaining from the House.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he did not think the charge made against the Admiralty as to the alleged insufficiency of cables was justified. If a 3-inch cable was sufficient for the Great Eastern, a 2⅝inch cable ought to be more than sufficient for their iron-clads. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether a survey had been made of the plate of the Northumberland which had been penetrated in the collision at Funchal, and, if so, whether the quality of the iron proved satisfactory, as he had been informed that the iron of the Northumberland was very unsatisfactory. He would also like to ask questions concerning the dockyards of Gibraltar and Malta. At

  117
  Gibraltar, £4,000 only had been spent during the year for additions to the mole. He believed it was impossible to overrate the advantages of that mole. Two of our iron-clads could anchor under it, and it would be a great advantage if that mole was extended considerably beyond what was provided for by the present plans. He asked Her Majesty's Government whether it was their intention to extend the work, and whether any measures were being taken to improve the sanitary condition of the harbour of Malta?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREdisclaimed any intention of giving an uncourteous reply on a previous occasion to the hon. Member for West-Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck). When, however, hon. Members rose in their places and made accusations against the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that he had sacrificed the safety of Her Majesty's ships, they must not feel surprised that they were answered somewhat warmly, and, perhaps curtly. He, however, had no intention, of displaying warmth when he replied to imputations of that kind. The hon. Member had stated that the Admiralty had made changes in the chain-cables and capstans for the sake of economy. He had never heard of any such change of capstans or chain-cables, and therefore considered himself justified in denying the assertion in toto. Lately he had taken pains to make inquiries on the subject. The facts as he had ascertained were, that in 1864 a very much improved capstan was adopted in some of Her Majesty's vessels, and it being found that the chain-cable could not be easily turned upon it, naval officers recommended a slight alteration in the latter, leaving only a swivel at each end of the cable. This plan, it was stated, was in operation in the French Navy, and would not affect safety. The recommendation was adopted by the then Controller—a naval man—with the approval of naval Members of the Board, and from that time to this nothing had been heard on the subject. It was true that the recent breakage of a cable had been attributed to the change; but the general opinion was, that it was due to some other cause, and economy had nothing to do with it. As to the anchors which had been mentioned, the naval Members of the Board did not think
  118
  them as good for general purposes as those now in use; but there was no indisposition to adopt any improvement. The hon. Member for West Norfolk had repeated his imputation respecting rope; but every endeavour was made to supply the best quality, though it might not always be of equal quality; and though complaints were made from time to time that it was not strong enough, and did not last so long as formerly, such complaints had been made from time immemorial. As to the reduced stock of hemp, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter), having had much experience, thought it undesirable to keep a very large stock, fresh hemp being much preferable. Of yarn a large stock was desirable, and 18 months stock was accordingly kept, while sufficient hemp was kept for the manufacture in case of emergency of as much yarn as would be necessary. But neither of the provisions —a short one of hemp and a large one of yarn—was kept up from motives of economy. With that explanation he hoped that the house and the country would be satisfied that the Government did not look on the questions from an improper point of view, but that they would feel that the interests of the Service were really regarded in all these questions. In all these cases, whatever was demanded by naval officers for the fitting of ships was supplied. With regard to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson), he hoped that that relating to Gibraltar would be considered when the Committee reached it. As to Malta, the sanitary regulations and the condition of the port were under the consideration of an Engineer officer who had been sent to the spot to inquire, and as soon as an opinion was transmitted to the Government as to what was necessary, the recommendation would be carried out. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) as to dockyard wages, it would be more convenient to discuss that question when they came to Vote 6.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, that when the plan of bringing cables to the capstans was adopted, the necessity for the swivels ceased. The size of the cable for ships was an important question. Generally speaking they were not sufficiently large. When he took command, a little more than 20 years ago, of a ship which

  119
  from an 80 had been changed into a 90-gun ship, he found that the size of her cables had remained unaltered. On his remonstrating he was told that the size of the cables was calculated by the area of the midship section, and not by the weight of the ship. He made repeated representations on this subject, but his remonstrances were never answered. He, therefore, hoped that the authorities at the Admiralty would take into their consideration a matter on which the safety of our ships so much depended. With respect to the Devastation, and the propriety of sending her to sea in her present condition, it must be remembered that science was now giving way to experiment; and he therefore hoped that as the Devastation was to be subject to a regular trial at sea, no money would be asked for to build other Devastations till the result of the present experiment had become known.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYbelieved that if the scheme of retirement which his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) brought forward in 1870, had been properly carried out, there would have been more retirements by this time, and that it would have tended to improve the service. His right hon. Friend then stated as a reason for bringing forward that scheme, that although officers in command of ships were very gallant, yet from want of constant employment they were not so efficient as could be desired. There was a very great feeling of irritation in the service, owing to so much more attention being paid to its materiel than to its personnel. In bringing forward the present Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke for three hours on the materiel, and not more than a quarter of an hour on the personnel of the Navy. Before that general discussion closed, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state that he had that whole matter under consideration; that he had a sympathy with the large number of officers who were half-starving on a mere pittance; and that for the good of the service and the interest of the country, a system would be adopted by which officers would be more constantly employed, and enabled to maintain their efficiency.
  MR. GOSCHENasked the Committee to believe, that if all the points raised on that occasion had not been answered,
  120
  it was because it would be impossible in Committee of Supply to get the money which had to be voted, if they were to deal at length with all the serious topics brought forward in the course of a general discussion. No greater injustice could be done to him than to suppose that he devoted less time to the personnel than to the matériel of the Service. Last year he devoted the greater part of his speech to the personnel of the Navy, and it was only towards the end that he was enabled to touch on the mateériel. This year he had reversed this plan, and the simple reason, why so much of his speech, in introducing the Estimates, this year had been occupied with the mateériel was because so many questions connected with the matériel happened to have been raised lately; but he could assure hon. Members that his sympathy with the personnel was not to be measured by the length of his remarks on the subject. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member who had just sat down, the length of time captains were employed before they could be appointed to ships was one of the great difficulties of the Service, and the same thing applied to commanders. It was a matter of great importance, and it was to meet that difficulty that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) introduced his retirement scheme, but he could not see by what means his hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) had expected that more retirements should have been brought about. The scheme was self-acting; and the only way in which the Admiralty could increase retirements would be by forcing men out of the Service by not giving them employment, there being a clause which said that, in that case, after a certain number of years they were to leave the service. As regarded captains, that was a system which had not been tried. Contrary to an opinion held out-of-doors, there had been no attempt on the part of the Admiralty to force officers to retire on account of their not being employed—so long, at all events, as there was plenty of work in them; and as regarded pecuniary inducements, his experience since he had been at the Admiralty was, that pecuniary inducements would not influence officers to retire. They clung to the service irrespective of the boons held out to them, because most officers would admit that the terms of retirement offered by his

  121
  right hon. Friend wore liberal; but he (Mr. Goschen) thought it so important that there should be a constant retirement, that if it was certain any change would induce a large number of officers to retire, that change would be carefully considered by the Admiralty. There were two means of causing retirement—the one compulsory, the other by pecuniary advantages. As to the former, he was not prepared to carry it further than his right hon. Friend had done. As to the latter, it depended on the officers themselves, and he saw no way in which the Admiralty could reduce the lists, if officers were not disposed to accept pecuniary- inducements to leave the service. In reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway), with respect to torpedo boats, he might observe that the subject had been carefully examined into, and that the Admiralty had already given orders to have an experiment made to see how far the invention of Mr. Thorneycroft, which had been referred to in a former debate by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), and which had been tested, and had been found only applicable in the case of smooth water, could be applied to boats which would go at a good rate of speed in comparatively rough weather. He could also assure his hon. Friend that the Government were perfectly aware of all that was going on in the Italian Navy. We had an attaché who travelled about from Court to Court, and who reported not only on the Italian Navy, but on that of other countries also. In respect to the Devastation the Committee must feel that an immense responsibility was thrown upon the Admiralty by hon. Members who said that they would be guilty of manslaughter if they sent her across the Atlantic. They felt that they had a difficult problem to solve, but they were determined to persevere in their attempts to solve it. At the time of the American War, as the Committee was aware, ships which all sailors would have previously denounced had decided actions, and had had the greatest possible influence in bringing the war to a termination. And not only had the Monitors done that, but they had ridden down storms and generally behaved well at sea, although their sea-going qualities were not, probably, as good as those of other vessels. Were the Admiralty, then, to abandon a type of ship
  122
  calculated to secure our supremacy at sea in time of war, on account of such criticisms and warnings as the Committee had heard that evening, when they had positive assurances from other quarters that no danger was to be apprehended? They were charged with having no vessel to cope with the Peter the Great in the Russian Navy; but that vessel was constructed on precisely the same principles as the Devastation. So long as ships of that class were required to maintain our supremacy, a certain number of risks would, of course, have to be run; but the experiments in the case of the Devastation would, he could assure the House, be conducted with the utmost caution.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he happened, during the Easter Recess, to be at Portsmouth, and had heard a suggestion made by Colonel Bowers, who commanded the 1st Lancashire Rifles, with respect to the trial of the Devastation, which seemed to meet with very general acceptance, for all the naval officers who heard it had declared that if the ship passed successfully through the experiment suggested, she would be capable of riding out any storm. The suggestion was, that as the Devastation generally had a nurse in the shape of another vessel, she should be sent to sea in rough weather, with a number of nurses, or other vessels who would be capable of taking on board the whole of her crew; that everything in the Devastation should be battened down, and that she should be left completely to herself to struggle against the wind and waves; and that the nurses should watch her movements closely through this experimental trip. If after all the Devastation should stand that test nobody could object to the outlay of the public money upon her, and he had no doubt that his hon. and gallant Friend near him would sanction the expenditure of much more money for the building of other Devastations.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would recommend a Return, No. 321, to the attention of hon. Members, inasmuch as they would find from it that owing to the scheme of retirement to which he had already referred, a permanent dead weight had been thrown on the country, amounting to £186,104 a-year. He also wished to say, in reply to the Secretary for the Admiralty, that the Store Vote that year was the largest by the amount

  123
  of £200,000 which had been proposed for the last 10 years, and yet the supply of yarn was not sufficient for the purposes of the effective ships of the Navy. As to the supply of coal, he was glad the Government had now the excellent advice of Sir Alexander Milne, for the accident which had occurred to the Lord Clyde could have scarcely happened to any ship which was not hampered in the use of her engines. Such was not his opinion only, but that of Lord Clarence Paget, who had commanded the Mediterranean Fleet.
  MR. CHILDERSpointed out that although the Vote for Stores might be the largest for many years, there was all the difference in the world until quite lately between estimates and expenditure. The actual expenditure in 1867 and 1868 far exceeded the present Estimates, to say nothing of the great rise in prices. He should also be prepared to show at the right time that the cost of retirement was less than he had estimated.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsuggested that retired naval officers might be usefully employed in surveying rivers for the purpose of having the impediments to their free navigation removed.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £167,575, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Coast Guard Service, Royal Naval Coast Volunteers, Royal Naval Reserve, and Seamen and Marine Pensioners Reserve, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874."
  ADMIRAL ERSKINE,in moving to reduce the Vote by £14,540 5s. 6d., being the balance of the unappropriated surplus of the sum voted for the Royal Naval Reserve, said, that he had seen for some years past a sum of money employed for purposes to which Parliament had not voted it, nor had the Treasury sanctioned. When the Royal Naval Reserve was originally created, in 1859, it was intended to consist of 30,000 men, who were to receive retainers of £6 each. Since its institution, however, the fact was that the number of men that took their drill never exceeded 16,000, and the Vote was taken on the assumption of the former number. Moreover, from 1866 the number had gradually fallen, until for the present year the Force was expected to consist of only 10,000 men,
  124
  while the sum asked for in the Estimates on account of the retainers to be paid to the men had been reduced from £96,000 to £76,000, a reduction entirely owing to the representations he had made on a former occasion. There remained in the hands of the Department, however, an unappropriated surplus of the sums voted amounting to over £17,000, and he now moved to reduce the amount of the Vote by the sum he had stated. He did so, for the reason that he could not reconcile the discrepancies, that while £76,000 was asked for retainers, a much less sum was asked for drill, pay, and lodging the men, and that while it was proposed to vote money for 13,000 men, they only expected to get 10,000. He had also to complain that the expense of registering these men had remained the same —namely, £4,000 a year, or 7s. a head—for several years, although there had been a considerable reduction in their number. He thought a less sum than £4,000 should be asked for registering. In conclusion, he must say he was surprised that the Government were unable to give the number of men enrolled at the different outports. He should move that the Vote be reduced by the amount of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £153,035, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Coast Guard Service, Royal Naval Coast Volunteers, Royal Naval Reserve, and Seamen and Marine Pensioners Reserve, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874."—(Admiral Erskine.)
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend did not propose to reduce the Force, but thought that by the experience of former years the Government were taking too much. It was always a wiser course to take too much than too little. On Vote 1 and on this Vote it was always the practice to take more than was needed, in order to provide for contingencies. The Vote would have been reduced this year if great changes had not been introduced into the Reserve, by which the Government expected that a considerable number of men would be added to it. Under these circumstances he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press the Committee to divide. As to the item for registering, the sums paid the registrars

  125
  were fixed fees and general expenses, regulated by the Board of Trade rather than the Admiralty; and having two schemes in existence—namely, the First and Second Class of Reserves, there would be rather more than the usual amount of labour and trouble put upon them.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, a great amount of anxiety prevailed at Liverpool, and also a desire to ascertain what were really the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Royal Naval Volunteers. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman made some time since in the neighbourhood of Liverpool upon the subject, raised an amount of enthusiasm which the delay that had since taken place, it was feared, would cause to die out. He spoke the sentiments of the leading shipowners of Liverpool, who hesitated to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to form a Naval Volunteer Force, until the Government gave some evidence of their being in earnest in the matter. There was a growing feeling in Liverpool, that the invitation held out by the right hon. Gentleman was not responded to by the authorities, and unless something was done to remove the impression the enthusiasm created would speedily die out. He wished to know whether the Government intended to give to Naval Volunteers such facilities for drilling as they thought they were entitled to?
  MR. BRASSEYsaid, he was connected with the London Naval Volunteers, and he was enabled to state from having been in communication with the Admiralty, that a practical scheme for carrying on the drill of the London Naval. Volunteer Corps was under consideration by the Admiralty, and he believed that a Bill would be submitted to Parliament by the Admiralty on the subject. It was a matter that could not be decided off-hand. This was clear, however, those who joined the Force could not call upon the Government for assistance, as the essential feature of the movement was that it was voluntary. The 150 persons who had associated themselves for the purpose of naval drill in the port of London had shown the best spirit and deserved a hearty recognition.
  MR. WHITWELLtrusted that after the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, the hon. and gallant Admiral
  126
  would not go to a Division. He would like to hear that a sufficient drill was performed by the men in the Coastguard Service to qualify them to join ships at once in case of necessity. He asked also whether a Return would be prepared, showing the saving of life which had been effected by the Coastguard in cases of wreck?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, there would be no objection to produce such a Return, which would show results very creditable to the Coastguard men. His hon. Friend (Mr. Brassey) had really replied to the Question put by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whalley). The subject of Naval Volunteers had engaged a good deal of time at the Admiralty, but it involved so many points of detail with regard to the organization of the Force that it had been found impossible to proceed, at all events, with the rapidity which the gentlemen who had taken up the movement appeared to wish. At the same time, he trusted the Admiralty would be able to utilize the services of the Volunteers, and he hoped shortly to be able to propound a scheme for the approval of Parliament.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, he must take the sense of the Committee upon his Amendment.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could only repeat that the present plan rendered it necessary that the Vote should be taken, in order to provide for the increased expenditure that would take place under it.
  MR. R. W. DUFFhoped the hon. and gallant Admiral would not press his Amendment. It was desirable that there should be an efficient Naval Reserve.
  MR. WHALLEYwished to know if the First Lord of the Admiralty was really giving his attention to the organization of Coast Volunteers?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that probably the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied, when he informed him that the day before yesterday he went through a great many proposals for the establishment of Coast Volunteers, and discussed them with some of his Colleagues. There was no disposition on the part of the Government to throw cold water on the movement, and he hoped shipowners would come forward and assist it all they could. In saying that, he thought leading shipowners of Liverpool did not appear to give it the support it deserved. In all probability, it would be necessary

  127
  to introduce a Bill to carry out the scheme.
  SIR JOHN HAYhoped the hon. and gallant Admiral would not divide the Committee. There could be no doubt that the Royal Naval Reserve ought to be better supported than it was.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, under the circumstances, he would alter his mind, and would not trouble the Committee to divide.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) £86,654, Scientific Departments.
  MR. A. GUESTasked whether the post of medical attendant to Greenwich Hospital ought not to be reserved as a shore berth for some Navy surgeon, instead of being given to a civilian? Great dissatisfaction was felt, in consequence, by medical men in the Navy.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONlooked forward with hope to the more scientific education which would be within the reach of the naval officers at Greenwich Hospital. He thought nothing was likely to be of greater service to the Naval profession than the New College. If the commanders of our ships were acquainted, for instance, with the theory of the steam engine they would be able to control the reports of their engineers on the subject of economy in the use of coal. He objected, however, to rudimentary scientific instruction being given there. The officers ought to prepare themselves at the School of Mines or elsewhere, before being admitted to the Naval College. He hoped the subject would be considered.
  MR. STONEsaid, the Committee would like to know how far Naval officers had shown a disposition to avail themselves of the advantages offered to them in the New College. He hoped that provision would be made for affording practical as well as theoretical instruction in the New Royal Naval College.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, it was of more importance for young men, to whom the honour and safety of the country might be some day entrusted, to learn the more practical qualities which would produce courage and promptitude, than to follow the present hard, scientific system, which was emasculating those higher and manly qualities which had hitherto cha-
  128
  racterized our naval officers, and upon which our naval renown was founded.
  DR. BREWERsaid, there was one subject greatly neglected in both of the Services—namely, dental surgery in its higher branches; the neglect of this was the greatest cause of the disqualification which existed in the Services.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would communicate with the Medical Director General, on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Dr. Brewer). With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. A. Guest), the appointment of a naval surgeon depended on the extent of the duties to be performed. At present they did not seem to warrant any alteration in the present arrangement. The fee of the gentleman who attended Greenwich Schools had not been included in the Estimate in consequence of an oversight, which should not occur again. A great number of the members of the College went there voluntarily, and he was not prepared to recommend the appointment of a medical man who should exercise any control over them, because in the event of their being taken ill, they might be attended by doctors of their own selection. He would lay on the Table the Minute of the Admiralty, with regard to the general scope of the Royal Naval College, but he wished to say now that hon. Members must dismiss from their minds the idea that it was an establishment for cadets and midshipmen. Sublieutenants went there who had already been four years at sea—those officers who had already acquired the qualities which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) so much desired; but it was hoped that the great future of the College would arise from the attendance of half-pay officers, who desired to pursue the studies for which opportunities would be offered. There was every inclination on the part of officers to avail themselves of these advantages. Twenty-four half-pay officers were now studying there, and the number would doubtless be much larger when the College came into full operation on the 1st of October. Young engineers and dockyard apprentices, would also be selected to go to Greenwich, in order to learn naval architecture and marine engineering, and the other subjects which had been taught with such great success at South Kensington. The organization of the

  129
  whole establishment was likely to be organized under Admiral Cooper Key in a most satisfactory manner.
  SIR JOHN HAYagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the process of organization under Admiral Cooper Key was likely to prove extremely satisfactory. But he could not concur in what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had said as to the study of scientific subjects connected with the Navy being. enervating. It was very desirable that the Navy should continue to have, what it always had possessed, officers skilled in the highest branches of science. There was no other profession which possessed in its ranks men of higher scientific attainments, or more capable of performing the duties which the country entrusted to them. With respect to the Naval College at Greenwich, he would venture to point out that it was for many reasons desirable that Admiral Key, who was at its head, should have the power and authority of a naval officer, as well as that authority which he already possessed as an officer of the highest scientific attainments, and that he should be allowed to hoist his flag, and appear in uniform. He should also like to see the naval officers assembled at Greenwich allowed the benefit of the attendance of a naval medical officer.
  MR. A. GUESTalso urged the expediency of appointing a naval medical officer at Greenwich. He could attend both the College and the Boys' School at Greenwich.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONexplained, that he did not mean to say that naval officers did not avail themselves fully of the facilities offered them for scientific instruction, but the fact of the establishment of this College proved these opportunities had not hitherto been sufficient. He should like to know, whether a library would not be established there.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the question of a library and the appointment of a naval medical officer had been considered, but that it had not been deemed expedient to incur expenses which did not appear to be absolutely necessary for the efficient working of the College. In the case of the medical officer, however, when the College was full it might be found desirable to make such an appointment.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that the pensioners were the proprietors
  130
  of Greenwich Hospital, and that the Government had no right to deal with it without their consent. He complained that the Admiralty were neglecting the survey duties of the Navy, and thought that a special survey service should be established. The survey of India was unfinished, and, notwithstanding what had fallen from the First Lord of the Admiralty on a former occasion, that of the Straits of Magellan was very incomplete. He had also to complain of the miserable accommodation which was provided for Admiral Richards, the Hydrographer of the Navy at the Admiralty, that gallant officer being located in a room which was not fit to be the office of the engineer of a bubble company.
  MR. STANLEYalso urged the expediency of having naval rank conferred on Admiral Cooper Key.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he personally had no objection to place Admiral Key on the footing desired, but that the question of allowing him to hoist his flag at Greenwich was a service question involving a point of naval etiquette; and the naval authorities by whom he should be almost entirely guided in the matter, were of opinion that the privilege could not be well granted to Admiral Key. As to the proprietorship of Greenwich College, he could assure the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth that the Act of Parliament distinctly provided that Greenwich Hospital might be used for any other purpose deemed necessary. He might add that all the structural alterations which had been made in the edifice, had been done so that in case of war, it could within the short space of 24 hours be restored to its original condition—of an hospital; and that none of the Greenwich Hospital fluids were used; they were left at the disposal of the pensioners. It would be very inconvenient that the Hydrographer should be removed from the Admiralty, where he was in constant communication with the Board; but he hoped better accommodation would be provided for him when the new building's connected with the Admiralty were completed. The first survey which the gallant officer proposed to undertake was that of the East Coast of Africa.
  In reply to Lord HENRY LENNOX,
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was estimated that the Challenger would be engaged for three years in deep-sea dredging, in

  131
  connection with a number of scientific problems in which the Royal Society took great interest.
  In reply to Sir JOHN HAY,
  MR. GOSCHENstated that, in addition to the Government being in communication with the Representatives of Foreign Governments, Professor Airy was in communication with the astronomers of other countries, in order to obtain foreign co-operation in watching the transit of Venus.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,115,080, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874."
  MR. RYLANDS,in moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £50,000, said, that he wished it to be understood that he raised no objection to the advance in the rate of wages paid in the dockyards. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had told them that the wages of the "hired labourers" had been raised 3d. a-day, and the "established workmen" 6d. per day, making the wages of the former 16 s. 6d. per week, and of' the latter class, 30 s. per week. In the present state of the labour market, he (Mr. Rylands) considered that the Government were justified in paying this advance—in fact, they were no doubt compelled to do so, even in the case of the "established workmen." The right hon. Gentleman further stated that the "established workmen" had entered into life contracts at a fixed rate of wages with a pension at the end of their service, and had there been any general reduction of wages, these "life contracts" would have been fairly pleaded by the men as a reason for maintaining their wages; but they were practically ineffectual in preventing an advance under the present exceptional state of the labour market. He did not complain of that, but he thought the arrangement with this class of men a very questionable one. It was said, that in view of pensions they accepted lower wages, and that was no doubt the case; but in many instances the expectation was a delusion, as numbers of the men through death or
  132
  other circumstances never received a pension, nor was there any real advantage on the part of the country, as the pension list amounted to 25 per cent upon the sum paid for wages. There was also the question as to the amount of work received for the money. If the wages were low, the work was low also; and there was sufficient evidence in Blue Books in the Library to prove that the established workmen scarcely did half as much work as the men employed in private shipbuilding yards. He believed that the wisest plan would be to carry on the national dockyards in a businesslike manner; to engage workmen upon ordinary terms, and to pay them the full value of their labour, without any agreement for pensions. The present system was disadvantageous to all parties, and certainly entailed a serious loss upon the country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) said the other night that we ought to keep our dockyard men, to the full number, building all the vessels we needed, and that the dockyards should be so kept up as "to meet not only all the requirements of the day, but of any emergency." We were, in fact, never to buy any ships from the private dockyards. But a few years ago the hon. Gentleman stated that
  "He had asked many of the most eminent owners of private yards in the country the question—supposing you were to carry on your yards upon the system on which Her Majesty's Dockyards are conducted, what would be the result? And the invariable answer had been, if we were to approach that system with the Bank of England at our back, we should be ruined in six months."
  Well, that he thought was a conclusive argument against extending our dockyard system. His complaint was that the right hon. Gentleman was extending the system, and was so far reversing the policy of his predecessor. The right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord (Mr. Childers) had laid down a standard in 1870, under which he arranged that the maximum number of men employed in the dockyards should be 11,000, and that at least one fourth of the tonnage required for the Navy should be purchased from private shipbuilders. Unfortunately, the absurd panic at the end of 1870, on the occasion of the Franco-German War, induced the Government to alter their policy of economy by un-

  133
  necessarily increasing the dockyard expenditure. Last year, he (Mr. Rylands) strongly objected to the increased expenditure, and he was assured by the right hon. Gentleman, that the increase in the number of men was only a temporary and exceptional circumstance dating from the panic of 1870, and that in a few months time the number would be reduced to the maximum fixed by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers.) Now, what was the fact? In 1870–71, the number employed was 11,276, which was slightly in excess of the maximum; but this year the number on the Establishment and the hired men together amounted to 13,500, or 2,500 beyond the maximum fixed by the right hon. Member for Pontefract. But the most singular circumstance was, that while, according to the Returns on the Table, the 11,276 men in 1870–71 were expected to produce 15,272 tons of shipping, the 13,500 men were only expected to produce 13,781 tons. [Mr. SAMUDA said, the 11,276 men did not produce the amount named.] He believed they did not, but First Lords were constantly wide of the mark, and misled the House by their erroneous estimates. The right hon. Gentleman, at all events, did not expect to build this year more than 13,781 tons, and he proposed to employ not less than 8,697 men upon repairs and yard work. That was the explanation. But if our ships were in such a bad state of repair as to require such an enormous expenditure to make them ready for going to sea, it was an alarming state of things. His great objection to having so many men in the yards was that we must find them work whether it was wanted or not. The right hon. Gentleman had evidently that in his mind when he was stating his programme for the year. He said—"We shall have the Superb and the Téméraire building at Chatham, and the Fury and the new Fury building at Pembroke. With these vessels those two dockyards would be fairly full." And he mentioned that Portsmouth would be supplied with work in building another ironclad of a description not yet decided upon. There were two very serious objections to pressing forward work- at the dockyards at the present moment. One was the very high prices of all kinds of material, and the other was the great uncertainty as to the best type of fight-
  134
  ing ship of the future. The right hon. Gentleman admitted, in his speech on moving the Navy Estimates this year, the great advantage which had been secured by delays in constructing ships during the past two years. He said—
  "It had been urged that the Admiralty had wasted two years' time.…. but it would be din Le nit to tell what ships we should have ordered. Certainly not such good ships as we should be able to order now, with all the knowledge and experience we had gained."—[3 Hansard, ccxv. 45.]
  The same motives for delay existed at the present moment. Eminent authorities in that House differed entirely as to the best ship to be built, and there was an equal divergence of opinion amongst authorities elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of three schools of naval architecture—namely, the advocates of masted turret ships, the advocates of unmasted turret ships, and the advocates of broadside iron-dads. And then he added IR, fourth school, of those who were against building iron-dads at all. Upon that point, hon. Gentlemen were no doubt familiar with the extremely important evidence given before the Committee on Designs of Ships of War. It was a very grave question whether vessels could be protected with armour plates sufficient to resist the guns which were now being manufactured. Sir Joseph Whitworth, and Sir William Armstrong both stated that they could produce guns that would penetrate iron armour plates 20 inches thick. If that were so, many of our best ships would become obsolete. Then again, there was the question of the torpedo—an entirely new force which threatened the security of the most powerful iron vessels, and which, in its development, might have an important bearing upon the best mode of constructing our ships of war. With all these facts staring us in the face, it seemed to him to be a most unwise policy to press forward the building of new ships. Let hon. Members recollect that the hasty and ill-considered additions made to the Navy during the past few years had involved a scandalous waste of millions of the public money. It was to be hoped that the remarkable statement of the right hon. Gentleman would not be forgotten—that during the last 10 years no less than 225 ships, amounting to a tonnage of 215,000 tons, had been struck off the effective strength of

  135
  the Navy, or to use the expressive words of the right hon. Gentleman, "had vanished." A dozen years ago, the Admiralty precipitately constructed a number of iron vessels at a cost of several millions, which were, considered at the time to be an invincible Navy. They were armed with 4½ inch plates, and in these days, they might almost as well be protected with brown paper. Of course they bad all disappeared from The Navy List—they had "vanished," and the millions which they cost out of the public taxes had "vanished" also. The other day, when he urged similar grounds to these as a reason why the Government should pause in the building of vessels of war, the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Scourfield) replied that—
  "It was impossible to delay building ships until a time of war. It would be ridiculous to ask an enemy to delay his invasion until we had a sufficient number of ships to receive him."
  That was, no doubt, all very true, and would be very forcible if we had no ships of war at present. He (Mr. Rylands) did not believe in the probability of any invasion, but if there were an invasion, he was quite satisfied that our Navy was sufficient to give a good account of the invaders. The right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had admitted that our Navy was equal to the Navies of France, Germany, and the United States combined. We had 23 ironclads, whilst France, Germany, and the United States had only 11, and we had 91 frigates and other ships of war against their 95.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the numbers he had given were of the vessels in Commission, and did not include the entire Navy of the several countries.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that was no doubt so, but the comparison was not the less correct. The right hon. Gentleman also expressly stated that—
  "We had 12 ships which were so strong that all the other maritime countries together could not name 12 ships of equal strength."—[3 Hansard ccxv. 44.]
  There was therefore every reason why we should proceed with calmness and with caution. If we kept down the Dockyard Vote, it would enable us to complete the ships at present in progress, and to pause before commencing the construction of new vessels. If war were unfortunately to break out, and some
  136
  unforeseen emergency arose, it must not be supposed that the strength of the country for naval warfare depended upon the Government dockyards. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had well stated the other night, that this country had enormous resources in the way of shipbuilding, no less than 391,000 tons having been added to our mercantile navy in 1871, as compared with 212,000 tons in 1861, and his hon. Friend further stated that "were it necessary to renew our fleet, in a short time our private shipyards could do so." Under these circumstances he (Mr. Rylands) had no hesitation in asking the Committee to support his Motion to reduce the vote by £50,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,065,080, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he had no doubt that the Admiralty would get a proper amount of work from those whom they employed in the dockyards. He thought the best work was that turned out of dockyards, which he attributed to the large amount of superintendence which prevailed, and which rendered it almost impossible that a piece of bad work could be slipped in. In the Devonport dockyard, and in some other dockyards, he was informed an increase of pay was given in proportion to the length of service, but in Chatham dockyard a very different system prevailed; because in that dockyard, it was in the power of the Petty officers to give an increase of pay entirely at their own caprice, and without any reason assigned. That was a system which could hardly be expected to work well. To such a height had dissatisfaction gone, that in spite of the rules and of the risk which the men ran, he had received several letters from them, mentioning instances in which the pay had been distributed unfairly. He hoped the Admiralty would look into the matter, as it was of the greatest importance to the well-working of the dockyards.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, the duty of the Government was to select the best existing gun, and not to wait for the development of an imaginary superior.

  137
  As to reducing the work in the dockyards, trusting to what had been called "the open market," he was afraid that without the dockyards, the open market would become very close indeed in case of war. The remedy for that would be keeping open both the public and the private dockyards.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONasked, what was the actual damage done to the turret of the Glatton when fired at? The House had been told that the damage done to the turret was but slight, yet the vessel had only just come out of dock after being under repair for nearly 11 months.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that although he proposed to move a slight reduction of the Vote, he could not accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), who, in his opinion, misapprehended the whole case of the dockyards as they now existed. The hon. Member was evidently only just beginning his apprenticeship in a knowledge of naval affairs. He (Lord Henry Lennox) had also once been under the impression that there was a waste of power in the dockyards; but he now said, as he had often explained to the House, that repairs governed the strength of the fleet—that was, if the Channel Fleet were compelled to put into Portsmouth for repairs, the artificers must be taken altogether from building and must be employed upon repairs. What he complained of the right hon. Gentleman was that he placed too high the amount of shipping which he expected to have built within the year, for in the last two years this estimated amount bad not been reached by 8,000 tons. As to the type of ship, he did not believe that in our day we could expect to produce a perfect type of ship to fulfil all the duties which a vessel of war was called upon to perform. If every Government in Europe would agree to stay their hands till a perfect type could be produced, we might safely do nothing; but the difficulty was that foreign countries would keep building. Where, then, should we be if the advice of the hon. Member were taken? He cordially approved of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in keeping up the number of men employed in the dockyards, and be should, therefore, vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for
  138
  Warrington. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not lose sight of the suggestion given him by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Wykeham-Martin), that the existing system of classification should be well considered in reference to the distribution of the increased pay of the men employed in dockyards.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he also could not vote for the reduction of the Vote, for he agreed in the principal cause that had led to its increase—the rise of wages. He would remind the Committee that the increase in the rate of wages in the dockyards was not at all equal to the advance that had taken place in all other classes of labour. It should also be remembered that by keeping a command over the number of men on the establishment the Government was able to fix and. regulate the amount of work they wished to have done, and also insure a fixed rate of wages instead of a fluctuating one. The men knew they would have constant work, and a provision for old age, and they were therefore willing to work for a lower rate than they would accept outside the Government employ. The hon. Member (Mr. Rylands) talked of 11,000 men in 1870–71 building 15,000 tons of shipping, whilst this year 13,000 men were only to produce 13,000 tons; but he forgot that in the former period, the Estimate was not fulfilled, and, instead of 15,000 tons, the amount of work actually done was some 4,000 tons less than that anticipated. He should like to see a less number of men employed upon repairing as compared with those engaged in building. He regretted that upwards of 20,000 tons of shipping had to be struck off from the Navy every year from becoming obsolete or otherwise useless; but the country could not allow the Navy to go back, and the worst possible policy would be that suggested by the hon. Member—to stop building, and wait for improvements in the class of ships required, imagining that by so doing he would avoid spending money in building imperfect ships. The proverb that the best was always the greatest enemy to the good was strictly applicable in such a ease; and it was absolutely necessary that we should keep up our Navy, so as to be ready for any emergency that might arise, because we could not go into the market and buy war-ships as other things could be

  139
  bought when wanted. We should, at least, keep pace with foreign nations, and always have regard to the fact that the cost of the Navy was the premium of insurance we paid for our national security.
  SIR JOHN HAYthought that the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had failed to persuade the Committee, that it would be desirable to make the reduction on the grounds that he had pointed out. If these men were not to be constantly employed, strikes and other obstacles might arise when sudden emergencies arose for the execution of important works, and the object of the Government keeping the dockyards at all would be entirely defeated. One of the first changes made by the present Government was to reverse the proportion of men employed in building and repairing, but he was glad to see that a more just proportion had now been restored. In 1869–70 there were estimated 5,899 building and 8,168 repairing. This was altered in 1870–71 to 6,349 building and 4,793 repairing. This year we had nearly reverted to the old proportion, 4,700 building and 8,697 repairing being the number proposed. Considering that the work done in 1871–2 fell short of the Estimate by 1,354 tons, and in last year by 6,768 tons, it was not surprising that the expenditure contemplated in the Estimate had not been exceeded.
  MR. STONEthanked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty for the patience with which he had listened to the complaints of the men, the disposition he had shown to investigate their cases fairly, and the degree of liberality he had extended to them. He doubted whether the "life contract" on which the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had dwelt, was so advantageous to the men as he supposed, and he believed that had they been left without any prospect of advance, with wages outside much higher, the Admiralty would no longer have had the pick of the best workmen; while the building of ships of war was so peculiar, that it would not be safe to depend on men trained in private yards. He demurred to the present being deemed a final arrangement, for under similar circumstances, and whenever hardships arose, the door should be still open. He complained that painters, riggers, and sail-
  140
  makers were not treated with sufficient liberality in Portsmouth dockyard. The painters had recently received an advance of wages; but it was not equal to the extra pay they had formerly received for painting the Royal yachts, which occupied a considerable portion of the year. Under the old wages, and with that extra, the annual income of a painter was £64; with the recent advance and without the extra for the Royal yachts, which had been abolished, it was only £62. The sailmakers received from 2s. to 3s. a-day, as against 4s. outside the dockyard, and the riggers equally grumbled at the inequality and insufficiency of their wages.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he must remind his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) that he had quoted an observation of his which was applied to a totally different subject. When he had said in reference to the Admiralty dockyards, that if private yards were conducted on the same principle the proprietors would very soon be ruined, he never intended it as an argument in favour of reduction. The work done in the Government dockyards contrasted favourably, he thought, with the work done in private yards, and he attributed that fact to the keeping a large number of men constantly employed. He should like to ask the hon. Gentleman what would be the condition of this great commercial country in the event of a war breaking out. We had no ships capable of protecting our commercial marine. What ships we had would be swept off the ocean, and our carrying trade would be abolished.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that considerable injustice seemed to have been done to the young men who had been apprenticed in the naval yards. Why had they not been promoted to vacancies, as they occurred, according to promise?
  MR. R. W. DUFFwas glad that no Member of the Committee had risen in support of the Amendment. If the dockyards were done away with, where would our ships go for repairs after a naval battle? Would some go into the Thames, some into the Humber, and others into the Tyne? He thought the 100 tons of torpedo vessels which it was proposed to build this year, and the £7,000 which it was proposed to spend in torpedoes was much too small, for he looked upon torpedoes as one of the

  141
  most important modern inventions in naval warfare. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state whether torpedoes were to be managed by naval men, or officers of the Royal Engineers?
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he had not the advantage of hearing the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), and never listened to him when he could help it. With regard to the increased pay in the dockyards, the men were, no doubt, very glad of it; but the increase was very inadequate, and did not bring the rate up to the standard of pay in private yards. There were very many petty exceptions which it would have been better for the Admiralty not to have made. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would continue to agitate this question until the pay of the dockyard labourers was made adequate, though he did not mean that they should be brought up to the rates in private yards.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was never intended to bring up the pay of the men in the dockyards, to that of the men in the private yards; because the former had exceptional advantages, one of which was employment all the year round. As to differences between different men, the Admiralty had been animated by a desire to do justice to all, and it was only to be expected that seine should feel aggrieved, because it was almost impossible to meet the expectations of all. It was never professed that there was to be a general advance all through the yards. Every shipwright, high or low, had an increase. [Mr. WYKEHAM MARTIN: I wish it were so.] There might be special cases in which it was not; but discretion had been left to local officers who, as the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had often urged, ought to be invested with some authority to discriminate. No doubt, an hon. Member who was open to receive complaints, would have many letters addressed to him on the subject. However, if there were instances of injustice established to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, they should be strictly inquired into, and a local officer guilty of favouritism or the reverse should be called to account. Referring to the point which had been raised about apprentices, the principle which the Admiralty acted upon, was to select the best from among them, and promote them to the higher establish-
  142
  ment; and as to the general question raised by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), it was unnecessary to say much, as the Committee did not take the view that the Vote should be reduced. There was plenty of work to be done, and the reason more money was asked for' was that more might be given to repairs. To avoid the errors in Estimates which had been made on both sides of the House on former occasions, the Admiralty had placed themselves in communication with the authorities in the dockyards, and had gone over ship by ship, making a list of such as ought to be repaired, and consulting with the dockyard officers as to the number of men required. The result had been embodied in a more accurate programme than had ever been placed before the House; and it had been thought necessary to take the men, because it had been deemed requisite that the work should be done. It was not candid of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Henry Lennox), to speak of their falling short by 8,000 tons, because that had been already explained to be the accumulated errors of three or four years in the estimate of work done on ships, which it was difficult to determine precisely. The repairs to the Glatton had not been more extensive or more serious than had boon anticipated. There had been some delay in providing new armour plates, but the work had not been specially hurried on. There had been no more mischief done to the ship than was expected in the first instance. Considerable preparations had been made for the manufacture of torpedoes, although the money spent had not been so large as might have been expected. There were a large quantity on hand, and arrangements were being made in the Channel and Reserve ships to fit them with torpedo rooms for the training of officers and men. Hitherto instruction had been carried on by dummies which were tied to the ships, the torpedoes being kept in reserve. A small and fast torpedo ship was being built, which it was expected would be better adapted for working torpedoes, though of course the Whitehead torpedo could be successfully used from other ships. Arrangements were being made to divide the duty of laying down torpedoes between the Army and the Navy, and there would be a Joint Committee of gentlemen from

  143
  the War Office and the Admiralty to carry them out on the general principle of leaving defensive torpedoes to the Army and sea-going and offensive torpedoes to the Navy.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he wished to explain that, so far as he knew, the men who had brought this grievance under his notice wore in the receipt of the increased pay; but their object was to show the universal discontent that prevailed amongst the other men, under the impression that a gigantic system of favouritism was growing up in the dockyards.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was not surprised at the result of the discussion; and, under the circumstances, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX,who had given Notice of his intention to move to reduce Vote 6 by the sum necessary for the commencement of the new mastless turret-ship of the Fury type, said, it was with some reluctance and great difficulty he had brought forward his Amendment, because his object was not to diminish the sum to be devoted to our iron-clad Fleet, but he was anxious that the money proposed to be spent on that new mastless turret-ship should rather be applied to the building of a fully-rigged cruising iron-clad. It was now four and a-half years since a full-rigged cruiser had been laid down, a fact which implied the consideration of the question as to what was the general condition of our iron-clad Navy, both with regard to the number and nature of the vessels, and their repairs. Last year, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty came down to the House and earned his (Lord Henry Lennox's) approbation, and that of his right hon. Friend the late Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), by stating he was convinced of the necessity of laying down and adding to the Navy two large broadside iron-clad ships — the Superb and the Téméaire. Months elapsed without any sign of the Superb or the Téméraire being even commenced; and in the autumn, in consequence of some letters which the right hon. Gentleman described as "scolding letters," but which he thought were only dictated by a patriotic sense of duty on the
  144
  part of those who looked into those questions, it appeared that the reason why one of those vessels, the Téméraire, was not commenced as a broadside ship was because the Admiralty were going to make it a mastless iron-clad. Such a change in the Naval programme ought never to be made without being submitted to the sanction of the House. The other night the right hon. Gentleman said, the Admiralty proposed to go on with a broadside iron-clad and with the new Fury; and that was all the work in new iron-dads to be done this year. [Mr. GOSCHEN: And one at Portsmouth.] He (Lord Henry Lennox) did not understand so. Then that would make four. Two, however, ought to have been begun and advanced to a considerable extent last year, and virtually the programme for this year was one ship at Portsmouth, to be advanced at the rate of 500 tons, and the new Fury at Pembroke, to be advanced at the rate of 654 tons. He wished to ask whether it was correct that the only iron-clad tonnage to be added to the Navy this year was that which was represented in the dockyards, and which amounted to a total of only 7,600 tons. If so, that was below the average which the right hon. Member for Pontefract, when First Lord of the Admiralty, declared to be right for this country to build, for in 1870 that right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) said they ought at least to add 12,000 tons of iron-clad tonnage annually to the Navy; but, according to the Estimates now before them, they were this year to add, instead of 12,000, only 7,600 tons, even if their programme was fulfilled. That being so, he asked for an explanation why £211,411 was asked for on account of iron armour-plated ships? [Mr. GOSCHEN explained it was a misprint, and was an aggregate liability.] However that might be, he (Lord Henry Lennox) had. been put to much time and trouble in endeavouring to trace the amount. Another fact had greatly influenced him in asking the Committee to reject the Vote for that mastless turret-ship of the Fury type, with a view to spending the money upon another fully-rigged iron-clad. In 1872–3, 10 iron-dads were down for repair. Of that number, four re-appeared this year; therefore it was clear they had not been repaired. One was repaired, and, he believed in commission.

  145
  But there remained five other iron-clads about which he thought the Committee would like to hear something, and those were wooden iron-clads. In speaking of the Prince Consort, one of the five, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said last year that her condition was not serious in the sense of being dangerous; but the cost of removing the partially-decayed timber would be so heavy that it was very doubtful whether it would be worth while to do it. If they were to be told that these wooden iron-clads were to be stop-gaps no longer, but that they had served their time, and were not to be counted as effective for the future, some steps ought to be taken to make up for the deficiency which their removal from the service would cause. The reason, therefore, he wished to have the Fury changed into a broadside-ship was that in cruising broadside-ships of that class we were excessively weak, while we were quite strong enough in ships of the Devastation type, which were avowedly experimental. The Admiralty ought to stay their hands in reference to that type until the trials of the Devastation were completed, and ought not to lay out £380,000 or £400,000 upon a sister ship to the Fury. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Vote be reduced by £15,150, and said he hoped it would be clearly understood that he did not wish to prevent the laying down of another iron-clad, but to induce the Admiralty to change the design of the ship they contemplated.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,100,080, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874."—(Lord Henry Lennox.)
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not see how another ship could be substituted for the new Fury that year, and if the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) were carried, its effect would be to prevent the commencement of a new iron-clad for upwards of a year. It was not proposed, moreover, to produce an exact copy of the Fury or Devastation, but that the ship intended to be built should answer the description given by Sir Spencer Robinson—that was to say, that it
  146
  should carry the heaviest possible guns, with the thickest possible armour; that it should be of the same size as the Fury, of the same coal-carrying capacity, of the same speed, but that it should be a modification of the Fury. The Admiralty hoped also to be able to place in the new ship guns very much larger than the guns in the Devastation, for there had lately been a great advance in the science of producing big guns, and by some new hydraulic arrangements which had been produced by Sir William Armstrong's firm it was possible to mount guns of 50 to 60 tons each in vessels no larger than the Fury. In view of that arrangement, a re-distribution of the armour would have to be made, as ordinary armour would not be capable of resisting the tremendous power of such ordnance. Under these circumstances, he thought the noble Lord would not wish the Committee to take a course which would prevent the Admiralty from taking any steps which would enable us to remain ahead of other countries in this matter, for the Amendment he had proposed would prevent the Admiralty from proceeding with the building of a class of ships which they thought we required.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, the discussion of the Amendment involved nothing less than the shipbuilding policy of the Admiralty; whether the Devastation would be the ship of the future, and whether the Government were justified in building several vessels of similar type without further reconsidering the matter. In 1860, we determined to cover our ships with armour—and made the armour more than equal to the guns, and our policy was intelligible, but the power of the gun had now so completely overtaken the power of defence, that the conditions of naval construction were entirely changed, and it had become impossible to make armour thick enough to resist the gun; in addition, other circumstances had to be taken into consideration which had no existence before, and the whole matter had to be re-considered. In his opinion, therefore, we should now give up all attempts to keep out solid shot; we should only have armour thick enough to keep out shell, and rely mainly on the improved power of offence as being of equal or greater importance than those of passive resistance; not only was

  147
  this powerful armament now available, but so also was the use of the torpedo, and the question took this form, should not the principal feature in new ships be so to utilize these new tremendous powers of offence that passive resistance might to a great extent be disregarded—and this led to the conclusion that the time had arrived at once to decrease considerably the thickness of armour. Now, if we confined ourselves to keeping out shell, only 5 inches of armour would be sufficient, and with this reduced thickness in the hull, he would abandon it altogether round the guns. This would enable a vessel to be constructed, of only about 4,500 tons burden, to go 16 knots, and to carry eight 35-ton guns instead of four only, while by adopting the corvette system, with falling bulwarks, he would obtain the power of concentrating the whole fire on either broadside, and of bringing six out of the eight guns into use if chasing or being chased. A light rig should be adopted sufficient to navigate the vessel when necessary, and a most important addition to the armament should be four torpedo steam launches carried in the davits, capable of steaming 16 knots, or of towing a torpedo 13 knots. He would ask what class of vessel could cope with this— certainly not a Devastation, for with such a vessel as here suggested, her speed would enable her to choose her position, while her guns would be more powerful and effective than any hitherto adopted or even suggested—and while keeping her enemy at any distance she chose, by lowering her torpedo boats under the smoke of her guns, she could harass, disable, and destroy any adversary. We ought not then to go on multiplying ships of the present type, with thick armour, which, after all, was useless against the heavy guns which were now made. But he would not ask the Government to lay aside all their present plans and adopt at once and without due consideration, so great a change, and he was not prepared to abandon the programme they had presented to the House. It was of far less moment to the country to build a ship too much than one too little. The Devastation was a formidable ship, and would be safe at sea; notwithstanding, in his view, she was not the ship of the future. He would suggest that the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox)
  148
  should not divide the Committee, but leave it to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to see whether he could not apply the sum in question to completing more quickly a ship of similar type.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty was not satisfactory. His noble Friend did not wish to prevent a ship being built, but he declined to commit the country to another ship of the Devastation type before the Devastation had been tried, seeing that there were already two others in process of construction. No doubt the Devastation, properly handled, would be safe near the coast, but he objected to proceeding with another mastless ironclad until the new Fury was completed. He pressed for some information as to the repair of ironclads. Nine had been put down for repairs without being repaired, and it was important to know how many of these were really on the effective list.
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEprotested against the Devastation being described as a "mastless" ship. Her mainmast was 96 feet high, which was at least the height of the mainmast of the Monarch, one of the highest in the British Navy. If the experiments made were to be trusted, he would take a more favourable view of the stability and buoyancy of the Devastation than even her constructors or admirers, for they seemed to entertain apprehensions as to her power of carrying canvas. It was of the greatest importance that she should be able to carry canvas as a means of increasing her speed and economizing coal, for she could not carry enough coal to take her across the Atlantic and back.
  MR. STANLEYasked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to give them some fuller particulars with regard to the ship which they were asked to build. If the type of the ship were to be altered, it should be with the full concurrence of the House.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that information would be given to the House before the ship was begun. It should be given at once, but that he was anxious to have the design completed before committing himself to details, or else he should lose nine months. The ship, however, would not be of the Devastation type in the shape of her bow and her stern. The authorities in the Construction Depart-

  149
  ment were considering whether it would be possible to utilize the mast of the Devastation, so as to allow her to carry a certain amount of canvas under jury rig. As regarded the Devastation, she could not carry sails without impeding the bow fire, and that he was most anxious to preserve. These sails might prove serviceable, not in ordinary times, but on an emergency. He did not wish to be in such a position that it might be said next year that foreign Powers had already gained upon us, and had got a better and a stronger kind of ship than we possessed. Therefore, he hoped the Committee would grant the money, no portion of which should be spent until he had stated to the House the exact type of vessel which it would represent. With regard to the wooden ironclads, the Admiralty did not propose to spend any such sums as £60,000 or £70,000 in order to make them as good as now. The thinness of their armour would not justify so large an expenditure; but, nevertheless, they were capable of rendering good service in time of war, and the Admiralty were now considering the amount of money which should be expended on them.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsuggested to his noble Friend that after the explanation which had been given by the First Lord of the Admiralty, he should not for the present take a division On his Motion.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, as the object which he had in view had been gained, he would yield to the suggestion and withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (6.) £70,935, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.
  (7.) £62,214, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.
  (8.) £18,683, Marine Divisions.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday

  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [BILL 108.]
  (Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Winterbotham)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 12th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Renewal of investiture abolished.)
  MR. GORDONmoved, after "superior," to insert—
  "And it shall not be competent for the superior in any ease to insist upon such person taking out any charter, precept, or other writ by progress."
  The hon. and learned Member said, he had also prepared Provisos relating to infeftment, and confirmation, and other points which he would afterwards move.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it had already been determined that it was not competent to insist on charters being granted; and the Provisos proposed were altogether inconsistent with the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 62; Noes 102: Majority 40.
  MR. M'LAGANmoved, after the word "superior," to add words requiring the new owner within three months after acquiring his rights to produce his titles to the superior or his agents in order that entry might be made.
  After short Explanation,
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause "greed to.
  Clauses 5 to 7, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Estates to vest in heirs without service.)
  MR. GORDONmoved to leave out from beginning to line 11, and before "shall" insert words providing that "estate shall vest without service in case of proprietor dying intestate."
  Amendment negatived.
  Other Amendments moved and negatived.
  Clause agreed to
  Clause 9 (Completion of heirs' title.)
  MR. GORDONmoved, in line after "effect," to leave out to end of clause,

  151
  and insert the words "Completion of title when deceased heir not served." He thought it strange, when the Scotch system was being introduced into England, the Lord Advocate should propose to abolish it in Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the Amendment. He regarded the procedure in regard to service as altogether superfluous. If there was no dispute of a man's right to succession, there was no reason why he should go through a complicated procedure; if there was a dispute, it ought to be raised in the ordinary Courts of Law, and settled in the ordinary way.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthought the attention of the Lord Chancellor should be drawn to this proposed alteration of the Scotch law before the system of service was adopted in England.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the authority of the Lord Chancellor was different from that of the Sheriff of Chancery.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 41: Majority 38.
  Clause agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HERON, Bill to provide facilities for the purchase of Lands by Tenants in Ireland, and to amend and alter Part II. and Part III. of "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870)," ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERON, Mr. JOHN BRIGHT, and Mr. PIM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 167.]

  NOXIOUS BUSINESSES.
  Select Committee appointed, "to consider the operation of Clauses 55 and 56 of Act 7 and 8 Vic. c. 84, and the best means of making provision concerning the offensive or noxious businesses therein specified:"—Committee nominated: —Mr. HEADLAM, Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Mr. TORRENS, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. MORLEY, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Dr. BREWER, Mr. EDMUND TURNOR, Sir JOHN OGILVY, Mr. DAVENPORT, Mr. LOCKE, Sir CHARLES MILLS, Mr. SAMUDA, Mr. FREDERICK WALPOLE, and Mr. MONTAGUE GUEST:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Prevention of Frauds on Charitable Funds* (122).
Second Reading — Marriages Legalization, St. John's Chapel, Eton* (99); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order Confirmation* (95); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (96); Superannuation Act Amendment* (113).
Third Reading—Railway and Canal Traffic* (112), and passed.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS—KING EDWARD VI.'s GRAMMAR SCHOOL, BIRMINGHAM.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in moving an Address to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will withhold

  75
  Her consent from the Scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners in respect of this School, said, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that when the Act which gave power to the Endowed Schools Commissioners was passing through that and the other House there was no opposition to it on the ground of principle. That peaceful passage was due to two understandings—and at that time more value was attached to understandings than now, with our improved experience, it was perhaps customary to attach to them. One of the understandings to which he referred was that conveyed to Parliament in the celebrated speech of Mr. W. E. Forster when he said that well-managed schools had nothing to fear from the Bill. The second understanding was that the Church of England should not be disturbed in the management of schools which the Founders had clearly intended should belong to her. Now, the Free Grammar School of King Edward the Sixth, in Birmingham, must be well known to their Lordships by reputation at least—they knew it well as a school attached by its Royal Founder to the Church of England, and as being one of the most liberal and one of the most successful of those foundations which were so much to the honour and advantage of this country. It was founded by King Edward the Sixth in the year 1552, and its charter contained this ordinance—
  "The Governors, with the advice of the Bishop of the diocese for the time being, from time to time may make, and have power to make, fit and wholesome statutes and ordinances concerning the order, government, and direction of the school."
  It was difficult to imagine how any school could have been attached to the Church of England in a more distinct and direct manner: Indeed, he did not know how it was that this School had escaped coming under the 19th section of the Endowed Schools Act, which provided that where the Founders of a school directed that the children should be instructed according to the doctrines or formularies of any particular Church or Denomination, the Commissioners should not interfere with that intention. Now, if in any law or charter it was provided that certain authorities were to act under the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the presumption would be
  76
  that they were to act in accordance with the laws of England; or, if under similar circumstances, any authority was to act under the advice of the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England, you would conclude that such authority was to act in accordance with the principles of the Church of England. Accordingly, for 300 years the interpretation put on the foundation of this King Edward's School was that it was a Church of England foundation; and this interpretation was recognized in the Act of 1831—which was one passed not in the days of Tory ascendancy, but in a reforming Parliament and under the Ministry of Lord Grey. It was provided by that Act that the head master should be a clergyman of the Church of England, that the assistant master should be a clergyman of the Church of England, and that all the other masters should be members of the Church of England, and that the boys who received religious instruction should be well grounded in the fundamental doctrines and principles of the Christian religion. That was the state of things found when the Endowed Schools Commissioners stepped in. They propounded a Scheme which entirely deposed the Bishop of the diocese, in respect of the authority which they had possessed over the endowment for 300 years, and removed the School entirely from under his advice. The head master and the assistant masters need no longer be clergymen of the Church of England, or even members of that Church. There was no provision whatever for ascertaining whether the children were instructed in the doctrines of the Christian religion. The solitary provision relating to the religious education was that contained in the 55th clause of the Scheme of the Commissioners, which said—
  "Subject to the provisions herein contained, the Governors shall make proper regulations for the religious instruction to be given in the several schools."
  It was therefore suggested that the appointment of Governors provided some substitute for the powers that were taken away, and that in the character of the Governors there would be found security that this would still remain a religious School. Unfortunately, the truth was exactly the other way. The old Governors were swept away, and their

  77
  places wore filled up by a Scheme which was somewhat complicated, and the working of which was to some extent obscure. Now, if it were provided that one portion of the Governing Body should be elected by the rest, the principles of the whole Body would be the principles of the majority of those who appointed the rest. The question, therefore, was—how were the Governors to be elected? Some of the members were to be elected by co-optation—a plan which the Endowed Schools Commissioners had frequently introduced. Of the remainder, eight were to be elected by the town council and four by the School Board. The School was therefore handed over entirely to the town council. Now the town council of Birmingham were no doubt excellent men, but they had distinguished themselves of late years by their extreme and passionate dislike of religious instruction in public schools, and had even gone so far as to set themselves against the laws of the country by declining to levy a school rate, because some fees might be given to denominational schools. To give the School over to the town council without a single provision guaranteeing the Christianity of the School was in reality to give it over to secular instruction. He was told that a noble Lord, a member of the Endowed Schools Commission (Lord Lyttelton), had presented a Petition from the town council of Birmingham which declared that the council were extremely anxious this Scheme of the Commissioners should be adopted. He had no doubt of it—but that was no reason why Parliament should adopt it. The town council might be very glad to take some of the churches of Birmingham and apply them to the use of other religious bodies; but was that any reason why Parliament should hand those churches over to them? The question really was this—to whom did this School belong? It most certainly did not belong to the town council. It must not, however, be imagined that this School had been conducted on narrow or exclusive principles. He believed that as far as was possible, consistent with religious teaching, it had shown the greatest tenderness for the religious feelings of those who were not members of the Church of England: a liberal conscience clause had been in operation; there had always been a large number of Nonconformists in the
  78
  Schools, and they had united so fully in the spirit in which the Conscience Clause had been passed, that they had never taken advantage of it, and he was informed that the only persons who used that conscience clause were Jews. A Return published in 1869 showed that in the classical school there were 191 pupils belonging to the Church of England and 98 Nonconformists; in the English schools the numbers were 150 and 86 respectively, and in the lower school 41 and 24; or a total of 382 members of the Church of England as against 208 Nonconformists. In the elementary schools for boys the Church of England pupils were 318 and the Nonconformists 332. On the face of these figures, it was impossible to say that the education given in King Edward's School was administered in any exclusive spirit. He presumed that when Mr. Forster said that well-managed schools had nothing to fear from the Endowed Schools Bill, his Colleagues must have understood him as having used them in some other than their English sense, or the Department he represented would have vetoed this Scheme; for what said Mr. Green, the Assistant Commissioner, with reference to the management of the School—
  "It is universally admitted that the present Board has discharged its duties with all care and conscientiousness. Among all classes there is a general pride in the school, a general admission of the benefits which it has conferred on the town, due in great measure to the judgment of the Governors in their selection of head masters, and a general desire to maintain or elevate its character as a place of high education."
  The Commissioners themselves also bore the highest testimony to the manner in which the School had been conducted, and the most earnest appeals had been made by the present head master, the late head master, and Dr. Gifford, who was head master from 1848 to 1862, that the character of the School might not be changed. Their Lordships were aware that Dr. Lee, the late Bishop of Manchester, was formerly head master of the School. What did Mr. Benson, the Master of Wellington College, say in allusion to that right rev. Prelate?—
  "I believe there never was a greater teacher than Dr. Lee, nor one more devoted to the promotion of every branch of study, scientific and artistic as well as literary; but I remember his

  79
  saying that a recognition conveyed in a sentence of The Quarterly Review to the effect that 'the great school had been the centre of Christianity to that great town' conveyed the one idea which had inspired all his labour.'"
  There were a number of objections to the different details of the Scheme of the Commissioners; but the objection which he (the Marquess of Salisbury) wished to bring most prominently forward, and that on which he challenged the decision of their Lordships, was that for 300 years this School had belonged to the Church of England, and that they would withhold their consent to a Scheme which proposed to take away every guarantee that now existed for giving a Christian education, and would hand the foundation over to a body who were notoriously in favour of secular education. Among the minor objections to the Scheme were these—that it took the management of the middle school from the head master; that it interfered improperly with the higher education for which the School had been so justly celebrated; that the Governing Body were not to be allowed to act by sealed document until after seven days' notice had been given; a prohibition which would prove a serious obstacle to efficient management. Then there was a clause in the Scheme which he regarded as not only objectionable, but dangerous. It was in these words—
  "The Charity Commissioners may from time to time, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, frame schemes for the alteration of any provisions of this scheme or otherwise for the government or regulation of the Foundation, provided that such schemes be not inconsistent with the first clause of this scheme, or with anything contained in the Endowed Schools Act, 1869."
  The Endowed Schools Commissioners were obliged to lay their schemes before Parliament; but, after those Commissioners had acted and Parliament had expressed its opinion it would be in the power of the Charity Commissioners, if this Scheme were adopted, to act of themselves and alter the provisions of the Scheme without any sanction from Parliament. The opinion of Mr. Fry had been taken on the clause. There could be no higher opinion, and he believed that, according to Mr. Fry, such would be the effect of the clause. Surely their Lordships would not sanction such a delegation of the powers of Parliament
  80
  to the Charity Commissioners? Still more objectionable in itself, and contrary to the wish of every one in Birmingham, it would remove the School from its present site in the town and place it in the outskirts. The town council of Birminghan numbered among its members men of distinction, but that council appeared to have an extreme and passionate dislike of religious instruction. It had gone so far as to set itself against the law of the country by refusing a school rate because a portion of it might be given for religious instruction. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would not be led to approve the Scheme because it had the approbation of the town council of Birmingham. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ducie) —acting apparently under inspiration—had given Notice of certain Amendments but their Lordships' only power over the Scheme was that of omission—the power of excision. He had no doubt the noble Earl could use the scissors with great skill, but he could not make this Scheme acceptable to those who had the management of the School. It was one brought forward by an expiring Commission and submitted to a Parliament which was also expiring; but he hoped their Lordships would listen to the appeal of the Governing Body of the School, and would refuse their sanction to this Scheme, and would not allow this great wrong to be done.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will withhold her assent from the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners relating to the Free Grammar School of King Edward VI. in Birmingham.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF DIXIEsaid, he desired to speak with the most profound respect of the Governing Body of this School. He believed it was a most excellent one, and that the School had been ably and liberally conducted; but the Governing Body was in every sense a self-elected body, entirely irresponsible to every one, and the very fact that a large number of Nonconformist pupils were in the habit of attending it was a reason why Nonconformists should have a share in the government. There was a strong feeling in Birmingham that the Governing Body should be a representative one. The Governing Body had been for a long time, if not always, composed exclusively of mem-

  81
  bers of the Church of England, and, as he was informed, of the politics of the noble Marquess who had just addressed their Lordships, and it was therefore desirable that some alteration should be adopted which would give to other parties some chance of enforcing their views. He was afraid that if this Scheme were rejected there would be very considerable dissatisfaction in Birmingham. There were various suggestions made in the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners which wore not unpalatable to either party. For instance, with respect to the admission of scholars and the payment of fees, he believed both parties were entirely agreed; and he, for one, should much regret that, by the postponement of the Scheme, those matters upon which all parties were agreed, should be prevented from being adopted. He therefore ventured to urge upon their Lordships certain alterations in the Scheme, which would not affect the general principle on which the Endowed Schools Commissioners were acting; and at the same time he wished to observe that the alterations he should ask them to adopt were confined chiefly to matters of detail, and would in no way interfere with the future condition of the schools. The Amendments of which he had given Notice were confined to three points. The first was the omission of a certain portion of Clause 29, which would in his opinion tend to reduce the sense of responsibility thrown upon the Governing Body. The next point was to omit Clause 51, which affected the site of the building. The schools were not at present advantageously situated in Birmingham, and it had been urged that the commercial value of the site was so great that the Governors were not justified in remaining where they were. As against that, however, there was the fact that the schools were placed in close contiguity with the railway stations, and scholars were able to come to the schools from all the suburbs of the town. In this case the people of Birmingham were all agreed that the schools should remain on their present site. His Amendment did not make it compulsory upon the Governors to remove to another site; but if the schools ultimately attained such a position that it would be necessary to remove them, it gave the Governing Body the power of removing
  82
  them. The third point he had to ask the House to consider was with reference to scholarships. He asked their Lordships to omit paragraph 1 in Section 114, not so much in the interest of the poor, as in the interest of those who were comparatively rich, so that those who preferred to send their sons to other private grammar schools should be enabled to avail themselves of the advantages of the Birmingham Grammar School. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would consent to accept his Amendments, as, if they did, they would be able to adopt the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. The noble Earl accordingly moved the first of the Amendments of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved, after the word ("from") to insert the words ("so much of").—(The Earl of Ducie).
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he must commence by expressing his dissent from his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to the two "understandings" which his noble Friend so strongly relied on in his opposition to this Scheme. First, as to the interpretation put by his noble Friend on the words used by Mr. Forster that schools like that now under consideration would not be interfered with by the Bill. If his noble Friend would refer to what passed in their Lordships' House when the Endowed Schools Bill was under discussion he would find that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) did not in 1869 understand the matter as his noble Friend now said he understood it. In Committee on the Bill the noble Duke asked him whether Christ's Hospital ought not to be treated in an exceptional manner and excluded from the operation of the Bill, which would otherwise have a very disastrous effect upon it. The noble Duke's words were—
  "He wished to press upon the noble Earl (Earl De Grey and Ripon) who had charge of the Bill the propriety of treating it (Christ's Hospital) in an exceptional manner and of excluding it from the operation of the Bill, which would otherwise have a very disastrous effect upon it."—[3 Hansard, cxcvii. 1866.]
  And speaking for the Government in their Lordships' House, what was his reply? Did he say that the Commissioners would not deal with Christ's Hospital? Nothing of the kind. He referred to Christ's Hospital and to

  83
  some six or seven schools in all, including this very School at Birmingham, which were to be allowed one year to bring forward schemes of their own, and in the most distinct terms he stated that if they did not do so they would be dealt with by the Endowed Schools Commissioners in the precise manner in which this school had been dealt with. And it was with a statement such as that on record his noble Friend came down to that House and said that the Government had given Parliament to understand that Schools like the King Edward's School would not be touched by the Commissioners! The second "understanding" relied on by his noble Friend was that schools connected with the Church of England would not be touched. Now, this was a matter not of "understanding," but of law. His noble Friend wondered that this School was not held to come under the 19th section of the Endowed Schools Act. He believed that until that night no one had ever made such a suggestion. He believed his noble Friend was the first who had ever put forward that view of the case:—the Managers of the School had never imagined that they were under that clause. His noble Friend said matters were going on as they had gone on for 300 years, till the Endowed Schools Commissioners intervened; but the fact was that the Commissioners were not to intervene in the first instance without necessity—it was the Act of Parliament which intervened—it was for the Governors themselves to propose a scheme in the first instance, which would be dealt with by the Commissioners—and that they had done; and it was only after receiving the Governor's Scheme that the Commissioners took action. He did not dispute the terms in which his noble Friend had spoken of the Governing Body; but it would be a mistake to suppose that much dissatisfaction had not been expressed in Birmingham in respect of the arrangements of the School. In 1864 a society was formed in Birmingham, called "the Grammar School Reform Association," for the purpose of bringing about a change in the management and organization of this King Edward's School. In that association were several clergymen of the Church of England and a gentleman who had contested Birmingham in the Conservative interest. A
  84
  deputation from Birmingham came up and made statements on the subject to the Royal Commission on Endowed Schools, over which the late Lord Taunton presided, and among the evidence given before that Commission was the evidence of Canon Miller, from which he would venture to read this extract—
  "I would wish to state emphatically to the Commissioners that I believe the point upon which I am asked to speak is the point of all others which is important in the present inquiry. I believe there is no point in connection with the School upon which the feeling is so strong in Birmingham, and which, if it were satisfactorily settled, would go so far to quiet the minds of those who are at present dissatisfied. The objection which has been taken for a great many years, and which is by no means of recent growth as far as my knowledge of Birmingham goes, is the principle of close and unmodified self-election. The effect of this principle of self-election has been that the members of all Nonconformist bodies have been practically excluded from the government of the School, though there is nothing whatever in the charter, as far as I understand, to prevent a Nonconformist from being elected. There is nothing in the Act of Parliament to that effect, and it has been merely practice. The result has further been that no member of the Town Council has been upon the Board of Governors. The result has further been that no gentleman who has ever been elected either to represent the borough in Parliament or to represent the county, with one single exception, and that the exception of a very strong Conservative, has ever been chosen by the Governors in modern times to a seat at the board. I mean by that to imply and indeed distinctly to convey to the Commissioners, that we have this practical anomaly rankling in the minds of the people, that the present system works in such a way as to exclude from the 'government of this trust a vast number of the most intelligent citizens, and some citizens, I am bound to say, who have taken the lead in the work of education in the town. I mean gentlemen of the Nonconformist body; and the effect has also been, and this is also rankling in the minds of the people, to shut out from the government of this School almost all the men who by popular suffrage, either as members of Parliament or members of the town council, had been called to posts of dignity and influence, and who are thereby seen to possess the confidence of their fellow-citizens. I may say without any exaggeration that I am quite sure, from my own knowledge, that there is a very deep-seated grievance in the minds of many people in Birmingham, and that they do feel that the Board should be thrown open."
  This was pretty strong testimony, and from a perfectly unimpeachable witness, as to the state of feeling in Birmingham on the present arrangements in regard to the School. It was also shown that before the Commission of 1866, the Go-

  85
  vernors themselves had great difficulty in seeking from Parliament facilities for dealing with their own schools on account of the opposition they were certain to meet with on the part of the town council in consequence of the exclusive character of the Governing Body of the School, and at last they ceased altogether to come to Parliament to give effect to their wishes. Therefore, it was not just to the Commissioners to say that they had intervened in this matter without necessity. They had intervened in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament—and that being so he had no alternative but to deny the charges which the noble Marquess had brought with respect to these "understandings." Before passing to the larger questions raised by his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) respecting religious instruction and the constitution of the Governing Body, he wished to say a few words on the Amendments of his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Ducie). With respect to that portion of the Amendment relating to the proposed new site for the School, he was informed it was in one of the principal thoroughfares of Birmingham, and it was certainly objectionable on that account; but he admitted that there was a general feeling in favour of keeping the school where it was now situated, and in this respect he accepted the Amendment; as he did also that portion of it which related to the scholarships. Some of their Lordships who were not acquainted with all the facts of this case and the position of the Education Department might be inclined to say—" If you are so ready to yield to a proposal of such a kind in this House, how comes it that you did not make this alteration when the Scheme was before the Committee of Council?" His answer to that was that the Education Department had no power to make any alterations. This House and the other House of Parliament might make alterations by way of omission, though they could not add anything; but' the Education Department possessed no such power. All the Department could do under the Act of Parliament was either to approve or disapprove a scheme. This, however, was a provision which in his judgment might be beneficially altered. The Governing Body had stated that they had been advised that they had no power of coming to the Department to make any repre-
  86
  sentation except under the Appeal Clause of the Act. They might have made any representations they pleased, and there was nothing to prevent them. If they had done so, their representations would have received the utmost possible consideration; but not a single representation had been made with respect to any one of these matters. He did not blame the Governors, for they seemed to have been misled by someone in this matter; but, of course, they had prevented the Department from considering their objections in full. Many of the minor points which had been referred to were really involved in what were called the "common forms" of all these schemes. While well aware of the great temptation there was to adopt common forms, he was bound to admit it was preferable in a case like the present not to run counter to the feelings of those who were interested in the question. Leaving, however, these minor points, he turned to the greater question—whether this Scheme ought not to be passed on account of the absence of any provision for religious education. Now this part of the Scheme was in almost entire accordance with the provisions of every Scheme except those under Clause 19. A good many of these schemes were already in practical operation, and no intimation had reached him of any difficulty having arisen with respect to the operation of these clauses. His noble Friend, though he did not precisely say so, seemed to imply that the result of the operations of the Governing Body would be the total banishment of religious instruction from this School. It was impossible, however, without a violation of the provisions of this Scheme, for the Governing Body to set up a secular school in lieu of that provided by the Scheme. The words of the Scheme were that "subject to the provisions therein contained, the Governing Body shall make proper regulations for the religious instruction of the schools." It seemed to him, therefore, that the Governors could not refuse to make provision for religious instruction. The practical question which would have to be settled by the future Governing Body would be whether that instruction should be in accordance with the doctrines of Church of England, or of the nature of that given in the British and Foreign Schools Society's

  87
  Schools. That was what the Governors would have to decide. The noble Marquess had given the figures, which showed that there was a very large number of the children of Nonconformists in the School; and he (the Marquess of Ripon) begged their Lordships to bear in mind the fact that out of 1,800 children in 1869, not less than 800 were the children of Nonconformists. The noble Marquess declared that the effect of the Scheme would be to hand over the government of the School to the town council of Birmingham. But surely this was not so. The proposal of the Scheme was that of the 23 Governors, eight were to be elected by the town council, four by the School Board of Birmingham, one by the teachers of the Upper School, and ten by the existing Governing Body of the School. And the noble Marquess called this handing over the School to the town council Hereafter, when the Governing Body would be reduced from. 23 to 21, there would never be more than eight elected by the town council. The noble Marquess expressed his fear that the government of the School would be handed over to a secularist body, the town council of Birmingham. But in order that that should be, it was necessary to assume that all these Governors would be of one shade of opinion, and all favourable to secular education. It was unlikely, however, that a great public body like the town council would be inclined to choose persons of a single type of opinion. At all events, the ten elected by the existing Governing Body, the one Governor elected by the teachers of the Upper School, and the four elected by the School Board would represent other and different shades of opinion. He understood that the Chairman of the School Board was one of the existing Governing Body, and that the Vice Chairman was a Conservative candidate at the last election for the borough. What was the course taken by the Commissioners in framing the Governing Body? The Commissioners had before them three proposals for the future government of this School—one from the town council, another from the present Governing Body, and a third from the Grammar School Reform Association. They had also the suggestions of Lord Taunton's Commission; and all these various schemes had been considered. Lord Taunton's Commission proposed
  88
  10 members elected by the town council and 11 members by the whole Board, not giving any power whatever to the existing Governors. The scheme presented by the Governors made a very remarkable proposition, considering the state of public feeling described by Canon Miller. They proposed 5 members elected by the town council, 5 by the borough justices, and 11 co-optatives, but they proposed that no change should be made until the existing body had died out, when these new elements should be infused into the Governing Body. That would not have satisfied the people of Birmingham or the Grammar School reformers? If the proposal of the Governing Body was somewhat immodest, he was bound to say that the proposal of the town council was no less so. They proposed that the Governing Body should be chosen exclusively by the town council. The Grammar School Reform Association on their part suggested that it should consist of 8 members of the town council, 4 elected by the School Board, and that the co-optatives should never exceed 6. If the Commissioners had wanted to hand over this institution to the town council, they would have adopted the proposal of the town council. The Commissioners did not do that, and they also rejected the proposal of the Governors—they took, as the basis of their Scheme, the more moderato intermediate proposal of the Grammar School Reform Association, but made the proposal more favourable to the existing Governing Body. In submitting these facts, he thought he had established, in the first place, that in dealing with these Schools, neither the Commissioners nor Her Majesty's Government had in the slightest degree departed from the statements which they made to Parliament when the Act was being passed. He thought he had also shown that, until his noble Friend had mentioned it to-night, no one ever asserted that the School came within the 19th clause of the Act. He had also shown that there was now, and had been for many years, a large amount of dissatisfaction about the Governing Body; and he had also shown that out of the various local proposals the Commissioners had adopted that one which was most moderate, and had even modified it so as to make it even more favourable to the existing Governing Body. He earnestly trusted that, under circumstances

  89
  such as these, their Lordships would not reject this Scheme; contrary to the almost unanimous opinion of the people of Birmingham. There were no objectors to the Scheme except the Governing Body; and he ventured to say he did not think his noble Friend would effect the object he had in view if he induced their Lordships to reject the Scheme. There was nothing in the past history of this matter which would lead anyone to suppose that the desire of the town of Birmingham to have a larger share in the management of this School was likely to grow weaker—he believed, on the contrary, that the rejection of this moderate proposal would strengthen that desire. He could not help thinking if the Scheme was rejected now, noble Lords opposite, who might have to deal officially with the question instead of those who now sat behind him, would think twice before they ventured, under the responsibilities of office, to resist the almost unanimous opinion of the people of Birmingham.
  EARL GREYsaid, he had all along understood that the Commissioners would not interfere with any schools which were found to work well; but this rule did not seem to have been at all adhered to. The only reason alleged for the proposed modification of the Governing Body, was that there was a great number of Nonconformist children in the School; but he (Earl Grey) drew a different conclusion from that fact. The number of Nonconformists was to him a conclusive proof that the School had been fairly administered by the Governing Body. The modification of the Governing Body not being necessary to secure fair play to the Nonconformists, would it tend to improve the government of the School? He did not think it would. He thought that if they admitted these conflicting parties strong partizan feelings would arise. He thought the School Boards generally—not of one party, but on both sides—had wasted much of their time in disputes on matters of a worthless character, instead of applying themselves to the working of the schools. He believed, for this reason, that it would be an unfortunate occurrence if they were to throw into the Governing Body a large infusion of Nonconformists; and therefore, however unwillingly, he must support the Motion of the noble Marquess.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he looked upon this question both as an Endowed School Commissioner and as a near neighbour of the town of Birmingham; and he could not but regret that the Governing Body of King Edward's School had thought fit to invoke the assistance of the noble Marquess to throw out this Scheme. If they succeeded, they would make themselves most unpopular, and give the greatest dissatisfaction to almost the whole people of Birmingham—and surely the feelings of the inhabitants of the town should be consulted on the question. The town council on this question were the representatives of the feelings of the inhabitants of the town. For many months a bitter agitation had prevailed upon this matter, which had been put to rest by the promulgation of the Scheme of the Commissioners; and until a short time ago the Commissioners had believed that they had satisfied even the Governing Body themselves upon most points. No scheme and no body of Governors had received more attention than this Scheme and the Governing Body of King Edward's School had received from the Commissioners. The opposition was founded, in the first place, on the religious character of the teaching in the School. The noble Marquess was not correct in saying that this was distinctively a Church of England School. He rested his whole case on the terms of the foundation deed—that the statutes and ordinances of the School should be based "upon the advice of the Bishop;" but these words were not sufficient to bring the School under the words of the 19th section of the Act. According to that clause, in order to constitute a Church of England school there must be express words requiring that the children of the School should be taught according to the doctrines and formularies of the Church of England. If the construction of the noble Marquess prevailed, a large number of schools must come under the same construction—indeed almost the whole body of the more ancient endowments of the country would be handed over to the Church of England. His own personal predilection was in favour of such a proposal, if Parliament chose to adopt it; but that was a general question, and under the present law it was impossible by any reasonable construction to bring this case under the

  91
  19th section of the Act. The noble Marquess complained of the Scheme because it not only abrogated the Church of England character of the School, but substituted nothing of a religious character for it. This part of the question had been fully argued before in reference to a previous scheme for a Church of England school, and he could now only repeat what he had said before the Committee of the House of Commons—that the Commissioners would never undertake to indicate any definite and specific religious' teaching for schools in their schemes, unless they could connect it with some standard of a religious body—they were not competent to do it. They left it to the managers of the schools—the best judges; but he would say, without hesitation, that he hoped and believed that many schools would follow the example of the school at Ripon and provide the teaching of the Church of England accompanied by a due protection of conscience. Speaking from some degree of local knowledge he could only say it was to him a marvellous instance of blindness on the part of any one who knew anything of Birmingham to suppose there was any chance of passing under this Act through Parliament a scheme which would give the Church of England any more definite advantage than it would have under this Scheme. No such scheme would meet the wishes or disarm the opposition of the people of Birmingham. With regard to the Governing Body, the word "co-optative" seemed to be imperfectly understood. It was sometimes assumed that, as used in the schemes, it meant "self-elected," and that that part of the Governing Body described as the "co-optative" element was to fill up vacancies in its own number. But the meaning in the schemes was that all the members of the Governing Bodies were to elect the future co-optative members.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his objection was that in the long run the non-co-optative members would have the absolute power.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid he did not apprehend that result. In these bodies there must be a majority on one side or the other; but he never understood it to be admitted that the result would be to give the absolute preponderance to majorities. The minority would always have a fair weight. He greatly
  92
  regretted that in deference to the public opinion of Birmingham the Commissioners had been obliged to give up the ex officio element, which in his opinion was a very important element. But still he did not believe that the town council would wholly control the other elements of the Governing Body. They would have eight members out of 21; a member would be nominated by the teachers; four more would be elected by the School Board, which happened to be, and was likely to continue, in direct antagonism to the town council, and the remaining eight would be the co-optative members He denied that any one element would be able to swamp the others. The town council had not got all they asked, nor anything like it; a compromise had been made with other interests. What really underlay the objection urged against the town council was that such a body was not a worthy body to have charge of education; but this was a general objection to the unfitness of town councils for educational responsibility which was not for the Commissioners to entertain. If there was to be a popular element at all in educational bodies the Commissioners must take that which was provided by law. He did not admire the system of School Boards in all respects; but they too were provided by Act of Parliament, and town councils and school boards were the best representative bodies that the Commissioners could find. As to the often quoted remark of Mr. Forster, that good schools would not be interfered with by the Act, there were two or three answers. In the first place, everything depended on what a good school was. A school might be a good school now, but might not be a good school 10 years hence; and their object was to attempt to give security for the perpetuity of their goodness. A good master almost alway made a good school, and that might be no security for its remaining so when he was removed. In the next place, a good school would not be injured by the action of the Commissioners. He denied—what had been asserted—that "a School" meant the "Governing Body"—it meant the boys and the system; and Mr. Forster never meant that a Governing Body was not to be interfered with. He did not admit that the Birmingham School was a perfect School. It was true that there was a complimentary allusion

  93
  to it in the Report of Lord Taunton's Commission—of which he was himself a member—the School was then making rapid progress; but compare its present system and means of education for all classes with those provided under the Scheme, and the results which might be attained under it if it were well worked out, and no one could deny that there was a prospect of much further improvement, which the Governing Body could not effect now with anything like the completeness they could under this Scheme. As to impairing the control of the head master, that was, in some degree, inevitable, seeing that new schools—girls', technical, and second grade—were to be created, and elementary schools made third-grade schools; he could not fully supervise all, but still he would have some control over the middle schools, and over important parts of the system in the subordinate schools. The next objection was that the Commissioners proposed to raise the cost of education in the upper school. They certainly did. The foundationers would receive the same advantages as at present, but with respect to the others, the Commissioners did hope that Parliament would see fit to agree with them in a general rule making all boys at all those schools pay very nearly, although not quite, the value of the education they received, unless by their own merit they earned the privilege of exemption. As to the removal of the School from its present site, that was an altogether isolated point. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) knew very well that what was proposed in the Amendment which had been moved by the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Ducie), was acquiesced in by the Government and the Commissioners. The Commissioners had recommended that the site of the School should be sold when a "favourable opportunity" occurred; but they had altered the word "favourable" to "convenient," lest the word "favourable" might be taken in a purely financial sense. They meant to leave the matter virtually in the hands of the Governing Body; but they thought it proper to place on record in the Scheme their opinion in favour of its removal. These were, he believed, the only points raised in the debate which required to be noticed; and he would conclude by re-
  94
  peating what he had said before, that it would be very much to be lamented if on account of points which if necessary could be dealt with hereafter the Scheme should, be rejected by the House.
  THE BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLSwished to state his reasons for the vote he should give with the noble Marquess. The question naturally presented itself in a twofold point of view, partly as a portion of a larger Scheme of the Commissioners, and partly as an individual Scheme. He could not help looking at it as part of a large batch of schemes, and if the Motion of the noble Marquess was rejected he believed the Commissioners would go to their work with new vigour, and a number of schemes which he looked upon as extremely unjust would come before the House and the country with additional credit. But if, on the contrary, their Lordships rejected the present Scheme, it would give a breathing time to all parties, and he trusted this particular Scheme with regard to the School at Birmingham would appear again in an improved form. This Scheme had created great alarm in his own diocese. He believed that future schemes would depend very much on what their Lordships did to-night, and, therefore, although voting against many of his Friends on this matter, he would cordially support the Motion of the noble Marquess. It had been supposed that the whole country would welcome any scheme by which the Church of England would be deposed from the control of education and a different body substituted. But if any such ideas prevailed they had been very much shaken by recent events. He by no means took a narrow or bigoted view on this subject, because when he was in Suffolk he was the Chairman of a Committee whose duty it was to consider the question of the different Endowed Schools in that county, and in many respects the schemes they proposed were very similar to that of the Commissioners. But there was this difference—the Committee did not disturb the good schools recklessly, nor interfere with arrangements that worked well—and it appeared to him that the Commissioners were doing quite the contrary. In his opinion this Scheme partook largely of injustice, and would inflict a heavy blow on the legitimate interests of the Church of England in Birmingham; and he could not see why

  95
  this should be done. There could be no possible harm in rejecting the Bill for the present, and a juster and fairer Scheme might be the consequence.
  On Question that the words ("so much of") be inserted, their Lordships divided: — Contents 60; Not-contents 106: majority 46.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Then original Motion for said Address agreed to.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Cleveland, D.

  Devonshire, D.

  Castletown, L.

  Saint Albans, D.

  De Tabley, L.

  Dinevor, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Ebury, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Ripon, M.

  Gwydir, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Hanmer, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Cathcart, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Dartrey, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Granville, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Lovelace, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Minto, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Morley, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Poltimore, L. [Teller.]

  Halifax, V.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Romilly, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Oxford, Bp.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Auckland, L.

  Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Belper, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Bristol, M.

  Beaufort, D.

  Hertford, M.

  Marlborough, D.

  Queensberry, M.

  Northumberland, D.

  Salisbury, M.

  Richmond, D.

  Rutland, D.

  Amherst, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Bathurst, E.

  96

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Belmore, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Cadogan, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Crofton, L.

  Delamere, L.

  DeL'Isle andDuclley, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Denman, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Digby, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Grey, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Foley, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Gifford, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Headley, L.

  Morton, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Powis, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Kesteven, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Combermere, V.

  Doneraile, V.

  Overstone, L.

  Gough, V.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Raglan, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Redesdale, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Scarsdale, L.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Chichester, Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Sondes, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  London, Bp.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Bolton, L.

  Boston, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Ventry, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Buckhurst, L.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Cairns, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  PREVENTION OF FRAUDS ON CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law with relation to the fraudulent collection and application of Charitable Funds—Was presented by The Earl of SHAFTESBURY; read 1a. (No. 122.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.