Sitting of 3 August 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Department of Science and Art* [283]; Foreign Jurisdiction* [284].
Second Reading—National School Teachers Residences (Ireland)* [279].
Committee—Report—National School Teachers (Ireland)* [223]; Statute Law Revision* [278].
Considered as amended—East India Home Government (Appointments)* [272].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Chimney Sweepers* [208]; Sanitary Law (Dublin) Amendment* [268], and passed.
Third Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance* [262]; Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment* [230]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, Barnsley, &c.)* [271]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Leyton, &c.)* [261], and passed.

NAVY—THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FORSYTHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Director General of the Medical Department of the Navy was reappointed for a fixed or for an indefinite term; and, if for a fixed term, when that term will expire?
  MR. HUNT, in reply, said, that he was appointed for a fixed term, and that would expire on the 16th of April, 1879.

COPYRIGHT—ISSUE OF A ROYAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. EDWARD JENKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will be prepared to announce to the House, before the end of the Session, the time and terms of the appointment of the Royal Commission on
444
the subject of Copyright, of which notice has been given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the names of the persons who are to compose the Commission?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, it is the intention of the Government to take Her Majesty's pleasure as to issuing a Royal Commission on the whole question of copyright, and as soon as such Commission may be issued I will immediately give information of the terms of appointment and the members of the Commission. I hope it will be before the end of the Session.

METROPOLIS—EXPLOSION IN THE REGENT'S PARK—MACCLESFIELD BRIDGE.—QUESTION.
SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any steps have yet been taken to restore the Bridge over the Regent's Canal destroyed by the explosion in October last?
LORD HENRY LENNOX, in reply, said, that since the explosion of gunpowder had taken place on the Regent's Canal the attention of his Department had been directed to the subject. Nothing, however, could be done until it was ascertained who were the parties liable for the damage. The recent legal decision settled that point, and the works were now going on as rapidly as possible.

WEST AFRICA—ALLEGED TRANSFER OF TERRITORY—THE GAMBIA SETTLEMEN.—QUESTION.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in accordance with the statement of Lord Granville upon the 15th July 1870, that Her Majesty's then Government had informed the French Government that no transfer of the British territory at the Gambia "could be completed without the sanction of Parliament," Her Majesty's present Government will undertake that the country shall be committed to no such transfer until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the subject?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, no final action will be taken in this matter until ample opportunity has been afforded to Parliament for an expression of its opinion.

THE TICHBORNE CASE.—QUESTION.
DR. KENEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has, in pursuance of the promise given on the 25th of June last, caused inquiry to be made as to whether Mina Jury, who has been twice convicted of felonies in this country, is the same person as Mercivina Caulfield, who was sentenced in 1847 to seven years transportation for a felony committed in Dublin; whether the police authorities in Scotland Yard were aware of that fact at the time the said Mina Jury appeared as a witness for the Crown in the Tichborne prosecution; whether it is true, as she stated at Knutsford Sessions in July 1875, that the Treasury owed her £1,189; and, if not, whether the Treasury owes her any sum, and if so, what sum; and, whether he will state by whom the said Mina Jury was first discovered as a witness in Hobart Town, by whom she was there first examined, and who first gave information about her to the prosecution or to the Treasury?
MR. ASSHETON CROSShad to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, that, as he promised, he did make inquiries into the case of Mina Jury. A person was sent over to Dublin, and on searching the criminal records it was found that on the 27th of June, 1847, a woman named Mercivina Caulfield, aged 19, was tried before Baron Lefroy for felony and sentenced to seven years' transportation, and that she sailed on the 24th January, 1848, in the John Calvin, Captain John Davidson, to Hobart Town. That was the only official record in Ireland, and there were no documents to show what became of the woman after her arrival in the colony, and no person could be found to identify Mrs. Mina Jury as the same woman. Mrs. Jury herself had been seen in Knutsford Gaol, and she entirely denied that she was the same person. "With respect to the second part of the Question, the police authorities in Scotland Yard were not aware of the fact the hon. Member alluded to at the time Mina Jury was examined as a witness in the Tichborne case. As to the sum of £1,189, the only answer the Treasury gave was that they owe her nothing whatever, and do not even know who she is. As to the last part of the Question, about her being examined
446
in Hobart Town, he could only state that when examined before the Commission sent out in the case of "Tichborne v. Lushington and others," the Treasury received their information by reading the evidence given on that occasion.
DR. KENEALYgave Notice that as the Answer, especially to the last paragraph, was not satisfactory, he should bring the subject again before the House.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS—CASE OF MAY v. O'NEILL.—QUESTION.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked Mr. Solicitor General, Whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings before the Master of the Rolls on Thursday the 29th July 1875, at the Rolls Court, Chancery Lane, London, in a suit of May v. O'Neill, on an application by motion to restrain the defendant from practising his profession of attorney and solicitor in London and Middlesex, and to the observations of the Master of the Rolls in that case?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in reply, said, his attention had been directed by Mr. O'Neill himself to the subject, by sending him a newspaper containing a report of the observations made by the Master of the Rolls. It appeared the Master of the Rolls inquired, in hearing the case of May v. O'Neill, if the defendant was an Irishman; but why he made that inquiry he (the Solicitor General) could not tell. The Master of the Rolls was of opinion Mr. O'Neill had no case, and as far as he (the Solicitor General) could ascertain the facts, he entirely concurred with him.

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

NAVY—TRAINING OF CADETS-COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRErose to call attention to the Departmental Report on the Training of Cadets for the Navy and to the proposed abandonment of the principle of competitive examinations on the entry of Cadets; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the abandonment of the principle of limited compe-

  447
  tition in the appointment of Cadets to the Naval Service is inexpedient."
  The hon. Gentleman said, important as the subject of the entry of cadets for the Naval Service had always been, it was more so now than ever, because with the advance of science and the ever increasing complications of our ships, guns, and torpedoes, more and more demands were constantly made on the mental resources of our officers, and scientific requirements of no mean order were now demanded of them. Another reason why they should pay more attention to the subject was that they now entered no more cadets than were really required for the reduced number of officers. When they had more officers than they could employ it was easy to resort to a system of weeding—the incompetent and inefficient were either not employed, or not promoted; but now that the number of officers was greatly reduced, and they had no more than they required, the old process of selection was no longer possible to the same extent. For 10 years before 1869 the average entry of cadets was 170 per annum; but since that year the average had been 80, and it was now admitted that that number would be sufficient. Therefore, it was of more importance now than formerly to secure a certain amount of knowledge and intelligence on the part of the cadets. When the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) reduced the number of entries in 1869, he made another important change; he introduced the principle of competition in a limited and guarded manner. Up to that time entry had been obtained by nomination limited by a test examination; but his right hon. Friend allowed nominations to be made for twice the number of vacancies; the candidates were allowed to compete with one another, and half of them were finally nominated to cadetships He made this change for two reasons. The test examination had broken down, and it was found that a considerable number of very ignorant boys succeeded in getting into the Service. He had the authority of his right hon. Friend for saying that the late Mr. Corry frequently complained to him of the number of dunces who were to be found in the lower branches of the Service. Dr. Woolley, the late Director of Naval Education, gave testi-
  448
  mony to the same effect before the Committee. He said—
  "I am aware, from what I heard at the Admiralty, that there were continual complaints made that the boys did not come from the Britannia in a satisfactory state of knowledge. Under the old system it was felt that a great many boys were admitted with an insufficient knowledge, and were, many of them, ultimately discharged."
  On making these changes his right hon. Friend appointed a Committee to advise as to the best course of study to be pursued by the cadets while on board the Britannia. The Committee consisted of Dr. Barry, Principal of King's College, and formerly Head Master of Cheltenham School; Dr. Butler, Head Master of Harrow; Professor Main, the then head of the Naval College at Portsmouth; Admiral Powell, Dr. Woolley, and Mr. Inskip. He ventured to think that a stronger Committee could not have been appointed. The Committee, after careful consideration, reported in favour of a technical and professorial education, as opposed to a classical education. In their Report, which was now in the hands of hon. Members, was the following passage:—
  "We are of opinion that the course of the Britannia should include Mathematics and Navigation, French and English, Geography, History, Drawing, and Physical Science.' The claims of Latin for recognition we have rejected, on the ground that considering the youth of the cadets, and the shortness of time which would be available for its study after other paramount demands had been satisfied, it would be hopeless to look for such progress as would be marked by appreciable results, and interest the cadets in its pursuit."
  The condemnation of Latin by such authorities as Dr. Butler and Dr. Barry was very significant and remarkable. He would here mention that the cadets were entered at the age of 13. They spent two years on board the Britannia. They then went to sea for five years. At the age of 20 they returned for six months' study at Greenwich before passing an examination for the rank of sub lieutenant. "Although there were Naval Instructors on board the larger ships, yet the time which could be given for instruction was very limited, seldom exceeding two hours a-day, and it was admitted that midshipmen scarcely kept up the knowledge which they had acquired on board the Britannia. Sir Astley Cooper Key said on this point—

  449
  "At present the officers at Greenwich do not show signs of having kept up their knowledge in the four or five years between leaving the Britannia and coming to Greenwich; they naturally lose a great deal, especially in Algebra, Trigonometry, and Geometry."
  The education, therefore, of these officers practically ceased at the age of 15, and after that they were engaged in the purely professional training on board ship. It was all the more important, therefore, that we should secure the most intelligent boys for the Service, and that we should make the best use of the very short time at their disposal for education. Such was the system which was in force up till a year ago. In the course of the past year, however, fear appeared to have been engendered in the minds of the present First Lord of the Admiralty and the members of his Board that the education of the cadets in the Britannia was being overstrained, and that their health was deteriorated. He believed it was no secret now that this was due to the error of a surgeon on board the Britannia, who filled up a Return in such a way that it appeared that the boys had not gained in weight during a year. However that might be, the Admiralty appointed a Committee to inquire into the matter. The inquiry appeared to have been limited in the first instance to the question whether the condition of the Britannia and the course of study were favourable to the physique of the cadets, and it was only as an afterthought that they were directed to report upon the more important question of the entry of the cadets. He could not but think that if this had been originally contemplated, the Committee would have been differently constituted; for, with all respect to the gentlemen who formed it, he thought it did not at all compare in weight or authority with the previous Committee which he had already named. The Committee consisted of three naval officers—Admiral Rice and two captains—two medical gentlemen, Mr. Osborne Gordon, formerly tutor at Christ Church, and Mr. Morgan, a Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge; but there was no one on the Committee with any experience whatever in the education of boys, or with any knowledge of our great public schools, or with any experience of competition. On the main point, the health and physique of the boys, the Report of the Committee was very satisfactory.
  450
  They found the boys were fully up to the average of the best public schools in point of weight and height; their health was good; they excelled in cricket and boating, and the only defect was that a certain portion of the cadets had a somewhat pale and jaded appearance. This might have been due either to the relaxingel imate of Dartmouth, or to the conditions of life on board the Britannia, where, as the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated, a somewhat severe course of study was combined with the strict discipline, which was essential to a ship of war, and which might be too strict for boys at a young age. The Committee made, as principal recommendations:—1, the substitution of a College on shore for the Britannia training ship; 2, the extension of the course of education for three years, interspersed by two short cruises in a training ship; 3, the discontinuance of instruction in grammar, literature, history, physical geography, and physics, and the introduction of Latin in their place; 4, the substitution of pure nomination, with a test examination, for the competitive system. With respect to the first two recommendations, he had nothing to say. He thought the Government had been wise in substituting a College on shore for the Britannia. He also thought it was wise to extend the training of cadets to the age of 16 before they were sent on board the training ships. With respect, however, to the physical science and history, he could not but consider that it was very unwise, and he regretted to learn that the Admiralty had already carried it out. Without, for a moment, undervaluing Latin for the education of boys who could be kept at school till the age of 17 or 18, or who were to go to the Universities, he thought that for boys who were practically to finish their education at the age of 15 or 16, it was very useless and a great waste of time; useless, because the boys could not learn enough of it consistently with other work which was absolutely necessary for naval officers; and a waste of time, because it replaced other studies of paramount importance. It seemed to him that the reasons given by Dr. Barry and Dr. Butler against the introduction of Latin were conclusive. Among the reasons given by the more recent Committee in favour of Latin was one so infinitely absurd, that it seemed

  451
  more like a joke than a serious argument. The Committee said that the boys, by learning Latin, would be able to obtain some insight into ancient history and mythology, which all boys took an interest in, and with which most gentlemen were supposed to be acquainted. The boys were therefore to give up modern history and learn ancient history. They were to give up physics and physical geography in order to study the loves of the mythical gods and goddesses. Could anything be more absurd? It brought to his mind a saying of the late Archbishop Whateley, that he had only been saved by the deficiency of his memory from being ruined by his education. The recommendation was utterly unsupported by any evidence before the Committee; and no witness had even been asked a question on this subject The last and most important recommendation was that against competititive examination on entry. The ground given for this was that the examination and the previous cramming had proved to be hurtful to the health of the boys, that it deteriorated their physique, and that the principle of competition, when applied to young boys, was a mischievous and fallacious test. Well, then, what they had really to consider was, was it true that the health of the boys was deteriorated by that system? If that point could be established it would certainly be a great argument against competition. But he found, on turning to the evidence adduced before the Committee, that there was nothing whatever to support that conclusion. On the contrary, the evidence was totally opposed to such a deduction. Pour doctors connected with the Britannia gave evidence as to the state of health of the boys on entry; three of them said that they could discover no damage whatever resulting from the previous studies of the boys. The most important of these witnesses was Dr. Dalby, who had been five years in charge of the sick quarters of the Britannia, two of which had been before the introduction of competition. On being asked whether the boys gave him the idea of having been mentally over-tasked when they first came on board, said—"I never observed that." Dr. Holman, who had been two years on board the Britannia, and on the new system, said—
  452
  "The toys are very healthy, indeed; no cases that come into hospital can he traced to overwork, either mental or physical. They are up to the full standard of health."
  On being asked whether they had the appearance of having been at some time or other overworked, he said—"Not at all." Mr. De Meric, one of the present surgeons of the Britannia, was asked—
  "On the first entry of the hoys here, have you observed them at all narrowly?—Yes."
  "Do they show signs of hard work—mental work, I mean?—I should say not."
  "Have you observed, especially when they first came, a careworn look about them, as if they had been subjected to very hard mental work?—I have not noticed it."
  Captain Foley, who had been in command of the Britannia for three years, and to whose care it owed so much, gave this testimony—
  "Are you satisfied with the physical condition of life on board the Britannia?—I do not think they could he better."
  "Do you think the physical condition of the boys as good as that of the Eton hoys?—I think it is."
  "Did you ever observe the boys, when they first came here, showing signs of: being overworked?—Not when they first came here: but, during the passing-out term, I have observed the boys who have been anxious to work up for the first class over do it. They strain their heads more than I could wish."
  Dr. Woolley, on being asked whether he was well satisfied with the appearance of the boys, said—
  "I always was. I never had any reason to form an adverse opinion. I heard no complaint of the physique of the hoys while on board."
  Admiral Ryder, who had had great experience on this subject, said—
  "I have not been able to trace any injury to the boys' constitutions, and therefore I cannot imagine they are overworked."
  They had also the well-ascertained fact, as shown in a diagram given in the Report, that the boys on entry were on the average both taller and heavier than the average boys of the same age at the four principal public schools—they were 1½ inches taller and about 10 lb heavier, and they maintained this superiority while on board. Against all this evidence they had the evidence of one of the two Naval Instructors, who thought that a certain proportion of the boys went on board overworked, and of the Staff Commander, who thought some of the boys were weak when they entered; and of Dr. Connolly, one of the four

  453
  doctors who having been less than a year on board gave this opinion—
  "Will you state to the Committee whether the boys, when they first come on hoard, show any sign of having been overworked before they come P—Some few of them look a little pale and delicate when they come."
  "When you say 'some,' do you mean many?—Perhaps 10 or 15 per cent of them."
  Atmost, therefore, some 10 per cent looked a little pale and delicate; a proportion, he presumed, differing little from any ordinary school. The other evidence given was purely theoretical, that of two naval officers who objected to competition, and that of Dr. Schmitz, the head of the International School at Isleworth, who had no experience whatever of competition, but who said that in Germany the principle was objected to. One would suppose that before condemning the principle of competition the Committee would have made inquiries, not of the International School at Isleworth, but of some of our great foundations where competition had been the rule for some years past. Not one single witness, however, had been called from any one of our great public schools. He need hardly remind the House how greatly the principle of competition had been extended of late years for boys. With the single exception of Christ's Hospital, almost all our great schools had thrown open their foundations to competition within the last few years. Eton led the way in 1844; Winchester followed in 1854; and the same course was recommended by the Public Schools Commission of 1864 to the other great schools; and since then, under the Endowed Schools Act, open competition had been adopted by many other middle-class foundations, such as that of King Edward's School, at Birmingham. He had himself made many inquiries as-to the result of competition at these schools, and could confidently say that it was most satisfactory, and completely dispelled the conclusions of the Committee. He must first, however, quote from the evidence before the Public Schools Commission in 1864. Dr. Moberly used this striking language with reference to open competition at Winchester—
  "Let me offer my testimony without reserve. The open elections have been excellently successful. In point of ability, good conduct, and general promise we have lost nothing and we have gained much; we do not know what it is to have a thoroughly stupid boy."
  454
  And he spoke later of the "unmixedly beneficial change." Dr. Goodford, speaking of Eton, said—
  "The first and most marked effect of opening our foundation to competition has been that it has raised intellectually the standard of the boys in College, and through that morally their position in the school. The leaven of steadiness and diligence which they impart to the rest of the school is most valuable to us."
  He would only add to this, one of many statements he had received from Mr. Browning, a master of Eton, who wrote specially with reference to the physique of boys who obtained scholarships at Eton—
  "A considerable number of boys of 13 and under are subject to a very severe competition for entrance into College at Eton. Broadly speaking, no bad effects are observable from the pressure thus put upon them."
  Dr. Vardy, the Master of the great Free School at Birmingham, wrote that since 1872 there had been 1,203 candidates, and 450 had been successful, of an average ago of 10·26 years. He added—
  "I know no single instance in which a successful boy has suffered at all in health or otherwise from exertions made in preparing for the competition; but it should be observed that, in all its subjects, the examination is general; no special portion of any subject is prescribed, and therefore special preparation is impossible."
  This opinion of Dr. Vardy led to the last point he would have to deal with, that of "cramming," as to which a good deal of nonsense was talked. "Cram" was of two kinds—one the attempt to stuff a boy's mind with just that amount of knowledge which might be thought sufficient for the purpose of the examination and which a careful investigation of previous examinations showed would be useful. The other was the brushing up of the intending candidates in those subjects which were often neglected at school—such as spelling and arithmetic. The first kind of "cram" was, no doubt, most objectionable; but it might easily be provided against by the Examiners. If the examination was well conducted, nothing was easier than to detect "cram," and he was informed by those most experienced, that this could be best done, not by setting difficult questions, but by setting easy ones. The simpler and easier the papers were, the more easy it was to select the industrious and intelligent boys from their competitors. As regarded the second kind of

  455
  "cram," so long as boys were badly-grounded at home or at school in spelling and arithmetic, so long would parents be induced to send their boys for special preparation to professional crammers; but all the evidence showed that this was quite unnecessary in the case of any boy who had been well brought up at home, and who was industrious at school. But "cram" could not be got rid of by substituting a test examination for a competitive examination. The worst features of "cram" came out in a test examination. If a competitive examination was well conducted, the efforts of the crammer could not succeed in placing an ignorant or stupid boy over a clever boy; but he easily succeeded in stuffing an ignorant boy with sufficient knowledge to pass a test examination. The evils of "cram" were far worse before the adoption of competition and under the system of pure nomination with a test examination. On this point, he would quote Dr. Woolley, who said—
  "The system of cramming sprang up long before the competitive examination came into force. I should say that the crammers flourished more then. The supposed necessity was felt quite as much before there "was any competition as it has been since."
  They would, therefore, not put an end to cramming by returning to pure nomination, but would succeed in obtaining a number of very stupid boys, and, looking to the extent to which competition barred the entry to so many other professions, he feared they might expect that in those families fortunate enough to obtain a nomination for the Navy, the stupid boy of the family would be reserved for the Navy, if, indeed, there were not a family living. In conclusion, he would remind the House that the change to competition was deliberately adopted only six years ago. It was adopted in a guarded manner. In his opinion, it might wisely have been thrown open still more widely. It was now abandoned before time had elapsed really to test its results, as none of the boys had yet passed their lieutenant's examination. It was condemned upon evidence which in no way supported the conclusion, and without any evidence from our great public schools. The change had been hailed in many quarters as indicative of an intention to abandon generally the competitive system, and to restore patronage with all
  456
  its evils in all branches of the Service-He had felt it his duty, therefore, in the interest of the Naval Service, and in the interest of the public service, to challenge the action of the Government, and he hoped the House would support him in the Motion which he now made.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the abandonment of the principle of limited competition in the appointment of Cadets to the Naval Service is inexpedient,"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. HUNTsaid, no one could complain of this subject being brought under the notice of the House, for it was one of considerable importance, and as the hon. Member said the evidence failed to support the recommendation of the Committee he must call attention to that evidence in some detail. It was perfectly certain that the system of limited competition was an exceedingly good thing for the individual who happened to be at the head of the Admiralty for the time being, because it enabled him to oblige twice as many persons as he could have done under the system of nomination, and it saved him the trouble of ascertaining which of the candidates were duly qualified for appointments. The question for decision, however, was, was the system good for the boys, because if it was not good for them it could not be good for the Service? The deduction that the hon. Member had drawn that because the Government were about to abolish competitive examination for boys that, therefore, they were about to abolish competitive examination from the Service altogether, was not well founded—because he drew a wide distinction between a competitive examination for boys between 12 and 13 and one for those who were considerably older. They had been told by the hon. Member that by adopting the course proposed, the Government would be introducing a number of ignorant boys into the Service; but he thought that the terms "ignorant" and "learned" were scarcely applicable with reference to boys of this early age. He supposed that boys of 12 were generally ignorant.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the hon. Member had intended to use the word "stupid," and not "ignorant,"
  MR. HUNT: Did competition subject the boys to an improper strain at a very early period of life? It must be remembered that boys of 12 and 13 were, as a rule, incapable of getting up subjects for themselves, and had to be subjected to the constant supervision of their teachers. It was a wholly different thing to test the industry of boys at a later period, when they could be trusted to study without the personal attention of their tutors. There could be no doubt that the system of competition gave a great advantage to the sons of wealthy parents, who were able to obtain for them the most expensive instruction. That was a matter that had been wholly overlooked by the hon. Member opposite. The hon. Gentleman's comparatively disparaging remarks respecting the composition of the Committee were wholly unfounded, for it was a most excellent Committee. It was composed of three naval officers, of two medical men, and of two distinguished University men. That Committee had gone into the question with great care, and they had expressed their entire disapproval of the system of competitive examination for boys of this age, on the ground that it was most hurtful to them, as well as being injurious to the Service. The injury the system did to the boys was not only physical, but mental, and they were enabled to pass their examination merely by a system of cramming. Having acquired a superficial habit of study, they found it difficult afterwards to escape from it. The hon. Member had alluded to the system of competition which was practised in our public schools; but the appearance of the boys who had entered the most famous of our public schools by competition in no way supported the hon. Member's view. On the whole, the Committee had recommended that the Government should revert to the system that was in force before 1869, when all that was required of the boys was that they should be able to pass a reasonable examination in reading, writing, arithmetic, Latin, and certain other branches of study. The hon. Gentleman argued that there was no evidence to support that recommendation, and he laid stress upon the testimony of Dr. Holman, who himself told the Committee that as he did not see the boys when they joined, his evidence would be of no value whatever. Mr. Johnson, who had been 11
  458
  years in the Britannia, stated that the appearance of many of the cadets when they first entered indicated that they had been subjected to a mental overstrain. Some of them seemed to be quite worn out, and took nearly a year to recover, while others broke down altogether and had to be discharged. The Committee examined several of the cadets themselves. Their names were not given, but Cadet "A" said he passed eighth in the competition, and had been studying during the previous six months 10½ hours a-day. He detailed the subjects in which he was examined and did not recollect much about some of them; was very weak after the examination, but went to Cheltenham for a change, and was now "all right." Cadet "B," who passed second, after two years' preparation and working 10½ hours a-day, during the last six months was "seedy" while working up at school, and could not eat. Then Cadet "C" was none the worse for the examination; and Cadet "D," who had been ill for a fortnight afterwards said, he "was well now, but wished he had never crammed." The hon. Gentleman said they were not to attach great weight to the evidence of naval officers on this point; but he (Mr. Hunt) considered it to be very valuable.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREexplained that he said the evidence of the officers was of a theoretical character.
  MR. HUNTremarked that, at all events, the evidence he had read was not theoretical, being the testimony of the victims of this system. Sir Cooper Key, the head of Greenwich College, disapproved of competition for boys so young, as did Captain Brandreth; whereas, Dr. Woolley, who was a party to the original Report, and Mr. Little-john, a naval instructor, were in favour of it. They were often told, however, that they should attend to the opinions of foreigners, and Dr. Schmitz, examiner in Classics and History at the London University, said a system which involved cramming during 12 months of 9 hours a-day would not be tolerated in any other country, adding—in England we were in a fair way to destroy the mental powers of our young people by the strain of these competitions too early in life. It was evident that there was a good foundation for the recommendation of the Committee. He believed a proper test examination would eliminate those

  459
  stupid boys whom it was not desirable to have, and he should also expect to have them weeded out by a report upon their qualifications and abilities. It was impossible by competitive examinations to gauge the aptitude of any number of boys for the Service; but after they had been in the Britannia or the College, if one should be built, for a certain period, it was desirable that a report should be made as to whether they were likely to make good officers. If that course were adopted he had no doubt they would get rid of all those boys who might be physically or mentally unfit for the Service. At the time when the Committee nominated by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) made its Report there was no such examination at Greenwich as had been referred to. If, then, they weeded out the boys unfit for the Service at the end of the first year, and if, again, they weeded out those who showed a deficiency in ability or industry in the examinations at Greenwich College, he thought they would do everything needful to secure a competent body of officers for the Navy. He could assure the House that it would be of the greatest advantage to himself personally to return to the system of limited competition; but they had adopted the recommendation of the Committee, believing that it was, on the whole, the best for the Service, and he thought the evidence he had read to the House and the opinions he had quoted fully established the propriety of the recommendation of the Committee and of the course which had been pursued.
  MR. LOWEobserved that the system which the First Lord of the Admiralty had established and recommended to be continued for the purpose of recruiting the cadets of the Navy was simply this—that the cadets should have some sort of examination before they were admitted, and that they should be appointed entirely by the First Lord.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that was not the system. The Members of the Board of Admiralty had a certain number of nominations. Admirals hoisting their flags had each two nominations; captains commanding ships had each a nomination, and the remaining number wanted for entry were nominated by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  MR. LOWEunderstood, then, that the nominations were made principally
  460
  by the Board of Admiralty, with some exceptions in favour of admirals, the rest being made up by the First Lord. There was to be a pass examination before the cadets were admitted, and if not approved of the end of the first year they were to be weeded out. That was the system of the right hon. Gentleman. If the object of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government was to provide really efficient and able officers for the Navy, that, he ventured to say, was not the way to get them. All experience had shown—and particularly the experience of Oxford and Cambridge—that these test examinations had hardly ever served as a check, having always been overborne and brought down to the standard and convenience of those who superintended them. The state of the test examination at Oxford and Cambridge was simply disgraceful. Considering what human nature was, and that naval officers were not generally very wealthy—being in most instances married and naturally anxious to provide for their children—this system was, no doubt, a great boon which the right hon. Gentleman had recovered for them out of the jaws of competition. And was it likely that the sons of distinguished and meritorious officers, or of those who combined with interest in the profession the political interest of Lords of the Admiralty, would ever be weeded out, whatever might be their intellectual deficiencies? It was simply ridiculous to expect it. Was it to be supposed that if one of the sons of the right hon. Gentleman was found to be incompetent—which he admitted was impossible—there was any power to turn out of the Navy the son of the First Lord of the Admiralty? And, if that was so in these cases, how would it be in others? He quite agreed that at an early age we did not want to find out what boys knew, but we wanted to find out whether they had the capacity for knowing—whether they could be taught; and, by adopting this test the Government were doing the foolish thing which a man would do who, choosing between two fields, should take the barren and leave the fertile one, thinking it would be equally productive. The competitive system, on the other hand, was singularly moderate and reasonable, requiring no more than was done at Winchester and Eton, where the great prizes were thrown open to the

  461
  competition of boys of the same age or younger than the cadets. Public and private schools were worked upon this system of competition, and he had never gone through harder labour than he endured when competing for a prize at Winchester, which he was so fortunate as to win against the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Selborne. He was not aware, however, that either of them had been permanently injured. Why, then, was the Navy to be excepted from such rules as prevailed in all the other professions? The Report of the Committee mentioned two reasons—one relating to cramming, and the other to health. If there was any cramming, it was the fault of the Examiners. The capacity of the boys could easily be ascertained by easy questions on subjects they all knew something about. As to the objection on the ground of health, it was curious that the four medical men who were examined by the Committee gave evidence opposed to the conclusion which was come to, and a famous cricketer spoke very highly of the physique of the boys. There was, therefore, medical evidence that the boys had not suffered from the competitions, and there was also practical experience that they had not. That was no small matter, because fitness for the Naval Service was no longer a question of mere bull-dog courage, but depended very greatly on how much mathematical and scientific knowledge a man possessed. Let them think of what tremendous engines they now entrusted to their naval officers. To lose a man-of-war in former times was as nothing compared to losing one of our present floating fortresses from the want of scientific knowledge. Probably the human intellect was never before called upon for such an exertion of mingled intelligence and courage as the naval officers of the future would have to make, considering both the machinery they would have to wield, and the immense complexity of every matter that would be brought before them. Yet, when it had become an imperative necessity for our very national existence that we should secure the best intelligence for the management of our fleets, the Government were deliberately taking a step backwards. He could only protest against that course; but he hoped the question might even yet be re-considered, and that the Government would
  462
  not neglect a matter, the importance of which the nations with whom we might have to compete would be certain not to overlook.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had alluded to the Oxford and Cambridge examinations; but those examinations had nothing whatever to do with the examination of boys of 10 or 12 years of age, who could not expect to be tested with regard to their mathematical acquirements. All that could be expected to be ascertained in the case of those boys was whether they were fitted, both physically and mentally, to learn the naval profession. The advantages of the system introduced on the recommendation of the Committee of 1870 were prospective, and the House should give equal weight to the Report of the Committee which had tested the results of that system and found it to have failed. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) said there was to be a process of elimination adopted at a later period, by which dull or stupid boys who had entered would be weeded out; whereupon the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) remarked that if the son of the First Lord of the Admiralty or of any other distinguished man were examined at that time, the Examiners of the Navy would not do their duty. But the same argument would hold good if his right hon. Friend's son were to be sent into the Navy now. If the Examiners would be unfaithful three years hence, they would be unfaithful at the present moment. But he was sure that English Examiners, whether now or throe years hence, would perform their functions honourably, and therefore the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite fell to the ground. The right hon. and gallant Member having then quoted the evidence of Sir Alexander Armstrong and other witnesses called before the Committee to show that the system of competitive examination for the entry of naval cadets adopted in 1870 was objectionable, went on to observe that the Committee expressed their entire disapproval of that system after it had been tried for five years, and declared that even when the nominations were restricted to two for each vacancy, it was hurtful to the boys and injurious to the Service. He did not, he might add, see how the Government could well have

  463
  refused to act upon the Report of the Committee; and he felt sure that the system to which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) had reverted would secure for the Navy that combination of courage and ability in its officers which the right hon. Member for the University of London rightly held to be so necessary.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he was rather surprised to hear the right hon. and gallant Baronet refer to the evidence of Sir Alexander Armstrong with regard to the health of the boys; for it appeared he had only visited the school during the holidays. He complained that if boys were called upon to address themselves to the study of science, it was called cramming; but the same thing was not said when they were set to the study of Latin and Greet. He very much regretted the Report, and that Her Majesty's Government should have acted upon it.
  MR. E. J. REEDbelieved that this Committee was appointed in the first instance from the purest misapprehension that ever existed. It was thought that the boys had not made progress in growth during one year, and in consequence of this supposed "stuntification" a number of gentlemen were called to lay their heads together to discover the cause. It was ultimately discovered that this idea was owing to the same Report being presented twice by mistake. The whole thing was a delusion, and that mistake was the origin of this Committee and the foundation on which the charge had been made. He thought that in a matter of this sort they ought not to be perpetually at the mercy of Committees and of the conflicting Reports made by them, but should be governed rather by common sense and general principles. It appeared to him that the broad views laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London were those that ought to guide them in the management of affairs of this kind. The First Lord of the Admiralty seemed to think it was enough that a Select Committee had reported in favour of a particular course, without the exercise of any judgment or discretion of his own; but he contended that these matters should be decided in accordance with enlightened and statesmanlike views. It was not enough to say that an opportunity occurred for the elimination
  464
  of young cadets when it was discovered that they should never have been allowed to enter. That was a most cruel and false principle to establish for the naval profession. It was no discredit to fail in a competitive examination; but for a youth to be sent home as unfit for the Service, after he had been for some time a cadet, and for no other reason than that the Admiralty had not the sense to discover that he should never have been allowed to enter, was a misfortune from which a young man could not so easily recover. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to claim it as a meritorious part of his plan that it would get rid of the stupid boys.
  MR. HUNTexplained that the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him, and that his words would not fairly bear that interpretation.
  MR. E. J. REEDdisclaimed any desire to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman; but he must protest against any such course of conduct as would blast the future prospects of these cadets. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be influenced by the weighty considerations which had fallen from Members on that—the Liberal—side of the House, and not hastily affirm this very questionable proceeding.
  MR. GOSCHENwould not, on that occasion, go into the question of the merits or demerits of competition, but would say a few words with reference to that system which was to be adopted in room of the competitive system. Even with the system of limited competition that had been in existence during the last five or six years, he felt that the door of admission to the Naval Service was scarcely wide enough, and that the general view of the country was that without interest it was not possible to get one's son into the Navy. He objected to the scheme of the First Lord of the Admiralty, because it aggravated an evil that already existed. The point of the case was, that in the future everyone would know that even limited completion had been abolished, and that the only way to become an officer in the Navy was through knowing a naval officer, or bringing a little personal interest to bear upon the First Lord. He asked, was it desirable that they should take the whole of their officers for the Navy from this limited circle of choice? The Naval Service should be open to all

  465
  classes of the community through competition. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn his mind to the question whether, if the system of competition were to be given up, he could not devise some more satisfactory mode of admission to the Service than that he and his Colleagues should be the only persons who should make nominations. He had, of course, no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would exercise his discretion in making those nominations as fairly as possible; but then that portion of the nominations which would fall to the lot of naval officers would be one purely of interest, and Sir Cooper Key, one of the most able and intelligent officers in the Service, had stated that a system of pure nomination was impracticable and hopeless. The right hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) quoted evidence to show that we were educating young boys too much; but that was not the opinion of those by whom our public schools were conducted. The Report of the Royal Commission had not proved that the system of competition had done any harm; and he thought the common sense of the country would oppose the system which was about to be introduced of pure narrow patronage by which naval officers would be drawn from a narrower circle than the members of any other branch of the public service.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREexplained that when he spoke of dunces in the Navy, he certainly did not intend to designate by that term the present officers of the Navy; he had pointed out that under the process of weeding and with an excessive number of entries, the dunces were soon weeded out of the Service.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDdeclined to enter into any professional discussion upon this subject; but having paid considerable attention to questions of education, he wished to say a few words. He must say that he did not hold any extreme view in favour of competition; but he much regretted that the influence of the Government should be brought to bear against liberalizing the course to be taken in reference to this matter. He was very sorry that they had not found some course which would be short of setting up the old system of patronage. If there was anything which could act as a stimulus to those who were engaged
  466
  in the instruction of our youth, it was the knowledge that in doing their duty towards their pupils they were furnishing them with the means of obtaining access into the public service. He was, at the same time, quite willing to admit that the competition of little boys required to be carefully watched; and there was, in his opinion, much pregnant truth in the saying that the best way to test their proficiency was not by hard, but by easy questions. That, however, was a very different thing from abolishing competition altogether. He should vote in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. A. F EGERTONsaid, the question was not one of patronage, and that under the old system double the number of boys for whom there was room was patronized by their predecessors. Whatever patronage was in the hands of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was, he might add, the House would at once believe, fairly and discreetly bestowed, and he thought he might say the same for the other Members of the Board. As to Latin, it was of the greatest possible use in the acquisition of other languages, and he might also observe that the study of it was begun by the boys before they entered the Britannia. He thought that there was the greatest possible difference between competition for prizes at school and competition for the purpose of entering a profession in which one was to pass his lifetime.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 76: Majority 57.

ARMY—THE ARTILLERY GROUND, FINSBURY SQUARE.—RESOLUTION.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKrose to call attention to the subject of the following Resolution, which he was precluded from moving by the result of the division:—
"That it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take such steps as they may deem best to secure for the Volunteer Regiments of the City facilities for drill and exercise in the Artillery Ground, near Finsbury Square, similar to those which were originally granted to the London Trained Bands, and are enjoyed by the London Militia under the Act of 36th Geo. 3, c. 92."

467
He said he was sorry to trouble the House once more with this question. Though slightly altered in form, it was substantially the same as one which he had brought forward on two previous occasions. The form had been altered because the Volunteers were anxious that the House should feel that they were only asking for what had already been done in the case of the Militia. It could not be pretended that this was a case of interference with private property, because the Volunteers only asked for the rights which would clearly belong to the Trained Bands, if such existed, and which were enjoyed by the Militia under the Militia Act of 1796. The City of London Volunteers were a very important body, about 3,000 in number; the average number attending drill was about 1,000; and at present the nearest open space in which they could drill was Hyde Park. Going there involved great loss of time and great inconvenience. Yet, in the heart of the City, only a quarter of a mile from the Bank of England, there was an open space of no less than eight acres which had from time immemorial been set aside as a drill-ground for the Volunteer Forces of the City. Unfortunately, this land had been let to the Hon. Artillery Company for the purposes of drill, subject only to the rights of the Trained Bands. The Hon. Artillery Company maintained that technically and legally the Volunteers did not represent the Trained Bands. When the Militia were constituted at the close of the last century, the House interfered and introduced a clause into the Act of 1796, under which the Militia used the Artillery Ground when it was not required by the Hon. Artillery Company. In 1873, when the matter was brought before the House, the hon. and gallant Colonel the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay), as Colonel of the Hon. Artillery Company, promised, as was understood, that if all legal claim on the part of the Volunteers was withdrawn the matter would be satisfactorily settled. The Volunteers performed their part, but without any result. The Hon. Artillery Company was, no doubt, a very ancient regiment, but it was very small for its age. From the last Returns it appeared that, though the regiment numbered 620, there were 240 who had never attended a single drill during the year, only 140 who had attended nine
468
drills, and, in fact, less than 150 effectives. It was obvious that a microscopic corps of that character could not require eight acres all to themselves. They drilled twice a week—on Mondays and Thursdays; on Mondays they averaged 12 in number, on Thurdays 50. Let the House consider the value of eight acres close to the Bank of England! The Artillery Company alleged that they paid rent. Yes, they did pay rent, amounting, as he was informed, to £300 a-year, but then they had let off the fringe of the land for £2,400, leaving them a balance of £2,100 a-year; so that each effective actually cost £150 a-year, without counting the value of the land left unoccupied. Land in the City had been sold at the rate of over £1,000,000 an acre. Taking this land, however, at only a quarter of that value, these eight acres would represent £2,000,000, which at 4 per cent involved a loss of interest of £80,000 a-year, to maintain a corps of 150 effectives. It would be difficult to find a case of greater waste of public property. He would remind the House that the Volunteers only asked to be allowed to drill on the ground when the Artillery Company or the Militia were not using it. He would have thought that one Volunteer Corps would have been glad to assist another. Unfortunately, it had proved that this was not the case, and he therefore asked Her Majesty's Government to obtain for the City of London Volunteers the same rights as were enjoyed by the Militia under the Act of 1796.
MR. HAYTERsaid, this was the third time this question had been brought under the notice of the House. When Lord Cardwell was Secretary of State for War, he said he felt sure that an amicable settlement would be arrived at between the hon. Member for Maidstone and the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay), but no such settlement had been come to. There were three regiments of Volunteers in the City, numbering 2,500 effectives, while the Artillery Company had only 160 effectives, and these 150 were able to make use of the ground and to exclude the 2,600. He hoped the Government would support the Volunteers in the matter. They did not wish to interfere in any way with the rights of property, they only desired to use the ground for the purpose of drill at times

469
which would not be inconvenient to the Hon. Artillery Company, and on any terms which the Artillery Company might fix, provided they were not prohibitive. The London Volunteers had the greatest possible difficulty in finding places to drill in; and although his regiment were able to use the Guildhall occasionally, preparations for festivities were often being made there which prevented drill taking place at the best time of the year. The Volunteers asked to be placed on the same footing as the Militia with reference to this ground, and he did not see any reason why they should not be treated in a similar way.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYregretted that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) was not present, because no one was so thoroughly conversant with the matter. The subject, as had been stated, had been brought on three occasions before the House, and on the first the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire stated that the City Volunteers had practically claimed a right to enter this ground, that this claim had been advanced in a letter signed by their commanding officers, and that as long as they claimed it as a right he could do nothing to admit them to the use of the ground. Last year, the subject was again brought forward; there was a discussion on it, but no decision was come to. He did not know what the hon. Member for Maids tone expected him to do. Whether the hon. Member wished him to use his power of persuasion, or to pass an Act of Parliament, he could hardly determine. If he desired him to introduce a Bill, he could not undertake to do so, and on the same grounds as had been taken by his Predecessor—namely, that it was not the business of the Government to settle claims with respect to private property. In this instance the Artillery Company not only claimed the ground as private property, but they said they would invalidate their lease by admitting the City Volunteers to the ground. If this were so, he could not interfere with those who were in possession. The Militia were not on the same footing as the Volunteers. They were successors of the Trained Bands, and as such were allowed the privileges of the Trained Bands, one of which was the occupation and use of this ground. The Militia
470
were not admitted by the Artillery Company as a favour, but as entitled to the right of the Trained Bands; and the Volunteers did not hold this position. "What might be done by means of the persuasion of the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire, who was Colonel of the Artillery Company, he did not know; but the War Department had no right to exercise any influence, and he thought there must be some claim on the part of the Volunteers which the Company did not recognize. He could not help thinking that some of the difficulty which existed was due to the letter of the commanding officers.
MR. HAYTERsaid, that letter was written under a misapprehension, and had been withdrawn two years ago. The Artillery Company said that if they admitted Volunteers they would invalidate their lease; but he did not think that such would be the ease.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that, at all events, he could not interfere to obtain admission for the Volunteers to a piece of land which the Volunteers claimed as their own. If he interfered in this case, he should be asked to do so all over the country in favour of Volunteer corps which might want to gain admittance to drill grounds. The best plan for the Volunteers to adopt was to endeavour to obtain the influence of the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire in their behalf. With every desire to benefit the City Volunteers, he did not see that he could take any steps in the matter.
SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, the Hon. Artillery Company held a lease of one half the ground from the Corporation of London, with a right of renewal for ever upon a fixed payment, and he was quite sure that the Corporation would modify or permit any modification of the terms of the lease which would enable the Volunteers to use this ground. The other half was held from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and was granted originally for the use of the Trained Bands. Now, the Volunteers were in spirit more nearly the successors of the old Trained Bands of London than any other body of men. The Militia were not at all the same. The legal difficulty with regard to the lease might be got over; but another difficulty arose from pique. In the year

471
1873, when he held the office of Lord Mayor, the Volunteers came to him and stated their case. He thought it a strong one, and advised them to go to the Prince of Wales, and an interview was arranged with Lord Colville and the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Lloyd Lindsay), and it was considered most desirable that the use of the ground should be allowed to the Volunteers for drill and exercise when it was not required by the Company. At the desire of the Prince of Wales a meeting of the Court of the Hon. Artillery Company was summoned, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Lloyd Lindsay) gave notice of a motion that, if the terms of the lease permitted, the Volunteers should be invited to use the ground under proper regulation and upon payment of adequate compensation. He believed this resolution would have passed by general consent but for an unfortunate incident. Without his knowledge, the colonels of the Volunteer regiments wrote a very foolish letter, saying that they viewed the concession as a matter of right, instead of courtesy. This, of course, raised the ire of every member of the Artillery Company, who had not yet recovered their good humour. The land was not private property. It was granted at a nominal rent for public purposes. This being so, he hoped, the Government would use their influence with the Artillery Company, or, failing success, would take steps to place the City Volunteers on the same footing as the Militia.
SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, the Government had the power to place the Volunteers in the position which was due to them, and might exercise the power by bringing in a Bill. He had a high opinion of the force, as they tended to foster the martial spirit of the nation. They did not fight themselves; but by their example they encouraged others to join the Army.
MR. FRESHFIELDthought that if the question were approached in an amicable manner some settlement might readily be arrived at. It seemed to him that the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) wished to employ the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War as a sort of Jezebel to get possession of this Naboth's vineyard.

NAVY—ENGINE ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is his intention to take any steps to improve the present unsatisfactory position on board Her Majesty's ships, of the engine room artificers? He expressed a hope that during the Recess the subject would receive the attention of the Government. He felt sure that if attention were directed to the grievance of the men he referred to, full justice would be done to them. What caused their discontent was that they were the only class of men afloat in the Navy who had no hope whatever of promotion or advancement, and that was the grievance which they wished remedied.
NAVY—HEAVY GUNS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEcalled attention to the system of testing heavy guns for the Navy, and contended that it was advisable to defer the completion of Her Majesty's ship Inflexible, or any ship being specially constructed to carry 81-ton guns or guns of a weight of 35 tons and upwards, until those guns had been subjected to such a trial as they might reasonably be expected to undergo in war time. The hon. and gallant Member said, he brought this subject forward now in consequence of what he regarded as the unsatisfactory Answer he had received to a Question he had put a short time ago. Parliament had been asked to vote very large sums of money for building certain ships specially constructed to carry very heavy guns. Those guns had never been tried because as yet none of them were completed; but the 35-ton and 38-ton guns had been tried, and had, as he ventured to maintain, proved to be excessively deficient in endurance. As he recently stated in a letter printed in The Times, the 35-ton and 38-ton guns required repairs after from 50 to 70 rounds had been fired from them, and he believed the endurance of the 81-ton gun would be still less than this. He desired that our guns should be tested as they would be tested in action. Within a month of the outbreak of a war our large guns might be called upon to fire, in addition to the ordinary practice, 280 or 300 rounds. Had we

  473
  any proof that they could do so? He maintained that we had not. The vessels of the Inflexible class cost us £500,000, and the trial which he wished to be made as to these large guns would cost only between £200 and £300. The officers of the War Department were prejudiced on this subject. They had staked their reputation on these guns, which were called "Woolwich Infants." If we went on making more of these guns we should incur great expense which might hereafter be found to be a great waste.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that no persons could have given more earnest attention to the improvement of ordnance than the officers of the War Department. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was entirely mistaken in thinking that the officers of that Department were prejudiced or interested on the subject of these large guns. The officers of our Ordnance department were probably the most skilled officers with respect to ordnance in the whole world. He wished the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be thoroughly investigated. But it would be impossible outside of the Ordnance department to investigate the minutiæ of this subject; and he, therefore, suggested that if information was wanted with regard to it, the Ordnance Department ought to be asked to appoint a Committee of Investigation.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he remembered very well when the War Office were going to commit the gross absurdity of manufacturing bronze field-guns for India. They were told in the most earnest manner that they must incur a great failure, but it had no effect on the War Office, and the guns were made and thus £1,000,000 of money was thrown away. He believed the new Director of Ordnance was a most valuable officer; but then he had been connected with the present system for many years past, and to tell them that that officer was the only person they could go to on this subject was unsatisfactory. He recollected when a very high officer of the War Department went down to investigate a new material for the manufacture of guns, and a more absurd and unsatisfactory Report than he made was probably never penned. He knew it was too late in the Session to hope to elicit from the Government much information on the subject; but he main-
  474
  tained that the War Office would fail in these matters, however honourable they might be, from the simple fact that it was no part of the duty of a soldier to manufacture guns.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he hoped the Government would neither postpone progress with the Inflexible nor defer the making of experiments with the heavy guns referred to in the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Both matters were of great and pressing importance, and as there seemed to be material difference of opinion with regard to the question of guns, he felt sure that the country would not grudge a sum of money sufficient for the making of such experiments as would set the matter at rest. For his own part, he believed the Government guns would come out well from any ordeal to which they might be submitted.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he hoped the Government would not take the advice which had been given them to suspend the building of the Inflexible. Such a course, he thought, would be most unwise. To his mind, the duty of the Government was to push forward the building of the Inflexible, and in the meantime to consider with what kind of ordnance she ought to be armed. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) was an officer of great experience in gunnery; but his argument that the 81-ton gun was unfit for service was hardly an effective one, seeing that the gun practically was not yet made. It was to be hoped that no gun would be adopted until the War Office had tested it thoroughly and ascertained that it was capable of performing its work. Why, the 35-ton gun was not as likely to last as any gun which might be brought against it he was at a loss to imagine. His hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price) called in question the present system of rifling; but it was a matter on which the most competent authorities differed. Under these circumstances, it was surely the duty of the House to rely on the Reports of its Committees, who had investigated the question most carefully, rather than to adopt any view brought forward by individual Members. The present system of rifling was adopted on the recommendation of several Committees; and, therefore, however anxious he was for improvements in gunnery, he could not support

  475
  his hon. and gallant Friend on the present occasion.
  MR. HUNTassured the House that the Government had not the slightest intention of suspending the construction of the Inflexible. On the contrary, he had asked the House to sanction the employment of an additional number of men at the dockyard in order to facilitate the completion of this ship. As to the durability of the 35-ton guns, he might mention that one of them had stood 600 rounds without re-venting, which he believed was the kind of repair alluded to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Price) in the latter part of his speech. [Captain PRICE: The 600 rounds were not fired continuously.] It was quite true they were not fired continuously; but the fact remained that they did no serious damage to the gun. Moreover, it did not by any means follow that a gun was unfit for further use because the re-venting of it might be desirable. He was informed that a gun might have its vent enlarged, and yet be perfectly capable of firing. It was asked whether one of the 81-ton guns could be re-vented in the turret. According to his information that could be done. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to think it would be necessary to re-vent those guns after every 50 rounds; but if they fired 50 rounds in action there would probably be very little left for them to fire at. A charge was made against the professional advisers of the Government that they were prejudiced and interested parties. Well, he did not claim for them infallibility, and was glad to have their opinions considered; but he believed they were the least interested and least prejudiced persons who discussed these matters. Inventors, who were interested and sometimes prejudiced, brought their notions before the professional officers who advised the Government, and if those notions were not approved or were rejected, they persuaded some clever Member of that House to bring forward the case and allege that the professional officers were interested or prejudiced people.
  MR. E. J. REEDrose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman was imputing discreditable motives to Members of the House, which he objected to have imputed to himself.
  CAPTAIN PRICEwas sure that the First Lord of the Admiralty did not intend that. He himself was not in the slightest degree interested in any person connected with the manufacture of guns; but he had had interviews with Sir Joseph Whitworth, Mr. Krupp, and Colonel Scott, and had derived a great deal of information from them; but he had invariably told them he would not advocate their claims in that House.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Reed) had completely misunderstood him. He had no intention of suggesting that hon. Members brought forward these questions from interested motives, and he did not impute any motives. He merely pointed out that inventors whose schemes had been rejected sometimes maintained that the professional advisers of the Government were prejudiced, and persuaded Members of that House that the views they held were right. When the professional advisers of the Government were charged with prejudice, he though it was only fair to show how such charges originated. As to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) in regard to making experiments, that was a matter on which he was prepared to consult with those who were more especially concerned; but such experiments if made would be rather to satisfy public opinion than to remove any doubts at the War Office or the Admiralty as to the propriety of the course which had been adopted. He had to inform the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the question of engine room artificers had engaged his attention, and although he was not ready to give an answer at present he hoped that the matter would be gone into carefully during the next six months, and that he would be able to make a more definite statement with regard to it next year.
  MR. E. J. REEDwished to say that he took exception to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, because after expressing his belief that the professional advisers of the Government were the most disinterested persons who discussed these subjects, he alleged that hon. Gentleman were instigated by inventors to bring cases before the House.
  MR. HUNTreplied, that he did not mean discussions in that House, but alluded to what went on between in-

  477
  ventors and scientific persons out-of-doors.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £4,400, Supplementary sum for Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that in moving the Navy Estimates last March he stated that he was anxious to improve the pay of the warrant officers of the Navy. A wish was expressed that he should do this in the present Estimates, and he now proposed to do so to a certain extent. There were now two classes of warrant officers—the first, who received 7s. 6d. a-day, and the second 5d. 6d. a-day. He proposed to adopt a progressive scale of pay according to the number of years' service. After the first five years' service he proposed to make a difference in the pay of the sea-going and other ships; under five years they would rise by degrees to 5s. 6d.; from five to 10 years they would receive 6s. 9d. in sea-going ships, and 6s. at home; and for 15 years and upwards 8s. 3d. for seagoing and 7s. 3d. for other ships, provided that no officer should receive a lower rate of pay than at present. He proposed that that increase should take effect on the 1st of October, and the Vote would only be for the half-year, so that the increase would be £8,800 for the year.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had been able to deal with this subject in the present Session. He had no objection to the increase; but presumed that the alterations would be described in an official document which would be laid upon the Table.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that this would be a great boon to a deserving class of men.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £1,300, Supplementary sum for Half-pay, Reserved and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that although the amount of this Vote was smaller than the last, it involved a much larger ques-
  478
  tion, which had attracted a great deal of attention among the profession—namely, the present stagnation of promotion. He stated during the discussion on the Navy Estimates that he had this question under his consideration, but that he was uncertain whether he should be able to deal with it this Session. He was happy to say that he had obtained the consent of the Treasury to the scheme which he would now briefly describe. The sum named in the Vote was very small, because it related to the extra expenditure incurred during the present financial year, and did not indicate the ultimate cost of the plan he proposed. He must admit that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), when he brought forward his scheme in 1870, effected a very great reform in the Navy. His object was to diminish the numbers on the executive list of the Navy, and by the more constant employment of officers to make the Service more efficient. He (Mr. Hunt) by no means disapproved the general principle of this scheme, and believed that great benefit had been done to the Service. The right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged, however, that the expectations he had formed of the flow of promotion had not been realized, and that it was necessary to make some temporary provision to satisfy the demands of the Service as to promotion in the different ranks. The plan he had now to propose was of a temporary character, and he had endeavoured to work on the right hon. Gentleman's lines. On the 10th of June, 1873, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) said that his anticipation was that under his scheme there would be 7 flag vacancies, 15 vacancies of captains, and 30 vacancies of commanders in each year. According to the calculations made at present, however, there would be, during the next nine years, only 5½ flag vacancies, 7 captains' vacancies, and 9 commanders' vacancies. Every one who had considered the subject would admit that the vacancies which he had named were not sufficient to secure a proper flow of promotion in the Navy. The question had to be considered, not as personal to the officers, but as affecting the efficiency of the Service, and so great a stagnation of promotion must be admitted to be depressing to the Service and injurious to the public interest. The Committee were aware that the numbers authorized

  479
  by the Order in Council were 50 admirals of all ranks, 150 captains, 200 commanders, and 600 lieutenants. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) obtained an Order in Council to increase the number of lieutenants; but the others remained the same. If the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had been successful, no doubt the stagnation would not have been so great as it was at present; but the fact was that, although the commanders' list had been cut down to 200, the captains' list, instead of being 150, as the right hon. Gentleman had expected, was now 174, while the admirals' list was five in redundance. What he proposed was that the Admiralty should promote 7 captains to flag rank every year—with this limitation, that the admirals' list should not exceed 68, and that if there were more vacancies than 7 those vacancies should not be filled up in that year, but should give promotion in the following year. With regard to promotion from the commanders' to the captains' list, he proposed that there should be, if possible, from 12 to 15 promotions to the captains' list every year. The additions to the flag list would assist that arrangement, and he proposed that the captains' list should not exceed 175. That should be the standard, and promotion should take place up to 15 a-year as long as the number of 175 was not exceeded. He proposed to take 225 as the standard number of commanders, instead of the present number of 200, and he thus hoped to get from 20 to 25 promotions for lieutenants every year. If, however, there were more than 25 vacancies, he did not propose to fill them up. He proposed, therefore, to get 7 promotions for captains, from 12 to 15 for commanders, and from 20 to 25 for lieutenants. He had had a calculation made as to what the effect of the scheme would be if carried on for 10 years, and it showed that, with regard to officers of flag rank, there this year 55, at the end of the year there would be 57, next year 59, the year after 62, the next 59, then 57; then the number would rise to 60, then to 64, and in 1882 to 68, which was the limit he put to the number of flag rank. In 1884 the number would fall to 67, and the next year to 66. According to the calculations made, in no one year would there be more than four additions to the list. It might, however,
  480
  owing to deaths or retirements, not be necessary to make the additions he had sketched out. Then, as regarded the captains list, there would be, according to the computation made, 175 in the year 1882, when they would fall to 173 in the next year, to 170 in the next, and to 165 in the next. Next he came to the commanders' list, which was now at 200. According to the calculation made the number even under the scheme he proposed would not be likely to exceed 216. It would go in this way—204, 206, 208, 211, and 215. There were, of course, in the calculation the elements of uncertainty to which he had referred—namely, deaths and voluntary retirements; but in making it, the rate of mortality for the same time in the same rank had been ascertained and adopted. Then, as to voluntary retirement, he thought the estimate was a low one. With reference to promotions from the captains' list, he was unable to say positively there would be 12 this year. He was only certain of 10; but it might happen, under ordinary circumstances, that there would be 12, and he took that number as the desired minimum, and 15 as the maximum; while in 10 years the estimated average would be 14. Of course, the number might fluctuate, as the Committee were aware that in the Navy, as in other professions, men who got to the top of their profession lived longer than the general run of the public. As regarded commanders, the calculation was that for 10 years there would be an average promotion of 20½ a-year from the rank of lieutenant, the maximum being 25, and the desired minimum 20. For the next two years there would be no great difficulty in maintaining the number of promotions, as he was at liberty during that time to make additions to the list. Of course, however, if vacancies were caused by optional retirements, there would be no necessity to make those additions. As that was the more desirable way, what he proposed was to lower the age of optional retirement for admirals, vice-admirals, rear-admirals, and captains by five years. At present the ages were, for admirals, 60; for vice and rear-admirals, 55; and for captains, 50. He proposed to lower the respective ages to 55, 50, and 45. He would, however, limit the number to three admirals and six captains. This he did on financial grounds, and as an inducement to make

  481
  the scheme available he proposed that those who did so should be entitled, according to seniority, to one step in rank, without any qualifying service. He further proposed that the principle should apply to officers who had been retired under the scheme of 1870. Then, with respect to the cost of the scheme, if it were found necessary to go up to the maximum numbers, the cost would be a little under £10,000 a-year. "With regard to optional retirement, the cost in the case of admirals would be about £4,000 a-year ultimately, the expense in the present year being the sum stated in the Resolution in the hands of the Chairman. He had no precise estimate as to the cost of the retirement of captains. It should be borne in mind that the expense incurred one way would be diminished by the lesser expense incurred in another. There would be a certain amount of expenditure incurred under the head of optional retirements; but, on the other hand, there would be less expenditure by additions to the lists in the way of promotions. He hoped that the scheme of the Government would give a reasonable amount of satisfaction to the Service at no very great increase of cost. He was aware it was not likely to give entire satisfaction to all those who looked for something greater, and who thought that every officer in the Service was entitled to promotion. It was impossible under the existing system that every officer could obtain promotion. Some must be content to leave the Service or remain in it in the comparatively lower ranks. He had proposed a scheme which he thought, considering the numbers on the lists and his desire for the efficiency of the Service, would be acceptable to those who were tolerably reasonable in their demands, and would meet with the approbation of the Committee.
  MR. GOSCHENasked whether the numbers were the same as proposed by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers)?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the right hon. Member took 7 flag officers; he took 15. He took 12 captains' vacancies and 20 commanders'; whilst the right hon. Gentleman took 30.
  MR. GOSCHENpreferred to look at the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman in a broad light. It was comparatively a matter of indifference whether
  482
  there were 10 officers more or less on the lists provided they were fairly agreed upon broad and general principles. He had listened to the statement just made with considerable satisfaction, because the right hon. Gentleman had very candidly stated that he intended to abide by the general policy of the retirement scheme of 1870. He (Mr. Goschen) should have felt great regret if, five years after the inauguration of the scheme of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers), the right hon. Gentleman opposite had overthrown the principles then laid down. The right hon. Gentleman was invited to consider proposals that officers who had retired should be brought back to the active lists. If that had been done it would have caused great heartburnings, and the great object of the scheme of his right hon. Friend would have been broken down. He (Mr. Goschen) was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had shown the firmness to stand by the general policy of keeping the lists within moderate dimensions, and of keeping the system of retirement with only moderate modifications to meet a temporary emergency. His proposals approximated very closely to those made by the right hon. Member for Pontefract in a previous debate on the subject. They were moderate, and might, he considered, be accepted by the Committee. With regard to optional retirement, he presumed the right hon. Gentleman changed the age and encouraged optional retirement, a course of which he (Mr. Goschen) entirely approved—in order to be be able to keep down the lists, and in that respect he quite appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's policy. He considered it to be of great importance that the general proportions of the lists should be recognized by both sides of the House; that they should be supported by the successive Administrations; and that the idea should not be created that it was a matter which was to be continually reopened. With regard to the retired officers, it had been constantly urged upon the Admiralty by officers who wished to retire that to give them a step in rank would cost the Admiralty nothing whilst it would give them great satisfaction. But there had always been this difficulty—that unless they went back for many years they would be giving these officers seniority in rank over those who had previously retired, and would create

  483
  a grievance. Remonstrances had been addressed to the late Board of Admiralty on this subject, and those who had served a longer time felt dissatisfaction that those who had served a shorter time should have obtained the step in rank. He was glad that the First Lord of the Admiralty had dealt with the subject in language so guarded; but he (Mr. Goschen) had thought it right to refer to this question of the relative rank of officers.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was glad to know that the stagnation of promotion which had so long existed would, to a considerable extent, be relieved. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty deserved the thanks of the Navy for this alteration, and those thanks would be freely rendered to the Government which had sanctioned this plan. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), in order to give a gentle fall to the system of 1870, had said that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Admiralty were on the same lines as that system, but such was not the fact. The lieutenants, who were the backbone of the Navy, had of late had no promotion whatever; but now every individual among them would know that he was going to have a chance. This was very satisfactory, and he was confident that the officers of the Navy would receive it as the greatest possible boon. There was one feature of the system of 1870 to which he must allude. One effect of it had been to increase enormously the cost of the retired list. Men—many of them between 30 and 40 years of age—were placed on the retired list—that was to say, in a position where they were not liable for future service, and were actually paid more than men on the half-pay list, who were still liable to be called upon to serve. He was sorry that the system of 1870 in this respect was not to be altogether reversed; but he gladly recognized that the step which it had boon resolved to take was a step in the right direction.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREwas of opinion that the scheme of the First Lord of the Admiralty proceeded on the same lines as that of the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). The right hon. and gallant Member who had last spoken was inconsistent in approving the scheme, and, at the same time, maintain-
  484
  ing that the principle of compulsory retirement—a principle fully adhered to by that scheme—ought to be done away with.
  SIR JOHN HAYexplained that he disapproved of compulsory retirement, except in cases of inefficiency.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREwould give his support to the scheme, it being essentially the same as that of the late Government. A point to which he wished to draw attention was the danger arising from an increase of the number of cadets. One main object of all these schemes should be to keep down the number of entries. The excess entry of cadets for the 10 years before 1869, as compared with the entry since that year, at the rate of over 100 per annum, would entail upon the country an ultimate cost of from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000.
  MR. GORSTjoined the Committee generally in acknowledging the consideration shown by the First Lord of the Admiralty towards a portion of the officers of the Royal Navy; but, at the same time, it was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had left out in the cold an important branch of the Navy—namely, the Royal Marines. The reason assigned by the right hon. Gentleman for the delay in dealing with their case was, that nothing could be done until the Commission on Army Purchase made their Report. That statement showed that it was the Treasury, and not the right hon. Gentleman, who were at fault in the matter. The First Lord had himself evinced a desire to take the question of the promotion and pay of the Royal Marines into consideration; but he was held back by the Treasury, who would not allow him to place the necessary sum on the Estimates. So that the probability was that for another 12 months the officers of this corps would remain under a sense of injustice and neglect, until the Commission reported, and then, no doubt, they would not be content to make the very moderate demand which they now submitted, but would considerably increase that demand, to meet which extra expense would be incurred by the Government as the consequence of their not dealing with the case now.
  COLONEL NORTHwas glad to have the opportunity of bearing his testimony to the distinguished gallantry of the Royal Marines, than which troops there

  485
  were none more loyal and brave in Her Majesty's service. When they looked at the lists and saw that numbers of the officers of the Royal Marines had served 17 years in the rank of captain, with no hope held out to them of promotion, he must say it was a disgrace to the Service, and a scandal in the opinion of the country. He deeply regretted it, and he must again say that it was shameful that such a brave set of men should be so neglected and treated by the Admiralty.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDdissented from the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that the scheme proposed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty was the same as that of the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). The scheme of the latter altogether did away with the esprit de corps of the officers, and if it were in force there would be no promotion at all in the Navy this year. With regard to the officers of the Royal Marines, he sympathized with them in their feelings about the manner they had been treated. The extent of the time at which the officers of the Royal Marines were told they might retire was so great—namely 70 years, that there was no hope of promotion for them. He considered it ought to be reduced to the same limit as that of the officers of the Navy.
  LORD HENRY SCOTTcongratulated the Government and also thanked them for what they had done in regard to promotion in the Navy. He regretted that the officers of the Royal Marines should have been so treated. The noble Lord who had just sat down had stated that the extent of the service of the officers of the Royal Marines was such that there could be no hope of promotion for them. That was a most regretful state of things. It might be that the finances of the country were in such a state as not to admit of their promotion; but he trusted that that was not the case. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would consider the case of those gallant officers, and not allow such a meritorious class of brave men to be longer neglected.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, the Committee were being called upon to vote money to gallant gentlemen for meritorious service, though the merit of their receiving it consisted in their doing nothing. Suc-
  486
  cessive Governments had bestowed their sympathies upon those octogenarians, who could do nothing, to the injury of younger men. The right hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) was not present at the moment, and therefore he would take the opportunity of saying that it was a shame and a discredit that so right hon. and gallant an Officer should be forced to be on the retired list against his own wish and that of the country whom he was willing to service. The feelings of the Service were hurt by this block in the higher list, which kept men like the right hon. and gallant Member out of active service. In his opinion, it was an offence to the common sense of the country to have two lists of officers, those upon one list being officers whom the Crown could call upon to serve, whilst those upon the other could not be so called on, and to pay gentlemen considerable sums to induce them to retire from the first on to the second list. As to the proposals of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he thought them, so far as they went, moderate and well-considered.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURexpressed his deep sympathy with the gallant officers of the Royal Marines, and said it was not very long ago since the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty gave them hope that he would consider their case and give promotion in their ranks, and also to the officers of the Royal Navy; but the case of the naval officers was alone proposed to be considered. The scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had developed of lowering the age of retirement of officers in the Navy ought to be extended with equal consideration to the officers of the Royal Marines. The age fixed for the compulsory retirement of the Marine generals was considerably more advanced than that at present fixed for the corresponding ranks of the admirals, and the new proposal to lower that age for the retirement of naval officers would create a still greater discrepancy between the military and naval officers. Considering that the Marines had always been treated as a part of the Navy, it appeared only just to assimilate the retiring advantages as well as the disadvantages of the admirals and generals of both services. In this case, the same extra outlay now proposed to be incurred for the acceleration of the rise of naval

  487
  officers ought to be used for advancing the Marine officers, especially the captains and subalterns of Marines, in which rants the slowness of rise was most marked. The only course to be adopted in the Marines to secure a due flow of promotions through all grades of the Marines was by inducing the senior ranks to retire, or by enlarging the seniority list so that officers might be placed on that list without losing their position in the corps in which they had served. The proposal of waiting till the present Commission on Army Promotion and Retirement reported would delay the remedies for the present slow promotion of Marines for some time. The difficulty of dealing with their grievances would be enhanced by waiting for the Report of the Commission on Purchase in the Army. The proportion of superior officers in the Infantry was far in excess of that of the Marines. It would thon be found that the organization of the Infantry was so entirely different from that of the Marines, it would be declared inexpedient to incur the very heavy expenditure which must follow by assimilating the numbers and ranks of all grades of officers in the Marines to those of the Infantry of the Line. The entire corps of Marines, when compared with the regiments of Infantry with an equal strength of privates as in the Marines, would be found to be singularly economical, owing to the grades of officers in Marines being, to the number of privates, much smaller than in the Infantry. It would be far better to deal with the Marines at once, and apply the simple remedy to meet the existing evil of stagnation in promotion by inducing senior officers to retire.
  MR. HUNTwas fully alive to the want of promotion in the Marines, but until the Commission now sitting upon Promotion and Retirement in the Army had made their Report, the Treasury were unwilling to consider any question relating to this subject. The view taken at the Treasury was that, though the Marines formed part of the Navy, the question of promotion in that corps and promotion in the Army bore one upon another. Probably if he were now at the Treasury he should take the same view. At all events, he was powerless in the matter. He wanted no urging to do anything, and no one would be more glad than himself when he was able to do for
  488
  the Marines what had been done for the Navy. With regard to naval cadets, the last entry was 52. He agreed entirely in the propriety of checking accumulations in the Navy List by stopping the flow at the source. It must be remembered, however, that it had been finally determined to make no more navigating officers, and it was necessary, therefore, to enter a larger number of cadets than would otherwise have been required in order to provide the requisite number of officers for navigating duties. The number of cadets entered under his direction was less than that which had been suggested as necessary. He thought, however, an actuarial calculation was necessary, and he proposed to have such a calculation, so as to be certain that the proper limit was not exceeded for feeding the higher ranks of the Service.
  MR. BENTINCKendorsed the view which had been expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Reed) as to the hardship of forcing officers into a position where they could no longer serve their country, and complained of the wretched system of parsimony which possessed the House of Commons when dealing with the Army and Navy. When our soldiers and sailors were fighting the battles of their country they were lauded to the skies, while at other times the House of Commons haggled over half-pence, squabbled about pay and pensions, and kept the Services at starving point. His right hon. Friend gave, as a reason for doing nothing, the fact that a Royal Commission was sitting. He hoped the time would soon come when the country would cease to be governed by Royal Commissions, and when responsibility would rest, as it ought to rest, upon the Government, instead of being evaded by them by means of Royal Commissions.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDreminded the right hon. Gentleman that no officer of the Marines was a member of the Commission, while, so far as he knew, no witness had been examined on the part of this corps. If so, the mere fact that such a Commission was sitting could not justify the continuance of the present state of things in the Marines. He was convinced, from his knowledge of the working men of this country, that if a plébiscite were taken they would be found wholly opposed to such miserable pay and position as were now

  489
  given to meritorious officers in the Marines, after lengthened service. "Working men disliked sinecures, and were jealous of jobs; but they were as patriotic and as anxious that public servants should be properly paid as any class of men in the country. Officers in the Marines had an undoubted grievance; and their case would, he hoped, receive the most earnest consideration of the Government.
  SIR JOHN HAYappealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to endeavour to sway the Treasury so as to induce them to deal with the question. The Royal Commission as to the Army would really not deal with the Marine force. The Government had been liberal to the Navy, and he hoped that the Marines, who were an integral part of the Navy, would be treated with equal liberality. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for London (Mr. Goschen) led the country to believe that he intended to restore the rank of major in the Royal Marines; and yet, although the rank was restored to the Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery, the Marines were still deprived of that rank. The change would hardly add anything to the public charge, because those promoted to the substantive rank of major in the Marines were brevet majors in the Army.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the feeling, with regard to the Marines was, that they were supposed not to belong to the Navy or the Army; and the consequence was that, unless great care was taken, neither of the two great Departments of the State would care for the Marines. He was sure that the present First Lord of the Admiralty would do his best on all occasions for the Royal Marines, and the officers well deserved fair consideration. They were not represented by any officer of the corps at the War Office, and there was no Marine officer on the Board of Admiralty.
  COLONEL NAGHTENwas glad to find that the cause of the officers of the Royal Marines had attracted the attention of the Committee. Great dissatisfaction existed amongst them with regard to their present position; but they were forbidden from publicly expressing it.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £1,322,069, for Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he must enter his protest against the deferring the consideration of the Naval Estimates to so late a period of the Session. During the last six years it had only once occurred that such important Votes were taken so late, and that was in 1871, which was an exceptional year. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty ought to explain to the Committee in greater detail the cause of the large discrepancy between his programme last year and the work completed within the year. In introducing the Estimates this year the right hon. Gentleman told the House that according to the Estimates of last year, 19,962 tons were to be built either in the dockyard or by contract. There was, however, a deficiency of not fewer than 4,704 tons. Taking the dockyards only, the Estimate was 14,171 tons, but the work done was only 11,304 tons, and therefore there was a deficiency of 2,867 tons. It was a very remarkable fact that though there was an increase of upwards of 2,000 men in the dockyards as compared with the last year but one, the amount of tonnage built was less. In the past six years there was no year in which so small an amount of tonnage had been built in the dockyards. Last year, when the right hon. Gentleman made some very disparaging remarks as to the condition of the Navy, he asked for £150,000 additional to be expended on the Invincible, the Superb, and the Shannon, and on two new vessels of the Shannon class. According to the original Estimates of last year they were to be advanced 1,500 tons, and according to the Supplementary Estimates 700 tons additional; but 1,120 tons only were completed during the year, or only half what was intended. In the repairing of ships there was an equal deficiency. He could only conjecture that the employment of an increased number of men in a dockyard gave rise to increased demands for the repair of yachts, dockyard tugs, stationary ships, and vessels of that description. Indeed, useless work of this kind appeared to be always going on in in our dockyards. He would recommend that there should be a larger amount of contract work instead of an increase of men in the dockyards. Another explanation of what had occurred was that there had been to some extent a change of policy under the present

  491
  Administration with regard to the recall of vessels from foreign squadrons, and the increase of expenditure was likewise in some respects due to the change of armament, which in many cases had not been beneficial. The Committee were entitled to a better explanation of the deficiency of work as compared with the programme of last year. He approved of the increase of the salaries of the master shipwrights in the dockyards, and he would suggest whether something ought not to be done in the way of giving honours to these officers. In the French dockyards the principal officers ranked immediately after the Admiral Superintendent, and they were generally decorated with some order. It appeared to him that the position of the master shipwrights was inferior to what it ought to be, and he thought it worthy of consideration whether something should not be done to increase their status and improve their position.
  SIR JOHN HAYinferred from the absence of the Leader of the Opposition that the noble Marquess was of opinion that the other Business of the House had necessarily led to a delay in the discussion of these Estimates. The hon. Member for Reading had taken great pains to ascertain the sums which had been voted in various years, and the mode in which those sums had been applied. He would now quote a few figures bearing on the point. He would first take the question of money, and then the question of tonnage. In 1865–6 the sum voted for building purposes was £1,162,000, and the sum expended was £840,000. 'In 1866–7 the sum voted was £855,000, and the sum expended £721,000. In 1867–8 the sum voted was £1,280,000, and the sum expended £1,265,000. That was the only year in which the Estimate and the expenditure approached each other. In 1868–9 the sum voted was £1,204,000, and the sum expended £1,137,000. In 1869–70 the sum voted was £1,080,000, and the sum expended £953,000. In 1870–1 the sum voted was £1,104,000, and the sum expended £951,000. In 1871–2 the sum voted was £1,054,000, and the sum expended £887,000. In 1872–3 the sum voted was £784,000, and the sum expended £596,000. The right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Admiralty felt some alarm at the state of the Navy, and proposed the largest Esti-
  492
  mate that had ever been laid before the Committee—the sum of £1,364,000, and the sum expended was £1,117,000. Then with respect to the tonnage. In 1865–6 the estimated amount of tonnage was 21,000, and the amount built 16,000. In 1866–7 the estimated tonnage was 18,263, and the amount built 15,384. In 1867–8 the estimated tonnage was 33,206, and the amount built 33,701. In 1868–9 the estimated amount was 29,000 tons, and of that only 27,000 were built. In 1869–70 the estimated amount was 22,000 tons, but in that year there were 24,000 tons built. In 1870–1 the estimated amount was 23,000 tons, and of that only 19,000 were built. In 1871–2 the estimated amount was 21,000 tons, the whole of which were built. In 1872–3 the estimated amount was 21,267, and of that only 16,000 were built, being 5,175 tons loss. That was a year for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) was responsible. In 1873–4 the estimated amount was 19,000 tons, and of that 17,000 only were built. In 1874–5 the estimated amount was 19,797 tons, of which only 16,480 were built. The hon. Member for Reading had made so extravagant a statement that he (Sir John Hay) felt it necessary to submit the facts he had done, and to show that the present First Lord had been bound in honour to make the statement which he had made as to the condition of the Navy, and as to the extraordinary efforts he had made to improve it.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the right hon. and gallant Member for Stamford seemed to claim credit for the present Government on the ground that they had spent more money on the Navy than any Government of recent years. But the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had not complained that the present Board did not spend money enough, but that they did not show sufficient results for the money so spent. What the hon. Member for Reading asked was this—"You, the Government, have asked for a larger sum of money, and you have engaged a larger number of men, and we want to know what adequate amount of work have you turned out of the dockyards?" There had been no answer given to that question. No doubt it would be said that a very large sum had been spent upon repairs; but that

  493
  was not a sufficient explanation. The Government would have to make plain how it was that having last year promised to build 14,000 tons, they had only built 11,000 tons, and were thus 3,000 tons in arrear. The Committee had a right to inquire why the work for which money had been voted had not been done. His own opinion was that the whole of the money asked for fighting ships ought to be spent upon building fighting ships, and ought not to be frittered away in the dockyards.
  MR. HUNTremarked that the statement of the hon. Member for Reading invited them into controversial matters, which he was anxious to avoid. It was true that the shipbuilding programme of the Government during the past year was not fulfilled, as he stated when he introduced the Navy Estimates in March. He was told that the excuse that so many men had been employed upon repairs would not serve him, because the completion of ships under repair was behindhand. But how did that arise? Last year he was very much taken to task for saying that he would not have ships upon paper, and that they should be real and effective, and not dummies. He had been endeavouring to make good that assertion. There was an extraordinary number of fighting ships under repair last year—the Warrior, the Defence, the Resistance, the Hector, the Minotaur, the Achilles, the Black Prince, and the Valiant; and those eight ironclads, until they had been put in a proper state of repair, were more or less dummies. When the work came to be done it turned out that the cost of repairing the ships approached very nearly their original cost. It was, perhaps, as well to remark that the original Estimate was prepared, not by the present representatives of the Naval branch of the Government, but by their predecessors. That was the reason why the Government had been unable to build the amount of tonnage laid down in their programme. They were told, again, that they had added a considerable number of men to the Estimates without showing a corresponding amount of work done. Well, in explanation of that circumstance, he had only to mention that it was impossible to get the additional men all at once, and they had been without them for a long time, though they had now been ob-
  494
  tained. Last year he pointed out that there were always contingencies to be provided for, and that to meet those contingencies men were taken off the new ships. This year he had endeavoured to obviate that evil by providing a number of men expressly for contingencies. It was too early in the day to boast; but he had been told by his professional advisers that the programme of work had never been so nearly up to the estimate for a great many years past as it was during the current year. That fact he attributed to the precaution of taking men for contingencies. A remark had been made that whilst last year he gave a lugubrious picture of the Navy, this year he seemed to be tolerably satisfied. He was more satisfied, not because things were perfect, but because they were mending. He denied that they were very much the same as last year. He did not take all the credit, or anything like all the credit, for this improvement, for he had always admitted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, his predecessor at the Admiralty, had endeavoured to put matters straight, and when he took office he found that some improvements had been effected. But he had to point out to the Committee that last year the Government were unable to send a reserve squadron to sea. It was true they sent out ships singly to exercise the reserve men; but there were not seaworthy ships enough to form a squadron. That appeared to him to be a very grave state of things. Now, this year there was a reserve squadron at sea, and but for the additional men that were taken on last year, they would not have been in a position to send out the same number of ships or to supply so many reliefs. He did not say things were perfect or all that he could wish; neither did he contend that the improvement which had taken place was altogether owing to the change of Government, but things were mending very considerably, and therefore there was good reason for adopting a more complacent tone in speaking of the Navy.
  MR. SAMUDAobserved, that during the past 10 years the amount of work done had fallen 25,000 tons below the Estimates, and that the only time when there was no deficiency was when Mr. Corry was at the head of the Admiralty. He urged the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt)

  495
  not to rely too much on calculations as to what a certain number of men would do. The number of men this year when there were 14,000 tons to be built was only a fraction above what it was last year, when the building of less than 12,000 tons was contemplated; and, under these circumstances, how was it possible, he asked, that the programme could be carried out? At the present moment eight ironclads were building in the dockyards and two in private yards. Two of the vessels laid down were of a perfectly new type, and although he was bound to admit, after having had an interview with the Chief Constructor, that they had a number of most ingenious and admirable arrangements, which would prevent the defects to which, in ignorance of the facts, he had in a former speech alluded, still he thought that their cruising qualities had been sacrificed. He wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty that, when all other nations of Europe were considerably increasing the sea-going character of their cruisers of the fighting class, we could not afford to dispense with an augmentation of that particular class so as to keep up the immense superiority we had at present over all those different nations of Europe. The increase of that class was the more important from what had been said as to our inability to send our squadrons to sea.
  MR. BENTINCKquite agreed with the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that it was most unfortunate that the Navy Estimates had been postponed till so late a period of the Session. Neither the late nor the present Government had done much to improve the lamentable state of things in the Navy. He admitted that the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) had done his best, and that his right hon. Friend the present First Lord was doing his best to improve the wretched state of things; but the result was so infinitesimal, and so inadequate to the requirements of the Navy, that it simply amounted to nothing. He asked his right hon. Friend the First Lord if he believed that, taking into account the state of the armaments of Europe, and taking into consideration that, by civilian interference, their Army had been reduced to a cipher, the Navy of this country was in such a state, in
  496
  point of efficiency and numbers, as to secure at all times the security of the country and the maintenance of its honour? In this country they had, he believed, about six weeks' provisions for the whole population, and if war broke out they would be in the position of a besieged town if they had not a sufficiency of light sea-going ships to protect their commerce. If they lost the command of the sea the result would be that in six weeks they would be reduced to starvation. We were devoting too much science to the construction of floating batteries without regard to their sailing qualities; our ironclads, from their shape and form, were useless as sailing ships; the majority of them could not be classed as sea-going ships; we could not make sailors on board of them; and he would suggest that they should be kept in dock, and that we should have a Channel Squadron of sailing ships to train sailors to be put on board the ironclads when their services were required.
  MR. E. J. REEDjoined in the protest at the Vote being taken at a time when discussion was impossible, and pointed out that the departure of Governments from their building programmes was concurrent with their practical escape from Parliamentary control by the postponement of Estimates to the end of the Session. He thought there was much ground for congratulation with reference to the speeches which had proceeded from both sides of the House. Large sums had been granted yearly for several years past by Parliament for the purpose of supplying the country with a thoroughly effective Navy; but the precise manner in which the expenditure took place had been, to a great degree, beyond the control of Parliament. The monies granted for the purposes of the construction of the Navy were divisible into two main portions—that part which went for the purposes of building ships, and that part which was devoted to their repairs. It was impossible to anticipate correctly the amount of money which would be needed for repairs. It might be possible to draw up a certain programme, and to put down in that programme a list of the ships that it was intended to repair, but it might also happen that the Estimate which had been formed would prove defective, and thus an outlay upon repairs beyond that which had been

  497
  asked from Parliament might be found necessary. If this uncertainty were allowed to extend itself to the building of ships also, then it became still clearer that something like a distinct understanding should be come to with the Government as to the apportionment of the grants. In the course of the discussion which had taken place that evening they had heard a great deal upon the subject of tonnage. He had amused himself a short time ago, during the dull portion of a speech, by calculating the price per ton on the construction of certain ships of war. He had calculated that the price per ton for the Superb was £51, for the Temeraire the same price per ton, for the Euryalus £72 per ton, and for the Garnet £67 per ton. These amounts varied so much that he should wish to point out that if all the Committee asked was that the Government should build a certain amount of tonnage, the Admiralty should submit a more specific Estimate as to the proportion of the grant that was to be appropriated to special classes of these vessels of war. He thought it was a somewhat extraordinary thing that the Committee should be asked to sanction the construction of two very peculiar ironclads without any more specific knowledge than that they were to be something like the Inflexible. That vessel was of a peculiar type, a kind of vessel to which he had given great consideration while he was at the Admiralty; but he had not put forth a plan, because it required so many check calculations, and because there were some features in connection with it which gave him some anxiety. He did not say that because he doubted the constructive power of the authorities at the Admiralty; but because the vessel was of so singular and peculiar a typo. He had not seen a model of these ships, though he admitted the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman in affording facilities for viewing models at the Admiralty; but he would counsel that great care should be observed in the construction of these vessels. He would ask the Committee whether the position of the master shipwrights or Chief Constructors as they were now called, should not be improved; but their position was constantly depressed through naval officers being appointed as superintendents of the dockyards. However, the course now pursued at the dockyards resulted
  498
  in a large waste of public money, and he would suggest that the master shipwrights should have more power to prevent it. He did not make these observations with the view of obstructing the Vote, but to secure more careful attention to the question. The hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) sometimes made strong statements and sometimes modified them on re-consideration, and he would remind the hon. Gentleman that it was one thing to say that a ship sailed badly and another to say that she was useless, and in this latter respect he thought the hon. Gentleman had spoken too strongly.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, that although many faults had been attributed to our ships, yet, taken as a whole, our Fleet was very efficient and powerful, and, in his opinion, our naval architects and designers deserved the greatest credit for what they had done. What the Navy really wanted was a larger number of first-class cruisers of the Active, Volage, and Shah type, possessing great speed, to be rigged as frigates, and able to keep at sea for a long time, to stand weather well and carry heavy guns. War was very different now from what it was 10 years ago. If we went to war now it would be a matter of a fortnight, and this is where we should suffer. The enemy would send out three or four cruisers, which in that space of time would inflict a vast amount of damage on our commerce, for it should be remembered that we did the carrying business of the world. We ought to have cruisers which could go at the same pace as the great steamers engaged in the merchant service—namely, from 13 to 15 knots an hour. He found, however, that we possessed only 34 cruisers. Twenty-one of these would go from 9 to 11 knots; 12 could go from 11 to 12 knots; and only 6 could go from 12 to 15 knots. Thus we had only six vessels that could attain the speed requisite—namely, 15 knots—for the protection of our commerce in the event of our going suddenly to war. He hoped a large number of ships of this description would be added to the Navy. No nation would be imprudent enough to run its head against our ironclad fleet; but it would send out cruisers to attack our trade. He was glad to learn that nine new cruisers were to be built, two of which would soon be finished; but he should have been

  499
  greater pleased if the number had been 69. These cruisers would be particularly valuable to protect vessels going into our coaling stations. He hoped that the Admiralty would give their attention to this matter, which, he submitted, was one of great importance.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a matter of considerable importance and interest both to his own constituents and the country at large—namely, the discontent which existed amongst the men employed in the dockyards. His predecessor (Admiral Elliot), in a previous Session, had brought the subject before the House, and there was then a promise that it should have serious and earnest consideration. He wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would give the Committee the result of the inquiries which he had made in reference to the matter? He did not wish to bring it forward as a mere dockyard workman's grievance, but as a question of the economical expenditure of public money. The money voted could not be economically expended if the workmen were in a state of dissatisfaction. For some time there had been considerable dissatisfaction among all classes of workmen employed in the dockyards; though he did not think that it was at all necessary that men who were in the employ of the Government should be in a chronic state of discontent. It was not so in private firms. One ground for the discontent in Government Yards was because they did not treat all the men alike; and, indeed, the great complaint was that there was an unnecessary inequality. The first great inequality was in dividing the men into establishment and non-establishment workmen. Men who had worked side by side in the dockyards for the same number of years found themselves in this position. One had been lucky enough to get upon the establishment whilst the other had not been so lucky, and the consequence was that their positions were entirely different. They were differently regarded, had different trust in the town; one looked forward to a pension, whilst the other had no hope of such a thing. There was another ground of discontent, and that was founded upon this, that promotion in the dockyards was supposed to be based entirely upon competitive examinations.
  500
  Promotion upon this system, however, was not fairly carried out; because it was found impossible to trust entirely to the result of competitive examination, and there were personal marks given to the men which really made the system of competitive examination a mere sham. He should not object to promotion being made by persons who were responsible to the House; but in the dockyards they had neither promotion by strict competitive examination, nor promotion by persons who were responsible to the House. He hoped to be able to bring the matter under the attention of the House under more favourable circumstances next Session.
  MR. E. J. REEDconsidered that the system of examination at the dockyards was one of the fairest that could be devised. There was one point he wished to call the attention of the First Lord to, and that was with reference to the case of a number of skilled labourers who only got pensions of an inferior class. The fault, he believed, rested with the Treasury.
  MR. WHALLEYwas anxious that some steps should be taken to utilize the private yachts of the country as a sort of Naval Volunteer body. He condemned the sending of ironclads to sea for the training of our seamen.
  DR. KENEALYsaid, he coincided in the sentiment that it was extremely inconvenient to hon. Members, and it was discreditable to the system of government in this country, that at this late period of the Session and at this late hour of the night they should be called upon to discuss Votes of this importance, and without any adequate excuse being given. Such proceedings were not calculated to raise the House of Commons in the opinion of the country. He could tell hon. Gentlemen that there was beginning to be felt a widespread spirit of dissatisfaction and disaffection that two of the most important branches of the administration of the country—namely, the Navy and the Indian Revenue—should be put off to the latest possible period of the Session, and when the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) brought forward his Motion complaining of this being the case he should give him his warm support.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I beg to point out that the question before the Committee is the Vote for the Dockyards,

  501
  and it has nothing to do with the Indian Revenue.
  DR. KENEALY: I do not intend to anticipate any discussion that may take place on the Indian Budget. I am pointing out what I think I am quite in Order in doing. ["Order!"] I intend and will point it out. ["Order!"] I repeat I intend and will point out that the country is justly dissatisfied that important questions of this kind are thrust upon us at a period of the Session when hon. Members, such as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), are obliged to go down on their knees and apologize for doing their duty to their constituents. I am not going to do it. [Laughter.] I believe I am addressing English Gentlemen, and I hope they will allow me, as representing a large and independent constituency—[Laughter]—I repeat a large, independent, and most honourable constituency, who will have to pay this taxation—to express some views on this matter, and the more especially as the House knows I do not often intrude myself upon it. Now, the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) is a prophet, and he is the most dangerous of prophets, because he is a respectable prophet, and he says that we do not know when there may be an outbreak of a general war. I always notice that when the Administration comes and asks for Votes for either the Army or the Navy, there are military and naval prophets—and there are respectable prophets who are neither naval nor military—who begin to anticipate a general European war. I know something of the state of Europe, and after careful consideration of it, I am quite unable to see any symptoms of this general outbreak with which we are threatened. Russia is not going to war with this country, unless this country shall be insane enough, and sometimes I think this country is quite capable of any amount of insanity—especially when certain portions turn their heads upon the Orton theory—I say that Russia is not going to war with us, unless England interferes with the proper, legitimate, and rational designs she has upon Turkey. ["Order!"]
  LORD HENRY SCOTT: I rise to Order, and submit that it is not competent for the Member to raise a discussion on the general policy of Europe.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question is the Vote for the Dockyards, and it is not competent for the hon. Member to raise a question of general policy.
  DR. KENEALY: I am endeavouring, if I can, to dispel from the mind of the hon. Member for West Norfolk any clouds of alarm and terror which he may have in reference to this impending European war, which seems to terrify him so much. I hope to be able to show that the hen. Member's assertions are made for the purpose of seducing the Committee into an easy compliance with the present Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already intimated to the hon. Member that the question before the Committee is the Vote for the Dockyards, and it is not in Order for him to raise a general discussion about a European war, because of some chance expression which may have fallen from the hon. Member for West Norfolk.
  DR. KENEALY: The hon. Member for West Norfolk speaks about there only being six weeks' provisions in case of war. I am surprised that a Gentleman of his great experience should imagine that this country could by any possibility of means be driven into such a condition. The hon. Member was followed by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) who gave the House a dissertation on the construction of ships, but I hope the Committee will not be led away by the arguments used.
  MR. HUNTsaid, in reference to the question of dockyard labourers, which had been raised by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst), it had not been lost sight of by the Government, and was still under consideration.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £1,261,000, for Naval Stores for building, repairing, and outfitting the Fleet and Coast Guard.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it would be a farce to enter into a discussion of the items contained in the Vote at the present period of the Session and at so late an hour, and he trusted that if the Vote was allowed to be taken in silence on the present occasion it would not be considered as a precedent for the future.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £902,608, for Steam Machinery and Ships building by Contract.
  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £652,751, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of New Works, Buildings, Machinery, and Repairs, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREinquired what was intended to be done with respect to Alderney Harbour?
  MR. HUNTstated that it was intended to repair the inner harbour, but the outer harbour would be left to itself.
  MR. EDWARDSmoved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £8,000 towards the erection of a College for naval cadets at Dartmouth.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £644,751, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of New Works, Buildings, Machinery, and Re-pairs, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876."—(Mr. Edwards.)
  MR. HUNTsaid, that at this period of the Session it would be impossible to enter into a proper discussion of the matter, and he therefore proposed to accede to the proposition of his hon. Friend and to meet him on the merits of the question some months hence.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Are we to assume that the purchase of the site has not been completed?
  MR. HUNT: It has not been completed. I stated the other day that I waited for the Vote of the House. I only hope that we may not lose so excellent a site.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, there were certain questions connected with Chatham Dockyard which he should have liked to have seen discussed; but after what had been said by the First Lord he felt it would be useless to make any remarks that evening.
  DR. KENEALYsaid, the country would hear with very great surprise the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty that the Session was so late and the hour so late that there was no time to discuss Votes which were of very large amount. He begged to move that the Chairman should report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—
  MR. HUNTappealed to the Committee not to sanction the Motion. He admitted that it was not advisable to take such important Votes at this late period of the year, but there was no help for it now.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  (7.) £145,088, for Greenwich Hospital and School.
  MR. HUNTmade a brief statement as to the financial changes that had recently been carried out in connection with the income of the Hospital. He explained that a certain part of the estates belonging to the Hospital had been sold last year, the result of which had been to increase the income of the Hospital by a sum of £13,809. This sum had been applied by reducing the age at which the pensioners received their pension so as to give them a claim to additional pension at 65 instead of 70, by adding 200 boys to the Hospital and school, and by increasing certain annuities.
  MR. GOSCHENexpressed his satisfaction with the statement, but should like to know whether the Government were going to continue the policy of selling the estates. The late Government had recourse to selling some of those estates for the purpose of increasing the revenue. The estates were very large, and in reference to the proceeds of them, he considered the Government should keep a very large sum as a reserve fund in case of war, the effect of which would be to increase the pensions very much.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was one of the Commissioners for inquiry into the Greenwich Hospital estates, which produced £4,000 a-year, and in his opinion, when consolidated and brought within one circle—to dispose of them, in fact—they would become very valuable.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, that he, too, had been associated in inquiry respecting the Greenwich Hospital estates, and those which had been sold brought very high prices. The time might come when the charity would be very largely drawn upon, and the funds should therefore be very carefully kept. The Government should be very careful in selling this property, which, in his opinion,

  505
  was very valuable, and in selling the surface it might be found that there were minerals beneath it.
  MR. BRUCEinquired whether any credit was given for the use of the buildings or the hospitals?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, it was impossible to judge of the policy of these sales by their immediate results. If this country continued to progress in wealth and population the rate of interest in the public funds would decline; and while the value of money became less the value of land would increase; and therefore he hoped the Government would not get rid of all their landed property.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESstated that the increase this year for the Greenwich Hospital estate had been £14,000, independently of the sales effected by the late Government. It was true that the College was the property of the charity, and it was worthy of consideration whether a small acknowledgement should not be paid from the naval funds to the charity for the use of the College. As to the policy of continuing the sales of the estates the Government had come to the conclusion that where the property was purely agricultural and fully developed it was desirable to sell it, but that where there was any mineral value below it would be very unwise to part with the property. The net rental of the property sold last year was £5,134, and it realized 62 years' purchase, so that upon it they now had £7,500 a-year beyond the net rental. Charges amounting to £10,000 a-year more upon the Greenwich estate would be falling in, so that in case of war there would be sufficient resources to meet an emergency.
  MR. WHITWELLwas glad to hear that mineral property was to be retained.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the buildings were the property of the charity, and should the Hospital be sold the pensioners would be entitled to the interest of the money so realized. If, however, the buildings were left for the use of the nation as a Naval College, the pensioners were clearly entitled to a fair rent for their premises.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEexplained that the increase in the Vote this year was chiefly due to increased salaries.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEexpressed his satisfaction at the increase which the salaries had undergone.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £82,276, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £505, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland."
  MR. MELDONsaid, that at this stage it became his duty to move that the Chairman should report Progress. The Committee had now been engaged for many hours in voting Supply, and there were upon the Paper two or three important measures in which Irish Members were very much interested. The Chief Secretary had intimated his intention of proceeding with the two Bills relating to National education in Ireland, and the Irish Members were most desirous that the Bills should proceed at such an hour as would ensure careful consideration. He (Mr. Meldon) was most anxious that the Bills should be got through, and he felt it only reasonable that Progress should be reported after eight hours work in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Meldon.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHappealed to the Committee to proceed with the discussion of the Estimates.
  MR. GOSCHENsuggested that if the Government would postpone the contested Votes hon. Members, perhaps, would not object to going on.
  MR. GOLDSMIDthought it best to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and was glad to see a Representative of the late Government present at so late an hour.
  MR. MELDONcomplained that he had experienced at the hands of a Member of Her Majesty's Government a piece of terrorism such as he believed 'had never been equalled in this country. He (Mr. Meldon) was reluctantly compelled to bring a matter before the Committee which showed very clearly

  507
  the manner in which Irish business was managed. Immediately before the last division which he felt it to be his duty to take, the Chief Secretary for Ireland came across the House and stated that if he (Mr. Meldon) intended to obstruct the passing of the Votes, he (the Chief Secretary) would withdraw the National Teachers Ireland Bill, and would take very good care that it should be known in Ireland why he did so. Now, the Chief Secretary knew very well that he (Mr. Meldon) was most interested in the passing of the Bill alluded to, and he submitted that the Chief Secretary was guilty of a very gross attempt to intimidate him from the discharge of his duty by threatening to denounce him in Ireland. This was not the first time the right hon. Baronet had had recourse to similar threats.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHobserved, that it was not usual for hon. Members to repeat openly in the House what had been said to them by other Members in private conversation. The hon. Member had drawn a wrong inference from what he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had said to him.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that he would not trust himself to express what was his opinion of the statement just made by the right hon. Baronet, but would content himself with a statement of what actually had occurred in which statement he would be borne out by all the hon. Members sitting around him. Upon the House being cleared for the division just taken the Chief Secretary in a most excited manner rushed across the House and in a loud tone of voice audible to everyone on the benches around made the statement referred to which was heard by many Members. Indeed, several of his Friends around expressed very strong views of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary very well knew of his (Mr. Meldon's) anxiety that the Bill alluded to should not be opposed, as both privately and upon the occasion of a recent deputation he had assured the right hon. Baronet that all responsibility was left with the Government, and that the passing of the Bill would not be opposed. His object 'was attained by directing the attention of the Committee and the public to the manner in which Irish legislation was conducted by the Chief Secretary, so that he would not further press the matter.
  508
  He gave the most unqualified contradiction to the statement made that the conversation was private, and in this he would be borne out by all his Friends about.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the hon. Member was under misapprehension.
  THE CHAIRMANremarked that there appeared to have been a misapprehension on both sides.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 88: Majority 65.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act Amendment* (252).
Second Reading—Traffic Regulation (Dublin) (239); Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers)* (250).
Committee—Turnpike Acts Continuance* (222).
Committee—Report—Lunatic Asylums (Ireland)* (235).
Third Reading—Foreign Jurisdiction* (224); Department of Science and Art* (221), and passed.
Withdrawn—Vivisection Regulation (85).

PRIVATE BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had been in communication with the authorities of the House of Commons in reference to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills, the object of the communications having been to bring the Standing Orders of both Houses in harmony with each other. On Friday he would lay on the Table amended Orders, with the view; of having them printed.
VIVISECTION REGULATION BILL.
(The Lord Hartismere.)
VIVISECTION REGULATION BILL.

  (NO. 85.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he would, with their Lordships' permission, withdraw this Bill. He had put it off from time to time in the hope that something might have been known of the probable action of the Royal Commission, and so have given an opportunity for a discussion or advance in some degree towards a satisfactory settlement of the question. That was, however, hardly possible, then, and, at that late period of the Sesssion, he thought he should best consider the convenience of their Lordships by withdrawing the Bill. He hoped the Commission might be able to report in time to legislate on the subject next early next year. If not, and it was proper for him to do so when the time arrived, he would re-introduce the Bill or call their Lordships' attention to the question as early as possible next Session. Meanwhile, he hoped some little good might have been done by calling public attention to the practice of vivisection which he was sorry to believe largely prevailed. The noble Lord concluded by moving the discharge of the Order.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. (Nos. 173, 208, 215.)
Commons amendments to Lords amendments, and Commons consequential amendments and reasons for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments considered (according to Order.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved that the Commons Amendments should be agreed to, and that their Lordships should not insist on their Amendment fixing the maximum amount of infant insurance at£3.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYexpressed his regret that their Lordships had not adhered to this Amendment.
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, there might be some force in the observation if Parliament were legislating on the subject for the first time; but the limit of £6 was fixed in 1856 after careful consideration.
Commons amendments agreed to, and the Lords amendments to which the Commons have disagreed not insisted on.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL. (Nos. 112, 155, 193.)
Commons consequential amendment considered (according to Order).
THE DUKE OF RICIIMONDmoved that their Lordships should not agree to the consequential Amendment.
Consequential amendment disagreed to.
Committee appointed to prepare a reason to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to the said amendment: The Committee to meet forthwith; Report from Committee of the reason prepared by them; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with the reason.

TRAFFIC REGULATION (DUBLIN) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
TRAFFIC REGULATION (DUBLIN) BILL.

  (No. 239.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was one to enable regulations for the traffic of Dublin to be made by the Chief Commissioner of Police, with the approval of the Corporation of that city and of the Recorder sitting in open court.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord President.)
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL.—(No. 250.)
(The Viscount Enfield.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL.—(No. 250.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was introduced originally in 1874. It was referred to a Select Committee, of which Mr. Walpole was Chairman, and that Committee examined many returning officers with reference to their scale of charges. The object of the Bill was to regulate those charges at fixed sums. At present returning officers charged pretty much what they liked, and no candidate could well defend an action brought by them against him. As the law now stood, an impecunious candidate could insist upon all expenses being incurred, and the returning officer had no remedy but in an action to recover expenses. At the Haverfordwest election, in 1874, a candidate appeared who did not contribute his quota of the expenses. The returning officer would not allow him to go to the poll. The consequence was a Petition, and Lord Kensington, the successful candidate, was unseated for the time, though he succeeded in getting re-elected at the fresh election. By the present Bill the charges were to be settled in accordance with the number of the electors, and the Bill would enable the returning officer to claim a deposit for expenses from a real bonâ fide candidate. If their Lordships agreed to read the Bill a second time he should propose in Committee that it be extended to Ireland, this being in accordance with the wish of the Irish Members of the House of Commons.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Viscount Enfield.)
  Motion agreed to:—Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

ARMY—ROYAL LIMERICK MILITIA—CASE OF JOHN LEE.

  QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKrose to call attention to the case of Private John Lee of the Royal Limerick County Regiment

  435
  of Militia, who on the 5th of June was sentenced to one month's imprisonment for having applied for and obtained a night's lodging and relief in the Glin Union Workhouse. The noble Earl said, about a fortnight ago he asked a Question on the subject, and the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) said the matter was still under investigation. The Limerick Militia was called out for training on the 17th June. John Lee was working in the town of Tralee when the notice was published, and he set out for Limerick early in the month to join the regiment, in which he was a private. On the 3rd he slept at Listowel, where he paid for his lodging. On the night of the 4th he reached the borders of the county of Limerick, and being unable to obtain a lodging, he applied for and obtained a night's lodging and relief in the Glin Workhouse. On the morning of the 5th he was taken before a justice of the peace, and under the provisions of an Act passed in the 10th and 11th years of the Queen was sentenced to a month's imprisonment in the Limerick County Gaol. He disclaimed any personal feeling with regard to the magistrate who passed that sentence and who was not personally known to him. The interest he took in the case was that he had the honour of being Colonel of the regiment in which the poor man served; and he submitted that the Act was intended to apply to professional tramps, and not to such persons as Lee. The unfortunate man died while undergoing his month's imprisonment, and was buried as a prisoner. He begged to ask. Whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, such sentence was legal and proper; and, if not, what action has been taken or is contemplated towards the justice of the peace who passed such sentence?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was not prepared at the moment to say whether the sentence inflicted in this case was a legal and proper one; but he could inform the noble Earl as to what action was contemplated towards the justice of the peace who passed that sentence. The whole matter had been laid officially by the Irish Government before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and was under his consideration. Until the Lord Chancellor came to a conclusion on the case it would be impossible for Mm to give a more satisfactory answer to the inquiry of his noble Friend.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKregretted that the answer was not more satisfactory. The time that had elapsed since the matter was brought under the notice of the Irish Government was surely long enough for them to have made up their minds upon it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDrepeated that the subject was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, whose duties were very important and numerous, and it was impossible to compel him to give an opinion upon a case of this sort within a limited period. The noble Earl was rather unreasonable in complaining that a decision had not been come to before now.

WEST COAST OF AFRICA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose to call the attention of the House to the position of certain parts of Her Majesty's Possessions on the West Coast of Africa. The noble Earl said: I had intended, considering the interest which has been felt for some time in the affairs of the Gold Coast, to have made a full statement to the House before the close of the Session with regard to the general progress of the West African Settlements; but, looking to the period of the Session at which we have now arrived and to one or two other circumstances, I do not think this would be necessary at the present moment. At the same time, I may go so far as to say that affairs on the Gold Coast are in a very satisfactory state. Notwithstanding the fact that the climate has always been, and always will be, a permanent cause of difficulty, the political and financial condition of those Settlements has certainly not stood still. The trade has increased—increased, I may say, beyond my expectations. The revenue has greatly enlarged itself. When Sir Garnet Wolseley was there he estimated the revenue of the Gold Coast at £50,000 a-year. In 1873 it was £65,000, and last year—1874—it had reached £74,000. The revenue of Lagos, in 1873, amounted to £30,000; last year it amounted to £39,300. So flourishing, in a financial sense, has that Colony become, that it has been in my power to repay the Treasury a loan of £10,000, which had been advanced at a time of greater difficulty than the present. Besides that, in the country itself

  437
  the process of pacification has gone on steadily. The Ordinances for the abolition of the slave trade work smoothly and well. Advantage has been taken of them in various parts of the country; and the opportunity of emancipation, if desired, is within the knowledge and reach of every slave throughout the country. The main difficulty which does exist is one which has existed for some time past—the conflict of jurisdictions, so to speak, along the West Coast of Africa. As the House is well aware, the French have stations along that coast, and these stations are intermixed with ours. The result of this, very often, is considerable difficulty in the political administration, and very great loss in all our fiscal arrangements. I frankly say that I hope the time may come, and come before long, when this anomalous state of things may be removed, and some arrangement may be come to with the French Government, by which, on fair and even terms, an interchange may be made which will enable us to carry out that process of development and improvement which has already been so largely effected. I am not sorry to have this opportunity of saying two words on a matter which has created some interest. I allude to the excitement in "another place" arising from the telegram in a French paper to the effect that negotiations for an exchange of territory not only had been on foot, but were concluded. The telegram was wholly inaccurate. Negotiations have been and are on foot; but these negotiations are very far from having come to a conclusion. I will frankly say it is my wish, and my hope, that before any definite conclusion is arrived at. Parliament may have a full and ample opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject. If there be any apprehension on this subject, I can readily give an assurance to your Lordships that nothing final or conclusive shall be done in the matter till the meeting of Parliament next year. I can only add further that it must not be supposed that the proposal which is now before the two Governments for negotiations is a proposal identical with that which formed the subject of negotiations in former years. In most of its leading features it is distinct, and it rests upon new and wholly different grounds. As regards the interests of a mere handful—for a
  438
  mere handful it is—of British subjects in the colony of Gambia, I can only hope, whenever the time comes, that those interests will receive every consideration which Her Majesty's Government can possibly give to them. They are, strictly speaking, a mere handful, for I believe the English population there does not amount to more than 20 souls; but, at the same time, whether they be many or few, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to see that they are protected. In saying these few words my desire has been to remove any misapprehension, if such there should be, on the subject which, I think, is one of considerable importance.

MERCHANT SHIPS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I rise to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to give special directions that every precaution be taken from the Prorogation till the next meeting of Parliament to secure the safety of merchant seamen who may be employed in merchant ships, which may obtain clearance during that period, from dangers arising from the want of repair or decay of the ships in which they may be engaged as crews,"
  For some years it has been asserted that very many lives have been lost owing to ships being sent to sea in an unsound and unseaworthy condition. Now, my Lords, I shall not go into the various statements that have been made on both sides of the question, and which have engaged so much of the attention of the other House of Parliament, because there can no longer be any doubt that, to say the least, there is a great deal of suspicion with respect to some of the vessels which are sent to sea. What I wish more particularly to call your Lordships' attention to is this—that many seamen have been sent to prison for a violation of their contract, because they refused to sail in vessels in which they had taken service. It appears also that in many instances it was believed that the ships in which those men had refused to sail were really in an unsafe state, and that seamen would have risked their lives by embarking in them. It may be that the owners of such ships may sometimes be not altogether in fault. They may be imposed upon occasionally, and ships that are registered as A 1 at Lloyd's

  439
  may not always be of that valuable character which, generally speaking, I believe they are. But whoever may be in fault it is hard, when the necessity of more vigorous action in the case of un-seaworthy ships is now so generally admitted, that those seamen should be kept in prison for a violation of their contract. By an alteration in the law which will soon become an Act of Parliament, the workman who violates his contract with his employer will not be sent to prison, unless he refuses to pay a money penalty and is able to pay it. Recently the Home Secretary interfered to discharge from prison a little girl who had been sent there for taking a plant. I hope, therefore, he will interfere to discharge seamen committed under the circumstances to which I have referred. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade, who has the power to stop unseaworthy vessels, will himself see the importance of this question, and so do away with an evil affecting a most valuable body of men who ought to be protected with the utmost care, not only for their own valuable services, but for that of the future Navy of England.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to give special directions that every precaution he taken from the prorogation till the next meeting of Parliament to secure the safety of merchant seamen who may be employed in merchant ships, which may obtain clearance during that period, from dangers arising from the want of repair or decay of the ships in which they may be engaged as crews.—(The Earl Russell.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I am sure every noble Lord in the House will concur in the sentiment embodied in the last sentence spoken by the noble Earl—that of the paramount importance of taking all the measures that are practicable for the preservation of the lives of the merchant seamen to whom this country is so much indebted, not only commercially, but also in connection with the Navy. No one can doubt the importance of this subject, and no one can be surprised that the noble Earl should have brought it under the consideration of your Lordships' House. But I trust the noble Earl will be satisfied with having called attention to the subject, and will not press his Motion, because it appears unnecessary to give any special instructions on the subject with respect to the want of repair
  440
  in ships in which seamen have engaged to sail, because, as the noble Earl has himself said, the President of the Board of Trade has power already to stop sailors going to sea in unseaworthy ships; and, in the next place, the subject is one of such paramount importance that the Government have introduced a Bill dealing with it, which measure is still under discussion in the other House of Parliament. I do not think it would be convenient at this moment to discuss the provisions of that measure. We hope that it will reach this House very shortly, when your Lordships will have an opportunity of discussing clauses intended to provide against the evils which all of us deprecate quite as strongly as the noble Earl who has brought forward this Motion.
  EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Duke will give me the assurance that the matter will have the close attention of the Government during the Recess I shall be happy to withdraw the Motion.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I can have no hesitation in giving the assurance required by the noble Earl. The subject is one of such importance that it now occupies the attention of the Government, and will not cease to occupy their attention during the whole of the Recess.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

COOLIES IN JAMAICA.—QUESTION.

  MOTION FOR A RETUEN.
  LROD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that in putting the Question of which he had given Notice, there were many considerations of which he might remind his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and which might induce him not to give his sanction to any increased expenditure out of the colonial taxation for the importation of Coolies; but not to take up the time of the House, he would limit himself to entreating his noble Friend, in case any request should be made for an increased grant for the importation of Coolies, to give the same answer that he would give if a deputation of agriculturists were to wait upon him—let them suppose from Cheshire—to ask Her Majesty's Government for a grant from the Consolidated Fund to assist them to import Irish mowers and reapers for the harvest. He

  441
  begged to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If there has been any proposal from Jamaica to increase the proportion paid by the Island Exchequer for the importation of Coolies since that proportion was fixed during the administration of the Government by Sir J. P. Grant; and he begged to move for—A Return of the number of Coolies imported in 1873 and 1874 into the colonies of Mauritius, Trinidad, Jamaica, and British Guiana; showing their total cost in each Colony, and the proportion of such cost which is defrayed from the colonial resources.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that so far as the Return, for which the noble Lord moved was concerned, he thought there would be no difficulty in giving it; but it would be necessary to apply to the Governors of the various Colonies, who would, no doubt, furnish the information which the noble Lord desired. The Question with which the noble Lord had prefaced his Motion was rather a difficult one to answer. It must be stated, touching cursorily upon this question, that it would be very unfair not to point out that Jamaica was placed in a different position from the other two great sugar-growing colonies of Trinidad and British Guiana. The prosperity of the sugar - making colonies depended upon the importation of labour, and in both of them the expenses of obtaining it were borne by the general revenue of the Colony, but in Jamaica no assistance was given from the public purse for this particular purpose. The difference was therefore considerable; the ground of that difference being the maintenance of labour. But whereas sugar was the staple industry or product, so to speak, of British Guiana and Trinidad, in Jamaica there were other interests on which the prosperity of the Colony more or less depended; consequently it had not been thought necessary that the State should make to the planters in Jamaica contributions of public money which had been made to those of Trinidad and British Guiana. He would not stop to discuss how far it was a sound or unsound principle, but to point out simply the difference that existed between these Colonies. When, however, it was stated there had been no change in favour of the planters he could not quite subscribe to that doctrine. Up to 1873 the total expenses of the emigration of the Coolies
  442
  fell upon the planters of Jamaica, but in that year a change was made. It was proposed that one-third of the cost should be defrayed by the general revenue of the Island, but that the Home Government refused, and the planters were met in this way—that where the back passage was not claimed by the Coolies, the money was paid to them as bounty for the purpose of inducing them to settle in the Island, and it was afterwards proposed that the public purse should relieve the burden of the planter to the extent of that bounty, but not upon the ground of inducing immigrants to come. In 1874 two proposals were made. The first, which was retrospective, was agreed to; but the second was so unreasonable a proposal—that the whole of the expenses of immigration should be thrown upon the general revenue—that it was declined, and at this moment the condition of the Jamaica planters was as he had described. This was much too large a question to be discussed at the end of the Session and in such a thin House; and he would only say that he was quite sensible of the great difficulties which the West India planters had to deal with. They had not only to contend against a great dearness of labour, but also with the cheapness of sugar. The French Convention had recently come to an end; but it would, perhaps, be kept in force till March next. The season had been bad, and there had been peculiar depression in the Island, and any assistance that the Government could render must be what was reasonable under the circumstances. The immigration of the Coolie would be of great advantage to him, provided he could be properly protected, and receive a fair remuneration for his labour by allowing him to leave a country that was over-populated and pauperized for a country where he would be able to obtain labour. The question was, however, one of great difficulty. He was now in communication with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, and his noble Friend was in communication with the Indian Government on the matter. Whatever was possible to be done in reference to the commercial interests of the colonies it would be their duty to do. He believed also that it would be for the interest of the Coolies that a fair and reasonable solution of the question should be arrived at,

  443
  Address for Return of the number of Coolies imported in 1873 and 1874 into the colonies of Mauritius, Trinidad, Jamaica, and British Guiana; showing their total cost in each colony and the proportion of such cost which is defrayed from the colonial resources.—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.